Critical assessment of grief from mind. Analysis of the work “Woe from Wit”

The controversy surrounding “Woe from Wit” showed the importance of comedy in modern social struggle and outlined the further development of literature along the path of realism.

Literary criticism
Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich
“A Million Torments” (article by I. A. Goncharov)

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 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.

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 the Russian Enlightenment in general. Pushkin took over his entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took for himself everything in the era except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree on.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his leading heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already turning pale and becoming a thing of the past. His brilliant creations, while continuing to serve as models and sources of art, themselves become history. We have studied Onegin, his time and his environment, weighed and determined the meaning of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in the 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, their 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.

They called Fonvizin's "Undergrown" an immortal comedy - and rightly so - 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 “The Minor” of living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, has turned into a historical monument.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived 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 eras and still not lose its vitality.

Why is this, and what is “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 had 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, it found in each of them a patron, a critic and a 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 is a lack of self-esteem, 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 some general conclusions, most often repeated, 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 a 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 by 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 a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire and at the same time and comedy and - let's say for ourselves - most of all 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. 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.

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 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, etc. 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 become a jester and set an example, at least so positively and clearly Molchalin, even in front of the maid, now secretly confesses 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 dominate 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 due to temporary changes, so that in place of the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the basic features of morals and human nature in general, which once appeared in images, giving them into new flesh and blood in the spirit of their time. Tartuffe, of course, is an eternal type, Falstaff is an eternal character, but both of them, and many still famous similar prototypes of passions, vices, etc., disappearing themselves in the fog of antiquity, almost lost their living image and turned into an idea, into a conventional a concept that has become a common name for vice and for us no longer serves 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 delineated and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits can hardly stand out from under social positions, ranks, costumes, etc.

As a picture of modern morals, the comedy “Woe from Wit” was partly an anachronism even when it appeared on the Moscow stage in the 30s. 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),
The present century and the past century,
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe -

And about his time he expresses himself like this:

Now everyone can breathe more freely -

I scolded your age
Mercilessly, -

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 Molchalin’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the fruit 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 behind 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 to its general meaning, to its main reason in social and literary significance, and finally let’s talk about its performance on stage.

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 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, all the poetic forces, so abundantly spilled 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. 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.

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 like shadows “with melancholy laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it 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 Maksimovich: 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 knew only the science of “tender passion”, and for everything else they learned “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. “He writes and translates beautifully,” 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 hints himself. There is no mention of “yearning laziness, idle boredom,” and even less of “tender passion,” as a science and 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 left, 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, warmly 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 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 endures nothing but coldness from her, until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched a nerve in 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 took a close part - Molchalin and Liza.

Every step, 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 absent-mindedly answers his question: where have you been? - “Do I care now?” - he says, and, promising to come again, he leaves, saying from what is absorbing him:

How Sofya Pavlovna has become prettier for you!

On his second visit, he begins the conversation again about Sofya Pavlovna: “Isn’t she sick? did she experience any sadness? - and to such an extent he is overwhelmed by both the feeling fueled by 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 need!” And then indifferently, only out of decency, he adds:

Let me woo you, what would you tell me?

And, almost not 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 for Sophia alone. He doesn’t care about others: even now he’s annoyed that he found only Famusov instead of her. “How could she not be here?” - he asks himself, recalling his former youthful love, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places” cooled in him - and he 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;

Famusov speaks 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 cut Famusov off 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, 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 the 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 adds:

Ah - tell love the end,

Who will go away for three years! -

But he himself still does not believe this, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom 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 irritation was already creeping in, and he intervened in the conversation, casually for now, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his intelligence, etc., 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, and the true meaning and purpose of the comedy is hinted at. 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”?

For the decrepitude of years
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest features of the past life.

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. Famusov wants to be an “ace”: “eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, covered in orders, be rich and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key” - and so on endlessly, and all this just for that that he signs papers without reading and is afraid of one thing - “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.”

Chatsky strives for a “free life”, “to pursue science and art” and demands “service to the cause, not to individuals”, etc. On whose side is victory? The comedy gives Chatsky only “a million torments” and leaves, apparently, Famusov and his brothers in the same position as they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

We now know these consequences. They appeared with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and, like an epidemic, they 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.

Sophia's fainting when Molchalin fell from his horse, her sympathy for him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called the plot in the poems. Here the dramatic interest was concentrated. Chatsky almost guessed the truth:

Confusion, fainting, haste, anger! scared!
(on the occasion of Molchalin’s fall from his horse)
You can feel all this
When you lose your only friend,

He says and leaves in great excitement, in the throes of suspicion about the two rivals.

In the third act, he gets to the ball before everyone else with the goal of “forcing a confession” from Sophia - and with trembling impatience he gets down to business directly with the question: “Who does she love?”

After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his “others.” It seems clear. He sees this himself and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?
It’s a noose for me, but it’s funny for her!

However, he climbs in, like all lovers, despite his “intelligence,” and is already weakening in front of her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretend:

Once in my life I'll pretend, -

He decides - in order to “solve the riddle”, but actually in order to hold Sophia when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not pretense, but a concession with which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when there is none. In his speech one can already hear a pleading tone, gentle reproaches, complaints:

But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor...
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Did it seem like dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Love accelerated towards you... -

He says, and finally:

So that I can deal with the loss more indifferently,
As a person - you, who grew up with you -
As your friend, as your brother,
Let me make sure...

These are already tears. He touches serious chords of feeling:

I can beware of madness
I’m going to go away to catch a cold, get cold... -

He concludes. Then all that was left was to fall to my knees and sob. The remnants of his mind save him from useless humiliation.

Such a masterful scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express the feeling more nobly and soberly, as it was expressed by Chatsky, it is impossible to express it more subtly and gracefully

Introduction

Analysis of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov A.S.

1 History of creation and publication of the work

1.2 Ideological and philosophical content of the work

3 Comedy genre

4 The plot of the comedy

5 Features of building a character system

6 Language and features of comedy verse

2. Immortal work of Griboyedov

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

In the history of literature there are authors who are also called “authors of one work.” A classic example of such a writer is Griboyedov. This man's talent is truly phenomenal. His knowledge was enormous and multifaceted, he learned many languages, was a good officer, a capable musician, an outstanding diplomat with the makings of a major politician. But despite all this, few would have remembered him if not for the comedy “Woe from Wit,” which put Griboedov on a par with the greatest Russian writers.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" scattered into catchphrases, quatrains, and expressions before it had yet become generally known. Isn't this a true confession? We often say: “Who are the judges?”, “It’s barely light on your feet! And I’m at your feet,” “It’s a terrible age!”, “Friend, can’t we choose a nook for a walk further away,” without thinking that these are phrases from brilliant comedy "Woe from Wit".

Griboyedov accurately and truthfully portrayed not only the characters of the heroes of the first quarter of the 19th century, but also presented a wonderful storehouse of wisdom, sparkling humor, from which we have been drawing treasures for more than a hundred years, and it is not exhausted. The picture of the life of the Moscow nobility was created no less brilliantly.

All the action of the comedy takes place in one house (Famusov’s house) and lasts one day, but leaves the impression of a peaceful acquaintance with the life of the Moscow nobility. This is “a picture of morals, a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire.” (N.A. Goncharov).

“Griboyedov is a “man of one book,” noted V.F. Khodasevich. “If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.” In his comedy, Griboedov touched upon and exposed, in the spirit of the socio-political ideas of Decembrism, a wide range of very specific phenomena of the social life of feudal Russia.

The topical meaning of Griboyedov's criticism today, of course, is not felt with such acuteness as it was felt by his contemporaries. But at one time the comedy sounded topical. And the questions of noble education in “boarding houses, schools, lyceums”, and the question of “Lankart mutual education”; and debates about the parliamentary system and judicial reform, and individual episodes of Russian social life, reflected in Chatsky’s monologues and in the remarks of Famusov’s guests - all of this was of the most current importance.

All of the above factors determine the relevance and significance of the topic of work at the present stage, aimed at a deep and comprehensive study of the system of characters and prototypes of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

The purpose of this test is to systematize, accumulate and consolidate knowledge about the characters of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

In accordance with the goal, the work is expected to solve the following tasks:

- do analysis of the comedy "Woe from Wit";

consider the gallery of human portraits in the comedy by A.S. Griboedova;

The purpose and objectives of the course work determined the choice of its structure. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, and a list of literature used in writing the work.

This structure of the work most fully reflects the organizational concept and logic of the material presented.

When writing the work, the works of domestic authoritative authors in the field of studying the issue under consideration were used: Bat L.I., Ilyushina L.A., Vlashchenko V., Vyazemsky P.A., Gladysh I.A., etc.

1. Analysis of the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov A.S.

.1 History of creation and publication of the work

Information about the history of the creation of Griboyedov’s main work of art is quite meager. According to the writer’s friend, S.N. Begichev, the idea for the comedy arose back in 1816. It was supposed to write 5 acts, in which an important role was assigned to Famusov’s wife, “a sentimental fashionista and aristocrat.” Subsequently, the number of actions was reduced, and the playwright abandoned the important female character. Apparently, the discussion here was not actually about the work that we know, but about a sketch, plot-wise similar to the comedy, but still not its first edition. The date of commencement of work on “Woe from Wit” is considered to be 1820. A letter from Griboedov from Persia dated November 17, 1820 to an unknown person has been preserved, which recounts in detail a dream in which the writer allegedly saw the main points of the future work.

The original title of the play was “Woe to Wit.” The writer formulated the main intrigue of the future comedy in a letter to Katenin as follows: “The girl, not stupid herself, preferred a fool to an intelligent man.” However, social contradictions did not fit into the designated plot scheme. In addition, the name itself sounded like a condemnation of every mind for all times. Griboyedov sought to present such a paradoxical, but, alas, typical situation in which a positive personality trait - intelligence - brings misfortune. It is this situation that is reflected in the new name - “Woe from Wit”.

Direct study of the first and second acts was carried out in 1822 in the Caucasus. An important role in the depiction of social confrontation was played by communication with Kuchelbecker, whose observations Griboedov took into account. Work on the 3rd and 4th acts was carried out in 1823 on the estate of S.N. Begichev, and the first act was burned and rewritten. The completely original version of the comedy was completed in 1824 in Moscow and presented to the same Begichev (the so-called Museum Autograph). The writer goes to St. Petersburg for censorship permission, continuing to make changes to the text along the way. This is how the scene of Molchalin flirting with Lisa in the 4th act was completed and the entire ending was changed. Arriving in the capital, Griboyedov reads the play by A.A. Gandru, who was in charge of the entire office. The latter instructs scribes to prepare copies of the work. The playwright gave the list, corrected in his own hand and signed, to his friend (Zhandrovskaya manuscript). The future Decembrists played the main role in disseminating the play during this period.

The second half of 1824 and the beginning of 1825 were spent in trouble: the writer met with the Minister of the Interior B.C. Lansky, Minister of Education A.S. Shishkov, Governor of St. Petersburg M.A. Miloradovich, was introduced to the Grand Duke (future emperor) Nikolai Pavlovich. All of them reacted favorably to the playwright, but they failed to achieve publication of the entire work. Only phenomena 7-10 of the first act and the third act were published with censorship abbreviations in F.V.’s almanac. Bulgarin "Russian Waist in 1825". When he left for the East in 1828, Griboedov gave him the last authorized version of the work (Bulgarin list). After the death of the writer, permission was finally obtained for a theatrical production in a highly distorted form. In 1833, a theatrical "edition" of the comedy was published.

The play was published completely without censorship cuts abroad in 1858, and in Russia only in 1862. By this time, there were several tens of thousands of handwritten copies in the country, which significantly exceeded all circulations of printed materials known at that time. At the same time, the handwritten versions contained serious discrepancies, caused both by simple mistakes of copyists and by their desire to make their own additions and changes to the text. The editors of the 1862 edition were not able to completely overcome these difficulties. Only in the 20th century, through the efforts of literary scholars who conducted textual studies, and above all N.K. Piksanov, based on a comparison of the Museum autograph, the Zhandrovsky manuscript and the Bulgarin copy, the version of the comedy text that we have today was established.

Artistic method of comedy

Traditionally, "Woe from Wit" is considered the first Russian realistic comedy. This fact is indisputable. At the same time, the play retained the features of classicism (for example, the unity of time and place, “speaking surnames,” traditional roles: “deceived father,” “close-minded military man,” “soubrette-confidante”) and manifested elements of romanticism, reflected in a number of exceptional features the personality of the protagonist, in his incomprehension by others and loneliness, in his maximalism, opposition to the entire reality surrounding him and putting forward his ideal ideas in contrast to this reality, as well as in the pathos of his speech. Realism was expressed primarily in the typification of characters and circumstances, as well as in the author’s conscious refusal to follow numerous norms for constructing classicist plays. Griboyedov violated a number of genre and plot-compositional principles canons<#"justify">.4 The plot of the comedy

When considering the conflict and plot organization of Woe from Wit, it is necessary to remember that Griboyedov innovatively approached the classicist theory of three unities. While observing the principles of unity of place and unity of time, the playwright did not consider it necessary to be guided by the principle of unity of action, which, according to existing rules, was supposed to be built on one conflict and, starting at the beginning of the play, receive a denouement in the finale, and the main feature of the denouement was the triumph of virtue and the punishment of vice . The violation of the rules of suspense caused sharp differences in criticism. Thus, Dmitriev, Katenin, Vyazemsky spoke about the absence of a single action in “Woe from Wit”, emphasizing the dominant role not of events, but of conversations, seeing this as a stage flaw. The opposite point of view was expressed by Kuchelbecker, who argued that there is much more movement in comedy itself than in plays built on traditional intrigue.

The essence of this movement lies precisely in the consistent disclosure of the points of view of Chatsky and his antipodes, “... in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness...” Griboyedov. The outcome of the controversy was later summed up by Goncharov, who identified two conflicts and, accordingly, two closely intertwined storylines that form the basis of the stage action: love and social. The writer showed that, having initially begun as a love conflict, the conflict is complicated by opposition to society, then both lines develop in parallel, reach a climax in the 4th act, and then the love affair receives a denouement, while the resolution of the social conflict is taken outside the scope of the work - Chatsky is expelled from Famusov society, but remains true to his convictions. Society does not intend to change its views - therefore, further conflict is inevitable.

This kind of “openness” of the ending, as well as the refusal to show the obligatory triumph of virtue, reflected the realism of Griboyedov, who sought to emphasize that in life, unfortunately, there are often situations when vice triumphs. The unusualness of the plot decisions with a pattern led to an unusual compositional structure: instead of the three or five acts prescribed by the rules, the playwright creates a comedy of four. If the love affair were not complicated by social conflict, then probably three actions would be enough to resolve it; if we assume that the author set out to show the final outcome of the social conflict, then, obviously, he would need to write a fifth act.

.5 Features of building a character system

When considering the features of constructing a character system and revealing characters, it is necessary to keep in mind the following circumstances. Firstly, the author creates images of his heroes according to the principles of realism, while remaining faithful to some features of classicism and romanticism. Secondly, Griboedov abandoned the traditional division of characters into positive and negative, which was reflected in the difference in critical assessments given to the images of Chatsky, Sophia, and Molchalin. Chatsky, for example, in addition to positive qualities - intelligence, honor, courage, versatile education - also has negative ones - excessive ardor, self-confidence and unceremoniousness.

Famusov, in addition to numerous shortcomings, has an important advantage: he is a caring father. Sophia, who so mercilessly and dishonestly slandered Chatsky, is smart, freedom-loving and determined. The obsequious, secretive and double-minded Molchalin is also intelligent and stands out for his business qualities. Attempts by critics to absolutize the positive or, on the contrary, negative sides of the characters led to a one-sided perception of them and, consequently, to a distortion of the author’s position. The writer fundamentally opposed the traditional way of creating characters, based on classical roles and exaggeration of any one character trait ("caricatures", according to Griboedov's definition), with a method of depicting social types, drawn through individual detail as versatile and multi-dimensional characters (called by the author "portraits" ).

The playwright did not set himself the task of absolutely accurately describing any of the familiar faces, while contemporaries recognized them by individual striking details. Of course, the characters had prototypes, but even there were several prototypes of one character. So, for example, Chaadaev (due to the similarity of the surname and an important life circumstance: Chaadaev, like Chatsky, was declared crazy), and Kuchelbecker (who returned from abroad and immediately fell into disgrace), and, finally, were named as prototypes of Chatsky. the author himself, who found himself at some evening in Chatsky’s situation and declared later: “I will prove to them that I am in my right mind. I will introduce comedy into them, I will bring this entire evening into it: they will not be happy.” Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Skalozub, Molchalin and other characters have several prototypes. The situation with Khlestova’s prototype looks most definite: most researchers point to the famous N.D. Ofrosimov, who also became the prototype of MD. Akhrosimova in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace", although there are also references to other persons. They pay attention, for example, to the fact that Khlestova’s behavior and character resemble the traits of Griboedov’s mother, Nastasya Fedorovna.

It is very important to remember that both general and individual traits of heroes are created thanks to a whole arsenal of artistic means and techniques. It is the mastery of dramatic technique, the ability to create bright, lively, memorable pictures and images that form the basis of the artist’s skill. The main personality trait, which the author considered central to the corresponding stage role, is indicated by the “speaking” surname. So, Famusov (from the Latin fama - rumor) is a person who depends on public opinion, on rumors (“Ah! My God! What will / Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”). Chatsky (the original version of the surname Chadsky) is in the grip of passion and struggle. Gorich is a derivative of “grief”. Apparently, his marriage and gradual transformation from an efficient officer into a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant” should be viewed as grief. The surname Skalozub indicates both the habit of rude ridicule and aggressiveness. The surname Repetilov (from the Latin repeto - I repeat) suggests that its owner does not have his own opinion, but is inclined to repeat someone else’s. Other surnames are quite transparent in terms of meaning. Messrs. N. and D. are as nameless as they are faceless.

Important means of creating images are also the actions of the characters, their views on existing life problems, speech, characterization given by another character, self-characterization, comparison of characters with each other, irony, sarcasm. So, if one of the heroes goes to “look at how” Molchalin, who fell from his horse, was cracked, “in the chest or in the side,” then the other at the same time rushes to the aid of Sophia. The characters of both are revealed in their actions. If behind the eyes one assessment of a personality is given (for example: “...a dandy friend; declared a spendthrift, a tomboy...”), and in the eyes - another (“... he is a smart guy; and writes and translates nicely”) , then the reader gets the opportunity to form an idea of ​​both what is being characterized and the characterizing. It is especially important to trace the sequence of changes in assessments (from, say, “Auster, smart, eloquent, especially happy with his friends...” to “Not a man - a snake”; from “Carbonari”, “Jacobin”, “Voltairian” to “crazy” ") and understand what causes such extremes.

In order to get an idea of ​​the character system as a whole, it is necessary to analyze the interaction of the levels of its organization - main, secondary, episodic and off-stage. Which characters can be considered main, which - secondary, which - episodic, depends on their role in the conflict, in posing problems, in stage action. Since public confrontation is built primarily along the Chatsky-Famusov line, and the love affair is based primarily on the relationship between Chatsky, Sophia and Molchalin, it becomes obvious that of the four main characters, it is the image of Chatsky that bears the main burden. In addition, Chatsky in comedy expresses a set of thoughts that are closest to the author, partly fulfilling the classicist function of a reasoner. This circumstance, however, in no way can serve as a basis for identifying the author with his hero - the creator is always more complex and multidimensional than his creation.

Famusov appears in the play both as the main ideological antipode of Chatsky, and as an important character in a love affair (“What a commission, Creator, (Being an adult daughter’s father!”), and as a certain social type - a major official, and as an individual character - sometimes imperious and straightforward with his subordinates, sometimes flirting with the maid, sometimes trying to “reason” and “set him on the right path” of the young man, sometimes discouraged by his answers and shouting at him, sometimes affectionate and gentle with his daughter, sometimes hurling thunder and thunder at her lightning, helpful and polite with an enviable groom, a kind host who can, however, argue with the guests, deceived, at the same time funny and suffering in the finale of the play.

The image of Sophia turns out to be even more complex. A witty and resourceful girl contrasts her right to love with the will of her father and social norms. At the same time, brought up on French novels, it is from there that she borrows the image of her beloved - an intelligent, modest, chivalrous, but poor man, the image that she strives to find in Molchalin and is cruelly deceived. She despises the rudeness and ignorance of Skalozub, she is disgusted by the bile, caustic language of Chatsky, who, however, speaks the truth, and then she responds no less bile, not disdaining a vengeful lie. Sophia, skeptical of society, although not seeking confrontation with it, turns out to be the force with which society deals Chatsky the most painful blow. Not loving falsehood, she is forced to fake and hide, and at the same time finds the strength to make Chatsky understand that Molchalin has been chosen by her, which, however, Chatsky refuses to believe. Frightened and forgetting all caution at the sight of her lover falling from a horse, proudly standing up in his defense, she comes to a severe shock when she witnesses the amorous advances of her chosen “knight” towards her own maid. Having courageously endured this blow, accepting the blame upon herself, she is also forced to withstand her father’s anger and Chatsky’s mocking offer to make peace with Molchalin. The latter is hardly possible, given the strength of Sophia's character.

The image of Molchalin in the play is also not completely unambiguous; Pushkin wrote about him: “Molchalin is not quite sharply vile; shouldn’t it have been made of him as a coward?” Of all the characters in Famus’s circle, Molchalin is perhaps better able to adapt to existing conditions than others. Possessing, among other things, outstanding business qualities, he is able to achieve a high position in society. Molchalin is that type of people, poor and humble, who, through their work, perseverance, and ability to find a common language with people, slowly and steadily make a career. At the same time, he finds himself in a rather difficult position. Respectful of Famusov, he deceives his boss to please his daughter, for whom, however, he has no feelings. Faced with a choice, he strives to please both. As a result, in order to save his career and not make dangerous enemies, he lies to both Famusov and Sophia. Forced to play so many roles - secretary, lover, polite interlocutor, card partner, and sometimes even servant - Molchalin shows only one living feeling (attraction to Liza), for which he pays: his career is under threat.

Minor characters are correlated with the main characters, but at the same time they have important independent significance and directly influence the course of events. Thus, Skalozub is a type of military man, narrow-minded, but self-confident and aggressive. His appearance complicates both love and social conflict. Lisa is a servant-confidante. Without this image, it is impossible to imagine both the emergence and the denouement of a love affair.

At the same time, Lisa is witty, ironic, and gives accurate characteristics to different characters. She is compared with her mistress, and in a number of cases this comparison is resolved in her favor. At the same time, with the help of this image, Griboedov emphasizes the confrontation between the nobility and the serfs (“Pass us away more than all sorrows / Both the lordly anger and the lordly love”).

The figure of Zagoretsky is noteworthy, representing the type of people without whom no society can do: they know how to be necessary. This character is the antithesis of the image of Chatsky. The latter is honest, but expelled from society, while Zagoretsky is dishonest, but accepted everywhere. It is he who first of all shapes public opinion, picking up, coloring and spreading gossip about Chatsky’s madness to all corners.

Two other characters are also compared with the main character - Repetilov and Gorich. The first is a type of pseudo-oppositionist. For the author, obviously, it was important to distinguish a person who has his own deeply thought-out beliefs from someone who is inclined to repeat others. The fate of the second shows what could have happened to Chatsky if he had tried to fulfill Famusov’s conditions and become like everyone else.

Episodic characters - Khlestova, Khryumins, Tugoukhovskys, G.N., G.D. - take part in public confrontation, pick up and spread gossip about Chatsky’s madness. They represent additional social types, thanks to whose presence the picture becomes more satirical. In their depiction, the author widely used the techniques of hyperbole, irony, and sarcasm. It is also important to pay attention not only to what unites them, making them the so-called representatives of Famus society, but also to how they differ from each other, to their individual traits and to the contradictions that arise between them.

There are an unusually large number of off-stage characters in comedy; there are even more of them than on-stage characters.

They also represent one or another of the warring parties, with their help the scope of the conflict expands: from local, occurring in one house, it becomes public; the narrow framework of the unity of place and time is overcome, the action is transferred from Moscow to St. Petersburg, from the 19th to the 18th centuries; The picture of the morals of those times becomes more complicated and even more specific.

In addition, thanks to off-stage characters, the reader gets the opportunity to more accurately assess the views of the people acting on stage.

.6 Language and features of comedy verse

The language of "Woe from Wit" differed significantly from the language of the comedy of those years. Griboedov contrasted sentimentalist aestheticism and sensitivity, as well as the classicist “theory of three calms,” with the realistic principle of nationality. The speech of the characters in the play is, first of all, the speech that could actually be heard in salons and living rooms, “while driving around on the porch,” at inns, in clubs and in officer meetings. Such a rejection of the basic principles of belles lettres has caused critical controversy. The already mentioned Dmitriev reproached Griboedov for a number of phrases and speech patterns that, in the critic’s opinion, could not be acceptable in literature. However, most critics praised the playwright's linguistic innovation. “I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb,” - this is how Pushkin assessed Griboedov’s skill. “As for the poems with which “Woe from Wit” is written, - in this regard, Griboedov killed for a long time any possibility of Russian comedy in verse. A brilliant talent is needed to continue with success the work started by Griboedov...” - wrote in one of his articles Belinsky.

Indeed, many lines from the comedy began to be perceived as aphorisms, catchphrases living their own independent lives. Saying: “Happy people don’t watch the clock”; “I walked into a room and ended up in another”; “sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”; “and grief awaits around the corner”; “and the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us”; “in more numbers, at a cheaper price”; “with feeling, with sense, with arrangement”; “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served”; “the legend is fresh, but hard to believe”; “evil tongues are worse than a gun”; "the hero is not my novel"; “lie, but know when to stop”; “bah! all the faces are familiar” - many people don’t remember where these phrases came from.

Language in comedy is both a means of individualizing characters and a method of social typification. Skalozub, for example, as a social type of military man, very often uses army vocabulary (“frunt”, “ranks”, “sergeant major”, “trench”), and the individual characteristics of his speech reflect his self-confidence and rudeness (“you can’t faint with my learning”, “ and make a sound, it will instantly calm you down"), insufficient education, manifested in the inability to construct a phrase ("on the third of August, we settled in a trench: it was given to him with a bow, on my neck") and in an inaccurate selection of words ("with this estimate" instead "sharpness"). At the same time, he tries to make jokes (“she and I didn’t serve together”).

Famusov’s speech is the so-called Moscow noble vernacular (“they don’t blow anyone’s mouth,” “you should smoke in Tver,” “I scared you,” “trouble in the service”), replete with diminutive forms (“to the little cross, to the town ", "Otdushnikhek"). This character appears in the play in different situations, which is why his speech is so varied: sometimes ironic (“After all, I’m somewhat akin to her,” he says about Sofya to Chatsky), sometimes angry (“To work for you! To settle you!”), then scared.

Especially the monologues and remarks of Chatsky, who appears as a new social type, close in speech characteristics to the Decembrist pathos, required a lot of author’s work. In his speech there are often rhetorical questions (“Oh! if someone penetrated into people: what is worse in them? soul or language?”), inversions (“Aren’t you the one to whom I was still from the shrouds, for some kind of plans?” incomprehensible, did they take children to bow?"), antitheses ("He himself is fat, his artists are skinny"), exclamations and special vocabulary ("weakness", "vilest", "hungry", "slavish", "holiest"). At the same time, in Chatsky’s speech one can find Moscow vernacular (“okrome”, “I won’t remember”). The main character's language contains the most aphorisms, irony, and sarcasm. In addition, this speech conveys a wide range of psychological characteristics of the character: love, anger, friendly sympathy, hope, offended pride, etc. The language also reveals the negative sides of Chatsky’s character - harshness and willfulness. So, to Famusov’s question: “...would you like to get married?” - he replies: “What do you need?”, and Sophia declares: “Has your uncle jumped off his life?” The hero's monologues and remarks are always right on target, and it is always difficult to avoid or parry them. He does not miss a serious reason, not the slightest reason for a strike, and does not give an opportunity to retreat with honor, and then his opponents unite. Chatsky is truly a warrior, as Goncharov convincingly showed, but war always entails grief and suffering.

2. Immortal work of Griboyedov

comedy Griboyedov hero speech

“For more than 150 years, Griboedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit” has attracted readers; each new generation rereads it anew, finding in it consonance with what worries him today.”

Goncharov in his article “A Million Torments” wrote about “Woe from Wit” - that it “all lives its own imperishable life, will survive many more eras and will not lose its vitality.” I completely share his opinion. After all, the writer painted a real picture of morals and created living characters. So alive that they have survived to our times. It seems to me that this is the secret of the immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy. After all, our Famusovs, silents, skalozubs still make our contemporary Chatsky experience grief from his mind.

The author of the only fully mature and completed work, which, moreover, was not published in its entirety during his lifetime, Griboedov gained extraordinary popularity among his contemporaries and had a huge influence on the subsequent development of Russian culture. For almost a century and a half, the comedy “Woe from Wit” has been living, without 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 determines the historical significance of the comedy "Woe from Wit." He calls Griboyedov’s work an “immortal creation” and sees the best proof of the comedy’s “high dignity” 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 “even before printing and presentation spread across Russia in a stormy stream” 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”: “their time ends with them, and Chatsky begins a new century, and this is his whole meaning and his whole mind,” and that is why “Chatsky remains and will always remain alive.” It is “inevitable with every change from one century to 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 eras and still not lose its vitality.

The epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov imprisoned, like some kind of magician, 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, to make it easier to retain them in memory and to put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author.

The great comedy remains young and fresh even now. She retained her social sound, her satirical salt, her artistic charm. She continues her triumphant march across the stages of Russian theaters. It is studied at school.

The Russian people, who have built a new life, shown all humanity a straight and broad road to a better future, remember, appreciate and love the great writer and his immortal comedy. Now, more than ever, the words written on Griboyedov’s gravestone sound loudly and convincingly: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory...”

Conclusion

The comedy "Woe from Wit" by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became an event in Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century and was a rare example of its accusatory, satirical direction.

A brilliant playwright, talented poet and composer, outstanding diplomat, A.S. Griboyedov, according to Belinsky, belonged “to the most powerful manifestation of the Russian spirit.” With the immortal comedy “Woe from Wit,” the “pearl” of the Russian stage, Griboedov marked the beginning of the flowering of Russian realistic drama.

The success of the comedy was unheard of. Pushkin gave a brilliant and profound description of “Woe from Wit”. According to the poet, the purpose of comedy is “characters and a sharp picture of morals.”

Griboyedov created a typical image of a “new man” - a public Protestant and fighter - in the typical circumstances of his historical time. He showed how systematically and uncontrollably, becoming more and more aggravated, the contradiction of the main character, Chatsky, with Famus society is growing. This society anathematizes Chatsky, which has the character of a political denunciation: Chatsky is publicly declared to be a troublemaker, a Carbonari, a person who is encroaching on the “legitimate” state and social system.

Woe from Wit, of course, remains one of the masterpieces of punitive social satire. But true satire is never one-sided, because a satirist, if he stands at the forefront of ideological and artistic positions, always denounces evil and vices in the name of good and is virtuous, in the name of establishing a certain positive ideal - social, political, moral. Griboyedov in “Woe from Wit” not only exposed the world of serf owners, but also established his positive ideal in the image of the only true hero of the play - Chatsky.

List of used literature

1. A.S. Griboyedov. Point of view. Series "Classical gymnasium". Comp. biogr. certificates and notes A.I. Ostrovsky. M. Laida, 1994. - p. 187.

Petrieva L.I., Prantsova G.V. A.S. Griboedov. Studying at school: Educational and methodological manual.-M.: Flinta: Nauka 2001.-216 pp.: ill.

Dictionary of characters in Russian literature: Second half of the 18th-19th centuries - M.-SPb.: Universal book, 200. 362 p.

Aikhenvald Yu. Silhouettes of Russian writers: V 2v, T1 / Preface. In Kreida.-M.: TERRA.-Book Club; Republic, 1998.-304 pp.:

Russian literature of the 19th-20th centuries: In 2 vols. T.1: Russian literature of the 19th century. A textbook for applicants to Moscow State University. M.V.Lomonosova / Comp. And scientific editor. B.S.Bugrov, M.M.Golubkov. 2nd ed., add. And reworked.

Svetopolk-Mirsky D.P. History of Russian literature since ancient times / D.P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky.-M.: Eksmo, 2008.-608 p.: ill. - (Encyclopedia of Russia).

100 great names in literature: popular science. Ed./pod. Ed. V.P. Sitnikova/ V.V. Bykova, G.N. Bykova, G.P.Shalaeva and others - M.: Philol. Society "Slovo", 1998.-544 p.

Encyclopedia for children. T.9. Russian literature. Part 1./Chief editor. M.D. Aksenova. - M.: Avanta+, 1999. - 672 pp. - pp. - 439-446.

Lanshchikova A.P. "Woe from Wit" as a mirror of Russian life. // Literature at school. - 1997. - No. 5. pp. 31-43.

Vlashchenko V. Lessons on Griboyedov.// Literature.- 1999.- No. 46.S. 5-12.

9.

.

11.helper.ru/p_Istoriya_sozdaniya_i_analiz_komedii_Gore_ot_uma_Griboedova_A_S

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The future will appreciate this worthily

comedy and put it among the first

folk creations.

A. Bestuzhev

Comedy "Woe from Wit"

and a picture of morals, and a gallery of the living

types, and always sharp, burning satire,

and at the same time a comedy...

I. A. Goncharov