Composing plan: Who is smart in Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"? Mind in the understanding of Chatsky Whether Chatsky is smart is grief from the mind.
In the work of A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, a palette of various images is presented, among which the image of the main character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, stands out. Regarding this comedy, writers and ingenuous readers often ask the question: “Is Chatsky smart?” And everyone formulates the answer to this question independently. I want to note that in the hero of A.S. Griboyedov there are signs of both a smart person and a stupid one.
In order to try to answer the question about Chatsky's mind, it seems to me that it is important to turn to the very concept of "mind".
S.I. Ozhegov believes, and I fully agree with him, that the mind is the ability of a person to think, the basis of a conscious, intelligent life. Interestingly, this term, with its ambivalence, also shows the duality of Chatsky: if you pay attention to its first part, you can no doubt say that the hero is smart: he knows how to think, he, as the author himself put it, is a “sane person”, which is proved, for example, his reflections on the "current century" and "past century", about the people of the "famus society" ("The houses are new, but the prejudices are old"). No wonder I.A. Goncharov wrote that the main character of "Woe from Wit" is not only smarter than all other people, but also "positively" smarter.
If you pay attention to the second part of the concept, it becomes obvious that Chatsky is not quite smart either: his way of interacting with society is extremely unreasonable, he is not rational, in his behavior, unlike the behavior of Molchalin, there is no “neatness” and “moderation ". “Fraser”, “screamer”, “jester” - this is how, for example, V.G. Belinsky characterized the main character, and this is quite fair: Chatsky lives in constant conflict, he is happy to “humiliate”, “stab”, loves everyone “ dress up as jesters”, there is no reasonable harmony in his life, it is filled with constant antagonism, progressive, almost nihilistic views make his conceited soul enter into an argument.
In Russian fiction, ambiguous characters are a common occurrence. So about Chatsky - the main character of "Woe from Wit" - it is impossible to say for sure whether he is smart or not. On the one hand, yes, Chatsky is a sane person, on the other hand, no, he is, as is so usual for a Russian intellectual, stupid in a rational sense.
Updated: 2018-05-26
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Galina Rebel
Is Chatsky smart
orProvocation as a way of teaching literature
Lesson on the topic “Is Chatsky smart?” - this, to be honest, was my provocation, so there is a need to explain and comment on something.
But the task turned out to be extremely difficult (and therefore provocative):
It is not easy for students and themselves to understand the ambiguous meanings of Griboedov's masterpiece, and here they still had to become the organizers of a risky and very difficult form of the lesson - the debate lesson. In addition, the situation was complicated by the inclusion of a fragment from the performance of the Maly Theater. And the appeal to Pushkin's opinion did not simplify the process of understanding the problem.
And the provocative idea itself arose during one of the previous student lessons (commented reading 2 actions): ninth-graders are somehow too Right everyone immediately understood: Chatsky is a progressive person, Famusov and company are retrogrades, Chatsky is smart and exalted, his opponents are stupid and mundane ... The wording varied, but the unanimity in the placement of accents was complete, suspicious and unproductive.
At the same time, they stumbled (I confess, not without my intervention) on the problem of dramatic conflict: what is it? where are his milestones? and most importantly - does it come down to the ideological confrontation between Chatsky and Famus society, i.e., "the present century" and the "past century"?
It is noteworthy that the spring of action was not immediately felt and understood by the first - the best possible! comedy readers. “You find the main error in the plan,” we learn from Griboyedov’s letter to his friend P.A. Katenin. In the first written response of Pushkin, the same claim plus the denial of the binding idea: “I read Chatsky - there is a lot of intelligence and funny in verse, but in the whole comedy there is no plan, no main thought, no truth”
What is the plan in this context? The logic of the action, its spring, its dramatic tension, which is created and set by the conflict.
To understand the play means in many respects to understand the essence and stages of the development of the conflict.
In this case, it is advisable to move from the title and from the key word (root) for the work “mind”, with which the comedy is permeated and sewn together. This is already obvious, but a modern reader, with the help of a computer, can set up an appropriate search within the text and easily make sure that almost all the characters are talking about the mind - this is what they mainly talk about, everything is measured here.
Griboyedov called the comedy "Woe from Wit" (initially even more categorically: "Woe to the Mind") - and thus, it seems, programmed the perception and assessments of Chatsky and his opponents.
In addition, in the mentioned letter to Katenin, the author, explaining his “plan”, gives a completely unambiguous assessment of the heroes: “... the girl herself is not stupid prefers a fool to a smart person (not because the mind of us sinners was ordinary, no! And in my comedy 25 fools to one sane person); and this man, of course, is at odds with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than the others ... "
And yet, inside the comedy, this unambiguity explodes - and in the lesson it needs to be blown up in order to test its strength and - refute or confirm, but at a new, deeper level of understanding.
The theme of the mind begins to sound even before the appearance of Chatsky. It is noteworthy that Sophia measures “suitors” with this very quality. Retelling her alleged dream to her father, she describes her secret chosen one as follows:
Suddenly a nice person, one of those we
We will see - as if we have known each other for a century,
Came here with me; and ingratiating and smart
But timid... You know who was born in poverty...
Puffer gets exactly the opposite characteristic:
He didn’t utter a smart word from his family, -
I don't care what's behind it, what's in the water
But as soon as Sofya starts talking about Chatsky, the mind loses its unequivocal attractiveness for her, the concept begins to double, become more complicated:
Oster, smart eloquent,
Especially happy in friends
That's what he thought about himself...
The desire to wander attacked him,
Oh! if someone loves someone
Why look for the mind and drive that far?
The conflict begins to emerge with the appearance of Chatsky, when they so obviously do not match his ardor, sincerity, happy expectations, delight from the meeting and her coldness, hostility, poorly hidden embarrassment and even irritation.
Actually plot comes at the moment when Chatsky, quite innocently, in passing, by chance, in response to Sophia's reproach of excessive talkativeness for contrast and example all of a sudden recalls Molchalin:
... I take a minute,
Enlivened by a date with you,
And talkative; is there no time
That I'm dumber than Molchalin?
And further, being unable to stop (really talkative- and this, it seems, is trying to hide embarrassment and defuse the awkwardness that has arisen), on the fly creates a witty, murderously derogatory portrait of not only Molchalin himself, but also the society that welcomes him:
…Where is he, by the way?
Have you yet broken the silence of the press?
It used to be songs where brand new notebooks
He sees, sticks: please write off.
And yet, he will reach certain degrees,
After all, today they love the dumb.
It is here that the scrapping occurs (unnoticed by the main character), which becomes the beginning of the conflict. Coldness and embarrassment of Sophia instantly degenerate into hostility, she throws to the side(to himself, to the viewer): “Not a man, a snake!”; and even the following, in response to her caustic irony, an ardent confession “And yet I love you without memory<…>Tell me to go into the fire: I’ll go as if for dinner, ”retorts with a mercilessly evil joke:“ Yes, burn well, if not?
From here, the plot tension steadily and consistently grows until it reaches its climax, which again provokes Sophia. More on that below, but for now let's clarify the nature of the conflict in question: moral and psychological.
I think that the psychological component does not need additional explanations, as for the moral one, it is clear from the above words of Chatsky that stupidity Molchalin, which he speaks of, consists mainly in wordlessness, that is, in the very one that Molchalin himself later confirms: “I don’t dare to pronounce my judgment.”
Stupidity here is not so much an intellectual as a moral assessment: wordlessness, facelessness, from the point of view of Chatsky, make a person absolutely uninteresting, untenable. And Sophia’s mind, complete with timidity, attracts, especially since she sees the explanation for such a combination in the fact that her chosen one was “born in poverty.”
We should pay tribute to Sofya Pavlovna, who, by the way, is ready to resist her father's "who is poor is not a match for you", ready to fight for her love. It doesn’t occur to Chatsky that it is Sophia who becomes his main situational (plot) opponent. And the complexity of the situation is that each of them is right in his own way: both defend their love and their value system.
Concerning ideological conflict, it organically grows out of the moral-psychological one. Excited and perplexed, Chatsky, an hour after the first appearance, returns to the Famusovs' house with one single topic and concern - "about Sofya Pavlovna", which Famusov absolutely accurately captures:
Ugh, God forgive me! five thousand times
Says the same thing!
That Sofya Pavlovna in the world is not more beautiful,
That Sofya Pavlovna is sick, -
and absolutely reasonably interested in:
Tell me, did you like her?
Sprayed the light; don't you want to get married?
But Chatsky is not ready for an everyday, practical turn of the topic, for a discussion of matrimonial issues - he is overwhelmed with emotions (“I was in a hurry! .. I was flying! I was trembling! Here’s happiness, I thought, close,” - this is how he will describe his condition in the finale), and in response - then the coldness of Sophia, then the business acumen of her father.
And he begins to do "nonsense", in particular, he is impudent to Famusova: "What do you need?" And he really inappropriately rants on socio-political topics in front of people who are obviously incapable of understanding him (Famusov, who simply plugs his ears, is joined by Skalozub, who is even less sane in Chatsky's tirades). Schoolchildren should be allowed to "frolic" around Chatsky's "stupidity", and they need to multiply textual arguments against Chatsky, and provoke dissatisfaction with him, confirming this by the reaction of other heroes to Chatsky.
But at the same time, the teacher must not fall into the trap set by him, and this happened to our students at the moment when in the abstract (and in the lesson) a categorical “No” arose in response to the question of whether Chatsky was smart ...
Not only stupid people do stupid things, very often smart people do stupid things - for various reasons, in different circumstances, and then reproach themselves for it.
In the case of Chatsky, everything is very precise and subtly motivated. He did not come to propagate his ideas - but when he is provoked to speak out, he speaks out, and a gulf is revealed between love of freedom and servility, between self-esteem and servility, between enlightenment and aggressive ignorance - that is, between the "current century" and the "past century" ...
And this abyss (an ideological conflict!) separates not only Chatsky and Famusov, but also Chatsky and Sofya, because, having fallen in love with Molchalin, she does not rebel against generally accepted rules - on the contrary, she counts on the fact that Molchalin's "timidity" and his ability “to serve” will ensure that he enters the circle of people and concepts familiar to her.
And there is no need to be afraid to argue with Pushkin, because Pushkin, by his own admission, “listened to Chatsky, but only once, and not with the attention he deserves,” and he ended his epistolary review in a letter to Bestuzhev with the significant words: “Show me this is Griboyedov. Maybe I was wrong about something else. Listening to his comedy, I did not criticize, but enjoyed. These remarks came to my mind later, when I could no longer cope. At least I speak directly, without bluntness, as a true talent.
Unlike Pushkin, we can “handle” - and we are obliged to “handle” again and again, that is, check, with the text of the comedy about each of our judgments.
Here, for example, why did Chatsky suddenly burst into a long and complex (for many current schoolchildren no less encrypted than for Skalozub) monologue “And who are the judges? ..”
After all, at the request of Famusov, he was silent for quite a long time and watched how he was courting the guest - why he did not limit himself to the philosophical, with political overtones, maxim “Houses are new, but prejudices are old”, why he broke into this passionate and “inappropriate” monologue ?
Because, by necessity introducing him to Skalozub, Famusov considers Chatsky through the prism of a system of relations, in which Molchalin acts as a value reference point, which Chatsky himself perceives as a negative starting point.
In a monologue about Moscow, explaining the principle of "recruitment" in the Moscow "establishment", Famusov says:
With me, employees of strangers are very rare;
More and more sisters, sister-in-law children;
One Molchalin is not mine,
And then that business.
And now this position of a “businesslike” servant with a noble loafer is offered as the only acceptable one for Chatsky:
Does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in that,
But if you want, it would be businesslike.
And I have what's the matter, what's not the case,
My custom is this:
Signed, so off your shoulders.
According to Famusov, “with such a mind”, like Chatsky’s, you need to be “businesslike”, like Molchalin - in other words, Famusov discredits and levels out what Chatsky, according to his sense of self, fundamentally opposes to Molchalin. Moreover, he does it on behalf of the whole society: "I'm not the only one, everyone is condemning in the same way."
Here Chatsky explodes: “And who are the judges?” ...
As you can see, without taking into account the moral and psychological background, the ideological content of the play is not entirely clear.
AND climax has primarily moral and psychological origins and meanings, for which growing ideology.
“Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed it, and everyone repeats it,” this is how it is described in Griboedov's letter.
No one but Sophia could deliver such a painful, accurate and crushing blow.
She knew and understood (!) Chatsky better than anyone. It was in her eyes that he longed to look smart and for greater persuasiveness chose Molchalin as an anti-example. It was to her that he confessed: "mind and heart are not in harmony"; in a conversation with her, he called his love for her madness (“I can beware of madness”).
She used the weapon that he himself had placed in her hands: figuratively, metaphorically expressing annoyance with the words "He's out of his mind" and seeing that the nameless and faceless gossip was ready to take it seriously, she allowed the metaphor to be turned into a diagnosis:
Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress up everyone in jesters,
Would you like to try on yourself?
Mind Chatsky - his main weapon, the main dignity in his own eyes and indisputable dignity even in the eyes of Famusov - it is with the filing of Sophia that he will be declared madness.
And when climactic episode(it begins with Sophia's corresponding remark and lasts until the end of the third act) reaches its climax, she, not content with what has been achieved, throws additional logs into the fire, intensifies Chatsky's "million torments", aggravates the absurdity of his situation.
In response to a complaint addressed to her -
With her slyly sympathetic, ruthless question: “Tell me, what makes you so angry?” Sophia provokes an even more “inappropriate” than the previous, “crazy” monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux”.
And only at the very end, during interchanges, Chatsky will understand who his main “rival” and ill-wisher was, with whom he blindly fought, in which he was initially doomed to defeat: “So I still owe you this fiction?” ...
But the most unbearable for him is not even this - worse, more insulting than Sophia's deceit, the choice she made:
…Oh my God! who did you choose?
When I think about who you preferred!
But here we again stumble over the same problem: is Chatsky smart? After all, Sophia told him about her attitude towards Molchalin! I laid out everything point by point and made a conclusion (3 acts, 2 yavl.): "That's why I love him." And he not only did not believe, but he reproaches her in the end:
Why am I lured into hope?
Why didn't they tell me directly
What did you turn all the past into laughter?!
He reproaches, of course, unfairly, rashly, defending himself from the inflicted insult. Chatsky has no grounds to reproach Sofya Pavlovna for "luring" him.
And that's why he did not believe almost direct confessions ...
Well, firstly, this is again from the category of those stupid things that even a smart person is ready for, especially blinded by love.
Secondly, for Chatsky, the question here is not only about love, but even to a greater extent - about human viability and the meaning of life in general, about moral values, which, according to his concepts, form the core of the existence of a self-respecting person who deserves the respect of others.
It is noteworthy that, summing up the conversation with Molchalin, he does not speak about the intelligence or stupidity of his counterpart, but about the moral content of this person:
With such feelings, with such a soul
Love!.. The deceiver laughed at me!
Chatsky's explanation with Molchalin (3 events, 3 acts) we made the central episode of the lesson not by chance. It is this conversation that makes it possible to understand that Molchalin, firstly, is not at all stupid, as Chatsky claims, and secondly, he is not at all as timid as Sofya sees - he, as the guys correctly noted, even seizes the initiative of the conversation from Chatsky and, unnoticed by the latter, goes on the attack. With Chatsky, who has no influence in the business environment, on which he, Molchalin, career growth and position in society do not depend, he allows himself to be quite self-confident, although he hides in the end in the usual formulas: “I don’t dare to pronounce my judgment”, “At my age, one should not dare / Have one’s own judgment.”
It is significant that the corresponding scene from the performance of the Maly Theater (director S. Zhenovach) turned not only schoolchildren, but also students towards Molchalin (actor A. Vershinin). To young viewers, he seemed more correct, more attractive, restrained, worthy than disheveled, awkward, nervous Chatsky (artist G. Podgorodinsky). The guys didn’t catch, didn’t feel the vile, lackey subtext of Molcholin’s good looks - and this is not the theater’s fault, the scene is played brilliantly, like the whole performance.
After all, Molchalin really “overacts” Chatsky in this scene, because Chatsky is excited, upset, and Molchalin is imperturbable and invulnerable to the ironic injections of Chatsky, who does not understand, as with such feelings, and with such a soul Can to be loved...
If he doesn't understand, then he's not smart?
So a decent, law-abiding person does not understand how one can be dishonest, bear false witness, steal, rape, kill.
Chatsky does not accept Molchalin, that is, he does not allow the possibility of such behavior, such a way of self-affirmation, such life guidelines for himself.
And for Sophia, with whom, by her own admission, they “brought up, grew up” together, with whom their “habit to be together every day inseparably” connected them with childhood friendship, she also does not allow ...
And in this, by the way, he is not entirely wrong: after all, Sophia, to a certain extent, really “invented” Molchalin - his true face will be revealed to her when Chatsky finally understands her.
Why were the guys "tempted" by Molchalin? There was not enough experience - reader, viewer and, most importantly, life.
How dialectic was not enough for novice teachers to, provoking arguments against Chatsky, do not bring the matter to a categorical “no”.
Chatsky does not need to be idealized, he does not need it at all. He says and does stupid things more than once throughout the play, but these stupid things are an organic component of his mind, disinterested, large-scale, daring, directed to the essence of things and phenomena, and not to extract personal benefit from them.
The high mind of Chatsky is opposed to the mundane, dodgy mind of Molchalin, the pragmatic and limited mind of Famusov. It turns out that there is a whole hierarchy of minds - and it's good if a person knows how to combine worldly wisdom with intellectual audacity and independence.
But sooner or later, a situation of choice inevitably arises, and not many are able to subordinate their quite reasonable everyday considerations to the lofty madness that Chatsky demonstrates in a work of art, and in life - his prototype P.Ya. Chaadaev, its creator A.S. Griboyedov and - A.S. Pushkin, to whom Chatsky seemed stupid.
About Pushkin himself, one can hardly say that he went on occasion from his high mind, as it is written in student notes. More precisely, Lermontov put it, calling the Poet "a slave of honor." On occasion they go blindly, in the absence of independent will. In the case of Pushkin, the opposite is true: his will was aimed at protecting and asserting those values that he considered immutable for himself.
Historical allusions
It must be said that Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit is not only a comedy of manners, not only a comedy exposing the abuses of society, and perhaps not so much these usual forms of comedy. It is permeated with historicism. It can be said that in Woe from Wit even the historical roots of such a perverted state of Moscow society are indicated.
It is curious that the starting and ending points are hinted at in various replicas and monologues. The first such point, it seems, is outlined in a joke, rather angry, by Chatsky about one of the Moscow old women, aunts, who “... is all a girl, Minerva? // All the maid of honor of Catherine the First? Here is the starting point of that historical period to which Griboyedov clearly refers - this is Catherine I, the first Russian empress. And Famusov's monologue about Maxim Petrovich refers to the last empress of the 18th century. - Catherine II: "He served Catherine under the empress." And Chatsky is also indignant at the fact that information here is drawn from the newspapers of the "time of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea."
So, the historical roots of this Moscow state go back to the 18th century, to female rule, the century of empresses. Moscow, as it were, preserved the former forms - both favoritism, and servility, and ignorance, all that underdevelopment of the still Moscow, Russian, or rather, world of the 18th century, all that savagery that was characteristic of the 18th century. and enlightenment in the 19th century. Moscow has not yet dreamed of.
Chatsky's test
There are many such hints that historicize "Woe from Wit" in the comedy. In historical terms, from the point of view of historicism, we must also perceive the most complex, controversial image of comedy - the image of Chatsky. So, in this lecture we will talk about the main character of the comedy - Chatsky. From the very appearance of the comedy in the lists, the image of Chatsky caused controversy.
Moreover, Pushkin himself, the greatest authority not only for us, but also for his contemporaries, doubted that Chatsky was really an intelligent person, that his grief was really from the mind. “The only intelligent person in comedy,” Pushkin wrote in a letter, “is Griboedov. And Chatsky just heard enough smart speeches and repeats them. A smart person will not cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs,” Pushkin remarks. This is a well-known letter, it was also known to Griboyedov.
Griboedov responded to this letter with a rebuke. He did not write directly to Pushkin, he wrote his answer to Begichev, but he clearly expected that he would become known and that he would be brought to Pushkin as well. He explains the plan of his comedy, he justifies Chatsky, explains all the misunderstandings that happen to him in comedy. One smart person against twenty-five fools - it is natural that he is in a very difficult, contradictory, even ambiguous position.
Let's figure it out. Let's start with the fact that Chatsky is really a hero of high comedy. He really is the protagonist. And the author clearly makes a bet on his hero. Otherwise, the whole comedy plan falls apart and its idea is undermined. But at the same time, the author is extremely risky. Already the first appearance of Chatsky in a comedy, I would say, is complicated by rhyme. Chatsky is announced, and with what word does his last name rhyme? With the word "stupid". Lisa asks to be forgiven for her stupid laugh, and they immediately announce: "Alexander Andreyich Chatsky is here for you." Chatsky is stupid. Such a rhyme could not be an accident, the author could not offend his hero with an involuntary pun. No, we must be more than sure that this is completely conscious.
Indeed, the test, a kind of Chatsky's initiation, is that he goes through a whole series of stupid situations, gets into one stupid situation after another. Yes, already the first, in fact, the situation when he flies into Sophia's living room with love, confessions, in a cheerful bustle, counting on an enthusiastic reception, and Sophia douses him with cold. This already immediately puts Chatsky in a foolish position. In the future, every conversation between Chatsky and Sophia turns into an awkward situation for Chatsky. He longs for her, and the more he longs for her, the more she is filled with hostility towards him. She no longer hides this hostility.
Chatsky, however, cannot leave Sophia, he does not believe, he wants to check if her heart is free. Is it Molchalin? No impossible! And his very delay, his very uncertainty about Sophia's feelings puts him in an increasingly foolish position. And it undermines, as it seems to us, even the intrigue of the comedy. The reader from the very beginning knows about Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky. Chatsky, with his insight and intelligence, could have guessed this from the first scene. However, he still wants to make sure, make sure, and reaches the very end of the comedy with this certificate. Here is one.
Through all the circles of the funny
Further. Imagine a person who has come to get married. He must be recommended to his father. They are having small talk, but Chatsky is clearly incapable of small talk. Famusov complacently scolds Chatsky: “That's it, you are all proud!”, tries to reason with him, quite complacently, tells about Maxim Petrovich. Chatsky breaks out at this with philippics, breaks out into an angry monologue. Let Famusov’s reaction to this be inadequate: “He is a carbonari!... He wants to preach liberty!” But one request of Famusov is completely legitimate: he is the owner of the house, he has the right to ask Chatsky not to take liberties with others, with third parties. This compromises Famusov, it is dangerous, finally.
Instead, Chatsky, precisely in front of third parties, in the presence of Skalozub, unfolds such a monologue, which in itself made it impossible to publish or stage a comedy on stage - a monologue directly dedicated to serfdom, a monologue about peasants who are sold out one by one: “Cupids and Zephyrs all // sold out one by one”, about malicious feudal lords. Famusov is horrified, and not in vain, this horror is fully justified. And thank God that Skalozub is dumb as a cork and does not understand a single word, reacting only to the word "guards", and does not understand anything else in Chatsky's monologue. But nevertheless, these words themselves, the very behavior of Chatsky, who compromises Famusov in front of third parties, is impossible not only in the world, but is also doubtful in any society. And this is again a stupid situation.
Stupid situations are on the rise. At the ball, Chatsky is completely superfluous, but he is not that gloomy silent in the corner: he is not able to take the pose of Byron or Lermontov's lyrical hero, looking gloomily at society. No, he speaks out, he talks first to one, then to another, and everyone shied away from him even before he was declared crazy. Intervened in the conversation between Platon Mikhailovich and Natalya Dmitrievna - this obviously did not please Natalya Dmitrievna. He said some remark in front of Khlestova - Khlestova is unhappy. Whatever the word, then out of place. And, finally, the culmination of all these stupid provisions is the appearance of Chatsky in front of the ballroom crowd, which considers him crazy.
And the pinnacle of all troubles - Chatsky utters the monologue "Frenchman from Bordeaux", very smart, very civic high, satirical, beautiful in every way. But as soon as everyone slowly leaves the hall, not a single listener remains, and Chatsky, in his impulse, does not even notice this for the time being.
Finally, the beautiful-hearted Repetilov completes the stupid situation, throwing himself on the neck of Chatsky, full of the most friendly feelings, and chattering, chattering, chattering, as if parodying Chatsky, all that high and beautiful that is in Chatsky’s soul, distorting in a bad mirror, in a crooked mirror, turning it into bullshit. And here the stupid provisions are closed, Chatsky went through all the circles of the ridiculous. He turns out to be funny all the time - at first a little, then more, and, finally, in these two episodes, the monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" and the meeting with Repetilov, he is completely funny.
But this is a very risky move by Griboyedov, this is a developed technique not to humiliate Chatsky and make fun of him. I repeat, this would destroy the whole structure of the comedy. No, to make it all the more powerful, all the more lofty, all the more pathetic apotheosis at the end. The fact is that this laughter, which, perhaps, some provisions of Chatsky cause, should be especially bitter and serve as an aid to indignation. Indeed, a tall hero turns out to be alone against twenty-five fools on stage - and we also have dozens of off-stage characters, one scarier than the other! This position of Chatsky is impossible! Not only is marriage impossible, it is impossible to be in this world in general...
Literature
- Vinokur G.O. "Woe from Wit" as a monument of Russian artistic speech / Vinokur G.O. Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1959.
- Gershenzon M.O. Griboedovskaya Moscow. M., 1989.
- Zorin A.L. "Woe from Wit" and Russian Comedy of the 10-20s of the 19th century / Philology. M., 1977, no. 5.
- Lotman Yu.M. Decembrist in everyday life / Lotman Yu.M. In the school of poetry. Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. M., 1988.
- Piksanov N.K. Creative history of "Woe from Wit". M., 1971.
- Slonimsky A.L. "Woe from Wit" and comedy of the Decembrist era / A.S. Griboyedov. 1795 - 1829. Collection of articles. M., 1946.
- Solovyov V. Living and tenants. Philosophy and composition "Woe from Wit" / Questions of Literature, 1970, No. 11.
- Stepanov N.L. Griboyedov and Krylov / A.S. Griboyedov. 1795 - 1829. Collection of articles. M., 1946.
- Tomashevsky B.V. Poetic system "Woe from Wit" / Verse and language. M.-L., 1959.
- Tynyanov Yu.N. The plot of "Woe from Wit" / Tynyanov Yu.N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. M., 1969.
- Fomichev S.A. Griboedov in Petersburg. L., 1982.
- Fomichev S.A. Comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit": Commentary. The book for the teacher. M., 1983.
In fact, what would happen to us if, instead of the generally convenient rule: honor the rank of the rank, another was introduced, for example: respect the mind of the mind?
A. S. Pushkin
Griboyedov called his play "Woe from Wit". This name can be understood both seriously and ironically, depending on what is meant by the word "mind". It seems that the playwright used this word in the meaning of “cognitive and mental ability of a person, the ability to think logically” (AN USSR Dictionary of the Russian language in four volumes. M .: Russian language, 1981, vol. 4, p. 488). This definition implies, firstly, a philosophical mind, high intelligence, and, secondly, “common sense, the ability to assess the situation, weigh circumstances and be guided by this in one’s behavior” (ibid.). We find the separation and clash of these two meanings of the word “mind”, for example, in the novel “War and Peace”, when L. N. Tolstoy explains the zero result of the transformations carried out by Pierre Bezukhov in his estates: the chief manager, a very stupid and cunning person, understood the smart and naive count and played with him like a toy (2, 2, X).
When A.S. Pushkin and I.A. Goncharov talk about the mind of Chatsky, their assessments at first glance are directly opposite. Pushkin states in a letter to A.A. Bestuzhev (end of January 1825): “Everything that Chatsky says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Puffer? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? It's unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with ... ". Goncharov writes in the article “A Million of Torments” (1871): “Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, he is positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. He has a heart, and besides, he is impeccably honest. In a word, this person is not only intelligent, but also developed, with feeling. It can be seen from the above quotes that Pushkin means common sense, that is, the worldly mind, and Goncharov means high intelligence, which means that the authors do not contradict each other.
Having just appeared on the stage, Chatsky in his remarks with a few, but well-aimed strokes, creates witty portraits of representatives of Famusov's Moscow: Moscow "aces" regulars of the English Club, "tabloid" faces, young aunts, lively Frenchmen, German teachers, etc. Further in the monologues, the protagonist ironically notes the “merits” of the “past century”, which Famusov is so proud of: servility (the enviable career of chamberlain Maxim Petrovich), fear of enlightenment and science (“Take her books and burn them” III, 21), hatred of people who want to live with their own minds (“Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life” II, 5), service not for the sake of business, but for the sake of a career (“And take rewards and live happily” III, 3), etc. Chatsky gives brilliant characteristics to the representatives of the Famus society: Skalozub (“Wheeper, strangled man, bassoon, Constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas” III, 1), Molchalin (“The base worshiper and businessman” IV, 14), Famusov (“Lover of ranks” IV, 14). Witty and accurate assessments and judgments of Chatsky indicate his independent and mocking mind, his brilliant analytical (associated with the analysis of the phenomena of the surrounding world and human characters) abilities.
In cunning and resourcefulness, that is, in worldly ingenuity, the Famus society surpasses the clever Chatsky. The stupid Skalozub and the cunning Molchalin successfully settle in life and make a career that is not given to Chatsky, a direct and independent person. Skalozub and Molchalin have well mastered the laws of the Famus society: in addition to business qualities, and maybe even before them, those who want to succeed in their service must have the ability to please their boss, demonstrate their respect and devotion:
Have patrons yawn at the ceiling,
Appear to be silent, to shuffle, to dine,
Substitute a chair, raise a handkerchief. (II, 2)
Chatsky, understanding all these tricks of careerists, scornfully and condescendingly refers to such a "science to succeed." And further. With all his clever insight, he did not see the obvious: Sophia is in love with Molchalin. Chatsky underestimated his rival, whom he contemptuously called "fool" (I, 7), "the most miserable creature" (III, 1), and the quiet official turned out to be a very clever rogue and bypassed the protagonist both in love and in rank: while Chatsky is three years old traveled and "searched for the mind" (I, 5), Molchalin loved Sophia and "received three awards" (III, 3). Chatsky also underestimated the cohesion of the Famus society -
In the love of traitors, in the enmity of the tireless,
Indomitable storytellers,
Clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons,
Sinister old women, old men... (IV, 14)
The Famus society did not refute the arguments of the young detractor, which again testify to his philosophical mind, but easily and simply dealt with him, showing a worldly dodgy mind and declaring him crazy.
So, can Chatsky be called smart if he alone is trying to fight the entire Famus society? Yes, you can. The layman knows in advance that this is a hopeless case: “Is it possible against everyone!” (IV, 7) - Famusov's guests exclaim. But there are heroes who, contrary to philistine wisdom, still go against public opinion and obsolete rules. Of course, the conservative majority will crush these "troublemakers", but only because at first there are only a few of them. In the end, changes in society will definitely occur, as the first lone wrestlers dreamed of. Therefore, of course, Goncharov is right when he wrote that Chatsky is a winner and always a victim.
Of course, it's good when a person's mind is versatile. But if you choose, then, apparently, the philosophical mind is more valuable (the mind of Chatsky, and not Molchalin), because it helps to comprehend and understand the world and people around. Cunning and resourcefulness help only their owner to succeed in life, and after the ranks and money are obtained, life becomes boring for a serious person (there are many examples of this in Russian literature - the fate of Dr. Startsev from A.P. Chekhov's story "Ionych" or the official Kalinovich from the novel by A.F. Pisemsky "A Thousand Souls").
The wonderful comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in the early 19th century by the great Russian writer Griboyedov. In this work, Griboyedov touches on the most important problems of our time: political, social and domestic. But the main conflict of comedy is relationships...
Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became famous thanks to one work, about which Pushkin said: “His handwritten comedy “Woe from Wit” produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him along with our first poets.” Contemporaries said...
“Griboedov is “a man of one book,” V.F. Khodasevich remarked. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.” The creative history of comedy, on which the playwright worked for several years, is extremely complex....
Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is an outstanding work of Russian and world dramaturgy. The author poses and resolves important problems for his time: about public service, about patriotism, about human relationships. It shows the grief of an intelligent person, ...
Women's images in the literature of the 19th century Women's images in the literature of the 19th century Literature is the source from which we, readers, draw information about a particular era. Works of the 18th century - early 19th century give us the opportunity to vividly, colorfully reproduce the picture ...
"Woe from Wit" is the only widely known work of A. S. Griboyedov. This comedy was written in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. In his comedy, Griboyedov managed to reflect the picture of a society that was in great need of renewal, in breaking the old ...
