Comedy A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit

As a Russian writer, I have always considered it my duty to follow the current
literature and always read with particular attention the criticisms that I gave
occasion. I sincerely confess that the praises touched me as obvious and,
probably sincere signs of favor and friendliness. Reading the most
hostile, I dare say that I always tried to enter into the mindset of my
criticism and follow his judgments without refuting them with a proud
impatiently, but wishing to agree with them with all sorts of copyright
self-denial. Unfortunately, I noticed that for the most part we
did not understand. As regards critical articles written for one purpose
offend me in any way, I will only say that they are very
annoyed me, at least in the first minutes, and that, consequently, the writers
they can be satisfied.

"Ruslan and Lyudmila" was generally received favorably. Apart from one article in
"Bulletin of Europe", in which she was scolded very unreasonably, and very
there were no practical "questions" exposing the weakness of the creation of the poem
bad things were said about her. No one even noticed that she was cold.
She was accused of immorality for some slightly voluptuous descriptions,
for the verses I published in the second edition:

Oh terrible sight! frail wizard
Caresses with a wrinkled hand, etc.

For the intro, I don't remember which song:

In vain you lurked in the shadows, etc.

And for the parody of "The Twelve Sleeping Maidens"; for the last one could have me
scold order, as for a lack of esthetic feeling. unforgivable
it was (especially in my years) to parody, to please the mob, virginal,
poetic creation. Other reproaches were rather empty. Is there in
"Ruslan" at least one place that, in the liberties of jokes, could be compared with
pranks, even, for example, Ariosta, about whom they constantly told me? Yes and
the place I released was a very, very toned down imitation of Arios
(Orlando, canto V, o. VIII).

"Prisoner of the Caucasus" - the first unsuccessful experience of character with which I
forcibly coped; it was received best of all that I have written, thanks
some elegiac and descriptive verses. But Nicholas and Alexander
Raevsky and I - we laughed at him plenty.

The "Fountain of Bakhchisaray" is weaker than the "Prisoner" and, like it, resonates with reading
Byron, which made me crazy. Zarema's scene with Maria has
dramatic merit. He doesn't seem to have been criticized. A. Raevsky laughed
over the following verses:

He is often in fatal battles
Raises a saber - and on a grand scale
Suddenly remains immovable
Looks around with madness
Turns pale etc.

Young writers do not know how to depict physical movements at all.
passions. Their heroes are always shuddering, laughing wildly, gnashing their teeth and
other All this is funny, like a melodrama.

I don’t remember who noticed to me that it’s incredible that they were chained together
the robbers could swim across the river. All of this is true and
happened in 1820, when I was in Ekaterinoslavl.

About "Gypsies" one lady remarked that in the whole poem there is only one honest
man, and then a bear. The late Ryleev was indignant why Aleko was leading a bear
and still collects money from the staring public. Vyazemsky repeated the same
comment. (Ryleev asked me to make at least a blacksmith out of Aleko, which would not
a nobler example.) It would be better to make an 8th grade official out of him or
landowner, not a gypsy. In that case, however, there would be no whole poem, ma
tanto meglio (1).

Our critics left me alone for a long time. This does them credit: I was
away under unfavorable circumstances. Out of habit they believed me still
a very young man. The first hostile articles, I remember, became
to appear on the printing of the fourth and fifth songs of "Eugene Onegin". Parsing
of these chapters, published in the Atheneum, surprised me with a good tone, a good style
and the strangeness of the bindings. The most common rhetorical figures and tropes
stopped criticism: is it possible to say the glass sizzles instead of the wine sizzles in
glass? does the fireplace breathe instead of steam coming out of the fireplace? Isn't it too boldly jealous
suspicion? wrong ice?
What do you think this means:

Boys
Skates cut the ice noisily?

The critic guessed, however, what this meant: the boys run across the ice on
skates.
Instead of:

(Thought to swim in the bosom of the waters)
Steps carefully on the ice

The critic read:

Heavy goose on red paws
Thought to swim

And he rightly noticed that you would not swim far away on red paws.
Some poetic liberties: after a negative particle, not -
accusative, not genitive; time instead of times (as, for example, in
Batyushkov:

That is ancient Russia and customs
Vladimir vremyan)

My critics were led into great bewilderment. But most annoying
his verse: People's talk and horse top.
“Is this how we, who studied according to the old grammars, express ourselves, is it possible
distort the Russian language?" This verse was then cruelly laughed at, and in
"Bulletin of Europe". Molv (speech) is a native Russian word. Top instead of stomp
just as common as a spike instead of a hiss1 (hence, the clap
instead of clapping is not at all contrary to the spirit of the Russian language). For that misfortune and a verse
not all of mine, but taken entirely from a Russian fairy tale:
"And he went out of the gates of the city, and heard the horse's top and the people's talk."
Bova Royal.
The study of old songs, fairy tales, etc. is necessary for a perfect
knowledge of the properties of the Russian language. Our critics needlessly despise them.
Verse:

I don't want to quarrel for two centuries

The criticism seemed wrong. What does grammar say? What
the real verb, ruled by the negative particle, no longer requires
accusative and genitive case. For example: I don't write poetry. But in my
In verse, the verb to quarrel is controlled not by a particle, but by the verb I want. Ergo (2)
rule does not apply here. Take, for example, the following sentence: I cannot
let me start writing ... poetry, and certainly not poetry. Really
the electrical force of the negative particle must pass through this entire circuit
verbs and respond in a noun? I don't think.

Speaking of grammar. I write gypsies, not gypsies, Tatars, not Tatars.
Why? because all nouns ending in anin, yanin,
arin and yarin, have their genitive plural in an, yan, ar and yar, and
nominative plural on ana, yana, are and yara. Yet the nouns
ending in an and yan, ar and yar, have a plural nominative in ana,
yans, arys and yars, and the genitive on ans, yans, ars, yarov.
The only exception is proper nouns. Descendants of Mr. Bulgarin
will be Messrs. Bulgarins, not Bulgars.

Many of us (among others, Mr. Kachenovsky, who, it seems, cannot be
reproach for ignorance of the Russian language) conjugate: I decide, I decide, I decide,
decide, decide, decide instead of decide, decide, and so on. Decide how to hide
sin.

Foreign proper names ending in e and, o, y, not
bow down. Those ending in a, b and b are inclined in the masculine gender, and in the feminine
no, and many of us err against this. They write: a book composed by Goetem,
and so on.

How should I write: Turks or Turks? both are correct. Turk and
Turkish are equally common.

It's been 16 years since I've been typing, and critics have noticed in my poems 5
grammatical errors (and rightly so):
1. fixed his gaze on distant masses
2. on the theme of mountains (crown)
3. howl instead of howl
4. was refused instead of being refused
5. to the abbot instead of the abbot.
I have always been sincerely grateful to them and always corrected what I noticed.
place. I write prose much more incorrectly, but I speak even worse and almost like this,
as G. writes **.

Many write yupka, wedding, instead of a skirt, wedding. Never in derivatives
in words, t does not change to d, nor n to b, but we say skirt, wedding.

Twelve, not twelve. Two is abbreviated from two as three from
three.

They write: cart, cart. Isn't it more correct: a cart (from the word
calf - carts are harnessed by oxen)?

The spoken language of the common people (who do not read foreign books and,
thank God, not expressing, like us, his thoughts in French)
also worthy of the deepest research. Alfieri studied Italian at
Florentine bazaar: it is not bad for us sometimes to listen to Moscow
mallow. They speak amazingly clear and correct language.

The Moscow accent is extremely delicate and whimsical. Sound letters u and h
before other consonants in it are changed. We even say women, nosle (cf.
Bogdanovich).

Spies are like the letter b. They are needed in some cases only, but here too
you can do without them, but they are used to popping in everywhere.

The omitted stanzas have repeatedly given cause for censure. What is
stanzas in "Eugene Onegin", which I could not or did not want to print, this
nothing to marvel at. But, being released, they break the connection of the story, and
wherefore the place where they were to be is signified. It would be better to replace these
stanzas by others, or smuggle and fuse those I have saved. But to blame
I'm too lazy for this. I also humbly confess that in Don Juan there are 2
stanzas released.

Mr. Fedorov, in a magazine that he was about to publish, examining quite
favorably chapters 4 and 5, he remarked, however, to me that in the description of autumn
several verses in a row begin with me with a particle already, which he called
snakes, and what in rhetoric is called single-mindedness. He also condemned the word cow
and reprimanded me for being young ladies of noble and, probably, bureaucratic
called girls (which, of course, is impolite), meanwhile, as a simple
called the village girl a virgin: Singing in a hut, a virgin
Spinning...

The sixth song was not analyzed, it was not even noticed in Vestnik Evropy
Latin typo. By the way: since I left the Lyceum, I have not disclosed
Latin book and completely forgot the Latin language. Life is short;
no time to read. Remarkable books crowd one after another, but no one
today he does not write them in Latin. In the 14th century, on the contrary, Latin was
necessary and rightly considered the first sign of an educated person.

Criticism of the 7th song in the "Northern Bee" I ran at a party and in such
a minute, as I was not up to Onegin ... I noticed only very well
written poetry and a rather funny joke about a beetle. I said: was
evening. The sky was dark. Water
They flowed quietly. The beetle buzzed.
The critic rejoiced at the appearance of this new face and expected character from him,
better than aged others. It seems, however, not a single sensible remark
or there was no critical thought. I have not read any other critics, because, really, I
was not up to them.
N.B. Criticism of the "Northern Bee" was in vain attributed to Mr. Bulgarin: 1)
the verses in it are too good, 2) the prose is too weak, 3) Mr. Bulgarin did not say
would that the description of Moscow is taken from "Ivan Vyzhigin", for Mr. Bulgarin did not
says that the tragedy "Boris Godunov" is taken from his novel.

Probably my tragedy will not have any success. Magazines on me
embittered. For the public, I no longer have the main attraction: youth and
novelty of a literary name. In addition, the main scenes have already been printed or
distorted in other people's imitations. Opening at random the historical novel of Mr.
Bulgarin, I found that he, too, comes to announce the appearance of the Pretender
king prince. V. Shuisky. I have Boris Godunov talking alone with Basmanov about
the destruction of localism, - at Mr. Bulgarin as well. Everything is dramatic
fiction, not history.

Having read these verses for the first time in Voinarovsky:

The wife of the sufferer Kochubey
And the daughter he seduced,

I was amazed how the poet could pass by such a terrible circumstance.
To burden historical characters with fictional horrors is not surprising and
not generous. Slander in poems has always seemed to me not commendable. But in
description of Mazepa to miss such a striking historical feature was still
more unforgivable. But what a disgusting thing! not one good
good feelings! not a single comforting feature! temptation, enmity,
treason, slyness, cowardice, ferocity ... Strong characters and deep,
the tragic shadow cast over all these horrors is what captivated me.
I wrote "Poltava" in a few days, could no longer deal with it and gave up
everything.

Among other literary accusations, they reproached me with too expensive
at the price of "Eugene Onegin" and saw in it a terrible greed. This is good
speak to someone who has never sold his writings or whose writings have not
sold, but how could the publishers of Severnaya
bees"? The price is set not by the writer, but by the booksellers.
poems, the number of applicants is limited. It is made up of the same
who pay 5 rubles for a place in the theater. Booksellers, having bought, put,
a whole edition for a ruble copy, after all, they would sell it for 5 rubles. Truth,
in such a case, the author could proceed with the second cheap edition, but also
the bookseller could then lower his price himself, and thereby lower
new edition. These trading turnovers are very well known to us, philistine writers.
We know that the cheapness of a book does not prove the disinterestedness of the author, but either
a great demand thereof or a perfect stop in the sale. I ask what
more profitable - to print 20,000 copies of one book and sell for 50 kopecks.
or print 200 copies and sell for 50 rubles?
The price of the latest edition of Krylov's fables, in all respects the most
our national poet (le plus national et le plus populaire3)), not
contradicts what we have said. Fables (like novels) are read by both the writer and
a merchant, and a man of the world, and a lady, and a maid, and children. But the poem
the lyric is only read by lovers of poetry. Are there many of them?

The jokes of our critics sometimes lead to astonishment in their innocence. Here
a true anecdote: in the lyceum one of our younger comrades, and, not be that
remember, good boy, but rather simple and last in all classes,
once composed two poems known to the entire Lyceum:

Ha ha ha, hee hee hee
Delvig writes poetry.

What was it like for us, Delvig and me, in the last 1830 in the first book
important "Bulletin of Europe" to find the following joke: Almanac "Northern Flowers"
divided into prose and poetry - hee, hee! Imagine how happy we are
our old friend! That's not enough. This hee hee seemed, apparently, so
intricate that it was reprinted with great praise in the "Northern Bee": "hee
hee, as it was very wittily said in the Vestnik Evropy" etc.

Young Kireevsky in an eloquent and thoughtful review of our
literature, speaking of Delvig, used this exquisite expression: "Ancient
his muse is sometimes covered with a warm-heartedness of the newest despondency. "The expression,
of course, funny. Why not just say: "In Delvig's verses
sometimes the despondency of the latest poetry responds"? - Our journalists, about whom Mr.
Kireevsky responded rather disrespectfully, they rejoiced, picked up this
a warm jacket, torn into small shreds, and for a year now they have been flaunting them,
trying to make his audience laugh. Suppose, all the same joke every time they
succeed; but what is their profit from that? the public almost does not care about literature,
and a small number of lovers finally believe not in a joke, constantly repeated, but
constantly, albeit slowly, breaking through the opinions of sound criticism and
impartiality.

1 He let out a thorn like a snake. "Ancient Russian Poems" (approx.
Pushkin.)

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's social impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism. Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of the image of Repetilov in comedy. She is unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is speaking (Repetilov - from lat. repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distorts the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and, as it were, openly expresses his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and whether there are any ... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but speaks more about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the essence of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent;

We have society and secret meetings

On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, of Repetilov is “We make noise, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky's assessments of Repetilov's words are interesting, which testify to the difference in the author's views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author is in solidarity with the main character in the assessments of the comic character, who unexpectedly appeared at the departure of the guests: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union meets in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “what are you raging about?” and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it to a denouement. According to the literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventful tension of the episode. But the tension that begins to subside ... inflates Repetilov. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the denouement of the events of the ball, deliberately carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue conversations at the ball, a meeting with a belated guest arouses in the minds of everyone the main impression, and Chatsky, who hid from Repetilov, becomes an unwitting witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already completely settled version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramaturgically integral episode of the comedy coming to an end, deeply rooted in the 4th act and in its volume and meaning equal to the whole act.

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins "forever young old men of Russian history"? What is the true face of Molchalin?

Calling Molchalin so, the literary critic emphasizes the typicality of such people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family ties. Even in their youth, they are not characterized by romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for the improvement of public and state life, they serve individuals, not the cause. Implementing the famous advice of Famusov “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin assimilates in the Famus society of “the past life the meanest traits” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: remember what he bequeathed Molchalin's father), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one's own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is the moral image of Famusov that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a love date with Lisa. Such is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D. I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “famous degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother away from the road, call his beloved woman to a nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will keep going and come ... "Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the denouement of the social conflict of the play? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the vanquished?

With the appearance of the XIV last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins, in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusovsky society are summed up and the final break of the two worlds is affirmed - “the current century and the past century”. It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “Million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced the early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely from those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, they are ready to preach even when no one is listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at the Famusov ball. Famusovsky world is alien to him, he did not accept his laws. And therefore we can assume that the moral victory is on his side. Moreover, Famusov's final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow.

T.F. Kurdyumova, S.A. Leonov, O.B. Maryina.

Comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Starting to study the comedy of A. S. Griboedov, it is advisable to start with a conversation about the features of drama as a kind of literature, about the differences between a dramatic work from an epic and lyrical one.

The external distinguishing features of the drama are: the presence of a poster - a list of actors, division into actions (acts), scenes, phenomena, the dialogical form of the play, remarks. The drama covers a short period of time, is distinguished by the tension of the conflict and the experiences of the characters, and is intended to be staged. The author's remarks are reduced to explanations in the list of characters and remarks. Heroes manifest themselves through monologues, dialogues and actions.

The work of studying the play must be built taking into account all the features of a dramatic work.

Introductory classes to a dramatic work may be different depending on the originality of the play.

The study of the comedy "Woe from Wit" is preceded by a story about the personality and fate of A. S. Griboedov, an interesting person, a wonderful writer and musician, a talented diplomat who lived his life so brightly and dramatically.

A story about the time, era, problems of Russian life in the first quarter of the 19th century, which are reflected in the play, is possible. The war of 1812 ended victoriously. But the Russian people - the conqueror of Napoleon and the liberator of Europe - are still shackled by the chains of serfdom, the shameful slavery that hindered the development of Russia. The blatant injustice does not leave many progressive-minded people indifferent - the atmosphere of Russian society is imbued with a mood of expectation, change, reforms that the indecisive government of Alexander I cannot implement in any way. New moods and ideas resulted in the creation of Decembrist societies. The era of Decembrism has come, so tragically and sacrificially ending on December 14, 1825 on Senate Square.

The protagonist of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a representative of this era, having absorbed its ideas and moods.

The story about the era can be illustrated by reproductions of paintings by artists (portraits of the most prominent representatives of this time; images of significant events; scenes reflecting the customs of people and society), historical documents, etc.

Acquaintance with the history of the creation of the play and its stage history will help to activate the creative imagination of students and create a mood for the work. It is also possible to use visual aids here - portraits of actors, paintings of mise en scenes, photographs of scenes of performances.

The play made its way to the stage with great difficulty. Initially, it existed in countless lists, and the one printed in 1832 was so distorted by censorship that the censor Nikitenko noted in his diary: “Someone sharply and rightly noted that only Grief remained in this play, it was so distorted by the knife of the Benckendorff Council.” But the subsequent fate of the play turned out to be happy: it was staged and continues to be staged for the second century by all the leading theaters of the country. The best Russian actors of different times played roles in Griboyedov's play. Reader and stage life of the comedy continues.

comedy analysis preceded by a conversation about poster: the attention of students is drawn to the speaking names of the characters (Molchalin, Skalozub, Repetilov, Tugoukhovsky), indicating the essence of the characters, the location of the characters in the poster (the main character of the play Chatsky is not the first, but the fifth in the list of characters), it turns out what is the reason for such an arrangement (it coincides with the appearance of the main characters on the stage; the playwright first recreates the atmosphere of Famusov's house, in which Chatsky is to appear, shows the arrangement of the characters, and then puts the hero into action). The first remark contributes to the visual recreation of the situation of the action.

K. S. Stanislavsky wrote: “Just as a plant grows from a grain, so exactly from a separate thought and feeling of a writer his work grows ... All these thoughts, dreams, eternal torments and joys of the writer become the basis of the play, for the sake of them he takes up the pen. The transfer of the feelings and thoughts of the writer, his dreams and joys on stage becomes the task of the performance. The same task is faced by the teacher, who seeks to show what worries the playwright, what he thinks about and what he encourages the viewer to think about.

Conflict in the play drives all action. What is the conflict of the play "Woe from Wit" and what is its originality? The main conflict reflects internal contradictions in Russian society in the first quarter of the 19th century. Chatsky's conflict with Famus's Moscow reflected the clash of two hostile social forces: the progressively minded nobles and the reactionary camp of feudal nobles. But in addition to the social conflict in the play, there is also a conflict of a personal nature - this is a love drama of Chatsky and Sophia. The presence of two conflicts determines the development of the two storylines of the play, which constantly interact and reinforce each other.

The question of the grouping of characters does not cause difficulties: Chatsky is on one pole, and all the other characters in the play are on the other.

Students get acquainted with the classification of the heroes of dramatic works and characterize the heroes of comedy, taking into account this classification.

main characters- heroes whose interaction with each other develops the course of action (determines the development of events).

Minor Heroes also participate in the development of the action, but have no direct relation to the plot. Their images are psychologically developed less deeply than the images of the main characters.

mask heroes- their images are extremely generalized. The author is not interested in their psychology, they occupy him only as important "signs of the times" or as eternal human types.

off-stage characters - heroes whose names are called, but they themselves do not appear on the stage and do not take part in the action.

Sequential monitoring of the development of action allows you to identify the main storyline elements, understand the characters of the characters, the functions of the various characters in the play.

exposure(i.e., the introductory part of the plot, depicting the life situation in which the characters of the characters were formed and developed) are the events of the first act (phenomena 1-5), preceding the appearance of Chatsky in Famusov's house. From them, the viewer or reader learns about the details of the life of the Famusov house, about the relationship of the characters, here the first characteristics of Chatsky sound.

The beginning of a personal conflict takes place at the moment Chatsky appears in Famusov's house (the first act, phenomena 7- 9), a public- during the first collisions of Chatsky and Famusov in the phenomenon 2 of the second act.

The social conflict is developing on the rise. A special place in its development is occupied by Chatsky's monologue "And who are the judges? ...". Students should pay attention to the change in the nature of Chatsky's monologues as the social conflict develops: from good-natured mockery, irony through caustic and evil wit, angry denunciation to bitterness, hatred, and disappointment of a person whose best feelings are trampled into the mud.

Both conflicts are further developed in the third act: personal - through an attempt to win over Sophia and find out who she loves; public - through the strengthening of Chatsky's alienation from the Famus society. climax both conflicts happens in the third act. Public relations reach their highest tension at the moment Chatsky is declared insane, and the hero's personal feelings experience several shocks: Sophia becomes the culprit of gossip about Chatsky's madness; the true face of Sophia's beloved is revealed. Chatsky leaves Famusov's house. This ends the personal relationship of the heroes, but Chatsky's struggle with the Famus society is not over, it is still ahead ...

When working on a comedy, the teacher may choose different ways of analysis: “following the author”, figurative, problem-thematic.

The first way ("following the author") involves commented reading and analysis of the most important scenes and episodes considered in the course of the development of the plot, in which the characters of the characters appear, the essence of their relationship is revealed.

In the first act, attention should be paid to the first phenomena that introduce the reader into action, Chatsky's arrival at Famusov's house, his first monologue. The following questions can help to form the first ideas about the characters.

What are Famusov's opinions about books, about service, about the current century?

What assessment do Sofya and Liza give to Chatsky and Molchalin?

What is the purpose of Sophia telling about her dream?

How does she perceive the ridicule of the people of her circle?

How does Molchalin appear in the first act?

What conclusion can be drawn about Chatsky's attitude to the Famus society based on his first monologue?

The following remarks deserve attention: a remark to Phenomenon 1, putting it into effect; remark at the end of the fourth act (Leaves with Molchalin, at the door lets him go ahead), bringing some new sound into the relationship between Famusov and Molchalin and making you think about the true essence of Molchalin's character.

In the second act, the dialogues of Chatsky and Famusov and the main monologues of these characters come to the fore.

What is the essence and reason for the disagreement between Famusov and Chatsky?

What are the ideals and moral ideas of Famusov?

What new ideals of life, new norms of morality does Chatsky speak about?

What is the meaning of opposing the "current century" to the "past century"?

What century is Chatsky struggling with?

Some questions also arise in connection with the image of Skalozub.

What qualities bring Skalozub success in service and society?

The character of Sophia is revealed more deeply when answering the question:

What distinguishes Sophia from the circle of Moscow young ladies?

The third act gives a broader idea of ​​the mores of the Famus society. Satirically reinforcing the negative aspects of the members of the Famus society, Griboyedov shows typical representatives of the Moscow nobility. Many secondary characters are present here, complementing the appearance of the Moscow nobility.

Khlestova is an important mistress, imperious, arrogant, defender of serfdom (her image is accompanied by the image of a serf girl-arapka, which brings a dramatic sound to the action of the play).

Zagoretsky is a man of dubious moral qualities, a servant, without whom the Famus society cannot do, etc.

Griboyedov perfectly uses various comic techniques: the technique of speaking surnames, the technique of “talking the deaf” (the interlocutors in the play do not hear each other), which, acting throughout the comedy, reaches particular sharpness in the farcical scene of a conversation between a barely hearing countess-grandmother and a completely deaf prince Tugoukhovsky (reception of the "crooked mirror").

The couple Natalya Dmitrievna and Platon Mikhailovich Gorichi deserve special attention.

Who did the former officer, Chatsky's comrade in the service, turn into?

Doesn't Griboedov indicate in the image of Natalya Dmitrievna the future fate of Sophia?

Significant is the dialogue between Chatsky and Molchalin in scene 3 of the third act.

What new things do we learn about Molchalin from this dialogue?

In the third act - the most tense moments in the development of storylines. Gossip spreads about Chatsky's madness. Gossip is a typical phenomenon for the society of the Famusovs, Skalozubs, Zagoretskys, etc. But it is also an instrument of struggle against people who are inconvenient for this society.

Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness arise and spread?

Why did Griboyedov entrust the role of gossip distributors to the faceless Messrs. N and D?

Why are Famusov's guests so willing to support this gossip? Do they believe her?

What do Famusov's guests see as signs of Chatsky's madness?

We should dwell on Chatsky's monologue, which concludes the third act, about a Frenchman from Bordeaux, in which the hero condemns any cringing before a foreigner and defends the true national culture and language. The remark that concludes the third act has a double meaning: Chatsky is alone in this society, no one listens to him and does not take him seriously, but his words are addressed not only to the Famus society. The viewer is the main listener for the sake of which everything happens.

When referring to the fourth act, questions arise related to the image of Repetilov.

Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? What assessment did Pushkin give him in a letter to Bestuzhev?

How do other characters perceive him? How does Repetilov compare with the image of Chatsky?

What does he have to do with the Decembrist movement?

Prove that Repetilov vulgarizes advanced ideas.

Critics will notice that not only Chatsky's public impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter, can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism.

In the phenomenon of 12 of the third act, the true face of Molchalin is revealed.

What are the life principles of this character?

The last scenes are the denouement of all conflicts.

Who is Chatsky - the winner or the defeated?

What did he learn, what did he understand, what was Chatsky disappointed in during the day spent in Moscow?

Another way dating comedy (similar) built on the basis of a comparative analysis of actors.

The system of images of "Woe from Wit" is a gallery of the brightest human portraits, which together make up the appearance of a serf society that lives according to the laws of the "past century". The characters are constantly turned by the playwright by those facets that reveal their mutual resemblance. A whole poetics of such comparisons unfolds. For example, Chatsky says about Molchalin: "Zagoretsky will not die in him." Outside the stage action one can guess a lot of synonymous figures. The play is symmetrical. For example: “My husband, my lovely husband” (Natalya Dmitrievna Gorich). “Your Spitz, lovely Spitz” (Molchalin).

Is the resemblance coincidental?

How does it help to understand the essence of the characters of the speakers and the relations between representatives of the Famus society?

Such parallels indicate a deep correlation of images: the world in which Chatsky found himself appears as a generalized picture, the name of which is famusism.

It is useful to trace the mention of female characters in the first two acts, to compare them with Sophia. Such comparisons are provided by the author, since all these references initially arise during the conversations of one or another character with Sophia. Comparisons with Madame Rosier, Sophia's aunt, Pulcheria Andreevna raise the question: What is the nature of these comparisons - in likeness or in contrast?

A comparison of Sophia with Natalya Dmitrievna Gorich and other guests at the ball leads to the conclusion that she is similar and not like these ladies. Sophia is not looking for a profitable marriage, she is not afraid of public opinion, but the ideal of family life is a “husband-boy”. Acting contrary to the moral principles of the Famus society, the heroine nevertheless asserts its foundations in her own way.

We considered it expedient to dwell on the correlation of the images of Sophia and Chatsky. Both find themselves in similar situations: Sophia is deceived - Chatsky is deceived; Sophia overhears - Chatsky overhears. As a result, both the hero and the heroine experience the collapse of their ideals.

The comparison of the images of Chatsky and Repetilov and the mention of the “crooked mirror” technique in connection with them is curious: Repetilov parodies Chatsky (Repetilov from repeter - repeat). Both heroes suddenly appear, openly declare something important for themselves. Speaking about himself, Chatsky remarks: “I myself? Isn’t it funny? ..”, “I’m strange ...” As if Repetilov echoes him: “I’m pathetic, I’m ridiculous, I’m ignorant, I’m a fool.” Just like Chatsky, no one takes Repetilov seriously, no one listens to him.

No analysis of the comedy text is complete without a comparison between Chatsky and Molchalin. Both revere each other for insignificance. For Chatsky, Molchalin is a voluntary Famus lackey. Molchalin is afraid of Chatsky's jokes, but at the same time despises him, does not put him in anything. In the third act, the famous dialogue between two contrasting characters takes place.

Analyzing these images, it is worth asking the question: Why did it become necessary to compare these two such different characters?

For comparison, you need to select the most significant features: position in society, way of thinking, purpose of life, mind, character, speech, attitude towards Sophia, people, understanding of service, etc .; pay attention to the remarks that accompany the speech of Chatsky and Molchalin, to see how the author's attitude towards the heroes of the comedy is manifested in them.

Questions about comparing different assessments of the images of Chatsky and Molchalin deserve attention. For example, the statements of Pushkin, Goncharov and Katenin about Chatsky. Why is the image evaluated so differently?

Which of the statements - Gogol, Goncharov or Pisarev - more fully reveals the essence of Molchalin?

An important compositional moment is the opposition of the two camps in the play. Kuchelbecker said: "... the whole plot consists of the opposite of Chatsky to other persons."

From this follows the system of comparative tasks.

Comparison of the characteristics of Skalozub, given in the Famus society: "three fathoms of a daring man"; "and a golden bag, and aims at the generals"; “not today - tomorrow the general” and Chatsky: “a wheezy, a strangled man, a bassoon, a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas.”

What is Molchalin in Sophia's view; in Chatsky's assessment; in real?

Comparison of the attitudes of Chatsky and Famus society: towards serfdom; service; enlightenment, etc. This task will reveal the antagonism of the two worlds.

Analysis of the meaning of the word "mind". At the same time, it is necessary to recall the words of Famusov: “in our opinion, smart”; Repetilova: “an intelligent person cannot but be a rogue”; Sophia about Chatsky's mind: "quick, brilliant", "a genius for others, but for others - a plague." For Famusov, Chatsky is abnormal, for Chatsky - the world of the Famusovs.

An interesting question is the comparison of the fates of four young comedy heroes - Chatsky, Gorich, Molchalin, Skalozub.

What is the reason for such a strong divergence of people living in the same society?

Path of problem-thematic analysis involves the formulation of the main problematic question, the search for an answer to which will determine the entire work on the play. Such a question may be the question of whether Chatsky is smart, from which a number of problems follow, in particular, the problem of the mind in comedy. Here it is appropriate to use different interpretations of the image of Chatsky (Pushkin, Goncharov, Katenin) and ask why this character is perceived differently, while taking into account the point of view of Griboyedov himself: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person”, "A girl who is not stupid herself prefers a fool to a smart man."

On what basis does Pushkin deny Chatsky the mind?

What is the play built on - on the clash of mind and stupidity, or on the clash of different types of mind?

The choice of the path of analysis of the play should be determined by the age characteristics of the perception of students, their interests, the expediency and effectiveness of this particular path of analysis in a given audience of students.

In the process of working on a work and preparing for an essay, the teacher should introduce students to the main literary questions.

Features of classicism, romanticism and realism in the play. Noting the innovation of Griboedov the playwright, who created a political comedy, a classic in form and realistic in content, it is necessary to indicate the combination of features of various methods and directions in the play.

Features of classicism: partial preservation of the law of three unities - the unity of place and time (the action takes place in Famusov's house during the day); "speaking" surnames; extensive monologues that do not contribute to the development of the action; traditional roles.

Features of romanticism: the image of Chatsky contains signs of a romantic hero (lofty ideals, protest against injustice, loneliness, rebelliousness, dual worlds: high ideas are a vulgar world).

Realism features: violation of the unity of action - the presence of two conflicts and two storylines; a large number of off-stage characters that expand the temporal and spatial boundaries of the play; modern material, modern conflict, modern hero expressing progressive freedom-loving ideas; rejection of the traditional plot denouement and a happy ending; realistic characters, revealed deeply and in many ways and shown in typical circumstances; the language of comedy (rejection of the traditional iambic six-meter and the introduction of live colloquial speech into the literary language, liveliness and accuracy of aphorisms, stylistic diversity).

Defining genre features play, it is necessary to identify the tasks of comedy, the essence of political comedy, the presence of a double conflict, the combination of tragic and comedic principles (the tragic is associated with the images of Chatsky and Sophia, the comedy is associated with members of the Famusov society, especially with Famusov's guests), a mixture of genres of satire and high comedy, a combination features of various directions.

Completing work on a comedy, students get acquainted with a critical study I.A. Goncharov "Million of torments", which gives a general assessment of the comedy and the main images. You can ask students to answer the following questions:

What does Goncharov see as the reason for the unusual vitality of comedy?

Does Goncharov agree with the opinion of some critics that there is little vitality in Chatsky, that he is not a person, but an idea?

Critic's assessment of Sophia's image. Why "Chatsky live and are not translated in society"?

Is Chatsky broken by the amount of the old force, or did he himself inflict a mortal blow on it? Who, in the opinion of the critic, emerges victorious from the battle between Chatsky and the Famus society?

Did everything still remain in Famusov's house and in Famusov's society after Chatsky's departure?

Do you agree with Goncharov in assessing Chatsky's last monologue? What is your assessment of Chatsky's words?

repetitive comedy? How do you understand this image?

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's social impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism. Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image? The question presents only one point of view on the role of the image of Repetilov in comedy. She is unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is speaking (Repetilov - from lat. repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distorts the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and, as it were, openly expresses his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and whether there are any ... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but speaks more about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the essence of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants. Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

Its main representatives: N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, as well as N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin as authors of critical articles, reviews and reviews.

Printed organs: magazines "Sovremennik", "Russian Word", "Notes of the Fatherland" (since 1868).

The development and active influence of "real" criticism on Russian literature and public consciousness continued from the mid-1950s to the end of the 1960s.

N.G. Chernyshevsky

As a literary critic, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889) appeared from 1854 to 1861. In 1861, the last of Chernyshevsky's fundamentally important articles, "Is not the beginning of a change?"

Chernyshevsky's literary-critical speeches were preceded by a solution of general aesthetic issues, undertaken by the critic in his master's thesis "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality" (written in 1853, defended and published in 1855), as well as in a review of the Russian translation of Aristotle's book "On Poetry" (1854) and an author's review of his own dissertation (1855).

Having published the first reviews in “Notes of the Fatherland” by A.A. Kraevsky, Chernyshevsky in 1854 passes at the invitation of N.A. Nekrasov to Sovremennik, where he heads the critical department. The cooperation of Chernyshevsky (and, since 1857, Dobrolyubov) owed much to Sovremennik not only to the rapid growth in the number of its subscribers, but also to its transformation into the main tribune of revolutionary democracy. The arrest in 1862 and the subsequent penal servitude interrupted Chernyshevsky's literary-critical activity when he was only 34 years old.

Chernyshevsky acted as a direct and consistent opponent of A.V. Druzhinina, P.V. Annenkova, V.P. Botkina, S.S. Dudyshkin. The specific disagreements between Chernyshevsky as a critic and “aesthetic” criticism can be reduced to the question of the admissibility in literature (art) of the entire diversity of current life - including its socio-political conflicts (“topics of the day”), social ideology in general (trends). "Aesthetic" criticism generally answered this question in the negative. In her opinion, socio-political ideology, or, as Chernyshevsky's opponents preferred to say, "tendentiousness" is contraindicated in art, because it violates one of the main requirements of artistry - an objective and impartial depiction of reality. V.P. Botkin, for example, stated that "a political idea is the grave of art." On the contrary, Chernyshevsky (like other representatives of real criticism) answered the same question in the affirmative. Literature not only can, but must be imbued and spiritualized with the socio-political trends of its time, for only in this case will it become an expression of urgent social needs, and at the same time serve itself. Indeed, as the critic noted in Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature (1855-1856), “only those areas of literature achieve brilliant development that arise under the influence of strong and living ideas that satisfy the pressing needs of the era.” Chernyshevsky, a democrat, socialist and peasant revolutionary, considered the liberation of the people from serfdom and the elimination of autocracy to be the most important of these needs.

The rejection of "aesthetic" criticism of social ideology in literature was justified, however, by a whole system of views on art, rooted in the provisions of German idealistic aesthetics - in particular, Hegel's aesthetics. The success of Chernyshevsky's literary-critical position was determined, therefore, not so much by the refutation of the particular positions of his opponents, but by a fundamentally new interpretation of general aesthetic categories. Chernyshevsky's dissertation "The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality" was devoted to this. But first, let's name the main literary-critical works that students need to keep in mind: reviews ""Poverty is not a vice." Comedy A. Ostrovsky "(1854)," "On Poetry". Op. Aristotle" (1854); articles: “On sincerity in criticism” (1854), “Works of A.S. Pushkin" (1855), "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", "Childhood and adolescence. Composition of Count L.N. Tolstoy. Military stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy" (1856), "Provincial essays... Collected and published by M.E. Saltykov. ... "(1857)," Russian man on rendez-vous "(1858)," Is not the beginning of a change? (1861).

In his dissertation, Chernyshevsky gives a fundamentally different definition of the object of art compared to German classical aesthetics. How was it understood in idealistic aesthetics? The subject of art is the beautiful and its varieties: sublime, tragic, comic. At the same time, the absolute idea or the reality embodying it was thought to be the source of beauty, but only in the entire volume, space and extent of the latter. The fact is that in a separate phenomenon - finite and temporal - the absolute idea, by its nature eternal and infinite, according to idealistic philosophy, is unrealizable. Indeed, between the absolute and the relative, the general and the individual, the regular and the accidental, there is a contradiction, similar to the difference between the spirit (it is immortal) and the flesh (which is mortal). It is not given to a person to overcome it in practical (material-production, socio-political) life. The only areas in which the resolution of this contradiction turned out to be possible were considered religion, abstract thinking (in particular, as Hegel believed, his own philosophy, or rather, its dialectical method) and, finally, art as the main varieties of spiritual activity, the success of which is to a great extent depends on the creative gift of a person, his imagination, fantasy.

From this followed the conclusion; beauty in reality, inevitably finite and transient, is absent, it exists only in the creative creations of the artist - works of art. It is art that brings beauty to life. Hence the consequence of the first premise: art, as the embodiment of beauty above life. / / “Venus de Milo,” declares, for example, I.S. Turgenev, - perhaps, more undoubtedly than Roman law or the principles of 89 (that is, the French Revolution of 1789 - 1794 - V.N.) years. Summarizing in his dissertation the main postulates of idealistic aesthetics and the consequences arising from them, Chernyshevsky writes: “Defining the beautiful as a complete manifestation of an idea in a separate being, we must come to the conclusion: “beautiful is in reality only a ghost put into it by our facts”; from this it will follow that “in fact, the beautiful is created by our imagination, but in reality ... there is no truly beautiful”; from the fact that there is no truly beautiful in nature, it will follow that "art has as its source the desire of a person to make up for the shortcomings of the beautiful in objective reality" and that the beautiful created by art is higher than the beautiful in objective reality "- all these thoughts constitute the essence of the dominant now concepts ... "

If in reality there is no beauty and it is brought into it only by art, then creating the latter is more important than creating, improving life itself. And the artist should not so much help improve life as reconcile a person with its imperfection, compensating for it with the ideally imaginary world of his work.

It is to this system of ideas that Chernyshevsky opposed his materialistic definition of the beautiful: “beautiful is life”; “beautiful is the being in which we see life as it should be according to our concepts; beautiful is the object that shows life in itself or reminds us of life.

Its pathos and, at the same time, its fundamental novelty consisted in the fact that the main task of a person was not the creation of the beautiful in itself (in its spiritually imaginary form), but the transformation of life itself, including the current, current one, according to this person’s ideas about its ideal. . Solidarizing in this case with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Chernyshevsky, as it were, says to his contemporaries: first of all, make life itself beautiful, and do not fly away in beautiful dreams from it. And second: If the source of the beautiful is life (and not an absolute idea, Spirit, etc.), then art in its search for the beautiful depends on life, generated by its desire for self-improvement as a function and means of this desire.

Chernyshevsky challenged the traditional view of the beautiful as the alleged main goal of art. From his point of view, the content of art is much wider than the beautiful and is "general interest in life", that is, it covers everything. what worries a person, on what his fate depends. Man (and not beauty) became Chernyshevsky, in essence, and the main subject of art. The critic also interpreted the specifics of the latter differently. According to the logic of the dissertation, what distinguishes an artist from a non-artist is not the ability to embody an “eternal” idea in a separate phenomenon (event, character) and thereby overcome their eternal contradiction, but the ability to reproduce life collisions, processes and trends that are of general interest to contemporaries in their individually visual form. Art is conceived by Chernyshevsky not so much as a second (aesthetic) reality, but as a “concentrated” reflection of objective reality. Hence those extreme definitions of art (“art is a surrogate for reality”, “a textbook of life”), which were not without reason rejected by many contemporaries. The fact is that Chernyshevsky's legitimate desire to subordinate art to the interests of social progress in these formulations turned into oblivion of his creative nature.

In parallel with the development of materialistic aesthetics, Chernyshevsky in a new way comprehends such a fundamental category of Russian criticism of the 1940s and 1960s as artistry. And here his position, although it is based on certain provisions of Belinsky, remains original and, in turn, is polemical to traditional ideas. Unlike Annenkov or Druzhinin (as well as such writers as I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov), Chernyshevsky considers the main condition for artistry not the objectivity and impartiality of the author and the desire to reflect reality in its entirety, not the strict dependence of each fragment of the work ( character, episode, detail) from the whole, not the isolation and completeness of creation, but the idea (social trend), the creative fruitfulness of which, according to the critic, is commensurate with its vastness, truthfulness (in the sense of coincidence with the objective logic of reality) and "consistency". In the light of the last two requirements, Chernyshevsky analyzes, for example, the comedy of A.N. Ostrovsky "Poverty is not a vice", in which he finds "sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished." The erroneous initial thought underlying the comedy deprived it, Chernyshevsky believes, even of plot unity. “Works that are false in their main idea,” the critic concludes, “are sometimes weak even in a purely artistic sense.”

If the consistency of a truthful idea provides unity to a work, then its social and aesthetic significance depends on the scale and relevance of the idea.

Chernyshevsky also demands that the form of the work correspond to its content (idea). However, this correspondence, in his opinion, should not be strict and pedantic, but only expedient: it is enough if the work is concise, without excesses leading to the side. To achieve such expediency, Chernyshevsky believed, no special author's imagination or fantasy is needed.

The unity of a true and sustained idea with the form that corresponds to it makes a work of art artistic. Chernyshevsky's interpretation of artistry, therefore, removed from this concept that mysterious halo that representatives of "aesthetic" criticism endowed it with. It also freed itself from dogmatism. At the same time, here, as well as in defining the specifics of art, Chernyshevsky's approach sinned with unjustified rationality, a certain straightforwardness.

The materialistic definition of beauty, the call to make the content of art everything that excites a person, the concept of artistry intersect and refract in Chernyshevsky's criticism in the idea of ​​the social purpose of art and literature. The critic here develops and refines the views of Belinsky at the end of the 1930s. Since literature is a part of life itself, a function and a means of its self-improvement, then, the critic says, “it cannot but be a servant of one or another direction of ideas; this is an appointment that lies in her nature, from which she is not able to refuse, even if she wanted to refuse. This is especially true for politically and civilly undeveloped autocratic-feudal Russia, where literature "concentrates ... the mental life of the people" and has "encyclopedic significance." The direct duty of Russian writers is to spiritualize their work with "humanity and concern for the improvement of human life", which have become the dominant need of the time. “A poet,” writes Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol period ...”, “a lawyer., her (the public. - V.NL) of her own ardent desires and sincere thoughts.

Chernyshevsky's struggle for the literature of social ideology and direct public service explains the critic's rejection of the works of those poets (A. Fet. A. Maikov, Ya. only personal, pleasures and sorrows. Considering the position of “pure art” to be worldly by no means disinterested, Chernyshevsky in his “Essays on the Gogol Period ...” also rejects the argument of the supporters of this art: that aesthetic pleasure “in itself brings a significant benefit to a person, softening his heart, elevating his soul”, that aesthetic experience "directly ... ennobles the soul by the sublimity and nobility of objects and feelings that we are seduced by in works of art." And a cigar, Chernyshevsky objects, softens, and a good dinner, in general, health and excellent living conditions. This, the critic concludes, purely epicurean view of art.

The materialistic interpretation of general aesthetic categories was not the only prerequisite for Chernyshevsky's criticism. Chernyshevsky himself pointed out two other sources of it in "Essays on the Gogol period ...". This is, firstly, the legacy of Belinsky in the 40s and, secondly, the Gogolian, or, as Chernyshevsky clarifies, the “critical trend” in Russian literature.

In "Essays ..." Chernyshevsky solved a number of problems. First of all, he sought to revive the precepts and principles of criticism of Belinsky, whose very name until 1856 was under a censorship ban, and his legacy was hushed up or interpreted by "aesthetic" criticism (in the letters of Druzhinin, Botkin, Annenkov to Nekrasov and I. Panaev) one-sidedly, sometimes negative. The idea corresponded to the intention of the editors of Sovremennik to "fight the decline of our criticism" and "improve as far as possible" their own "critical department", which was stated in the "Announcement of the publication of Sovremennik" in 1855. It was necessary, Nekrasov believed, to return to the interrupted tradition - to the “straight road” of the “Notes of the Fatherland” of the forties, that is, Belinsky: “... what faith there was in the magazine, what a living connection between him and the readers!” Analysis from the democratic and materialistic positions of the main critical systems of the 20-40s (N. Polevoy, O. Senkovsky, N. Nadezhdin, I. Kireevsky, S. Shevyrev, V. Belinsky) at the same time allowed Chernyshevsky to determine for the reader his own position in the brewing with the outcome of the "gloomy seven years" (1848 - 1855) of the literary struggle, as well as to formulate the modern tasks and principles of literary criticism. "Essays ..." also served polemical purposes, in particular, the fight against the opinions of A.V. Druzhinin, which Chernyshevsky clearly has in mind when he shows the selfish and protective motives of S. Shevyrev's literary judgments.

Considering in the first chapter of "Essays ..." the reasons for the decline of criticism of N. Polevoy, "at first so cheerfully acting as one of the leaders in the literary and intellectual movement" of Russia, Chernyshevsky concluded that for viable criticism, firstly, modern philosophical theory, Secondly. moral sense, meaning by it the humanistic and patriotic aspirations of the critic, and finally, orientation towards truly progressive phenomena in literature.

All these components organically merged in Belinsky's criticism, the most important beginnings of which were "ardent patriotism" and the latest "scientific concepts", that is, L. Feuerbach's materialism and socialist ideas. Chernyshevsky considers other capital advantages of Belinsky's criticism to be its struggle against romanticism in literature and in life, the rapid growth from abstract aesthetic criteria to animation by the "interests of national life" and writers' judgments from the point of view of "the significance of his activities for our society."

In "Essays ..." for the first time in the Russian censored press, Belinsky was not only associated with the ideological and philosophical movement of the forties, but was made its central figure. Chernyshevsky outlined the scheme of Belinsky's creative emotion, which remains at the heart of modern ideas about the activities of a critic: the early "telescopic" period - the search for a holistic philosophical comprehension of the world and nature of art; a natural meeting with Hegel on this path, a period of "reconciliation" with reality and a way out of it, a mature period of creativity, which in turn revealed two stages of development - in terms of the degree of deepening of social thinking.

At the same time, for Chernyshevsky, the differences that should appear in future criticism in comparison with Belinsky's criticism are also obvious. Here is his definition of criticism: “Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of some literary movement. Its purpose is to grieve with the expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses ”(“ On Sincerity in Criticism ”).

“The best part of the public” is, without a doubt, the democrats and ideologists of the revolutionary transformation of Russian society. Future criticism should directly serve their tasks and goals. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the guild isolation in the circle of professionals, to enter into constant communication with the public. reader, as well as to gain "every possible ... clarity, certainty and directness" of judgments. The interests of the common cause, which she will serve, give her the right to be harsh.

In the light of the requirements, first of all, of a socially humanistic ideology, Chernyshevsky undertakes an examination of both the phenomena of current realistic literature and its sources in the person of Pushkin and Gogol.

Four articles about Pushkin were written by Chernyshevsky simultaneously with "Essays on the Gogol period ...". They included Chernyshevsky in the discussion started by the article by A.V. Druzhinin "A.S. Pushkin and the last edition of his works": 1855) in connection with the Annenkov Collected Works of the poet. Unlike Druzhinin, who created the image of a creator-artist, alien to the social collisions and unrest of his time, Chernyshevsky appreciates in the author of "Eugene Onegin" that he "was the first to describe Russian customs and the life of various classes ... with amazing fidelity and insight" . Thanks to Pushkin, Russian literature became closer to "Russian society". The ideologist of the peasant revolution is especially fond of Pushkin's "Scenes from Knightly Times" (they should be ranked "not lower than "Boris Godunov""), the richness of Pushkin's verse ("every line ... affected, aroused thought"). Crete, recognizes the great importance of Pushkin "in the history of Russian education." enlightenment. However, in contradiction to these praises, the relevance of Pushkin's heritage for modern literature was recognized by Chernyshevsky as insignificant. In fact, in assessing Pushkin, Chernyshevsky takes a step back compared to Belinsky, who called the creator of Onegin (in the fifth article of the Pushkin cycle) the first "artist poet" of Russia. "Pushkin was," writes Chernyshevsky, "primarily a poet of form." "Pushkin was not a poet of any particular outlook on life, like Byron, he was not even a poet of thought in general, like ... Goethe and Schiller." Hence the final conclusion of the articles: "Pushkin belongs to a bygone era ... He cannot be recognized as a luminary of modern literature."

The general assessment of the founder of Russian realism turned out to be unhistorical. It also revealed the unjustified in this case sociological bias in Chernyshevsky's understanding of the artistic content, the poetic idea. Willingly or involuntarily, the critic gave Pushkin away to his opponents - the representatives of "aesthetic" criticism.

In contrast to Pushkin's legacy, in the Essays... Gogol's legacy, according to Chernyshevsky, is given the highest appraisal, addressed to the needs of social life and therefore full of deep content. The critic in Gogol especially emphasizes the humanistic pathos, essentially not seen in Pushkin's work. “To Gogol,” writes Chernyshevsky, “those who need protection owe a lot; he became the head of those. who deny the evil and the vulgar."

The humanism of Gogol's "deep nature", however, according to Chernyshevsky, was not supported by modern advanced ideas (teachings), which did not have an impact on the writer. According to the critic, this limited the critical pathos of Gogol's works: the artist saw the ugliness of the facts of Russian social life, but did not understand the connection of these facts with the fundamental foundations of Russian autocratic-serf society. In general, Gogol was inherent in the "gift of unconscious creativity", without which it is impossible to be an artist. However, the poet, adds "Chernyshevsky," will not create anything great if he is not also gifted with a wonderful mind, strong common sense and fine taste. Chernyshevsky explains the artistic drama of Gogol by the suppression of the liberation movement after 1825, as well as the influence on the writer of the protective-minded S. Shevyrev, M. Pogodin and his sympathies for patriarchy. Nevertheless, Chernyshevsky's overall assessment of Gogol's work is very high: "Gogol was the father of Russian prose", "he has the merit of firmly introducing the satirical into Russian literature - or, as it would be more fair to call his critical directions", he is "the first in Russian literature to to content and, moreover, striving in such a fruitful direction as critical. And finally: "There was no writer in the world who would be as important for his people as Gogol for Russia", "he awakened in us the consciousness of ourselves - this is his true merit."

Chernyshevsky's attitude towards Gogol and the Gogol trend in Russian realism, however, did not remain unchanged, but depended on what phase of his criticism it belonged to. The fact is that two phases are distinguished in Chernyshevsky's criticism: the first - from 1853 to 1858, the second - from 1858 to 1862. The turning point for them was the emerging revolutionary situation in Russia, which entailed a fundamental disengagement between the democrats and the liberals on all issues, including literary ones.

The first phase is characterized by the struggle of the critic for the Gogol trend, which remains effective and fruitful in his eyes. This is a struggle for Ostrovsky, Turgenev, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, L. Tolstoy, for the strengthening and development of critical pathos by them. The task is to unite all anti-serfdom writers' groupings.

In 1856, Chernyshevsky devoted a large review to Grigorovich, by that time the author of not only The Village and Anton the Goremyka, but also the novels The Fishermen (1853), The Settlers (1856>, imbued with deep participation in life and fate " commoner", especially serfs. Contrasting Grigorovich with his numerous imitators, Chernyshevsky believes that in his stories "peasant life is depicted correctly, without embellishment; strong talent and deep feeling are visible in the description."

Until 1858, Chernyshevsky took under the protection of "superfluous people", for example, from criticism of S. Dudyshkin. who reproached them for the lack of "harmony with the situation", that is, for opposition to the environment. In the conditions of modern society, such “harmony,” Chernyshevsky shows, will come down only to “being an efficient official, a landowner in charge” (“Notes on Journals”, 1857 *. At this time, the critic sees in “superfluous people” still victims of the Nikolaev reaction , and he cherishes that share of protest that they contain in themselves. True, even at this time he treats them differently: he sympathizes with Rudin and Beltov, who are striving for social activity, but not Onegin and Pechorin.

Particularly interesting is Chernyshevsky's attitude towards L. Tolstoy, who, by the way, spoke of the critic's dissertation and his very personality at that time with extreme hostility. In the article “Childhood and adolescence. Composition of Count L.N. Tolstoy...” Chernyshevsky showed an extraordinary aesthetic sensitivity in evaluating the artist, whose ideological positions were very far from the mood of the critic. Chernyshevsky notes two main features in Tolstoy's talent: the originality of his psychological analysis (unlike other realist writers, Tolstoy is not interested in the result of the mental process, not in the correspondence of emotions and actions, etc., but “the mental process itself, its forms, its laws , the dialectics of the soul") and the sharpness ("purity") of the "moral feeling", the moral perception of the depicted". The critic rightly understood Tolstoy's mental analysis as an expansion and enrichment of the possibilities of realism (we note in passing that even such a a master, like Turgenev, who called it "picking out the rubbish from under the armpits"). As for the "purity of the moral feeling", which Chernyshevsky noted, by the way, in Belinsky, Chernyshevsky sees in it a guarantee of the artist's rejection of social untruth, along with moral falsehood. , public lies and injustice.This was already confirmed by Tolstoy's story "The Morning of the Landowner", showing which was meaningless in the conditions of serfdom of lordly philanthropy in relation to the peasant. The story was highly appreciated by Chernyshevsky in Notes on Journals in 1856. The author was credited with the fact that the content of the story was taken “from a new sphere of life”, which developed the very view of the writer “on life”.

After 1858, Chernyshevsky's judgments about Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev, as well as about "superfluous people" change. This is explained not only by the gap between the democrats and the liberals (in 1859 - 1860 L. Tolstoy, Goncharov, Botkin, Turgenev left Sovremennik), but also by the fact that in these years a new trend in Russian realism, represented by Saltykov-Shchedrin (in 1856, the Russkiy Vestnik began publishing his Provincial Essays), Nekrasov, N. Uspensky, V. Sleptsov, A. Levitov, F. Reshetnikov and inspired by democratic ideas. Democratic writers had to establish themselves in their own positions, freeing themselves from the influence of their predecessors. Chernyshevsky, who believes that Gogol's direction has exhausted itself, is also involved in the solution of this problem. Hence the overestimation of Rudin (the critic sees in him an unacceptable "caricature" of M. Bakunin, with whom the revolutionary tradition was associated), and other "superfluous people", whom Chernyshevsky no longer separates from the liberalizing nobles.

A declaration and proclamation of an uncompromising disengagement from noble liberalism in the Russian liberation movement of the 1960s was Chernyshevsky's famous article "The Russian Man on Rendez-vous" (1958). It appears at the moment when, as the critic specifically emphasizes, the denial of serfdom, which united liberals and democrats in the 1940s and 1950s, was replaced by the polar opposite attitude of the former allies towards the coming peasant revolution, Chernyshevsky believes.

The reason for the article was the story of I.S. Turgenev's "Asya" (1858), in which the author of "The Diary of a Superfluous Man", "Calm", "Correspondence", "Trips to the woods" depicted the drama of failed love in conditions when the happiness of two young people seemed to be both possible and close . Interpreting the hero "Asia" (along with Rudin, Beltov, Nekrasov's Agarin and other "superfluous people") as a type of noble liberal. Chernyshevsky gives his explanation of the social position ("behavior") of such people - even if it is revealed in an intimate situation of meeting with a beloved and reciprocating girl. Filled with ideal aspirations, lofty feelings, they, says the critic, fatally stop before putting them into practice, unable to combine word with deed. And the reason for this inconsistency is not in their personal weaknesses, but in their belonging to the ruling nobility, the burden of "class prejudices." It is impossible to expect decisive actions from a noble liberal in accordance with “the great historical interests of national development” (that is, to eliminate the autocratic-feudal system), because the main obstacle for them is the nobility itself. And Chernyshevsky calls for a resolute rejection of illusions about the liberating and humanizing possibilities of the noble oppositionist: “The idea is developing in us more and more strongly that this opinion about him is an empty dream, we feel ... that there are people better than him, precisely those whom he offends; that without him we would be better off.”

The incompatibility of revolutionary democracy with reformism explains Chernyshevsky in the article “Polemical Beauties” (1860) of his current critical attitude towards Turgenev and the break with the writer, whom the critic had previously defended from cnpalai attacks “Our way of thinking became clear for Mr. Turgenev so much that he ceased to approve of him . It began to seem to us that Mr. Turgenev's latest stories did not correspond as closely to our view of things as before, when his direction was not so clear to us, and our views were not so clear to him. We parted".

Since 1858, Chernyshevsky’s main concern has been devoted to raznochinsk-democratic literature and its authors, who are called upon to master the art of writing and point out to the public other heroes compared to the “superfluous people”, close to the people and inspired by popular interests.

Hopes for the creation of a "completely new period" in poetry Chernyshevsky connects primarily with Nekrasov. Back in 1856, he wrote to him in response to a request to comment on the recently published famous collection "Poems by N. Nekrasov": "We have not yet had such a poet as you." Chernyshevsky retained the high appreciation of Nekrasov for all subsequent years. Upon learning of the poet's fatal illness, he asked (in a letter on August 14, 1877 to Pypin from Vilyuysk) to kiss him and tell him, “the most brilliant and noblest of all Russian poets. I weep for him” (“Tell Nikolai Gavrilovich,” Nekrasov answered Pypin, “that I thank him very much, I am now consoled: his words are more precious than anyone else’s words”). In the eyes of Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov is the first great Russian poet who has become truly popular, that is, he expressed both the state of the oppressed people (peasantry), and faith in his strength, the growth of national consciousness. At the same time, Nekrasov's intimate lyrics are dear to Chernyshevsky - "poetry of the heart", "plays without a tendency", as he calls it, - embodying the emotional and intellectual structure and spiritual experience of the Russian Raznochinsk intelligentsia, its inherent system of moral and aesthetic values.

In the author of "Provincial essays" M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky saw a writer who went beyond the critical realism of Gogol. In contrast to the author of Dead Souls, Shchedrin, according to Chernyshevsky, already knows “what is the connection between the branch of life in which facts are found and other branches of mental, moral, civil, state life”, that is, he knows how to erect private outrages Russian public life to their source - the socialist system of Russia. "Provincial essays" are valuable not only as a "wonderful literary phenomenon", but also as a "historical fact" of Russian life" on the path of its self-awareness.

In reviews of writers who are ideologically close to him, Chernyshevsky raises the question of the need for a new positive hero in literature. He is waiting for "his speech, a most cheerful, at the same time calm and decisive speech, in which one would hear not the timidity of theory before life, but proof that reason can rule over life and a person can agree with his convictions in his life." Chernyshevsky himself joined in the solution of this problem in 1862, creating in the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress a novel about "new people" - "What to do?"

Chernyshevsky did not have time to systematize his views on democratic literature. But one of its principles - the question of the image of the people - was developed by him very thoroughly. This is the subject of the last of Chernyshevsky's major literary-critical articles, "Isn't the Beginning of Change?" (1861), the reason for which was N. Uspensky's "Essays on Folk Life".

The critic opposes any idealization of the people. In the conditions of the social awakening of the people (Chernyshevsky knew about the mass peasant uprisings in connection with the predatory reform of 1861), he believes that it objectively serves protective purposes, as it reinforces the people's passivity, the conviction that the people are incapable of independently deciding their own destiny. Nowadays, the image of the people in the form of Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin or Anton Goremyka is unacceptable. Literature should show the people, their moral and psychological state “without embellishment”, because only such an image testifies to the recognition of the people as equal to other classes and will help the people get rid of the weaknesses and vices instilled in them by centuries of humiliation and lack of rights. It is equally important, not content with the routine manifestations of folk life and dozens of characters, to show people in whom the “initiative of folk activity” is concentrated. It was a call to create images of folk leaders and rebels in literature. Already the image of Saveliy - the "hero of the Holy Russian" from Nekrasov's poem "To whom it is good to live in Russia" spoke of that. that this testament of Chernyshevsky was heard.

Aesthetics and literary criticism of Chernyshevsky are not distinguished by academic dispassion. They, according to V.I. Lenin, imbued with the "spirit of the class struggle." And also, let's add, and the spirit of rationalism, faith in the omnipotence of reason, characteristic of Chernyshevsky as an educator. This obliges us to consider Chernyshevsky's literary-critical system in the unity of not only strong and promising, but also relatively weak and even extreme premises.

Chernyshevsky is right in defending the priority of life over art. But he is mistaken, calling art on this basis a "surrogate" (that is, a substitute) for reality. In fact, art is not only a special (in relation to the scientific or social and practical activity of a person), but also a relatively autonomous form of spiritual creativity - an aesthetic reality, in the creation of which a huge role belongs to the holistic ideal of the artist and the efforts of his creative imagination. In turn, by the way, underestimated by Chernyshevsky. “Reality,” he writes, “is not only more alive, but more perfect than fantasy. Images of fantasy are only a pale and almost always unsuccessful reworking of reality. This is true only in the sense of the connection between artistic fantasy and the life aspirations and ideals of a writer, painter, musician, and so on. However, the very understanding of creative fantasy and its possibilities is erroneous, because the consciousness of a great artist does not so much remake the real world as it creates a new world.

The concept of an artistic idea (content) acquires from Chernyshevsky not only a sociological, but sometimes a rationalistic meaning. If its first interpretation is fully justified in relation to a number of artists (for example, to Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin), then the second actually eliminates the line between literature and science, art and sociological treatise memoirs, etc. An example of an unjustified rationalization of artistic content can be the following statement by a critic in a review of a Russian translation of Aristotle’s works: “Art, or, better, POETRY ... distributes a huge amount of information among the mass of readers and, more importantly, familiarity with the concepts developed by science - - this is the great significance of poetry for life. Here Chernyshevsky voluntarily or involuntarily anticipates the future literary utilitarianism of D.I. Pisarev. Another example. Literature, says a critic elsewhere, acquires authenticity and content when it “talks about everything that is important in any respect that happens in society, considers all these facts ... from all possible points of view, explains, from what causes each fact proceeds, by what it is supported, what phenomena must be brought into being to strengthen it, if it is noble, or to weaken it, if it is harmful. In other words, a writer is good if, fixing significant phenomena and trends in social life, he analyzes them and pronounces his “sentence” on them. This is how Chernyshevsky himself acted as the author of the novel What Is to Be Done? But to fulfill the task formulated in this way, it is not at all necessary to be an artist, because it is quite soluble already within the framework of a sociological treatise, a journalistic article, brilliant examples of which were given by Chernyshevsky himself (recall the article “The Russian Man on Rendez-Vous”), and Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev.

Perhaps the most vulnerable spot in Chernyshevsky's literary-critical system is the notion of artistry and typification. Agreeing that "the prototype for a poetic person is often a real person", erected by the writer "to a general meaning", the critic adds: "There is usually no need to erect, because the original already has a general meaning in its individuality." It turns out that typical faces exist in reality itself, and are not created by the artist. The writer can only "transfer" them from life to his work in order to explain them and sentence them. This was not only a step back from the corresponding teaching of Belinsky, but also a dangerous simplification that reduced the work and work of the artist to copying reality.

The well-known rationalization of the creative act and art in general, the sociological bias in the interpretation of literary and artistic content as the embodiment of a particular social trend, explains the negative attitude towards Chernyshevsky's views not only by representatives of "aesthetic" criticism, but also by such major artists of the 50s and 60s like Turgenev, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy. In Chernyshevsky's ideas, they saw the danger of "enslavement of art" (N.D. Akhsharumov) by political and other transient tasks.

Noting the weaknesses of Chernyshevsky's aesthetics, one should remember the fruitfulness - especially for Russian society and Russian literature - of its main pathos - the idea of ​​the social and humanistic service of art and the artist. Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov would later call Chernyshevsky's dissertation one of the first experiments in "practical aesthetics". L. Tolstoy's attitude towards her will change over the years. A number of provisions of his treatise "What is art?" (published in 1897 - 1898) will be directly in tune with the ideas of Chernyshevsky.

And the last. It must not be forgotten that under the conditions of the censored press, literary criticism was, in fact, the main opportunity for Chernyshevsky to shed light on the pressing problems of Russian social development and influence it from the standpoint of revolutionary democracy. The same can be said about Chernyshevsky as a critic, as the author of Essays on the Gogol Period ... said about Belinsky: - all the same, good or bad; he needs life, not talk about the merits of Pushkin's poems.