Critical appraisal of the director's work grief from wits. Analysis of critical interpretations of Griboyedov's work "Woe from Wit"

26.06.2020

Making simple and quick homemade cookies

Chinese Seafood Noodles Japanese Seafood Noodle Recipe

Korean Zucchini - The Most Delicious Cooking Recipes

What did criticism contemporary to Griboyedov write about "Woe from Wit", how did she understand the main conflict of comedy, how did she evaluate the central image of Chatsky in it? The first negative opinion about "Woe from Wit", published in March 1825 in the "Bulletin of Europe", belonged to a Moscow old-timer, a secondary writer MA Dmitriev. He was offended by the satirical picture of "Famus society" developed in the comedy and the accusatory pathos of the monologues and dialogues of the protagonist. “Griboyedov wanted to introduce an intelligent and educated person who does not like the society of uneducated people. If the comedian had fulfilled this idea, then Chatsky's character would be entertaining, the faces around him are ridiculous, and the whole picture is funny and instructive! - But we see in Chatsky a person who slanders and says everything that comes to mind: naturally, such a person will get bored in any society, and the more educated the society, the sooner he will get bored! For example, having met a girl with whom he is in love and with whom he had not seen for several years, he finds no other conversation but curses and ridicule at her father, uncle, aunt and acquaintances; then to the question of the young countess “why did he not marry in foreign lands?” he answers with rude impudence! “Sophia herself says about him:“ Not a man, a snake! ”So, is it any wonder that such a person would scatter and take him for a madman? them, because he considers himself smarter: consequently, everything funny is on the side of Chatsky! He wants to distinguish himself now by his wit, now by some kind of abusive patriotism in front of people whom he despises; he despises them, but meanwhile, obviously, would like them to respect him! In a word, Chatsky, who should be the smartest person in the play, is represented least of all as judicious! This is such an incongruity of character with its purpose, which should take away from the actor all his amusement and in which neither the author nor the most sophisticated critic can give an account! "

The most extensive anti-criticism defending Chatsky was given by a gifted writer, a Decembrist by convictions OM Somov in the article "My Thoughts on the Comments of Mr. Dmitriev", published in the May 1825 issue of "Son of the Fatherland". To view "Woe from Wit" "from a real point of view," noted Somov, "one must cast aside the partiality of the spirit of the parties and the literary old-fashionedness. Its author did not go and, apparently, did not want to go the way that comic writers from Molière to Piron and our times were flattening and, finally, trampled down. Therefore, an ordinary French measure will not be necessary for his comedy ... Here the characters are recognized and the plot is untied in the action itself; nothing has been prepared, but everything has been thought out and weighed with an amazing calculation ... ". Griboyedov “had no intention of showing an ideal face in Chatsky: judging the dramatic art maturely, he knew that transcendental creatures, samples of perfection, we like them as dreams of the imagination, but they do not leave us with long-term impressions and do not bind us to themselves ... in the person of Chatsky, an intelligent, ardent and kind young man, but not at all free from weaknesses: there are two of them in him and both are almost inseparable from his supposed age and his conviction of his advantage over others. These weaknesses are arrogance and impatience. Chatsky himself understands very well that, speaking to the ignorant about their ignorance and prejudices and the vicious about their vices, he only loses his speech in vain; but at the moment when vices and prejudices touch him, so to speak, for a living, he is unable to control his silence: indignation against his will bursts out from him in a stream of words, caustic, but just. He no longer thinks whether they listen to him and whether they understand him or not: he expressed everything that lay in his heart - and it seemed to him that it felt better, such is the general character of ardent people, and this character was captured by Mr. Griboyedov with amazing fidelity. Chatsky's position in the circle of people whom the critic so condescendingly takes for "people who are not at all stupid, but uneducated", we add - filled with prejudices and stagnant in their ignorance (qualities, contrary to Mr. criticism, are very noticeable in them), Chatsky's position, I repeat, in their circle it is all the more interesting because, apparently, he suffers from everything that he sees and hears. You involuntarily feel pity for him and justify him when, as if in relief to himself, he expresses his hurtful truths to them. Here is a person whom Mr. Dmitriev would like to call a madcap, out of some kind of benevolent indulgence towards genuine madcapes and eccentrics ...

Mutual relations between Chatsky and Sophia allowed him to adopt a humorous tone, even at the first meeting with her. He grew up with her, was brought up together, and from their speeches one can understand that he was used to amusing her with his pointed remarks about the eccentrics they knew before; Naturally, out of old habit, he even now makes her amusing inquiries about the same eccentrics. The very thought that Sophia liked this before should have assured him that even now it was the sure way to please her. He still did not know and did not guess the change that had taken place in the character of Sophia ... Chatsky, without changing his character, begins a cheerful and witty conversation with Sophia, and only where emotional feelings overpower in him both cheerfulness and sharpness of mind, he tells her about love her own, which she had probably heard a lot about. But he speaks to her in a language not bookish, not elegiac, but the language of true passion; an ardent soul shines in his words; they, so to speak, burn with their heat ... Where did Mr. critic find, as if Chatsky “slanders and says everything that comes to mind”? "

Here are two opposite positions in assessing Chatsky and the essence of the conflict, which is the basis of "Woe from Wit". On one pole - defending Famus 'Moscow from Chatsky's madcap, on the other - defending Chatsky from the extravagance of Famus' Moscow. In the criticism of O. Somov, there are many correct and accurate observations about the position and character of Chatsky, psychologically justifying his behavior from the beginning to the denouement of the dramatic action in the comedy. But at the same time it turns out in Somov's interpretation that Griboyedov showed "woe to the mind" and not "woe from wits." Without denying the deep truth in Somov's judgments, continued and developed in the classic article by I. A. Goncharov, "A Million of Torments", one should pay attention to the nature and qualities of Chatsky's "mind" itself, to which Griboyedov gave properties and traits that are quite specific and typical for the Decembrism culture ...

Already during the life of Griboyedov, a third point of view was expressed on the main conflict of the comedy, though it was set forth in a private letter from A.S. Pushkin to A.A. and not with the attention he deserves. Here's what I caught a glimpse of:

The dramatic writer must be judged according to the laws he himself has recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov's comedy. Its purpose is characters and a sharp picture of morals. In this respect Famusov and Skalozub are excellent. Sophia is not clearly drawn: either (here Pushkin uses an unprintable word characterizing a woman of easy virtue - Yu. L.), or a Moscow cousin. Molchalin is not rather harshly mean; shouldn't you have made a coward out of him? An old spring, but a civilian coward in the big light between Chatsky and Skalozub could be very funny. Talk at the ball, gossip, Repetilov's story about the club, Zagoretsky, notorious and accepted everywhere - these are the features of a true comic genius. Now the question. In the comedy Woe from Wit, who is the smart character? answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent and noble young man and a kind fellow, who spent some time with a very intelligent man (namely with Griboyedov) and was saturated with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub?

At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of the Repetilovs and the like. By the way, what is Repetilov? It has 2, 3, 10 characters. Why make him nasty? It is enough that he confessed every minute of his stupidity, and not of abominations. This humility is extremely new in the theater, at least which of us has not happened to be embarrassed when listening to similar repentants? - Between the masterful features of this charming comedy - Chatsky's distrust of Sofia's love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to revolve on, but Griboyedov apparently did not want to - his Will. I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should go into the proverb.

Show it to Griboyedov. Maybe I was wrong about something else. Listening to his comedy, I did not criticize, but enjoyed. These remarks came to my mind after, when I could no longer cope. At least I am speaking directly, bluntly, as a true talent. "

First of all, we note that Pushkin felt the lyricism of "Woe from Wit" - a comedy in verse, and not in prose, and therefore reveals the author's secret presence in each character. Griboyedov "spoken out" as an author not only in Chatsky, but also in Famusov, Skalozub, Khlestova, giving all the characters of the comedy to one degree or another the qualities and properties of their mind. VG Belinsky drew attention to this circumstance, although he considered it a weakness of comedy. Famusov, for example, “so true to himself in every word, sometimes betrays himself with whole speeches,” the critic notes, and then cites a whole set of quotations from Famusov's monologues confirming his idea.

Realizing, in contrast to Belinsky, the inevitability of the lyrical "pronunciation" of the author in the heroes of the comedy, Pushkin nevertheless expresses doubts about the good quality of Chatsky's mind. Is it proper for an intelligent person to "throw pearls" in front of people who are not able to understand him? This can be justified by Chatsky's love, which, without getting satisfaction, torments the hero's soul and makes him immune to the essence of the people around him. You can explain the reckless energy of his accusations by youthful recklessness and enthusiasm.

Apollon Grigoriev many years later, in 1862, defending Chatsky, wrote: “Chatsky is still the only heroic person in our literature. Pushkin proclaimed him to be a stupid person, but after all, he did not take away heroism from him, and he could not take away. In his mind, that is, the practicality of the mind of the people of Chatsky's hardening, he could be disappointed, but after all, he never ceased to sympathize with the energy of the fallen fighters. “God help you, my friends!” - he wrote to them, looking for them with his heart everywhere, even “in the dark abysses of the earth”.

Calm down: Chatsky, less than you yourself, believes in the benefits of his sermon, but bile is boiling in him, in him the sense of truth is offended. And besides, he is in love ... Do you know how such people love? - Not with this love that is not worthy of a man, which absorbs all existence into the thought of a beloved object and sacrifices to this thought everything, even the idea of moral improvement: Chatsky loves passionately, madly and tells the truth to Sophia that “I breathed you, lived, was busy continuously. " But this only means that the thought of her merged for him with every noble thought or deed of honor and goodness. "

In Sophia, according to Apollo Grigoriev, Chatsky loves a girl who is able to “understand that the whole world is“ dust and vanity ”in front of the idea of truth and goodness, or at least able to appreciate this belief in the person she loves. He loves this only ideal Sophia; he does not need the other: he will reject the other and, with a broken heart, he will go “to seek in the world, where the offended feeling has a corner”.

Apollon Grigoriev draws attention to the social significance of the main conflict of comedy: in this conflict, the personal, psychological, love organically merges with the public. Moreover, the social problems of comedy directly follow from the love story: Chatsky suffers both from unrequited love and from an insoluble contradiction with society, with Famus' Moscow. Apollon Grigoriev admires the fullness of Chatsky's feelings both in love and in hatred of public evil. In everything he is impetuous and without glance, straight and pure in soul. He hates despotism and slavery, stupidity and dishonor, the meanness of serfs and the criminal inhumanity of serf relations. Chatsky reflects the eternal and enduring features of the heroic personality of all eras and times.

This idea of Apollo Grigoriev will be picked up and developed by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov in his article "Million of Torments": motives of the struggle: from the advice “to study, looking at the elders,” on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to “free life,” forward and forward, on the other. That is why Griboyedov's Chatsky has not grown old and will hardly ever grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And literature will not get out of the magic circle drawn by Griboyedov as soon as the artist touches the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He ... will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Servant's Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet there appeared and are endless similarities to them. In the honest, fervent speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov's motives and words will always be heard - and if not words, then the meaning and tone of his irritable monologues. Healthy heroes will never leave this music in the fight against the old. And this is the immortality of Griboyedov's poems! "

However, when Apollon Grigoriev proceeds to determine the historical significance of the image of Chatsky, the nature of his critical assessment again shifts towards Pushkin and his doubts about the quality of the "Decembrist" mind. “Chatsky,” says Grigoriev, “apart from his general heroic significance, also has a historical one. He is a product of the first quarter of the Russian XIX century ... a comrade of people of "eternal memory of the twelfth year", a powerful, still believing in itself and therefore stubborn force, ready to perish in a collision with the environment, to perish if only because of leaving a 'page in history “... He doesn't care that the environment he is struggling with is positively incapable of not only understanding him, but even taking him seriously. But Griboyedov, as a great poet, cares about this. No wonder he called his drama a comedy. "

Griboyedov gives people of the Decembrist mentality and character a bitter lesson. He does not bring his clever and ardent orator-denouncer to the square, does not confront him in a heroic battle with political antagonists. He takes Chatsky into the depths of everyday life and puts him face to face with a real enemy, the strength of which Decembrism underestimated and did not feel. Evil lurked, according to Griboyedov, not in the administrative regime and not in tsarism as such: it took root in the moral foundations of an entire estate on which Russian statehood stood and grew. And before the imperious force of these foundations, the enlightened mind should have felt its helplessness.

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became famous thanks to one work about which Pushkin said: “His handwritten comedy“ Woe from Wit ”produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him alongside our first poets”. Contemporaries argued ...

The emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the "French contagion". He could make promises at the European Diet, but at home it did not come to real steps. Moreover, domestic politics adopted repressive ...

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in 1824. In this work, A.S. Griboyedov recreated a true picture of Russian life in the first quarter of the 19th century: he showed the changes that took place in Russian society after the Patriotic War of 1812, reflected the anti-serfdom ...

Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is one of the most famous works of Russian literature. It has not lost its relevance even in our time, two centuries later. The conflict of generations, the relationship between man and society - these problems existed, ...

Famusov Pavel Afanasevich - Moscow gentleman, "manager of the state house." Sophia's father, a friend of Chatsky's father. The events of the play take place in his house. F. - one of the brightest representatives of the "past century." In one of his monologues F. praises the Moscow ...

As in the painting, the background, the secondary details set off and reinforce the main idea of the picture, so in the comedy "Woe from Wit" each of the characters in the play performs its own artistic function. Episodic characters set off and complement the features of the main ...

Comedy A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism

1 first judgments

2. Appearance of negative reviews

3.Post positive feedback

4.The immortal work of Griboyedov

1 first judgments

Griboyedov criticism review comedy

The first judgments about "Woe from Wit" sounded even before individual fragments of the comedy appeared in print and on stage. Having delivered the new play to St. Petersburg in June 1824, Griboyedov immediately began to read it in literary salons. Among the audience were well-known critics and playwrights, actors, and the success of the reading was obvious. Griboyedov's friend FV Bulgarin managed to print in the theatrical anthology "Russian Thalia" for 1825 several scenes from the first act and the whole third act of the comedy. The publication was almost immediately followed by printed statements about the new play. In the magazine "Son of the Fatherland" there was an announcement about the release of the almanac, and the announcement was accompanied by a short but enthusiastic review devoted to essentially one and only essay - "Woe from Wit." review of literary news, and again as the most significant of them the publication from "Woe from Wit" was presented.

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

2. Appearance of negative reviews

Deepening understanding and appreciation of the new comedy unexpectedly contributed to the emergence of sharply negative and clearly unfair reviews about it. The attacks led to the fact that the unanimity of enthusiastic praise 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 most fierce attack from the critic of Vestnik Evropy was the image of Chatsky. And this is no coincidence. After all, it was Chatsky who appeared in the comedy as the herald of the ideas of Decembrism.

Griboyedov and his supporters were opposed by the not very gifted, but rather well-known playwright and critic MA Dmitriev in those years. In the March magazine "Vestnik Evropy" for 1825, he published "Remarks on the judgments of" Telegraph "", giving the criticism of Griboyedov's play the form of an objection to the recall of N. A. Polevoy. Challenging the enthusiastic assessments of the fans of "Woe from Wit", Dmitriev first of all attacked the comedy hero. In Chatsky, he saw a man "who slanders and says whatever comes into his head", who "finds no other conversation than curses and ridicule." The critic sees in the hero and the author of the comedy behind him the personification of a social force hostile to him. He tried to substantiate his attacks on "Woe from Wit". Dmitriev, according to his own understanding, reconstructed the author's intention and, starting from this construction, subjected to devastating criticism what, in his opinion, Griboyedov had achieved. "G. Griboyedov, - argued Dmitriev, - wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who does not like 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 come true: Chatsky is nothing more than a madman who was in the company of people who were not at all stupid and at the same time was clever in front of them. Hence, two conclusions follow: 1) Chatsky, who "should be the smartest person in the play, is represented least of all judicious",

2) the people around Chatsky are not funny, the protagonist himself is funny, contrary to the intentions of Griboyedov.

At about the same time, in his 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 general assessment of comedy in Pushkin's letters was high: the poet found in the play "the features of a truly comic genius", fidelity to reality, and mature skill. But with all this, he considered the behavior of Chatsky absurd, who throws beads "in front of the Repetilovs." In addition, Pushkin (albeit not directly) denied the presence of a "plan" in comedy, that is, the unity and development of 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, it was corrected by more objective judgments about Griboyedov and his play. Belinsky stated: "Someone who said that it was grief, was deeply correct in evaluating this comedy — only not from intelligence, but from cleverness."

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 Griboyedov of deviating from the "rules", that "there is no need in the whole play, now there is no tie, 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.Post positive feedback

The first printed statement about "Woe from Wit" was the response of N. A. Polevoy in his review of the almanac "Russian Thalia", in which excerpts from the comedy were first published. Polevoy's review appeared in the Moscow Telegraph magazine, which he had just founded, which held progressive positions in 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 read the excerpts allow us, on behalf of everyone, to ask Griboyedov to publish the entire comedy. " Having highly appreciated the comedy, Polevoy pointed to the topicality, fidelity to reality, the typicality of its images.

Dmitriev's article aroused a storm of indignation among the leading Russian writers - the Decembrist writers and their associates. In particular, the outstanding figure of the Decembrist literature, one of Belinsky's predecessors in the history of Russian criticism, AA Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, responded to the attacks of the "Maratel Dmitriev", replied in the review "A Look at Russian Literature". Having subtly ridiculed Dmitriev as a playwright in his review, Bestuzhev, immediately after evaluating Dmitriev's "creation", proceeds to Griboyedov's comedy. He decisively declares that in Woe from Wit, life itself is reproduced, that it is a “living picture of Moscow's mores,” and that is why those who, as in a mirror, recognize themselves in it, are up against comedy with such malice. Bestuzhev accuses opponents of "Woe from Wit" of lack of taste. "The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and put it among the first creations of the people," - Bestuzhev concludes his review prophetically.

Soon after Bestuzhev, OM Somov published a long article in defense of Woe from Wit. Vesko, Somov arguably sweeps aside in his article Dmitriev's attacks. 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, Griboyedov showed “an intelligent, ardent and kind young man with noble feelings and an exalted soul. Chatsky is a living person, not a "transcendental being", 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 bursts out "in a stream of caustic but fair words." This is how the critic explains the behavior of the hero of "Woe from Wit" among people whom Dmitriev called "intelligent, but uneducated." Dmitriev's assertion that the author did not give Chatsky a "proper opposition" with the Famusovs' society is rejected by Somov, stating that "the opposition between Chatsky and those around him is quite perceptible."

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

A response from V.K.Küchelbecker followed. 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 estimated unusually high and this assessment, of course, could not be associated primarily with "Woe from Wit". Kuchelbecker's statements about comedy flow into the general channel of the Decembrist critics' assessments of comedy. He notes that "Woe from Wit" "will almost remain 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 be like, and that’s all. It is very simple, but in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness. "

The most important stage in the assimilation of Griboyedov's legacy by Russian criticism is the statements about VG Belinsky's "Woe from Wit". These statements are very numerous and refer to different periods of the great critic's activity. Belinsky first put Griboyedov among the largest Russian writers of the 18th - early 19th centuries, describing him as "the creator of Russian comedy, Russian theater." The critic assessed "Woe from Wit" as "the first Russian comedy", especially noting 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 from nature in full growth, gleaned from the bottom of real life. "

From his student years, NG Chernyshevsky considered Woe from Wit to be an outstanding dramatic work and emphasized “that his characters were“ very faithfully taken from nature ”, 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 Griboyedov "must share with Pushkin the glory of a literary reformer."

A significant event in the Griboyedov literature of the 50s-60s was Grigoriev's article. He convincingly shows that only such an image of the "upper light", which is characteristic of "Woe from Wit", is deeply realistic and from any admiration for this "dark dirty world". The analysis of the image of Chatsky by Grigoriev is of particular interest. The critic calls Chatsky "the only truly heroic person in our literature"

Some of the provisions of Grigoriev's article were developed in the famous article by Goncharov "A Million of Torments". The outstanding realist artist created a one-of-a-kind critical work about Woe from Wit, unsurpassed in skill and subtlety of analysis. “Woe from wit,” says Goncharov, “is a picture of the era. In it, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the former 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 a "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 ourselves for myself - 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."

“The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others engraved in our memory as firmly as kings, queens and jacks on cards, and everyone had a more or less concordant concept of all faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so 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 differences have not ended until now and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

“In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person,” wrote Griboyedov. A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" was completed in 1824. It was created during the period when one worldview was replaced by another, and free-thinking in those days already took place. The bright end of this process was the uprising of the Decembrists in 1825. The comedy, an advanced comedy for its time, 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 eras, so characteristic of that time, the problem of two worldviews: the “past century”, which defends the old foundations, and the “present century,” advocating decisive changes.

4.The immortal work of Griboyedov

“For more than 150 years, readers have been attracted by Griboyedov's immortal comedy“ Woe from Wit ”, each new generation re-reads it again, finding in it consonance with what worries him today.”

Goncharov, in his article "A Million of Torments", wrote about "Woe from Wit" - that it "everything lives its own imperishable life, it 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 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, taciturns, puffers, still make our contemporary Chatsky experience grief from the mind.

The author of the only fully mature and complete work, moreover, not published in its entirety during his lifetime, Griboyedov gained extraordinary popularity among his contemporaries and had a tremendous 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 a part of their own spiritual life, has entered their consciousness and speech.

After several years, when critics 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, in spite of the efforts of the censorship, it "even before the press 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": "They end their time, 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 at every change of one century to another."

"Woe from Wit" appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, survived them, passed unharmed 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 everything will not lose its vitality.

An epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, lively Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov concluded, like a magician of some spirit, in his castle, and he crumbles there with an evil laugh. It is inconceivable that another, more natural, simpler speech, more taken from life, could ever appear. Prose and verse have 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 remains young and fresh even now. It has retained its public sound, its satirical salt, its artistic charm. She continues her triumphal march across the stages of Russian theaters. She is studied at school.

The Russian people, who have built a new life, have shown 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 Griboyedov 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 the comedy of Griboyedov" S. A. Fomichev

3. "Creativity Griboyedov" T. P. Shaskolskaya