Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich
Despite the fact that a whole century has passed, Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit is still considered the best comedy in our literature, along with Gogol's The Inspector General. I don't know whether it is possible to put next to these two pearls of the first caliber at least one other comedy, not excluding the comedies of Shchedrin, Ostrovsky, Sukhovo-Kobylin and Chekhov.
But is it a comedy? Griboedov himself, who, of course, repeatedly heard bursts of laughter when he read such well-aimed lines that he scattered with his brilliant hand of a writer in front of a listener or reader, such unusually convex hilarious figures, Griboedov himself with great sorrow, with great bile, rejected the title of a cheerful writer, and even more so - the title of a cheerful person. “Am I,” he asks, “a fun writer? I created a funny comedy? 1 "These Famusovs, Skalozubs ..." - he constantly repeats. This shows with what disgust he looked at his age, how terrible it was for him to live in this slave environment. And when life threw him all over the face of his vast fatherland, with what indescribable horror he exclaimed: “What a country! Who is it inhabited by? What a ridiculous story she has! 2
The comedy is called "Woe from Wit". Woe in comedy to the mind - to the mind that was proclaimed madness; the mind from which everyone has turned away; mind, to which the best, most beautiful, most intelligent, most independent girl of those who
appear on the stage, she preferred a lackey nature. All this, of course, does not create a comic impression. True, a little in the style of the era of that time, a little like a landowner sounds: “Carriage for me, carriage!”, But in this carriage Chatsky sets off to “search around the world” for some shelter. And it is not known whether he will find it. If, more than aspirations, he is released abroad, then here too one must think about how much Chatsky will get used to the new environment, how much this environment will be able to satisfy the needs of his mind and conscience.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is a drama about the collapse of the human mind in Russia, about the uselessness of the mind in Russia, about the grief experienced by the representative of the mind in Russia.
Didn't Pushkin exclaim: "The devil guessed me to be born in Russia with intelligence and talent!" 3 And Chaadaev, who wrote the most intelligent book 4 in the literature of that time, was not he proclaimed a madman? All high society - high-ranking "elderly Nestors", 5 old women who had gone out of their minds - kept talking about this madness with the whole herd.
Comedy is an accurate, completely accurate self-report about how an intelligent person lives, or rather, how he dies, how an intelligent person dies in Rus'. When we look closely at the biography of Griboyedov, we perfectly understand why he came to such moods. Under any biography there is a big social background. Where did this mind come to Russia, where did it come from, and what kind of mind is it? If Famusov is not very smart, then after all, next to Famusov there were such nobles who the devil didn’t eat, there were smart merchants, peasants who sometimes “went out to people”. In any case, they could judge any matter very well, because our people are not a mediocre people.
But what is the peculiarity of the person about whom they say: this is a smart person? The property of such a person is that he criticizes, because he is smarter than his environment, smarter than those around him. The mind is noticeable precisely because it brings something new and that it is not satisfied with what the ordinary person is satisfied with.
Where did such a mind come from in Rus'? It is the result of deep processes of capitalism growing into Russia. Asiatic feudal forms of existence with a highly developed commercial capital that took place earlier, at the beginning 19th century began to yield to new forms of capitalism, private production, and, since our country was an agricultural country, to agricultural capitalism. The main farmers were, of course, the nobles. The agricultural nobility was for the most part a representative of the Asian principle; it strove in the old fashioned way to profit from serfdom, but in essence it went bankrupt in the old fashioned way. The largest nobles of this type could exist only by additionally extracting funds from the same peasantry through the state machine, receiving them in the form of the same salary. At the same time, the expanding trade in grain with Europe, which gave very great prospects ahead, forced a larger part of the nobility to think about how to begin to catch up with the West, as the autocracy did in its own interests - from time to time - not only under Peter, but and at the beginning of the reign of Catherine and at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I. The government itself sometimes succumbed to that smart current that said: “And militarily we will be beaten, because we are an earthenware pot next to cast iron and will break against it in further shaking along the historical road . We need to renew ourselves, we need to Europeanise.” But to Europeanize means to introduce certain new features of statehood, it means to abolish or, at least to a certain extent, weaken serfdom, to give a certain scope to human initiative.
This was that Western movement, arrogant in its principles, but extremely important in the development of our culture, which led to the then movement of minds and wills and resulted in the Decembrist uprising. And Decembrism itself was a huge rainbow - from conservatism through liberalism to Jacobinism. The circle of the Decembrists, of course, did not encompass all the liberal and progressive-minded Russian people; large figures, only to a certain extent affected by the movement, like Pushkin, Griboyedov. We should not be deceived by the traits of early Slavophilism that Griboyedov shows. This was with him because there were frequent attempts by the autocracy to become Europeanized and there were frequent stripes when a wild reaction set in, when the autocracy was frightened by its own boldness, all serious reforms were extinguished and the period of Arakcheevism began in one form or another. But external Western gilding, like French, tutors, wigs, perfumes, various things of Parisian origin, was not abandoned; on the contrary, everyone saw this as a decisive sign good manners, a sign of belonging to the upper class, a way to establish the correct and real distance between the common people and the tops. This environment of the so-called aristocracy, fashionable by Westernism of the elite, was hated by real progressive people, national pride woke up in them, because they felt that their aspirations were closer to the bulk of the people. They dissociated themselves from the elites who artificially created their own culture and, while apeing in relation to the West, in fact remained wild and barbaric.
Mind thus expressed the appearance of the first avant-gardes, say, of that enlightened bourgeoisie, even if of noble origin, which began to make serious demands for the Europeanization of all Russian life. The carriers of the mind stumbled upon the very Russian life that did not want to be Europeanized beyond the tops, which wanted to remain in a convenient Asian swamp. From this came two main feelings: seething indignation against the pig snouts that surrounded Russian progressive writers from Griboyedov to Gogol, and, on the other hand, next to this indignation, the deepest sorrow. This sorrow was weakened by those who could believe in the revolution, who could believe that this revolution would change everything at once. There was a period of enthusiasm when the Decembrists saw some kind of light; Griboedov could not see this light.
Belinsky did not believe in the possibility of a peasant revolution, did not see any outcome, and the biggest promise he made to himself and to others was that perhaps the bourgeoisie would come and create some prerequisites for the further progressive installation of capitalism in Russia. If we take the most mature layers who were followers of Belinsky, for example Chernyshevsky, then the stamp of tragedy lies on his whole life - not only when he was exiled, but also when he was engaged in a revolution, when in his famous work "Prologue of the Prologue" he repeats a thousand times: Can anything be done? You can't change anything, all that's left is to protest!
Griboyedov is a man of tremendous intelligence and dazzling abilities. Griboyedov is a musician, mathematician, diplomat, writer-stylist, psychologist. He is the only phenomenon. Maybe you can't put anyone next to him. By the diversity of his inclinations, he is a genius. Griboyedov is a colossal, blinding figure. Being so, he experienced two passions. The unceasing voice of a genius spoke in him of denunciation, and at the same time we see in him the deepest grief about the impossibility of escaping from this hell, about the need to seek some path of reconciliation with him. In the area of his life paths, Griboyedov went to such a reconciliation. Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” He is afraid to enter this terrible bureaucratic world. The fact that this bureaucratic world is terrible, Griboyedov knew perfectly well. He writes from Persia: “They are deserting back and forth. The Persians flee to Russia. The Russians flee to Persia. And here and there the officials are equally disgusting.” 7 By officials, he meant the regime. One and the same regime in Russia and in Persia. But he served this regime, and served brilliantly. He quickly rose to high ranks, inwardly, like a genius, realizing his tragic guilt.
To conduct, in the name of commercial capital, a colonial policy; force the defeated Persians to sign the most humiliating colonial peace; 8 to remain in Persia in order to squeeze the last juices out of this country with the press of militaristic police Russia, to rip buttons from the dresses of the Shah's wives, to rip off the gilding from the Shah's throne in order to pay an indemnity - of course, such a person as Griboyedov could not do all this, and next to his career, his longing grows. So, leaving for Persia for the last time, he knew perfectly well where he was going, what awaited him. He spoke of his grave being there. 9 Whether it will be a blow from a secret killer from around the corner or the fury of the people's crowd, specially incited to an anti-Russian pogrom, is not so important. This is Nemesis. He who takes the sword from the sword will perish. Whoever is a rapist in a neighboring country must know that he enjoys universal hatred. Griboyedov knew this. And here is his double defeat - not only by the scimitar that tore his ingenious head from his shoulders, but also morally, since he understood, as one of the first talented, sufficiently energetic colonizers, the essence of his "sardyr": 10 about him he usually responded with suspicious restraint, behind which lies a considerable amount of indignation and hatred.
I think it’s somewhat wrong to say that on his poetic path, Griboedov was something of a loser, that he, having created such an amazing thing in the history of world, and even more so Russian literature, as “Woe from Wit”, dried up after that completely, why suffered very much. 11 After Woe from Wit, it was difficult for him to write anything else, and it is natural that his attempts to create a new work were accompanied by failure. But Griboyedov died thirty-four years old. Is it possible to put an end to the person who created "Woe from Wit"? We cannot say what Griboyedov would have given to the world if his life at thirty-four had not been dissected by a crooked scimitar. But let's not talk about what would have been; let's see how his poetic life nevertheless went and whether he knew revenge here in relation to the deep physical and moral catastrophes in his real life.
Griboyedov repeatedly pointed out that he was called to a different field, that he would have to speak in a different language, that his very play was conceived in the order of something much more majestic, that he to a certain extent brought it down from this height, to the level at which we know it, because of the desire to make it shine under the lights of the ramp. We know one plan of Griboyedov's play, which was tentatively called "The Twelfth Year." We know what plot should have dominated there: in a noble environment, where the peasant was always taken only as an object, at best as a detail, the main character should have been a serf. Not in the nobility, in order to directly declare to them a class struggle to a certain extent, he began to look for great heroes like Chatsky, but in the peasantry. A talented peasant, awakened to political life by the storms of the 12th year, putting his whole soul into defending his homeland, performing true feats, is rewarded for this by the nobility, as a true fighter for Russia. And next to this is a picture of the pseudo-patriotism of the landowners, "cheers-patriotism", all kinds of Repetilov's chatter, the desire to warm their hands, to cash in on the people's disaster.
Such types should have been and in such a plane the ruling class should have been depicted. The war is over. Thinking elements with a heroic will, like a peasant hero, are no longer needed; he returns to normal serf conditions and commits suicide so as not to die under the sticks of his wild master.
I must say that if any of our current writers of 1928-29 undertook to write such a play, they would write a very modern thing, modern not in the sense of a criticism of the present state of Russia, but in the sense of a magnificent criticism of what was. If we still need from time to time to drive an extra aspen stake into the grave of the sorcerer buried by us, who held Russia in his claws for thousands of years, then such a stake would be strong.
But this was conceived by the nobleman Griboedov, grew out of a progressive bourgeois protest, which was formed on economic roots from the demand to Europeanize the country and matured, unfolded as a magnificent flower in the brain of the writer as a demand for humanity, just as Schiller and Goethe demanded that life be cleansed of that old dirty trick, which polluted it.
What is "Woe from Wit"? Griboyedov could no longer carry within himself his hatred, his disgust, he wanted to publicly, in front of everyone, loudly express, shout out his indignation. This is the same feeling that Gorky once wrote about when he first became acquainted with the depraved, exploitative rottenness of France: “I want to spit bile and blood into your beautiful face.” 12 Griboyedov wanted to “spit up bile and blood” in the face of the then official Russia, in the face of the then ruling classes, the ruling bureaucracy. But for this it was necessary to come up with a form. It's not that easy. Come on, spit, not only with bile and blood, but just with a good spit! We know that Chaadaev spat like that and died, if not physically, then politically and civilly. So, it was necessary to take such a tone, to find such a manner in which it was possible for both the kings and the princes to tell the truth. The clownish form for this has long been known; in this form it was possible to drag something through, therefore, leaving behind Chatsky - his prosecutor - the fullness of seriousness (I will say later what trick was used on Chatsky), Griboyedov otherwise tried to make a funny comedy. For this, he borrows new Western European forms - in Lisa, for example, a European is especially widely felt. His intrigue is not God knows how built and not God knows how interesting in itself; one can criticize a work very strongly from this point of view, and it was criticized, but, criticize, gave praise and glory. For why did Griboyedov need to build a thorough comedy that would set off every event, where the construction would stick out to the fore? He didn't need it. He is not a comedian, but he is a great prophet like Jeremiah, 13 who comes to the square to tell the terrible truth about his ardent love and hatred for everything that was a disgrace to his homeland. Therefore, comedy as a form for Griboyedov was completely secondary, he himself spoke about this when he claimed that the conditions of that time forced him to belittle his original plan.
His reception, completely legitimate and deeply artistic and striking, is just akin to buffoonery, but also akin to indignation. But behind the indignation comes disgust. Of course, you can be indignant, but you can also feel respect for what you are indignant against, or you can turn away from all this and forget. But if you are not able to forget and turn away, then behind disgust, behind internally indignant condemnation, the next step is contempt, it already has a desire to laugh at what you despise, because laughter is the reaction of resolving some internal contradictions. You are a monster, but I don’t see anything terrible or terrible in you, you are just a ridiculous disguise, you have long been morally and mentally defeated, and you deserve only laughter. When a person feels the complete victory of the will, then a light humor appears, a feeling of trembling irony, something even like a caressing laugh at an eccentric philistine of Chekhov's type, who, of course, is disgusting, but can one take him seriously? It deserves only to be sprinkled with Dalmatian powder, as it is, after all, a bug.
But when things have not yet come to this victory, when the Famusovs and Skalozubs are the rulers of the country, when their regime is a continuing crime, you won’t go to the fight with free light laughter. And Griboyedov, apparently, went a little too far, took en comique a little too much; * should have been taken more seriously. But there was no other way out, and the way out that was found turned out to be magnificent. It was an outrageous laugh, and nothing kills like laughter, because when you get angry, you don't know who is right, you don't know who wins. But when an arrow of laughter strikes, like the arrow of Pushkin's Apollo, 14 when this luminous arrow pierces the darkness, then we see something else here. This weapon made it easier to fight deformities.
* from the comic side (French). - Ed.
In the end, this play was nevertheless published, saw the stage and became an unsurpassed classical masterpiece of our literature. The play acquired an extremely great not only literary, but also moral significance. If we list how many times in the moral-political sense, for moral-political purposes, the names of the heroes of various comedies are used, then, of course, we will have the primacy behind the heroes of the comedy "Woe from Wit". We still, sometimes almost unconsciously, say “famusism” or “silence”, as if these names were the root terms of our Russian language. In this sense, Griboedov has achieved complete success. After hesitation, after a hitch, he brought a ship filled with explosives under the guise of a comedy and handed it over to the people. The play has become an active tool, although not understood by everyone. Comedy takes on a particularly serious significance because, in addition to the delightful masks created by Griboyedov, it contains a figure representing Griboyedov himself. Chatsky is Griboyedov's password port. Pushkin felt the falsehood in Chatsky. Griboedov is smart, - Pushkin argued, - and Chatsky is stupid: is it possible to throw beads in front of pigs, who will trample him anyway! Chatsky, according to Pushkin, acts as a lone skirmisher, using tirades of condemnation, which eventually lead him to a secular scandal. But what could this boy do with this hulk of Skalozubovism and Famusovism? Pushkin, in spite of all his brilliant vigilance as a critic, did not see (perhaps the close distance from which he looked was to blame) that there was no other way out.
The truth speaks through the mouths of madmen, starting from St. Basil the Blessed and ending with Beloved Tortsov 15 and types closer to us. In a drunken state, a person sometimes becomes a daredevil. He says things he wouldn't say if he was sober. Madness, intoxication Chatsky - in his youth. He is still too young, he has not matured yet. His mind is that of a brilliant boy. His incontinence stems from the fact that he still does not have gray hair, that he has not yet come to terms with meanness, that he has not survived those snaps that both Griboyedov and Pushkin themselves experienced. He therefore does not need to speak in an undertone. He will not reach the political tirades of the Decembrists, he does not need it. At that time, Griboedov himself did not believe in Decembrism. But Griboedov gave the avant-garde fight in order to defeat evil spirits with the help of artistic, moral weapons. And for this, a very young, unrestrained person with a student temperament was enough for him, who, due to his youth, is fond of, and, in addition, in love. But love intoxicates more than any wine, especially unhappy love. Intoxicated with unhappy love, Chatsky completely forgets all caution. But, despite the fact that Chatsky is young and even drunk with unhappy love, he does not say nonsense; he speaks intelligently, because he is intelligent, and by Griboyedov's will, and in general is intelligent, just as boys are often smarter than their grandfathers and fathers. And the situation is created in the deepest way truthful, acceptable. Perhaps, except for Pushkin, no one really thought about this, especially after the censorship missed the play. They even overlooked the question of how Chatsky decides to fight.
I hope that if we continue to give Woe from Wit, then for the role of Chatsky we will choose such artists who could convey this youth, this excellent, bright mischief of an irritated person who “jumped out of himself” due to his youth.
There is no need for me to go into a special analysis of the great figures drawn in Woe from Wit. I will dwell only on why such a phenomenon as “Woe from Wit” or “Inspector General” is possible at all, that is, the phenomenon household comedy smashing bureaucracy, the great light of its time, comedy - a talented agitation, which then turns out to be such a highly artistic work for its time that it survives it.
You know that Aristophanes wrote agitation. It did not seem to Aristophanes in the least that he should write major artistic comedies claiming eternity. He wrote something like the "reviews" of today, like those "Ladies and the Polar Bears," 16 which many of you have probably seen. They were witty revues, a series of scenes riddled with witticisms and sometimes pointing a finger at the auditorium: So-and-so is sitting there. Everything was designed to be topical. But Aristophanes lives and will probably live for a long time, although I sincerely wish all Aristophanes and Griboedovs to finally die. I sincerely wish that these great shadows, which still crave living blood and feed on it, one fine day said: “Now you let go”, lie down in pre-prepared golden tombs - and after that they would be used by our generation only in historical section.
But, unfortunately, this is not yet the case, unfortunately, they are still our fellow citizens, unfortunately, they live among us, because something lives against which they resented. That which one feels disgusted with lives, that which should be despised lives. You have to laugh at this. How does it happen? If a person thinks in advance about a work of art that should live for centuries, wisely thinks about who will read it, what the viewer will be like in a hundred or five hundred years, what tastes will be then, so as not to seem boring then, then such an author usually creates in the spirit of Cupid and Psyche: eternal heroes, eternal sky, eternal woman, and applies everything to her plot, but in fact such a work soon fades. In a mummified form, placed in a historical formalin jar, they are sometimes preserved, but they are only suitable for a museum. Proceed from reality: where your hand lay, then answer a big life problem, and then you will be a real contemporary. And if you are a true contemporary, you will live for centuries. Every great comedy that we know is agitation. She is an agitator because she ridiculed the evil of her time and hit it with all her might. And if you don’t strike with all your might, if you don’t ridicule modern evil, then no matter how curiously or vividly in form a comedy is written, it is a waste of time. Even an operetta lives long only if it contains a certain vinegar, if it captures the negative aspects of its time. As if fun and sweet, but drink - and grimacing. Agitation of this kind in some cases turns out to be great works, but, of course, when it is a blow of gigantic proportions.
Time has different purposes, and these purposes depend on different conditions. When you ride on a train by rail, if you look out the window, telegraph poles rush about and sleepers flicker in front of you. If you shift your gaze to a more distant plan, you can see a mountain that will bother you while you drive: it seems to be standing, not moving. This is what happens in history: relations change, events pass, kings, entire dynasties pass away, but under these transient layers there is a subsoil, there is a main heavy ground that stretches into extremely distant historical perspectives. For example, take the same culture, those outrages and ugly perversions in a person's life that were associated with certain phases from which it is impossible to jump out. Undoubtedly, the "heavenly existence of man" before the emergence of private property was a half-starved ape existence. It was inevitable, as all subsequent epochs are inevitable - capitalism, imperialism and the epoch of struggle in which we live.
We have just now reached the place where catastrophically in the cliffs, in the volcanic depths, a huge thousand-year-old formation is changing to a new one. And when the giant strikes the old cultural layer with his critical pick, he breaks through the soil with it to extraordinary depths. Griboedov beats through the Nikolaev official into the official in general. He hits further - he hits the egoist-man in general. And then it turns out that his blow, bleeding, painful, hits the obsolete, but still alive. The blow remains healing until a huge amount of time passes in general, until the historical train leaves our horizon for the most, most distant plan.
The October Revolution dealt such a devastating blow to the old world that potsherds flew from it in all directions. Not a single revolution that has ever taken place in the world can, even remotely, equal in radicalism, in its destruction and the fire that was lit on earth, with the October Revolution. This fire is still burning, and by its light we begin to build a new majestic building, a new city, about which mankind has been groaning for so long. It is slowly starting to rise. But you look around and see how familiar reptiles crawl out of various holes and crevices. These reptiles begin to build their burrows, weave their webs. How long will they crawl? Where is the border? Is it possible to draw a magic circle and say that behind it, over there, are the philistine scum, NEPmen and kulaks, the old and new bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie, and here everything is honest, all those who crossed over to this side of the barricades, the entire heroic proletariat, made from one piece of steel, his entire communist vanguard? When you look closely, you will see that there is no circle beyond which these bastards should not crawl, that they crawl into all the cracks of the temporary buildings that are now being built, and strive to crawl through between the boulders of the newly built socialist city. Climbing into all the holes, they everywhere sow fine dust, infection. We breathe it into ourselves, and sometimes disgusting dirty tricks start up in us. The Party itself, which is the bulwark of our hopes, is sometimes not free from contagion.
The periodic purges carried out by the party show what a contaminated environment one has to live in. What is true for the Party is true for every intelligent, honest person, for every progressive, for everyone who builds a positive life and who must live next to the carriers of that infection that was once considered health. But our joy is that now everything healthy is marching under the red banner and will stifle this disease. And in this sense, in his poetic field, Griboyedov turned out to be a great winner. He has outlived his time, and he will probably live to a greater old age than the one he has reached today, for the struggle in which he performed so brilliantly continues even after that decisive defeat that has been inflicted in our country on all the abomination of worldly weapons by Lenin and communist parties.
Today in one of the newspapers I saw a cartoon signed "Sovchinovnik": 17 people in a dressing gown are sleeping on a sofa. He is being bombarded with shrapnel, he snores and hears nothing. The word "negligence" is inextricably linked with the figure of Famusov. This is his spirit. He lives even now and snoring answers the demands of life. Life put a man on a high chair, and he found the chair comfortable and began to doze off there. Here is a picture that is often found in different offices, and sometimes in offices on which much depends. And the more we move from the most brilliant centers to the twilight, the more we will find such things.
In yesterday's newspaper I read that one justice of the peace, whose last name was not Skalozub, but something like Skalozubenko, had reason not to like a member of the City Council, and when he managed to find fault with him, although, as it turned out later, there were no reasons for this and he had to justify, then he wanted to shame him in front of the whole city. He did not stop at the fact that his enemy was sick, ordered him to be tied up and the sick man, despite the 40 ° temperature, be brought and put in the dock. 18 We had this in Soviet Russia, this was done by a Soviet judge in relation to a member of the city Soviet of Workers', Peasants' and Red Army Deputies.
You will say: well, what kind of judge Skalozub is he, he has no epaulettes, no insignia, piping, buttonholes 19 and he has no weapons. But the judge, after all, did not bring this member of the city council himself, but through the Soviet police, which in this case played the role played by Skalozub.
Skalozub is the embodiment of that military power, which is a hallmark of any state. Engels said: the state is an organization based on a group of armed people, with the help of which the ruling classes govern in their own interests. 20 And we rely on groups of armed people - on the Red Army, on the police, in order to govern with their help, in the interests of our proletarian class. There is no doubt that every person from our military or police apparatus is a thrice criminal Skalozub if he distorts the character of our state in the name of the order of this or that imaginary dignitary.
We had to recruit old bureaucrats. Among these bureaucrats are the Famusovs and the Skalozubs, whom we hear about and read about in the newspapers. Our task is to heal these ulcers and defects, and often have to be cured surgically.
Griboedov's smaller dwarfs and demons probably don't deserve mention, but the Molchalins, Zagoretskys, Repetilovs, of course, are still alive today. These are the ones they talk about: he is mean, illegible in principles, but he can still be put into action, because he is submissive, obedient, does everything he is ordered, a dutiful person. Such speeches must be heard. Meanwhile, the shadow of Griboyedov whispers: remember Molchalin. And next to Molchalin there are people who are dexterous in all trades, masters of finding all sorts of ways out. Again Griboedov's shadow suggests: remember Zagoretsky. There is also a certain synthetic type in which you can’t distinguish what is more in it - Molchalin, Zagoretsky or Repetilov: it crackles, offers projects, kowtows, honey flows from the tongue, and at the same time it is a tiny Mephistopheles or a Peredonov-type imp. 21
Griboyedov is still alive. But the hour will be joyful when Griboyedov the satirist will no longer be able to work with us, because this work will already be finished.
But Griboedov also works as a great teacher of drama. We cannot give only one Griboyedov. We must be able to work in a modern way, in different conditions. Some of the mass of Griboedov's types have turned pale, have no former significance, but other types have grown; some have remained the same. We need a new Soviet satirical comedy. It will not resemble a powerful blow of a man on an iron rock - it will resemble a man who took an iron broom and sweeps the rubbish in the name of the future. At the time of Griboyedov, the fighter was small in comparison with the black force with which he fought. And now the wrestler is a huge force fighting for the future. Satirical comedy is a force that ozonizes the air, it is laughter, which is highly needed. Russian dramaturgy is a backward wing in Russian literature, and comedy is the most backward part of this wing. We don't have many great comedies, but they do exist. And Fonvizin did not quite calm down in his grave, and even more so Griboedov, Shchedrin and writers closer to us. It is impossible to ignore the lessons given by Ostrovsky, Sukhovo-Kobylin. We must learn from all of them, and Griboedov has more than anyone else. From Griboedov, one must learn the design of individual figures. In one of his letters, he writes: "I have all the portraits, I do not stoop to caricatures." 22 But this does not mean at all that the characters are written off exactly from really existing people. It is unlikely that the researcher Famusova, Molchalin, Skalozub could say this. These people are taken synthetically. Griboyedov's everything corresponds to reality, everything is pure artistic realism, the goods are given without admixture. A truly genuine portrait begins only where it synthesizes the whole person in his most characteristic features and broad types. The truthful type in literature is a portrait, and the more it captures, the more it acquires artistry and social significance.
In this form, he gave portraits of Griboedov, and, moreover, in speech and in action, and this is what the comedian is called upon to do. Synthetically, without caricaturing, to take through laughter the most necessary essence of figures typifying an entire band, an entire breed in modern society - this needs to be learned, and this, perhaps, cannot be learned from anyone like from Griboyedov. I am at a loss to say whether we can find figures of the same synthetic force in anyone else, not excluding even Gogol - perhaps only by taking the figure of Khlestakov beyond the limits.
Then - the most amazing language of Griboyedov. Let them say that our language is in a creative process and it is difficult, impossible for us to write in Griboedov's language. Griboyedov wrote at a time when the language was being formed: it was formed in the true sense of the word only after Pushkin. Griboyedov, on the other hand, created speech in the very crucible, he was a huge experimenter, an accumulator of wealth, and we must do this in our time. Classical language is the language that reflects its time with the greatest completeness. In the critical era in which the great comedy was created, Griboedov, from the amazing linguistic material that he noticed with such a social and musical ear, managed to create a thing full of life, that is, a genuine dramatic dialogue that is even more alive than the conversation that flows between living people. persons, which is all dynamic in every single moment of the existence of mankind, in which the social classes of people participating in this dialogue are constantly revealed. The monologue itself is here only a shudder of the soul, at the moment lonely. But as a result of passionate contacts with the social environment in which this soul recently found itself, almost every single phrase of Griboedov's dialogue is a crystal of such correctness, such pure water, that we took everything completely and beautified our language for a hundred years and probably even longer.
In my speech today, which is by no means a lecture on Griboyedov, I cannot speak about every image of Griboyedov, and I must dwell on these small remarks.
I am very glad that Meyerhold, a living talent of our time, tried both in The Inspector General and in Woe from Wit to begin work, revealing horror and anger behind laughter, revealing behind the targets they were aiming at - Nikolaev bureaucracy - millennial human vices. 23 Marx said that he would be an idiot who does not understand what a colossal significance classical literature (and, consequently, Griboyedov) has for the proletariat, 24 because if a person describes his province or district a hundred years before us, this means that he caught the historical causes of events and he managed to find something there that casts its terrible shadow over the whole life of a person, take at least the period of property that needed to be reformed. And we must approach Griboyedov not from the point of view of admiration for the great dead man, not from the point of view of recompense according to merit, which our revolution should recognize, not from the point of view of some kind of ceremonial at all; if we have to unearth everything that relates to the works of Griboedov and his personality, if we have to remember Griboyedov, it is because we need to better understand the roots of his mood and those conclusions that are vital to our time.
And we should treat his work not as an obsolete and unnecessary thing, but we should think about what kind of chalk to clean, on what pedestal to put, with what kind of spotlight to illuminate it so that even today it burns with the most dazzling rays, as having extraordinary power. This is the task before us. Griboyedov is still fully alive, and the best reverence for Griboyedov will be precisely if we, without abandoning the task of restoring Woe from Wit, as it went for the first time (badly, they say, it went, did not correspond to Griboedov’s plans), following the path of Meyerhold, - and it has many paths - let's try to present Griboyedov in such a way that the power of his genius, with the help of all the technology of our era, becomes even more obvious and interesting.
Let's say that Griboyedov is alive and we must make him even better, even more alive. Let us take advantage of the unfortunate circumstance that his work has not yet been completed and include him in our mechanism, in our human apparatus, with which we will complete this work. We extend our proletarian hand to Griboyedov through death and say to him: “You live well, comrade Griboyedov! Come work with us. You've made a very good start cleaning the Augean stables. We haven't cleaned it up yet. The work, it is true, is mournful, but now it is much more cheerful. Time to finish it. Alexander Sergeevich, please come to us!”
Notes
1. Lunacharsky, apparently, quotes from memory a letter from S. N. Begichev dated September 9, 1825. Griboyedov: “Travelers who know me from magazines came: the writer of Famusov and Skalozub, therefore, a cheerful person. Ugh, villainy! yes, I’m sad, bored, disgusting, unbearable! .. ”(Griboyedov, p. 566).
2. An inaccurate quote from Griboedov's letter to S. N. Begichev dated January 4, 1825 (cf.: Griboedov, p. 556).
3. A not entirely accurate quote from Pushkin's letter to his wife dated May 18, 1836 (cf.: Pushkin, vol. X, p. 583).
4. We are talking about the "Philosophical Letters", written in 1829-1831. The first letter was published in the magazine "Telescope", 1836, book. XV.
5. See Chatsky's monologue ("Woe from Wit", act II, yavl. 5).
6. The expression of the mayor from Gogol's "Inspector General" (act V, yavl. VIII).
7. Quoted with some deviations from the text, the report of A. S. Griboyedov dated October 6, 1819 to the charge d'affaires in Russian affairs in Persia, S. I. Mazarovich. The report was sent from Tiflis. .
8. This refers to the Turkmanchay peace (1828), which ended the Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828. According to the Turkmanchay Treaty, the Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates went to Russia, Persia was obliged to pay a large indemnity.
9. The words “There is my grave! I feel like I can't see more Russia” were said by Griboyedov to F.V. Bulgarin. See Sat. "A. S. Griboedov in the memoirs of contemporaries”, “Federation”, M. 1929, p. 34.
10. Nicholas I is implied.
11. Lunacharsky has in mind the view of Griboyedov, formulated in the work of N. K. Piksanov “A. S. Griboyedov. Biographical sketch "(in the book: Complete Works of A. S. Griboedov, vol. I, St. Petersburg. 1911, pp. CXXVIII-CXXIX), as well as in his article "Griboyedov's Soul Drama" ("Contemporary", 1912, book I, pp. 223–243).
12. An inaccurate quote from M. Gorky's pamphlet "Beautiful France" (1906).
13. Jeremiah - Jewish prophet, whose activity dates back to about 628-586 years. BC e.
14. “Epigram (From the anthology)” by A. S. Pushkin to A. N. Muravyov, written in 1827, is implied. And your face shines with victory, Belvedere Apollo!
15. We love Tortsov - a character from A. N. Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is not a vice" (1854).
16. In 1929, the Moscow Music Hall staged a review by S. Voskresensky and V. Ya. Tipot “Where the ice is”. One of dance numbers this review was called "The Lady and the Bears" (staged by K. Ya. Goleizovsky).
17. The cartoon about which Lunacharsky speaks was published in the newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva, 1929, No. 34, and February.
18. Lunacharsky could read about such a case in the newspaper Pravda, 1929, No. 33, February 9, under the heading "Court" under the heading "Exceptional case."
19. Skalozub's remark is implied (cf.: "Woe from Wit", act III, yavl. 12).
20. See the work of F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 21, pp. 170–171).
21. Peredonov, a character from F. Sologub's novel The Petty Demon (1892–1902, published in 1905), which has become a household name, is a type of philistine, reactionary, informer and coward.
22. Griboyedov wrote to P. A. Katenin (first half of January 1825): “... portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy, however, they have features that are characteristic of many other people, and others of the whole human race are so how much each person is similar to all his bipedal counterparts. I hate caricatures, you won’t find a single one in my picture” (Griboyedov, pp. 557–558).
23. This refers to the productions of Gogol's The Government Inspector (1926) and Griboyedov's Woe from Wit (1928) at the Theater. Sun. Meyerhold in Moscow. In the Meyerhold Theater, Griboyedov's comedy was called "Woe to the Mind."
24. Lunacharsky means Marx's statement in his unfinished work "Introduction (From the economic manuscripts of 1857-1858)" about the enduring aesthetic value of ancient art (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 12, pp. 737-738 ).
Keywords: Woe from Wit, Alexander Griboedov, Alexander Griboyedov's work, and Griboedov, criticism, life and work, download an essay, download for free, read online, Russian literature 19 st, Woe from Wit, characterization, analysis, comedy, Lunacharsky
One of the most profound and touching Russian epitaphs is inscribed by Griboedov's widow over his grave:
"Your mind and deeds are immortal in the memory of Russians, but why did my love survive you?"
The murder of an ambassador plenipotentiary, all the officials (with the exception of one) and all the guards is an absolutely extraordinary thing, unheard of in history. Griboyedov could not predict it logically, quite clearly, as an inevitable fact arising from the established diplomatic relations. If I could, I would have reported it to my superiors in a timely manner and would not have received an ill-fated appointment, I would not have gone to Persia.
But what he could not express with objective persuasiveness, he knew by intuition quite exactly, for sure. “He was sad and had strange forebodings,” Pushkin recalled. “I wanted to calm him down, but he told me: “Vous ne connaissez pas ces gens-la! Vous verrez qu "il faudra jouer des couteaux! (You do not know these people! You will see that it will come to knives! (Fr.))" His very departure from Petersburg was marked by these forebodings. A.A. Gendre says: “We sadly saw Griboedov off. Only two people saw off to Tsarskoye Selo: A.V. Vsevolozhsky and I. This is the mood we were then: I had a farewell breakfast; we smoked, smoked terribly, finally, the crowd subsided, we stayed alone. It was a cloudy and rainy day. We drove as far as Tsarskoye Selo, and not one of us said a word. In Tsarskoye Selo, Griboedov ordered, as it was already evening, to bring a bottle of Burgundy, which he loved very much, a bottle of champagne and "No one touched anything. Finally, we said goodbye. Griboyedov got into the carriage; we saw how she turned the corner of the street, returned with Vsevolozhsky to Petersburg and did not say a single word to each other all the way - definitely not a single ".
Griboyedov stayed in Moscow for two days: he said goodbye to his mother. Then he went to the Tula province to his sister. On the way, I stopped by an old friend, S.N. Begichev. Visiting Begichev, he was extremely gloomy all the time and finally said: "Farewell, brother Styopa, it is unlikely that we will see each other again!" And he also explained: “I have a presentiment that I will not return alive from Persia ... I know the Persians. Allayar Khan is my personal enemy he leaves me!"
With such thoughts he drove to Tiflis. Princess Nina Chavchavadze lived there. She looked like Madonna Murillo, and she was only 16 years old. And Griboyedov was thirty-three. He had known her for a long time, once gave her music lessons, she grew up before his eyes. He was in love, but secretly, reservedly and, perhaps, coldly: he learned to despise women from his youth. And suddenly, in those darkest days of his (forgetting about the forebodings of death? Or, perhaps, just because they clarified, elevated, sharpened all his feelings?) - he somehow suddenly blossomed all over. Already on July 24, he wrote to Bulgarin, with whom he had a friend:
"It was the 16th. On that day I dined with an old friend of mine, I sat at the table opposite Nina Chavchavadzeva, kept looking at her, thinking, my heart began to beat, I don't know if anxiety was of a different kind, at work, now unusually important, or something else gave me extraordinary determination, leaving the table, I took her hand and said to her: "Venez avec moi, j" ai quelque chose a vous dire (Come with me, I need to tell you something (fr. ))". She listened to me, as always; right, she thought that I would seat her at the piano; it didn't turn out right; her mother's house is near, we dodged there, went into the room, my cheeks flushed, my breath caught, I don't remember what I started to mutter to her, and more and more lively, she cried, laughed, I kissed her, then to her mother , to her grandmother, to her second mother, Pras. Nick. Akhverdova, we were blessed, I hung on her lips all night and all day, sent a courier to her father in Erivan with letters from both of us and from relatives ... "
After that, all events rushed with tragic speed. The letter to Bulgarin was already written from the road, because the explanation took place on July 16, and on the night of the 18th Griboedov went to Paskevich in Akhalkalaki. He returned to Tiflis on August 4 and immediately fell ill with a fever. When he felt better, he hurried with the wedding. The wedding took place on August 22 in the evening. During the wedding, the fever again began to shake Griboyedov, and he dropped his wedding ring (as Pushkin dropped his ring a year and a half later). September 9 Griboyedov with his wife, with her mother and with the ranks of the embassy left for Persia. They were accompanied by an honorary escort and a Persian official sent by the Shah. Seeing off was solemn, military music played. From the road, Griboyedov wrote a wonderful letter to one of his acquaintances in St. Petersburg: “I am married, traveling with a huge caravan, 110 horses and mules, we spend the night under tents on the heights of the mountains, where it is winter cold, my Ninusha does not complain, she is happy with everything, playful, cheerful; for a change there are we have brilliant meetings, the cavalry rushes at full speed, dusts, dismounts and congratulates us on our happy arrival where we would not like to be at all.Today we were received by the entire clergy of the monastery in Etchmiadzin, with crosses, icons, banners, singing, smoking, etc. . .. Drop your Traper and Cooper's Prairie ("Prairie" (fr.)), - my novel is alive before your eyes and a hundred times more entertaining ... "
They were overwhelmed with happiness. The wife said to Griboyedov: "How did it all happen! Where am I, what and with whom! We will live a century, we will never die!"
The caravan solemnly entered the borders of Persia, but the fever tormented Griboyedov all the time. He arrived in Tabriz on October 7 half-ill. Things, meanwhile, did not wait. Already in Tabriz, the most serious complications with the Persians began. Griboedov had to go further, to Tehran. Nina Alexandrovna was pregnant - and not entirely safely. It was decided that she should stay in Tabriz. On December 9, Griboyedov left. On this day, he saw his wife for the last time: on January 30 (February 11), he was killed in Tehran by a crowd of Persians.
His death was hidden from his wife for a long time. But one relative let it slip, Nina Alexandrovna became hysterical, and she prematurely gave birth to a child who lived only a few hours.
Griboyedov's body was taken from Tehran very slowly. On June 11, not far from the fortress of Gergera, his famous meeting with Pushkin took place. Finally, the procession approached Tiflis, where the widow was with her relatives. In the "Son of the Fatherland" 1830, an unknown author signed eyewitness said:
"The road from the quarantine to the city outpost goes along the right bank of the Kura; on both sides stretch vineyards, fenced with high stone walls. There was something majestic in the sad procession and inexplicably touched the soul: the dusk of the evening, illuminated by torches, the walls, completely humiliated by weeping Georgian women, Wrapped in white veils, the drawn-out singing of the clergy, behind the chariot of the crowd of people, the memory of the terrible death of Griboedov - tore apart the hearts of those who knew and loved him! the first torch announced to her the nearness of precious dust; she fainted, and for a long time they could not bring her to her senses.
It was July 17, 1829, exactly one year and one day after their impetuous explanation; exactly on the very anniversary of the day that Griboyedov spent "hanging on the lips" of Princess Nina Chavchavadze. Their very marriage lasted only three and a half months. Griboedov was right when he wrote that his living novel was a hundred times more entertaining than Cooper's novels.
We dwelled on the story of Griboyedov's love and death in such detail because it was not an accidental tragic conclusion, mechanically attached by fate to his life. Here, in this gloomy and romantic finale, the general mood of Griboedov's life, rich in feelings, impressions and events, only sounded more clearly. Griboyedov was a man of remarkable intelligence, a great education, a peculiar, very complex and, in essence, charming character. Under a rather dry, and often bilious restraint, he buried the depth of a feeling that did not want to be expressed over trifles. But in worthy cases, Griboyedov showed both strong passion and active love. He knew how to be an excellent, if somewhat unyielding, diplomat, and a dreamy musician, and a "citizen backstage", and a friend of the Decembrists. The very story of his last love and death would not have succeeded for an ordinary person. Finally, poetry was the greatest love of his life... But here is the question, one of the most important questions about Griboedov: Was this love for poetry mutual? Did the muse of poetry give Griboyedov mutual love?
The fact that everything written by Griboyedov before and after Woe from Wit is of no literary value has never been denied by anyone, even N.K. Piksanov, the most active admirer of Griboedov, who put so much work and knowledge into the study of his beloved author. Griboyedov - "a man of one book". If not for Woe from Wit, Griboedov would have no place at all in Russian literature. What's the matter? The imperfection of what was written before "Woe from Wit" can, for example, be explained by immaturity and inexperience. But how to explain the quantitative and qualitative insignificance of everything that was written after? After all, Griboyedov died nine years after the end of his comedy. During these years, nothing happened that could lower his will to be creative. On the contrary, this will has reached, perhaps, a special tension. There were no external obstacles either. But Griboyedov could not create anything. He was aware of his creative impotence - and suffered extremely. In 1825, he wrote from the Crimea to his friend: “Well, I spent almost three months in Tavrida, and the result was zero. I didn’t write anything. Am I demanding too much of myself? Can I write? That I have plenty to say, I vouch for. Why am I mute? Mute as a coffin!"
Griboedov's creative impotence after Woe from Wit is beyond doubt. But the history of literature, recognizing it as a fact, does not seek to explain it, as if falling silent before the unexplored depths of creative psychology. It seems, however, that much can be explained here - and not without the benefit of establishing a correct view of "Woe from Wit" itself. Let us at least try to outline this explanation, since the limits of the newspaper article do not prevent it.
Before Woe from Wit, Griboyedov's writings followed two lines that differed greatly from each other. On the one hand, these were lyrical poems, attempts at poetic creativity, in the exact sense of the word. And here it is impossible not to say directly that these attempts are out of hand weak. But, apparently, they were not given to Griboedov easily either. Only a few poems have come down to us, banal in content and helpless in form. Here is an example of "Epitaph to Dr. Castaldi":
From the countries of Italy-fatherland
An unknown fate brought him here.
Wanderer, here he was looking for a better life...
Far from his own, he found a close death.
This is by no means the worst of Griboedov's poems of that time. But its shortcomings are obvious, and it has no advantages. Meanwhile, it was not a boy who wrote this: the author was already twenty-six years old. And here's the wonderful thing: at that very time he was already thinking about "Woe from Wit."
Another cycle of Griboyedov's writings consisted of plays and lung passages comedy and vaudeville. We have received several of them. Despite their trifling content, they are qualitatively much higher than Griboyedov's lyrics. They have a certain stage dexterity. But upon closer examination, it turns out that there is no need to talk about real authorship here. Indeed: "The Young Spouses" is a verse (in terrifying verses) reworking of a French play; "Student" was written in collaboration with Katenin; "Own Family" - just a few scenes inserted into Shakhovsky's comedy; "Feigned infidelity" is just a translation; "Who is a brother, who is a sister" - written in collaboration with Vyazemsky. So, except for a perfect trifle (a vaudeville interlude with couplets) - everything that bears the name of Griboyedov here turns out to be either a translation, or a remake, or, finally, written under the supervision and influence of more mature and experienced authors: Katenin, Shakhovsky, Vyazemsky.
If we now turn to the period after"Woe from Wit," then we immediately notice a significant phenomenon: Griboedov resolutely turns away from the comedy genre. He writes "important" lyric poetry and sketches high-style tragedies. But the lyrics remain almost at the same low level as they were before "Woe from Wit". Only in the message to the actress Teleshova and in the poem "Liberated", if desired, can one find some merit. As for tragedies, Griboyedov himself was aware of their fatal shortcomings, he suffered - and the matter did not go beyond sketches, plans, individual scenes.
This happened because, with his vast mind, with all his understanding of poetry, with his great love for it - Griboyedov was deprived of his poetic gift - and he was aware of this. In 1826, he wrote to the same Begichev: "Poetry! I love it without memory, passionately, but is love alone enough to glorify yourself?"
This is where we come to "Woe from Wit". The fall of Griboyedov's creativity after this comedy will forever remain inexplicable if we look at it as a fall. In reality, there was no fall: in the poetic and tragic art of the great style, which Griboedov demanded of himself, he, as he was before, remained helpless after. The experience of "Woe from Wit" could not be useful to him here, because it was nothing more than a developed experience of that light, comedic line of creativity, which Griboyedov refused, which he himself did not consider worthy of himself.
"Woe from Wit" is the result of everyday observations and a well-known line of thought that brought Griboyedov closer to Decembrism. Under the strong pressure of experiences, completely limited to the area of contemporary Griboyedov's public and politics, these observations resulted in a comedy richly saturated with social satirical material. But as an artist, Griboyedov himself demanded more from himself. He himself was aware that the satirical impulse of Woe from Wit was not the impulse of "great" art, true poetry, and he languished that fate had not given him strength for this art.
"Woe from Wit", with all the brilliance of the dialogue, with all the vitality of the characters, with all the scenic virtues (of which there are many in it, despite the well-known shortcomings), is still nothing more than a satire, a work that, by its very nature, is worth, so to speak , in the background art. With maximum dignity, satire is still wingless, like a fable. Only internal overcoming can inspire it, giving it a second, more profound, universal and enduring meaning, which is not in Woe from Wit, but which Gogol was soon able to give to his comedy. Behind the images of a provincial town, Gogol opened up huge philosophical perspectives, from satire he ascended to the height of the religious and creative feat that Griboedov craved as a potential artist, and to which, as a real satirist, he did not rise: he did not know where the "overcome" satire could lead, and in "Woe from Wit" did not try to overcome it.
Everything that in Gogol is deepened and exalted, in Griboyedov remains in the plane of this everyday way of life. Gogol showed his comedy as our common tragedy to this day. "Inspector without end!" exclaims Gogol. And he is right, because the theme of his comedy remains eternal. We clearly know about "Woe from Wit" that it ended with the end of Famus' Moscow.
Russia will forever be grateful to Griboyedov. We will forever re-read "Woe from Wit" - this true "feat of an honest man", a civil feat, courageous and timely. We will always look for living and truthful evidence of past times in Griboedov's comedy. We will do justice to the brightness and truthfulness of the image. But in deep moments, when we, alone with ourselves, are looking for revelations in poetry that are more necessary, vital for our very soul, will we, will we be able to read "Woe from Wit"? Without revelation, without divination, there is no poetry. That is why Griboedov himself did not continue his tradition, did not want to use the experience gained in creating this thing. He knew what poetry was, he strived painfully for it, but this path was closed to him.
Vladislav Felitsianovich Khodasevich (1886-1939) poet, prose writer, literary critic.
Lesson 21
Chronicle of life and work A.S. Griboedova
The goal is to study the biography of A.S. Griboedov, knowledge control
1 Introduction
In 1816, an article appeared, the author of which sharply criticized Zhukovsky's famous ballad "Lyudmila". The name of the author of the article became known in literary world. It was A.S. Griboyedov. Who was he: critic, playwright, military man, diplomat, musician, politician?
The fate of G. is tragic, beautiful and mysterious. It is not known for certain what year he was born (1795|1794|1790), and died under mysterious circumstances.
2 Checking remote sensing - refute or confirm information
Griboyedov was born into an impoverished noble family
No , Griboyedov was born into a wealthy noble family, his father was a retired military man, his mother was an intelligent woman and a despotic landowner
Griboyedov's first teachers were the Moscow University librarian Petrozilius and the tutor Bogdan Ivanovich Ion, who graduated from the University of Göttingen in Germany
Yes
Entered the university at the age of 13
We cannot answer this question with accuracy, since the exact date of Griboyedov's birth is not known, but in the period from 1806 to 1812 he studied at the university
Graduated in 6.5 years at the faculty
Yes, he is graduating philosophical and law faculties Moscow University. The Patriotic War of 1812 prevented me from graduating from the third faculty of mathematics and natural sciences, as well as from passing the exams for the degree of Doctor of Law.
Fluent in four languages: English, French, German, Italian
No , he knew the listed languages, Latin, Greek, also studied oriental languages
Griboyedov is a wonderful composer
Yes , 2 of his waltzes are known
Griboyedov is a famous diplomat
Yes, he worked for many years in Persia, in the Caucasus, conducted diplomatic relations with Turkey, participated in a military campaign against Erivan, went to the Persian camp for negotiations, formed a number of articles of the Turkmanchay peace treaty, and in 1828 brought it to St. Petersburg for approval. He was an outstanding diplomat, but not all of his proposals and plans were approved by the government of Nicholas I. Griboedov was weary of public service, dreamed of another career, but he was forced to serve, hidden in political exile
Generously awarded by the government for signing a peace treaty with Persia
Yes , Griboyedov was received with honor by the emperor, awarded the rank of state councilor, an order and four thousand chervonets, was appointed to the post of minister plenipotentiary in Persia
Participated in the war of 1812
No , despite poor eyesight, he volunteered for the Moscow Hussars. He did not have to participate directly in hostilities, which he regretted very much.
During his service in the army, his first works were published in the journal Vestnik Evropy
Yes , these were the essays “Letter from Brest-Litovsky to the publisher of Vestnik Evropy” and the article “On Cavalry Reserves”
Pushkin, Griboyedov and Kuchelbecker met at an evening in a literary salon
No , they met on June 15, 1817 in the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where they were on official business
Exiled to Persia for involvement in the Decembrist uprising
No, Griboyedov's ideological closeness to the Decembrists is well known, but he could not take direct part in the uprising, because. was in the Caucasus, the reason for his move to Persia is as follows. In 1817, a duel between A.P. Zavadsky and V.V. Sheremetyev took place, ending in the death of the latter. The denouement of this duel was a duel between the seconds - Griboedov and A.I. Yakubovich, where Griboedov was wounded in the arm. He decided to change his life, because. he was very upset by the consequences of this duel, and accepted the offer to become the secretary of the Russian diplomatic mission in Persia, and in 1818 he left for the East
- "Woe from Wit" - a tragedy written in 1826.
No , a comedy written in 1824
His death was accidental
No, the death of Griboyedov was the result of a well-thought-out plan, although the Persian government assured that this was a tragic accident, in turn, the Russian government did nothing to restore the truth., it was identified by a scar on the hand that was shot during a duel
Killed in Tehran
Yes, January 30, 1829 a huge crowd, armed with anything, incited by religious fanatics, attacked the building of the Russian embassy. The entire Russian embassy (37 people) was literally torn to pieces. According to some reports, the torn body of Griboedov was dragged through the streets of Tehran for three days, and then thrown into a pit. The Russian government demanded the release of the body. On June 11, 1829, A.S. Pushkin, on his way to the active army, on the way from Tiflis to Kara, met a simple cart accompanied by several Georgians. "Where are you from?" - Asked Pushkin. From Tehran. - "What are you carrying?" - "Griboyeda ..." So Pushkin learned that Griboyedov's prophetic words about his own death, which he said in St. Petersburg when parting, came true
Buried in Tiflis, in the monastery of David
Yes, shortly before leaving for Persia, Griboyedov, as if foreseeing his death, told his wife: “Do not leave my bones in Persia: if I die there, then bury me in Tiflis, in the monastery of David.” There he is buried
Yes, Griboyedov married his daughter in Tiflis Georgian poet and General of the Russian Service A.G. Chavchavadtse, Princess Nina Alexandrovna in 1828, they stayed together for about 4 months, and Griboyedov again left for Persia, where he was killed
- "Griboedov belongs to the most powerful manifestations of the Russian spirit" considered V. G. Belinsky
Yes
Griboyedov managed to do a lot in his short life. Of his literary heritage, the longest creative life was destined for the comedy "Woe from Wit".
The main artistic principles of the writer were "nationality" and "truth" in their inseparability. He advocated the liberation of Russian literature from the element of imitation, from the mechanical transfer of borrowed ideas and plots to Russian soil. Griboedov considered it necessary to look for literary material, first of all, in the life of modern Russian society, in history, in the life of the people. In contrast to the sublimely pretentious language of the works of sentimentalists and classicists, the writer turns to urban vernacular, to the living language spoken by people of that time.
DZ reading of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Reading an article in the account. "About the comedy" Woe from Wit "(1824)" p.147-156, abstract
(special attention to the history of creation and characterization of images)
Answer the questions orally - 1, 2, 12 p. 164
Start learning the monologue of Famusov or Chatsky
Lesson 22
Introduction to comedy characters"Woe from Wit" (I action)
Goal - list analysis actors, characteristics of the heroes of the work, the study of the history of the creation of Griboedov's comedy
"Woe from Wit" - a phenomenon that we have not seen since the time of "Undergrowth",
Full of characters outlined boldly and sharply;
A living picture of Moscow customs, the soul is in feelings,
Intelligence and wit in speeches, unprecedented fluency
And the nature of spoken language in poetry.
All this attracts, amazes, attracts attention
A. Bestuzhev
1 Introduction
Griboyedov is a man of one book. If not for "Woe from Wit",
Griboyedov would have absolutely no place in Russian literature.
V.F.Khodasevich
Indeed, Griboedov entered the history of Russian literature as the author of the comedy Woe from Wit, although he also wrote other works (Young Spouses, Student, etc.), he is the author of the first Russian realistic comedy.
2 History of creation
The idea of the comedy arose in 1816-20, according to some sources in 1812, but active work above text begins in Tiflis after returning from Persia.
S.N. Begichev, a friend of Griboyedov, wrote:“... the plan for this comedy was made by him back in St. Petersburg in 1816, and several scenes were even written, but I don’t know if Griboedov changed it in Persia or Grisia in many ways and destroyed some of the characters.”
There is a version that the plot of the comedy was dreamed by the author:“I woke up ... the cold of the night dispelled my unconsciousness, lit a candle in my temple, sit down to write, and vividly remember my promise: it was given in a dream, it will come true!”
The comedy was completed by 1824, at the same time a new version of the title “Woe from Wit” appeared, previously there was the name “Woe to Wit”. The comedy was copied by hand, excerpts were published only in 1825 in a form distorted by censorship. The success was amazing. The comedy came out in an abbreviated form in 1833 after the death of the author, and in 1862 it came out in full.
3 Acquaintance with the characters of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Read the index of actors. What are the names of the heroes that give us an idea of the character and qualities of their owners?
Famusov - (from lat fama - rumor, gossip) - a large and influential official, "noble father", teaches, guides the true young generation, a widower. In a brilliant self-portrait monologue, he recommends himself as a model of virtue, but he exposes himself. "Known for monastic behavior," nevertheless flirts with the maid and talks about the doctor's christening. Wear everything new. The main enemy is teaching, because it violates the immobility of the world, the dream is “to take away all the books, and burn them”
Molchalin - (he is heartless, his soul is silent) - the role of a stupid lover, Sophia's hearty friend, despising her in his soul, dreams of Lisa, ranks and awards. His motto is “to please all people without exception”, his main qualities are “moderation and accuracy”, “husband-boy, husband-servant, izzhenina pages - the high ideal of all Moscow men
Puffer - the image of an ideal Moscow groom, rude, pleased with himself, rich, strives for the rank of general, covers up his stupidity with a uniform
Repetilov - from lat repeto - to repeat, has no opinion
Tugoukhovskie - the motive of deafness, not wanting to listen, to perceive the opposite point of view
Khlestov - harsh judgments
Chatsky - Chadsky - Chaadaev - this is an encrypted allusion to the name of Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. With his comedy, Griboyedov foresaw his fate. Chaadaev published a treatise " Philosophical Thoughts» at the age of 36. His system of worldview turned out to be so unacceptable for Nikolaev Russia that the emperor himself proclaimed him crazy.
A young nobleman, the heir of 300-400 souls, is the link between two storylines - he satirically denounces Moscow society, gets involved in a love triangle
Gorich - (from grief) - a former colleague of Chatsky, who changed after marriage, became a typical Moscow husband, who obeyed the opinion of his wife and the world
Sofia - (the meaning of the name "wise") - 17 years old, fond of French novels and during the absence of Chatsky became a victim of Famus Moscow, part of it
Lisa - the role of soubrettes, coquette
Ways to create images in comedy
Considering the features of building a system of characters and revealing characters, it is necessary to keep in mind the following circumstances:
B) abandoned the traditional division of characters into positive and negative. Contrasted traditional way character creation, based on the classical roles and hyperbolization of any one character trait, a way of depicting social types, traced through individual detailing and multidimensionality of characters. The main personality trait, which the author considered the main one, he denotes by the method of “speaking surnames”. Important means of creating characters are their actions, their views on existing life problems; characteristic given by another person, self-characterization, comparison of heroes with each other, their opposition, irony, sarcasm.
Classification of heroes of dramatic works
Main characters - heroes whose interaction develops with each other, determines the plot, the course of events (Sofya, Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin)
Minor Heroes- participate in the development of the plot, but are not directly related to it. Their images are developed less deeply than the images of the main characters (Skalozub, Zagoretsky, Lisa, Gorich)
Episodic - Khlestova, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Repetilov
mask heroes - their images are extremely generalized, these are images-signs of the times, eternal human types (Skalozub - a type of martinet, Zagoretsky - "master of service")
Off-stage characters- heroes whose names are called, but they themselves do not appear on stage and do not take part in the action (Prince Fedor, Kuzma Petrovich, Maksim Petrovich). What is their role? (expand the scope of the conflict)
And now let's turn directly to the text of the comedy. In the foreground, lordly Moscow is depicted, but in conversations and replicas, the image of the capital's ministerial Petersburg and the Saratov wilderness appear. People from different walks of life perform in comedy.
4 Conversation on the content of act I
Which?
What are the 1-5 phenomena in terms of plot development? (exposure)
What is the atmosphere in the life of Famusov's house and its inhabitants themselves
How does Griboyedov create their characters?
What information and how do we get about the heroes who have not yet appeared on the scene?
At what point does the action begin? (From 7th appearance, when Chatsky appears)
How and how does Chatsky appear?
How does Sophia meet him?
What annoys Sophia in Chatsky? (bilious tongue of Chatsky)
What are Chatsky's feelings for Sophia?
What is his irony directed at?
5 Debriefing
T.O, analyzing the content of 1 act, we characterized the characters of the comedy
DZ Vocabulary work - plot, comedy, conflict, composition
Answer the questions orally - 8, 9,10,12 p. 164
Write out quotes from actions I and II in which the words “mind, smart, philosophers” are used
What, how and whom do they characterize?
Lesson 23
The meaning of the name of the comedy. The main storylines of the work
The goal is to analyze the work, taking into account the peculiarities of the artistic method and genre originality.
In my comedy, 25 fools to one sane person
And this man, of course, in contradiction with the society that surrounds him,
Nobody understands him, nobody wants to forgive,
Why is he a little taller than the others
A.S. Griboyedov
1 Repetition of the past, checking remote sensing
Comedy is a type of dramatic work.
Peculiarities:
Limitation of action by spatial and temporal limits
Disclosure of the character's character through moments of confrontation (the role of the conflict)
Organization of speech in the form of dialogues and monologues
In the system of genres of classicism, it belongs to the lowest style. One of the main storylines is the struggle of two contenders for the girl's hand, the goodie is poor, but endowed with high moral qualities, a happy ending
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is a work in which momentary ideological and political disputes are accurately reproduced and at the same time problems of a national and universal nature are indicated. These problems are born of a collision of a bright personality with a bone structure.
Such a clash, "a contradiction between characters, or characters and circumstances, or within a character, underlying the action" is called conflict . The conflict drives the story forward.
Plot - it is “a chain of events depicted in a literary work, i.e. the life of characters in its spatio-temporal changes, in positions and circumstances replacing each other. The plot not only embodies the conflict, but also reveals the characters of the characters, explains their evolution.
What plot elements do you know? What are they characterized by? (exposition, plot, development of action, climax, denouement)
What can be distinguished 2 conflicts and, accordingly, 2 storylines? (love and social; the love conflict that starts at the beginning of the song is complicated by the opposition of the hero to society)
Both lines develop in parallel, reaching a culmination (the spread of gossip about madness), the love affair gets a denouement, and the solution to the social conflict is taken out of the scope of the work.
2 Meaning of the name
Griboedov the comedian sets himself other goals than ridiculing vices and entertaining the public. To understand them, one should refer to the meaning of the play's title. The central question posed by Griboyedov in his work can be formulated as follows: why is an intelligent person rejected by both society and his beloved?
The problem of the mind is an ideological and emotional core around which other questions of a philosophical, socio-political, national-historical and moral nature are grouped.
Initially, Griboyedov called the comedy "Woe to the Wit", what is the difference between these two names?
Calling Chatsky smart, and the rest of the hero - fools, Griboyedov unequivocally expressed his point of view. Each of the warring parties considers itself smart, and the one who does not share her opinion is insane. The theme of different minds arises:
The mind of Famusov and the characters of his circle is the ability to adapt to any living conditions and extract material benefits. Success in life is expressed in the ability to acquire souls, ranks, awards, and successfully marry. Whoever achieves this is smart.
According to Chatsky, the mind is the ability to freely and impartially assess the very conditions of life from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they do not correspond to common sense.
The mind, only adapting, Griboedov is inclined to consider stupidity.
3 Analysis of the second act of the comedy
What is the role of the first act in the development of the plot?
What conflict starts in act II?
What is the role of the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov
Who is the initiator of the dispute?
Are they people of the same or different centuries?
Which life ideals stands for each of the heroes?
Who is Skalozub? How is he treated in Famusov's house?
At what point does he appear? What are his views on career and service?
What generation is Skalozub closer to in age, and in terms of views?
How is Chatsky behaving?
From 7 to 14, a love theme develops, it turns out not one, but several love triangles: Sofia - Molchalin - Chatsky
Sophia - Lisa - Molchalin
Liza - Petrusha - Molchalin ...
So, in the second act, a social conflict begins to develop and the dog's love line becomes more complicated
4 Reading monologue by heart
DZ Respond in writing to the question. 3, 5, 6 p. 164
Lesson 24
Ball scene analysis. The third act as the culmination of the main
conflict
The goal is to teach the analysis of an episode-scene
1 Introductory word for learning to analyze an episode of a scene, we need:
Determine character relationships
Understand what the scene gives to understand the characters of the characters
Show how characters are torn apart
Show the role of this scene in the development of the action and conflict of the song
Understand the meaning of the scene in revealing the ideological content of the entire work
2 Conversation:
What events precede the ball scene
Remember what brings Chatsky to Famusov's house in Act II?
In act III, Chatsky is again in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich, for what purpose this time? (Achieve Sophia's recognition)
What words of Sophia bring us back to the problem of the mind?
Why does Chatsky conclude "She doesn't love him" Is he right? (Molchalin is not worthy of Sophia's love, as he is pathetic)
Does Sofia really love Molchalin?
How does the dialogue Chatsky and Molchalin?
Is this dialogue connected with the dialogue between Chatsky and Famusov in act II, with the ball scene?
How do you see Molchalin?
From 5 yavl. Guests appear in Famusov's house. Read out scenes of guest appearances
How does Griboyedov introduce new heroes?
Who appears first?
Why does Chatsky barely recognize his former colleague Gorich, what happened to him?
What is important for the Tugoukhovsky princes?
What is the principle of depicting these characters? (a satirical image through speech, postures, gestures, specified by the author in remarks; speaking surnames)
Why is it customary to unite all the presented heroes with the concept of “Famus Moscow”?
How does it spread?
Why is everyone picking up on this gossip? (links love and social conflict)
Trace the text on the extent of gossip spread
The origin of gossip is based on the hero's own speeches.
A) Chatsky will come to terms with the end of love, ironically over it and himself calls it madness.
B) Sophia: “He reluctantly drove me crazy!”, Then he repeats with resentment “He’s out of his mind”
G. N "Have you gone crazy?"
G. D "Crazy"
D) Zagoretsky - His uncle, a rogue, hid him in madness. He's crazy. Yes, he's crazy. In the mountains, his forehead was wounded, he went crazy from the wound. Crazy all over. In the mind seriously damaged
D) Khlestova - Who in the mind is upset
E) Famusov - She herself called him crazy
Fiction takes on the character of conspiracy, conspiracy, turns into a denunciation
What do the guests see as the reasons for Chatsky's madness? (in learning, in a wound, in drunkenness, in love)
How does the clash between Chatsky and the "sick" society end?
What is the tragedy (raises important questions) and comedy (no one listens to him) Chatsky
Summarizing
The third act is the climax, the fourth is the denouement. The guests leave, but the social conflict does not find a solution, it continues.
What does Chatsky denounce in his last monologue?
The love conflict is over.
DZ Answer orally question 4 p. 164
Write out quotes characterizing the different attitudes of representatives
"of the current century" and "past century" to the main issues raised by the author
Lesson 25
Chatsky and the "famus society".
The goal is to summarize and consider the key issues in the conflict between the "current century" and the "past century"
Planned discussion
1 The era reflected in the work
2 Famusov and the characteristics of the Moscow world
3 Characteristics of Chatsky's views
The main conflict in comedy is social - the clash between the “current century” and the “past century”. The historical boundary of the “current century” and the “past century” is the war of 1812. It was after the war that 2 political camps were formed - the advanced noble youth and the conservative feudal serf camp. Their clash was embodied in the conflict of the “current century” and the “past century”
Why?
Who is the ideologist (expressor of ideas) of the “current century”, and who is the “past century”?
How does Chatsky behave in the world?
A) appears after a three-year absence
B) gives bile characteristics to humans
c) says what he thinks
D) not to enter into confrontation, he came to see Sophia
E) stung by the coldness of Sophia and hurt by the instructions of her father, Chatsky cannot stand the tension and sets out his beliefs in Famusov's company
E) the life of the Moscow world evaluates from the outside, therefore it is objective and critical
H) the hero's statements bring him closer to the position of the progressive people of that time - the Decembrists
And) the life principles that have developed over the centuries have become obsolete, but they suit Famusov and the people of his circle, so they don’t want to change anything
K) Chatsky, declared insane, leaves Moscow
How does Famusov behave?
What are the issues of opposition?
Commented reading
"Current Age" | "Century Past" |
Attitude to wealth and ranks | |
Chatsky: Now let it out on one Their young people, there is an enemy of quests, Not demanding either places or promotions, In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge ... Ranks are given by people, But people can be deceived... Uniform! One uniform "he is in their former way of life Once opened, embroidered and beautiful, Their weakness, reason poverty ... Where? Show us the Fatherland, sons, which we should take as samples | Famusov about Skalozub: Famous person, respectable, And the signs of darkness were picked up, Out of years and an enviable rank, Not today, tomorrow General... Puffer: Yes, in order to get ranks, there are many channels Famusov: Be poor, yes if you get it Souls of a thousand two tribal, - He and the groom Molchalin about Tatyana Yurievna: Officials and officials - All her friends and family... After all, you have to depend on others. |
Service attitude This question has been raised since the days of classicism. The classicists considered it necessary to serve the state (an enlightened monarch), and the Decembrists put service to the Fatherland in the first place. | |
Chatsky: Who serves the cause, not individuals I would be glad to serve, it's sickening to serve Famusov: Chin followed him, he suddenly left the service | Famusov: Then not what it is now Under the Empress, he served Catherine! And I have what's the matter, what's not the case, Signed, so off your shoulders ... You behaved properly For a long time colonels, and serve recently Molchalin: And take awards and have fun? |
Attitude towards foreign The relationship between national and European is an important problem for that time. National identity is the ideal of the Decembrists. The attitude of the "past century" to the dominance of foreigners and foreign is ambiguous | |
We will be required to be with an estate and in rank, And Guillaume... There is still a mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod... That the Lord destroyed this unclean spirit Empty, slavish, blind imitation... Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion ... So that our smart, cheerful people Although the language did not consider us Germans | And all the Kuznetsk bridge, and the eternal French, Robbers of pockets and hearts!... The door is open to the invited and the uninvited, Especially foreign... |
Attitude towards education | |
Chatsky is ironic, but for him this issue has not been finally resolved: And that consumptive, relative to you, enemy of books, In the scientific committee that settled And with a cry demanded an oath, So that no one knew and did not study literacy? | For the Famusovs, education is the cause of the madness of Chatsky and others like him: And in reading, it’s not great ... As if we are preparing buffoons for their wives ... Learning is the plague, learning is the cause Princess Tugoukhovskaya about Pedagogical University: There they practice schisms and disbelief... Runs from women, and even from me! Chinov doesn't want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist Prince Fedor, my nephew. Famusov: If evil is to be stopped; Take away all the books would, but burn |
Relation to serfdom Chatskits and Famusov are opposed not as a defender and opponent of serfdom, but as an opponent of the abuse of serfdom and a Russian master | |
He traded three greyhounds for them | Famusov: To work you, to settle you! Khlestov: Out of boredom, I took an Arapkuk girl and a dog with me ... He drove to the fortress ballet on many wagons From mothers, fathers of rejected children... Cupids and Zemfiras are all sold out individually |
Attitude to Moscow manners and pastime | |
What new will Moscow show me? Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two. He managed to get married, but he made a mistake. All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums ... Yes, and to whom in Moscow they did not clamp their mouths Lunches, dinners and dances?.. Houses are new, but prejudices are old... | They will judge about deeds, that the word is a sentence ... They will argue, make some noise and ... disperse And the ladies? ... Judges to everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them And daughters ... They cling to the military, Because the patriots |
Attitude towards nepotism, patronage | |
Isn't it the one you are to whom I am still from the cradle, For some incomprehensible intentions, Children were taken to bow? ... Where show us, sons of the Fatherland, Which should we take as samples? Are not these rich in robbery? They found protection from court in friends, in kinship ... | The deceased was a respectable chamberlain, With the key, and he knew how to deliver the key to his son ... With me, employees of strangers are very rare; More and more sisters, sister-in-law children ... Well, how not to please a loved one! |
Attitude towards freedom of judgment | |
Why are other people's opinions only holy? And who are the judges: - For the antiquity of years TO free life their enmity is irreconcilable... | Molchalin: In my years should not dare Have your own opinion |
Attitude towards love | |
I can't express this feeling myself. But what is now boiling in me, worries, infuriates I would not wish my personal enemy | Lisa: Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good! Molchalin: That's the lover I assume To please the daughter of such a man... |
ideals | |
In the sciences, he stared, the mind is hungry for knowledge; Or in his soul God himself will wake up the heat To creative, lofty and beautiful arts... | Would you ask how the fathers did? Learn by looking at your elders... I ate on gold, a hundred people at the service; All in orders; he drove forever in a train; All at the court, but at what court! ... He fell painfully, got up great |
Thus, we can conclude that different worldview systems are the basis of social conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Characteristics of Chatsky's views | Characteristics of the Moscow world |
1 Falls on the disgusting manifestations of serf slavery, on the state system, organizes a "persecution of Moscow" 2 A man of honor opposes high service to the public good, “cause”, service to influential “persons” 3 In a society where the uniform and rank make invisible the “weakness” and “poverty of mind” of their owner, Chatsky advocates evaluating people by their moral qualities 4 Ridicules superficial education and primitive upbringing, which, following the fashion, "noble" fathers entrust "monsieur" and "madame" "more in number, at a cheaper price" 5 Calls for respect for the country's history, national culture, language, to abandon the "empty, slavish, blind imitation", to borrow even from the Chinese "the wise ... ignorance of foreigners" | 1 Treasures his nobility, reliably guards the feudal order. This society is strictly hierarchical. Strangers who find themselves in this circle are forced to behave like opportunists (Zagoretsky, Molchalin) 3 The main value is the “golden bag”, and the mind and high spiritual qualities of a person become a source of “grief” 4 Hatred of enlightenment: "Learning is the plague, learning is the cause... If evil is to be stopped, Take all the books and burn them" 5 Copying Western European patterns in everything (Frenchman from Bordeaux) or rejecting them (Famusov) |
DZ write out aphorisms from the text
Home composition:
"The current century" and "the past century", The problem of the mind in Griboyedov's comedy
How do I see A.A.Chatsky?, Chatsky and Molchalin, Image of Sofia Famusova
Traditions and innovation Griboyedov - playwright
Lesson 26
Skill and innovation Griboedov - playwright
The goal is to consider the comedy "Woe from Wit" as innovative at all levels of text organization.
The future will appreciate this comedy
And put it among the first creations of the people
A. Bestuzhev
1 Introduction
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is a wonderful and magnificent work in design and execution.
The comedy was written during the reign of classicism, although in general romanticism developed and realistic tendencies appeared in literature. This situation strongly influenced the definition of the artistic method of the work: comedy has traditional classical features, as well as features of romanticism and realism.
2 Conversation
What facts speak about the belonging of comedy to variousartistic methods?
A) Features of classicism. Which?
The principle of unity of time and place is observed - the action fits in one day, takes place in Famusov's house, but the principle of unity of action is not observed - two conflicts, two storylines: Sofia - Chatsky - Molchalin
Chatsky - Famus Moscow
The writer showed that, having started as a love conflict at first, the conflict is complicated by opposition to society, then both lines develop in parallel, reaching a climax, the love conflict gets its resolution, and the public one goes beyond the scope of the work. Chatsky is expelled from Famus society, but remains true to his own convictions. Society does not intend to change its views - therefore, further clashes are inevitable. In such an openness of the finale, and even in the refusal to show the triumph of virtue, Griboyedov's innovation is manifested.
Revealed by Goncharov, the two-dimensional plot of Woe from Wit has long been regarded as an innovative feature that determined the originality of the comedy. But Griboyedov himself, in a letter to P.A. Katenin, emphasized the unity of the personal and the public in comedy. Public-satirical and love-comedy scenes do not alternate, which corresponds to the traditions of this genre XVIII century, but act as a thoughtful whole. Thus, Griboyedov rethought the familiar plot schemes, endowing them with new content.
The traditional system of roles is preserved: the plot is based on a love triangle, a deceived father, the image of a maid
But the traditional scope of roles has been expanded: Chatsky fails, Molchalin is clearly portrayed negatively by the author, Famusov is also the ideologist of the Famus society
a) surnames indicating any trait - Repetilov
b) evaluating surnames - Molchalin
c) associative surnames - Chatsky
The comedy is built according to the classical canons of tragedy - 4 acts, in III - the culmination, in IV - the denouement. The unusual content and plot solutions with a pattern led to an unusual compositional structure.
B) Features of realism:
A departure from the classic plays - there is no happy ending: virtue does not triumph, vice is not punished. The number of characters goes beyond the classical plays - more than 20 persons
Social and psychological typing: typical characters in typical circumstances, accuracy in details
Which heroes are considered the main ones, which ones are secondary, episodic, depends on their role in the conflict, in posing problems, in the stage action. Thus, the social confrontation is built along the lines of Chatsky-Famusov, the love conflict - Sofya - Chatsky - Molchalin, it becomes obvious that of the four main characters, Chatsky bears the main load, in addition, he expresses the author's way of thinking, i.e. bears the traits of a hero-reasoner.
The comedy is written in variegated iambic (previously written in Alexandrian verse), which conveys live colloquial speech, the features of the speech of individual characters.
The comedy is written "not in a bookish language that no one spoke, but in a lively, easy spoken Russian language." Such a language made it possible to create truly realistic types of heroes. Each of them speaks his own, unique language, which becomes a means of characterization of the characters. For example, Famusov's language is designed in the old style, Chatsky's speech is bookish, with the inclusion of oratorical techniques, sometimes emotionally lyrical, sometimes satirically and accusatory.
A lot of aphorisms have entered modern speech, as Pushkin said, “I don’t even talk about poetry, half should be included in a proverb.”
DZ check - aphorisms
"Free verse" "Woe from Wit" prepared the transition of Russian drama to the prosaic realistic language, the language of Gogol, Pushkin, etc.
C) features of romanticism. Which?
The romantic nature of the conflict
The presence of tragic pathos
The motive of loneliness, the exile of the protagonist
Travel as an escape from the past
Traditionally, "Woe from Wit" is consideredthe first Russian realistic comedy. Griboyedov violated a number of genre and plot-compositional canons, which prevented him from reflecting a new content that was not typical for traditional comedies.
Griboyedov raises the problems of the socio-political structure of Russia; the harm of bureaucracy and respect for rank, the problems of upbringing and education of young people, honest service to duty and the Fatherland, the national identity of Russian culture.
Philosophical problems include the problem of the mind, the meaning of life, sayastya, personal freedom, the problem of fate.
Among the socio-political problems, one can single out the problem of deep demarcation within the nobility. Most nobles are satisfied with the life they live and do not want to change it. The minority, on the contrary, seeks to transform their contemporary reality. Concluding the analysis of the content, it is necessary to pay attention to the absolute nature of the confrontation active forces on all issues: neither side is not only incapable of compromise, but, on the contrary, is completely convinced that the truth belongs only to it. This is a feature of national consciousness, at turning points society always splits into supporters of the new and the old, people are not able to put themselves on the opposite point of view. In this regard, the motive of deafness, which manifests itself both at the social and interpersonal levels, acquires special attention (for example, the father turns out to be deaf to the pranks of his daughter, tries not to notice them, the daughter does not listen to the warnings of the maid, Chatsky does not hear Sophia, who tells him about his love for Molchalin ...). Deafness is played up with the help of satirical devices that correlate the unwillingness to listen with deafness in a real sense (the image of the Tugoukhovskys).
In the title of the work, not only the problem of the mind is posed, there is also the word “woe”, which refers us to the drama of the hero, what happens to him is what we call drama - he is not understood either by his beloved or by society, he is declared crazy, expelled. But why do we define genre how comedy? The author in the notes called the work a "stage poem", and various researchers offer a range from poetic lyrics to a story and a novel. One way or another, we have a comedy, but an innovative one, it is no coincidence that many of Griboyedov's contemporaries did not understand it.
3 Summing up. Filling in the table
Traditions | Innovation |
1 Compliance with the rules of unity of time and place 2 The presence of traditional traits in the character system: Love triangle Role system Heroes - types, masks Speaking surnames | 1 Violation of the rule of unity of action. The conflict takes on a dual character, comprehended in a realistic form 2 Historicism in the depiction of reality 3 Deep and multifaceted disclosure of characters, individualization in creating images with the help of speech and psychological portraits 4 Refusal of 5 action as a sign of a successful denouement 5 Innovation in the language and organization of verse (stylization of colloquial speech) |
Thus, both the content and all levels of the form of the work were solved by Griboedov in an innovative way, bringing the work of art as close as possible to reality, which served as one of the foundations for the longevity of the comedy.
Lesson 27
Comedy Criticism. I.A. Goncharov "A million torments"
The goal is to teach taking notes and working with critical literature
1 Introduction
In the comedy Woe from Wit, many questions were posed that could not be answered unambiguously, much for contemporaries was new in the structure of the work’s organization, so a serious controversy unfolded around the comedy.
A.S. Pushkin from a Letter to A.A. Bestuzhev:
I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboedov's comedy. Its purpose is characters and sharp criticism of morals. In this respect, Famusov and Skalozub are excellent. Sophia is drawn vaguely ... Molchalin is not quite sharply mean .. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" who is the smart character? Answer: Griboedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very intelligent person (namely with Griboyedov) and was fed by his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks.
The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs, etc.
I'm not talking about poetry - half should be included in the proverb.
V.K.Kyukhelbeker from the diary
Dan Chatsky, other characters are given, they are brought together and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be - and only ... but in this simplicity - news, courage, greatness ...
A.A. Grigoriev Art. "About the new edition of the old thing"
The only work that represents the artistic sphere of our so-called secular life, and on the other hand, Chatsky Griboedov is the only truly heroic face of our literature ... Griboyedov executes rudeness and ignorance ... in the name of the higher laws of the Christian and human-folk view.
Chatsky ... the honest and active nature of a fighter ... that is, the nature is extremely passionate ... it also has historical significance. He is a product of the first quarter of the Russian nineteenth century.
Yu.N. Tynyanov Art. "The plot of" Woe from Wit "
The center of comedy is in the comical position of Chatsky himself, and here comedy is a means of tragedy, and comedy is a type of tragedy...
Griboyedov was a man of the twelfth year "according to the spirit of the time and taste." In public life, December 1825 would have been possible for him. He treated the fallen Platon Mikhailovich with lyrical regret, with the author's hostility to Sofya Pavlovna ... with a personal, autobiographical hostility to that Moscow, which was for him what old England was for Byron... In comedy, post-war indifferent careerism is given with particular force... The figure of Skalozub in Woe from Wit predicts the death of the Nikolaev military regime.
Yu.M. Lotman article "Decembrist in everyday life"
We feel Chatsky as a Decembrist ... Chatsky's speech differs sharply from the words of other characters precisely in its bookishness. He speaks as he writes, because he sees the world in its ideological and not everyday manifestations.
Article by A.I. Goncharov "A million torments" (1871)- the best critical analysis of comedy, was written 50 years after the appearance of the comedy itself. Goncharov's critical study put an end to many disputes about the work "Woe from Wit", although he wrote "we do not pretend to pronounce a critical verdict here ... we, as an amateur, only express our thoughts."
2 Presentations and discussion according to the plan (2 and 3 can be parallel or consecutive)
A) What is “Woe from Wit” in general?
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy ... Its canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of 20 persons, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the old Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs were reflected.
In it, the local color is too bright, and the designation of the very characters is so strictly outlined and furnished with such a reality of details that universal human features hardly stand out from sub-social positions, ranks, costumes, etc.
Two comedies seem to be nested one into the other: one, so to speak, is private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Lisa, this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, suddenly another in between, and the action is tied up again, the private comedy is played out in a general battle and tied into one knot.
B) "Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse never seems to die"
Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like itself, the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov concluded, like a magician of the spirit of some kind, in his castle, and it crumbles there evil laugh...
Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation the whole collected author's mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language ...
C) “It has long been accustomed to say that there is no movement, i.e. there is no action in the play. How is there no movement?
There is - alive, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on the stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”
This is a subtle, smart, graceful and passionate comedy...true to the psychological details...disguised typical faces heroes, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, the era, the charm of the language ...
D) "Chatsky's role is a passive role ... although at the same time it is always victorious
The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals. But Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. He has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest ... He is a sincere and ardent figure ... Chatsky begins a new century - and this is all his significance and his whole “mind” ... Chatsky ... was seriously preparing for activity. ..traveled not in vain, studied, read, accepted ... for work, was in relations with ministers and dispersed - it's not hard to guess why ... He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife.
Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments."
Tsaiky runs in to Sofya ... He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooler towards him ... He endures only coldness from her, until, having barely hit Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick ... From that moment between her and Chatsky began a heated duel, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense ...
"Who are the judges?" etc. Here another struggle is already beginning, an important and serious one, a whole battle...
Two camps were formed, or on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the whole brethren of the "fathers and elders", - on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, "the enemy of searches." Famusov wants to be an "ace" ... Chatsky is eager for a "free life", "to engage in science and art" and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals" ...
The role of Chatsky is a passive role... Such is the role of all the Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, i.e. in the hopelessness of success ... He already has like-minded people ... Chatsky gave rise to a split
The vitality of the role of Chatsky does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas, brilliant hypotheses, hot and daring hutopias ... Chatsky is most of all a debunker of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that stifles a new life, "free life"
He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. His ideal ... is freedom from all these numbered chains of slavery that fetter society ...
Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting on her in turn death blow fresh power quality.
He is an eternal denouncer of lies, hiding in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim.
Chatsky is inevitable with each change of one century to another.
Each case that needs updating causes the shadow of Chatsky ...
Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most lively personality of all, both as a person and as a performer of the role indicated to him by Griboyedov ... his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in a comedy.
E) "Sophia is a mixture of good instincts with a lie ... confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness"
Everything is sewn and covered ... This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived ... Sophia never saw the light from her and would not have seen the light without Chatsky - never for lack of a chance. After the catastrophe, from the moment Chatsky appeared, it was no longer possible to remain blind. It is impossible to bypass its courts with oblivion, or bribe it with lies, or calm it down. She cannot but respect him, and he will forever be her "reproachful witness", the judge of her past. He opened her eyes.
This is a mixture of good instincts, put together, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions - a confusion of concepts, mental and moral sloppiness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears, as common features of her circle ... strong inclinations of remarkable nature, lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. She is ruined in the closeness ... No wonder Chatsky loves her too ... she gets her "million of torments."
3 Conversation (perception test, retell in your own words)
How does Goncharov see the special position of Woe from Wit in literature?
What are the benefits of comedy?
What is the grief that brings Chatsky's mind?
Chatsky - winner or loser?
What is the critic's assessment of Sophia's image?
What controversial questions did Goncharov answer for you? How convincingly did he do it?
DZ to prepare for test work on the work of Griboyedov
How Krylov's realistic fable was the result of a long development of the fable genre in our literature XVIII-XIX centuries, so the first realistic comedy created by the genius of Griboyedov was the completion of a whole period of literary development, characterized by the accumulation of satirical techniques and skills in depicting reality and such wonderful manifestations of lively and vivid satire as Fonvizin's comedies and Krylov's fables. Griboedov's comedy opened up prospects, created the basis for new conquests of realism in Russian literature in general, and in dramaturgy in particular. It influenced all Russian literature of the 19th century, both ideologically and aesthetically. "Griboyedov's comedy appeared at the end of the reign of Alexander I," says Herzen. "With her laughter, she connected the most brilliant era of then Russia, the era of hopes and exalted youth, with the dark and silent times of Nicholas" *.
* (A. I. Herzen. Sobr. op. in thirty volumes, vol. XVIII. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1959, p. 179.)
Griboyedov's early work
Griboedov's inclinations towards literary creativity manifested themselves in his student years. He wrote poetic satires and epigrams, and in l810, as reported in the memoirs of the writer, he wrote a parody of the famous "Dmitry Donskoy" Ozerov called "Dmitry Dryanskoy" (from university life). At the beginning of 1812, he had excerpts from a comedy, the contents of which have not come down to us even in the retellings of contemporaries. In general, none of the writer's earliest experiences have survived. The playwright's first work was published by him in 1815 (written the year before). This is the comedy "The Young Spouses" - a remake of the comedy " family secret"(1809) by the French playwright Crezet de Lasseur. It was followed by" Feigned Infidelity "- a free translation of a one-act French comedy. Two phenomena in it (XII and XIII) were translated by Griboedov's friend A. A. Gendre. Both plays were staged both in St. Petersburg and in Moscow theatre.
Much more lively and aesthetically significant are the scenes written by Griboyedov for A. A. Shakhovsky's comedy "His Family, or a Married Bride" (1817). They were published separately by the author in the journal "Son of the Fatherland" at the end of 1817 (1st, 4th and 5th events of the second act of Shakhovsky's comedy). In these scenes, Varvara Savvishna and Mavra Savvishna, the aunts of the comedy hero, speak perfect Russian, a rough and intonation-rich language. In the same 1817, in collaboration with P. A. Katenin, Griboyedov wrote a satirical comedy in prose "Student".
Griboedov's literary position
In the comedy The Student, Griboyedov and Katenin ridiculed the literary playwright MN Zagoskin and the passive-elegiac romanticism of Zhukovsky and his followers. The mediocre, ridiculous poet Benevolsky is crazy about romantic elegies and friendly messages, while those to whom he reads them treat them dismissively, like the hussar captain Sablin, or they don’t understand anything about them, like Benevolsky’s “man”, Fedka. The words of Benevolsky sound mocking: "We have so many of our captivating melodies, singers of our sorrow." The speech of this untalented creature, who went crazy reading "the singers of his sorrow", is stuffed with quotations from Zhukovsky. The evil parody of the first poet in those years is hardly caused only by the rejection of the style of romantic elegies and epistles. The transformation of Zhukovsky into a court poet obviously played a role here. essential role, given the political position of P. A. Katenin, at that time an active figure in the Union of Salvation and the Military Society.
And there is a subtle meaning in the words that Benevolsky, who imitates Zhukovsky, says about the possible benefits he expects from his muse: "Lords, kings will listen to the order of my lyre, and gold and honors will flow like a river on the singer" *.
* (A. S. Griboyedov. Works. L., Goslitizdat, 1945, p. 211.)
The literary position of Griboedov and Katenin in the comedy The Student is connected with their ideological and political position, with their hatred for everything that clings to the court, for despotism and contradicts the revolutionary young generation.
The ridicule of Zhukovsky and his imitators in comedy is a continuation of the struggle that Katenin and Griboyedov had started a little earlier against the dominance of ghostly romance, vague dreams and a complete separation from national life. Katenin, with his ballads "The Killer", "Olga", "Leshy", sought to undermine the exceptional influence of Zhukovsky on modern literature. Reworking, like Zhukovsky, the plots of German writers, he sought to interpret them in the spirit of Russian folk beliefs and customs; at the same time, he introduced into the poetic fabric of his ballads many expressions, phrases and words characteristic of the indigenous Russian folk speech and oral poetry of the people. In the ballad "Olga" there are, for example, such verses that could arouse envy even among poets of the post-Pushkin era:
So all day long she sobbed, cursed the providence of God, broke her white hands, tore her black hair...
In the creative experiments of Katenin, the fruitful searches of the educators of the "Free Society", especially Vostokov, continued the search for ways to merge the poetic creativity of modern Russia with the creativity of the people themselves. The progressive meaning of Katenin's ballads was understood by very few. Most of the readers of that time assessed the poet's desire to introduce "language and common folk objects into the circle of sublime poetry" (Pushkin) as a challenge to enlightened taste. Even N. I. Gnedich sharply and meticulously criticized Katenin's ballad "Olga", carried away by opposing "Lyudmila" to her with her "magical sweetness of language." He overlooked the most important thing in Katenin's poetic experience, took this experience for an unsuccessful imitation of ballads that bored everyone. He was mistaken in taking "Olga" for the fruit of a bumpy muse. His imagination was captivated by the struggle between Arzamas and Beseda.
Griboyedov corrected Gnedich's mistake. Gnedich's article "On the free translation of the Burger's ballad "Lenora" was placed in the 27th issue of "Son of the Fatherland" for 1816. And in the 30th issue there appeared an article by Griboedov" On the analysis of the free translation of the Burger's ballad "Lenora". As expected, he crossed swords in the field of philology with the anonymous author of attacks on Katenin and pointed out a number of Gnedich's mistakes in interpreting the German text of Lenora. Then he justified many places in "Olga", showing that their criticism is untenable (the expressions: "to the sound of bells", "early in the morning" Gnedich were taken for erroneous or prosaic). Then he fell upon "Lyudmila", exhibited by Gnedich as an unsurpassed example of Russian poetry. In it, Griboedov did not find any national specificity, nor the truth. human feelings, no logic in the relationships of the characters, no lively colors in speeches. The dead groom, says Griboyedov, is "too sweet," and his speeches are too long for the brevity of his stay with the bride and too frankly beyond the grave for Lyudmila to follow him.
Many years later, P. A. Katenin wrote that N. I. Gnedich was mistaken about his ballad "Olga" and Zhukovsky's ballad "Lyudmila", because Gnedich did not specifically study German literature: "Griboyedov almost jokingly defeats this athlete wandering in an unfamiliar field " * .
* (Moscow Telegraph, 1833, Part LI, No. 11, pp. 450-451.)
Griboyedov's criticism of Zhukovsky was conducted not from the standpoint of "archaism", as it was once written in the works of the Formalists, not from the standpoint of a narrow grouping, which no one could even pick up a name for. Griboedov subjected Zhukovsky's "Lyudmila" to realistic criticism. He demanded from poetry "nature", the truth of experiences, the reflection of human relations as they really are, regardless of the fact that other readers shyly lower their eyes and shout about rudeness. He demanded life instead of vague dreams that take Russian poetry far beyond the limits of real life. Griboedov's thought overtook the practice of poetic creativity, however, as well as the practice of his own creativity in the field of "secular" comedy. The aesthetic nature and essence of Griboedov's convictions were correctly understood and appreciated by Pushkin. Simplicity, even rudeness, "energetic beauty" and bold expressions in "Olga" "unpleasantly," says Pushkin, "struck unaccustomed readers, and Gnedich undertook to express their opinions in an article whose injustice was denounced by Griboedov" *. The founder of realism caught the main thing in Griboyedov's article - its fair, realistic setting. This was its deeply innovative character. Realistic convictions paved the way for Griboedov to "Woe from Wit" no less than those glimpses of life and lively speech that distinguish the scenes he wrote in the comedies "Student" and "His Family, or Married Bride."
* (A. S. Pushkin. Full coll. cit., vol. VII. M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1949, pp. 266-267.)
No matter how easy it is to discover in Griboedov's first comedies and scenes, even in the most successful ones, the beginnings of a future comedy of genius, Woe from Wit will always remain an astonishing "leap" in the poetic development of one of the great Russian writers.
"Woe from Wit". Depiction of society in comedy
With the creation of the comedy Woe from Wit, Griboedov responded to the Decembrists' demands for Russian literature that it should not gather ears from a foreign field, but draw inspiration from the events of national life. But he responded to these demands in his own way, like a realist who first depicted Russian society in living, typical images. In unique faces, many of which are prototypes (the features of N. D. Ofrosimova are reflected in Khlestovaya, the features of the writer’s uncle, A. F. Griboyedov, are reflected in Famusov, the character of N. A. Shatilov, Griboyedov’s colleague, etc. is reflected in Repetilov .), the writer presented the most characteristic types of his time, in which, as in a mirror, the writer's contemporaries saw themselves, guessed their acquaintances, colleagues, superiors and subordinates.
Griboedov's people live in a real, concrete historical setting: the action takes place in Moscow, which is being rebuilt after a fire in 1812 ("The fire contributed a lot to its decoration"). The time of action is more and more specified either by mentioning the event, or by indicating the establishment of an administrative body or educational institution. Khlestova is afraid of going crazy, among other things, from "Lancart mutual education": "The Society of Schools for Mutual Education" was opened in Russia in 1819. Princess Tugoukhovskaya pronounces with difficulty: a pedagogical institute - and is indignant at the fact that in it "professors practice splits and unbelief !!". This is a response to the scandalous process of four professors of the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, who, on charges of the reactionary Runich, were banned from teaching by the government in 1821.
Moscow society is depicted by Griboedov against the backdrop of events taking place on the eve of the first armed uprising against tsarism. The thrill of modernity is felt in every word, remark, in disputes, in the struggle of hostile camps.
Responding to Katenin's remarks, Griboedov wrote: "Portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy, however, they have features that are characteristic of many other people, and others of the whole human race as much as each person is similar to all his two-legged fellows. Coricature I hate you, you won't find a single one in my picture. Here's my poetics" * .
* (A. S. Griboyedov. Works. L., Goslitizdat, 1945, p. 482.)
This is the poetics of realism, the poetics of a thorough study of reality in its most significant, characteristic, typical manifestations and reflection with the fullness, truthfulness and power of direct impact on the reader or viewer possible for art. The picture that arises from the system of images-types drawn in the comedy is a picture of a lordly, landlord serf society, strictly divided into estates, overshadowed by the unshakable Peter's "table of ranks". A prince, a count, an important gentleman, a colonel's uniform, the owner of living human souls - this is the ruling class in the state. Some of this class serve, like Famusov, others live in complete idleness as faithful sons of the fatherland and its pillars. Serfs work for them, who are sold in the bar, exchanged for dogs, exiled without trial to Siberia. For personal services - maids, "girls", "Arapki", lackeys, errand boys, etc. The main features of the morality of the ruling class: an inhuman attitude towards those who feed them, give them water, save them in trouble; lack of patriotic feeling, blind admiration for all foreign rubbish, despite the great victory in the just past war.
Above the world of the Famusovs, Molchalins, Skalozubs, Khryumins and Khlestovs, the mind of the era soars, penetrating and impudent, looking into the depths of thoughts, relationships, ideals of a society that has been established for centuries and discovering everywhere ridiculous, low, unworthy of a real person. Griboyedov's comedy, with its truthful picture of Moscow society, illuminated by the sun of a mocking mind, inspired disgust for the age-old "wisdom" of all those who stood behind this society, were pleased with it, protected it. Therefore, it served the revolutionary goals of the Decembrists no less than the most ardent romantic denunciations of the evil and ugliness of the feudal system. The writer and the revolutionaries hit on the same target, from the same position.
Chatsky
Faithful to the historical situation in which the Famus society was located, Griboedov reflected the split in the ruling class, the division of society into two camps. He objectified his own consciousness in the person of Chatsky. The objective image of old Russia, mired in the abomination of slavery, slave psychology, in ignorance and wild unbridled morals, is enhanced in the comedy by a lyrical element - the ardent, protesting monologues of Chatsky, who suffers doubly: both as a patriotic citizen and as offended in his intimate human affections. Some of the most important motifs of the Decembrist lyrics are expressed in the speeches of the comedy hero. Without depicting the relationship between serfs and serfs in an objective picture, Griboyedov lyrically expressed indignation against serfdom, against the ideology generated by serfdom. In Chatsky's speeches, through outbursts of protest and indignation, one can see the suffering image of the Russian people, trampled upon by the wild nobility.
The reactionaries from journalism - M. Dmitriev and A. Pisarev - were driven to rage, first of all by the image of Chatsky, his stormy revolutionary eloquence. "Chatsky, as if off the chain," they yelled. Perhaps, not so much with the mind, as with the class instinct, they understood the innermost essence of the monologues of this accuser. But Chatsky fell in love with the Decembrists. They could say about him as Ryleev said about Griboyedov: "He is ours." Many of them, albeit not in verse, but in a bright oratorical word, said the same thing. And many expressed the thoughts and emotions of Chatsky also in poetry. The Decembrist Belyaev testified: "His ridicule was repeated by heart; Chatsky's words "everyone was sold out one by one" infuriated."
The central image of Griboyedov's comedy was as political a romantic as the Decembrists. The trial of the realist Pushkin over him was very ingeniously substantiated; but he completely deleted from life a certain type of feeling, thought and action. Denying Chatsky's mind on the grounds that he crumbles like beads in front of Famusov and his worthy entourage is just as unfair as accusing the Decembrists of turning every living room into an arena of propaganda and struggle. They had no other opportunity, and all their tactics, conditioned by the revolutionary spirit of the nobility, led them to drawing rooms, to the noble clubs, to the theater and to a friendly circle, and all their revolutionary propaganda was necessarily mixed with wine, wit, secular entertainment, poetry.
In Chatsky, however, there is not only typical of his time. He embodied important human traits. I. A. Goncharov drew attention to this in the article "A Million of Torments". "Chatsky," Goncharov wrote, "is inevitable with each change of one century to another... Every case that needs updating causes the shadow of Chatsky"*.
* (I. A. Goncharov. Sobr. soch., vol. 8. M., Goslitizdat, 1955, p. 32.)
But Goncharov considered Chatsky a loner, and he saw the source of his passionate denial of Famusism in the change of generations, in the natural renewal of life. In fact, Chatsky is not alone. In Griboyedov, behind each type shown in action, in a visual clash, dispute and struggle, there is an environment recreated with bright, catchy, mean, but penetrating colors. Famusov's environment is completed in Chatsky's philippics. The environment of Chatsky himself emerges from denunciations, malicious memories, mocking attestations belonging to the adherents of antiquity. These are the supporters of the "Lancard mutual teaching" that Khlestova irritably mentions; Prince Fyodor, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, who, in violation of all decorum and tradition, sat down at natural Sciences; Skalozub's cousin, immersed in books in his rural seclusion, an undoubted "Voltairian". It is not for nothing that Famusov indulges in generalizations: "That's why you are all proud!" But Chatsky himself also generalizes: "Now let one of us ...". And what gives him courage is precisely the fact that he speaks on behalf of an entire generation. "This is a Decembrist," said Herzen about Chatsky.
Goncharov's idea about the universal content of this image is fair, but in the sense that indeed the change of socio-historical epochs did not and does not do without the fact that at certain stages of the struggle, political romances full of enthusiasm, spontaneity, ardor, often of their own, do not appear in the foreground. tragic death indicating more fruitful ways for the victory of the new system over the old.
Conflict in the play
The development of events in the comedy "Woe from Wit" is due to the most acute dramatic conflict between the representative of the young, revolutionary generation of nobles, Chatsky, with the lordly society, stagnant in wild concepts, in the depths of which the denying generation has grown up. The clash of worldviews, moral principles, ideals takes place within the same class environment as a consequence of the inevitable split in the ruling class of feudal society. Dramatic conflict bears all the signs of the social conflict of a certain time. There was nothing like it before or after this era. And the specificity of the conflict is so truly captured, so realistically presented that it shows through in the smallest details of the comedy and is reflected in the fact that the entire sharpness of the clash of hostile forces is revealed in the atmosphere of the ball, and the Protestant himself, the rebel-denier, is a pupil of the Famusov family and the fiery Romeo of his daughter. Political passions are played out in a relief everyday environment. In the words of the famous historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, "the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century" was built on the material of the life of the nobility.
* (V. O. Klyuchevsky. Soch., M., Sotsekgiz, 1958, part V, p. 248.)
The realism of the comedy was also reflected in the fact that in the social conflict that opposed Chatsky and his supporters to Famusov and his ilk, the preponderance of forces was on the side of the old society. True, its savers see everywhere the ghost of the new, the general "damage" of minds that do not want to live the old fashioned way, rebellion and indignation. Nevertheless, they are still stronger, and the fighter against them eventually has to "seek around the world where there is a corner for the offended feeling." The moral winner is Chatsky. But the actual preponderance of forces is on the side of Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, although in the future they will have inevitable death. With this perspective, comedy instilled vigor in the minds and hearts of people.
Comedy plot
The conflict is embodied in the plot of the work. Self-movement of comedic content grows out of the conflict. This self-movement is aesthetically expressed in a chain of events and pictures, with new and new force revealing the character of the characters, the heroes of the comedy. The plot of action, the growth of contradictions, the explosion of passions and the denouement are tied together by the knot of Chatsky's experiences. Chatsky sets in motion all the enormous forces of the mind and heart, puts into circulation the cavalry of witticisms obedient to him, smacks everything and everyone with sarcasm in order, on the one hand, to hit the unknown forces that tore Sophia away from him, and on the other hand, to demonstrate everything his human dignity in front of any possible rival in a given environment. The personality of the protagonist grows and unfolds in all its glory as a typical embodiment of the qualities of the good hero of the time.
The plot is not an intrigue of love, as often happened in countless comedies in both Russian and world literature. The plot consists in the hero's search for reasons that, during the three-year separation, when the beliefs and feelings of the beloved were just being formed, drowned out her love. Therefore, Griboedov's hero, fiery no less than any Romeo, differs in the most serious way from this type of lover. No, he is a man of the mind, for life has put a riddle before him, he needs to think, observe, compare, investigate, take into consideration a mass of all kinds of facts, actions, words, moods, etc., etc. Not a single Romeo such tasks were. One noble-great heart was enough there. Griboyedov's hero, in addition to a heart tormented by torment and resentment, needed a focused, insightful, bright mind. Drawn by his feelings into conflict with Sophia's immediate environment, Chatsky's mind comes into collision with all concepts, norms and rules. noble society. The conflict of the heart is deepened by the conflict of the mind.
Across all the noblest feelings and aspirations of his youth stood all the types of Famus society taken together, the whole set of concepts, mores, ideology and psychology of the Russian nobility. Understanding this with his mind, Chatsky broke forever and irrevocably his heartfelt attachments, cursed the Famus world along with the flower of this world, Sophia. The pain of the heart grew into political denial, and a penetrating mind, sorted out in life, triumphed over the most intimate movements of a noble soul, a passionate and ardent person:
So! I sobered up completely, Dreaming out of sight, and the veil fell off; Now it would not be bad in a row On the daughter and on the father, And on the fool's lover, And pour out all the bile and all the annoyance on the whole world ...
There are no two plots or two parallel intrigues in comedy. There is one coherent plot that develops from the first meeting of Chatsky (who returned from distant wanderings) with a cooled beauty, to an angry, full of annoyance that he could hope for something in this society, to settle with her. The plot, naturally, involves social characters and political passions in its movement, for Sophia's behavior is entirely explained not by psychological, but by social motives.
The plot of the comedy is such that it "heartened" Chatsky's conflict with society. Because of this, everything that happens in comedy has acquired universal interest. This is one of the reasons for the eternal youth of "Woe from Wit". M. V. Nechkina aptly and figuratively said: "The social collision embraces love drama, carries it in itself and at the same time moves in its episodes, like blood in the vessels of the body" * .
* (M. V. Nechkina. A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists. M., Goslitizdat, 1947, p. 220.)
Comedy composition
The action of the comedy takes place in the manor house of Famusov, the manager in a state-owned place in Moscow, for one day. Chatsky arrives here in the morning, and in the evening a ball is scheduled (however, Sophia says that her friends will simply come to dance to the piano). The guests leave in the morning, and Chatsky utters his last indignant words, deciding to leave Moscow - and forever. The action is concentrated in time to the limit, and the conciseness in time is emphasized by the unity of the place. From a purely formal point of view, these two unities are remnants of classicism in Griboyedov's realistic comedy. But in essence, he did not need to either stretch the action in time, or transfer it beyond famus house. He also did not need to stretch the action into five acts. The relationship between Famusov and Chatsky, between Chatsky and Sofya, as well as the position of Molchalin, the secretary of a great gentleman living in the house of his "benefactor", suggested the construction of a comedy while maintaining the unity of the place and with such a rapid development of the conflict that it did not take time to fully develop the plot. more than from early morning until late at night. Griboyedov subordinated the signs of the classic form to realistic goals. Therefore, neither Pushkin nor any other of the great realists reproached the author of Woe from Wit for preserving the vestiges of classicism.
The heroes of the comedy are divided into two camps, and the negative types are opposed to the positive type. Outwardly, such a construction resembles a comedy by Fonvizin. But in essence it is quite different. Firstly, such a division of heroes corresponded to the real split of the noble society of the period 1812-1825; secondly, Griboedov's positive hero is a man of living flesh, passionate, energetic, suffering and struggling, and not a reasoner, not a pale, lifeless mouthpiece of the author's ideas. The action in Fonvizin's comedy does not in the least depend on the participation of reasoners; in "Woe from Wit" it is nothing but Chatsky's story. Chatsky is the same type of era as the Arakcheev Skalozub or the low-worshipper Molchalin; and at the same time, he is the spokesman for the author's attitude to modern reality, the spokesman for his passionate and angry protest, which made him, Griboyedov, an ideological ally of the noble revolutionaries, regardless of whether he was or was not organizationally connected with Decembrism.
Thinking over and building the composition of his comedy, Griboedov did not turn away from the best achievements of Russian dramaturgy, primarily Fonvizin, but reworked the experience already accumulated on a realistic basis, creating an unseen artistic creation.
The principle of building an image
In dramatic conflict and dramatic action Griboyedov draws not personifications of abstract human vices, not allegorical faces or caricatures, but living people. This is not such a comedy, Belinsky wrote, "where the characters are called Dobryakov, Plutovatin, Obiralov, etc.; its characters have long been known to you in kind, you saw, knew them even before reading Woe from Wit ... Faces created Griboedov, are not invented, but taken from life in full growth, gleaned from the bottom of real life" (I, 81). Each of these individuals has many characteristic and varied qualities. Famusov is both a gentleman, and an official, and a father, and a hospitable host, and even a kind man in relation to his "native little man", to Molchalin, etc. Chatsky is a passionate lover, and a man of political passion, and a penetrating mind, sharp on the word , desperately resolute in actions. The main characters are described in their monologues, in autocharacteristics, in the reviews of others about them, as well as in relationships with other people. In comedy, Griboyedov overcame the method of depiction based on exclusive attention to any one characteristic feature of the hero. Belinsky was right when he called him "the Shakespeare of comedy."
But drawing images, sharply outlining the characters, Griboyedov could not restrain himself in his comic enthusiasm and rewarded not only Famusov, but even the dumb-headed Skalozub with a sense of humor and the ability to use a sharp word. This artistic flaw in the comedy was noted by both Belinsky and Chernyshevsky.
Verse and language
Griboedov abandoned the "six-legged," as Belinsky contemptuously put it, Alexandrian verse, with the inevitable "piitic liberties," that is, the rape of words and expressions, and wrote his comedy in a free, multi-footed iambic, which only fables were written with. The whole experience of fable creativity, but above all and most of all, the great achievements of Krylov, became his support, an arsenal of expressive means and a wonderful example. Based on the experience and example of Krylov, Griboedov achieved exceptional liveliness of the characters' speech, vivid depiction and conciseness of the word, which turns into a proverb. He approved one of the creative principles of realism - revealing the character of the depicted person in the unique originality of his speech.
"Woe from Wit" is a passionate protest against the distortion of the Russian language by ignorant nobility, against the mixing of French with Nizhny Novgorod, as well as against the lifeless, smoothed-out parlor language cultivated by Karamzin and his followers. Following Krylov and simultaneously with him, Griboedov boldly invaded the pantries of living Russian speech and, on this basis, radically transformed the language of Russian comedy. A. Bestuzhev rightly noted "the unprecedented fluency and nature of the spoken Russian language in verse." The writer's unconstrained, well-aimed and sharp word either strikes with picturesque depiction, or boils with political passion, or conveys the most tender feeling, or sparkles with witticisms, like a sharpened faceted bayonet. And Pushkin's prediction completely came true: "I'm not talking about poetry: half should become a proverb" *.
* (A S. Pushkin. Full coll. cit., vol. VII. M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, p. 122.)
Genre "Gope from the mind"
Belinsky called "Woe from Wit" "a true divina comedia". It is also called a comedy by the author himself. However, "Gope from Wit" is such an unusual phenomenon in the history of not only Russian, but also the entire world dramaturgy, that the question of defining its genre has repeatedly arisen before researchers and turned into a subject of dispute. These disputes continue to this day. * A comedy with a truly lively type of goodie of the time is, of course, an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of comedy as a genre. The predominance of the forces of the old society over Chatsky and, as a result, the "million torments" that fell to his lot - this is not at all a comic turn, but, on the contrary, a truly tragic feature. But the history of Russian classical literature knows many outstanding works, the genre characteristics of which cause great difficulties. There is only one thing left: to attribute to one or another genre according to some leading feature. "Woe from Wit" is a panorama of the social life of the period 1812-1825, taken mainly from the point of view of satirical ridicule. Therefore, the tragic situation of Chatsky does not raise doubts that this society, although it broke one of the pioneers of the struggle against it, is doomed, because it is internally untenable. The internal inconsistency of the world of the Famusovs, Skalozubs, Molchalins is revealed in Griboedov's laughter, a comedy that penetrates almost every word and expression. In addition, Pushkin singled out high comedy in the genre of comedy and said: "... High comedy is not based solely on laughter, but on the development of characters ... it often comes close to tragedy" **. From this point of view, it is most correct to call "Woe from Wit" a high comedy, rare in the history of the genre.
* (Prof. Revyakin A.I. in the article "Genre features of "Woe from Wit" casts doubt on the definition of this brilliant work as a comedy. He proposes the term "tragicomedy." (In the journal: "Russian Literature", 1961, No. 4, p. 114 -127).)
** (A. S. Pushkin. Full coll. cit., vol. X. M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1949. p. 213.)
"Woe from Wit" sold out on the lists. During the life of the author, only excerpts were published in the almanac "Russian Waist" in January 1825.
Controversy around "Woe from Wit"
Griboyedov's comedy caused passionate controversy. The first dispute had to be waged by the author himself with P. A. Katenin in a letter written on February 14, 1825.
The first printed response to the work appeared in the Moscow Telegraph. In the 2nd issue for 1825, the magazine published a review of Bulgarin's almanac "Russian Waist". The review was written by the publisher himself - Nikolai Polevoy. Referring to excerpts from Woe from Wit published in the almanac, Polevoy wrote: “In no other Russian comedy have we found such sharp, new thoughts and such vivid pictures of society as we find in the comedy Woe from Wit. Obviously, good knowing why only a fragment of the comedy appeared, Polevoy turned to the author of the comedy on behalf of all readers with a request to "publish the whole comedy". It was a helping hand to the persecuted author with his brilliant work! But Polevoy was not up to par in assessing just what he deserved such praises and true prophecies of Pushkin - in the assessment of poetry, the language of comedy. He set off in search of incorrect and rude expressions and, immediately continuing to review the almanac, in a review of Khmelnitsky's comedies, he asserted: "No one writes poetry in our comedies more pleasant than . Khmelnitsky" * .
* (Moscow Telegraph, 1825, Part I, No. 2, p. 145.)
The March issue of Vestnik Evropy published an article by M. Dmitriev "Remarks on the Telegraph's judgments", in which, piling up one absurdity upon another, the critic argued that Griboedov's comedy was a poor imitation of Wieland's "Abderites" and Moliere's "Misanthrope", that the main character comedy, conceived as the smartest, it looks ridiculous that in comedy there are only some successful portraits, but there is no knowledge of the mores of the society that the author "thought to describe."
In A. Bestuzhev's article "A look at Russian literature during 1824 and early 1825" she gave her assessment of Griboedov's masterpiece "Polar Star". (This article by Bestuzhev was highly appreciated by Ryleev). It said that Griboyedov's comedy was "A phenomenon that we have not seen since the time of the Undergrowth" and predicted: "The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and put it among the first creations of the people" * . In passing, the Decembrist critic referred to the attacks on comedy as "prejudices" that would inevitably dissipate. Almanac V. Odoevsky and V. Küchelbecker "Mnemosyne" in part IV, which was delayed with the release of the fourth part (it received censorship permission back in October 1824, but was not published due to "unforeseen circumstances"), responded to the controversy around the comedy with a small footnote to the article "Several words about the Mnemosyne of the Publishers themselves". It said here: "And that news, whatever it may be, always finds detractors, this can be evidenced by the ridiculous attacks on Woe from Wit, Griboedov's comedy, a work that truly does honor to our time" ... **
* ("Polar Star, published by A. Bestuzhev and K. Ryleev". M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1960, p. 496.)
** ("Mnemosyne, collected works in verse and prose, published by Prince V. Odoevsky and V. Kuchelbeker". M., 1825, part IV, p. 232.)
In the May issue of the magazine "Son of the Fatherland" (1825), critic Orest Somov, close to the Decembrists, to Ryleyev, rebuked M. Dmitriev. His article was entitled: "My thoughts on Mr. Dmitriev's remarks on the comedy Woe from Wit and on Chatsky's character." Here the judgments of the reactionary critic are called "sharp and unaccountable." Like Polevoy, Somov does not allow the thought of any resemblance of Chatsky with Democritus in Wieland's "Abderites" or with Molière's Misanthrope. And he proved this by comparing these works. Somov highly appreciated the construction of the comedy, its language, and the character of Chatsky. And he was splendidly told: “Everyone has his own glass, through which he looks at the so-called light. It is not surprising that Mr. Griboyedov and Mr. M. Dmitriev have these glasses of different colors. the place from which each of them looked into his glass. These wonderful words, which raised the dispute around the comedy to divergences and clashes of an ideological, worldview order, most truly and accurately expressed the Decembrist understanding of the essence of Griboyedov's brilliant work. The unanimous, unanimous rebuff to the reactionary Vestnik Evropy (in addition to an article by M. Dmitriev, it contained two articles by A.I. during this period of history advanced people Russia set the tone, held public opinion in their hands. Under the pressure of the opinion they formed about Woe from Wit, the tsarist government finally had to allow for publication (of course, in a form weakened by censorship) a brilliant work.
Distribution of "Woe from Wit" in the lists
The Decembrists did everything they could to make Griboedov's unpublished comedy widely known to enlightened reading circles. A. I. Zavalishin said that in the spring of 1825 the members of the Northern Society “wanted to take advantage of the upcoming vacations of officers to distribute Griboedov’s comedy in manuscript ... For several days in a row they gathered at Odoevsky, where Griboedov lived, in order to copy the comedy from dictation in several hands. .."*. The same work was carried out in the Southern Society. And the work spread, indeed, throughout the country. Until our time, more and more new lists are being opened. A few years ago, one of the first lists of the comedy was found, made in April 1825 by the Decembrist A. I. Cherkasov.
* ("AS Griboyedov in the memoirs of contemporaries". M., "Federation", 1929, p. 159.)
The meaning of comedy
The brilliant work of Griboyedov was one of the cornerstones in the building of Russian realism. It showed a brilliant example of how art is able to delve into the essence of social relations and how great its power in social struggle. Griboedov's realistic art showed its indisputable superiority over romanticism in understanding human characters and in revealing the social background of human experiences, ideals and aspirations. The comedy "Woe from Wit" gave new strength to the satirical direction in literature and showed an example of the penetration of satire by the spirit of the deepest knowledge of reality in its most decisive contradictions and human types that embody these contradictions. Together with Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", Griboedov's comedy laid firm and solid creative foundations for Gogol's realism, imbued with the idea of negation.
"Woe from Wit" enriched the Russian literary language with incalculable riches and unleashed the hands of writers in their struggle against the conditional, bookish, lifeless language for a living, full-bodied, bright word. Griboedov contributed to Pushkin's grand undertaking to create the Russian literary language, which after Pushkin became one of the most powerful languages in the world in the family.
Griboyedov's work showed how closely realism is connected with the burning issues of the life of the country and how it is organically woven with its images, pathos, collisions into the socio-political struggle, pursuing the goal of changing social life, the conditions for the development of man, people, humanity for the better.
"Woe from Wit" became a weapon of political struggle throughout the 19th century, and revolutionary democrats, revolutionary populists, and Marxists, led by Lenin, tested this weapon on their enemies. "Woe from Wit" is one of the most generously used works of the classics by Lenin.
Unfulfilled plans
The comedy "Woe from Wit" was just beginning its triumphal march of immortality, and its author was already full of new creative ideas.
In the historical tragedy "Rodamist and Zenobia" it was to be depicted how the conspiracy against the tyrant was defeated due to the fact that the people did not participate in the cause of the conspirators. The tragedy "Georgian Night", they say, was even written and, judging by the retelling of the plot, imbued with anti-serfdom sentiments. According to the memoirs of S. N. Begichev and other contemporaries, there were several more plays from Russian history in Griboyedov's plan.
Most significant was the idea of the tragedy "1812". The draft plan of the drama and one scene have been preserved. The main thing in it is the idea of the greatness of the Russian people, "the glory and freedom of the fatherland." Napoleon in the Moscow he occupied thinks about the uniqueness of the Russian people. His thoughts take this turn: "Betrayed to himself, what could he produce?" The main face of the tragedy is M*. He is an active participant people's war and, probably, one of the inspirers of the "general militia without nobles." Along with this, in the plan of the tragedy it is written: "The cowardice of the servants of the government - exhibited or not, as it happens." Then in the "Epilogue" we read: "Differences, searches; all the poetry of great feats disappears. M * is neglected by military leaders. He is released home with fatherly instructions to humility and obedience." It happened in Vilna. The action is transferred to a Russian village or to the ruins of Moscow. Again M * on stage. The plan says: "Former abominations. M * returns under the stick of the master who wants to shave off his beard. Despair ... suicide."
Griboyedov clarified the role of the people in the history of Russia and revealed a truly great historical tragedy, the leader of which was a giant people, deprived of the opportunity to express themselves in historical work without a pointer and stick of the master. The writer's thought worked in the very direction in which the ideological development of advanced realistic Russian literature had gone since the time of Pushkin.
Sources and aids
The first complete edition of the comedy "Woe from Wit" was carried out only in 1862 by N. Tiblen, in St. Petersburg. But there is no canonical text of the comedy. The most important "lists" of the comedy, according to which its publication is carried out, are: "The Bulgarinsky List". Refers to 1828, has an inscription by Griboyedov: "I entrust my grief to Bulgarin"; The "Museum Autograph" edition of 1823-1824, nine-tenths written by Griboyedov himself. Given to them. S. N. Begichev; "Gandre Manuscript" - a list made in 1824, owned by A. A. Zhandre, with amendments by Griboyedov.
The first scientific edition of the works of A. S. Griboedov was published in 1889, in two volumes. Prepared by I. A. Shlyapkin. Here the play "Student" was published for the first time.
The academic edition of A. S. Griboyedov's Complete Works was published in 1911-1917 in three volumes. Edited by I. A. Shlyapkin and N. K. Piksanov. In this edition, "Woe from Wit" is presented in all versions that were known at that time, and occupies the entire second volume. This is Griboyedov's best edition so far.
The latest edition: Griboyedov. Works. Ed., entry. article and notes Vl. Orlova (1940, 1945, 1959).
For the first time, a correct assessment of the comedy "Woe from Wit" and its place in the history of Russian literature was given by V. G. Belinsky, especially in the eighth article of "The Works of Alexander Pushkin" and in a special article "Woe from Wit". In the latter, errors were made that were subsequently corrected by the critic himself.
The latest work on Griboedov: S. M. Petrov. A. S. Griboyedov. Critical biographical essay. M., Goslitizdat, 1950; Vl. Orlov. Griboyedov. Brief essay on life and work. M., "Art", 1952. Griboyedov's relationship with the Decembrists are disclosed with exceptional completeness in the book by M. V. Nechkina "A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists" M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1947, 1951) Awarded with the State Prize at first edition.
New materials about Griboyedov and the Decembrists are contained in the publication "New about Griboyedov and the Decembrists" in "Literary Heritage", vol. 60, book. I. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, pp. 475-506 (articles and communications by M. M. Medvedev, V. A. Arkhipov and O. I. Popova). Genre characteristics of "Woe from Wit" are devoted to the article by A. I. Revyakin "Genre Features of "Woe from Wit" (Journal "Russian Literature", 1961, No. 4, pp. 114-127).
(A.S. GRIBOEDOV)
The heyday of Russian romantic lyrics in the first third of the 19th century showed that on the verge of centuries, the spiritual world of people became more complex, became richer, united them at the level of emotions, feelings and poetic thoughts, strove for beautiful, personal happiness, dreams and heroism. At the same time, the Russian people, who defeated Napoleon and his army and passed through the whole of Western Europe, continued to live in an unjust estate society, where ranks, nobility, orders, proximity to power, the ability to curry favor and enrich themselves by any means were valued. The common people remained impoverished, ignorant and enslaved. It has always been like this, but now it is clearly understood, seen in a striking comparison, unfavorable for the victorious country.
The younger generation, faced with oppression, injustice, abuse, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, boldly expressed their emotional protest and criticism in accusatory satires, romantic poems and rebellious Byronism, naively wanted to correct the "backward" Russian society and its patriarchal shortcomings according to European "advanced" models. The old generation, having achieved (not always worthily and honestly) high ranks, fortunes and social position, stubbornly did not want to change anything in their well-fed, comfortable, but immoral life, flexible customs and principles of the past century. Their inevitable conflict was a remarkable and tragic clash of two eras, old and new, and found its artistic expression in the most social kind of art - theater, in social comedy, in strong and principled satire. It was the famous comedy by Alexander Sergeyevich Griboedov (1790, 1794, 1795? - 1829) Woe from Wit, which continued the educational traditions of Fonvizin's The Undergrowth and preceded Gogol's Inspector General in Russian drama.
A.S. Griboyedov came from a noble family and received a good education at home, then from 1803 he studied at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School and the University under the programs of three faculties (verbal, legal and physical and mathematical), became a candidate of literature and by 1812 was preparing to receive title of doctor of law. The Patriotic War of 1812 changed the fate of the young man, he volunteered for the hussar regiment, but due to illness and being in the reserve, he did not take part in the hostilities and already from the middle of 1815 he lived in St. Petersburg. In 1817, Griboyedov finally retired and entered the service of the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs.
In St. Petersburg, he found himself among young enlightened liberals, met Chaadaev, Pushkin, Kuchelbeker, playwrights P. Katenin and A. Shakhovsky, actors, musicians, future Decembrists, began to write for the theater. The retired hussar Griboyedov led a dispersed life usual for the "golden" youth of St. Petersburg, was fond of ballerinas, had dangerous duels, masterfully played the piano and composed music, was considered a secretive and strong-willed "man of calculation", bilious, proud and quarrelsome, intelligent and caustic interlocutor.
In 1818, Griboedov left the capital, began to serve in Georgia under the local commander-in-chief A.P. In Tabriz and Tiflis, he began constant work on the comedy "Woe from Wit" (the first outlines for its plan and draft scenes appeared earlier) and in 1823 brought the first two acts of the play to Moscow, completing work on it in the Tula estate of his friend S. Begichev.
The absence of drafts and first editions of the play in this case proves that Griboyedov first composed his works in his head, kept them in his capacious and unique memory and constantly repeated them mentally, while improving the lines and entire scenes: “He took up the pen only when when I decided not to change anymore. He read almost all of “Woe from Wit” to me, when not a single verse had yet been written down on paper, because he was still dissatisfied with some scenes ”(Prince V.F. Odoevsky). Subsequently, the demanding author repeatedly reworked his play, thus achieving the ease and swiftness of verse and dialogue.
The comedy quickly spread throughout the country in the lists, but its author returned to the Caucasus, where he was arrested in 1826 on a very well-founded charge of participating in the Decembrist conspiracy and taken to St. Petersburg. With the help of Yermolov and other influential friends, Griboedov managed to justify himself, returned to the Caucasus and participated in the conclusion of the Turkmanchay peace treaty with Persia (Iran), which was beneficial for Russia, for which he was generously rewarded by the new emperor. He married a young beautiful Georgian Nina Chavchavadze, daughter of a famous poet and sovereign prince. The high appointment as resident minister at the court of the Persian Shah finally strengthened Griboedov's diplomatic career, but a sudden revolt of the Muslim fanatical mob in Tehran led to the extermination of the entire Russian mission and the death of the writer. The Russian ambassador fought heroically to the end. Griboyedov's wife brought the body to Tiflis and buried it in the mountain monastery of St. David. On the tombstone, she made the inscription: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory, but why did my love survive you?”
The best epitaph to the author of Woe from Wit was written by Pushkin, who deeply respected him: “I met Griboyedov in 1817. His melancholy character, his embittered mind, his good nature, the very weaknesses and vices, the inevitable companions of mankind - everything about him was extraordinarily attractive. Born with an ambition equal to his gifts, he has long been entangled in networks of petty needs and obscurity. The abilities of a statesman remained unused; the poet's talent was not recognized; even his cold and brilliant courage remained suspect for some time... Griboyedov's life was darkened by certain circumstances: the result of ardent passions and powerful circumstances. He felt the need to brush once and for all with his youth and turn his life around sharply ... His handwritten comedy "Woe from Wit" produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him along with our first poets ... Arriving in Georgia, he married the one he loved. I don’t know anything more enviable than the last years of his turbulent life. The very death that befell him in the midst of a bold, uneven battle had nothing terrible for Griboyedov, nothing agonizing. She was instant and beautiful."
The energy of conviction
Griboyedov, in his literary views and connections, belonged to the conservative school of "archaists", but his main principle was creative freedom: "I live and write freely and freely." He highly appreciated Shakespeare and spoke of the great playwrights of French classicism Corneille, Racine and Molière: “But why did they paste their talents into a narrow frame of three unities? And did not give free rein to their imagination to diverge wide field? However comedy "Woe from Wit" written with the exact observance of these three unities - time, place and action.
Everything in the play takes place during the day in one large house of Famusov, and the action is unified, not interrupted by other storylines and events. The very language of Woe from Wit, in accordance with the rules of classicism, is emphatically conditional, because Griboyedov's characters, unlike real people, speak in verse. There is a changing, slowly awakening hero-reasoner (Chatsky), a heroine (Sofya), a cheerful soubrett-confidante (maid Lisa), a noble deceived father (Famusov) and extended monologues. In a word, this is precisely a high comedy in the style of classicism, and it has a well-known source in French dramaturgy and a worthy example - Moliere's The Misanthrope. To "Woe from Wit" are quite applicable famous words Pushkin: "High comedy is not based solely on laughter, but on the development of characters, and ... often comes close to tragedy."
However, having set himself such conditions that would seem to constrain the author, the Russian playwright achieved complete creative freedom within these strict limits, created a truly innovative play, a social satire that fully and realistically represented the life and customs of Russian secular society in the most difficult, transitional period of struggle. it contains two forces, two generations and the main figures of this struggle in movement and the clash of their living, portrait and at the same time typical characters. “His goal is characters and a sharp picture of morals,” said Pushkin. Dostoevsky agreed with him: "Woe from Wit" ... only and strongly with its bright artistic types and characters, and only one artistic work gives all the inner content of this work.
But in these living, real types, their thoughtful connection and collision, the author's idea is expressed, lies the deep inner content of Griboedov's play. This ageless idea must be understood, and the ambiguous content must be revealed. This is what the Russian theater has been doing for two centuries now, which is helped to the best of its ability by criticism (the statements of Pushkin, Apollon Grigoriev and I.A. Goncharov remain the best) and theater studies.
No wonder Belinsky saw an example of high comedy in Woe from Wit, "this stormy dithyrambic outpouring of bilious, thunderous indignation at the sight of a rotten society of insignificant people, into whose souls the ray of God's light did not penetrate, who live according to the dilapidated traditions of antiquity, according to the system of vulgar and immoral rules, whose petty goals and low aspirations are directed only to the ghosts of life - ranks, money, gossip, the humiliation of human dignity, and whose apathetic, sleepy life is the death of every living feeling, every rational thought, every noble impulse ... "
Griboedov thoughtfully expanded the number of actors, introduced into their composition absent on stage, but mentioned (“off-stage”) characters such as the dexterous nobleman Maxim Petrovich, the “multi-writer” Foma Fomich, the important mistress Tatyana Yuryevna and the powerful princess Marya Alekseevna. All of them are “masterfully outlined” (P. Katenin), enrich the action, explain and set off the acting characters, the author needs to create a collective image of a particular social environment, a moving picture of faces, generations and ideas colliding on the stage.
“In my comedy, there are 25 fools per sane person,” the author himself said, rejecting accusations of excessive portraiture, caricatures and cartoons. Griboyedov's characters are not a crowd, not at the same time, but thoughtfully, in a sequence and groups that obey the plot. And this expanded the boundaries of his comedy and the stage itself, gave the author new opportunities for the development of characters, emphasized the social nature of Griboedov's satire and its main conflict.
The poetic language of his comedy (he called it a "stage poem") Griboyedov managed to turn from a mandatory convention into a way to preserve and convey the lively conversation of the people of that era, the free, accurate and flexible word of Griboyedov's Moscow. Here, one can feel the knowledge of the language of Russian chronicles, the high style of sermons, psalms and odes, without which Chatsky's lofty monologues would be poor and inexpressive. I.A. Goncharov figuratively called this language “colloquial verse”, because verbal action and original characters plays: “It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simple, more taken from life speech could ever appear.”
The prose of those years captured only separate phrases, in the poetic monologues and speeches of the characters in Woe from Wit, the image of free colloquial speech lives, with all its “irregularities” and abbreviations, “swallowing” verbs and conjunctions, allusions, intonations and sayings. These speeches are figurative, closer to the folk language. They expressed a sharp, well-aimed, sarcastic Russian mind, magnificent humor and comedy, which forced the whole of Russia to learn these capacious biting phrases by heart, making them catchy. “I’m not talking about poetry: half should become a proverb,” Pushkin wrote, having read Woe from Wit for the first time.
From the very appearance of the Griboedov comedy, there has been a lot of controversy about who its main character is and what he is. Pushkin even stated: “In the comedy Woe from Wit, who is the smart character? Answer: Griboedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very intelligent person (namely with Griboyedov) and was fed by his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Puffer? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? It's unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like. Goncharov talked about some of the mystery of Chatsky. Therefore, we must first talk about this key character, who opens the play with his appearance and is its main driving force.
The nature of dramatic conflict calls for a fast-paced encounter, lively and uninterrupted stage movement. In Woe from Wit, successive generations, ideas, morals and customs, different ways of life, morality and immorality, self-satisfied half-enlightenment and a young thirst for new thoughts and knowledge, spiritual slavery and liberty, habitual lies and real truth enter the battle. Therefore, Griboyedov needed so many characters present and absent on stage. The playwright groups them, the characters he needs at the moment gather and communicate. Their unexpected meetings, dialogues and collisions are entertaining and dynamic, because in each such scene various original characters are skillfully combined. This is how movement is born. play action.
The Moscow conservative society of the Famus and Khlestovs is depicted by Griboyedov in a remarkable ensemble of satirical figures, "portrait" types with lively characters and figurative colloquial speech. Comedy really became "a picture and a mirror of our social life" (Gogol), correctly reflected this moving life in typical details and faces. But it is often argued that the bilious and intelligent Protestant (in the old theater this role was called a reasoner) Chatsky lonely and hopelessly opposes this large and close-knit society (his principle is “Can it be against everyone!”), The traditional way of life of the nobility of the ancient capital, the well-established world of the old ideas, customs and prejudices. “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength,” wrote Goncharov. And he even said about him: "One ardent and brave fighter."
It may be recalled that Chatsky in the comedy is not alone “against all”, the old princess mentions her young nephew Fyodor, a chemist and botanist, and his teachers, freethinking professors of the St. the new rules. Once a friend and fellow soldier of the protagonist was the intelligent, kindly and lazy bumpkin Platon Gorich, now completely subordinate to his capricious and despotic wife, the Moscow lady. The young man in love is sympathized with the cheerful and intelligent maid Liza.
But the main evidence of the social significance of Chatsky and his connections, the influence and prevalence of his advanced ideas is the lover of making noise Repetilov, who easily exchanges these serious ideas for liberal platitudes and fantastic chatter and lies. Dostoevsky considered the type of Repetilov tragic, and the tragedy of a naive talker is that changing ideas of others fill his empty head, he has nothing of his own and serious in his soul. It is, as it were, a crooked mirror that distorts and reduces borrowed thoughts, a comical master of an empty word, a parodic double of the serious man of Chatsky's case.
But we must remember that Repetilov, sensitive to the trends of the time, is always where a fashionable novelty, an influential opinion, energetic thinking people, a new movement appear. This means that behind the young Petersburger Chatsky there is already a new force that has reached Moscow and made his conflict with the Moscow conservative society not just a personal clash (then there would be no public comedy and social satire), but a fundamental struggle of generations, two centuries, past and present . And the new century, behind the bilious Protestant Chatsky and other "new people", can no longer be canceled by any Famus and Khlestov.
Chatsky arrives in Moscow from St. Petersburg. This is implied, but with the appearance of this key character in the comedy, Petersburg of new liberal trends, as it were, hangs from its metropolitan northern distance over the peaceful and free life of Famusov's Moscow, threatening loved ones big changes, inevitable anxiety. Chatsky is the herald of the coming century, from northern capital galaxy of "new people". We know from the conversations of the characters in the play that after military service “he thought highly of himself”, was happy in friends (that is, in like-minded people), wrote and translated (of course, he wrote drafts and new laws, translated the works necessary for this), wished to serve “the cause, not individuals”, had some serious, even Muscovites known affairs with the ministers, which means that he wanted to seriously do something important, change something. And not only one wanted this, because both the people in power and the new generation of advanced nobles understood the need for political reforms, they could hear the people's grumbling.
Although the comedy was written by Griboyedov mainly in Persia and Tiflis, its first ideas and sketches appeared by 1816 or 1819, they reflected his fresh St. a caricature of their mutual friend Chaadaev), whose freedom-loving, but somewhat general and rhetorical ideas are expressed in the young Pushkin's ode "Liberty" (1817) and other uncensored writings. And this general the liberal direction, encouraged "from above" by the enlightened emperor and such of his minister-reformers as M. Speransky and A. Golitsyn, which captured both young nobles and dignitaries, is not rebellious Decembrism (after all, young Pushkin was not accepted into a secret society), which then only formalized as a secret political movement. This is a widespread advanced, but not a radical revolutionary ideology of the new time and the new generation, which Chatsky characterizes as follows: “Everyone breathes more freely ... Today, laughter frightens and keeps shame in check.” This does not require the creation of secret societies, the organization of military conspiracies, the preparation of regicide*.
* Cm.: Sakharov V.I. Romanticism in Russia: Epoch, schools, styles. M., 2004. Chapter "Enlightened mysticism of the Alexander era."
That is, in progressive St. Petersburg, a new public opinion, which Griboyedov's smart and active character became an open spokesman for in Moscow. Of course, these common advanced ideas were shared by all the Decembrists, who explained their secret plans precisely by the growth of freedom-loving ideas and protests, by society's hopes for radical changes. Even the stern and straightforward serviceman Skalozub from the reactionary camp of A. Arakcheev heard about the “new rules”, they were fully comprehended and immediately simplified, reduced and vulgarized by the talkative liberal Repetilov.
Criticism of Pushkin, who accused the ardent Chatsky of unnecessary and useless shaking the air with his angry speeches in front of the old conservatives of the Famus school who did not understand and were unworthy of them, points to the main character trait, quite consciously bestowed on him by the author - a young hot naivete. After all, the observant maid Lisa says about him: "So sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp." The feeling of the hero goes ahead of the mind, he is just beginning his struggle, full of great expectations. Great disappointments await him.
Chatsky is active, full of hope, sincerely believes in his own strength, in people, and therefore he is so surprised and outraged by the stubborn and unfriendly resistance of the inert Moscow environment. After all, his and his Petersburg friends' advanced ideas are so good, new and progressive, they just need to be followed, and all Russian life will quickly change for the better. Goncharov rightly said: “Chatsky is starting a new century - and this is his whole meaning and his whole “mind”. All his inevitable disappointments, struggles and defeats are yet to come, and at the beginning of the comedy, Chatsky’s charming “stupidity” speaks only of his kind and open character, honesty and gullibility, which is then cleverly used by experienced intrigues and completely immoral Moscow conservatives.
Therefore, Griboyedov builds his comedy on two conflicts: Chatsky's clash with Moscow society and his blind faith in the soul and love of Sophia, who had long since changed internally and followed in the footsteps of her addicted (see Famusov's review of his wife), sentimental, mother who had read fashionable novels (this character was outlined in the first drafts of the comedy , but then disappeared). The interweaving of these conflicts is already outlined in the first act, where Sophia, who has long cooled towards Chatsky, is offended by his caustic review of her new beloved Molchalin: participation of two persons, Molchalin and Lisa ”(Goncharov). Having dismissed gossip about Chatsky's madness in secular society, Sophia connects both stage conflicts into a single plot knot, which is explained in the comedy's finale.
Sophia was also called a mysterious and obscure character. The key to understanding her: Chatsky's love for her and the fact that she is in her mind - a worthy daughter of Famusov and her sensitive and amorous mother, a Moscow young lady with an indelible imprint of the environment and era, the "French" fashionable upbringing and reading sentimental novels. She is not only smart, but also has a strong, domineering character (“I want to love, I want to say”), knows how to sincerely feel (her unfeigned fainting when Molchalin fell from a horse and reproachful words “I was ready to jump out the window to you”).
Sophia loved Chatsky in her youth, but she did not like his independent character and mocking mind, she needed a timid and submissive "servant husband". The proud, wayward girl, with obvious displeasure, calls her former lover "demanding", who thinks highly of himself: "Will such a mind make the family happy?" She has her own idea of family happiness, Sophia is a despot here too. And she cruelly takes revenge on the caustic clever man, skillfully dissolving slander in society about his imaginary madness and thereby entering into an alliance with the Moscow secular public close to her in spirit. And all this, in turn, testifies to the very high opinion of Sophia about herself.
This proud Moscow young lady, in essence, is tyrannical and in love, she needs a timid and sensitive lover described in fashionable sentimental novels, below her in social status (Famusov is the head of a government office, that is, a department and, therefore, by the rank of no less than a real civilian adviser, that is, he is a civilian general), dutifully fulfilling all her requirements and whims. “God knows what you came up with for him. He is not sinful in anything, you are a hundred times more sinful, ”Chatsky says correctly to Sophia.
The insincere and obliging Molchalin, being completely different in character (Lisa sees through him and therefore laughs when her young lady calls Molchalin timid), agreed to play this book role of a shy admirer imposed on him in order to get closer to the sentimental daughter of his boss and benefactor, to a coveted career and an advantageous marriage of convenience. He is ready for any humiliation. Chatsky involuntarily guessed this: “After all, now they love wordless". Hence the angry words of the offended Sophia: “Not a man, a snake!” This man interferes with her, pricks her eyes.
The essence of the conflict between Sophia and Chatsky is that inopportunely returned after a three-year absence, the St. Petersburg clever man involuntarily, albeit not immediately, opens her eyes to a new lover and her wrong choice. Sophia will never forgive him for this (“I’m glad to humiliate, prick ...”), but Chatsky’s excited questions about Molchalin involuntarily make her think: “But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor? .. But is he worth you? » The very naivete and blindness of Chatsky are insulting to the proud Sophia, for he stubbornly does not believe that his former lover could humiliate herself so much. He does not even hear her direct confession: "God brought us together." Pushkin immediately noticed this: “Among the masterful features of this charming comedy, Chatsky’s incredulity in Sophia’s love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to revolve on, but Griboedov, apparently, did not want to - his will.
And when Sophia, in the finale of the comedy, with the help of Chatsky, finally sees all the meanness, insincerity, “curvature of the soul” of Molchalin, for her it is also “a million torments”, the collapse of all illusions, a terrible blow to pride and reputation. It becomes clear that she was angry and offended at Chatsky not for Molchalin, but for herself, his stubborn disbelief involuntarily condemned her erroneous and unworthy choice. After all, it is also important for this proud Moscow girl, “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say!” She herself loves to judge others, to moralize them, like her eternally angry father. Perhaps fate is preparing for Sophia the fate of the second Khlestova, a self-styled stern guardian of the old morals, who scolds everyone, makes public reprimands to everyone and does not notice the ingenuous Moscow rudeness hidden in her loud and important shouts and angry scoldings. Not without reason, in the final scene, Chatsky angrily calls his former lover "people with a soul are a persecutor, a scourge!"
Three people begin the comedy "Woe from Wit" early in the morning, lead it from action to action and complete it in the final evening scene of general discoveries, insights and lamentations - these are its main characters, Chatsky, Famusov and Sofya. It has already been said about the young couple and their clash on the basis of jealousy and the struggle of vanities, this is a skillfully twisted “love intrigue” (Goncharov), working on the main idea of the comedy. But the role of Famusov, his character, connection and conflict with Chatsky is not as simple as it sometimes seems.
The young man in a kindred way lived and was brought up in his patriarchal house together with his only daughter, a grumpy and quick-tempered old man (by the way, he is hardly more than fifty years old) loves him in his own way, at a meeting he cordially hugs, praises (“He is small with a head, And he writes gloriously, translates ... with such a mind”), is keenly interested in his career, fortune and estate. As for the new ideas of Chatsky, they are of little interest to the owner of the house, he prefers to live securely, comfortably and calmly, like all Moscow "aces", that is, according to the established traditions and prejudices of his conservative environment. But at some point, these ideas become a material force, they begin to disturb Famusov and his entourage, they have to answer the visiting smart guy. Their dispute began a long time ago and now continued in a different time and in new conditions and forms.
This dispute is about the main thing - about the mind and enlightenment, their significance for the fate of the new Russia, its young culture. We know the thoughts of the angry "reasoner" Chatsky by heart, they are set forth in his famous monologues, that is, detailed and inspired statements of their ideas, more like public diatribes and, in essence, did not require an answer. The monologue is an essential feature of the drama of the era of classicism and is usually addressed by the hero to the public and to himself, contains denunciations and teachings. The author needs him to express his thoughts to the audience, but he is not very scenic, because he interrupts the action for a while, stops the dialogues, everyone stops, falls silent and waits for the hero to express everything to the end. Meanwhile, the whole action of "Woe from Wit" rests on monologues, rapidly developing from one accusatory speech to another. This means that Griboedov looked at the monologue differently and found a different place for it in the artistic body of his comedy.
"Woe from Wit" begins with a monologue. And this is a monologue, more precisely, Famusov's monologues growing from one another. First, his appearance is prepared by the maid Liza, who is afraid of the arrival of the owner, then the patriarchal master appears at the bedroom of his daughter, who has read novels, locked herself there with Molchalin, and angrily talks about unnecessary enlightenment, about the uselessness and harmfulness of reading French and especially Russian books. And he says this not for the maid, but in the hall, as his opponent Chatsky will do later. In the fourth apparition, Famusov, with Chatsky-worthy vehemence, anger and sarcasm, continues to denounce the detrimental consequences of reading immoral French books, the devastating visits of ladies and girls to the Kuznetsky Most in fashionable French shops. His accusations are energetic, figurative and eloquent, their solemn rhetoric and accuracy speak of erudition (commentators found traces of reading Russian historical tragedies of the 18th century in Famusov's speeches) and an undoubted gift of a speaker, honed by endless teachings in the English Club, living rooms and salons:
Destroyers of pockets and hearts!
When the Creator delivers us
From their hats! bonnets! and studs! and pins!
And bookstores and biscuit shops!
And then follows an important phrase worthy of the offended Chatsky: “But did I expect new troubles? so that he was deceived ... ”But he really was deceived by his neighbors, led by his daughter. The disgruntled Famusov excitedly and quite rightly speaks of poor education, bad French teachers, flatteringly about himself as a model of morality, pounces on Molchalin, who turned up under the arm and really guilty, criticizes the dream of the justifying daughter, hastily and awkwardly taken from fashionable romantic ballads (“Where are the miracles, there is not enough storage there") and completes this extended, accusatory monologue, which occupies the entire fourth phenomenon, with its famous principle not to accumulate unnecessary business papers from the office: "Signed, so off your shoulders."
Old Believer Famusov seethes with indignation, this is satire, anger and sarcasm, a heartfelt conviction that broke through under the influence of reasonable suspicions. To whom does the despotic and quarrelsome Moscow gentleman turn accusatory speeches? To his serf girl Lisa, the insignificant Molchalin, who loves French books and sentimental daughter's fashion shops? No, their answers and, moreover, other, independent opinions, he does not need and are deeply indifferent, this is his heartfelt conviction, an endured opinion that is shared by the Moscow "aces" and the ladies of his generation, the children of the past century. And this opinion at first innocently considers itself to be the ultimate truth and, as such, does not require an answer, moreover, such self-satisfied people do not need answers. And that is why Famusova and his entourage are so irritated by Chatsky's reciprocal monologues.
Famusov's monologue is the loud voice of Griboedov's post-fire Moscow, defending its ancient way of life, traditions, prejudices, power and wealth. This is an alarming cry of anger and indignation, to which the imperious old woman Khlestova, Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub, Countess Khryumina, Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky, Natalya Dmitrievna Gorich, spreading gossip and slander, gentlemen N. and D. - that is, the entire patriarchal noble Moscow. This environment is already restless, irritated by bad rumors and unpleasant news from St. Petersburg, full of vague forebodings and expectations.
This monologue is not addressed to the void, it is expressed in a specific address and requires a response. A dangerous young enemy appeared from their own camp. Collision follows a split in society. This is the plot of the comedy. “The plot should embrace all the faces, and not just one or two, touch on what excites, more or less, all the actors,” Gogol wrote in Theatrical Travel. Griboedov is familiar with this law of high comedy. It is enough to look at the list of characters in the play to understand that only the former Muscovite Chatsky, a young serious reasoner, a descendant of Molière's Alceste and Fonvizin's Starodum, a herald of future general changes, can adequately answer the eloquent and angry Moscow gentleman. His appearance, speeches and deeds affect everyone, they concern society. And the brave smart young man begins to answer his high-ranking relative Famusov at his first appearance in his manor house, he ironically speaks of his beloved conservative Moscow, of himself, funny eccentrics, right down to his relatives, the enemy of books from the academic committee.
Finally, they meet in the second act, and the sworn orator Famusov summarizes in a new monologue about the fathers, their ancient life, the past century, his former defensive speeches and panegyrics to the former ability to live and serve. Chatsky answers him with an angry monologue, where the obliging "aces" and the old age of humility, fear and servility are opposed by a new, more free time, new people and their advanced ideas. The old gentleman is so outraged by these attacks that, with cries of "carbonari", "rebellion" and "liberty wants to preach", he plugs his ears, does not want to listen to these rebellious speeches. The appearance of the enviable fiance Skalozub, an old rich man and future general, clearly looking for a good Moscow bride, forces the caring father of Sophia to return to his native Moscow, its people and life and dedicate a new laudatory monologue to them, which deals with the Moscow court of people and opinions.
“Here another struggle is already starting, an important and serious one, a whole battle ... Both, Famusov and Chatsky, threw down the glove to each other ... Chatsky answers,” wrote Goncharov, speaking of the famous monologue “Who are the judges?”. The idealist and romantic Chatsky precisely answers to the detailed rhetorical praise of the owner of the house to old Moscow, its habitual way of life, old people and youth, following simple moral rules that have turned into worldly prejudices, and allowing ordinary everyday unscrupulousness in the name of real benefits and success. This coincidence in words and tone shows that in fact the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky are detailed, lasting throughout the entire action of the comedy. dialogue, where the positions and goals of both warring camps are determined and the main philosophical and satirical meaning of Griboedov's public comedy is revealed. These two characters always answer each other, in their overlapping accusatory speeches, as in paired mirrors skillfully placed in the course of the comedy, the growing social conflict is reflected, which led the country and society to the rebellion and split of the milestone year 1825. In Woe from Wit, this clash is just beginning, so far these are just words.
The remaining characters of the Famus camp only supplement this fundamental dispute between the two main characters of the comedy and the ideas, eras and generations behind them with new arguments, details and features of their typical characters and destinies. All of them are descendants of Mrs. Fonvizin Prostakova, simple-hearted egoism is combined in them with cunning, experience and tenacity. They stand for worldly realism and their own benefit and do not tolerate accusations and reproaches. The Arakcheevsky serviceman Skalozub, the despotic old woman Khlestova, the insignificant lovers of balls Tugoukhovsky and Khryumina, the arrogant and cunning swindler and informer Zagoretsky turn into a many-sided "tormentor crowd", poisoning Chatsky, tired of all these betrayals, stupid slander and persecution.
He loses his former natural cheerfulness, thirst for activity, goodwill and faith in people and love, gets irritated, makes mistake after mistake. A young critic of old prejudices was betrayed by his girlfriend. Now he is really alone, the defeat of the new man is inevitable, although it is temporary, the new century and advanced ideas are already entering the patriarchal Moscow life. The stronger is her emotional, stupid, but skillful and cunning resistance, which speaks of rich worldly experience and does not stop at low gossip, slander and primitive deceit.
The slander grows, develops, squeezing the soul of the persecuted by some kind of pain and forcing him already through force to utter into the void (everyone left him and dance) an angry monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux and the admiration of Moscow society for everything foreign, clearly echoing the words of Famusov about the Kuznetsk bridge and French immoral novels and fashions and satire of the 18th century, the writings of Novikov and Fonvizin. The words about “smart, cheerful our people” are turned by the angry Chatsky into the future, because so far this people is not present on the stage and is silent.
The liberal talker Repetilov, with his ingenuous belief in any fashionable novelty, noisy secret society known throughout Moscow, and love for dancers and vaudevilles, only briefly entertained the visiting nerd. The main characters of the comedy converge in Famusov's hallway, which was empty after the departure of the guests, and the denouement, everything is explained. This satirical comedy, in which there are distinct sad, even tragic notes, ends with a monologue of the desperate Chatsky about the “offended feeling”, disappointment in Moscow and love for the traitor Sophia, and which Prince P.A. Vyazemsky aptly called it "modern tragedy".
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
Name the two main stage conflicts on which the action of Griboyedov's comedy is based.
What social environment does Famusov represent?
How do Chatsky's advanced statements relate to the revolutionary ideology of the secret society of the Decembrists?
What are "off-stage" characters in Griboedov's comedy and what is their role in "Woe from Wit"?
BASIC CONCEPTS
Classicism.
The three unities are places, times and actions.
dramatic conflict.
verbal action.
REPORTS AND SUMMARY
Griboedovskaya Moscow as a social environment.
Dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky.
Repetilov as a parody double of Chatsky.
The role of "off-stage" characters in "Woe from Wit".
I.A. Goncharov about Griboyedov's comedy.
“The current century and the past century ...” A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism and literary criticism. SPb., 2002.
Gershenzon M.O. Griboedovskaya Moscow. M., 1989.
Goncharov I.A. “A million torments”.
"Woe from Wit" on the Russian and Soviet stage. Contemporaneous testimonies. M., 1987.
Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. Comedy. Commentary by S.A. Fomichev. SPb., 1994.
Face and Genius: from the legacy of the Russian emigration. M., 2001.
Meshcheryakov V.P. A.S.Griboyedov. Literary environment and perception (XIX - early XX century). L., 1983.
Meshcheryakov V.P. The life and deeds of Alexander Griboyedov. M., 1985.
Fomichev S.A. A.S.Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit". A comment. M., 1983.
Khechinov Yu.E. The life and death of Alexander Griboyedov. M., 2003.
Tsimbaeva E.N. Griboyedov. M., 2003.
© Vsevolod Sakharov . All rights reserved.
