Critical articles of mushroom eaters grief from mind. Compositions

The future will appreciate this

comedy and put it among the first

folk creations.

A. Bestuzhev

Comedy "Woe from Wit" is

and a picture of morals, and a gallery of living

types, and eternally sharp, burning satire,

and comedy at the same time...

I. A. Goncharov

Almost half a century after the creation of A. S. Griboedov's great comedy "Woe from Wit", in 1872, the most talented Russian writer, author of the famous novels "Ordinary History", "Oblomov" and "Cliff", returning from the play "Woe from Wit ”, wrote notes about this comedy, which then grew into the article “A Million of Torments” - the best work of critical literature about Griboedov's masterpiece.

Goncharov begins the article with a very bold assertion that, unlike even the greatest literary works (he calls Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" and Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time"), "Woe from Wit" never grows old, does not will become just a literary monument, albeit a brilliant one: “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 everything lives its imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and all will not lose its vitality.”

Why? Goncharov answers this question in detail, arguing that the unfading youth of comedy is explained by its fidelity to the truth of life: a true picture of the manners of the Moscow nobility after the war of 1812, the vitality and psychological truth of the characters, the discovery of Chatsky as a new hero of the era (before Gri -Boedov there were no such characters in literature), the innovative language of comedy. He emphasizes the typical nature of Griboedov's paintings of Russian life and its heroes, the scale of the action, despite the fact that it lasts only one day. The canvas of comedy captures a long historical period - from Catherine II to Nicholas I, and the viewer and reader, even after half a century, feel among living people, the characters created by Griboyedov are so true. Yes, during this time, the Famusovs, the silent ones, the skalozubs, the Zagoretsky ones, have changed: now no Famusov will set Maxim Petrovich as an example, no Molchalin will admit what commandments his father obediently fulfills, etc. But for now there will be a desire to receive undeserved honors, "and rewards to take and live happily", as long as there are people who think it natural "not to ... dare to have their own judgment", as long as gossip, idleness, emptiness prevail and this is not condemned by society, Griboyedov's heroes will not grow old, not will go into the past.

“Chatsky is most of all a denouncer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, which drowns out a new life.” Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, he knows what he wants and does not give up. He suffers a temporary - but only a temporary - defeat. “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal debunker of lies, hidden in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim.

Further, Goncharov makes the most important conclusion about the typicality of Chatsky: "Chatsky is inevitable with each change of one century to another." And, reading the article, you understand: Chatsky may look different at different times, speak differently, but an irresistible impulse, an ardent desire for truth, honesty and disinterestedness make him a contemporary and ally of the advanced part of all generations. material from the site

The writer explains in detail the characters, the psychology of other heroes of the comedy: Famusov, Sofya, Molchalin, and his arguments are very convincing. Goncharov, a connoisseur of human characters, puts Griboyedov's talent as a psychologist very highly. Griboedov's brilliant talent as a playwright, according to Goncharov, manifested itself in how he managed, having raised the most important social issues of his time in the work, not to “dry up” the comedy, not to make it heavy. The satire in Woe from Wit is perceived very naturally, without drowning out either comic or tragic motives. Everything is like in life: the Famusovs, the silent ones, and the pufferfish are funny, but also scary; smart Sophia herself started gossip, declaring Chatsky crazy; the once worthy man Platon Mikhailovich became vulgar; accepted in the society of nonentities Repetilov and Zagoretsky.

No less highly appreciates Goncharov and the mastery of the language of "Woe from Wit", seeing precisely in the language one of the main reasons for the popularity of comedy. The audience, according to him, "dissolved all the salt and wisdom of the play in colloquial speech ... and so full of Griboedov's sayings that they literally wore out the comedy to satiety." But, having moved from a book to live speech, comedy became even more dear to readers, Griboedov's “winged expressions” turned out to be so accurate, wise and convincing, so natural were the speech characteristics of the characters, very diverse, but always truthful, due to the psychology of the characters and their social position.

Giving a deservedly very high appraisal of "I'm Burning from Wit", Goncharov (and this has been confirmed by time!) correctly identified its place in the history of Russian literature, accurately predicted immortality for it.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page, material on the topics:

• abstract about the comedy Woe from Goncharov's mind
• summary of a million torments of Goncharov
• summary of I.A. Goncharov a million torments
• farce makhnysy gonch
• article by I.A. Goncharov on the comedy Woe from Wit

A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism

1. First judgments

2. The appearance of negative reviews

3. The appearance of positive feedback

4. The immortal work of Griboyedov

1. First judgments

Griboedov criticism review comedy

The first judgments about "Woe from Wit" were made even before individual fragments of the comedy appeared in print and on stage. Having delivered a new play to St. Petersburg in June 1824, Griboyedov immediately began to read it in literary salons. Famous critics and playwrights, actors were present among the listeners, and the success of the reading was obvious. Griboedov's friend F. V. Bulgarin managed to print several scenes from the first act and the entire third act of the comedy in the theatrical almanac "Russian Waist" for 1825. The publication was followed almost immediately by printed statements about the new play. An announcement was made in the magazine "Son of the Fatherland" about the release of the almanac, and the announcement was accompanied by a brief but enthusiastic review, devoted essentially to a single essay - "I burn from my mind." A little later, in one of the February issues of the newspaper "Northern Bee" it was printed review of literary news, and again, as the most significant of them, the publication from "Woe from Wit" was presented.

In the early printed reviews of Woe from Wit, several basic motifs varied. The main advantages of the play were considered the abundance of new and sharp thoughts, the power of noble feelings that animate both the author and the hero, the combination of truth and individual artistic features of Woe from Wit - masterfully written characters, extraordinary fluency and liveliness of poetic speech. A. A. Bestuzhev, who expressed all these thoughts most emotionally, supplemented them with an enthusiastic description of the impact of comedy on readers: “All this entices, amazes, attracts attention. A man with a heart will not read it without being moved to tears.”

2. The appearance of negative reviews

The emergence of sharply negative and clearly unfair reviews about it unexpectedly contributed to the deepening of understanding and appreciation of the new comedy. The attacks led to the fact that the unanimity of enthusiastic praises was replaced by controversy, and the controversy turned into a serious critical analysis, covering various aspects of the content and form of Woe from Wit.

The image of Chatsky was subjected to the most violent attacks from the critic of Vestnik Evropy. And this is no coincidence. After all, it was Chatsky who appeared in the comedy as a herald of the ideas of Decembrism.

Griboyedov and his supporters were opposed by the not very gifted, but quite well-known in those years, playwright and critic M. A. Dmitriev. In the March journal "Bulletin of Europe" for 1825, he published "Remarks on the judgments of the Telegraph", giving the criticism of Griboedov's play the form of an objection to N. A. Polevoy's review. Disputing the enthusiastic assessments of the fans of "Woe from Wit", Dmitriev first of all fell upon the hero of the comedy. In Chatsky, he saw a man "who slanders and says whatever comes to mind," who "finds no other conversation but curses and ridicule." The critic sees in the hero and the author of the comedy standing behind him personifications of a social force hostile to him. He tried to substantiate his attacks on Woe from Wit. Dmitriev, at his own discretion, reconstructed the author's intention and, starting from this construction, subjected to annihilating criticism what, in his opinion, Griboedov did. "G. Griboedov, - Dmitriev claimed, - wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who is not liked by the society of uneducated people. If a comedian (that is, the author of a comedy) fulfilled this idea, then Chatsky's character would be entertaining, the people around him are funny, and the whole picture is funny and instructive! However, the plan did not materialize: Chatsky is nothing but a madman who was in the company of people who were not stupid at all and at the same time was being clever in front of them. Two conclusions follow from this: 1) Chatsky, who "should be the smartest person in the play, is represented the least reasonable,"

2) the people around Chatsky are not funny, the main character himself is funny, contrary to Griboyedov's intentions.

Around the same time, in letters to Bestuzhev and Vyazemsky, Pushkin made several critical remarks about Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit, some of which turned out to be consonant with Dmitriev's theses. The overall assessment of comedy in Pushkin's letters was high: the poet found in the play "features of a truly comic genius", fidelity to reality, mature skill. But with all this, he considered the behavior of Chatsky, who throws beads "in front of the Repetilovs," absurd. In addition, Pushkin (albeit not directly) denied the existence of a "plan" in the comedy, that is, the unity and development of the action.

In 1840, Belinsky tried to substantiate the devastating assessment of Woe from Wit in a new way. But even this attempt was surrounded by substantial excuses, and later, during the 1840s, corrected by more objective judgments about Griboyedov and his play. Belinsky stated: “Someone who said that this is grief, only not from the mind, but from cleverness, deeply appreciated this comedy.”

Pisarev came out to help Dmitriev against Somov. Filling with cheeky, flat witticisms, the critic's article basically repeats Dmitriev's judgments, without making them in any way more convincing. Following Dmitriev, Pisarev accuses Griboedov of deviating from the “rules”, that “there is no need for the whole play, it has become, there is no plot, and therefore there can be no action.” In his opinion, Somov praises "Woe from Wit" only because he is "of the same parish with the author."

3. The appearance of positive feedback

The first printed statement about "Woe from Wit" was N. A. Polevoy's review of the almanac "Russian Thalia", in which excerpts from the comedy were first printed. Polevoy's review appeared in the Moscow Telegraph magazine, which he had just founded, which occupied a progressive position in the journalism of those years. “In no other Russian comedy do we find such sharp new thoughts and such vivid pictures of society as we find in Woe from Wit,” Polevoy wrote. -Natalya, Dmitrievna, Prince Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova, Skalozub were written off with a master brush. We dare to hope that those who have read the excerpts allow us, on behalf of everyone, to ask Griboedov to publish the entire comedy. Highly appreciating the comedy, Polevoy pointed to the topicality, fidelity to reality, and the typicality of its images.

Dmitriev's article caused a storm of indignation among progressive Russian writers - Decembrist writers and their like-minded people. In particular, an outstanding figure in Decembrist literature, one of Belinsky’s predecessors in the history of Russian criticism, A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, responded to the attacks of the “scribbler Dmitriev,” answered in the review “A Look at Russian Literature”. Subtly ridiculing Dmitriev as a playwright in his review, Bestuzhev, immediately after evaluating Dmitriev's "creation", proceeds to Griboyedov's comedy. He resolutely declares that life itself is reproduced in Woe from Wit, that it is a “living picture of Moscow manners” and that is why those who, as if in a mirror, recognize themselves in it, take up arms against the comedy with such malice. Opponents of "Woe from Wit" Bestuzhev accuses of lack of taste. “The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and put it among the first folk creations,” Bestuzhev concludes his review prophetically.

Soon after Bestuzhev, O. M. Somov came out with a long article in defense of Woe from Wit. Weightily, Somov convincingly dismisses Dmitriev's attacks in his article. Interestingly and convincingly Somov analyzes the image of Chatsky, who was subjected to a particularly fierce attack. Somov notes that in the person of Chatsky, Griboedov showed “an intelligent, ardent and kind young man with noble feelings and an exalted soul. Chatsky is a living person, and not a "creature transcendental", he is ardent, passionate, impatient and acts in comedy in full accordance with his character. Chatsky himself understands, Somov says sympathetically, that "he only loses his speech in vain," but "he is unable to control his silence." His indignation breaks out "in a stream of words, sharp, but fair." This is how the critic explains the behavior of the hero of "Woe from Wit" among people whom Dmitriev called "not stupid, but uneducated." Dmitriev's claim that the author did not give Chatsky a "proper contrast" with the Famusov society is rejected by Somov, stating that "the contrast between Chatsky and those around him is very palpable."

Somov was followed by the critic Odoevsky. He also pointed out the high merits of the language "Woe from Wit" and sees confirmation of this point of view in the fact that "almost all styles of Griboyedov's comedy have become proverbs."

Followed by a review from V. K. Kuchelbeker. He fully shared Odoevsky's point of view on Woe from Wit. In 1825, Kuchelbecker published a poem to Griboyedov in the Moscow Telegraph. "Woe from Wit" is not directly mentioned in the poem, but Griboyedov's poetic gift is highly valued and this assessment, of course, could not be associated primarily with "Woe from Wit". Kuchelbecker's statements about comedy are merging into the general mainstream of comedy assessments by Decembrist criticism. He notes that "Woe from Wit" "almost remains the best flower of our poetry from Lomonosov." “Dan Chatsky, other characters are given,” writes Kuchelbecker, “they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be like, and nothing more. It is very simple, but in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness.

The most important stage in the development of Griboyedov's legacy by Russian criticism is the statements about "Woe from Wit" by V. G. Belinsky. These statements are very numerous and refer to different periods of the activity of the great critic. Belinsky for the first time put Griboyedov among the major Russian writers of the 18th and early 19th centuries, describing him as "the creator of Russian comedy, Russian theater." The critic rated Woe from Wit as "the first Russian comedy", highlighting in it the significance of the theme, the accusatory power of humor, stigmatizing everything insignificant and "bursting out of the artist's soul in the heat of indignation", the authenticity of the characters - not built according to the scheme, in "filmed from nature in full growth, gleaned from the bottom of real life.

N. G. Chernyshevsky, from his student years, considered Woe from Wit to be an outstanding dramatic work and emphasized “that its characters are “very faithfully taken from life”, that they are living people and act in accordance with their character. He called "Woe from Wit" "an excellent comedy", spoke of his sincere love for its "noble author", noted that Griboedov "should share with Pushkin the glory of the reformer of literature."

A significant event in Griboedov's literature of the 1950s and 1960s was Grigoriev's article. He convincingly shows that only such an image of the "high society", which is characteristic of "Woe from Wit", is deeply realistic and from any kind of admiration for this "dark dirty world". Grigoriev's analysis of Chatsky's image is of particular interest. The critic calls Chatsky "the only truly heroic face of our literature"

Some of the provisions of Grigoriev's article were developed in Goncharov's well-known article "A Million of Torments". An outstanding realist artist has created a one-of-a-kind critical work on Woe from Wit, unsurpassed in skill and subtlety of analysis. “Woe from Wit,” says Goncharov, “this is a picture of the era. In it, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the old Moscow is reflected, and with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin and Gogol. But Griboedov’s comedy, Goncharov emphasizes, is not only a “picture of morals” and not only “living satire”, but also “a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy, and, let’s say for yourself for itself - most of all a comedy. The role of Chatsky, according to Goncharov, is the main role, "without which there would be no comedy." His mind “sparkles like a ray of light in the whole play.” Chatsky’s collision with the society around him determines the “huge real meaning”, the “main mind” of the work, gives him that living, continuous movement that permeates him from beginning to end.

“The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were engraved in our memory as firmly as kings, ladies and jacks on the cards, and everyone had a more or less consensual concept of all faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

“In my comedy, there are twenty-five fools for one sane person,” wrote Griboedov. A. S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" was completed in 1824. It was created during the period when one worldview was being replaced by another, and freethinking already took place in those days. A striking conclusion to this process was the Decembrist uprising in 1825. Advanced for its time, comedy aroused special interest in society. The disgraced Pushkin, who was in exile in Mikhailovsky, after reading the comedy, was delighted with it. The main problem of the work is the problem of confrontation between two epochs, so characteristic of that time, the problem of two worldviews: the “past century”, which protects the old foundations, and the “present century”, advocating decisive changes.

4. The immortal work of Griboyedov

“For more than 150 years, Griboyedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit” has been attracting readers, every new generation rereads it anew, finding in it consonance with what worries them today.”

Goncharov in his article "A Million of Torments" wrote about "Woe from Wit" - that it "everything lives its imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and everything will not lose its vitality." I fully share his opinion. After all, the writer painted a real picture of morals, created living characters. So alive that they survived to our times. It seems to me that this is the secret of the immortality of the comedy of A. S. Griboyedov. After all, our Famusovs, taciturns, pufferfish, still make Chatsky contemporary to us feel grief from the mind.

The author of the only fully mature and complete work, moreover, not published in its entirety during his lifetime, Griboedov gained extraordinary popularity among his contemporaries and had a huge impact on the subsequent development of Russian culture. For almost a century and a half, the comedy "Woe from Wit" has been living, not aging, exciting and inspiring many generations, for whom it has become part of their own spiritual life, entered their consciousness and speech.

After several years when criticism did not mention Griboyedov's comedy, Ushakov wrote an article. He correctly defines the historical significance of the comedy Woe from Wit. He calls Griboyedov's work an "immortal creation" and sees the best proof of the "high dignity" of comedy in its extraordinary popularity, in the fact that almost every "literate Russian" knows it by heart.

Belinsky also explained the fact that, despite the efforts of censorship, it “spread over Russia in a stormy stream even before printing and presentation” and acquired immortality.

The name of Griboyedov invariably stands next to the names of Krylov, Pushkin and Gogol.

Goncharov, comparing Chatsky with Onegin and Pechorin, emphasizes that Chatsky, unlike them, is “a sincere and ardent figure”: “they end their time, and Chatsky begins a new century, and this is all his meaning and all his mind”, and that is why "Chatsky remains and will always remain alive." It is "inevitable at every change of one century by another."

“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 imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and everything will not lose its vitality.

The epigram, the satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov has imprisoned, like a magician of some spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious 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, to make it easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author.

The great comedy is still young and fresh. She has retained her social sound, her satirical salt, her artistic charm. She continues her triumphant march through the stages of Russian theaters. It is taught at school.

The Russian people, having built a new life, showing all mankind a straight and wide road to a better future, remembers, appreciates and loves the great writer and his immortal comedy. Now, more than ever, the words written on the grave monument of Griboedov sound loudly and convincingly: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory ...”

1. Collection of articles “A. S. Griboyedov in Russian criticism” A. M. Gordin

2. "Comments on Griboyedov's comedy" S. A. Fomichev

3. "Griboyedov's work" by T. P. Shaskolskaya

A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism

1. First judgments

2. The appearance of negative reviews

3. The appearance of positive feedback

4. The immortal work of Griboyedov

1. First judgments

Griboedov criticism review comedy

The first judgments about "Woe from Wit" were made even before individual fragments of the comedy appeared in print and on stage. Having delivered a new play to St. Petersburg in June 1824, Griboyedov immediately began to read it in literary salons. Famous critics and playwrights, actors were present among the listeners, and the success of the reading was obvious. Griboedov's friend F. V. Bulgarin managed to print several scenes from the first act and the entire third act of the comedy in the theatrical almanac "Russian Waist" for 1825. The publication was followed almost immediately by printed statements about the new play. An announcement was made in the magazine "Son of the Fatherland" about the release of the almanac, and the announcement was accompanied by a brief but enthusiastic review, devoted essentially to a single essay - "I burn from my mind." A little later, in one of the February issues of the newspaper "Northern Bee" it was printed review of literary news, and again, as the most significant of them, the publication from "Woe from Wit" was presented.

In the early printed reviews of Woe from Wit, several basic motifs varied. The main advantages of the play were considered the abundance of new and sharp thoughts, the power of noble feelings that animate both the author and the hero, the combination of truth and individual artistic features of Woe from Wit - masterfully written characters, extraordinary fluency and liveliness of poetic speech. A. A. Bestuzhev, who expressed all these thoughts most emotionally, supplemented them with an enthusiastic description of the impact of comedy on readers: “All this entices, amazes, attracts attention. A man with a heart will not read it without being moved to tears.”

2. The appearance of negative reviews

The emergence of sharply negative and clearly unfair reviews about it unexpectedly contributed to the deepening of understanding and appreciation of the new comedy. The attacks led to the fact that the unanimity of enthusiastic praises was replaced by controversy, and the controversy turned into a serious critical analysis, covering various aspects of the content and form of Woe from Wit.

The image of Chatsky was subjected to the most violent attacks from the critic of Vestnik Evropy. And this is no coincidence. After all, it was Chatsky who appeared in the comedy as a herald of the ideas of Decembrism.

Griboyedov and his supporters were opposed by the not very gifted, but quite well-known in those years, playwright and critic M. A. Dmitriev. In the March journal "Bulletin of Europe" for 1825, he published "Remarks on the judgments of the Telegraph", giving the criticism of Griboedov's play the form of an objection to N. A. Polevoy's review. Disputing the enthusiastic assessments of the fans of "Woe from Wit", Dmitriev first of all fell upon the hero of the comedy. In Chatsky, he saw a man "who slanders and says whatever comes to mind," who "finds no other conversation but curses and ridicule." The critic sees in the hero and the author of the comedy standing behind him personifications of a social force hostile to him. He tried to substantiate his attacks on Woe from Wit. Dmitriev, at his own discretion, reconstructed the author's intention and, starting from this construction, subjected to annihilating criticism what, in his opinion, Griboedov did. "G. Griboedov, - Dmitriev claimed, - wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who is not liked by the society of uneducated people. If a comedian (that is, the author of a comedy) fulfilled this idea, then Chatsky's character would be entertaining, the people around him are funny, and the whole picture is funny and instructive! However, the plan did not materialize: Chatsky is nothing but a madman who was in the company of people who were not stupid at all and at the same time was being clever in front of them. Two conclusions follow from this: 1) Chatsky, who "should be the smartest person in the play, is represented the least reasonable,"

2) the people around Chatsky are not funny, the main character himself is funny, contrary to Griboyedov's intentions.

Around the same time, in letters to Bestuzhev and Vyazemsky, Pushkin made several critical remarks about Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit, some of which turned out to be consonant with Dmitriev's theses. The overall assessment of comedy in Pushkin's letters was high: the poet found in the play "features of a truly comic genius", fidelity to reality, mature skill. But with all this, he considered the behavior of Chatsky, who throws beads "in front of the Repetilovs," absurd. In addition, Pushkin (albeit not directly) denied the existence of a "plan" in the comedy, that is, the unity and development of the action.

In 1840, Belinsky tried to substantiate the devastating assessment of Woe from Wit in a new way. But even this attempt was surrounded by substantial excuses, and later, during the 1840s, corrected by more objective judgments about Griboyedov and his play. Belinsky stated: “Someone who said that this is grief, only not from the mind, but from cleverness, deeply appreciated this comedy.”

Pisarev came out to help Dmitriev against Somov. Filling with cheeky, flat witticisms, the critic's article basically repeats Dmitriev's judgments, without making them in any way more convincing. Following Dmitriev, Pisarev accuses Griboedov of deviating from the “rules”, that “there is no need for the whole play, it has become, there is no plot, and therefore there can be no action.” In his opinion, Somov praises "Woe from Wit" only because he is "of the same parish with the author."

3. The appearance of positive feedback

The first printed statement about "Woe from Wit" was N. A. Polevoy's review of the almanac "Russian Thalia", in which excerpts from the comedy were first printed. Polevoy's review appeared in the Moscow Telegraph magazine, which he had just founded, which occupied a progressive position in the journalism of those years. “In no other Russian comedy do we find such sharp new thoughts and such vivid pictures of society as we find in Woe from Wit,” Polevoy wrote. -Natalya, Dmitrievna, Prince Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova, Skalozub were written off with a master brush. We dare to hope that those who have read the excerpts allow us, on behalf of everyone, to ask Griboedov to publish the entire comedy. Highly appreciating the comedy, Polevoy pointed to the topicality, fidelity to reality, and the typicality of its images.

Dmitriev's article caused a storm of indignation among progressive Russian writers - Decembrist writers and their like-minded people. In particular, an outstanding figure in Decembrist literature, one of Belinsky’s predecessors in the history of Russian criticism, A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, responded to the attacks of the “scribbler Dmitriev,” answered in the review “A Look at Russian Literature”. Subtly ridiculing Dmitriev as a playwright in his review, Bestuzhev, immediately after evaluating Dmitriev's "creation", proceeds to Griboyedov's comedy. He resolutely declares that life itself is reproduced in Woe from Wit, that it is a “living picture of Moscow manners” and that is why those who, as if in a mirror, recognize themselves in it, take up arms against the comedy with such malice. Opponents of "Woe from Wit" Bestuzhev accuses of lack of taste. “The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and put it among the first folk creations,” Bestuzhev concludes his review prophetically.

Soon after Bestuzhev, O. M. Somov came out with a long article in defense of Woe from Wit. Weightily, Somov convincingly dismisses Dmitriev's attacks in his article. Interestingly and convincingly Somov analyzes the image of Chatsky, who was subjected to a particularly fierce attack. Somov notes that in the person of Chatsky, Griboedov showed “an intelligent, ardent and kind young man with noble feelings and an exalted soul. Chatsky is a living person, and not a "creature transcendental", he is ardent, passionate, impatient and acts in comedy in full accordance with his character. Chatsky himself understands, Somov says sympathetically, that "he only loses his speech in vain," but "he is unable to control his silence." His indignation breaks out "in a stream of words, sharp, but fair." This is how the critic explains the behavior of the hero of "Woe from Wit" among people whom Dmitriev called "not stupid, but uneducated." Dmitriev's claim that the author did not give Chatsky a "proper contrast" with the Famusov society is rejected by Somov, stating that "the contrast between Chatsky and those around him is very palpable."

Somov was followed by the critic Odoevsky. He also pointed out the high merits of the language "Woe from Wit" and sees confirmation of this point of view in the fact that "almost all styles of Griboyedov's comedy have become proverbs."

Followed by a review from V. K. Kuchelbeker. He fully shared Odoevsky's point of view on Woe from Wit. In 1825, Kuchelbecker published a poem to Griboyedov in the Moscow Telegraph. "Woe from Wit" is not directly mentioned in the poem, but Griboyedov's poetic gift is highly valued and this assessment, of course, could not be associated primarily with "Woe from Wit". Kuchelbecker's statements about comedy are merging into the general mainstream of comedy assessments by Decembrist criticism. He notes that "Woe from Wit" "almost remains the best flower of our poetry from Lomonosov." “Dan Chatsky, other characters are given,” writes Kuchelbecker, “they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be like, and nothing more. It is very simple, but in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness.

The most important stage in the development of Griboyedov's legacy by Russian criticism is the statements about "Woe from Wit" by V. G. Belinsky. These statements are very numerous and refer to different periods of the activity of the great critic. Belinsky for the first time put Griboyedov among the major Russian writers of the 18th and early 19th centuries, describing him as "the creator of Russian comedy, Russian theater." The critic rated Woe from Wit as "the first Russian comedy", highlighting in it the significance of the theme, the accusatory power of humor, stigmatizing everything insignificant and "bursting out of the artist's soul in the heat of indignation", the authenticity of the characters - not built according to the scheme, in "filmed from nature in full growth, gleaned from the bottom of real life.

N. G. Chernyshevsky, from his student years, considered Woe from Wit to be an outstanding dramatic work and emphasized “that its characters are “very faithfully taken from life”, that they are living people and act in accordance with their character. He called "Woe from Wit" "an excellent comedy", spoke of his sincere love for its "noble author", noted that Griboedov "should share with Pushkin the glory of the reformer of literature."

A significant event in Griboedov's literature of the 1950s and 1960s was Grigoriev's article. He convincingly shows that only such an image of the "high society", which is characteristic of "Woe from Wit", is deeply realistic and from any kind of admiration for this "dark dirty world". Grigoriev's analysis of Chatsky's image is of particular interest. The critic calls Chatsky "the only truly heroic face of our literature"

Some of the provisions of Grigoriev's article were developed in Goncharov's well-known article "A Million of Torments". An outstanding realist artist has created a one-of-a-kind critical work on Woe from Wit, unsurpassed in skill and subtlety of analysis. “Woe from Wit,” says Goncharov, “this is a picture of the era. In it, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the old Moscow is reflected, and with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin and Gogol. But Griboyedov’s comedy, Goncharov emphasizes, is not only a “picture of morals” and not only “living satire”, but also “a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy, and, let’s say for yourself for itself - most of all a comedy. The role of Chatsky, according to Goncharov, is the main role, "without which there would be no comedy." His mind “sparkles like a ray of light in the whole play.” Chatsky’s collision with the society around him determines the “huge real meaning”, the “main mind” of the work, gives him that living, continuous movement that permeates him from beginning to end.

“The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were engraved in our memory as firmly as kings, ladies and jacks on the cards, and everyone had a more or less consensual concept of all faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, they will not end for a long time.

“In my comedy, there are twenty-five fools for one sane person,” wrote Griboedov. A. S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" was completed in 1824. It was created during the period when one worldview was being replaced by another, and freethinking already took place in those days. A striking conclusion to this process was the Decembrist uprising in 1825. Advanced for its time, comedy aroused special interest in society. The disgraced Pushkin, who was in exile in Mikhailovsky, after reading the comedy, was delighted with it. The main problem of the work is the problem of confrontation between two epochs, so characteristic of that time, the problem of two worldviews: the “past century”, which protects the old foundations, and the “present century”, advocating decisive changes.

4. The immortal work of Griboyedov

“For more than 150 years, Griboyedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit” has been attracting readers, every new generation rereads it anew, finding in it consonance with what worries them today.”

Goncharov in his article "A Million of Torments" wrote about "Woe from Wit" - that it "everything lives its imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and everything will not lose its vitality." I fully share his opinion. After all, the writer painted a real picture of morals, created living characters. So alive that they survived to our times. It seems to me that this is the secret of the immortality of the comedy of A. S. Griboyedov. After all, our Famusovs, taciturns, pufferfish, still make Chatsky contemporary to us feel grief from the mind.

The author of the only fully mature and complete work, moreover, not published in its entirety during his lifetime, Griboedov gained extraordinary popularity among his contemporaries and had a huge impact on the subsequent development of Russian culture. For almost a century and a half, the comedy "Woe from Wit" has been living, not aging, exciting and inspiring many generations, for whom it has become part of their own spiritual life, entered their consciousness and speech.

After several years when criticism did not mention Griboyedov's comedy, Ushakov wrote an article. He correctly defines the historical significance of the comedy Woe from Wit. He calls Griboyedov's work an "immortal creation" and sees the best proof of the "high dignity" of comedy in its extraordinary popularity, in the fact that almost every "literate Russian" knows it by heart.

Belinsky also explained the fact that, despite the efforts of censorship, it “spread over Russia in a stormy stream even before printing and presentation” and acquired immortality.

The name of Griboyedov invariably stands next to the names of Krylov, Pushkin and Gogol.

Goncharov, comparing Chatsky with Onegin and Pechorin, emphasizes that Chatsky, unlike them, is “a sincere and ardent figure”: “they end their time, and Chatsky begins a new century, and this is all his meaning and all his mind”, and that is why "Chatsky remains and will always remain alive." It is "inevitable at every change of one century by another."

“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 imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and everything will not lose its vitality.

The epigram, the satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov has imprisoned, like a magician of some spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious 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, to make it easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author.

The great comedy is still young and fresh. She has retained her social sound, her satirical salt, her artistic charm. She continues her triumphant march through the stages of Russian theaters. It is taught at school.

The Russian people, having built a new life, showing all mankind a straight and wide road to a better future, remembers, appreciates and loves the great writer and his immortal comedy. Now, more than ever, the words written on the grave monument of Griboedov sound loudly and convincingly: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory ...”

1. Collection of articles “A. S. Griboyedov in Russian criticism” A. M. Gordin

2. "Comments on Griboyedov's comedy" S. A. Fomichev

3. "Griboyedov's work" by T. P. Shaskolskaya

Goncharov I. A

"A million torments"

(critical study)

The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself apart 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 man, around whom everyone, having outlived their time in turn, dies and falls, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of old 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 once occupied, as if at a loss where to place it. The verbal evaluation outstripped the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the press. But the literate mass actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and finding no flaws, she smashed the manuscript to shreds, into verses, half-verses, diluted all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she turned a million into dimes, and so full of Griboedov's sayings conversation that she literally wore out the comedy to satiety .

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

Some appreciate in comedy a picture of the Moscow manners of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play is presented as a 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 engraved in my memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in the cards, and everyone had a more or less agreeable concept of all faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? It's like the fifty-third of some mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, doing justice to the picture of morals, fidelity of types, cherish the more epigrammic salt of the language, lively satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone for every everyday step of life.

But both those and other connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the "comedy" itself, the action, and many even deny it conditional stage movement.<…>

All these various impressions and the point of view based on them is the best definition of the play for everyone and everyone, that is, that the comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and together with so is comedy and, let's say for ourselves, - most of all comedy - which is hardly found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other conditions expressed. As a painting, it is without a doubt huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the former Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin and Gogol.

In the picture, where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous, superfluous stroke and sound, the viewer and reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. And the general and the details, all this is not composed, but is completely 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 small strokes, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would not be complete.

However, for us it is not yet a completely finished historical picture: we have not moved far enough away from the era that an impassable abyss lies between it and our time. The coloring has not smoothed out at all; the century did not separate from ours, like a cut off piece: we inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboedov's types. Sharp features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite to jesters and set up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least so positively and clearly. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, secretly, now does not confess 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 is a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there are masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily”, as long as gossip, idleness, emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as the elements of social life - until then, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flicker in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” that Famusov was proud of has been erased from Moscow itself.<…>

Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov has imprisoned like a magician of the spirit in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious 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 keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as the group of these persons was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if 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. Nothing else but a comedy, it could not have been.<…>

It has long been accustomed to say that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on stage to his last word: "Carriage for me, carriage."

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a narrow, technical sense - true in small psychological details - but almost elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the characters, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, era, the charm of the language, all the poetic forces so abundantly poured into 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 passage does the viewer seem to wake up at an unexpected catastrophe that has erupted between the main persons, and suddenly recalls a comedy-intrigue. But not for long either. 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, while Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One might think that Griboyedov, out of paternal 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 of him, and everyone talks about his high mind. He, of course, did not travel in vain, studied, read, apparently took up work, was in relations with the ministers, and got divorced - it is not difficult to guess why.

“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” he himself hints. There is no mention of "yearning laziness, idle boredom", and even less of "gentle passion", as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, 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 Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance 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 all the brethren of the "fathers and elders", on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, the "enemy of searches." This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the natural succession of generations in the animal world.<…>

Chatsky yearns for a "free life", "to engage in" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals", etc. Whose side is the victory on? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, in the same position Famusov and his brethren, in which they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and like an epidemic swept all of Russia.

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with a subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author.<…>

The comedy between him and Sophia broke off; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the chill of hopelessness smelt into his soul.

He had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open at once, which not only oust Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and interferes with the crowd. Around him, new faces group and play, each with its own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of lively 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 finished action.

Isn't the Gorichevs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively person, now lowered, put on, as in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy , a secular wife, a Moscow lady?

And these six princesses and the Countess-granddaughter - all this contingent of brides, "who know how, - according to Famusov, - to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and smoke", "singing high notes and clinging to military people"?

This Khlestova, a remnant of the Catherine's age, with a pug, with a little black-haired girl - this princess and Prince Pyotr 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 diapers - and these NNs, and all their rumors, and all the content that occupies them!

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

Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that he 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 arrived.

In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasm. He is already vividly affected by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some advice to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the granddaughter countess and again touched Molchalin.<…>

"A million torments" and "woe" - that's what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to shut his ears against his logic, and shoots back with commonplaces of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses, the countesses - back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares alone, cunningly, slips and inflicts the main blow on him secretly, declaring him at hand, casually, crazy.

He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down. He was obviously weakened by this "million torments", and the disorder showed up in him so noticeably that all the guests cluster around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that is out of the ordinary order of things.

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

He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. What is heard is no longer sharp, poisonous sarcasm, in which a true, definite idea is inserted, however, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if for a personal insult, for an empty, or, in his own words, "insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux", which he, in his normal state of mind, 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 the Frenchman from Bordeaux”, and remains so until the end of the play. Only “a million torments” are replenished ahead.

Pushkin, denying Chatsky the mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the departure. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those 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 common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!

After getting rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no right to do so. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope”, why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Not a word here is true. There was no hope for her. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners "childhood" and even hinted that "God brought her together with Molchalin."

And he, just because -

… so passionate and so low

There was a waster of tender words,-

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

With you I'm proud of my break-

when there was nothing to break! Finally, he simply comes to swearing, pouring out bile:

For daughter and father

And for a 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 an offended feeling,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything!

If he had one healthy minute, if “a million torments” had not burned him, he would, of course, ask himself the question: “Why and for what have I done all this mess?” And, of course, there would be no answer.

Griboedov is responsible for it, and it was not without reason that the play ended with this catastrophe. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's "mind", sparkling like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, according to the proverb, men are baptized.

From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, still the same unconscious Sofya Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle . Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she found out that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”

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

Yes, do not look at all. He endures his moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "from his wife's pages", will 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. Such is the role of all the 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, the hopelessness of success.

Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to reason, did not sober up and did not correct him. If Famusov hadn’t had “reproaching witnesses” at his departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a doorman, he would have easily coped with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head-washer, would have torn Lisa by the ear and hurried up with Sophia’s wedding with Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: in the 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 willy-nilly make him think about something that did not occur to him.<…>

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

The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys is unchanged. Chatsky is most of all a debunker of lies and everything that has become obsolete, which drowns out a 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, by truth, - in a word, has not become human.<…>He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. With youthful vehemence, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, which, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, is left to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands "service to the cause, not to persons", does not mix "fun or tomfoolery with business", like Molchalin - he is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their authority of decrepitude , chinolyubiya and other things. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting mores of "spill in feasts and prodigality" - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of “free life” is definitive: it is freedom from all these counted chains of slavery that fetter society, and then freedom - “to stare into science the mind that is hungry for knowledge”, or freely indulge in “creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “ to serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or to travel”, not having a reputation for being either a robber or an incendiary, and – a number of further similar steps towards freedom – from lack of freedom.<…>

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength.

He is the eternal debunker of lies, hidden in the proverb: "One man is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.

Chatsky is inevitable with each change of 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 personalities who control the fate of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>

In addition to large and prominent personalities, during abrupt 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 the same roof, where two centuries meet face to face in closeness of families - the struggle of the fresh with the obsolete, the sick with the healthy continues, and everyone fights in duels, like Horaces and Curiats, miniature Famusovs and Chatskys.

Every business that needs to be updated causes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, no matter what human cause is - whether it be a new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - or people grouped, they can’t get away from the two main motives of struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at the elders”, on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from the routine to the “free life” forward and forward, on the other.<…>