Ivan Goncharov
"Million of torment"
(Critical study)
Woe from the mind Griboyedov. - Benefit of Monakhov, November, 1871
How to see and see (he says),
Present century and century past,
The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe, -
And about his time is expressed like this:
Now everyone breathes more freely, -
Scolded your century I am merciless, -
I would be glad to serve - it is sickening to serve, -
He hints himself. There is no mention of "longing laziness, idle boredom", and even less about "tender passion" as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing in Sophia his 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." Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so stupidly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But on the other hand, they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this "stupidity" of his. The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let's trace the course of the play a little and try to isolate from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, the movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible, but living thread connecting all parts and faces of the comedy with each other. Chatsky rushes in to Sophia, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by his room, warmly kisses her hand, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the meeting, hoping to find an answer to the old feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooled towards him - also unusually. This puzzled him, and upset, and a little annoyed. In vain he tries to sprinkle the salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this power of his, which, of course, Sophia liked before when she loved him - partly under the influence of annoyance and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went through everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems have gone into living speech! But all is in vain: tender memories, sharpness - nothing helps. is he suffers from her only coldness, until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched her to the quick. She already with latent anger asks him if it happened to him at least by accident to "say good about someone", and disappears at the entrance of his father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before. From that moment on, a hot fight ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in a close sense, in which two persons closely participate, Molchalin and Liza. Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his forces go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that "million torments" under the influence of which he alone could play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born. Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absent-mindedly answers his question, where was he? "Do I care now?" - he says and, promising to come again, leaves, saying from what absorbs him:How prettier Sophia Pavlovna is with you!
Let me devote myself, what would you tell me?
I would be glad to serve - it is sickening to serve!
That's it, you are all proud:
Famusov speaks and then draws such a crude and ugly picture of servility that Chatsky could not bear it and in turn made a parallel of the "past" century with the "present" century.
But his irritation is still restrained: he seems to be ashamed of himself that he took it into his head to sober Famusov from his concepts; he hastens to insert that “he’s not talking about his uncle”, whom Famusov cited as an example, and even invites the latter to scold his own age, finally, he tries in every possible way to hush up the conversation, seeing how Famusov plugged his ears, calms him down, almost apologizes.It is not my desire to last arguments, -
He says. He is ready to re-enter himself. But he is awakened by an unexpected hint from Famusov about the rumor of Skalozub's matchmaking.
It's like marrying Sofyushka ... and so on.
How fussing, what agility!
Ah - tell love the end
Who will go away for three years! -
But he himself still does not believe this, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom was played out over him to the end.
Famusov confirms his allusion to Skalozub's marriage, imposing on the latter the idea of \u200b\u200b"the general", and almost obviously calls for matchmaking. These hints of marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicions about the reasons for Sophia's change to him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "lying ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But the irritation was already going crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, while casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov's awkward praise for his mind and so on, he raises his tone and is resolved by a sharp monologue: "Who are the judges?" and so on. Another struggle, an important and serious one, a whole battle is already being tied up. Here in a few words, as in an overture of operas, the main motive is heard, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a glove to each other:Would watch as the fathers did,
They would study looking at the elders! -
Famusov's military clamor rang out. And who are these elders and "judges"?
For decrepitude years
Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -
Chatsky answers and executes -
The most vile traits of the past.
Confusion, fainting, haste, fearful wrath!
(on the occasion of Molchalin's fall from the horse) -
All this can be felt
When you lose your only friend -
He speaks and leaves in great excitement, in the throes of suspicion of two rivals.
In the third act, he is the first to climb to the ball, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a shiver of impatience begins the matter directly with the question: "Whom does she love?" After an evasive answer, she admits that she is dearer to his "others." It seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:And what do I want when it's all decided?
I climb into the noose, but she's funny!
Once in my life I will pretend -
He decides to "solve the riddle", but actually to keep Sophia when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when there is none. In his speech, one can already hear a pleading tone, gentle reproaches, complaints:
But is there in him that passion, that feeling, that ardor ...
So that, besides you, he has a whole world
Seemed ashes and vanity?
So that every heart beat
Love accelerated towards you ... -
He says - and finally:
To bear the loss more indifferent to me,
As a person - you who grow up with you,
As your friend, as your brother,
Let me be sure ...
These are already tears. He touches the serious strings of feeling -
I can beware of madness
I’m going to get cold further, get cold ... -
He concludes. Then all that was left was to fall to my knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.
Such a masterful scene, expressed by such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express the feeling nobler and more soberly, as it was expressed by Chatsky, it is impossible to extricate oneself from the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna gets out. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana remind these subtle features of clever natures. Sophia managed to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspicion, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost ruined the whole thing, speaking out almost openly in love. To Chatsky's question:Why did you (Molchalin) recognize him so briefly?
- she answers:
I didn't try! God brought us together.
Look, he has acquired the friendship of everyone in the house.
Serves for three years under the priest;
He is often angry to no purpose,
And he will disarm him with silence,
From the kindness of the soul, forgive.
And by the way,
I could look for fun, -
Not at all, from the old people will not step over the threshold!
We frolic, we laugh;
He will sit down with them all day, glad not happy,
Plays ...
Of the most wonderful quality ...
He is finally: compliant, modest, quiet,
And there are no misdeeds in my soul;
He doesn't cut strangers at random ...
That's why I love him!
She doesn't respect him!
Naughty, she doesn't love him.
She does not give him a penny! -
He consoles himself at every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer - that he was "the hero of not her novel" - destroyed these doubts too. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:
Who will solve you!
The deceiver was laughing at me! -
He notices and goes to meet new faces.
The comedy between him and Sophia was cut short; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the cold of hopelessness smelled into his soul. He just had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only displace Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and get in the crowd. New faces are grouped around him and play, each his own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of vivid scenic sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a full outline of the characters, who managed to play out in a few words into a finished action. Isn't the Gorichevs acting out a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively man, now sank down, donned, as in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, master, "husband-boy, husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a cloying, cutesy , a socialite, a Moscow lady? And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - all this contingent of brides "who, according to Famusov, are able to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and a haze", "singing the top notes and clinging to the military people"? This Khlestova, the remainder of the Catherine's century, with a pug, with a little arapka-girl - this princess and prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best drawing rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diarrhea - and these N.N., and all their talk, and everything that occupies them! The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so embossed that the viewer grows cold to intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original dialect. Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy, which began with him with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where he, according to the goals of the author, then came. In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasms. He is already vividly touched by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave a few advices to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the Countess-granddaughter and again hurt Molchalin. But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset, and out of old friendship, in the crowd again goes to Sophia, hoping at least for simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her:A million torments! -
He says. he complains to her, not suspecting what kind of conspiracy has ripened against him in the enemy camp.
"Million of torment" and "grief!" - that's what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to shut his ears against his logic, and is fired back by common passages of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, princesses, countesses - back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he alone spares, cunning, slips and inflicts the main blow on him on the sly, declaring him, at hand, in passing, crazy. He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle weighed him down. He was evidently weakened by this "a million torments," and the frustration was revealed in him so noticeably that all the guests were grouped around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that goes beyond the ordinary order of things. He is not only sad, but also bitter, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he lacked power against the united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost intoxicated speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. One can no longer hear a sharp, poisonous sarcasm, into which a correct, definite idea is inserted, true, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if a personal insult, an empty one, or, in his own words, "an insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux", which he, in a normal state of mind, would hardly have noticed. He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is composing a play at the ball. He also strikes a patriotic pathos, agrees to the point that he finds a tailcoat contrary to "reason and the elements", is angry that madame and mademoiselle have not been translated into Russian - in a word, "il divague!" - probably all six princesses and the granddaughter countess concluded about him. He feels it himself, saying that "in the crowd he is confused, not himself!" He is definitely not "himself", starting with the monologue "about the Frenchman from Bordeaux" - and so he remains until the end of the play. Ahead only "a million of torments" are replenished. Pushkin, refusing to think Chatsky, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the crossing. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those were too trained "in the science of tender passion", and Chatsky is distinguished, by the way, sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here it is not only his mind that betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. Such trifles he did! Having got rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss while waiting for the carriage, he spied Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no right to do so. He reproaches her, why she lured him with “hope,” why did she not say directly that the past was forgotten. Here every word is not true. She did not lure him with any hope. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's novel and hiding in the corners "childish" and even hinted that "God brought her to Molchalin." And he, because only -So passionate and so low
There was a waster of tender words, -
In a rage for his own useless humiliation, for self-deliberate deception, he executes everyone, and she throws a cruel and unjust word:
With you I am proud of my break, -
When there was nothing to tear apart! Finally it just comes to scolding, pouring out bile:
On the daughter, and on the father.
And on a lover fool —
And he seethes with rage at everyone, "at the crowd of tormentors, traitors, awkward clever people, crafty simpletons, sinister old women," etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for a "corner of offended feeling", pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence to everything!
If he had one healthy minute, if his "million torments" had not been burning, he would, of course, have asked himself the question: "Why and for what have I done all this mess?" And, of course, I would not find an answer. Responsible for him is Griboyedov, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's "mind", sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end in the thunder at which, as the proverb goes, peasants cross themselves. From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross, who remained until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, the same unconscious Sophia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle ... Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she is first of all happy that “at night she learned everything that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!” And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past ... Do not look at all. She will endure her moral feeling, Liza will not let herself out, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "of wife's pages", would look back at the past! 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, of blindness, in which everyone lived -Light does not punish delusions
But it demands secrets for them!
Just think how willful happiness is, -
She says when her father found Molchalin in her room early in the morning, -
It happens worse - get away with it!
Listen, lie, but know the measure!
Who travels, who lives in the village -
He says, and he objects with horror:
He doesn't recognize the authorities!
The comedy "Woe from Wit" keeps itself somehow aloof in literature.<...> She is like a hundred-year old man, around whom everyone, having outlived their time in turn, dies and falls, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it doesn’t occur to anyone that one day his turn will come.
The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without whom there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of mores.<...>
One would think that Griboyedov, out of paternal love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.
But Chatsky is not only smarter than all other persons, but also positively smart. His speech is boiling with wit, wit. He has a heart, and moreover, he is impeccably honest. In a word, he is not only an intelligent person, but also developed, with feeling, or, as his maid Liza recommends, he is "sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp!" Only his personal grief came not from one mind alone, but more from other reasons, where his mind played a suffering role.<...>
Chatsky, as you can see,<...> preparing seriously for action. “He writes gloriously, translates,” Famusov speaks of him, and everyone repeats about his high mind. Of course, he traveled ... studied, read, apparently accepted for work, was in relations with ministers and broke up - it’s not difficult to guess why:
To serve would be glad, to be sick nauseously, -
he hints at himself.<...>
Every step, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his forces go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that "million torments" under the influence of which he alone could play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.<...>
He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and Sophia alone. He does not care about others: he is now annoyed that instead of her, he found one Famusov. "How could she not be here?" - he asks himself, recalling his former youthful love, which in him “has not been cooled far, neither by amusement, nor by a change of places,” and is tormented by its coldness.<...>
After the scene in the hallway, Molchalin cannot remain the same as Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, they recognized him, and he, as a thief caught, must hide in a corner. Gorichi, Zagoretsky, princesses - all fell under the hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace. In this, so far agreeable, chorus, other voices, still bold yesterday, will be silenced or others will be heard "for" and "against". The battle just flared up.<...> All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it ensued, stubborn and hot - in one day in the same house, but the consequences of it, as we said above, were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia. Chatsky gave birth to a split, and if he was deceived for his own purposes, did not find "the charm of meetings, lively participation", then he sprinkled living water on the stale soil - taking with him "a million torments", this crown of thorns of the Chatskys - torment from everything: mind ", and even more from" offended feelings. "<...>
The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys is unchanged. Chatsky is most of all a denouncer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out a new life, a "free life."<...>
He is very positive in his demands and states them in a ready-made form, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. He does not drive with youthful fervor from the stage everything that has survived, that, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, it remains to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for deeds, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands "service to the cause, not to persons", does not confuse "fun or tomfoolery with business", like Molchalin, - he is burdened among the empty, idle crowd of "torturers, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their authority of decrepitude, pride and so on. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting manners of "spilling at feasts and extravagance" - manifestations of mental and moral blindness and corruption.
His ideal of "free life" is defined: this is freedom from all these calculated chains of slavery, which are bound to society, and then freedom - "to put a mind hungry for knowledge into science", or to indulge freely in "creative, high and beautiful arts" - freedom “To serve or not to serve,” “to live in a village or to travel,” without being known for either a robber or an igniter, and a number of further subsequent similar steps to freedom — from non-freedom.<...>
Chatsky is crushed by the amount of the old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of the fresh power.
He is the eternal denouncer of the lie hidden in the proverb: "One is not a warrior in the field." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a shooter and is always a victim.
He just had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only displace Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and get in the crowd. Around him new faces are grouped and play, each his own role. This is a ball with the whole Moscow setting, with a number of live stage sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters that have managed to play out in a few words into a finished action.<...> But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset and out of old friendship in the crowd again goes to Sophia, hoping for at least a simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her:
Million torment! -
he says.
Breasts from a friendly grip
Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,
And more to the head from any trifles!
My soul here is squeezed by some kind of grief! -
he complains to her, not knowing what conspiracy has ripened against him in the enemy camp.
"Million of torment" and "grief"! - that’s what he reaped for everything that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to shut his ears against his logic, and is fired back by common passages of the old morality. Molchalin is silent, princesses, countesses - backing away from him, burnt by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares, tricks, slips and deals the main blow to him secretly, declaring him handy, crazy.
He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle weighed him down. He was obviously weakened by this "a million torments," and the frustration was revealed in him so noticeably that all the guests were grouped around him, like a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that goes beyond the ordinary order of things.
He is not only sad, but also bitter, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he did not have enough power against the united enemy.
He falls into exaggeration, almost into a sobriety of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. One hears not a sharp, poisonous sarcasm - into which a correct, definite idea is inserted, it is true - but some bitter complaint, as if for a personal insult, for an empty or, in his own words, "insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux" which he, in a normal state of mind, would hardly have noticed.<...>
Having got rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss while waiting for the carriage, he spied Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no right to do so. He reproaches her why she “lured him with hope”, why did not she say directly that the past was forgotten. Here, not a word is a lie. She did not lure him with any hope. She just did that she was leaving him, barely talking to him, confessed to indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners childish, and even hinted that "God brought her to Molchalin."
And he is only because
So passionate and so low
There was a waster of gentle words
in a rage, for his own useless humiliation, for deceiving himself voluntarily by himself, he executes everyone, and he throws a cruel and unjust word to her:
With you I am proud of my breakup, -
when there was nothing to tear apart! Finally, it just reaches the battle, pouring bile:
To the daughter, and to the father,
And a foolish lover
and rages with fury at all, “at tormentors, a crowd of traitors, awkward clever men, crafty simpletons, old sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for a “corner for an offended feeling,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything!
If he had one healthy minute, if he hadn’t burned his "one million torment", he would certainly have asked himself the question: "Why and for what have I done all this mess?" And, of course, I would not find the answer.
Responsible for him is Griboyedov, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's “mind”, sparkling like a ray of light in an entire play, burst at the end into that thunder at which men, according to a proverb, are baptized.
From the thunder the first one crossed herself Sofia, who remained until Chatsky's appearance, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, all the same unconscious Sofia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father had raised her, in which he lived, his whole house and the whole circle ... Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she was primarily glad that “at night she found out that there were no reproaching witnesses in the eyes!” And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub.
This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs - confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but is as common features of her circle. In her own, personal physiognomy, something her own, hot, tender, even dreamy, hides in the shadow. The rest belongs to education.<...>
But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity.<...> Sophia is surprised at the laughter of the maid when she tells how she spends the whole night with Molchalin: “Not a word of freedom! - and so the whole night passes! "," The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful! " That's what she admires about him! It's funny, but there is almost a kind of grace - and far from immorality.<...>
Looking deeper into the character and atmosphere of Sophia, you see that it was not immorality (but not God, of course) that “brought her” together with Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her, is to raise him up to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, in this she was smiling the role of dominating a submissive creature, making him happy and having an eternal slave in him. It’s not fault that the future “husband-boy, husband-servant is the ideal of Moscow husbands came out of this!” There was nowhere for other ideals to stumble in Famusov’s house.
In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna without being sympathetic: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and female softness. She was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky loved her. After him, she, one of the whole crowd, begs for some kind of sad feeling, and in the reader’s soul there isn’t that indifferent laugh with which he parted with other faces.
She, of course, is the hardest of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets her "million torments".
Chatsky’s role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatsky, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, while others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.
The article is devoted to Griboedov’s ageless, always relevant play “Woe from Wit”, society spoiled by conditional morality and Chatsky - a freedom fighter and a convict of lies that will not disappear from society.
Ivan Goncharov notes the freshness and youthfulness of the play "Woe from Wit":
She is like a hundred-year old man, around whom everyone, having outlived their time in turn, dies and falls, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of the old and the cradles of the new.
Despite Pushkin's genius, his heroes “pale and fade into the past,” while Griboyedov's play appeared earlier, but survived them, the author of the article believes. The literate mass immediately disassembled it into quotations, but the play passed this test too.
"Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, a gallery of living types, and "an eternally sharp, burning satire." "The group of twenty faces reflected ... all the old Moscow." Goncharov notes the artistic completeness and certainty of the play, which was given only to Pushkin and Gogol.
Everything was taken from the Moscow drawing rooms and transferred to the book. The traits of the Famusovs and Molchalins will remain in society as long as gossip, idleness and groveling persist.
The main role is the role of Chatsky. Griboyedov attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, "and Pushkin refused him at all in his mind."
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, who were incapable of doing business, Chatsky prepared for serious work: he studied, read, traveled, but parted ways with the ministers for a well-known reason: "I would be glad to serve, it is sick to serve."
The disputes between Chatsky and Famusov reveal the main purpose of the comedy: Chatsky is a supporter of new ideas, he condemns "the most vile traits of the past life", for which Famusov stands.
Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, the whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire fraternity of "fathers and elders", on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, "the enemy of quests."
A love affair also develops in the play. Sophia's swoon after Molchalin’s fall from the horse helps Chatsky to almost guess the cause. Losing his "mind", he will directly attack the opponent, although it is already obvious that Sophie, in her own words, is sweeter than his "others." Chatsky is ready to beg for what cannot be begged - love. Complaint and reproaches are heard in his pleading tone:
But is there that passion in him?
That feeling? The ardor is that?
So that, besides you, he has a whole world
Seemed ashes and vanity?
The farther, the more audible the tears in Chatsky’s speech, Goncharov believes, but “the remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.” Sophia herself almost betrays herself, saying about Molchalin that "God brought us together." But she is saved by the insignificance of Molchalin. She paints Chatsky's portrait of him, not noticing that he comes out vulgar:
Look, he has acquired the friendship of all in the house;
With the priest, he has served for three years,
He often gets angry
And he will disarm him in silence ...
... from the old people do not step beyond the threshold ...
... Aliens and at random does not cut, -
That's why I love him.
Chatsky consoles himself after each praise to Molchalin: "She doesn't respect him," "She doesn't give him a penny," "Naughty, she doesn't love him."
Another lively comedy plunges Chatsky into the abyss of Moscow life. These are the Gorichevs - the degraded master, “husband-boy, husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands”, under the shoe of his cloying, cutesy wife, this is Khlestova, “the remainder of the Catherine's century, with a pug and a little girl”, “ruin of the past” Prince Pyotr Ilyich , an obvious swindler Zagoretsky, and "these NNs, and all their meanings, and everything that occupies them!"
With his caustic remarks and sarcasms, Chatsky turns them all against him. He hopes to find sympathy with Sophia, unaware of a plot against him in the enemy camp.
"Million of torment" and "grief!" - that’s what he reaped for everything that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of his enemies.
But the struggle tired him. He is sad, bitter and picky, the author notes, Chatsky falls into almost drunkenness of speech and confirms the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.
Pushkin probably denied Chatsky's mind because of the last scene of the 4th act: neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have behaved like Chatsky in the entryway. He is not a lion, not a dandy, he does not know how and does not want to show off, he is sincere, so his mind betrayed him - he did such trifles! After spying on the meeting between Sophia and Molchalin, he played the role of Othello, to which he had no rights. Goncharov notes that Chatsky reproaches Sophia that she "lured him with hope," but she only did what she pushed him away.
Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived ...
To convey the general meaning of conventional morality, Goncharov cites Pushkin's couplet:
Light does not punish delusions
But it demands secrets for them!
The author notes that Sophia would never have seen the light of this conventional morality without Chatsky, "for lack of opportunity." But she cannot respect him: Chatsky is her eternal "reproachful witness", he opened her eyes to the true face of Molchalin. Sophia is "a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with no hint of ideas and beliefs, ... mental and moral blindness ..." But this belongs to upbringing, there is something "hot, tender, even dreamy" in her own personality.
Women learned only to imagine and feel, and did not learn to think and know.
Goncharov notes that there is something sincere in Sophia's feelings for Molchalin, reminiscent of Pushkin's Tatyana. “The difference between them is made by the Moscow imprint.” Sophia is also ready to give herself out in love, she does not find it reprehensible to start the novel first, as does Tatiana. In Sofya Pavlovna there are makings of a remarkable nature, it was not without reason that Chatsky loved her. But Sophia was attracted to help the poor creature, to exalt him to himself, and then to rule over him, "to make him happy and to have an eternal slave in him."
Chatsky, the author of the article says, only sows, and others reap, his suffering is in the hopelessness of success. A million torment is the crown of thorns of Chatsky - torment from everything: from the mind, and even more from an insulted feeling. Neither Onegin nor Pechorin are suitable for this role. Even after the murder of Lensky, Onegin takes away agony with him on a "dime"! Chatsky another:
He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for deeds, but does not want to be served, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery.
The idea of \u200b\u200ba “free life” is freedom from all the chains of slavery that bound society. Famusov and others internally agree with Chatsky, but the struggle for existence does not allow them to yield.
He is the eternal denouncer of the lie hidden in the proverb: "One is not a warrior in the field." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and is always a victim.
This image is unlikely to age. According to Goncharov, Chatsky is the most lively person as a person and performer of the role entrusted to him by Griboyedov.
... The Chatsky live and are not translated in society, repeating at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under the same roof ... Every business that needs to be renewed causes a shadow of Chatsky ...
“Two comedies seem to be embedded in one another”: a petty, love intrigue, and a private one, which is played out in a big battle.
Then Goncharov talks about staging the play on stage. He believes that in the game it is impossible to claim historical fidelity, since “the living track has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. The artist must resort to creativity, to the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and the work of Griboedov. This is the first stage condition. The second is the artistic performance of the language:
The actor, as a musician, is obliged ... to think of the sound of the voice and the intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: it means - think of a subtle critical understanding of all poetry ...
“Where, if not from the stage, can one wish to hear an exemplary reading of exemplary works?” It is precisely the loss of literary performance that the public rightly complains about.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" keeps itself somehow aloof in literature and differs by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year old man, around whom everyone, having outlived their time in turn, dies and falls, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it doesn’t occur to anyone that one day his turn will come.
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 mores. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other persons, but also positively smart. His speech is boiling with wit, wit. He has a heart, and moreover, he is impeccably honest. In a word, he is not only an intelligent person, but also developed, with feeling, or, as his maid Lisa recommends, he is "sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp." Chatsky, apparently, was preparing seriously for activity. He "writes gloriously, translates," says Famusov about him, and about his high mind. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, was taken, apparently, for work, was in relations with the ministers and parted - it is not difficult to guess why. “I’d be glad to serve, it’s sick to be served,” he hints.
He loves seriously, seeing his future wife in Sophia. He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and Sophia alone.
Two comedies seem to be embedded in one another: one, so to speak, private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Liza: this is the intrigue of love, the daily motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, unexpectedly another appears in the gap, and the action is tied again, the private comedy is played out in a general battle and is tied into one knot.
Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and left, taking with him only "a million torments." Chatsky is eager for a "free life", "for pursuing" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals." He is a denouncer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out a new life, "a free life." All his mind and all his forces go into this struggle. Not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's "mind", sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end in the thunder at which, according to the proverb, men cross themselves. All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it started, stubborn and hot - in one day in one house, but its consequences were reflected in all of Moscow and Russia.
Chatsky, even if he was deceived in his personal expectations, did not find the “delights of meeting, living fate,” he sprayed himself on the stubborn soil with living water - taking away with him a “million of torments” - torments from everything: from “mind”, from “offended feeling ". Chatsky’s role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatsky, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap. Chatsky is crushed by the amount of the old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of the fresh power. He is the eternal denouncer of the lie hidden in the proverb: "One is not a warrior in the field." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a shooter and is always a victim.
Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another. Griboyedovsky Chatsky will hardly ever grow old, and with him the whole comedy. Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most living person of all the heroes of the comedy. His nature is stronger and deeper than other faces and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.
Comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” as a socio-political drama
In the name of A. S. Griboedov one of the most brilliant pages in the history of Russian literature opens. According to V. G. Belinsky, Alexander Sergeyevich is one of the “most powerful manifestations of the Russian spirit”. His comedy "Woe from Wit" played an outstanding role in the social, political and moral education of people.
This work widely and realistically reflected the life of Moscow in the twenties of the 19th century, as well as the movement of advanced social thought in Russia, when the noble revolutionaries, the Decembrists, came out to fight the old world.
I. A. Goncharov, who wrote a deep article on “Woe from Wit,” said that “Chatsky begins a new century - and this is all of his significance and his whole mind.” Without such an understanding, it is impossible to evaluate and correctly comprehend the image of the hero. Chatsky, the spokesman for progressive ideas, as well as a true patriot, said: "When you wander, return home, and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!"
Having created the image of a new hero, A.S. Griboyedov shows that the mind is a powerful force INThe fight against inertia and despotism, and it is he who leads Chatsky to a clash with Famus society. The very name of the comedy contains the key to its understanding. The work of the writer speaks of the grief of a person, and this grief occurs because of the mind. This problem in Griboedov’s time was relevant, since the words “smart”, “smart guy” were used as a synonym for the concept of “freethinking”.
It was this kind of mind in the Famusian world that was regarded as madness, madness. This is the basis in the comedy of the internal development of the conflict between two worlds: "the present century" and "the past century".
“The present age” is the protagonist of the work, sharply denouncing the Moscow nobility, rebelling against ignorance; “The past century” is representatives of the Famus society that hate enlightenment, who declared that “learning is the plague”, “if evil is stopped, if books were collected and burned”. Chatsky is opposed to bureaucracy, service to individuals, and not to business ("I would be glad to serve - to be sick of sickness"). He is outraged by the principles of Famusov: “it is signed - so off your shoulders”, “how can you not please your own little man”. The main character, selflessly loving his homeland, the people, advocates a careful attitude towards the Russian language, "so that our smart, cheerful people, although by language, do not consider us as Germans." Chatsky is eloquent, a man of outstanding intelligence, courageous, honest and sincere. A.S. Griboyedov shows these qualities especially vividly, contrasting the main character with the hypocritical sycophant Molchalin. This is a vile person who regularly fulfills his father's behest "to please all people without exception." Molchalin is a “low-worshiper and a businessman,” as Chatsky describes him, whose bold speeches stirred the calmness of Famus society, provoked indignation and a sharp rebuff. The old world resists, fights against the hero using slander. Together they picked up the rumor spread by Sophia about the madness of Alexander Andreevich. The Famus world is still strong and numerous. And the insulted Chatsky flees from the house of Pavel Afanasyevich, flees from Moscow. But the reader is convinced of the moral victory of the hero over the old world.
IA Goncharov in his article “A Million of Torments” defined the meaning of Griboyedov's hero as follows: “he is the eternal denouncer of lies, hidden in the proverb: one is not a warrior in the field. No, warrior, if he is Chatsky and, moreover, a winner. ”
AS Griboedov left an indelible mark on the history of Russian culture. In the comedy “Woe from Wit”, he put forward the main social and idealistic problem of his crucial time - the problem of irreconcilable hostility between the defenders of the old system and representatives of the new worldview, a new free life. This topic not only did not lose its significance throughout the nineteenth century, but, on the contrary, became more acute, reflecting the socio-historical contradictions of the bourgeois era. The great comedy remains fresh and relevant in our time. And the patriotism and deep faith in Russia of A.S. Griboyedov, a wonderful national and folk writer, are very dear to the present reader.