Briefly, and the potters have a million torments. AND

Goncharov I. A

"A Million Torments"

(critical study)

The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands out somehow in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year-old old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.<…>

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, and dispersed all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten kopecks, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety.

But the play withstood this test - not only did it not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, it found in each of them a patron, critic and friend, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.<…>

Some people appreciate the picture of Moscow morals in a comedy famous era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be some kind of circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's the fifty-third mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, the fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.<…>

All these varied experiences and everyone’s own point of view based on them serves as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy and , let's say for ourselves, is most of all a comedy - which is unlikely to be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all other stated conditions. As a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In the group of twenty faces was reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the whole of the former Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound, the viewer and reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this is not composed, but entirely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow - from Famusov to the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would not be complete.

However, for us it is not quite finished yet historical picture: we have not moved far enough away from the era for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, quietly, now does not confess to those commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will prevail not as vices, but as elements public life, - until then, of course, the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flash in modern society; there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud has been erased from Moscow itself.<…>

Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like a wizard of some spirit, in his castle, and he scatters there with evil laughter . It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as it was given to a group of these individuals, as it was given to main meaning comedy, how it all came together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like the comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.<…>

We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, that is, no action in a play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “A carriage for me, a carriage.”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a close, technical sense, true in small psychological details, but almost elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the heroes, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, the era, the charm of the language, with all the poetic forces spilled so abundantly in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. A huge one is already growing in front of him, real meaning comedies.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. “He writes and translates well,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high intelligence. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently got down to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why.

“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” he himself hints. There is no mention of “yearning laziness, idle boredom,” and even less of “tender passion,” as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leaving, taking with him only “a million torments.”<…>

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, the role of a much greater one, highest value, rather than unsuccessful love, in a word, the role for which comedy was born.<…>

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire brethren of “fathers and elders,” on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, “the enemy of quest.” This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the newest naturalists define the natural succession of generations in the animal world.<…>

Chatsky is eager to “ free life", "to practice" science and art and requires "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On whose side is victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, Famusov and his brethren in the same position as they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

We now know these consequences. They were revealed with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and like an epidemic swept across all of Russia.

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love runs its course, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboyedov beauties, could make a name for the author.<…>

The comedy between him and Sophia ended; The burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the coldness of hopelessness entered his soul.

All he had to do was leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only displace Chatsky’s intrigue from the viewer’s memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and gets in the way of the crowd. New faces group around him and play, each their own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow surroundings, with a number of live stage sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters, who managed to play out in a few words into a complete action.

Isn't it complete comedy Are the Gorichevs playing tricks? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively man, is now degraded, clothed, as in a robe, in Moscow life, a gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to apt definition Chatsky, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy, socialite wife, a Moscow lady?

And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - this entire contingent of brides, “who know how,” according to Famusov, “to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze,” “singing the top notes and clinging to military people”?

This Khlestova, a remnant of Catherine’s century, with a pug, with a blackamoor girl, - this princess and prince Peter Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diarrhea - and these NNs, and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them!

The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so vivid that the viewer becomes cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original conversation.

Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where, according to the author’s goals, he then came.

In brief, even instant meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against him with caustic remarks and sarcasms. He is already vividly affected by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to his tongue. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some inappropriate advice to Gorichev, abruptly cut off the countess-granddaughter and again offended Molchalin.<…>

“A million torments” and “grief” - that’s what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now he had been invincible: his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to cover his ears against his logic, and shoots back with commonplaces of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses and countesses back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares alone, dissembles, slips and deals the main blow to him on the sly, declaring him at hand, casually, crazy.

He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him. He obviously weakened from this “millions of torments,” and the disorder was so noticeable in him that all the guests grouped around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that comes out of the ordinary order of things.

He is not only sad, but also bilious and picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he does not have enough power against the united enemy.

He falls into exaggeration, almost into intoxication of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. One can no longer hear sharp, poisonous sarcasm, into which a correct, definite idea is inserted, the truth, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if about a personal insult, about an empty, or, in his own words, “insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” which he, in in good condition spirit, I would hardly have noticed.

He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<…>

He is definitely “not himself”, starting with the monologue “about a Frenchman from Bordeaux” - and remains so until the end of the play. There are only “millions of torments” ahead.

Pushkin, denying Chatsky his mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the entryway, while driving around. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the entryway. They were too trained “in the science of tender passion,” and Chatsky is distinguished, by the way, by sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also his common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!

Having gotten rid of Repetilov's chatter and hid in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's date with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, without having any rights to do so. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope,” why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Every word here is not true. She did not entice him with any hope. All she did was walk away from him, barely spoke to him, admitted indifference, called some old children’s novel and hiding in corners “childish” and even hinted that “God brought her together with Molchalin.”

And he, only because -

… so passionate and so low

Was a waster of tender words,-

in rage for his own useless humiliation, for the deception voluntarily imposed on himself, he executes everyone, and throws at her a cruel and unfair word:

With you I am proud of my breakup,-

when there was nothing to tear apart! Finally he just comes to the point of abuse, pouring out bile:

For the daughter and for the father,

And on the lover fool -

and seethes with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for “a corner for offended feelings,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everyone!

If he had had one healthy minute, if he had not been burned by “a million torments,” he would, of course, have asked himself the question: “Why and for what reason have I done all this mess?” And, of course, I wouldn’t find the answer.

Griboyedov is responsible for him, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind,” which sparkled like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, as the proverb goes, men are baptized.

From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until Chatsky appeared, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, still the same unconscious Sofia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his entire house and his entire circle . Having not yet recovered from shame and horror when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she learned everything, that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”

But there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past...

No way to look. She will endure her moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to say a word. What about your husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, “one of his wife’s pages,” would look back at the past!

This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle.<…>

Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.

Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to his senses, sober him up, or correct him. If Famusov had not had “reproachful witnesses” during his departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a doorman, he would have easily dealt with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head wash, he would have torn Lisa’s ear and hastened with Sophia’s wedding to Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: the next morning, thanks to the scene with Chatsky, all of Moscow will know - and most of all “Princess Marya Alekseevna.” His peace will be disturbed from all sides - and will inevitably make him think about something that never occurred to him.<…>

Molchalin, after the scene in the entryway, cannot remain the same Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, he is recognized, and like a caught thief, he has to hide in a corner. The Gorichevs, Zagoretskys, the princesses - all fell under a hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace.<…>Chatsky created a schism, and if he was deceived in his personal goals, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments,” this Chatsky’s crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind,” and even more from “offended feelings.”<…>

The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys remains unchanged. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life.”

He knows what he is fighting for and what this life should bring him. He does not lose the ground from under his feet and does not believe in a ghost until he has put on flesh and blood, has not been comprehended by reason, truth - in a word, has not become human.<…>He is very positive in his demands and states them in ready-made program, developed not by him, but by an already begun century. With youthful ardor, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, that, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, remains to live out its term, that can and should be tolerable. He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for work, but does not want to serve, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands “service to the cause, not to individuals,” does not mix “fun or tomfoolery with business,” like Molchalin, he languishes among the empty, idle crowd of “tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, quarrelsome old men,” refusing to bow to their authority of decrepitude , love of rank and so on. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals of “spillage in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of a “free life” is definite: it is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to freely indulge in “the creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “ to serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps towards freedom - from unfreedom.<…>

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting it in turn death blow quality of fresh strength.

He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.

Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is varied, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political figures who control the destinies of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>

In addition to large and prominent personalities, during sharp transitions from one century to another, the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society, repeating themselves at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under one roof, where two centuries come face to face in crowded families - the struggle of the fresh with the outdated, the sick with the healthy continues, and everyone fights in duels, like Horaces and Curiatia - miniature Famusovs and Chatskys.

Every business that requires renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, about any human matter - will it be new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - no matter how people group, they cannot escape the two main motives of the struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at your elders,” on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to “free life” forward and forward - on the other.<…>

From the book A Million of Torments (critical study) author Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

I. A. Goncharov A million torments ( Critical study) “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. - Monakhova's benefit performance, November, 1871. The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands somehow apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She

From the book Life by Concepts author Chuprinin Sergey Ivanovich

CRITICAL SENTIMENTALISM This is how Sergei Gandlevsky characterized his own artistic experience and the experience of the informal poetic school “Moscow Time” (A. Soprovsky, B. Kenzheev, A. Tsvetkov) in an article of the same name, dated 1989. According to him

From the book Volume 3. Confusion-grass. Satire in prose. 1904-1932 by Black Sasha

CHANGE. STUDY* The year 1908, spotted with flies and covered with cobwebs, sits under the clock and sleeps. The hour hands converge at 12. The dial wrinkles as if in great pain, the clock hisses, wheezes, and finally a dull, hoarse, boring chime is heard with long pauses. NEW YEAR, bald and yellow

From the book Collection of critical articles by Sergei Belyakov author Belyakov Sergey

Sketch in red-brown tones (Alexander Prokhanov) Yes, a sketch, nothing more. A large, 1:1 scale portrait has already been painted by Lev Danilkin, the author of the most thorough study about Prokhanov. But the topic is far from exhausted. “The Man with the Egg” came out two years ago. Since then

From the book Russian Literature in Assessments, Judgments, Disputes: A Reader of Literary Critical Texts author Esin Andrey Borisovich

I.A. Goncharov “A Million Torments”1 (Critical Study)

From the book “Magical Places Where I Live with My Soul...” [Pushkin Gardens and Parks] author Egorova Elena Nikolaevna

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

From the book History of Russian Literary Criticism [Soviet and post-Soviet era] author Lipovetsky Mark Naumovich

I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov” 24. Olga Ilyinskaya, and her role in the life of Oblomov (based on the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov) The image of Oblomov in Russian literature closes the series of “superfluous” people. An inactive contemplator, incapable of active action, at first glance really

From the book Analysis, Style and Trend. About the novels of gr. L. N. Tolstoy author Leontyev Konstantin Nikolaevich

4. “Under the sign of life-building” and “literature of fact”: literary-critical avant-garde The radical left wing of literary criticism, presented on the pages of the magazines “Lef” (1923–1925) and “New Lef” (1927–1928), united representatives various groups, aesthetics and trends

From the book Movement of Literature. Volume I author Rodnyanskaya Irina Bentsionovna

3. Critical impressionism: The critic as a writer From traditional impressionistic criticism - ranging from Yuri Aikhenvald to Lev Anninsky - the new direction differs in that the impressionist critics of the 1990–2000s, regardless of their aesthetic positions, obviously

From the author's book

4. Critical impressionism: Diary discourse In the second half of the 1990s, for many reasons (including due to the crisis of liberal ideologies in Russia that began after the 1998 default), it radically changed social type existence of literature. Short

From the author's book

About the novels of gr. L. And Tolstoy Analysis, style and trend (Critical

From the author's book

A Study of the Beginning (Andrey Bitov) As we see, Andrey Bitov writes the same “novel of education” year after year, the hero of which, the author’s shadow alter ego, is an “egoist”, or, using Stendhal’s word, an “egotist” (focused a person on himself) - impartially led by the writer to

Year of publication of the book: 1872

Goncharov’s critical article “A Million Torments” was first published in 1872. The work analyzes a popular Russian play called. The author calls it relevant to this day, confirming his words with quotes from the book itself. Today, Goncharov’s article “A Million Torments” can be read within the framework of school curriculum, and the author can be found among.

Articles “A Million Torments” summary

In his work “A Million Torments”, Goncharov notes that Griboyedov’s novel “Woe from Wit”, even after years, can be called a fairly fresh work. He even compares the characters in the play to characters. The latter, in his opinion, are already becoming a thing of the past and are fading, while Griboedov was able to convey the character of people so accurately that it does not lose its relevance.

Next in Goncharov’s sketch “A Million Torments” summary tells that Griboedov's play was able to accurately reflect the morals of that time. In twenty characters, the writer in a satirical form was able to masterfully depict the entire capital with its advantages and disadvantages. Everything that happened behind the doors of ordinary residents could be reflected in the work: gossip, family intrigue, idleness.

In Goncharov’s work “A Million Torments” we can also read about the main character of Griboyedov’s play, Alexander Chatsky. Here he is compared to the character. However, the author of the sketch gives his preference to Chatsky. After all, in his words, there is a desire to become better. Unlike Onegin, he did not waste his life senselessly, but managed to study at the university, visit different countries, read a lot of books. In addition, Goncharov calls Chatsky a fighter for his beliefs - due to the fact that the main character did not like to serve the one who was higher in rank, he lost old job. In contrast to him is Famusov, who defends the ingrained way of life with its lies and servility.

After this, from the summary of Goncharov’s article “A Million Torments” you can learn that in the play Griboedov managed to fully reveal the lyrical side of the character. This became possible thanks to the young girl Sophia, for whom Chatsky felt strong feelings. And, although the heroine loves someone else, the young man persistently tries to win her affection. But all to no avail.

Goncharov shows how difficult it was for Chatsky to live in that society. Because of his convictions, he was able to turn many against himself - the Gorichev spouses, Mrs. Khlestova, the swindler Zagoretsky. All that remains for him is “a million torments” and grief from his mind. Eventually the main character gets tired of fighting with others and starts acting like he's gone crazy.

Later, in Goncharov’s article “A Million Torments,” the summary briefly describes Sophia’s character. The author notices the girl's resemblance to the main character the above-mentioned novel by Pushkin by Tatyana. She is also the first to admit her feelings and sincerely gives herself in love. But there is something else in it, some inner strength and a sharp mind. This is precisely what captivates Chatsky.

Alexander himself, tired of fighting against hypocrisy and lies, understands that he will not succeed here. This is what makes the image of the main character relevant to this day. Goncharov’s work “A Million Torments” briefly explains that people like Chatsky will always exist on earth. These are fighters for the future, for progressive ideas and justice. Even Pushkin's Onegin is not so bright character. Chatsky strives for freedom from the invisible slavery that hangs over all people. It is for this reason that his image can never grow old.

Summarizing the results, the author reflects on the importance of correct interpretation of the text on stage in the form theatrical production. In his article “A Million Torments,” Goncharov talks about the fact that it is already quite difficult for actors to portray the character of people of that era, so you can often find implausible acting. In order for the production to touch the hearts of the audience, the actors need to be imbued with every line of the play, convey it so that the people in the audience can feel the same as the characters feel. This can be achieved through the intonation, volume and voice of each character. Only then will the audience be able to hear exemplary performance roles.

Article “A Million Torments” on the Top Books website

“A million torments” (compendium).

The comedy “Woe from Wit” is a picture of morals, a gallery of living types, a searing satire, and most of all a comedy. Like a painting it is huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty people reflected the whole of the former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, the historical moment and morals. And all this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given only to Pushkin and Gogol.

As long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will prevail not as vices, but as parts of social life - so long, of course, The features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will also appear in modern society.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but there would be a picture of morals.

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word of his in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. All his mind and all his strength are spent on this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.

Chatsky's role is a suffering one, but at the same time it is always victorious.

The vitality of Chatsky’s role lies in his lack of distractions.

The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys remains unchanged. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life.”

His ideal of a “free life” is defined: this is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to unhinderedly indulge in “the creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “to serve or not to serve”, “to live in a village or to travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps to freedom - from unfreedom. Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.

Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived -

The light does not punish delusions,

But it requires secrets for them!

This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of conventional morality. Sophia never regained her sight from her and would never have regained her sight without Chatsky, for lack of chance. She's not as guilty as she seems. This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in it, but is, as common features her circle. In her own, personal face, something of her own is hidden in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.

Looking deeper into Sophia’s character and surroundings, you see that it was not immorality that “brought her together” with Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to oneself, to one’s circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she enjoyed the role of ruling over a submissive creature, making him happy and having an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that the future “husband is a boy, a husband-servant is the ideal of Moscow husbands!” came out of this. There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov’s house. In general, it is difficult not to like Sophia: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. It was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream penetrated fresh air. No wonder Chatsky loved her too. After him, she alone begged for some kind of sad feeling; in the reader’s soul there is no laughter against her with which he parted with other people. Of course, it’s harder for her than anyone, even Chatsky.

Ivan Goncharov - Russian writer And literary critic, who was born in 1812. He became famous for writing an analytical article in which he analyzed the plot famous play Griboyedova. The work was analyzed so thoroughly by the author that by studying the article, you can learn in detail about each main character of the play, his positive and negative character traits. The article was called “A Million Torments”, a summary of which can be read online without much time investment.

In fact, Goncharov’s criticism of Griboedov’s play is not only an analysis of the storyline of the work, but also a satire on the way of life of the indigenous inhabitants of Moscow. The author ridicules their morals, culture, way of life, attitude towards life and the people around them. Below you can read a summary of “A Million Torments,” which is presented in a condensed form.

This is a character who, according to Griboyedov, has too sharp mind. His developed mind prevents him from living, building a normal way of life and developing. Goncharov notes that, despite this, Griboedova’s Chatsky, in comparison with the same main characters in the works of Lermontov and Pushkin - Pechorin and Onegin - is an order of magnitude higher than them.

First of all, as a person, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky has a large number positive traits character.

Alexander Andreevich spent his whole life thoroughly preparing for great achievements. The hero of the play studied well at school, read a lot and devoted the lion's share of his time to travel, and therefore he is characterized by arrogance and pride. For this reason, the young man at one time broke up with the ministers. This trait in Chatsky’s character was skillfully described by Griboedov, using just one phrase : “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” In addition to pride, one can also note the feeling self-esteem, which is very acutely developed in the hero.

Heated debates between Famusov and Chatsky allow us to capture the very essence of a previously written play.

Pay attention! The main character of the work is a man of a completely new era.

The main character's mind is full of bright and new ideas. The young man condemns the morals of past years. According to the storyline, Famusov is his complete opposite, defending the old traditions, rules and foundations of past years.

Two camps and a love triangle

IN comedy play Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, two main camps of opponents are formed:

Large Famusov family. Here the author describes the older and younger brothers, as well as their father.
One against all, an eternal seeker of truth and new ideas - Chatsky.

Also unfolds in the comedy love affair. This is a triangle of relationships formed by Sophia, Chatsky and Molchalin.

Sophia is in love with Molchalin, but cannot express her feelings, since a woman’s manifestation of passion towards a man is a sign of vulgarity. Despite this, Sophia hints in every possible way to Molchalin that she is not indifferent to him.

While riding a horse, the girl pretends to have lost consciousness. Molchalin is such a timid and shy person that he is in a daze and is unable to recognize Sophia’s true intentions.

Alexander Andreevich, in turn, experiences love feelings to Sophia. The main character does not hide his attitude towards the object of his love, but the girl does not show any interest in him. All her thoughts are occupied exclusively with Molchalin. Because of this, Chatsky considers his opponent a nonentity who is not worthy of love so much. beautiful woman like Sophia. Chatsky considers himself to be in the category of ardent and brave men, whose soul and mind are torn apart by “a million torments.”

With his sharp and at the same time sarcastic remarks, Chatsky achieves that he turns the Famusovs, Sophia and Molchalin against himself. And yet, somewhere in the depths of his soul, there is still hope that Sophia will show compassion for him and reciprocate his love feelings. The poor young man does not even suspect that a conspiracy is being prepared against him in the enemy camp of the Famusov family. Until this time, his sharp mind caustically destroyed all surrounding enemies, thoughts quickly transformed into poisonous words that hit the most sore spots of his ill-wishers.

A million torments

Chatsky is already tired of fighting. It seems that the whole world is against him, and all further attempts to defeat his enemies are just a waste of time. In the summary of the article, Goncharov indicated that at this stage Chatsky becomes sad and picky towards others.

The man’s speech becomes intoxicated, and it becomes difficult to catch the essence of his thoughts and statements. This once again confirms the rumors of madness that Sophia had previously spread.

After some time, Molchalin and Sophia begin to have a relationship romance novel. Young people agree on a first date and meet away from human eyes. Only Chatsky does not stop watching the girl. He spies on how young people communicate in private. Full of jealousy and unrequited love, Alexander Andreevich arranges a hysterical scene for the girl. At this moment, the man looks like Othello: he begins to reproach Sophia for giving him false hope, dragging him along, and ultimately rejecting him.

Sophia herself makes excuses and convinces the crazy man that all this time she was only pushing him away from herself. Chatsky does not hear Sophia and continues to insist on his feelings, which she is unable to accept. Goncharov notes that in in this case Chatsky had no right to the role of Othello, which he so passionately played during the play, because in reality Sophia did not give him any promises or even the slightest hints of love. All passionate feelings the girls were directed towards the timid Molchalin.

Useful video: “A million torments” – in 5 minutes

Image of Sophia

Goncharov believes that in the play “Woe from Wit” the average woman of that era is represented in the image of Sophia. This is moral and at the same time mental blindness, which is overshadowed by the instincts of lust. Only with the help stranger this veil before the eyes gradually disappears, and insight comes, but it is too late, since the girl’s honor is trampled by the condemnations of others.

In this case, Chatsky’s role is that it was he who opened the girl’s eyes to the insignificance of Molchalin. With his constant jealousy, the young man constantly emphasized that Molchalin was not worthy of her hand and heart.

Pay attention! Sophia is also a strong female character who does not care about the opinions of others. It is quite possible that it was precisely for these qualities that Chatsky fell in love with her and so wanted to capture her heart, because the girl was his equal in intelligence.

Despite all the strength of her character, Sophia was carried away by Molchalin for the simple reason that she felt not only love for him, but also great pity. In the eyes strong woman Molchalin looked like a weak man who needed constant moral support. Sophia wanted to elevate him so that he would become her equal and be by her side all the time. A woman could get herself an eternal slave, under her complete psychological control.

Personal freedom

Chatsky vehemently argues with Famusov, proving that the whole essence of a free life is to break the shackles of slavery. These are life frameworks, criteria and stereotypes that do not allow a person to live the way he wants. The Famusovs partly agree, but a sense of pride does not allow them to completely yield to their interlocutor. Describing this situation, the author of the article, Goncharov, focuses on the fact that Alexander Andreevich is the type of person who despises quotes like “Alone in the field is not a warrior.”

If we're talking about about Chatsky, then, of course, he is a warrior. Even if left alone against everyone, this person will fight and confront the whole world of people who do not agree with his single and correct opinion. Alexander Andreevich proves the correctness of his thoughts even when it is an absolutely useless waste of time. Chatsky is the image of a person who is used to always being at the forefront of events. He represents a skirmisher warrior and at the same time a victim, since the result of all disputes is always the same - this is the rejection by society of a person who dared to go against the opinion of the majority.

Useful video: A Million Torments - production of the Open Book studio

Conclusion

After conducting a general analysis of the work, Goncharov moves on to the production part of Griboedov’s play. The author believes that acting out a comedy is much more difficult than it seems at first glance. Goncharov justifies his idea with the following arguments:

Historical fidelity. The whole point is that the stage does not tolerate strict adherence to the historical reality reflected in the work. When acting out the plot of a play, actors must always preserve creativity. Slight deviation of the storyline is allowed. Otherwise, the result of such a production will be the same - it is a mediocre and boring action that will quickly tire the viewer and will not motivate other fans theatrical arts come to a repeat performance of the play.
Artistic performance. According to Goncharov, an actor is simultaneously a musician, poet and writer rolled into one. He must have a keen sense of the work whose plot is being played out on stage. Each phrase of the hero of the play must be pronounced with maximum artistry. It is also necessary to save literary language works. It is this harmonious combination that the sophisticated audience awaits. This is the plan of action that a successful actor playing in Griboyedov's play should always know.

“Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. –

Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871

All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, were not admitted to the so-called “temple of immortality” for nothing. They all have a lot, and others, like Pushkin, for example, have much more rights to longevity than Griboyedov. They cannot be close and placed one with the other. Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is for Russian art what Lomonosov is for Russian enlightenment in general. Pushkin took over his entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took everything in his era, except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree on.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his foremost heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already fading and becoming a thing of the past. Brilliant creatures while continuing to serve as models and a source for art, they themselves become history. We have studied Onegin, his time and his environment, weighed it, determined the meaning of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in modern century, although the creation of this type will remain indelible in literature. Even the later heroes of the century, for example, Lermontov's Pechorin, representing, like Onegin, his era, however, turn to stone in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about the more or less bright types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the authors’ lifetime, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.

Called immortal the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin - and thoroughly - its lively, hot period lasted about half a century: this is enormous for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint in “Minor” to living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, turned into a historical monument.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, survived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and still lives its own imperishable life, will survive many more eras and will not lose its vitality.

Why is this, and what is this “Woe from Wit” anyway?

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, spread all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she turned a million into ten-kopeck pieces, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety. .

But the play passed this test too - and not only did it not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, finding in each of them a patron, critic and friend, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.

Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only the stage performance of the play, touching little on the comedy itself or expressing itself in fragmentary, incomplete and contradictory reviews.

It was decided once and for all that the comedy was an exemplary work, and with that everyone made peace.

What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one’s own judgment alone will not suffice for any pride, and to listen to the talk of public opinion after forty years is impossible without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on a few general conclusions, the most frequently repeated ones - and build your own assessment plan on them.

Some value in comedy a picture of Moscow morals of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be some kind of circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's the fifty-third mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.

Despite this, however, every time the personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, and again lively talk arises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.

All these various impressions and everyone’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire, and together with that is why it is a comedy and, let’s say for ourselves, most of all a comedy – which can hardly be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other stated conditions. As a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

However, for us it is not yet a completely completed historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, quietly, now does not confess to those commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will prevail not as vices, but as elements of social life - so long, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flash in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud has been erased from Moscow itself.

Universal human models, of course, always remain, although they also turn into types unrecognizable from temporary changes, so that, to replace the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the basic features of morals and human nature in general that once appeared in images , clothing them with new flesh and blood in the spirit of their time. Tartuffe, of course - eternal type, Falstaff is an eternal character, but both of them, and many still famous similar prototypes of passions, vices, etc., disappearing in the fog of antiquity, almost lost their living image and turned into an idea, into a conventional concept, into a common noun for vice, and for us they no longer serve as a living lesson, but as a portrait of a historical gallery.

This can especially be attributed to Griboyedov’s comedy. In it, the local coloring is too bright and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly outlined and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits barely stand out from under social provisions, ranks, costumes, etc.

Like a picture modern mores, the comedy “Woe from Wit” was partly an anachronism when it appeared on the Moscow stage in the thirties. Already Shchepkin, Mochalov, Lvova-Sinetskaya, Lensky, Orlov and Saburov played not from life, but according to fresh legend. And then the sharp strokes began to disappear. Chatsky himself thunders against the “past century” when the comedy was written, and it was written between 1815 and 1820.

How to compare and see (he says)
This century and this century past,
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe,

and about his time he expresses himself like this:

Now everyone breathes more freely,

Scolded your forever I am merciless, -

he says to Famusov.

Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. But with some reforms, the ranks can move away, sycophancy to the extent of Molchalinsky’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the frunt has given way to a strict and rational direction in military affairs.

But there are still some living traces, and they still prevent the painting from turning into a completed historical bas-relief. This future is still far ahead of her.

Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of spirit wizard, in his castle, and he scatters there with evil laughter. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as a group of these individuals was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like a comedy life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.

Leaving aside the two main aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves and therefore have the majority of admirers - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to comedy as a stage play, then as comedy in general, to her general sense, to her main reason in public and literary significance Finally, let's talk about its performance on stage.

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.

But Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of action, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that everything around them had decayed. They were even “embarrassed”, carried “discontent” within themselves and wandered around like shadows with “yearning laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to him and did not think of either fighting him or fleeing completely. Dissatisfaction and bitterness did not prevent Onegin from being a dandy, “shine” both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and plunging his laziness and bitterness between Princess Mary and Beloy, and then pretend to be indifferent to them in front of the stupid Maxim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both were languishing, suffocating in their environment and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and gave up, because he and Pechorin were familiar only with the science of “tender passion,” and for everything else they learned “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening, -

he hints himself. There is no mention of “yearning laziness, idle boredom,” and even less of “tender passion,” as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leaving, taking with him only “a million torments.”

Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so foolishly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this “stupidity” of his.

The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us slightly trace the course of the play and try to highlight from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, the movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.

Chatsky runs to Sophia, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by his place, passionately kisses her hand, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his old feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooled off towards him - also unusual.

This puzzled him, upset him, and a little irritated him. In vain he tries to sprinkle the salt of humor into his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, was what Sophia liked before when she loved him - partly under the influence of annoyance and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went through everyone - from Sophia’s father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems have gone into living speech! But everything is in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers nothing but coldness from her until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched her too. She already asks him with hidden anger whether he happened to even accidentally “say something kind about someone,” and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying Chatsky to the latter almost with her head, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before.

From that moment on, a hot duel ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the close sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take a close part.

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.

Chatsky hardly notices Famusov, coldly and absentmindedly answers his question, where have you been? “Do I care now?” - he says and, promising to come again, leaves, saying from what is absorbing him:

How Sofya Pavlovna has become prettier for you!

On his second visit, he starts talking again about Sofya Pavlovna. “Isn’t she sick? did she experience any sadness? - and to such an extent he is overwhelmed and fueled by the feeling of her blossoming beauty and her coldness towards him that when asked by his father if he wants to marry her, he absent-mindedly asks: “What do you want?” And then indifferently, only out of decency, he adds:

Let me woo you, what would you tell me?

And almost without listening to the answer, he sluggishly remarks on the advice to “serve”:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!

He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and to Sophia alone. He doesn't care about others; Even now he is annoyed that, instead of her, he found only Famusov. “How could she not be here?” - he asks himself, remembering his former youthful love, which in him “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor a change of place cooled” - and is tormented by its coldness.

He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only Famusov’s positive challenge to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.

That's it, you are all proud:
If only we could see what our fathers did

says Famusov and then draws such a crude and ugly picture of servility that Chatsky could not stand it and, in turn, made a parallel between the “past” century and the “present” century.

But his irritation is still restrained: he seems ashamed of himself that he decided to sober Famusov from his concepts; he hastens to insert that “he’s not talking about his uncle,” whom Famusov cited as an example, and even invites the latter to scold his age; finally, he tries in every possible way to hush up the conversation, seeing how Famusov has covered his ears, he calms him down, almost apologizes.

It’s not my desire to prolong arguments, -

he says. He is ready to enter himself again. But he is awakened by Famusov’s unexpected hint about a rumor about Skalozub’s matchmaking.

It’s as if he’s marrying Sofyushka... etc.

Chatsky perked up his ears.

How he fusses, what agility!

“And Sophia? Isn’t there really a groom here?” - he says, and although then he adds:

Ah - tell love the end,
Who will go away for three years! -

but he himself still does not believe it, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom was played out over him to the end.

Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub’s marriage, imposing on the latter the thought of “the general’s wife,” and almost obviously invites him to matchmaking.

These hints about marriage aroused Chatsky’s suspicions about the reasons for Sophia’s change towards him. He even agreed to Famusov’s request to give up “false ideas” and remain silent in front of the guest. But the irritation was already crescendo 1
Increasing ( italian.).

And he intervened in the conversation, casually for now, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his intelligence and so on, he raised his tone and resolved himself with a sharp monologue:

“Who are the judges?” etc. Here another struggle begins, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an opera overture, hinting at true meaning and the purpose of comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw down the gauntlet to each other:

If only we could see what our fathers did
You should learn by looking at your elders! -

Famusov's military cry was heard. Who are these elders and “judges”?