Alexander Griboedov "Woe from Wit to All the Smart". IN

Answer from Anatoly roset[guru]
Literary critics consider AI Polezhaev to be the author of these lines.
Unreasonably, Griboyedov was credited with an "epigraph" to "Woe from Wit":
Fate is a naughty, minx
I defined it myself:
All stupid happiness from madness,
And smart - woe from the mind.
(A variant of the second verse: “She arranged it in the world so”). This epigraph, which is still in the lists of 1824, was prefaced to the comedy about 20 times in editions of 1860-1912. However, this epigraph is not in any of the authorized lists, and there are no other indications that it belongs to Griboyedov. In some lists, A. I. Polezhaev is named as its author.
IN ANY CASE THE AUTHOR OF THESE LINES IS NOT GRIBOEDOV!
(for Natalie: and NOT VYAZEMSKY!)
Source:

Answer from CJ Stratos[expert]
maybe mushroom-eaters...

Answer from Natalia Askerova[guru]
"Fate is a naughty minx, she distributed everything herself: To all the stupid - happiness from madness, to all the smart - grief from the mind" - This is the epigraph "awarded" Vyazemsky Griboyedov's immortal comedy.

Answer from Oleg Kozlov[newbie]
I agree with the last sentence:
I did not see any happy smart people.
But at the expense of the madmen of happiness
I would say more.

Answer from Alexander Kulikov[newbie]
These lines belong to Nikolai Dorizo

Answer from Anatoly Rybakov[newbie]
very similar to Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: Who is the author: Fate is a naughty minx, distributed everything herself: All stupid people - happiness from madness, all smart people - grief from wit?

Class: 9

“All this strikes, entices, attracts attention...”. This is how A.A. Bestuzhev wrote about “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedov. Prohibited from printing and staging on the stage of the theater, the comedy or, by definition of the author himself, the stage poem was wildly popular. The text was repeatedly copied by hand, learned by heart, A.S. Griboyedov was invited “to the evening” to read his masterpiece. Critics argued about him, admired, condemned, praised, criticized ... The popularity of the “stage poem” is quite understandable: the ideas of Decembrism in Russian society, the confrontation between the “current century and the past century”, a system of characters different from classicism .. But how difficult it is sometimes to explain today schoolchildren, what exactly is the grief of the comedy characters and why this grief originates from the mind. But it's still worth trying. So, Woe from Wit or “To all the stupid - happiness from madness, to all the smart - grief from the mind”.

The first thing we draw the attention of schoolchildren is the title of the work. The very name of the comedy “Woe from Wit” already indicates that the heroes of the comedy suffer grief from their mind. However, initially Griboyedov called his work "Woe to the mind." What is the meaning of this change? We will listen to the answers of the children and, if possible, bring them to a “common denominator”. The original version of the name made it clear that only smart people have grief. Grief may not exist if there is no mind. The final version of the comedy's title focuses the reader's attention on strong characters with the concept of the mind, but suffering grief because they cannot properly dispose of their mind.

Griboedov, in a letter to P.A. Katenin, pointed out: “In my comedy there are 25 fools per sane person.” Who did Griboedov mean? It seems that the answer is obvious: Chatsky. Therefore, the other characters in the play are fools. But is it really so? Sanity and intelligence are manifested in the actions of a person. Let's look at the actions of the characters.

Chatsky - was absent for three years, did not write letters, suddenly rushed to Famusov's house with a declaration of love to Sophia (let's pay attention to the age of the heroine); does not make an official proposal, conflicts with Famusov (Sophia's father), is jealous of Skalozub and Molchalin, reproaches Sophia for coldness; making sure that Molchalin was preferred to him, he begins to criticize and ridicule Famusov's guests at the ball, where Chatsky himself is only a guest; accidentally becoming a witness to Molchalin's confessions to Liza, he does not spare the feelings of Sophia (beloved), leaves offended. So what smart act did the hero do? No! But should Chatsky be denied intellect? Of course no . After all, he is an educated person, thinking according to the advanced and progressive for his time, he is simply young, hot, in love, offended .... Hence the absurdity of actions, and the illogicality of actions, and the strangeness of behavior.

Although Pushkin denied Chatsky the mind, considering his behavior unacceptable for an intelligent person, because an intelligent person would not “cast beads in front of pigs”, would not put himself in a ridiculous and stupid position.

Famusov - an influential nobleman, dignitary, respected person in society; honors the norms and rules of behavior in society, raised Chatsky when he was left without parents, helped him establish the necessary connections, taught life, instructed. Returning Chatsky gives sensible and practical advice on how best to get settled in this life; values ​​his reputation as a successful and impeccable person. So is it a fool before us? No. But actions ... He does not see what is happening under his very nose (the connection between Sophia and Molchalin), does not understand the danger posed by Chatsky, allows the family scandal to become public property. Why does a smart person behave like a boy?

Sophia is “a strong nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness” according to I.A. Goncharov. For a girl of the early 19th century, she is very progressive and intelligent. She chooses her lover herself, and this is not the “golden bag” Skalozub, but the inconspicuous and far from rich Molchalin (Famusov’s secretary); Sophia is not ashamed of her choice, almost does not hide it, for the sake of personal happiness she is ready to go to the end: not to allow Chatsky to interfere and to decide her fate to Famusov. In fact, Sophia is rebelling, rebelling against the norms and laws of Moscow society, and although her rebellion is limited only to the personal and family sphere, it is still a rebellion. But smart and faithful Sophia is mistaken in the most important thing: in choosing a lover. She takes Molchalin's adaptability for respect for people, his desire to please - for selflessness, sycophancy - for the depth and subtlety of feelings, and even Molchalin's poverty and dependent position only adorn him in Sophia's eyes. Her disappointment will be painful. It will be aggravated by the betrayal of Molchalin (a love confession to Lisa).

Molchalin - “here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words,” according to Chatsky, the disenfranchised secretary of Famusov, who dreams of breaking out into the people. And for this, all means are good. Chatsky frankly mocks both Molchalin himself and his position in life (to please all people without a trace; to find patrons). But it’s easy to mock: Chatsky himself is a rather wealthy man, Famusov provided him with the necessary connections, but Molchalin has no one to rely on and rely on. He will have to achieve everything on his own, he fights for wealth, strength and power without support. But who can be reproached for the desire to "reach the known degrees"? For the clever and cunning Molchalin, all means are good. And he is already close to his first goal: to become indispensable for Famusov, to “acquire” patrons, to become a full member of Famusov's society, thanks to his marriage to Sophia. And the rest is “a matter of technology”. And how stupidly Molchalin himself destroys everything that he achieved with such difficulty. Unable to control his feelings and emotions, he confesses his love to Lisa. And does a smart person put all his efforts on the map of love passion ?! Now Sofya, and Famusov's house, and ambitious dreams and plans are lost for him.

Liza - at first glance, only a servant of Sophia, helping her mistress in love secrets. But if you take a closer look, then Liza from a simple maid turns into a confidant and friend of Sophia. She is not a banal soubrette, but rather a “Double Heroine”. The prudent Liza connects her future not with Famusov (“pass us over all sorrows and lordly anger and lordly love”), not with the handsome Molchalin, but with Sophia. It is from Sophia that Lisa expects to receive certain benefits, therefore she serves faithfully and prudently. But lysine rationalism does not lead her to the goal. She becomes a “victim” of the stupidities and mistakes of others.

It turns out that the main characters of the comedy are smart people, everyone has their own mind and their own understanding of the mind. You can draw conclusions. These definitions were provided by the students themselves.

• Famusov - domineering and instructive mind;
• Chatsky is a socially enlightened mind;
• Sophia is a purposeful, determined mind;
• Molchalin is an ambitious mind;
• Lisa is a rational, judicious mind.

The only trouble is that smart characters, due to various circumstances, do not at all smart things and in the end of the play they are left with nothing.

So what do we get? All carriers of the 5 leading types of mind (as defined by schoolchildren) fail, their mind does not help them achieve their goals and find happiness. It turns out that Griboedov's goal was to debunk the mind as the basis of happiness. But then there must be something that is opposed to the mind. However, there is no "opposition"! One can, of course, assume that Griboyedov wanted to debunk either the “old” or the “new” types of mind, but in the plot of the comedy, both types of mind fail.

To understand this, let's decide what is at the heart of the play's conflict. The students give answers that the teacher counters.

- clash of two ideological positions: Decembrism (Chatsky) and the old nobility (Famus society). But where exactly collision? There are Chatsky's attacks and public confidence that he is crazy.

- Sophia's love drama. But this is too small for this comedy, besides, no one gets Sophia, the conflict remains unresolved.

The problem of human happiness and its relationship with the world. Each of the carriers of one or another type of mind strives for happiness, understands it in its own way and does not find it.

Why? This is the main question of our conversation. And the answer to this question is given by Chatsky himself, and his formula is suitable for each central character. . "Mind and heart are not in harmony." And if the main problem of comedy is the problem of finding happiness, then it becomes clear why the mind does not help the heroes, why there is only grief from the mind. Because this mind is not in harmony with the heart. Therefore, according to Griboyedov, to achieve happiness, the mind is not enough, just as the heart is not enough, the main thing is to bring the mind and heart into a state of harmony. Harmony of mind and heart is the main condition for achieving happiness.

List of used documents

1. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from Wit: Plays. - M.: Fiction, 1974. - 829 p. - (Library of World Literature).

2.Agapova I.A. About Griboedov's comedy and its main character.// Agapova I.A. Themed games and holidays in literature. - M. - 2004. - p.6-14.

3. Petrieva L.I., Prantsova G.V. Griboyedov A.S. Studying at school: Textbook - met. settlement - M.: Flinta, 2001. - 2146s. : ill.

4.Griboyedov A.S.: Creativity. Biography. Traditions. - L .: Nauka, 1977. -292 p.

5.Griboyedov A.S.: Life and work. - M.: Russian book, 1994. - 162 p.: ill.

6. Smolnikov I.F. Comedy "Woe from Wit". - M.: Enlightenment, 1986 -112s.

7. Comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". New approaches to learning at school. // Library of the “First of September” Literature, 2005 No. 1- 30s.

8. Skabichevsky A. Life of Griboyedov. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. // Guiding Star -2004, No. 2 - 92s.

9. Zubkov N. Features of the Griboyedov comedy. // Russian language - 2005, No. 4 - p. 3-4.

10. AI Pisarev in the debate about the comedy "Woe from Wit". // Literature 2005, No. 18 - pp. 37-47.

11. Maksimova S. Intellectual game "Smarts and smart girls" based on the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. S. Griboyedov. // Literature -2005, No. 18 - pp. 48-50.

12.Alpatova T. "The magic of the word" in the artistic world "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboyedov. // Literature at school - 2004, No. 8 - p. 2-7.

13. Todorov L.V. Dramatic verse by Griboyedov. // Literature at school - 2007, No. 9 - p. 7-11.

14. Gaponenko P.A. A lesson-argument on the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". // Literature at school - 2007, No. 9. - p.27-30.

15. Chernysheva I. Training tasks for the play "Woe from Wit". : Grade 9.// Literature - 2007, No. 22. - p.18-19.

16. Kunnarev A.A. Who did Famusov warm up / / Literature at school, 2011, No. 2 - pp. 13-15.

17. Khalfin Yu. Poet Alexander Griboyedov and his poetic play. // Literature, 2008, No. 5 - p.15-19.

18. Kunarev A.A. "You don't have to name it. You recognize it by the portrait. // Literature at school, 2011, No. 9 p. 14 - 18.

19. Penskaya E.N. The myth of Chatsky. // Literature -2013, No. 2. - p.15 - 17.

20. Lebedev Yu.V. Presumptuous mind and narcissistic heart in the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboedova // Literature at school - 2013, No. 9 - p. 2 - 7.

21. Mezentseva L.G., Shtilman S.L., Mendeleeva D.S. Comedy Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. A hero without love. // Literature, 2005, No. 1 - p.30.

Objectives of the project: 1. Study of the characters of comedy heroes and their attitude to progress. 2. Bringing examples of grief from the mind on the examples of the XX-XXI centuries. 3. A selection of twins of comedy heroes of the 19th-20th-21st centuries through an associative series of famous people, characters of works and films.

Famusov is a rich nobleman; Famusov is a rich nobleman; Molchalin - Famusov's secretary; Molchalin - Famusov's secretary; Colonel Skalozub; Colonel Skalozub; The Gorich family; The Gorich family; Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky with six daughters; Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky with six daughters; Countess grandmother and granddaughter Khryumina; Countess grandmother and granddaughter Khryumina; Zagoretsky and Repetilov; Zagoretsky and Repetilov; Old Khlestova - Famusov's sister-in-law Old Khlestova - Famusov's sister-in-law

A typical representative of the Moscow nobility. An ardent hater of enlightenment. He owns the words about Chatsky's "madness": "learning is the plague, learning is the cause." "A low worshiper, a flatterer", a person deprived of true dignity and honor, groveling before the highest in order to obtain ranks and wealth. He treats his peasants without the slightest respect. He calls them both “cockerels”, and “fomkas”, and “chumps”, and lazy “black grouse”. The landowner is well aware of his privileged position, but in order to make him calm and long, he surrounds himself with dependent people. A typical representative of the Moscow nobility. An ardent hater of enlightenment. He owns the words about Chatsky's "madness": "learning is the plague, learning is the cause." "A low worshiper, a flatterer", a person deprived of true dignity and honor, groveling before the highest in order to obtain ranks and wealth. He treats his peasants without the slightest respect. He calls them both “cockerels”, and “fomkas”, and “chumps”, and lazy “black grouse”. The landowner is well aware of his privileged position, but in order to make him calm and long, he surrounds himself with dependent people.

A typical representative of the Arakcheev army environment. There is nothing caricature in his appearance: historically he is quite truthful. He sees the purpose of his service not in protecting the fatherland from encroachments of the enemy, but in achieving wealth and nobility. A typical representative of the Arakcheev army environment. There is nothing caricature in his appearance: historically he is quite truthful. He sees the purpose of his service not in protecting the fatherland from encroachments of the enemy, but in achieving wealth and nobility.

A miserable sycophant and a flatterer, weak-willed and miserable, he tries to serve the masters, portraying "love" for Sophia. He acts meanly, but he does not notice this meanness. He is not worthy not only of the girl's love, but even of her respect. This is a low and unpleasant person who does not inspire confidence in anyone. A miserable sycophant and a flatterer, weak-willed and miserable, he tries to serve the masters, portraying "love" for Sophia. He acts meanly, but he does not notice this meanness. He is not worthy not only of the girl's love, but even of her respect. This is a low and unpleasant person who does not inspire confidence in anyone.

Chatsky Clever, ardent, passionate, resolute, stubborn "sensitive, cheerful and sharp", laughs at everyone, argues, "an honest, active nature, moreover, the nature of a fighter", a future Decembrist, a representative of the "current century". Clever, ardent, passionate, decisive, stubborn, "sensitive, cheerful and sharp", laughs at everyone, argues, "an honest, active nature, moreover, the nature of a fighter", a future Decembrist, a representative of the "current century".

Sofia Clever, well-read, fell in love with the unworthy, defends him, suffers. Deep in her soul, she is tender, vulnerable, pure, but spoiled by Famus's upbringing ... Smart, well-read, she fell in love with the unworthy, protects him, suffers. Deep in my soul, tender, vulnerable, pure, but spoiled by Famus' upbringing...

Conclusion one Conclusion one The heroes of the comedy represent the “current century” and “the past century”, only the image of Sophia is intermediate, since her character is typical for girls of all times. The heroes of the comedy represent the “current century” and “the past century”, only the image of Sophia is intermediate, since her character is typical for girls of all times.

Second conclusion The characters of the heroes, their actions and their relationships described in the comedy are still found today, therefore, the comedy is immortal. The characters of the heroes, their actions and their relationships described in the comedy are still found today, therefore, the comedy is immortal.

WORSE FROM MIND? lit. ũmas "meaning", probably borrowed. from glory. Related Lit. aumuõ "reason", possibly connected with the old Slav. aviti "clearly". lit. ũmas "meaning", probably borrowed. from glory. Related Lit. aumuõ "reason", possibly connected with the old Slav. aviti "clearly". lit.ũmas lit.aumuõst.- obviously famous lit.ũmaslit.aumuõst.- obviously famous

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

CONCLUSION THREE 39 Each product of the activity of the mind has both positive and negative sides, therefore, there really is grief from the mind. Each product of the activity of the mind has both positive and negative sides, therefore, there really is grief from the mind.

Aphorisms from the comedy Aphorisms from the comedy The smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us. The smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us. I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve. I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve. And who are the judges? And who are the judges? Evil tongues are worse than a gun. Evil tongues are worse than a gun. Bypass us more than all sorrows, and lordly anger and lordly love. Bypass us more than all sorrows, and lordly anger and lordly love. Happy hours are not observed. Happy hours are not observed.

And grief awaits around the corner. And grief awaits around the corner. The hero... Not my novel. The hero... Not my novel. I just want to be a general! I just want to be a general! To have children who did not have enough mind. To have children who did not have enough mind. Carriage for me, carriage! Carriage for me, carriage! Ba! All familiar faces! Ba! All familiar faces! Although animals, but still kings! Although animals, but still kings!

Fate, naughty minx,
I defined it myself:
All stupid - happiness from madness,
All smart - woe from the mind.

Epigraph to Griboyedov's comedy

That was six or eight months ago. I stood in front of a small bookcase, which constituted the entire wealth of the newly founded "Library for employees" at one of the innumerable St. Petersburg chanceries; I was invited to enroll in it, but I did not dare, seeing too little selection of books.

Excuse me, you don't even have Turgenev and Goncharov, what can I find for the same fifty kopecks a month in any library ... What is your goal for recording?

The young man, handwritten catalog in hand, stirred.

I stretched out my hand to the spine with an indistinct inscription, and with amazement pulled out a lanky volume of Pisarev: I did not yet know about the release of a new edition and with curiosity I examined the "First volume, with a biography and portrait" of a smooth-browed critic. Seeing my attention, the official remarked:

We are already following the coming books and do not miss the opportunity. The publication has just appeared, and for a long time it was impossible to get these works at any price ...

I looked back at the librarian's face once more; he definitely could not have been given more than 21 years. “If it weren’t for here, in the office,” I thought, “I would have entered the volunteers. There are now many thousands of them, even tens of thousands, not ripening in high schools...

Look, I asked, you don't mix Pisemsky with Pisarev?

No, Pisemsky, it seems, is with Novi and, if I'm not mistaken, a novelist? Why would Wolf need a critic for applications? We have a serious library.

I deposited fifty dollars and decided to become a member of the "serious" library.

So from the mite of labor
Grow temples of God
On the face of the native land ...

Well, it was before, in stupid times, that “temples of God” grew up, but now, when the people, thanks to “initial education”, have grown wiser, there is something to grow and better.

And give, give passers-by...

Nick. Kareev, Pavlenkov, Evg. The Solovyovs collect "mite" and put it in their pocket; sometimes, it is true, they also cheat, that is, in the noble, literary sense they cheat, "not maintaining the direction"; Thus, in No. 337 of Novosti, December 1, 1895, I have just read the announcement, which I quote here in full:

"Got on sale fifth edition
philosophical and psychological study
OK. Notovitch "Love"
with the application of his own critical-philosophical study:
"Beauty"

with prefaces by the famous representatives of the modern Italian philosophical school C. Lombroso and G. Ferrero, a review by Montegazza (the author of the "Physiology of Love") and "Letters to the Author from Olympus" by D.L. Mordovtsev.

The price of the book (an elegant volume of more than 20 sheets) 1 p. 50 k. Those who subscribe to "News" pay only one ruble for the book. Demands are addressed to the bookstore of the Novosti newspaper, B. Morskaya, 33.

But just two months ago, the same "News" also published an announcement:

"O.K. Notovich. G.T. Buckle. The history of civilization in England in a popular presentation. Tenth edition. St. Petersburg, 1895. C. 50 k."

And in the "Severny Vestnik" for December 1895, I even read a review:

"Bockl's interesting work is still widely known in Russia. A popular exposition of this work by Mr. tenth edition. One might think that, thanks to Mr. Notovich's book, Bokl began to penetrate into the middle strata of the Russian reading public, and no matter how anyone looks at the scientific merits of this historical research, one cannot but recognize the useful work that Mr. Notovich did. The author's presentation is distinguished by the accuracy of scientific expressions. Literally, the book must be recognized as irreproachable both in terms of style and in the sense of clarity in conveying the main ideas of Buckle in a language accessible to those to whom the full edition of his work is not available. The author's intention would have been crowned with even greater success if, for the next 11th edition, he had lowered the price of his little book to 20 kopecks per copy" (Section II of the December issue of the magazine, p. 87).

"Got on sale 11-20 thousand copies newly published F. Pavlenkov:

"History of Civilization in England by T. Buckle".

Translation by A. Buynitsky. With notes. C. 2 p. The same translation without notes - 1 p. 50 k."

I don't know why I started talking about ads. I actually wanted to talk about the third book of "The Struggle with the West in Our Literature" by my good and old friend, N.N. Strakhov, just published by the author; I thought to help the "book" with a good review. But too many "announcements" caught my eye, and I involuntarily "turned my heart" ... to other sorrows.

Here - "beauty" goes, here - "love" helps. I want to say that with you and me, old friend, who have neither beauty nor, in this special sense, "love", books will lie on the shelves of stores, not asked by anyone, absolutely not needed by anyone. They will lie just as motionless as the books of our dead friends, yours - Ap. Grigoriev, published in 1876, and mine - K. Leontiev, published in 1885-1886, still not sold out; how the opera omnia of two unforgettable professors of Moscow University, T.N. Granovsky, so "noisily" honored in the press and silently unreadable, and his student - Kudryavtsev; how calmly the "Rural School" of the city of Rachinsky "lies", which was published in 1892 and did not require a new edition. Everything smart and noble "lies" in Rus', and everything shameless and stupid "goes forward" noisily ...

For some reason I think that I'm talking about himself, about himself important fact of modern literature - more significant and capable of causing reflection than as if there were also "War and Peace", also "Fathers and Sons" ... For, in essence, it predetermines all the others ... It shows that toy literature, on which they think that a few old idealists are working, a few gray wigs stale from the past - that this literature ... No not at all: she does not exist in that spiritual, ideal, sweet, dear sense that we historically associate with her name and, through naivety, misunderstanding, we continue to preserve to this day.

This is a lost field - the field of literature; the field of civilization, culture, spirit - it is lost. Precisely now, precisely in our day, when, apparently, everything shuns them, when all doors are open for them, their name is welcomed everywhere - in the very greetings, in the very openness before her of all entrances and exits, in the most victorious cries - the death knell is heard...

She won and died.

It is like a charge in the muzzle of a torn, broken gun. Let the gunpowder flare up, the wad smolder - those standing around will only laugh ...

Let the word of the new prophet be heard; Dante's terzines will still sound - "society" will drowsily reach for the fifth edition of "Love and Beauty", the ninth edition of the abridged Buckle, the nineteenth thousand of the complete "History of Civilization in England" ...

On this lost field, my good and old friend, your book will lie down with an extra bone ... What is it that it will lie next to the "noble bones"; this is a field not only lost, but, in essence, forgotten. New Time - i.e. not only "New Time" A.S. Suvorin, but in general, the new time, to which Suvorin only dances, goes past him, pinching his nose "from carrion" - to other pleasures, to other joys - the very ones that appear in the "advertisements" I have cited.

Dear friend, I think we can only die. Russia, which we defended, which we love, for the sake of which we "fighted the West", - she can only die.

That Russia, which will live - we will not love this Russia.

These poor villages
This dull nature...
Do not understand and do not appreciate
The proud gaze of a foreigner,
What shines through and secretly shines
In your humble beauty...

These "poor villages" take on a new, very lively, but also very unexpected look:

One foot touching the floor
Another - slowly circles,
And suddenly - a jump, and suddenly - flies,
It flies like fluff from the mouth of Eol ...

We cannot wish her any good in this new "flight"; we wish her every evil.

Dejected by the burden of the godmother,
All of you, dear land,
In a slavish form, the King of Heaven
Came out blessing...

I want to cry; However, why not laugh:

It flies like fluff from the mouth of Eol,
Now the camp will soviet, then it will develop
And he beats his leg with a quick leg.

Oh, how we hate you, the perpetrators of a sad change; you, and even those great ones, on whom, by pressing like a small weight on the end of a long lever, you made a coup: all of them, from Kantemir, still naive, to the evil Shchedrin, without, however, turning off the intermediate ones.

"Woe - from the mind," - said the great; "There is nothing to blame on the mirror, if the face is crooked," they reassured. And thousands of monkey muzzles, poking at the verbal "mirror" - were filled with Homeric laughter; thousands of fools, assuming a tragic pose, said that they were suffocating "in their homeland", that they were "stifling", that "invisible tears" burned their hearts "through laughter visible to the world" ...

Old crosses swayed, old graves stood aside.

A new time has come, a new era has come, over which we do not know how to laugh, over which we still no forms of laughter invented. There is "Love" and "Beauty".

Not a very important "beauty" - not Aphrodite of Medici, and not very rare love - at Bolshaya Morskaya, house 33, it costs only one ruble. But anyway...

Perhaps, however, the doctor will then have to pay three rubles?...

"Without risk, there is no pleasure," as my friend Mr. Arseniev would remark fragmentarily.

But there is decidedly no risk; about this, Mr. N. Mikhailovsky, when he wrote "literature and life", and also "literature and life" and again "literature and life" - warned his young readers, blooming with strength and health, saying that "it will come out soon, in very good, albeit an old translation of Buinitsky, an English thinker, in front of whom our native Yasnaya Polyana sage is poor. And Mr. Skabichevsky confirms this - he, in his old age, sheltered under the same fig tree, on Bolshaya Morskaya, 33, where Bokl comes from and where "love" and "beauty" are practiced.

How messed up, worms; and you can't tell where someone starts and where they end. Mikhailovsky recommends Buckle; Notovitch it popularizes and publishes in nine editions; V the same time he originally composes "beauty" and "Love"; him collaborating "critic of the 60s", Mr. Skabichevsky, dear to the heart of N. Mikhailovsky; the same Bokl Pavlenkov publishes, and Evg. Solovyov writes a "preface" to it. Everyone is obviously "sympathetic to each other."

“This beauty is expensive,” said the old man Marmeladov about his daughter: you need fudge, and this and that; without purity - in this position it is impossible.

In 1891, Mr. N. Mikhailovsky asked me in response to the article "Why do we renounce the legacy of the 60s and 70s?" - "why are you so unfounded refuse without decisively no one fact". He wrote then:

“In his article, Mr. Rozanov develops the idea that we, the older generation, have understood such a complex being as man, - poor, flat, rough. He does not support his idea with a single factual evidence, or a single quotation, or even a single anecdote. It is very easy to write like this, but it is difficult to convince someone of something like this. Even now I can probably write about some, for example, London art gallery, which I have never seen, that art is presented there poorly, flatly, rudely. I can do the same with Danish literature, with Spanish industry, in a word - with any group of phenomena little known to me or not at all known. And I am inclined to think that Mr. Rozanov knows very little of the inheritance which he so solemnly renounces. unfounded To the opinion of Mr. Rozanov I can oppose an equally unsubstantiated one. Never in our history has man been understood so sublimely and subtly as in those memorable 1960s. There were, of course, hobbies and mistakes ... ", etc. ("Russian Vedomosti", 1891, No. 202).

Now, having thrown this lump of worms in his face, where he himself "with Bockle" is swarming around "love" and "beauty" - I can answer, albeit late, but finally about the motives for "refusal" in the 80s "from the inheritance 60-70s":

Fondant, gentlemen, they forgot - they didn’t keep cleanliness: it smells very much.

And I can add, looking back at all Russian literature, from the archaic Kantemir and ... to the "third book" of "The Struggle with the West" * of my good and old friend, a book that will surely have to lie on the shelves of bookstores.

______________________

* By the way, in one place it is mentioned that "one of the glorious flock", Mr. N. Mikhailovsky, announced its author, i.e. Mr. N. Strakhov, "a complete nonentity"; he probably looked for "love" in her and found a doctor's prescription. I myself remember how I read somewhere in his "Literature and Life" mockery of the fact that "Zarya", a magazine in which Ap. Grigoriev, N.Ya. Danilevsky and N. Strakhov - "didn't know the subscribers at all", and the editors "strengthened to hide this from the public" in order to lure at least someone to subscribe for the new year ... He even ads I did not forget about the subscription of the hostile magazine; he even placed them in reproach to the organ of literature, which was already dying from the indifference of society, where, however, the best, most serious works on criticism and history, now recognized by all, were published. “You breathed out,” says the magnanimous critic of the 70s, “you breathed out - and dared to pretend that your lungs were full of air” ...

______________________

Who is "woe from wit" - in real life! And "who", on the contrary, "live well in Rus'"? And whose, finally, little-human face is reflected in the "non-crooked mirror" of the great and sad satirist? ..

Who is that specific, By name And patronymic called, about whom impersonally all this was written in our literature? To whom exactly

Free, fun
Lives in Rus'?

And who is that "invisibly shedding" tears in her, about whom the great artist wrote in his "poem" and forgot sign Name?..

What a tragedy, what an inexpressible tragedy is our life, our history, if it is precisely before this suffering, exhausted, weeping face, setting a mirror of satire, that our literature wheezes insolently and drunkenly:

Don't blame the mirror
- if the face is crooked

And bursts, bursts into uncontrollable laughter, more wild and bestial than what, in the best days of their triumph, the gentlemen "one thicker" and "the others thinner" laughed at the memorable governor's ball.

The dead shadows and you, the living righteous, scattered in the bearish corners of Russia - I call you to witness: is it so?

Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856-1919) - Russian religious philosopher, literary critic and publicist, one of the most controversial Russian philosophers of the 20th century.