home Heating installation Griboyedov grief from mind year. The creative history of the comedy “Woe from Wit”

Griboyedov grief from mind year. The creative history of the comedy “Woe from Wit”

The comedy in verse by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a satirical look at life and the worldview of the aristocratic society of Moscow early XIX century. What are the features of this comedy?

The comedy takes its rightful place among the most outstanding works of Russian literature, thanks to its unsurpassed aphoristic style, brilliant, subtle ridicule of the outdated ideals and ideas of the conservative Russian nobility. The author skillfully combines in the work elements of classicism and new for Russia first half of the 19th century realism.

Reasons for creating the comedy "Woe from Wit"

What prompted the author to create such a bold work for those years? First of all, the limitations of aristocratic society, blind imitation of everything foreign, the state of a peculiar “ stagnation» worldview, rejection of a new type of thinking, lack of self-improvement. So, having returned from abroad to St. Petersburg in 1816, young Alexander Griboyedov was amazed at how the secular public bowed to a foreign guest at one of the receptions. Griboed's fate decreed that, being quite educated and intelligent, he was a very progressive person in his views. He allowed himself to make a fiery speech with dissatisfaction about this. Society immediately considered the young man crazy, and news of this quickly spread throughout St. Petersburg. This became the motive for writing a satirical comedy. The playwright worked on the creative history of the work for several years; he actively attended balls and social functions in search of prototypes for his comedy.

During the period when the comedy was being created, protests were already brewing among the nobility against existing system: in particular, disagreement with the serfdom system. This led to the emergence of Masonic lodges, of which Griboyedov was a member. The first edition of the work was changed due to censorship of the time: the text was filled with subtle hints of political conspiracies, the tsarist army was ridiculed, and open protest was expressed against serfdom and demands for reform. The first publication of a comedy without falsified inserts appeared after the death of the author in 1862.

Comedy protagonist Alexander Chatsky is the prototype of the author himself. Chatsky has brilliant erudition and is merciless towards representatives of the Moscow “society”, who live in lazy idleness and are mired in nostalgia for past times. Chatsky boldly challenges the enemies of enlightenment, for whom the main ideals are exclusively wealth and obedience to superiors.

The tragedy of the work "Woe from Wit"

The tragedy of the work lies in the fact that Chatsky, like the author, was unable, despite all efforts, to change the worldview of society, to make it more open to innovation. But despite the open defeat, Chatsky was still confident that he had already sowed the seeds of progressive thinking in society and that in the future they would be raised by new generations who would be more honest with themselves than their fathers. In the end, our hero became real winner, because he remained faithful to his views and principles until the very end.

“Griboyedov is a man of one book,” noted V.F. Khodasevich. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”

Creative history The comedy, which the playwright has been working on for several years, is extremely complex. The idea of a “stage poem,” as Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the planned work, arose in the second half of the 1810s. - in 1816 (according to S.N. Begichev) or in 1818-1819. (according to the memoirs of D.O. Bebutov). The writer, apparently, began working on the text of the comedy only in the early 1820s. The first two acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived during his vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh Moscow impressions made it possible to develop many scenes that were barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were created in the summer of 1823 on the Tula estate of S.N. Begichev. However, Griboyedov did not consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the main character changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (previously his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called "Woe to Wit", received its final name.

In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov made significant stylistic changes to the original edition, changed part of the first act (Sofia’s dream, the dialogue between Sofia and Lisa, Chatsky’s monologue), and in the final act a scene of Molchalin’s conversation with Lisa appeared. The final edition was completed in the fall of 1824. After this, hoping for the publication of the comedy, Griboedov encouraged the appearance and distribution of its lists. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, “corrected by the hand of Griboedov himself” (belonged to A.A. Zhandre), and the Bulgarinsky copy, a carefully corrected clerk’s copy of the comedy, left by Griboedov to F.V. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving St. Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist would be able to get the play published.

Already in the summer of 1824, Griboyedov tried to publish a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in the anthology “Russian Waist” in December 1824, and the text was “softened” and shortened by censorship. “Inconvenient” for printing, too harsh statements of the characters were replaced by faceless and “harmless” ones. Thus, instead of the author’s “To the Scientific Committee,” “Among the Scientists Who Settled” was printed, Molchalin’s “programmatic” remark “After all, one must depend on others” was replaced with the words “After all, one must keep others in mind.” The censors did not like the mentions of the “royal person” and the “reigns”. The publication of excerpts from the comedy, well known from handwritten copies, evoked many responses in the literary community. “His handwritten comedy: “Woe from Wit,” recalled Pushkin, “produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.”

The full text of “Woe from Wit” was never published during the author’s lifetime. The first edition of the comedy appeared translated into German in Reval in 1831. The Russian edition, with censored corrections and cuts, was published in Moscow in 1833. Two uncensored editions of the 1830s are also known. (printed in regimental printing houses). For the first time, the entire play was published in Russia only in 1862. The scientific publication of “Woe from Wit” was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher N.K. Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.

The fate of theatrical productions of comedy turned out to be no less difficult. For a long time, theater censorship did not allow it to be staged in full. Back in 1825, the first attempt to stage “Woe from Wit” on the stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg ended in failure: the play was banned because the play was not approved by the censor. The comedy first appeared on stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian Corps (the author was present at the performance). Only in 1831, with numerous censored notes, “Woe from Wit” was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical performances Comedies only stopped working in the 1860s.

Story critical interpretations The play reflects the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical issues, indicated in the very title of the comedy: “Woe from Wit.” Problems of intelligence and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and hypocrisy posed and solved by Griboyedov on a variety of everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all the characters in the comedy, including minor, episodic and off-stage ones, are drawn into a discussion of questions about the relationship to the mind and various forms of stupidity and madness. The main figure around whom all the diversity of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated was the smart “madman” Chatsky. The overall assessment of the author’s intention, issues and artistic features comedies.

Let's look at just some of the most notable critical judgments and assessments.

From the very beginning, approval of the comedy was by no means unanimous. Conservatives accused Griboyedov of exaggerating his satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author’s “brawling patriotism,” and in Chatsky they saw a clever “madman,” the embodiment of the “Figaro-Griboyedov” philosophy of life. Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in “Woe from Wit”. For example, a longtime friend and co-author of the playwright P.A. Katenin, in one of his private letters, gave the following assessment of the comedy: “It’s like a chamber of intelligence, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and knocked down (manque); The style is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties.” According to the critic, annoyed by the deviations from the rules of classical drama, including the replacement of “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov’s “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors will not take these roles, but bad ones will ruin them.”

A remarkable auto-commentary to “Woe from Wit” was written in January 1825 by Griboyedov’s response to the critical judgments expressed by Katenin. This is not only an energetic “anti-criticism”, representing the author’s view of comedy (this must be taken into account when analyzing the play), but also aesthetic manifesto of an innovative playwright, refusing “to please the theorists, i.e. do stupid things,” “satisfy school requirements, conditions, habits, grandmother’s legends.”

In response to Katenin’s remark about the imperfection of the “plan” of the comedy, that is, its plot and composition, Griboyedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because our sinners have ordinary minds, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this man, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than others... “The scenes are connected arbitrarily.” Just as in the nature of all events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity.”

The playwright explained the meaning of Chatsky’s behavior as follows: “Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed it, and everyone repeated it, the voice of general hostility reaches him, and, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he only appeared to Moscow, it is completely explained to him, he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey sugar. What could be more complete than this?

Griboyedov defends his principles of depicting heroes. He accepts Katenin’s remark that “the characters are portraits,” but considers this not an error, but the main advantage of his comedy. From his point of view, satirical images-caricatures that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable. "Yes! and if I do not have the talent of Moliere, then at least I am more sincere than him; Portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy; however, they contain features that are characteristic of many other persons, and others that are characteristic of the entire human race, to the extent that each person is similar to all his two-legged brothers. I hate caricatures; you won’t find one in my painting. Here is my poetics...”

Finally, Griboedov considered Katenin’s words that his comedy contained “more talent than art” as the most “flattering praise” for himself. “Art consists only of imitating talent...” noted the author of “Woe from Wit.” “As I live, I write freely and freely.”

Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (the list of “Woe from Wit” was brought to Mikhailovskoye by I.I. Pushchin). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright was most successful in “characters and a sharp picture of morals.” In their depiction, according to Pushkin, Griboedov’s “comic genius” was revealed. The poet was critical of Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary hero-reasoner, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like.” Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky’s behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position.

At the beginning of 1840, V.G. Belinsky, in an article about “Woe from Wit,” as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky practical intelligence, calling him “the new Don Quixote.” According to the critic, main character comedy - a completely absurd figure, a naive dreamer, “a boy on a stick on horseback who imagines that he is sitting on a horse.” However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, emphasizing in a private letter that “Woe from Wit” is “a most noble, humanistic work, an energetic (and still the first) protest against the vile racial reality.” It is characteristic that the previous condemnation “from an artistic point of view” was not canceled, but only replaced by a completely different approach: the critic did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky’s image, but assessed the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.

Critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. For example, A.I. Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of the “ultimate thoughts” of Griboyedov himself, interpreting the hero of the comedy as a political allegory. “... This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter I and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...” And for the critic A.A. Grigoriev, Chatsky is “our only hero, that is, the only one who is positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion threw him,” therefore the whole play turned into his critical interpretation from “high” comedy to “high” tragedy (see article “Concerning the new edition of an old thing. “Woe from Wit.” St. Petersburg, 1862”). In these judgments, Chatsky’s appearance is rethought, interpreted not only in an extremely general way, but also one-sidedly.

I. A. Goncharov responded to the production of “Woe from Wit” at the Alexandrinsky Theater (1871) with a critical sketch “A Million Torments” (published in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, 1872, No. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboedov the playwright, and wrote about the special position of “Woe from Wit” in Russian literature. But, perhaps, the most important advantage of Goncharov’s sketch is its careful attitude to the author’s concept, embodied in the comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. “Every step of Chatsky, 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,” Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love affair (its importance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from the mind” of a rejected lover and a lonely lover of truth, and the simultaneously tragic and comic nature of Chatsky’s image.

The main feature of comedy is interaction of two plot-shaping conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house. From the point of view of problems, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov’s society is in the foreground, but in the development of the plot action the traditional love conflict is no less important: after all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting with Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and strengthen each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.

In the two storylines of “Woe from Wit” all the elements of the classical plot are easily revealed: exposition - all the scenes of the first act preceding Chatsky’s appearance in Famusov’s house (phenomena 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the beginning of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sofia (D. I, Rev. 7). The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famusov’s society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (d. I, ep. 9).

Both conflicts are developing in parallel. Stages of development of a love conflict - dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The hero is persistent in his attempts to call Sofia to openness and find out why she became so cold towards him and who her chosen one is. Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society includes a number of private conflicts: Chatsky’s verbal “duels” with Famusov, Skalozub, Silent and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in “Woe from Wit” literally throw many minor characters onto the stage and force them to reveal their position in life in their remarks or actions. Griboyedov creates not only a broad “picture of morals”, but also shows the psychology and life principles of people literally surrounding Chatsky from all sides.

The pace of action in the comedy is lightning fast. Many events that form fascinating everyday “micro-plots” take place before readers and viewers. What happens on stage causes laughter and at the same time makes you think about the contradictions of the society of that time, and about universal human problems. The development of the action is somewhat slowed down by the lengthy, but extremely important monologues-“programs” of Chatsky and other characters (Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov): they not only aggravate the ideological conflict, but are also an important means of social, moral and psychological characterization of the warring parties.

The climax of “Woe from Wit” is an example of Griboyedov’s remarkable dramatic skill. At the heart of the culmination of the socio-ideological plot (society declares Chatsky crazy; d. III, appearances 14-21) is a rumor, the reason for which was given by Sofia with her remark “to the side”: “He is out of his mind.” The annoyed Sofia dropped this remark by chance, meaning that Chatsky had “gone crazy” with love and had become simply unbearable for her. The author uses a technique based on the play of meanings: Sofia’s emotional outburst was heard by the social gossip Mr. N. and understood it literally. Sofia decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his ridicule of Molchalin. Having become the source of gossip about Chatsky’s madness, the heroine “burned the bridges” between herself and her former lover.

Thus, the culmination of the love plot motivates the culmination of the socio-ideological plot. Thanks to this, both seemingly independent plot lines of the play intersect at a common climax - a lengthy scene, the result of which is the recognition of Chatsky as crazy. It should, however, be emphasized that just as the arrival of the lover Chatsky gave rise to fundamental disputes between him, representing the “present century,” and those who stubbornly cling to the life values of the “past century,” so Sofia’s annoyance and anger at the “madman” lover led society to a complete ideological demarcation with Chatsky and with everything new in public life what is behind it. In fact, any dissent, the reluctance of Chatsky and his like-minded people outside the stage to live as “public opinion” prescribed, was declared “madness.”

After the climax, the storylines diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict. The night scene in Famusov's house (d. IV, appearances 12-13), in which Molchalin and Liza, as well as Sofia and Chatsky participate, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret obvious. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin’s hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:

Here is the solution to the riddle at last!
Here I am donated to!

The denouement of the storyline, based on Chatsky’s conflict with Famus society, is Chatsky’s last monologue, directed against the “crowd of persecutors.” Chatsky declares his final break with Sofia, and with Famusov, and with the entire Moscow society (d. IV, iv. 14): “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore.”

IN character system Comedy Chatsky, connecting both storylines, occupies a central place. Let us emphasize, however, that for the hero himself the paramount importance is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he has found himself in; he has no illusions about Famusov and “all the Moscow people.” The reason for Chatsky’s stormy accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed caustic remarks is love experiences, “impatience of the heart,” which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation. Of course, sincere, emotional, open Chatsky cannot help but come into conflict with people alien to him. He is unable to hide his assessments and feelings, especially if he is openly provoked by Famusov, Molchalin, and Skalozub, but it is important to remember that it is love that opens all the “floodgates,” making the flow of Chatsky’s eloquence literally unstoppable.

Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sofia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. He is driven by the ardor of love. Chatsky’s animation and “talkativeness” are initially caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sofia greets him very coldly: the hero seems to come across a blank wall of alienation and poorly hidden annoyance. The former lover, whom Chatsky recalls with touching tenderness, has completely changed towards him. With the help of the usual jokes and epigrams, he tries to find a relationship with her. mutual language, “sorts out” his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sofia - she responds to him with barbs. The strange behavior of his beloved arouses Chatsky’s jealous suspicions: “Is there really some kind of groom here?”

The actions and words of Chatsky, who is smart and sensitive to people, seem inconsistent and illogical: his mind is clearly not in harmony with his heart. Realizing that Sofia does not love him, he does not want to come to terms with this and undertakes a real “siege” of his beloved who has lost interest in him. A feeling of love and a desire to find out who has become Sofia’s new chosen one keeps him in Famusov’s house: “I’ll wait for her and force a confession: / Who is finally dear to her? Molchalin! Skalozub!

He pesters Sofia, trying to provoke her into frankness, asking her tactless questions: “Is it possible for me to find out / ... Who do you love? "

The night scene in Famusov’s house revealed the whole truth to Chatsky, who had seen the light. But now he goes to the other extreme: he cannot forgive Sophia for his love blindness, he reproaches her for having “lured him with hope.” The outcome of the love conflict did not cool Chatsky's ardor. Instead of love passion, the hero was overcome by other strong feelings - rage and embitterment. In the heat of his rage, he shifts responsibility for his "labour's fruitless" to others. Chatsky was offended not only by the “betrayal,” but also by the fact that Sofia preferred him to the insignificant Molchalin, whom he so despised (“When I think about who you preferred!”). He proudly declares his “breakup” with her and thinks that he has now “sobered up... completely,” intending at the same time to “pour out all the bile and all the frustration on the whole world.”

It is interesting to trace how love experiences exacerbate Chatsky’s ideological confrontation with Famus’s society. At first, Chatsky calmly treats Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only the comic sides in it: “I am an eccentric of another miracle / Once I laugh, then I forget...”.

But when Chatsky becomes convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Replies and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed at without malice.

In his monologues, Chatsky touches on pressing problems of the modern era: the question of what real service is, problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, national identity. But, being in an excited state, the hero, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, “falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech... He also falls into patriotic pathos, reaching the point that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements” , is angry that madame and madame moiselle... have not been translated into Russian...".

Behind the impulsive, nervous verbal shell of Chatsky’s monologues lie serious, hard-won convictions. Chatsky is a person with an established worldview, a system life values and morality. The highest criterion for assessing a person for him is “a mind hungry for knowledge”, the desire “for creative, high and beautiful arts.” Chatsky’s idea of service—Famusov, Skalozub, and Molchalin literally force him to talk about it—is connected with his ideal of a “free life.” One of her the most important aspects- freedom of choice: after all, according to the hero, every person should have the right to serve or refuse to serve. Chatsky himself, according to Famusov, “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in it,” but he has clear ideas about what service should be. According to Chatsky, one should serve “the cause, not the persons,” and not confuse personal, selfish interest and “fun” with “business.” In addition, he associates service with people’s ideas about honor and dignity, therefore, in a conversation with Famusov, he deliberately emphasizes the difference between the words “serve” and “serve”: “I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served.”

His philosophy of life puts him outside the society gathered in Famusov’s house. Chatsky is a person who does not recognize authorities and does not share generally accepted opinions. Above all, he values his independence, causing horror among his ideological opponents, who see the ghost of a revolutionary, a “Carbonari.” “He wants to preach freedom!” - exclaims Famusov. From the point of view of the conservative majority, Chatsky’s behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible, because he does not serve, travels, “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections, does not make a career. It is no coincidence that Famusov, the ideological mentor of all those gathered in his house, the trendsetter of ideological “fashion,” demands that Chatsky live “like everyone else,” as is customary in society: “I would say, first of all: don’t be a whim, / In honor, brother, Don’t mismanage, / And most importantly, come and serve.”

Although Chatsky rejects generally accepted ideas about morality and public duty, one can hardly consider him a revolutionary, radical, or even a “Decembrist”: there is nothing revolutionary in Chatsky’s statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who proposes that society return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous layers something that is talked about a lot in Famus society, but about which, in Chatsky’s opinion, they do not have a correct idea - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the hero’s very moderate educational judgments and the effect they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, sanctified by the “fathers” and “elders,” but also as a threat of a social revolution: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities.” Against the backdrop of the inert and unshakably conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave “madman” who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although among freethinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.

Sofia- Chatsky’s main plot partner - occupies a special place in the system of characters in “Woe from Wit”. The love conflict with Sofia involved the hero in a conflict with the entire society and served, according to Goncharov, as “a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov.” Sofia does not take Chatsky’s side, but she does not belong to Famusov’s like-minded people, although she lived and was raised in his house. She is a closed, secretive person and difficult to approach. Even her father is a little afraid of her.

Sofia’s character has qualities that sharply distinguish her from the people of Famus’s circle. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in its disdainful attitude towards gossip and rumors (“What do I hear? Whoever wants, judges that way...”). Nevertheless, Sofia knows the “laws” of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly uses “public opinion” to take revenge on her former lover.

Sofia's character has not only positive, but also negative traits. “A mixture of good instincts with lies” was seen by Goncharov in her. Willfulness, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. After all, by slandering Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among those gathered, convinced that Chatsky was a completely “normal” person. He finally became disillusioned with Sophia precisely when he learned that he owed her “this fiction.”

Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but her love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sofia extols Molchalin’s spiritual qualities to the skies, but is so blinded by her feelings that she does not notice “how the portrait turns out vulgar” (Goncharov). Her praises to Molchalin (“He plays all day long!”, “He’s silent when he’s scolded!”) have the completely opposite effect: Chatsky refuses to take everything Sofia says literally and comes to the conclusion that “she doesn’t respect him.” Sofia exaggerates the danger that threatened Molchalin when he fell from a horse - and an insignificant event grows in her eyes to the size of a tragedy, forcing her to recite:

Molchalin! How my sanity remained intact!
You know how dear your life is to me!
Why should she play, and so carelessly?
(D. II, Rev. 11).

Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. Probably, like Pushkin’s heroines from Eugene Onegin, she dreams of “Grandison”, but instead of the “guard sergeant” she finds another “example of perfection” - the embodiment of “moderation and accuracy”. Sofia idealizes Molchalin, without even trying to find out what he really is, without noticing his “vulgarity” and pretense. “God brought us together” - this “romantic” formula exhausts the meaning of Sofia’s love for Molchalin. He managed to please her, first of all, because he behaves like a living illustration of a novel he has just read: “He will take your hand, press it to your heart, / He will sigh from the depths of your soul...”.

Sofia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not strive to understand, and avoids explanations. Sofia is unfair to him, considering him callous and heartless (“Not a man, a snake!”), attributing to him an evil desire to “humiliate” and “prick” everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: “What do you need me for?” In her relationship with Chatsky, the heroine is just as “blind” and “deaf” as in her relationship with Molchalin: her idea of her former lover is far from reality.

Sofia, the main culprit of Chatsky’s mental torment, herself evokes sympathy. Sincere and passionate in her own way, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even the oblivion of decency (nightly dates, the inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father’s “rootless” secretary takes Sofia beyond Famus’s circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all its bookishness and obvious comedy, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is preoccupied with finding her a rich careerist groom, and to society, which only excuses open, uncamouflaged debauchery. The height of feelings, not typical of Famusovites, makes her internally free. She is so happy with her love that she is afraid of exposure and possible punishment: “Happy people don’t watch the clock.” It is no coincidence that Goncharov compared Sofia with Pushkin’s Tatyana: “... She, in her love, is just as ready to give herself away as Tatyana: both, as if sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sofia, like Tatyana, begins an affair themselves, not finding anything reprehensible in it.”

Sofia has a strong character and a developed sense of self-esteem. She is self-loving, proud, and knows how to inspire self-respect. At the end of the comedy, the heroine begins to see clearly, realizing that she was unfair to Chatsky and loved a man unworthy of her love. Love gives way to contempt for Molchalin: “My reproaches, complaints, tears / Don’t you dare expect them, you’re not worth them...”.

Although, according to Sofia, there were no witnesses to the humiliating scene with Molchalin, she is tormented by a feeling of shame: “I am ashamed of myself, of the walls.” Sofia realizes her self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely repents. “All in tears,” she says her last line: “I blame myself all around.” In the last scenes of “Woe from Wit,” not a trace remains of the former capricious and self-confident Sophia - the “optical illusion” is revealed, and the features of a tragic heroine clearly appear in her appearance. The fate of Sofia, at first glance, unexpectedly, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, comes close to the tragic fate of Chatsky, whom she rejected. Indeed, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has “the hardest time of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets “a million torments.” The outcome of the love plot of the comedy turned into “grief” and a life catastrophe for the smart Sofia.

Not individual characters in the play, but a “collective” character—Famus’s many-sided society—Chatsky’s main ideological opponent. A lonely lover of truth and an ardent defender of “free life” is opposed by a large group of actors and off-stage characters, united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is “to win awards and have fun.” The life ideals and behavior of the heroes of the comedy reflected the morals and way of life of real Moscow society “after the fire” era - the second half of the 1810s.

Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, staunch Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers both typical and individual features in each of them. But everyone is unanimous on one thing: Chatsky and his like-minded people are “crazy”, “madmen”, renegades. The main reason for their “madness,” according to Famusites, is an excess of “intelligence,” excessive “learning,” which is easily identified with “freethinking.” In turn, Chatsky does not skimp on critical assessments of Moscow society. He is convinced that nothing has changed in “after the fire” Moscow (“The houses are new, but the prejudices are old”), and condemns the inertia, patriarchal nature of Moscow society, its adherence to the outdated morality of the century of “obedience and fear.” The new, enlightening morality frightens and embitters conservatives - they are deaf to any arguments of reason. Chatsky almost screams in his accusatory monologues, but each time one gets the impression that the “deafness” of the Famusites is directly proportional to the strength of his voice: the louder the hero “screams,” the more diligently they “close their ears.”

Depicting Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author’s remarks, which report on the reaction of conservatives to Chatsky’s words. Stage directions complement the characters' remarks, enhancing the comedy of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - situations of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, appearances 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first outlined, Famusov “ sees and hears nothing" He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear Chatsky’s seditious, from his point of view, speeches: “Okay, I plugged my ears.” During the ball (d. 3, yavl. 22), when Chatsky pronounces his angry monologue against the “alien power of fashion” (“There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...”), “everyone is twirling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables.” The situation of the feigned “deafness” of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.

Famusov is one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is quite high: he is a “government manager.” The material well-being and success of many people depend on it: the distribution of ranks and awards, “patronage” for young officials and pensions for old people. Famusov’s worldview is extremely conservative: he takes hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, he is hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything are new okay." Famusov’s ideal is the past, when everything was “not like it is now.”

Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the “past century.” In his opinion, living correctly means doing everything “as our fathers did,” learning “by looking at our elders.” Chatsky, on the other hand, relies on his own “judgments,” dictated by common sense, so the ideas of these antipodean heroes about “proper” and “improper” behavior do not coincide. Famusov imagines rebellion and “debauchery” in Chatsky’s freethinking, but completely harmless statements; he even predicts that the freethinker will be put “on trial.” But he sees nothing reprehensible in his own actions. In his opinion, the real vices of people - debauchery, drunkenness, hypocrisy, lies and servility do not pose a danger. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior,” despite the fact that before that he tried to flirt with Lisa. Society is initially inclined to attribute the reason for Chatsky’s “madness” to drunkenness, but Famusov authoritatively corrects the “judges”:

Here you go! great misfortune
What will a man drink too much?
Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.
(D. III, Rev. 21)

Listening to Famusov’s advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in a moral “anti-world”. In it, ordinary vices turn almost into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared “vices”. The main “vice,” according to Famusov, is “learnedness,” an excess of intelligence. He considers stupidity and buffoonery to be the basis of practical morality for a decent person. Famusov speaks about the “smart” Maxim Petrovich with pride and envy: “He fell painfully, but got up well.”

Famusov’s idea of “mind” is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies intelligence either with practicality, the ability to “get comfortable” in life (which he evaluates positively), or with “free-thinking” (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky’s mind is a mere trifle that cannot be compared with traditional noble values - generosity (“honor according to father and son”) and wealth:

Be bad, but if you get enough
Two thousand ancestral souls, -
He's the groom.
The other one, at least be quicker, puffed up with all sorts of arrogance,

Let yourself be known as a wise man,
But they won’t include you in the family.
(D. II, iv. 5).

Famusov finds a clear sign of madness in the fact that Chatsky condemns bureaucratic servility:

I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try talking about the authorities - and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
That's what he'll call you a scoundrel!..
(D. III, Rev. 21).

The theme of education and upbringing is also connected with the theme of the mind in comedy. If for Chatsky the highest value is “a mind hungry for knowledge,” then Famusov, on the contrary, identifies “learning” with “freethinking,” considering it the source of madness. He sees such a huge danger in enlightenment that he proposes to fight it using the proven method of the Inquisition: “If evil is to be stopped: / Take away all the books and burn them.”

Of course, the main question for Famusov is the question of service. Service in the system of his life values is the axis around which the entire public and private life of people revolves. The true goal of the service, Famusov believes, is to make a career, “to achieve well-known degrees,” and thereby secure a high position in society. Famusov treats people who succeed in this, for example Skalozub (“Not today or tomorrow general”) or those who, like the “businesslike” Molchalin, strive for this, recognizing them as his like-minded people. On the contrary, Chatsky, from Famusov’s point of view, is a “lost” person who deserves only contemptuous regret: after all, although he has good data for a successful career, he does not serve. “But if you wanted to, it would be businesslike,” notes Famusov.

His understanding of service is thus far from hers. true meaning, “inverted,” as are ideas about morality. Famusov does not see any vice in outright neglect of official duties:

And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
(D. I, iv. 4).

Famusov even makes abuse of official position a rule:

How will you begin to introduce yourself to a small cross or a small town?
Well, how can you not please your loved one!..
(D. II, iv. 5).

Molchalin- one of the most prominent representatives of Famus society. His role in the comedy is comparable to the role of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both love and socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky’s “rival” in love for Sofia, the third person who has arisen between the former lovers.

If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the “past century,” then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a staunch conservative, so dialogue and mutual understanding between them is impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their life ideals, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.

Chatsky cannot understand “why are other people’s opinions only sacred.” Molchalin, like Famusov, considers dependence “on others” to be the basic law of life. Molchalin is a mediocrity that does not go beyond the generally accepted framework; he is a typical “average” person: in ability, intelligence, and aspirations. But he has “his own talent”: he is proud of his qualities - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin's worldview and behavior are strictly regulated by his position in the official hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because “in ranks... small,” he cannot do without “patrons,” even if he has to depend entirely on their will.

But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin organically fits into Famus society. This is “little Famusov”, because he has a lot in common with the Moscow “ace”, despite the large difference in age and social status. For example, Molchalin’s attitude towards service is purely “Famusov’s”: he would like to “win awards and live a fun life.” Public opinion for Molchalin, as for Famusov, is sacred. Some of his statements (“Ah! Evil tongues are worse than a pistol,” “At my age one should not dare / Have one’s own judgment”) are reminiscent of Famus’s: “Ah! My God! what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?

Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky not only in his beliefs, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sofia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists higher for him than this feeling, in comparison with him “the whole world” seemed like dust and vanity to Chatsky. Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find “anything enviable” in her. Relations with Sofia are entirely determined by Molchalin’s life position: this is how he behaves with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that his “father bequeathed to him” to “please all people without exception.” Molchalin is in love “by position”, “to please the daughter of such a man” as Famusov, “who feeds and waters, / And sometimes gives rank...”.

The loss of Sofia's love does not mean Molchalin's defeat. Although he made an unforgivable mistake, he managed to get away with it. It is significant that Famusov brought down his anger not on the “guilty” Molchalin, but on the “innocent” Chatsky and the insulted, humiliated Sofia. At the end of the comedy, Chatsky becomes an outcast: society rejects him, Famusov points to the door and threatens to “publicize” his imaginary depravity “to all the people.” Molchalin will probably redouble his efforts to make amends to Sofia. It is impossible to stop the career of a person like Molchalin - this is the meaning of the author’s attitude towards the hero. Chatsky rightly noted in the first act that Molchalin “will reach the well-known levels.” The night incident confirmed the bitter truth: society rejects the Chatskys, and “The silent ones are blissful in the world.”

Famusov's society in "Woe from Wit" consists of many minor and episodic characters, Famusov's guests. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a martinet, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He “hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life,” and from the conversations of those around him he understands only what, as it seems to him, relates to the army topic. Therefore, to Famusov’s question “How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolaevna?” Skalozub busily replies: “She and I didn’t serve together.” However, by the standards of Famus society, Skalozub is an enviable bachelor: “He has a golden bag and aspires to become a general,” so no one in society notices his stupidity and uncouthness (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself is “very delusional” about them, not wanting any other groom for his daughter.

Skalozub shares the attitude of the Famusovites towards service and education, finishing with “soldier’s directness” what is shrouded in the fog of eloquent phrases in the statements of Famusov and Molchalin. His abrupt aphorisms, reminiscent of commands on the parade ground, contain the entire simple everyday “philosophy” of careerists. “Like a true philosopher,” he dreams of one thing: “I just wish I could become a general.” Despite his “cudgel-like dexterity,” Skalozub very quickly and successfully moves up the career ladder, causing respectful amazement even from Famusov: “You’ve been colonels for a long time, but you’ve only been serving recently.” Education does not represent any value for Skalozub (“learning won’t fool me”), army drill, from his point of view, is much more useful, if only because it can knock the learned nonsense out of your head: “I am Prince Gregory and you / Sergeant Major in Walter I'll give you." A military career and discussions “about the front and the ranks” are the only things that interest Skalozub.

All the characters who appear in Famusov’s house during the ball actively participate in the general opposition to Chatsky, adding more and more fictitious details to the gossip about the “madness” of the main character, until in the minds of Countess Granny it turns into a fantastic plot about how Chatsky went “ to nusurmans." Each of the minor characters acts in its own comic role.

Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: she is an “angry old woman,” an imperious serf-lady of Catherine’s era. “Out of boredom,” she carries with her “a blackaa girl and a dog,” has a soft spot for young Frenchmen, loves when people “please” her, so she treats Molchalin favorably and even Zagoretsky. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov’s guests, does not hide her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment:

And you'll really go crazy from these, from some
From boarding schools, schools, lyceums, you name it,
Yes from lankartachnyh mutual trainings.
(D. III, Rev. 21).

Zagoretsky- “an out-and-out swindler, a rogue,” an informer and a sharper (“Beware of him: it’s too much to bear, / And don’t sit down with cards: he’ll sell you”). The attitude towards this character characterizes the morals of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him to his face (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief,” Khlestova says about him), but in society he is “scold / Everywhere, and accepted everywhere,” because Zagoretsky is “a master of serving.”

"Talking" surname Repetilova indicates his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people’s reasoning “about important mothers.” Repetilov, unlike other representatives of Famusov’s society, is in words an ardent admirer of “learning.” But he caricatures and vulgarizes the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, calling, for example, for everyone to study “from Prince Gregory,” where they “will give you champagne to kill.” Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became a fan of “learning” only because he failed to make a career (“And I would have climbed into ranks, but I met failures”). Enlightenment, from his point of view, is only a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky have “the same tastes.” The “most secret union” and the “secret meetings” that he tells Chatsky about are very interesting material that allows us to conclude that Griboedov himself has a negative attitude towards the “noisy secrets” of secular freethinking. However, one can hardly consider the “most secret union” a parody of the Decembrist secret societies; it is a satire on the ideological “idle dancers” who made “secret”, “conspiratorial” activity a form of social pastime, because everything comes down to idle chatter and shaking the air - “we make noise, brother, we’re making noise.”

In addition to those heroes who are listed in the “poster” - the list of “characters” - and appear on stage at least once, “Woe from Wit” mentions many people who are not participants in the action - these are off-stage character. Their names and surnames appear in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.

Off-stage characters are invisible “participants” in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboedov managed to expand the scope of the stage action, which was concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed within one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Off-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent society, of which all participants in the events in Famusov’s house are a part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely connected with those who fiercely defend the “past century” or strive to live by the ideals of the “present century” - they scream, are indignant, indignant, or, conversely, experience “a million torments” on stage.

It is the off-stage characters who confirm that the entire Russian society is split into two unequal parts: the number of conservatives mentioned in the play significantly exceeds the number of dissidents, “crazy people.” But the most important thing is that Chatsky, a lonely lover of truth on stage, is not at all alone in life: the existence of people spiritually close to him, according to Famusovites, proves that “nowadays there are more crazy people, deeds, and opinions than ever.” Among Chatsky’s like-minded people are Skalozub’s cousin, who abandoned a brilliant military career in order to go to the village and start reading books (“The rank followed him: he suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books”), Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya (“ Chinov doesn’t want to know! He’s a chemist, he’s a botanist..."), and the St. Petersburg “professors” with whom he studied. According to Famusov’s guests, these people are just as crazy, crazy because of “learning,” as Chatsky.

Another group of off-stage characters are Famusov’s “like-minded people.” These are his “idols”, whom he often mentions as models of life and behavior. Such, for example, is the Moscow “ace” Kuzma Petrovich - for Famusov this is an example of a “commendable life”:

The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich woman;
Married children, grandchildren;
Died; everyone remembers him sadly.
(D. II, iv. 1).

Another worthy role model, according to Famusov, is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, the “dead uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served under the Empress Catherine”). Like other “nobles of the occasion,” he had an “arrogant disposition,” but, if the interests of his career required it, he knew how to deftly “curry favor” and easily “bent over backwards.”

Chatsky exposes the morals of Famus society in the monologue “And who are the judges?..” (d. II, iv. 5), talking about the unworthy lifestyle of the “fatherland of their fathers” (“spill themselves in feasts and extravagance”), about the wealth they unjustly acquired ( “rich in robbery”), about their immoral, inhumane acts, which they commit with impunity (“they found protection from the court in friends, in kinship”). One of the off-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who saved him “in the hours of wine and fight” for three greyhounds. Another “for the sake of the idea / He drove many wagons to the serf ballet / From the mothers and fathers of rejected children,” who were then “sold off one by one.” Such people, from Chatsky’s point of view, are a living anachronism that does not correspond to modern ideals of enlightenment and humane treatment of serfs:

Who are the judges? For the antiquity of years
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea...
(D. II, iv. 5).

Even a simple listing of off-stage characters in the monologues of the characters (Chatsky, Famusov, Repetilov) complements the picture of the morals of the Griboyedov era, giving it a special, “Moscow” flavor. In the first act (episode 7), Chatsky, who has just arrived in Moscow, in a conversation with Sofia, “sorts out” many mutual acquaintances, ironizing over their “oddities.”

From the tone in which some characters speak about Moscow ladies, one can conclude that women enjoyed enormous influence in Moscow society. Famusov speaks enthusiastically about the powerful “socialites”:

What about the ladies? - anyone, try it, master it;
Judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them<...>
Order the command in front of the front!
Be present, send them to the Senate!
Irina Vlasevna! Lukerya Aleksevna!
Tatyana Yuryevna! Pulcheria Andrevna!
(D. II, iv. 5).

The famous Tatyana Yuryevna, about whom Molchalin spoke with reverence to Chatsky, apparently enjoys unquestioned authority and can provide “patronage” on occasion. And the formidable princess Marya Aleksevna awes even the Moscow “ace” Famusov himself, who, as it unexpectedly turns out, is concerned not so much with the meaning of what happened, but with the publicity of his daughter’s “depraved” behavior and the merciless evil tongue of the Moscow lady.

Dramatic innovation Griboyedov was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic “high” comedy. The Alexandrian verse, with which the “standard” comedies of the classicists were written, was replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems “overpopulated” with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov’s predecessors. It seems that Famusov’s house and everything that happens in the play is only part big world, who is brought out of his usual half-asleep state by “madmen” like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary refuge for an ardent hero traveling “around the world”, a small “postal station” on the “main road” of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frenzied gallop, he made only a short stop and, having experienced “a million torments,” set off again.

In “Woe from Wit” there are not five, but four acts, so there is no situation characteristic of the “fifth act”, when all the contradictions are resolved and the lives of the heroes resume their unhurried course. The main conflict of the comedy, social-ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological self-awareness of conservatives and their antagonist.

An important feature of “Woe from Wit” is the rethinking of comic characters and comic situations: in comic contradictions the author discovers hidden tragic potential. Without allowing the reader and viewer to forget about the comedy of what is happening, Griboyedov emphasizes the tragic meaning of the events. The tragic pathos is especially intensified in the finale of the work: all the main characters of the fourth act, including Molchalin and Famusov, do not appear in traditional comedic roles. They are more like heroes of a tragedy. The true tragedies of Chatsky and Sophia are complemented by the “small” tragedies of Molchalin, who broke his vow of silence and paid for it, and the humiliated Famusov, tremblingly awaiting retribution from the Moscow “thunderer” in a skirt - Princess Marya Aleksevna.

The principle of “unity of characters”—the basis of the dramaturgy of classicism—turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of “Woe from Wit.” “Portraitness,” that is, the life truth of the characters, which the “archaist” P.A. Katenin attributed to the “errors” of comedy, Griboedov considered the main advantage. Straightforwardness and one-sidedness in the portrayal of the central characters are discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments (“positive” - “negative”), because the author seeks to show not “good” and “bad” in these characters. He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values and psychology are manifested. The words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare can rightfully be attributed to the characters of Griboyedov’s comedy: these are “living creatures, filled with many passions...”

Each of the main characters appears to be the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - their “polyphony” makes up the verbal “portraits” of the heroes. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin’s novel Eugene Onegin. Judgments about Chatsky are especially rich in various information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of “oral newspaper”, created before the eyes of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of Famusov’s house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. “Crazy” Chatsky gave secular gossips food for gossip for a long time. But “evil tongues,” which for Molchalin are “more terrible than a pistol,” are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from it in horror.

The picture of “public opinion”, masterfully recreated by Griboyedov, consists of the oral statements of the characters. Their speech is impulsive, impetuous, and reflects an instant reaction to other people's opinions and assessments. The psychological authenticity of speech portraits of characters is one of the most important features of comedy. The verbal appearance of the characters is as unique as their place in society, manner of behavior and range of interests. In the crowd of guests gathered in Famusov’s house, people often stand out precisely because of their “voice” and peculiarities of speech.

Despite the fact that Chatsky the ideologist opposes the inert Moscow nobility and expresses the author’s point of view on Russian society, he cannot be considered an unconditionally “positive” character, as, for example, the characters of the comedians who preceded Griboyedov were. Chatsky’s behavior is that of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, fiercely attacking the morals, life and psychology of the Famusites. But the author indicates the motives for his strange behavior: after all, he did not come to Moscow as an emissary of St. Petersburg freethinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. They are the main reason for his ardor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings, which are out of control, and is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened man, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, forced him to “throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs.” His behavior is comical, but the hero himself experiences genuine mental suffering, “a million torments.” Chatsky is a tragic character caught in comic circumstances.

Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedy “villains” or “stupid people”. Famusov is a tragicomic figure, because in the final scene not only do all his plans for Sofia’s marriage collapse, but he is threatened with the loss of his reputation, his “good name” in society. For Famusov, this is a real disaster, and therefore at the end of the last act he exclaims in despair: “Isn’t my fate still deplorable?” The situation of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless situation, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and resigned admirer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause Famusov’s irritation and managerial anger. But rejecting Sofia’s love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge and ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the “lordly love” of his daughter and the inevitable “lordly anger” of his father.

Sincere careerism and feigned love are incompatible, an attempt to combine them turns out to be humiliation and “fall” for Molchalin, albeit from a small, but already “taken” official “height.” “The people created by Griboedov are taken from life in full height, drawn from the bottom of real life,” emphasized the critic A.A. Grigoriev, “they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist."

Unlike the heroes of classic comedies, the main characters of “Woe from Wit” (Chatsky, Molchalin, Famusov) are depicted in several social roles. For example, Chatsky is not only a freethinker, a representative of the younger generation of the 1810s. He is both a lover, and a landowner (“he had three hundred souls”), and a former military man (Chatsky once served in the same regiment with Gorich). Famusov is not only a Moscow “ace” and one of the pillars of the “past century”. We see him in other social roles: a father trying to “place” his daughter, and a government official “managing a government place.” Molchalin is not only “Famusov’s secretary, living in his house” and Chatsky’s “happy rival”: he, like Chatsky, belongs to the younger generation. But his worldview, ideals and way of life have nothing in common with Chatsky’s ideology and life. They are characteristic of the “silent” majority of noble youth. Molchalin is one of those who easily adapt to any circumstances for the sake of one goal - to rise as high as possible up the career ladder.

Griboyedov neglects important rule classicist drama – the unity of plot action: in “Woe from Wit” there is no single event center (this led to reproaches from literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the “plan” of the comedy). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social problems and subtle psychologism in the depiction of the characters' characters.

The author of “Woe from Wit” did not set himself the task of destroying the poetics of classicism. His aesthetic credo is creative freedom (“I live and write freely and freely”). The use of certain artistic means and dramatic techniques was dictated by specific creative circumstances that arose during the work on the play, and not by abstract theoretical postulates. Therefore, in those cases where the requirements of classicism limited his capabilities, not allowing him to achieve the desired artistic effect, he resolutely rejected them. But often it was the principles of classicist poetics that made it possible to effectively solve an artistic problem.

For example, the “unities” characteristic of the dramaturgy of the classicists - the unity of place (Famusov’s house) and the unity of time (all events take place within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, “thickening” of action. Griboyedov also masterfully used some particular techniques of the poetics of classicism: the depiction of characters in traditional stage roles (an unsuccessful hero-lover, his nosy rival, a servant - her mistress's confidant, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedic “highlight”, emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.

In comedy there are many “characters of the setting”, “figurants” (as in the old theater they called episodic characters who created the background, “living scenery” for the main characters). As a rule, their character is fully revealed by their “speaking” surnames and given names. The same technique is used to emphasize the main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov - known to everyone, on everyone’s lips (from the Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else’s (from the French repeter - repeat ), Sophia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition was Chadsky, that is, “being in the child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub is “shifter” (from the word “zuboskal”). Molchalin, Tugoukhovskiye, Khlestova - these names “speak” for themselves..

In “Woe from Wit,” the most important features of realistic art were clearly revealed: realism not only frees the writer’s individuality from deadening “rules,” “canons,” and “conventions,” but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.

The comedy in verse by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a satirical look at the life and worldview of the aristocratic society of Moscow at the beginning of the 19th century. What are the features of this comedy?

Comedy takes its rightful place among the most outstanding works

Russian literature, thanks to its unsurpassed aphoristic style, brilliant, subtle ridicule of the outdated ideals and ideas of the conservative Russian nobility. The author skillfully combines in the work elements of classicism and realism, which was new for Russia in the first half of the 19th century.

What prompted the author to create such a bold work for those years? First of all, the limitations of an aristocratic society, blind imitation of everything foreign, a state of a kind of “stagnation” of the worldview, rejection of a new type of thinking, lack of self-improvement. So returning in 1816

From abroad to St. Petersburg, young Alexander Griboyedov was amazed at how the secular public at one of the receptions bowed to a foreign guest. Griboed's fate decreed that, being quite educated and intelligent, he was a very progressive person in his views. He allowed himself to make a fiery speech with dissatisfaction about this. Society immediately considered the young man crazy, and news of this quickly spread throughout St. Petersburg. This became the motive for writing a satirical comedy. The playwright worked on the creative history of the work for several years; he actively attended balls and social events in search of prototypes for his comedy.

During the period of creation of the comedy, protests against the existing system were already brewing among the nobility: in particular, disagreement with the serfdom system. This led to the emergence of Masonic lodges, of which Griboyedov was a member. The first edition of the work was changed due to censorship of the time: the text was filled with subtle hints of political conspiracies, the tsarist army was ridiculed, and open protest was expressed against serfdom and demands for reform. The first publication of a comedy without falsified inserts appeared after the death of the author in 1862.

The main character of the comedy, Alexander Chatsky, is the prototype of the author himself. Chatsky has brilliant erudition and is merciless towards representatives of the Moscow “society”, who live in lazy idleness and are mired in nostalgia for past times. Chatsky boldly challenges the enemies of enlightenment, for whom the main ideals are exclusively wealth and obedience to superiors.

The tragedy of the work lies in the fact that Chatsky, like the author, was unable, despite all efforts, to change the worldview of society, to make it more open to innovation. But despite the open defeat, Chatsky was still confident that he had already sowed the seeds of progressive thinking in society and that in the future they would be raised by new generations who would be more honest with themselves than their fathers. In the end, our hero became a real winner. after all, he remained faithful to his views and principles until the very end.

Despite the fact that the comedy was created back in the 19th century, its theme remains relevant today. After all, the conflict between the “old” and “new” world is inherent in all times.

Essays on topics:

“Woe from Wit” is a famous comedy by Alexander Griboedov, familiar to almost every reader. Despite the fact that the work was first published...
The comedy "Woe from Wit" depicts the struggle of two generations, two times, two camps of society. This is a debate between adherents of the old principles and an innovator...

“Griboedov is a “man of one book,” noted V.F. Khodasevich. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”

Indeed, in Griboyedov’s time there were no professional writers, poets, authors of entire “series” of ladies’ novels and low-grade detective stories, the content of which could not remain in the memory of even the most attentive reader for long. Engaging in literature at the beginning of the 19th century was not perceived by Russian educated society as something special. Everyone wrote something - for themselves, for friends, for reading with their families and in secular literary salons. In the conditions of almost complete absence of literary criticism, the main advantage work of art was not following any established rules or requirements of publishers, but the perception of it by the reader or viewer.

A.S. Griboedov, a Russian diplomat, a highly educated socialite, who from time to time “dabbled” in literature, was not constrained by time, means, or methods of expressing his thoughts on paper. Perhaps, due to precisely these circumstances, he managed to abandon the canons of classicism accepted in literature and drama of that time. Griboyedov managed to create a truly immortal, extraordinary work, which produced the effect of a “bomb exploding” in society and, by and large, determined all further paths of development of Russian literature of the 19th century century.

The creative history of writing the comedy “Woe from Wit” is extremely complex, and the author’s interpretation of the images is so ambiguous that for almost two centuries it continues to provoke lively discussions among literary experts and new generations of readers.

The history of the creation of "Woe from Wit"

The idea of a “stage poem” (as A.I. Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the planned work) arose in his mind in the second half of 1816 (according to the testimony of S.N. Begichev) or in 1818-1819 (according to the memoirs of D.O. Bebutov) .

According to one of the very common versions in literature, Griboyedov once attended a social evening in St. Petersburg and was amazed at how the entire audience worshiped foreigners. That evening she showered attention and care on an overly talkative Frenchman. Griboyedov could not stand it and made a fiery incriminating speech. While he was speaking, someone from the audience declared that Griboedov was crazy, and thus spread the rumor throughout St. Petersburg. Griboedov, in order to take revenge on secular society, decided to write a comedy on this occasion.

However, the writer apparently began working on the text of the comedy only in the early 1820s, when, according to one of his first biographers, F. Bulganin, he saw a “prophetic dream.”

In this dream, a close friend allegedly appeared to Griboyedov, who asked if he had written anything for him? Since the poet replied that he had long since deviated from all writing, the friend sadly shook his head: “Give me a promise that you will write.” - “What do you want?” - “You know it yourself.” - “When should it be ready?” - “Definitely in a year.” “I oblige,” Griboedov answered.

One of A.S.’s close friends. Griboyedov S.N. Begichev in his famous “Note about Griboyedov” completely rejects the version of the “Persian dream”, stating that he had never heard anything like this from the author of “Woe from Wit”.

Most likely, this is one of the many legends that still shroud the real biography of A.S. Griboedova. In his “Note,” Begichev also claims that already in 1816 the poet wrote several scenes from the play, which were subsequently either destroyed or significantly changed. In the original version of the comedy there were completely different characters and heroes. For example, the author subsequently abandoned the image of Famusov’s young wife, a social coquette and fashionista, replacing her with a number of supporting characters.

According to the official version, the first two acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived during his vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh Moscow impressions made it possible to unfold many scenes that were barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were created in the spring and summer of 1823 on the Tula estate of S.N. Begichev.

S.N. Begichev recalled:

“The last acts of Woe from Wit were written in my garden, in the gazebo. He rose at this time almost with the sun, came to us for dinner and rarely stayed with us long after dinner, but almost always left soon and came to tea, spent the evening with us and read the scenes he had written. We always looked forward to this time. I don’t have enough words to explain how pleasant our frequent (and especially in the evenings) conversations between the two of us were for me. How much information he had on all subjects! How fascinating and animated he was when he revealed to me, so to speak, his dreams and the secrets of his future creations, or when he analyzed the creations of brilliant poets! He told me a lot about the Persian court and the customs of the Persians, their religious stage performances in the squares, etc., as well as about Alexei Petrovich Ermolov and the expeditions in which he went with him. And how kind and witty he was when he was in a cheerful mood.”

However, in the summer of 1823, Griboedov did not consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the main character changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (previously his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called "Woe to Wit", received its final name.

In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboedov made significant stylistic changes to the original edition, changed part of the first act (Sofia’s dream, the dialogue between Sofia and Lisa, Chatsky’s monologue), and in the final act a scene of Molchalin’s conversation with Lisa appeared. The final edition was completed only in the fall of 1824.

The publication

Famous actor and good friend A.I. Griboyedov P.A. Karatygin recalled the author’s first attempt to introduce the public to his creation:

“When Griboyedov brought his comedy to St. Petersburg, Nikolai Ivanovich Khmelnitsky asked him to read it at his home. Griboyedov agreed. On this occasion, Khmelnitsky held a dinner to which, in addition to Griboyedov, he invited several writers and artists. Among the latter were: Sosnitsky, my brother and me. Khmelnitsky then lived as a master, in own home on the Fontanka near the Simeonovsky Bridge. At the appointed hour, a small company gathered with him. The dinner was sumptuous, cheerful and noisy. After dinner, everyone went into the living room, served coffee, and lit cigars. Griboyedov put the manuscript of his comedy on the table; the guests began to pull up chairs in impatient anticipation; everyone tried to sit closer so as not to utter a single word. Among the guests here was a certain Vasily Mikhailovich Fedorov, the author of the drama “Liza, or the Triumph of Gratitude” and other long-forgotten plays. He was a very kind and simple man, but he had pretensions to wit. Griboedov didn’t like his face, or maybe the old joker over-salted himself at dinner, telling unwitty jokes, only the owner and his guests had to witness a rather unpleasant scene. While Griboyedov was lighting his cigar, Fedorov, going up to the table, took the comedy (which had been rewritten rather quickly), swung it in his hand and said with an ingenuous smile: “Wow! What a full-bodied one! It’s worth my Lisa.” Griboyedov looked at him from under his glasses and answered through clenched teeth: “I don’t write vulgarities.” Such an unexpected answer, of course, stunned Fedorov, and he, trying to show that he took this sharp answer as a joke, smiled and immediately hastened to add: “No one doubts this, Alexander Sergeevich; “Not only did I not want to offend you by comparison with me, but, really, I’m ready to be the first to laugh at my works.” - “Yes, you can laugh at yourself as much as you like, but I won’t allow anyone to laugh at me.” - “For mercy, I was not talking about the merits of our plays, but only about the number of sheets.” - “You cannot yet know the merits of my comedy, but the merits of your plays have long been known to everyone.” - “Really, you’re in vain to say this, I repeat that I didn’t mean to offend you at all.” - “Oh, I’m sure you said it without thinking, but you can never offend me.” The owner was on pins and needles from these stilettos, and, wanting to somehow hush up the disagreement, which was taking on a serious nature, with a joke, he took Fedorov by the shoulders and, laughing, told him: “For punishment, we will put you in the back row of seats.” Griboyedov, meanwhile, walking around the living room with a cigar, answered Khmelnitsky: “You can put him wherever you want, but I won’t read my comedy in front of him.” Fedorov blushed to his ears and at that moment looked like a schoolboy who is trying to grab a hedgehog - and wherever he touches it, he will prick himself everywhere...”

Nevertheless, in the winter of 1824-1825, Griboyedov eagerly read “Woe from Wit” in many houses in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and was a success everywhere. Hoping for the quick publication of the comedy, Griboyedov encouraged the appearance and dissemination of its lists. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, “corrected by the hand of Griboedov himself” (belonged to A.A. Zhandre), and the Bulgarinsky - a carefully corrected clerk’s copy of the comedy left by F.V. Griboedov. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving St. Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist would be able to get the play published.

A.S. Griboyedov, "Woe from Wit"
1833 edition

Already in the summer of 1824, Griboyedov tried to publish a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in F.V.’s almanac. Bulgarin “Russian Waist” in December 1824, and the text was significantly “softened” and shortened by censorship. “Inconvenient” for printing, too harsh statements of the characters were replaced by faceless and “harmless” ones. So, instead of the author’s “To the Scientific Committee,” “Among the Scientists Who Settled” was printed. Molchalin’s “programmatic” remark “After all, you need to depend on others” was replaced with the words “After all, you need to keep others in mind.” The censors did not like the mentions of the “royal person” and “governments”.

“The first outline of this stage poem,” Griboyedov wrote with bitterness, “as it was born in me, was much more magnificent and of higher significance than now in the vain outfit in which I was forced to clothe it. The childish pleasure of hearing my poems in the theater, the desire for them to succeed, forced me to spoil my creation as much as possible.”

However, Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century knew the comedy “Woe from Wit” mainly from handwritten copies. Military and civilian clerks earned a lot of money by copying the text of the comedy, which literally overnight was dismantled into quotes and “ idioms" The publication of excerpts from “Woe from Wit” in the anthology “Russian Waist” caused many responses in the literary community and made Griboyedov truly famous. “His handwritten comedy: “Woe from Wit,” recalled Pushkin, “produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.”

The first edition of the comedy appeared translated into German in Reval in 1831. Nicholas I allowed the comedy to be published in Russia only in 1833 - “in order to deprive it of the attractiveness of the forbidden fruit.” The first Russian edition, with censorship corrections and deletions, was published in Moscow. Two uncensored publications from the 1830s are also known (printed in regimental printing houses). For the first time, the entire play was published in Russia only in 1862, during the era of censorship reforms of Alexander II. The scientific publication of “Woe from Wit” was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher N.K. Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.

Theater productions

The fate of theatrical productions of Griboedov's comedy turned out to be even more difficult. For a long time, theater censorship did not allow it to be staged in full. In 1825, the first attempt to stage “Woe from Wit” on the stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg ended in failure: the play was banned because the play was not approved by the censor.

Artist P.A. Karatygin recalled in his notes:

“Grigoriev and I suggested that Alexander Sergeevich perform “Woe from Wit” at our school theater, and he was delighted with our proposal... It took a lot of effort to ask the kind inspector Bok to allow the pupils to take part in this performance... Finally , he agreed, and we quickly got down to business; They wrote out the roles in a few days, learned them in a week, and things went smoothly. Griboedov himself came to our rehearsals and taught us very diligently... You should have seen with what simple-minded pleasure he rubbed his hands, seeing his “Woe from Wit” at our children's theater... Although, of course, we chopped off his immortal a comedy with grief in half, but he was very pleased with us, and we were delighted that we could please him. He brought A. Bestuzhev and Wilhelm Kuchelbecker with him to one of the rehearsals - and they also praised us.” The performance was banned by order of the St. Petersburg Governor-General Count Miloradovich, and the school authorities were reprimanded.”

The comedy first appeared on stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian Corps. The author was present at this amateur performance.

Only in 1831, with numerous censored notes, “Woe from Wit” was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical productions of comedy ceased to apply only in the 1860s.

Public perception and criticism

Despite the fact that the full text of the comedy never made it into print, immediately after Bulgarin published excerpts from the play, heated discussions arose around Griboedov’s work. The approval was by no means unanimous.

Conservatives immediately accused Griboedov of exaggerating his satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author’s “brawling patriotism.” In the articles by M. Dmitriev and A. Pisarev, published in Vestnik Evropy, it was argued that the content of the comedy does not at all correspond to Russian life. "Woe from Wit" was declared a simple imitation of foreign plays and was characterized only as a satirical work directed against aristocratic society, "a gross mistake against local morals." Chatsky especially got it, in whom they saw a clever “madman”, the embodiment of the “Figaro-Griboedov” philosophy of life.

Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in “Woe from Wit”. For example, longtime friend and co-author of playwright P.A. Katenin, in one of his private letters, gave the following assessment of the comedy: “It’s like a ward of intelligence, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and knocked down (manque); The style is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties.” According to the critic, annoyed by the deviations from the rules of classical drama, including the replacement of “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov’s “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors will not take these roles, but bad ones will ruin them.”

A remarkable auto-commentary to “Woe from Wit” was Griboyedov’s response to Katenin’s critical judgments, written in January 1825. This is not only an energetic “anti-criticism”, representing the author’s view of comedy, but also a unique aesthetic manifesto of an innovative playwright, refusing to please theorists and satisfy the school demands of classicists.

In response to Katenin’s remark about the imperfection of the plot and composition, Griboedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because our sinners have an ordinary mind, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this man, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than others... “The scenes are connected arbitrarily.” Just as in the nature of all events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity.”

Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (the list of “Woe from Wit” was brought to Mikhailovskoye by I.I. Pushchin). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright was most successful in “characters and a sharp picture of morals.” In their depiction, according to Pushkin, Griboedov’s “comic genius” was revealed. The poet was critical of Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary reasoning hero, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself. Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky’s behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like.”

At the beginning of 1840, V.G. Belinsky, in an article about “Woe from Wit,” as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky practical intelligence, calling him “the new Don Quixote.” According to the critic, the main character of the comedy is a completely ridiculous figure, a naive dreamer, “a boy on a stick on horseback who imagines that he is sitting on a horse.” However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, declaring the main character of the play almost the first revolutionary rebel, and the play itself the first protest “against the vile Russian reality.” The frantic Vissarion did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky’s image, assessing the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.

Critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. A.I. Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of the “ultimate thoughts” of Griboyedov himself, interpreting the hero of the comedy as a political allegory. “... This is the Decembrist, this is the man who ends the era of Peter I and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...”

The most original is the judgment of the critic A.A. Grigoriev, for whom Chatsky is “our only hero, that is, the only one who is positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion threw him.” Therefore, the entire play turned into his critical interpretation from a “high” comedy into a “high” tragedy (see the article “On the new edition of an old thing. “Woe from Wit.” St. Petersburg, 1862”).

I. A. Goncharov responded to the production of “Woe from Wit” at the Alexandrinsky Theater (1871) with a critical sketch “A Million Torments” (published in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, 1872, No. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy, which later became a textbook. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboedov the playwright, and wrote about the special position of “Woe from Wit” in Russian literature. But, perhaps, the most important advantage of Goncharov’s sketch is its careful attitude to the author’s concept, embodied in the comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. “Every step of Chatsky, 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,” Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love affair (its importance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from the mind” of a rejected lover and a lonely lover of truth, and the simultaneously tragic and comic nature of Chatsky’s image.

Comedy Analysis

The success of Griboyedov's comedy, which has taken a strong place among Russian classics, is largely determined by the harmonious combination in it of the urgently topical and timeless. Through the brilliantly drawn picture of Russian society of the 1820s by the author (disturbing debates about serfdom, political freedoms, problems of national self-determination of culture, education, etc., masterfully outlined colorful figures of that time, recognizable by contemporaries, etc.) one can discern “ eternal" themes: generational conflict, drama love triangle, antagonism between the individual and society, etc.

At the same time, “Woe from Wit” is an example of the artistic synthesis of traditional and innovative in art. Paying tribute to the canons of classicism aesthetics (unity of time, place, action, conventional roles, mask names, etc.), Griboyedov “revitalizes” the traditional scheme with conflicts and characters taken from life, freely introducing lyrical, satirical and journalistic lines into the comedy.

The precision and aphoristic precision of the language, the successful use of free (various) iambic, conveying the element of colloquial speech, allowed the text of the comedy to retain its sharpness and expressiveness. As predicted by A.S. Pushkin, many lines of “Woe from Wit” have become proverbs and sayings, very popular today:

The legend is fresh, but hard to believe;
Happy hours are not observed;
I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening;
Blessed is he who believes - he has warmth in the world!
Pass us away more than all sorrows
And lordly anger, and lordly love.
The houses are new, but the prejudices are old.
And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!
Oh! Evil tongues are worse than a gun.
But who lacks intelligence to have children?
To the village, to my aunt, to the wilderness, to Saratov!...

Conflict of the play

The main feature of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is interaction of two plot-shaping conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house. From the point of view of the issue, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov’s society is in the foreground, but in the development of the plot action the traditional love conflict is no less important: after all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting with Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and strengthen each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.

In the two storylines of “Woe from Wit” all the elements of the classical plot are easily revealed: exposition - all the scenes of the first act preceding Chatsky’s appearance in Famusov’s house (phenomena 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the beginning of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sofia (D. I, Rev. 7). The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famusov's society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (d. I, appearance 9).

Both conflicts are developing in parallel. Stages of development of a love conflict - dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society includes Chatsky’s verbal “duels” with Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in “Woe from Wit” literally throw many minor characters onto the stage and force them to reveal their position in life in their remarks and actions.

Here is the solution to the riddle at last! Here I am donated to!

The denouement of the storyline, based on Chatsky’s conflict with Famus society, is Chatsky’s last monologue, directed against the “crowd of persecutors.” Chatsky declares his final break with Sofia, and with Famusov, and with the entire Moscow society: “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore.”

Character system

IN character system comedy Chatsky takes center stage. He connects both storylines, but for the hero himself, the paramount importance is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he has found himself in; he has no illusions about Famusov and “all the Moscow people.” The reason for Chatsky’s stormy accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed caustic remarks is love experiences, “impatience of the heart,” which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation.

Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sofia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. Chatsky’s animation and “talkativeness” at the beginning of the play are caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sofia has completely changed towards him. With the help of familiar jokes and epigrams, Chatsky tries to find a common language with her, “sorts out” his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sofia - she responds to him with barbs.

He pesters Sofia, trying to provoke her into frankness, asking her tactless questions: “Is it possible for me to find out / ... Who do you love? "

The night scene in Famusov’s house revealed the whole truth to Chatsky, who had seen the light. But now he goes to the other extreme: instead of love passion, the hero is overcome by other strong feelings - rage and embitterment. In the heat of his rage, he shifts responsibility for his "labour's fruitless" to others.

Love experiences exacerbate Chatsky’s ideological opposition to Famus society. At first, Chatsky calmly treats Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only the comic sides in it: “I am an eccentric of another miracle / Once I laugh, then I forget...”.

But when Chatsky becomes convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything and everyone in Moscow begins to irritate him. Replies and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed at without malice.

Chatsky rejects generally accepted ideas about morality and public duty, but one can hardly consider him a revolutionary, radical, or even a “Decembrist.” There is nothing revolutionary in Chatsky’s statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who proposes that society return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous layers something that is talked about a lot in Famus society, but about which, according to Chatsky, they do not have a correct idea - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the hero’s very moderate educational judgments and the effect they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, sanctified by the “fathers” and “elders,” but also as a threat of a social revolution: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities.” Against the backdrop of the inert and unshakably conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave “madman” who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although among freethinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.

Sofia
performed by I.A. Lixo

Sofia- Chatsky’s main plot partner - occupies a special place in the system of characters in “Woe from Wit”. The love conflict with Sofia involved the hero in a conflict with the entire society and served, according to Goncharov, as “a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov.” Sofia does not take Chatsky’s side, but she does not belong to Famusov’s like-minded people, although she lived and was raised in his house. She is a closed, secretive person and difficult to approach. Even her father is a little afraid of her.

Sofia’s character has qualities that sharply distinguish her from the people of Famus’s circle. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in its disdainful attitude towards gossip and rumors (“What do I hear? Whoever wants, judges that way...”). However, Sofia knows the “laws” of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly uses “public opinion” to take revenge on her former lover.

Sofia's character has not only positive, but also negative traits. “A mixture of good instincts with lies” was seen by Goncharov in her. Willfulness, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. Having slandered Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among those gathered, convinced that Chatsky was a completely “normal” person.

Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but her love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position.

As a lover of French novels, Sophia is very sentimental. She idealizes Molchalin, without even trying to find out what he really is, without noticing his “vulgarity” and pretense. “God brought us together” - it is this “romantic” formula that exhausts the meaning of Sofia’s love for Molchalin. She managed to like him because he behaves like a living illustration of a novel he just read: “He takes your hand, presses it to your heart, / He sighs from the depths of your soul...”.

Sofia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not strive to understand, and avoids explanations. Sofia, the main culprit of Chatsky’s mental torment, herself evokes sympathy. She completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even the oblivion of decency (nightly dates, the inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father’s “rootless” secretary takes Sofia beyond Famus’s circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all its bookishness and obvious comedy, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is preoccupied with finding her a rich careerist groom, and to society, which only excuses open, uncamouflaged debauchery.

In the last scenes of “Woe from Wit”, the features of a tragic heroine clearly appear in the appearance of Sofia. Her fate is getting closer to the tragic fate of Chatsky, whom she rejected. Indeed, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has “the hardest time of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets “a million torments.” The outcome of the love plot of the comedy turned into “grief” and a life catastrophe for the smart Sofia.

Famusov and Skalozub
performed by K.A. Zubova and A.I. Rzhanova

Chatsky’s main ideological opponent is not the individual characters of the play, but the “collective” character - the many-sided Famusov society. A lonely lover of truth and an ardent defender of “free life” is opposed by a large group of actors and off-stage characters, united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is “to win awards and have fun.” Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, staunch Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers both typical and individual features in each of them. But everyone is unanimous on one thing: Chatsky and his like-minded people are “crazy”, “madmen”, renegades. The main reason for their “madness,” according to Famusites, is an excess of “intelligence,” excessive “learning,” which is easily identified with “freethinking.”

Depicting Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author’s remarks, which report on the reaction of conservatives to Chatsky’s words. Stage directions complement the characters' remarks, enhancing the comedy of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - the situation of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, appearances 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first outlined, Famusov “sees and hears nothing.” He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear Chatsky’s seditious, from his point of view, speeches: “Okay, I plugged my ears.” During the ball (d. 3, yavl. 22), when Chatsky pronounces his angry monologue against the “alien power of fashion” (“There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...”), “everyone is twirling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables.” The situation of the feigned “deafness” of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.

Famusov
performed by K.A. Zubova

Famusov- one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is quite high: he is a “government manager.” The material well-being and success of many people depend on it: the distribution of ranks and awards, “patronage” for young officials and pensions for old people. Famusov’s worldview is extremely conservative: he takes hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, he is hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything are new okay." Famusov’s ideal is the past, when everything was “not what it is now.”

Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the “past century.” In his opinion, living correctly means doing everything “as the fathers did,” learning “by looking at your elders.” Chatsky, on the other hand, relies on his own “judgments,” dictated by common sense, so the ideas of these antipodean heroes about “proper” and “improper” behavior do not coincide.

Listening to Famusov’s advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in a moral “anti-world”. In it, ordinary vices turn almost into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared “vices”. The main “vice,” according to Famusov, is “learnedness,” an excess of intelligence. Famusov’s idea of “mind” is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies intelligence either with practicality, the ability to “get comfortable” in life (which he evaluates positively), or with “free-thinking” (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky’s mind is a mere trifle that cannot be compared with traditional noble values - generosity (“honor according to father and son”) and wealth:

Be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, He will be the groom. The other one, at least be quicker, puffed up with all sorts of arrogance, Let him be known as a wise man, But he won’t be included in the family. (D. II, Rev. 5)

Sofia and Molchalin
performed by I.A. Likso and M.M. Sadovsky

Molchalin- one of the most prominent representatives of Famus society. His role in the comedy is comparable to the role of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both love and socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky’s “rival” in love for Sofia, the third person who has arisen between the former lovers.

If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the “past century,” then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a staunch conservative, therefore dialogue and mutual understanding between them is impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their life ideals, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.

Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky not only in his beliefs, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sofia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists higher for him than this feeling, in comparison with him “the whole world” seemed like dust and vanity to Chatsky. Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find “anything enviable” in her. Relations with Sofia are entirely determined by Molchalin’s life position: this is how he behaves with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that his “father bequeathed to him” to “please all people without exception.” Molchalin is in love “by position”, “at the pleasure of the daughter of such a man” as Famusov, “who feeds and waters, / And sometimes gives rank...”.

Skalozub
performed by A.I. Rzhanova

Famusov's society in "Woe from Wit" consists of many minor and episodic characters, Famusov's guests. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a martinet, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He “hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life,” and from the conversations of those around him he understands only what, as it seems to him, relates to the army topic. Therefore, to Famusov’s question “How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolaevna?” Skalozub busily replies: “She and I didn’t serve together.” However, by the standards of Famus society, Skalozub is an enviable bachelor: “He has a golden bag and aspires to be a general,” so no one notices his stupidity and uncouthness in society (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself is “very delusional” about them, not wanting any other groom for his daughter.

Khlestova
performed by V.N. Pashennaya

All the characters who appear in Famusov’s house during the ball actively participate in the general opposition to Chatsky, adding new fictional details to the gossip about the “madness” of the protagonist. Each of the minor characters acts in its own comic role.

Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: she is an “angry old woman,” an imperious serf-lady of the Catherine era. “Out of boredom,” she carries with her “a blackaa girl and a dog,” has a soft spot for young Frenchmen, loves when people “please” her, so she treats Molchalin favorably and even Zagoretsky. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov’s guests, does not hide her hostility towards education and enlightenment:

And you will really go crazy from these, from boarding schools, schools, lyceums, whatever you call them, and from Lankart mutual training.

(D. III, Rev. 21).

Zagoretsky
performed by I.V. Ilyinsky

Zagoretsky- “an out-and-out swindler, a rogue,” an informer and a sharper (“Beware of him: it’s too much to bear, / And don’t sit down with cards: he’ll sell you”). The attitude towards this character characterizes the morals of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him to his face (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief,” Khlestova says about him), but in society he is “scold / Everywhere, and accepted everywhere,” because Zagoretsky is “a master of serving.”

"Talking" surname Repetilova indicates his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people’s reasoning “about important mothers.” Repetilov, unlike other representatives of Famus society, is in words an ardent admirer of “learning.” But he caricatures and vulgarizes the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, calling, for example, for everyone to study “from Prince Gregory,” where they “will give you champagne to kill.” Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became a fan of “learning” only because he failed to make a career (“And I would have climbed into ranks, but I met failures”). Education, from his point of view, is only a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky “have the same tastes.

In addition to those heroes who are listed in the “poster” - the list of “characters” - and appear on stage at least once, “Woe from Wit” mentions many people who are not participants in the action - these are off-stage characters. Their names and surnames appear in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.

Off-stage characters are invisible “participants” in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboedov managed to expand the scope of the stage action, which was concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed within one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Off-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent society, of which all participants in the events in Famusov’s house are part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely connected with those who fiercely defend the “past century” or strive to live by the ideals of the “present century” - they scream, are indignant, indignant, or, conversely, experience “a million torments” on stage.

The deceased was a venerable chamberlain, with a key, and he knew how to deliver the key to his son; Rich, and married to a rich woman; Married children, grandchildren; Died; everyone remembers him sadly.

(D. II, iv. 1).

Another worthy example to follow, according to Famusov, is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, the “dead uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served under the Empress Catherine”). Like other “nobles of the occasion,” he had an “arrogant disposition,” but, if the interests of his career required it, he knew how to deftly “curry favor” and easily “bent over backwards.”

Dramatic innovation of the play

Griboyedov's dramatic innovation was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic “high” comedy. The Alexandrian verse, with which the “standard” comedies of the classicists were written, was replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems “overpopulated” with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov’s predecessors. One gets the impression that Famusov’s house and everything that happens in the play are only part of a larger world, which is brought out of its usual half-asleep state by “madmen” like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary refuge for an ardent hero traveling “around the world”, a small “postal station” on the “main road” of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frenzied gallop, he made only a short stop and, having experienced “a million torments,” set off again.

In “Woe from Wit” there are not five, but four acts, so there is no situation characteristic of the “fifth act”, when all the contradictions are resolved and the lives of the heroes resume their unhurried course. The main conflict of the comedy, socio-ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological self-awareness of conservatives and their antagonist.

The principle of “unity of characters” - the basis of the dramaturgy of classicism - turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of “Woe from Wit”. “Portraitness,” that is, the life truth of the characters, which the “archaist” P.A. Katenin considered comedy to be an “error”; Griboedov considered it its main advantage. Straightforwardness and one-sidedness in the portrayal of the central characters are discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments (“positive” - “negative”), because the author seeks to show not “good” and “bad” in these characters. He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values and psychology are manifested. The words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare can rightfully be attributed to the characters of Griboyedov’s comedy: these are “living creatures, filled with many passions...”

Each of the main characters appears to be the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - their “polyphony” makes up the verbal “portraits” of the heroes. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin’s novel Eugene Onegin. Judgments about Chatsky are especially rich in various information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of “oral newspaper” created before the eyes of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of Famus’s house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. “Crazy” Chatsky gave secular gossips food for gossip for a long time. But “evil tongues,” which for Molchalin are “more terrible than a pistol,” are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from it in horror.

Chatsky’s “voice” is unique: his “speech behavior” already in the first scenes reveals him as a convinced opponent of the Moscow nobility. The hero’s word is his only, but most dangerous “weapon” in the truth-seeking “duel” that lasts the whole long day with Famus society. But at the same time, Chatsky the ideologist, opposing the inert Moscow nobility and expressing the author’s point of view on Russian society, in the understanding of the comedians who preceded Griboedov, cannot be called an “unequivocally positive” character. Chatsky’s behavior is that of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, fiercely attacking the morals, life and psychology of Famusites. But the author indicates the motives for his strange behavior: after all, he did not come to Moscow as an emissary of St. Petersburg freethinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. They are the main reason for his ardor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings, which are out of control, and is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened man, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, forced him to “throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs.” Chatsky’s behavior is comical, but the hero himself experiences genuine mental suffering, “a million torments.” Chatsky is a tragic character caught in comic circumstances.

Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedy “villains” or “stupid people”. Famusov is a tragicomic figure, because in the final scene not only do all his plans for Sofia’s marriage collapse, but he faces the loss of his reputation, his “good name” in society. For Famusov, this is a real disaster, and therefore at the end of the last act he exclaims in despair: “Isn’t my fate still deplorable?” The situation of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless situation, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and resigned admirer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause Famusov’s irritation and managerial anger. But rejecting Sofia’s love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge and ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the “lordly love” of his daughter and the inevitable “lordly anger” of his father.

“The people created by Griboedov are taken from life in full height, drawn from the bottom of real life,” emphasized the critic A.A. Grigoriev, “they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist."

Griboedov neglects an important rule of classic dramaturgy - the unity of plot action: in “Woe from Wit” there is no single event center (this led to reproaches from literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the “plan” of the comedy). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social problems and subtle psychologism in the depiction of the characters' characters.

For example, the “unities” characteristic of the dramaturgy of the classicists - the unity of place (Famusov’s house) and the unity of time (all events take place within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, “thickening” of action. Griboyedov also masterfully used some particular techniques of the poetics of classicism: the depiction of characters in traditional stage roles (an unsuccessful hero-lover, his nosy rival, a maid - her mistress's confidant, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedic “highlight”, emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.

In comedy there are many “characters of the setting”, “figurants” (as in the old theater they called episodic characters who created the background, “living scenery” for the main characters). As a rule, their character is fully revealed by their “speaking” surnames and given names. The same technique is used to emphasize the main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov - known to everyone, on everyone’s lips (from Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else’s (from French repeter - repeat) , Sophia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition was Chadsky, that is, “being in the child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub is “shifter” (from the word “zuboskal”). Molchalin, Tugoukhovskiye, Khlestova - these names “speak” for themselves.

In “Woe from Wit”, for the first time in Russian literature (and, what is especially important, in drama), the most important features of realistic art were clearly revealed. Realism not only frees the writer’s individuality from deadening “rules,” “canons,” and “conventions,” but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.

Alexander Griboyedov entered Russian classics as the creator of comedies, dramas, tragedies and operas. All his texts were aimed at showing in the theater.

The history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” a work familiar from school, is amazing and unique.

Concept and start of work

Ideas for comedy appeared in 1816. This happened after Griboyedov visited an aristocratic reception in St. Petersburg. The writer saw how Russian youth lost their patriotism in front of a foreign guest. He was indignant and tried to express his opinion. His angry monologue was perceived as madness. The news spread easily, and the joy of ill-wishers knew no bounds. Griboyedov wanted to convey his ideas to the people who ridiculed him, to laugh at the vices of society himself. According to literary scholars, the writer himself became the prototype of the main character of the comedy, Chatsky. The idea of a satirical comedy arose in the writer’s head, which brought fame to the writer.

The beginning of writing the test took place in Tiflis in 1821-1822. The writer studied the life of noble society, he studied the environment, attending balls and social receptions. He made notes about events at balls, created portraits, and noted the main character traits. The recordings helped convey the situation so realistically that many of the characters began to live outside the literary text.

Handwritten lists

The first acquaintance with the text began in Moscow even before its completion. Griboedov read excerpts to his friends. Work on the comedy was completed in Tiflis. Censorship has repeatedly put its hands on the text. But the comedy was already on the lists of the educated part of society. There were several hundred manuscript copies. This number alone confirms the interest that the comedy has aroused. The writer supported the distribution of lists; he understood that this way the text would reach the reader faster. The first title of the manuscript is “Woe to Wit.” There are facts that when rewriting the manuscript, scribes added their own thoughts. Foreign (non-Griboedov) fragments remained in the manuscripts.

Griboyedov knew about the interest in comedy. He wrote: “Everyone asks me for a manuscript and gets annoying.”

The manuscript was submitted by the author F.V. Bulgarin with the inscription: “I entrust my grief...”. The writer was waiting for help in publishing the play. But the comedy saw the light only after the death of the author. The text that Bulgarin had became the basis for the first printed version of Woe from Wit. Other lists are still being studied, they are being searched and transferred to literary scholars.

Features of various editions

In Tiflis in 1820, 2 acts of the play were written. There are few differences from the final text. The essence of the plan has not changed. Accusatory satire and demonstration of the vices of society. At the estate of S.N. Begichev, Griboyedov wrote Acts 3 and 4, but at that time he did not consider that work on the text was completed. The play has undergone changes:

the name “Woe to Wit” has a different meaning: “Woe from Wit”;
the root of the main character's surname Chadsky (chad) became Chatsky;
monologue of the main character in the first act;
dialogue between the maid and Sophia;
dream of the master's daughter.

The text changed, becoming more and more saturated with phrases that became catchphrases. There are edits by A. Pushkin and V. Bulgarin.

It is interesting that some dialogues remained base immediately after the first edition, for example, the monologue “Who are the judges?”

Manuscripts changed depending on the audience for which they were read. They tried to soften the author’s harsh judgments, thereby violating their meaning. But it was not possible to change the essence of the play. She was compared to a bomb that blew up the minds of an entire generation.

Key dates in the history of comedy

1816 – the emergence of the idea for a future plot
1823 – reading of excerpts from the play
1825 – text read by A. Pushkin
1829 – death of A. Griboedov
1831 – printed version in German.
1833 - the appearance of a printed Russian-language test of the play
1862 – release of the full author’s version
1875 – publication of the text without censored edits

A theatrical play has become more than a work for the stage in the usual sense. The text became a manifesto, a call. He raised questions of morality and politics. This is a play about love and loneliness, stupidity and intelligence, superiority and baseness. Long, interesting story writing, rewriting and perception of the text gave life to the entire work and its individual phrases, perceived as folk truths, history lessons.