Woe from the mind of Griboyedov is written. Literary and historical notes of a young technician

The comedy in verse by A. S. Griboedov “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?

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outstanding works Russian literature, thanks to its unsurpassed aphoristic style, brilliant, subtle ridicule of the outdated ideals and ideas of the conservative Russian nobility.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 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 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 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 Masonic lodges, one of which included Griboyedov. The first edition of the work was changed due to censorship of that time: the text was filled with subtle hints at political conspiracies, the tsarist army was ridiculed, 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.

Comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedova brought immortal glory to her creator. It is dedicated to the split in the early 19th century. noble society, the conflict between the “past century” and the “present century”, between the old and the new. The play ridicules the foundations of secular society of that time. Like any accusatory work, “Woe from Wit” had a difficult relationship with censorship, and as a result, a difficult creative destiny. In the history of the creation of "Woe from Wit" there are several key points, which you should pay attention to.

The idea of ​​creating the play “Woe from Wit” probably arose from Griboyedov in 1816. At this time, he came to St. Petersburg from abroad and found himself at an aristocratic reception. Like the main character of “Woe from Wit,” Griboedov was outraged by the Russian people’s craving for everything foreign. Therefore, seeing at the evening how everyone bowed to one foreign guest, Griboyedov expressed his extremely negative attitude towards what was happening. While the young man was pouring out an angry monologue, someone voiced the assumption of his possible madness. The aristocrats received this news with joy and quickly spread it. It was then that it occurred to Griboyedov to write satirical comedy, where he could mercilessly ridicule all the vices of society, which treated him so mercilessly. Thus, one of the prototypes of Chatsky, the main character of “Woe from Wit,” was Griboyedov himself.

In order to more realistically show the environment that he was going to write about, Griboyedov, while at balls and receptions, noticed various cases, portraits, characters. Subsequently, they were reflected in the play and became part of creative history"Fire from mind."

Griboedov began reading the first excerpts of his play in Moscow in 1823, and the comedy, then called “Woe to Wit,” was completed in 1824 in Tiflis. The work was repeatedly subjected to changes at the request of censors. In 1825, only excerpts of the comedy were published in the anthology “Russian Waist”. This did not prevent readers from getting acquainted with the work in its entirety and sincerely admiring it, because the comedy was popular handwritten lists, of which there are several hundred. Griboyedov supported the appearance of such lists, because this way his play had the opportunity to reach the reader. In the history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov, there are even cases of insertion of foreign fragments into the text of the play by copyists.

A.S. Pushkin already in January 1825 became acquainted with full text comedy, when Pushchin brought “Woe from Wit” to a poet friend who was at that moment in exile in Mikhailovskoye.

When Griboyedov went to the Caucasus and then to Persia, he gave the manuscript to his friend F.V. Bulgarin with the inscription “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. Of course, the writer hoped that his enterprising friend would assist in publishing the play. In 1829, Griboyedov died, and the manuscript that remained with Bulgarin became the main text of the comedy “Woe from Wit.”

Only in 1833 the play was published in Russian in its entirety. Before this, only fragments of it were published, and theatrical productions of the comedy were significantly distorted by censorship. Without censorship intervention, Moscow saw “Woe from Wit” only in 1875.

The history of the creation of the play "Woe from Wit" has much in common with the fate of the main character of the comedy. Chatsky found himself powerless in the face of the outdated views of the society in which he was forced to find himself. He failed to convince the nobles of the need for change and a change in their worldview. Likewise, Griboedov, having thrown his accusatory comedy in the face of secular society, was unable to achieve any significant changes in the views of the nobles of that time. However, both Chatsky and Griboyedov sowed the seeds of Enlightenment, reason and progressive thinking in aristocratic society, which later bore rich fruit in a new generation of nobles.

Despite all the difficulties during publication, the play has a happy creative destiny. Thanks to her light style and aphorism, she was widely quoted. The sound of “Woe from Wit” is still modern today. The problems raised by Griboedov are still relevant today, because the collision of old and new is inevitable at all times.

Work test

To a certain extent, the history of productions of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" on the stage of the Maly Theater is the history of Russian theater. For the first time at his benefit performance, M.S. himself Shchepkin played Famusov. The great tragedian of the Moscow stage Pavel Stepanovich Mochalov played Chatsky here, as in the twentieth century A. A. Ostuzhev, A. I. Sumbatov-Yuzhin. A. Lensky played first Chatsky, and then Famusov. Mikhail Tsarev, like his great predecessor, also played Chatsky as a young man, and Famusov as an older man.

Each generation contributed and appropriated the text in its own way. immortal comedy Griboedova.

When the premiere took place at the Maly Theater in 1975, the discussion revolved not around Famusov, played by Mikhail Tsarev, but around Vitaly Solomin’s Chatsky. The actor was accused of the fact that the public theme faded into the background, the personal drama prevailed, that such a Chatsky was not a tribune, not an accuser.

Vitaly Solomin, indeed, played Chatsky, who was happy to return to Famusov’s house to meet Sophia. Bookish, enthusiastic, cheerful young man in round glasses. He appeared from the road, despite the frost, in an open sheepskin coat, from under which his apache shirt was visible. He was in a hurry to see Sophia. V. Solomin admitted in an interview that he “used to be interested in the meaning of Chatsky’s monologues, now - in the meaning of his behavior.”

This archival young man, pushing away the servant, burst into the house and unexpectedly fell with all his might. But the fall did not stop his happy state; feelings overwhelmed the laughing Chatsky. At that moment, it was as if his entire childhood life in this house flashed by. “It’s barely light and you’re already on your feet!” and I’m at your feet,” Chatsky, sitting on the floor, punned, addressing Sophia (Nelly Kornienko).

V. Solomin played this state of unbridled joy - Chatsky is home again, everything here is dear to him. Leaning against the tiles of the stove, warming himself, he looked around the room, every thing in it was familiar to him, lovingly stroked the wallpaper, memorable from childhood. At first, Chatsky did not notice Sophia’s indifference, Famusov’s growing hostility, or Molchalin’s irony.

Explaining his interpretation, Vitaly Methodievich Solomin said: “My Chatsky understood perfectly well what Famusov and others like him were. But in Famusov's house he was held by a deep and strong love to Sophia, he could not put his beloved on the same level as those around him. Hence his monologues. They are addressed to Sophia and no one else.”

And Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux, to whom the guests listened, was actually addressed to Sophia, who was just leaving without listening to Alexander Andreevich, and he continued, as if habitually, to make his caustic observations. In this scene, for the first time, the congregation began to think that he was crazy.

Vitaly Solomin avoided playing that school Chatsky, the accuser and accuser " Famusov society" with his head thrown back proudly. It was more important for the actor to humanize the image, to show in the process, step by step, Chatsky’s rejection of the way of the manor’s house. The love boat crashed against everyday life and foundations. Chatsky ran into Famusov’s house as a young man, and left forever bitterly matured. Deceived in love, he began to see why he was deceived. Before leaving the Famusovs' house, Chatsky rushed up the stairs, turning his angry monologue to where Sophia stood, so that last time look into her eyes. And only then, coming very close to the doors, he ordered: “Give me a carriage, a carriage!”

Chatsky's antagonist is Mikhail Tsarev's Famusov, both a Moscow gentleman and an important dignitary. Dapper, always in shape. For for many years he developed a strong habit of dressing like a brand new man.

In the house he controls life, as in the department. His anxiety grows when he goes on his morning rounds and hears the sounds of a flute coming from Sophia’s chambers. Even in his instructions, he notices Parsley’s torn elbow. Shows diplomatic tact at the ball, treating everyone with social courtesy. When gossip about Chatsky's madness reaches its climax, he supports it with his authority. However, Famusov will lose his respectable luster in the finale. At first, the Moscow gentleman did not really listen, or rather, he listened to Chatsky’s condescendingly dangerous speeches. This was not the case when the threat of being compromised by his daughter and himself loomed over Famusov’s house. In Mikhail Tsarev’s Famusov, the will to cruelty awoke from a sense of danger. He already hated Chatsky directly, bluntly, and attacked him with all possible fury. At the same time, Mikhail Tsarev did not raise his tone, and the more he achieved the effect of indignation.

It is worth noting other roles in this performance. Sofia Nelly Kornienko showed her indifference to Chatsky from the first scenes. She was not inspired by the social temperament of her former friend. She was Famusov's daughter and wanted to remain as such. Boris Klyuev’s Molchalin behaved on an equal footing with Chatsky, not to say with hidden condescension. Skalozub Roman Filippov was a good-natured, narrow-minded military man, although he did not understand all of Chatsky’s satirical barbs, but rather sympathized with him. Looking at Evgenia Glushenko’s Lisa, it was easy to notice that this girl was taken from the village. Until recently, it seems, she was running barefoot through the meadows and fields. Much in Famusov’s house seems wonderful to her, but there is nothing she can do, she gets used to it. Nikita Podgorny's repetilov turned out to be unnecessary to anyone, so he had a desire to join at least someone.

Elena Gogoleva's Khlestova was quarrelsome and domineering.

Coherence of the game, development of characters, ability to organically appropriate poetic text, extraordinary acting work, conscientious attitude to the text - everything that is characteristic best performance Maly Theater, it was also in the production of “Woe from Wit” in 1975.

Griboyedov wrote the play for two years (1822-1824). Since Alexander Sergeevich served as a diplomat and was considered influential person, he hoped that his creation would easily pass censorship and would soon become a full-fledged performance. However, he soon realized: there is no skipping comedy. It was possible to publish only fragments (in 1825 in the almanac “Russian Waist”). The entire text of the play was published much later, in 1862. First theatrical production took place in 1831. However, in handwritten copies (samizdat of that time) the book spread rapidly and became very popular among the reading public.

Comedy feature

Theater is the most conservative form of art, therefore, while romanticism and realism were developing in literature, classicism still dominated on the stage. Griboyedov’s play combines features of all three directions: “Woe from Wit” is a classic work in form, but realistic dialogues and issues related to the realities of Russia in the 19th century bring it closer to realism, and romantic hero(Chatsky) and the conflict of this hero with society is a characteristic opposition for romanticism. How are the classicist canon, romantic motifs and a general realistic attitude towards vitality combined in “Woe from Wit”? The author managed to harmoniously weave contradictory components together due to the fact that he was brilliantly educated by the standards of his time, often traveled around the world and read in other languages, and therefore absorbed new literary trends before other playwrights. He did not move among writers, he served in a diplomatic mission, and therefore his mind was free from many stereotypes that prevented authors from experimenting.

Drama genre "Woe from Wit". Comedy or drama?

Griboyedov believed that “Woe from Wit” is a comedy, but since tragic and dramatic elements are very developed in it, the play cannot be attributed exclusively to comedy genre. First of all, we need to pay attention to the ending of the work: it is tragic. Today it is customary to define “Woe from Wit” as a drama, but in the 19th century there was no such division, so it was called “ high comedy"By analogy with Lomonosov's high and low calms. This formulation contains a contradiction: only tragedy can be “high”, and comedy is by default “low” calm. The play was not unambiguous and typical, it broke out of existing theatrical and literary clichés, which is why it was so highly appreciated by both contemporaries and the current generation of readers.

Conflict. Composition. Issues

The play traditionally highlights two types of conflict: private ( love drama) and social (contrasting old and new times, “Famus society” and Chatsky). Since this work partially relates to romanticism, we can argue that in the play there is a romantic conflict between the individual (Chatsky) and society (Famusovsky society).

One of the strict canons of classicism is the unity of action, which presupposes a cause-and-effect relationship between events and episodes. In “Woe from Wit” this connection is already significantly weakened; it seems to the viewer and reader that nothing significant is happening: the characters walk here and there, talk, that is, the external action is rather monotonous. However, the dynamics and drama are inherent precisely in the dialogues of the characters; you must first listen to the play in order to grasp the tension of what is happening and the meaning of the production.

The peculiarity of the composition is that it is built according to the canons of classicism, the number of acts does not coincide with it.

If the comedies of writers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries exposed individual vices, then Griboyedov’s satire attacked the entire conservative way of life, saturated with these vices. Ignorance, careerism, martinet, cruelty and bureaucratic inertia - all these are realities Russian Empire. The Moscow nobility with its ostentatious puritanical morality and unscrupulousness in business is represented by Famusov, stupid military careerism and blinkered consciousness is represented by Skalozub, servility and hypocrisy of the bureaucracy is represented by Molchalin. Thanks to episodic characters, the viewer and reader get acquainted with all the types of “Famus society” and see that their cohesion is the result of the solidarity of vicious people. The many-sided and motley clique has absorbed all the vulgarity, lies and stupidity that society is accustomed to worship and yield to. Characters not only on stage, but also off stage, mentioned in lines characters(moral setter Princess Marya Aleksevna, author of “exemplary nonsense” Foma Fomich, influential and all-powerful Tatyana Yuryevna and others).

The significance and innovation of the play "Woe from Wit"

In the play, which the author himself considered a comedy, oddly enough, the most current problems that period: the injustice of serfdom, an imperfect state apparatus, ignorance, the problem of education, etc. Griboedov also included, it would seem, vital debates about boarding schools, jury trials, censorship and institutions in his entertaining work.

Moral aspects, which are no less important for the playwright, give rise to humanistic pathos works. The author shows how people die under the pressure of the “Famus society” best qualities in man. For example, Molchalin is not deprived positive qualities, but is forced to live by the laws of Famusov and others like him, otherwise he will never achieve success. That is why “Woe from Wit” occupies a special place in Russian drama: it reflects real conflicts and non-fictional life circumstances.

The composition of the drama is in a classic style: adherence to three unities, the presence of large monologues, speaking names actors, etc. The content is realistic, which is why the performance is still sold out in many theaters in Russia. The heroes do not personify one vice or one virtue, as was customary in classicism; they are diversified by the author, their characters are not devoid of both negative and positive qualities. For example, critics often call Chatsky a fool or an overly impulsive hero. It is not Sophia’s fault that during his long absence she fell in love with someone who was nearby, but Chatsky immediately becomes offended, jealous and hysterically denounces everything around him only because his beloved has forgotten him. A hot-tempered and quarrelsome character does not suit the main character.

Worth noting spoken language plays where each character has his own characteristic speech patterns. This plan was complicated by the fact that the work was written in verse (in iambic meter), but Griboyedov managed to recreate the effect of a casual conversation. Already in 1825, writer V.F. Odoevsky stated: “Almost all the verses of Griboyedov’s comedy became proverbs, and I often happened to hear in society, entire conversations of which most of composed poems from “Woe from Wit.”

Worth noting speaking names in "Woe from Wit": for example, “Molchalin” means the hidden and hypocritical nature of the hero, “Skalozub” is an inverted word for “teething,” meaning boorish behavior in society.

Why is Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” readable now?

Nowadays, people often use Griboedov's quotes without knowing it. Phraseologisms “the legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe”, “ happy hours do not observe”, “and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us” - all these catchphrases familiar to everyone. The play is still relevant due to Griboyedov’s light, aphoristic author’s style. He was one of the first to write a drama in real Russian, which people still speak and think in. The ponderous and pompous vocabulary of his time was not remembered by his contemporaries in any way, but Griboyedov’s innovative style found its place in the linguistic memory of the Russian people. Can the play “Woe from Wit” be called relevant in the 21st century? Yes, if only because we use quotes from him in everyday life.

I always wondered how Griboyedov managed to write such an amazing thing? All the other plays of his that I have read are not the same at all, some kind of schoolboy attempts. And “Woe from Wit” is an ironic, psychological, sparkling play, written in amazingly lively language. "Friend. Is it possible to choose a nook and cranny for further walks?” or “Some freaks from the other world, and no one to talk to, and no one to dance with”

Why is it studied in ninth grade? They only spoil the impression of this wonderful thing by forcing Chatsky, that pompous turkey, to cram the monologue, and driving into their heads a sanctimonious and outdated reading, that, they say, Famusov is bad and stupid, and all his guests are generally freaks, and only Chatsky is a shining ray light in dark kingdom. Although I don’t know, maybe these days it’s already taught normally, but somehow I don’t believe it... school years They were obviously taught according to the Soviet manual.

At one time I was lucky enough to record this teleplay on video from the TV, and I watched the film to its holes. Menshikov's reading has a couple of bottlenecks, but overall it is a very worthy embodiment of the play. He shifted many accents, firstly, trying with all his might to make out of the arrogant boor Chatsky a person who was not malicious, simply intemperate with his tongue, a bit of an eternal boy, but very sincere. In terms of age, of course, he is not Chatsky, but he is a theater.

Sophia she is beautiful. She’s good in the original, but here she’s just a strong-willed girl, very dangerous if you insult her, very tender towards the one she loves. Smart, elegant, specially beautiful.

Famusov is a bit old. Here Famusov is a bit old and slack, his remarks merge into some kind of slightly hysterical and inarticulate chant, he looks as if it’s time for him to go to his coffin tomorrow Not so. In the original, he is still young. Energetic when it comes to entertainment. He is very smart in everyday life, although he is retrograde, lazy, and a walker, and he is not a fool to bend to anyone. He’s also dangerous, it’s a family thing with Sophia. The original Famusov is actually my favorite character, he is much more complex than his school definition enemy of enlightenment. “I would like to collect all the books and burn them” well, naturally, he is not going to burn anything. He adapts to the dull Skalozub, he would tell him anything, if only he would consider Sophia as a possible general’s wife. This one is also not one-dimensional, in principle, but it could be better.

By the way, Skalozub is even charming here. He is not stupid, but rather simple-minded, even with a sense of humor, a kind guy in principle, he understands to himself that he is not a genius and is a little embarrassed about it.

Khlestova is perfect! Vasilyeva is simply a pillar here; from a small, passable role, she (with the full support of the director, of course) made one of the brightest in the play. Stupid and quarrelsome in the original, here she’s just a local queen, center social life. With what magnificence she pronounces “Moscow, you see, is to blame” and bitterness, and detaching pity for the “madman”, and an incredible sense of her own exclusivity, she is the supreme judge in this spontaneous case of Chatsky’s madness.

Repetilov is quite funny. In the play, in principle, a lot of time is devoted to him, in the end the appearance of a new face is no longer necessary, the reader-viewer is already tired, already demanding a denouement. An extra character, to be honest. But here he did everything he could.

Zagoretsky, played by the vicious handsome Basharov, is quite impressive, and both Gorich and the countess-granddaughter are not bad. Molchalin is, of course, handsome, but he is smarter in the original. Here, in my opinion, he flirts with Lisa in a completely unnatural way, as if he loves her “by virtue of his position.” And they made the countess-grandmother some kind of weak-minded, and the princesses into just puppets of two gentlemen with initials, this is too much sarcasm, I would say, it’s an unnecessary puppet interlude. “What kind of laughter is there, it’s a sin to laugh at old age,” as Khlestova said, and at the stupid princesses who have already been ridiculed many times, starting from the original, too.

Music is another big plus of the performance. Topics different heroes They highlight the characters' lines very well. For example, when Sophia says “It’s as if he is dearer to me than all the treasures,” meaning, of course, Molchalin, it comes up theme song Chatsky and the heroine becomes foggy, remembering a past feeling. Thin!

The costumes and scenery are slightly conventional, but there is no crazy modernization, thank the gods, I can’t stand it when classics in the classical interpretation are furnished in an emphatically avant-garde manner for the sake of modernism.

Overall, it's worth a look. Especially for those who grew up disliking this wonderful play from school, this is a good reason to look at it with your own eyes, and not through the cloudy lenses of the school curriculum.