The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. From the moment he appears in the play, he participates in almost all scenes and is contrasted with other characters everywhere.
Chatsky's love for Sophia is a sincere, ardent feeling. He declares his love for her at the first appearance. In Chatsky there is no secrecy, no falsehood. The strength and nature of his feelings can be judged by his words about Molchalin, addressed to Sophia:
But does it have that passion? that feeling? ardor that?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
It is hard for Chatsky to be disappointed in his girlfriend. In his temper, he reproaches her even for what she is not to blame for him at all:
Why were they luring me with hope?
Why didn't they tell me directly
What did you turn all the past into laughter?
“Every word here is not true,” says Goncharov. She didn't hold any hope for him. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed to him indifference ... Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such trifles!” But the fact is that Chatsky is distinguished by “sincerity and simplicity ... He is not a dandy, not a lion ...”. In his feeling for Sophia, he is direct, sincere, honest. At the same time, blinded by grief, he can be irascible and unfair. But from this, the image of Chatsky becomes closer and more truthful to us. This is a living person, and he can be wrong. Who is Sophia, whom Chatsky loves so passionately?
Goncharov said very well about her: “This is a mixture of good instincts with a lie of a living mind, with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions - a confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in it, but is like common features her circle."
Sophia is young and inexperienced, and her upbringing and environment have already left their mark on her views and actions. And Chatsky has to admit that he was bitterly deceived in it. However, people love all sorts, including vile and unfaithful ones. It can't make you fall in love. Here, human virtues and shortcomings are poorly taken into account, and if they are taken into account, it is very biased. Love, as they say, is evil ...
So, the personal drama of Chatsky complicates the public one, hardens him against noble Moscow.
(No ratings yet)
Other writings:
- The main motive of the work of A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a reflection of the tragedy of Chatsky - typical representative younger generation 1810-1820s, in one way or another participating in social activities. This tragedy includes many moments, but one of the most important Read More ......
- A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is sad story a man whose grief is that he is not like the rest. Mind, honor, nobility, unwillingness to curry favor - these are the qualities due to which the doors to the society of famous, silent, Read More ......
- The comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov is undoubtedly a work of great social resonance. It reflected the rebellious time when freedom-loving ideas spread throughout Russia. In the center of the play is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodies best features progressive noble youth of the beginning of the century. Read More ......
- Chatsky is close to people of the Decembrist warehouse, Famusov is his main opponent, the defender of the autocratic-feudal order. Already from the 1st act of the comedy it becomes clear how much this different people. In subsequent episodes, Famusov expresses his opinion about books, about the service. From Sophia's conversation with Lisa Read More ......
- Sofia Pavlovna Famusova is Famusov's 17-year-old daughter. After her mother's death, she was brought up by "Madame", an old Frenchwoman Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. has changed a lot, as her love has changed. Read More ......
- "Woe from Wit" - "public" comedy with social conflict"of the present century" and "of the past century". The work is constructed in such a way that about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spirituality, only Chatsky speaks on stage. The image of Chatsky is least of all a portrait Read More ......
- Sofia Characteristic literary hero Sofia Pavlovna Famusova is Famusov's 17-year-old daughter. After her mother's death, she was brought up by "Madame", an old Frenchwoman Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. has changed a lot, as Read More ......
- Comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” for real realistic work because the author reproduced the typical circumstances of life. The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. It's really witty, honest and positive hero works. But Griboyedov contrasts Chatsky with another hero - Molchalin. This person Read More ......
/ / / Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love? (based on Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit")
In Griboyedov's comedy, the hero Chatsky, after three years of "wandering around the world", returns to the house of his beloved Sofia Famusova. Alexander is counting on a bright and warm welcome, but instead he feels a hint of coldness and aggression from the girl.
What has changed? Maybe Alexander just grew out of their relationship, because young people have known each other since childhood? Or maybe just Sophia could not forgive the sudden disappearance of the gentleman? One way or another, she is not set to renew her past relationship. Moreover, she had new boyfriend, which now did not go out of the girl's head. The man served as secretary to Sophia's father, Pavel Famusov, and besides, he literally lived in the next room. This allowed young people to spend a lot of time together without advertising the “connection”, and without causing any suspicion from the father.
Not knowing the details of the secret rendezvous, but clearly realizing that "changes" have taken place in his absence, he tries to clarify the situation. But all conversations with Sophia are abruptly cut off by the girl herself. She does not want to communicate with him, accusing him of excessive harshness and injustice towards others.
After reviewing the entire work, the reader is likely to ask himself the question, is the girl worthy of Chatsky's love at all? After all, a man loves her so much, and she played on his feelings, and even messed him up. Of course, after the betrayal of Molchalin, the girl will very much regret that she slandered Alexander, calling him crazy in society. Still deserves or not?!
If you look from the point of view of a girl, then she deserves to be loved by such a man. You can understand the reason for her "misconduct", and why she betrayed Alexander, becoming to meet with Molchalin. It's about Chatsky himself. He did not "indicate" his intentions in any way, but simply took it and left. He did not write letters to her and in no other way made himself known. And now, three years later, Alexander decided to return and marry.
But why would Sophia "break" her newly emerged personal life? Most likely, the girl grieved for a long time, after Chatsky's departure, she was bored, perhaps even cried "into the pillow." And after a while it all burned out. She learned to "get along" without him. And after some time appeared. He was always there, fulfilled her whims, brought some “diversity” and faith in love into her life.
Chatsky did not understand why she preferred another, and even such a "wretched" man. After all, Alexander has a number of advantages over him. He is educated, his feelings are sincere, words and thoughts do not contradict each other, as a man is honest with others. However, one gets the impression that Chatsky used Sophia as a fallback "option". He traveled around the world, looked, searched, and not finding anything more worthy as a candidate for his wife, he returned back. The man turned out to be too self-confident, since he thought that for so many years, the girl would love only him alone, and hope that he would someday bestow her with his visit ...
In his unfading comedy "Woe from Wit" "Griboyedov managed to create a whole gallery of truthful and typical characters that are recognizable today. The images of Chatsky and Sophia are most interesting to me, because their relationship is far from being as simple as it might seem at first glance.
Both Sophia and Chatsky carry those qualities that most representatives of the Famus society do not possess. They are distinguished by willpower, the ability to experience "living passions", selflessness, the ability to draw their own conclusions.
Sofya and Chatsky grew up and were brought up together in Famusov's house:
The habit of being together every day is inseparable
She connected us with childhood friendship ...
During the time spent together, Chatsky managed to recognize in Sophia a smart, outstanding, determined girl and fell in love with her for these qualities. When he, having matured, gained his mind, having seen a lot, returns to his homeland, we understand that his feelings "were not cooled by distance, neither entertainment, nor a change of place." He is happy to see Sophia, who has surprisingly grown prettier during the separation, and sincerely rejoices at the meeting.
Chatsky cannot understand in any way that in the three years he was gone, famous society left its ugly imprint on the girl. Having read French sentimental novels, Sophia longs for love and wants to be loved, but Chatsky is far away, so she chooses a person who is by no means worthy of her love to express her feelings. A flatterer and a hypocrite, "the most miserable creature" Molchalin only uses his relationship with Sophia for selfish purposes, hoping for further promotion. But Sophia, overwhelmed by feelings, is unable to see the true face under the mask, and therefore directs her sincere, tender, ready-to-sacrifice love to a coward and a low worshipper.
Chatsky soon realizes that Sophia does not share his feelings, and wants to know who her chosen one is - his rival. Much says that this lucky man is Molchalin, but Chatsky does not want and cannot believe this, seeing at a glance the true essence of the low toady.
But is there in him that passion, that feeling, that ardor,
So that besides you he has a whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Has love accelerated towards you?
Accepting the coldness of Sophia, Chatsky does not require reciprocal feelings from her, because it is impossible to make the heart fall in love! However, he seeks to know the logic of her actions, choice, he wants to know those virtues of Molchalin that forced the girl to choose him, but does not find them in any way. To believe that Sophia and Molchalin are close, for Chatsky, means the destruction of his faith and ideas, the recognition that Sophia not only did not grow spiritually during the separation, did not learn to critically comprehend what was happening, but also turned into an ordinary representative of Famus society.
Sophia really passed good school in her father's house, she learned to pretend, lie, dodge, but she does it not out of selfish interests, but trying to protect her love. She has a deep dislike for people who speak impartially about her chosen one, so Chatsky, with his ardor, witticisms and attacks, turns into an enemy for the girl. Defending her love, Sophia is ready to even insidiously take revenge on the old close friend madly in love with her: spreads a rumor about Chatsky's madness. We see that Sophia rejects Chatsky only out of female pride, but also for the same reasons that Famus Moscow does not accept him: his independent and mocking mind frightens Sophia, he is "not his own", from a different circle:
Will such a mind make a family happy?
And Chatsky, meanwhile, is still looking for definitions for Sophia's feelings and is deceived, because everything that is despised by him is elevated to the rank of virtue in noble Moscow. Chatsky still hopes for the clarity of Sophia's mind and feelings, and therefore once again writes off Molchalin:
With such feelings, with such a soul
Love!.. The deceiver laughed at me!
But here is the tragic moment of solution! This moment is really cruel and tragic, because everyone suffered from it. What did our heroes learn from this lesson?
Chatsky is so shocked by the simplicity of the solution that he tears not only the threads connecting him with the Famus society, he breaks his relationship with Sophia, insulted and humiliated by her choice to the core:
Here I am donated to whom!
I don’t know how I tempered the rage in myself!
I looked and saw and did not believe!
He cannot contain his emotions, his disappointment, indignation, resentment, and blames Sophia for everything. Losing self-control, he reproaches the girl for deceit, although it was in her relationship with Chatsky that Sophia was at least cruel, but honest. Now the girl is really in an unenviable position, but she has enough willpower and feelings dignity break off relations with Molchalin and admit to yourself your illusions and mistakes:
I haven't known you since then.
Reproaches, complaints, my tears
Do not dare to expect, you are not worth them,
Never to hear from you again.
Sophia blames "herself around" for everything that happened. Her situation seems hopeless, because, having rejected Molchalin, having lost devoted friend Chatsky and left with an angry father, she is alone again. There will be no one to help her survive grief and humiliation, to support her. But I want to believe that she will cope with everything, and that Chatsky, saying: "You will make peace with him, after mature reflection," is wrong.
Griboedov's comedy once again reminded me that the origins of people's actions are ambiguous, often contradictory motives, and in order to correctly solve them, you need to have not only a clear mind, but also intuition, a wide heart, an open soul.
Question 5 of the exam ticket (ticket number 18, question 3)
How does Chatsky's attitude towards Sophia change during the action of A. S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"?
The play by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" belongs to the genre public comedies. This means that her main conflict is social: the contradiction between the positive main character Chatsky, who represents the progressive forces of Russian society, and the conservative, vicious environment that surrounds him. At the same time, the action of the comedy is also driven by the psychological conflict associated with unrequited love hero. The plot embodiment of this conflict is the so-called "love triangle", the sides of which are Chatsky, Sofia and Molchalin.
In the very general view the plot looks like this. Chatsky and Sophia talked a lot at a young age. They were connected by feelings of mutual sympathy. When Sophia was fourteen years old, Chatsky left to gain his mind in distant wanderings. During his absence, the girl matured by three years and fell in love with Molchalin, her father's secretary, who lives with her in the same house. Chatsky returned, full of passionate feelings for Sophia, but in response he met with coldness and hostility. He tried to find out the reason for this and eventually found out that Sophia loves another. Her chosen one seemed to Chatsky unworthy of a girl like Sophia. She, offended by his mockery of the object of her love, in order to take revenge, started a rumor that Chatsky had gone crazy. At the end of the play, Sophia was shocked to learn that Chatsky was right: Molchalin does not love her, and behind her back he is trying to seduce the maid Lisa. When everything was revealed, Chatsky uttered an angry monologue denouncing everyone, including Sophia, and left her and the Famusovs' house.
To understand these intricacies of the plot and try to understand why everything happened this way, you need to determine what the character of Sophia is. Is she really a "scoundrel", as Chatsky apparently believes and as the author of the comedy called her in one of his letters? In other words, can her actions towards Chatsky be called treason, and her gossip about Chatsky's madness can be called outright meanness? But why did Chatsky decide that Sophia should love him? After all, when they broke up, she was still a teenager, and it is unlikely that such an intelligent person, as Chatsky considers himself, could seriously take those who connected them earlier relationship. And in no way should he have assumed that during the three years of their separation there would be no changes in Sophia's moral development. Nevertheless, having arrived at the Famusovs' house after a long absence, he rushes to Sophia as if they had parted only yesterday. Sophia, at this moment, is not thinking about Chatsky at all.
On the contrary, he is only a nuisance in the circumstances. After all, just before his arrival, she managed with great difficulty to convince her father that Molchalin was at the door of her room by accident. She is now busy with her new, and maybe first, we don’t know for sure, love. She is now simply not up to Chatsky. Nevertheless, when Liza, just before his appearance, gently reproaches her for forgetting about Chatsky, Sophia answers her:
I'm very windy, maybe I did,
And I know and I'm sorry; but where did you change?
To whom? so that they could reproach with infidelity.
Yes, with Chatsky, it’s true, we were brought up, we grew up; The habit of being together every day inseparably Has bound us with childhood friendship; but then he moved out, he seemed bored with us,
And rarely visited our house;
Then he pretended to be in love again,
Demanding and distressed!!.
Sharp, smart, eloquent,
Especially happy with friends.
Here he thought highly of himself -
The desire to wander attacked him,
Oh! if someone loves someone
Why look for the mind and drive so far?
So, here is Sophia's opinion about their past relationship with Chatsky: childhood friendship. Although, contrary to this definition, in the words of Sophia one can also hear resentment against Chatsky for leaving her. But, from her point of view, Chatsky has no right to reproach her for falling in love with another. She made no commitments to him. If Chatsky had not been so blinded by his feelings, he would have guessed quite quickly that he had a happy rival. Actually, he always stands on the verge of this conjecture. But he can't believe her. First, because he is in love. And secondly, he cannot in any way assume that Sophia is capable of falling in love with such insignificant person, what in his eyes is Molchalin.
But what about Molchalin himself? He is weighed down by Sophia's love. Although, it would seem, in accordance with his character, he should rejoice at such happiness. The goal of his life is a career, and becoming Famusov's son-in-law is a direct road on the way to official heights. However, Molchalin, for all his vices, is by no means as stupid as Chatsky thinks. He understands perfectly well that if his relationship with Sophia is revealed, then he will even lose his current place: why does Famusov need a poor and unofficial son-in-law? In addition, Sophia does not attract him as a love partner. Molchalin, as, by the way, Famusov himself, is attracted to Lisa. By the way, her participation in the plot makes it possible to talk not about a triangle, but about a quadrangle. True, Lisa's participation in all these vicissitudes is passive. For her, equally dangerous and " master's love”, And the harassment of Molchalin, and the possible anger of the hostess, who is also a tough temper. And Lisa wonders if she should fall in love with Petrusha the barman? She probably likes him, and at the same time, maybe he will protect her from encroachments by other men. Molchalin, moreover, having studied the character of Sophia, among other things, fears that her attachment to him will also be short-lived. “She once loved Chatsky, she will stop loving me like him,” he remarks shrewdly.
Thus, considering love conflict comedy, we can conclude that everything here is not so simple and unambiguous. And this is explained by the fact that "Woe from Wit" is a realistic work. Everything is complicated and confusing in it, as in life itself. No, Sophia did not cheat on Chatsky. On the contrary, she herself suffered, being deceived by Molchalin. Her act in relation to Chatsky, of course, bad joke, explained by annoyance at the stinging words he said about her loved one. And maybe when Sophia repented after exposing Molchalin, Chatsky should have consoled her and supported her in her grief, and not aggravated it with angry words. But Chatsky can also be understood: his anger after what happened was already such that emotions overwhelmed the mind. However, there may be other opinions on this matter. And this means that Griboedov's immortal comedy still excites us with its not fully resolved mysteries.
Many modern researchers in understanding " latest content"Griboyedov's comedies remain within the boundaries of that semantic field, which was identified by I. Goncharov in the article "A Million of Torments". But if the great philologist-thinker of the 20th century M. Bakhtin is right in his assertion that "classical works of art break the boundaries of their time", that "in the process of their subsequent life they are enriched with new meanings, new meanings", then what new facets and meanings in the meaningful images of comedy open today for modern reader? How do we understand the main characters of "Woe from Wit" - Chatsky and Sophia today? What is their relationship with the Famus society in which they grew up?
Let's try to read Griboyedov's play not as it was recently read by L.S. Aizerman (see "Literature", No. 1, 1995), not on a concrete historical level as "the most serious political work Russian literature XIX century "(V. Klyuchevsky), and on the universal - as a drama talented person, whose "mind and heart are out of tune."
It is very important to see when and how, in what elements of the structure of the whole artistic idea at the beginning of the play and how it develops further in its subsequent links. For the first time, the reader learns about Chatsky from the words of Lisa, who compares him with Skalozub:
Yes, sir, so to speak, eloquent, but painfully not cunning: But be a military man, be he a civilian.
Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp. Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Let's pay attention to the rhyme "not cunning - sharp". "In comedy in verse" rhyme is one of the the most important forms expressions of the author's position. At first glance, Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other in Lisa's statements, but the rhyme equalizes them. Chatsky and Skalozub are equal not only for Sophia, as possible suitors rejected by her, but also in in a certain sense for the author. It is still difficult to understand this meaning, but through rhyme the author influences the reader's subconscious, his emotional attitude towards the hero. Already the first remark about Chatsky causes an attentive, sensitive to the word reader, as yet not conscious, ambivalent attitude towards the hero. It can be assumed that this author's attitude, since it is the author, who creates the text, choosing words and rhymes, passes it on to the reader, infects him with his attitude. On one level - external, ideological - Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other, on another - deep - they are equal. The author's voice in "comedy in verse", unlike in "novel in verse", does not sound separate and independent. It is distinguishable (except for remarks) only in the voices of different characters. We simply won’t see or misunderstand a lot in Griboyedov’s play if we don’t constantly take into account the dialogical nature artistic word(the presence of at least two voices) and not the subjective-monological, but the objective-dialogical position of the author.
Now let's see how main character appears on stage for the first time. And again, the focus of our attention will be rhyme:
Lisa. Excuse me, right, how holy God is,
I wanted this foolish laugh
Helped to cheer you up a bit.
Servant. To you Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
This unexpected purely comedic rhyme "stupid - Chatsky" inevitably affects the reader's subconscious, causing certain feelings and emotions (smile, good laugh, irony?). Yes, and the very first words of the clever Chatsky carry a shade of comic:
A little light - already on your feet! and I am at your feet. (He kisses his hand passionately.)
What is manifested in these words: self-irony or the author's ironic attitude towards his hero? Is Chatsky able to look at himself from the outside, to laugh at himself? Does he himself notice how comical, for example, his words sound when he speaks of his passionate love for Sophia: "Command me into the fire: I'll go as if for dinner"? Skalozub or Famusov, for whom "love" and "lunch" are words of the same series, could say so.
If our feelings are correct, caused by the influence of rhyme, then comedy ("stupid - Chatsky") is embedded in the structure of character, in its core. And at the same time, the neighboring verse - "Forgive me, really, how holy God is" - evokes a semantic association with the high, ideal, which, undoubtedly, is in Chatsky. Lisa's prosaic word ("like God is holy"), falling into a poetic context, is filled with new associative meanings and meanings.
It is also very important to note that in the text of the play, between the two marked comedy rhymes, there are words from Lisa, which undoubtedly express the author's attitude towards the hero:
But only? as if? ~ Shedding tears
I remember, poor he, how he parted with you.
…..
The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...
Thus, through rhyme and Liza's "voice", the author shows his attitude towards Chatsky and infects the reader with his feeling. Laughing at others (as we see later in the play), but also funny himself and at the same time deeply and sincerely suffering, Chatsky evokes an ironic attitude and natural pity and compassion. The complexity and non-obviousness for many readers of this ambivalent attitude of the author to his hero is explained by the fact that pity is expressed in plain text, in the words of Lisa, credible readers, and irony - "only" through rhyme.
The remark "kisses the hand with fervor" and the next twelve verses of Chatsky's first statement reveal the essential features in the character of the hero: not only the passion of his nature, but also high demands on others (he almost demands love for himself) in the absence of a sense of his own guilt. For three years he left his beloved without important, in her opinion, reasons and did not even write, and suddenly a passionate feeling for forty-five hours and a demand for an immediate reward for "exploits".
We note one more feature of Chatsky: the ability immediately, instantly (property smart person), to feel, to see, to understand the main thing ("Not in the hair of love") and then, throughout the whole play, to deceive yourself, not to believe the obvious ( sincere words Sofya about Molchalin: "That's why I love him") and condemn Sophia for imaginary deceit ("Why did they lure me with hope? Why didn't they tell me directly ...").
The hero, who so often laughs at others, so wittily ridicules the shortcomings and vices of others, turns out to be completely unable to feel an ironic attitude towards himself, to hear a clear mockery of himself in Sophia's words: whether where in the carriage you mail?
In the next monologue of Chatsky, the "persecution of Moscow" begins, in which we see more malicious irony and "scolding" than good-natured and cheerful wit. Sophia perceives his ridicule, attacks on “father”, “uncle” and “aunt”, on all relatives (“You will get tired of living with them, and in whom will you not find spots?”), Sophia perceives as secular gossip: That would bring you to aunt. To count all the acquaintances.
And here, naturally, a question arises, which is usually not posed by researchers due to the apparent obviousness of the answer: is Chatsky telling the truth and the truth about Moscow, about the noble society, or is this "gossip" and slander of the fatherland? What is the originality, the peculiarity of such a view of Moscow? Is this also the author's point of view? Is G. Vinokur right in his statement: "... most of Chatsky's monologues are lyrical monologues, that is, Chatsky speaks in them mainly on behalf of the author"?
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" two main points of view, two views are distinguishable: we look at Chatsky through the eyes of the author, at the Famus society - through the eyes of Chatsky. Therefore, we see mainly Famus Moscow, that is, “spots”, vices and shortcomings, and we don’t see that Griboedov’s Moscow, which M. Gershenzon and N. Antsiferov wrote about, which L. Tolstoy portrayed in the novel “War and Peace”.
But "bright Moscow" (P. Vyazemsky), reflecting spirituality and soul life noble society, can be seen in the images of Sophia and Chatsky. Moreover, in Chatsky the type of a noble revolutionary, the future Decembrist, is expressed, which was convincingly shown by Yu. Lotman in the article "The Decembrist in Everyday life", and behind Sophia, another part of the advanced society is guessed, which did not accept the path of the revolutionary reorganization of Russia.
Chatsky's view of Moscow is, perhaps, the view of Griboyedov himself, but in his youth, in his youth, in the previous era of his life. This is the view of an idealist and romantic, a person who passionately desires the realization of his dream, his ideal in life; this is the view of a maximalist who does not want to compromise, who does not forgive anyone for shortcomings and vices; and at the same time, this is the look of a man who has an almost Gogol's gift to see in every person, first of all, his funny, comical side; this is an unfortunate gift - to see mainly evil, vices and sins in other people, this is "spiritual calamity, spiritual dislocation" (N. Berdyaev). But if in Gogol we feel the deepest compassion and great pity for a person, the artist's grief for a person, then Chatsky "stings" everyone without the slightest pity. "Not a man, a snake!" - says Sophia, when it was the turn for mockery of Molchalin.
Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky has changed dramatically over the past three years, and there were several reasons for this. First of all, we note a strong and deep female resentment: he became bored with her, first he went to friends, and then completely left. The very passionate feeling of Chatsky (“kisses his hand with fervor”) causes Sophia to doubt, coldness, even hostility. It can quickly pass, burn out. It makes Chatsky too talkative, impudent, unceremonious. Sophia is different in temperament: more calm, contemplative - and in love she seeks not "wind, storm" that threaten "falls" but inner peace, spiritual harmony ("No anxiety, no doubt ..."). Chatsky, on the other hand, was not only “all confused” on the road, but he was confused in himself (“mind and heart are not in harmony”). And in Sofya lives that pure and poetic feeling of falling in love with Molchalin, when "the shyness, timidity of a loved one is so natural and pleasant, when a simple touch on the hand is enough, when the night passes so quickly and imperceptibly while playing the" piano with a flute ".
Sophia herself has changed over these three years, her attitude towards people, towards the world has changed. Gone is the age of sweet fun funny jokes, carefree laughter; the time had passed when she liked to laugh with Chatsky at others, at loved ones, and the former laughter, apparently, was cheerful, and not evil. Finally, she saw and understood in Chatsky his main vices - pride (“He thought about himself highly ...”) and lack of kindness to people:
I want to ask you:
Have you ever laughed? or in sadness?
Mistake? did you say good things about someone?
Now let's return to the fourth phenomenon of the first act, to Sophia's story about her dream, which, according to the unanimous opinion of modern researchers, was invented in order to deceive her father. Usually they see the prophetic meaning of the dream, discovering its connection with the final scene of the play: "Knock! noise! oh! my God! the whole house is running here!"
Let's try to read this dream in a different way. The happy state of the heroine at the beginning of the dream ("dear man", "flowery meadow", "meadows and skies") is opposed by the "dark room" and the threat from others in the second half of the dream:
Here with a thunder the doors were flung open
Some not people and not animals.
We were separated - and they tortured the one who was sitting with me.
He seems to be dearer to me than all treasures.
I want to go to him - you drag with you:
We are accompanied by a groan, a roar. laughter, the whistle of monsters.
From whom does real danger, what does Sophia's intuitive, subconscious foreboding speak of? The further text of the play shows us an undoubted, deep connection with Chatsky. Molchalin for Sophia is "more precious than all treasures", and Chatsky, to whom she will later say:
Deadly by their coldness!
To look at you, I have no strength to listen to you, -
about the danger of which Lisa warns ("Look, Chatsky will make you laugh"), such Chatsky ("Not a man, a snake!" - "some not people and not animals") for Sophia is like a "monster Schu" | and * th poisonous attacks on Molchalin will sound for Sophia like "roar, laughter, whistle." And then the words of Sofya Famusov (“Ah, father, sleep in your hand”) acquire a second meaning, and not only express the desire of a resourceful daughter to put a suspicious father on the wrong track.
In the second act of the play, we will single out only one semantic line, we will pay attention not to the "merciless scolding" of Chatsky in a conversation with Famusov ("I scolded your age mercilessly"), not to his passionate monologue ("And who are the judges ..."), but on associative and obvious connections, the similarity of Chatsky with Skalozub, confirming the meaning of the comedic rhyme "hiter-oster" ... he is especially happy with his friends, He thought highly of himself ... "
They react equally to the fall from Molchalin's horse, not showing him the slightest sympathy.
Puffer. The reins were tightened. Well, what a miserable rider.
Look at how he cracked - in the chest or in the side?
Chatsky. Let him break his neck.
You almost got tired.
And Skalozub's story about the widow Princess Lasova is not inferior in wit to Chatsky's witticisms. And finally, Lisa directly puts Chatsky and Skalozub on a par, as equally dangerous for Sophia's reputation:
Look at that, Chatsky will make you laugh;
And Skalozub, as his crest will twist.
He will tell a faint, add a hundred embellishments;
To joke and he is much, because now who does not joke!
The third act is the key to confirming our previous observations, to understanding the main ideas of the comedy. Sophia really speaks the "truth" about Chatsky: he is "ridiculous" in his pride, in his "biliousness", in his desire to judge everyone mercilessly, in his misunderstanding of his own vices, in his passion, which "enrages", in a misunderstanding of the one he loves:
Do you want to know the truth two words?
The slightest oddity in whom is barely visible.
Your gaiety is not modest,
Your sharpness is ready at once,
And you yourself...
- I myself? isn't it funny?
-Yes!..
The clever and passionate Chatsky, in his denunciations, in his revolt against society, crosses a certain line and becomes ridiculous himself, just as a good trait of a person in itself is in Gogol's characters from " dead souls"if a person violates the sense of proportion, crosses a certain line, turns into its opposite: Manilov's gentleness, politeness, tact turn into endless lisping and "something ingratiating"; the economic and cautious Korobochka becomes "strong-headed" and "cudgel-headed"; active and restless , with a rich imagination, Nozdryov turns into a "many-sided" and "historical" person, into an inspired liar, like Khlestakov; "thrifty owner" Plyushkin is reborn into a "hole in humanity", with an unbridled passion for accumulation.
Chatsky loves Sofya without memory, of course, not only for external beauty("At seventeen you blossomed charmingly"). He sees in her, sees through the high, ideal, holy ("The face of the most holy pilgrimage!"), That, according to Goncharov, "strongly resembles Tatiana Pushkin." Chatsky feels spiritual kinship with Sophia, which is manifested in their attitude to love as to highest value being.
Sophia. He seems to be dearer to me than all treasures.
……
Which one do I value?
I want - I love, I want - I will say.
……
What do I care who? before them? to the whole universe?
Funny? - let them joke; annoying? -
let them scold.
Chatsky. Let Molchalin have a lively mind, a brave genius,
But does it have that passion, that feeling,
ardor that?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Has love accelerated towards you?
So that all thoughts and all his deeds
Soul - you, pleasing to you?
But why in this sincere passionate monologue does the inaccurate, false word "pleasure" appear, a word from Mol-chalin's lexicon? The words "worship", "serve" the beloved and "please" her are completely different meaning. Is this inaccuracy in the choice of the word accidental, or does it speak of some flaw in Chatsky's feeling, is it connected with his state of "confusion", "madness" and "child"?
If Sophia's love for Molchalin is calm, deep, contemplative ("Forgotten by music, and time went so smoothly"), spreads to "the whole world" and causes good feelings to everyone ("you can be kind to everyone and indiscriminately"), then Chatsky's passion "boils, excites, infuriates" and strengthens evil laugh over people. Khlestova rightly reproaches him:
Well, what did you find funny?
he's glad? What's the laugh?
Laughing at old age is a sin.
Chatsky does not understand the truth, obvious to Sophia, that the main thing in a person is “the kindness of the soul” (this is what she mistakenly saw in Molchalin), that the mind, combined with pride, with contempt for people, is worse than the “plague” and “soon will resist. Chatsky does not understand that for Sophia all his virtues are crossed out by his main vice. And Sophia's dislike is a terrible blow for him and the most severe punishment.
Both Chatsky and Sofya are mistaken in their understanding and assessment of Molchaliv, "not mean enough," according to Pushkin. They express two polar points of view, and both are "blind". For Chatsky, Molchalin is "stupid, the most miserable creature", for Sophia - kind and smart. Sophia "draws to Chatsky a portrait of a righteous man with whom" God brought her ", and thereby formulates her own moral ideal is essentially a Christian ideal.
But why did the wise Sophia invent Molchalin for herself and deceived herself in love? What is she punished for, for what sins? Despite the fact that "the female character in those years (the first half of the 19th century), more than ever, was shaped by literature (Yu. Lotman), it is unlikely that everything can be explained only by the influence of books. This is only an external factor that cannot be decisive. Apparently , main reason is in Sophia herself, in her proud, resolute and independent character, in her. perhaps an unconscious desire for power in the family, and then, perhaps, in society, which
corresponds to the general atmosphere of the noble society of that time, and in Griboyedov's play it is expressed by such characters as Natalya Dmitrievna. Tatyana Yurievna, Marya Alekseevna. In the understanding of Chatsky, we see the wisdom of Sophia; in self-deception about pushing to Molchalin, Sophia's blindness is explained by the manifestation of a "deep and dark instinct for power" (S.N. Bulgakov).
In the third act, a parodic double of Chatsky appears - Countess Khryumina, who herself chuckles at him in his own spirit ("Monsieur Chatsky! Are you in Moscow! How were you, everyone is like that? .. Did you return the singles?"), Who talks about everyone almost like Chatsky :
Well ball! Well Famusov! knew how to call guests! Some freaks from the other world
And there is no one to talk to, and no one to dance with.
D
Chatsky's frame is a drama of an intelligent person with a high, noble soul, but overshadowed by a dangerous vice - pride, which is born in a person, as L. Tolstoy showed, in adolescence. And if a person does not realize this vice in himself, does not seek to overcome it in himself, then, "set free", he threatens to destroy the soul, despite all its " beautiful impulses". The mind, aimed only at criticism, denunciation and destruction, itself becomes "spiritual and heartless" and represents the greatest danger to the person himself, is a "terrible and empty force" (I. Ilyin).
In this sense, Chatsky is the first among such heroes of Russian literature as " moral cripple"Pechorin," self-broken" Bazarov, "terribly proud" Raskolnikov, for whom a person is a "louse", "trembling creature", or lyrical hero V early lyrics Mayakovsky with his "holy malice" "to everything", for whom "there are no people", but there are "images" and "a crowd ... a hundred-headed louse". The worldview of these heroes is based on the idea of godlessness, unbelief, reflecting "the world-historical crisis of the religious worldview" (I. Vinogradov). The mind, combined with pride, leads them to an internal split, to tragic conflict between the mind, consciousness, idea and heart, soul, moral nature of man.
Will Chatsky perish like Pechorin and Bazarov, or will he be able to change, see the light, be reborn to life, like Raskolnikov with his "great sadness" and "sorrow", thanks to which he was able to make a painful path from "evil contempt" to "infinite love" for people? The finale of Griboyedov's play remains open, but Chatsky's "million torments", his sufferings, often so gracious and necessary for the human soul, give hope for this. The surname "Chatsky" itself (having opposite meanings: both "children" and "to hope", that is, to hope) leaves the reader this hope ...
Viacheslav VLASHCHENKO
