"Woe from Wit" is a multifaceted work. In it one can see both a social parody, and criticism of the regime, and a historical sketch of mores. Not the last place in the book is occupied by a love affair. Chatsky's attitude to Sophia, their feelings are the core that serves as the basis of the plot, fills it with life and emotions.
Characters through the eyes of schoolchildren
You can analyze "Woe from Wit" endlessly. Consider individual plots
moves with a magnifying glass, compare quotes with the memoirs of contemporaries and biographies of alleged prototypes. But this is the approach of a professional analyst, literary critic. In school lessons, the work is read in a completely different way. And analyze in accordance with the recommendations of methodological publications.
There is a certain type of topic that the Ministry of Education regularly offers students to comprehend and then write essays: “Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky’s love?”, “Was Karenina right when she decided to divorce?”, “Characteristics of Prince Myshkin’s actions.” It is not entirely clear what the education system wants to achieve with this. Such an analysis has nothing to do with literature proper. It is, rather, a monologue of a grandmother at the entrance, arguing whether Klava was right from the third apartment when she kicked out Vaska the alcoholic, or still not right.
And the life experience of a 9th grade student hardly allows us to judge how the character should have acted. It is unlikely that he will be able to understand what annoys Sophia in Chatsky and why. Except, of course, the obvious things - those that the heroine herself speaks about.
Features of the perception of the play
Traditional
The interpretation of the play "Woe from Wit" is as follows - principled, noble and uncompromising. Surrounding - people are low, narrow-minded and conservative, not understanding and not accepting the advanced, innovative ideology of the protagonist. Chatsky broadcasts, denounces and ridicules, reeks with the word of the vices of society, and society writhing from well-aimed hits, angry and indignant.
It is difficult to say whether Griboyedov achieved this effect. There is a directly opposite version, explaining the construction of the play with endless monologues-appeals of the protagonist precisely by the fact that the author parodied the image of a liberal who talks a lot and does nothing. And the characteristics of Sophia and Chatsky are largely determined precisely by how the reader perceives the work. In the first case, he sees an idealist hero and a philistine who did not appreciate his impulses, in the second - a talker-demagogue and ... anyway, a philistine who did not appreciate his impulses. Is it so?
Details of plot collisions
Who are Chatsky and Sophia? He is twenty-one, she is seventeen. Separated for three years
back. Chatsky left as soon as he came of age, left the guardian's house and returned to the family estate. Didn't come, didn't write. Just picked up and disappeared. For what reasons is not so important. But how should a fourteen-year-old girl in love feel when the man she considers her lover, her future fiance, just picks up and leaves like that? Not for a week, not for a month. For three years. Even at thirty is a long time. And at fourteen - eternity. What has he been doing all this time? Who were you thinking about? Can she be sure that love is still alive?
At the age of fourteen, with teenage maximalism, with teenage emotionality. Critics make demands on the girl that not every adult woman meets. But Chatsky's attitude towards Sophia is far from an obvious point. It is enough to imagine the situation through the eyes of a girl, and not an omniscient reader, to whom Griboedov told everything, everything. Isn't it more logical to ask: should Sophia at all retain at least some feelings for Chatsky? And if so, why? He is not her husband, not her fiancé. He is a romantic admirer, who at one fine moment flew away like a moth from a clearing for three whole years. He had a heartbreak. Feelings. Insulted dignity. What about her? Shouldn't she feel resentment, bewilderment, anger in such a situation? Finally disappointment? Penelope, of course, waited for Odysseus much longer - but the situation was completely different. Chatsky is far from Odysseus.
Sophia close up
But this is all behind the scenes. Yes, the attentive reader will understand everything himself, if
thinks about it, but the situation is still given hints, snippets of conversations, memories. Therefore, it may well elude a person who is accustomed to seeing only the main storyline of the work. But what is there?
Chatsky suddenly returns to the house of the guardian, where he has not been for three years. He's excited, he's excited, he's happy. Chatsky's attitude towards Sophia remained the same. But now she loves someone else. The first one is still forgotten. She is passionate about Molchalin. Alas, the chosen one is very bad. Objectively - he is poor, of the lower class, this is an obvious misalliance. And subjectively, he is a weak-willed sycophant, a flatterer and a nonentity. Although, it should be noted, his prospects are quite good. Molchalin has already begun to make a career and copes well with the task. It can be assumed that Sophia's new chosen one will go far
At the same time, the young man himself is not at all in love, he is simply afraid to admit it. And the prospect of a profitable marriage is also, for sure, very attractive to him. Often it is this unfortunate choice that is blamed on the girl, answering the question, is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love? Traded the eagle for a plucked sparrow, stupid.
And who is Sophia? A girl who grew up without a mother, locked up, practically without leaving the threshold of the house. Her social circle is a father who has no idea about raising children in general and daughters in particular, and a maid. What can Sophia know about men? How can she get any experience? The only source of information is books. Ladies' French novels that papa lets her read. How could such a girl see the insincerity of a person who entered into the trust of much older and more experienced people? It's simply unrealistic.
Sophia is very young, she is naive, romantic and inexperienced. Molchalin is the only young man she sees almost every day. He is poor, honest, unhappy, timid and charming. Everything is the same as in the novels that Sophia reads every day. Of course, she just couldn't help but fall in love.
But what about Chatsky?
Chatsky's personality deserves the same close attention. Is it such a mistake
does Sophia? If you look at the situation objectively - is this marriage a big loss in her life?
Chatsky is twenty-one. He did not find a place for himself. Tried there, tried here. But ... "I would be glad to serve, it's sickening to serve." A position that would meet his needs, still does not come across. On what means does Chatsky live? He has an estate. And, of course, serfs. This is the main source of income for the young liberal. The very one who ardently and sincerely condemns him calls him barbarism and savagery. This is such a funny misunderstanding.
Does Chatsky have prospects? He won't make a career, that's obvious. Neither the military - he is not a stupid martinet. Neither financial - he is not a huckster. Neither political - he will not betray ideals. He will not become another Demidov either - the grip is not the same. Chatsky is one of those who speaks, not one of those who do.
His reputation is already ruined, society is fleeing from him like the plague. It is very likely that Chatsky will spend his whole life in a family name, occasionally leaving for resorts and the capital. What annoys Sophia in Chatsky now will only progress, with age he will become even more caustic and cynical, embittered by constant failures and disappointments. Can marriage with such a person be considered a successful match? And will Sophia be happy with him - just humanly happy? Even if Chatsky really loves her and will keep this love? Unlikely. Perhaps the denouement of the play is tragic only for the protagonist. Sophie is just lucky. Got off cheap.
And about the question
Although, when Chatsky's attitude towards Sophia is discussed in the vein: whether she is worthy of such great love or not, this in itself is strange. Unethical. Is it possible to be worthy of love? What is this, a prize? Promotion? Job fit? They love not for something, they love just like that. Because this person is needed, and no one else. This is life. And no love obliges its object to experience reciprocal feelings. Alas. The question itself is incorrect. You can not do it this way. Love is not a potato in the market to say whether it is worth what they ask for it. And even schoolchildren should be clearly aware of this, not to mention older people.
The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. From the moment he appears in the play, he participates in almost all scenes and is contrasted with other characters everywhere.
Chatsky's love for Sophia is a sincere, ardent feeling. He declares his love for her at the first appearance. In Chatsky there is no secrecy, no falsehood. The strength and nature of his feelings can be judged by his words about Molchalin, addressed to Sophia:
But does it have that passion? that feeling? ardor that?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
It is hard for Chatsky to be disappointed in his girlfriend. In his temper, he reproaches her even for what she is not to blame for him at all:
Why were they luring me with hope?
Why didn't they tell me directly
That all the past you turned into laughter?
“Every word here is not true,” says Goncharov. She didn't hold any hope for him. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed to him indifference ... Here, not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such trifles!” But the fact is that Chatsky is distinguished by “sincerity and simplicity ... He is not a dandy, not a lion ...”. In his feeling for Sophia, he is direct, sincere, honest. At the same time, blinded by grief, he can be irascible and unfair. But from this, the image of Chatsky becomes closer and more truthful to us. This is a living person, and he can be wrong. Who is Sophia, whom Chatsky loves so passionately?
Goncharov said very well about her: “This is a mixture of good instincts with a lie of a living mind, with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in it, but appears as common features. her circle."
Sophia is young and inexperienced, and her upbringing and environment have already left their mark on her views and actions. And Chatsky has to admit that he was bitterly deceived in it. However, people love all sorts, including vile and unfaithful ones. It can't make you fall in love. Here, human virtues and shortcomings are poorly taken into account, and if they are taken into account, it is very biased. Love, as they say, is evil ...
So, the personal drama of Chatsky complicates the public one, hardens him against noble Moscow.
Essay on literature on the topic: Chatsky and Sophia
Other writings:
- The main motive of A. S. Griboedov’s work “Woe from Wit” is a reflection of the tragedy of Chatsky, a typical representative of the young generation of the 1810-1820s, who in one way or another participate in social activities. This tragedy includes many moments, but one of the most important Read More ......
- A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is a sad story of a man whose grief is that he is not like the others. Mind, honor, nobility, unwillingness to curry favor - these are the qualities due to which the doors to the society of famous, silent, Read More ......
- The comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov is undoubtedly a work of great social resonance. It reflected the rebellious time when freedom-loving ideas spread throughout Russia. In the center of the play is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodied the best features of the progressive noble youth of the beginning of the century. Read More ......
- Chatsky is close to people of the Decembrist warehouse, Famusov is his main opponent, the defender of the autocratic-feudal order. Already from the 1st act of the comedy it becomes clear how different people they are. In subsequent episodes, Famusov expresses his opinion about books, about the service. From Sophia's conversation with Lisa Read More ......
- Sofia Pavlovna Famusova is Famusov's 17-year-old daughter. After her mother's death, she was brought up by "Madame", an old Frenchwoman Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. has changed a lot, as her love has changed. Read More ......
- “Woe from Wit” is a “public” comedy with a social conflict between the “current century” and the “past century”. The work is constructed in such a way that only Chatsky speaks about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spirituality on stage. The image of Chatsky is least of all a portrait Read More ......
- Sofya Characteristics of the literary hero Sofya Pavlovna Famusova is the 17-year-old daughter of Famusov. After her mother's death, she was brought up by "Madame", an old Frenchwoman Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. has changed a lot, as Read More ......
- A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is a truly realistic work, because the author reproduced typical life circumstances. The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. This is a really witty, honest and positive hero of the work. But Griboyedov contrasts Chatsky with another hero - Molchalin. This person Read More ......
Many modern researchers in understanding the "last content" of Griboedov's comedy remain within the boundaries of that semantic field, which was already defined by I. Goncharov in the article "A Million of Torments". But if the great philologist-thinker of the 20th century M. Bakhtin is right in his assertion that "classical works of art break the boundaries of their time", that "in the process of their subsequent life they are enriched with new meanings, new meanings", then what new facets and meanings in significant images of comedy open today for the modern reader? How do we understand the main characters of "Woe from Wit" - Chatsky and Sophia today? What is their relationship with the Famus society in which they grew up?
Let's try to read Griboyedov's play not as it was recently read by L.S. Aizerman (see "Literature", No. 1, 1995), not on a concrete historical level as "the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century" (V. Klyuchevsky), but on a universal human level - as a drama of a talented person who has "a mind heart is out of tune."
It is very important to see when and how, in what elements of the structure of the whole, an artistic idea is born at the beginning of the play and how it develops further in its subsequent links. For the first time, the reader learns about Chatsky from the words of Lisa, who compares him with Skalozub:
Yes, sir, so to speak, eloquent, but painfully not cunning: But be a military man, be he a civilian.
Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp. Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Let's pay attention to the rhyme "not cunning - sharp". "In comedy in verse" rhyme is one of the most important forms of expressing the author's position. At first glance, Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other in Lisa's statements, but the rhyme equalizes them. Chatsky and Skalozub are equal not only for Sophia, as possible suitors rejected by her, but also in a certain sense for the author. It is still difficult to understand this meaning, but through rhyme the author influences the reader's subconscious, his emotional attitude towards the hero. Already the first remark about Chatsky causes an attentive, sensitive to the word reader, as yet not conscious, ambivalent attitude towards the hero. It can be assumed that this is also the author's attitude, since it is the author, who creates the text, choosing words and rhymes, passes it on to the reader, infects him with his attitude. On one level - external, ideological - Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other, on another - deep - they are equal. The author's voice in "comedy in verse", unlike in "novel in verse", does not sound separate and independent. It is distinguishable (except for remarks) only in the voices of different characters. We simply will not see or misunderstand a lot in Griboedov's play if we do not constantly take into account the dialogical nature of the artistic word (the presence of at least two voices) and not the subjective-monologic, but the objective-dialogical position of the author.
Now let's see how the main character first appears on the scene. And again, the focus of our attention will be rhyme:
Lisa. Excuse me, right, how holy God is,
I wanted this foolish laugh
Helped to cheer you up a bit.
Servant. To you Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
This unexpected purely comedic rhyme "stupid - Chatsky" inevitably affects the reader's subconscious, causing certain feelings and emotions (smile, good laugh, irony?). Yes, and the very first words of the clever Chatsky carry a shade of comic:
A little light - already on your feet! and I am at your feet. (He kisses his hand passionately.)
What is manifested in these words: self-irony or the author's ironic attitude towards his hero? Is Chatsky able to look at himself from the outside, to laugh at himself? Does he himself notice how comical, for example, his words sound when he speaks of his passionate love for Sophia: "Command me into the fire: I'll go as if for dinner"? Skalozub or Famusov, for whom "love" and "lunch" are words of the same series, could say so.
If our feelings are correct, caused by the influence of rhyme, then comedy ("stupid - Chatsky") is embedded in the structure of character, in its core. And at the same time, the neighboring verse - "Forgive me, really, how holy God is" - evokes a semantic association with the high, ideal, which, undoubtedly, is in Chatsky. Lisa's prosaic word ("like God is holy"), falling into a poetic context, is filled with new associative meanings and meanings.
It is also very important to note that in the text of the play, between the two marked comedy rhymes, there are words from Lisa, which undoubtedly express the author's attitude towards the hero:
Only? as if? ~ Shedding tears
I remember, poor he, how he parted with you.
…..
The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...
Thus, through rhyme and Liza's "voice", the author shows his attitude towards Chatsky and infects the reader with his feeling. Laughing at others (as we see later in the play), but also funny himself and at the same time deeply and sincerely suffering, Chatsky evokes an ironic attitude and natural pity and compassion. The complexity and non-obviousness for many readers of this ambivalent attitude of the author to his hero is explained by the fact that pity is expressed in plain text, in the words of Lisa, which inspires confidence in readers, and irony is “merely” through rhyme.
The remark "kisses the hand with fervor" and the next twelve verses of Chatsky's first statement reveal the essential features in the character of the hero: not only the passion of his nature, but also high demands on others (he almost demands love for himself) in the absence of a sense of his own guilt. For three years he left his beloved without important, in her opinion, reasons and did not even write, and suddenly a passionate feeling for forty-five hours and a demand for an immediate reward for "exploits".
We note another feature of Chatsky: the ability to immediately, instantly (the property of an intelligent person), feel, see, understand the main thing (“Not a hair of love”) and then, throughout the whole play, deceive yourself, not believe the obvious (Sofya’s sincere words about Molchalin: “ That's why I love him") and condemn Sophia for imaginary deceit ("Why did they lure me with hope? Why didn't they tell me directly ...").
The hero, who so often laughs at others, so wittily ridicules the shortcomings and vices of others, turns out to be completely unable to feel an ironic attitude towards himself, to hear a clear mockery of himself in Sophia's words: whether where in the carriage you mail?
In Chatsky's next monologue, "the persecution of Moscow" begins, in which we see more malicious irony and "abuse" than good-natured and cheerful wit. Sophia perceives his ridicule, attacks on “father”, “uncle” and “aunt”, on all relatives (“You will get tired of living with them, and in whom will you not find spots?”), Sophia perceives as secular gossip: That would bring you to aunt. To count all the acquaintances.
And here, naturally, a question arises, which is usually not posed by researchers due to the apparent obviousness of the answer: is Chatsky telling the truth and the truth about Moscow, about the noble society, or is this "gossip" and slander of the fatherland? What is the originality, the peculiarity of such a view of Moscow? Is this also the author's point of view? Is G. Vinokur right in his statement: "... most of Chatsky's monologues are lyrical monologues, that is, Chatsky speaks in them mainly on behalf of the author"?
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" two main points of view, two views are distinguishable: we look at Chatsky through the eyes of the author, at the Famus society - through the eyes of Chatsky. Therefore, we see mainly Famus Moscow, that is, “spots”, vices and shortcomings, and we don’t see that Griboedov’s Moscow, which M. Gershenzon and N. Antsiferov wrote about, which L. Tolstoy portrayed in the novel “War and Peace”.
But "bright Moscow" (P. Vyazemsky), reflecting the spiritual beginning and the life of the soul of the noble society, can be seen in the images of Sophia and Chatsky. Moreover, in Chatsky the type of a noble revolutionary, a future Decembrist, is expressed, which Y. Lotman convincingly showed in the article "A Decembrist in Everyday Life", and another part of advanced society is guessed behind Sophia, who did not accept the path of revolutionary reorganization of Russia.
Chatsky's view of Moscow is, perhaps, the view of Griboyedov himself, but in his youth, in his youth, in the previous era of his life. This is the view of an idealist and romantic, a person who passionately desires the realization of his dream, his ideal in life; this is the view of a maximalist who does not want to compromise, who does not forgive anyone for shortcomings and vices; and at the same time, this is the look of a man who has an almost Gogol's gift to see in every person, first of all, his funny, comical side; this is an unfortunate gift - to see mainly evil, vices and sins in other people, this is "spiritual calamity, spiritual dislocation" (N. Berdyaev). But if in Gogol we feel the deepest compassion and great pity for a person, the artist's grief for a person, then Chatsky "stings" everyone without the slightest pity. "Not a man, a snake!" - says Sophia, when it was the turn for mockery of Molchalin.
Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky has changed dramatically over the past three years, and there were several reasons for this. First of all, we note a strong and deep female resentment: he became bored with her, first he went to friends, and then left completely. The very passionate feeling of Chatsky (“kisses his hand with fervor”) causes Sophia to doubt, coldness, even hostility. It can quickly pass, burn out. It makes Chatsky too talkative, impudent, unceremonious. Sophia is different in temperament: more calm, contemplative - and in love she seeks not "wind, storm" that threaten "falls" but inner peace, spiritual harmony ("No anxiety, no doubt ..."). Chatsky, on the other hand, was not only “all confused” on the road, but he was confused in himself (“mind and heart are not in harmony”). And in Sofya lives that pure and poetic feeling of falling in love with Molchalin, when "the shyness, timidity of a loved one is so natural and pleasant, when a simple touch on the hand is enough, when the night passes so quickly and imperceptibly while playing the" piano with a flute ".
Sophia herself has changed over these three years, her attitude towards people, towards the world has changed. Gone is the age of cute amusements, merry jokes, carefree laughter; the time had passed when she liked to laugh with Chatsky at others, at loved ones, and the former laughter, apparently, was cheerful, and not evil. Finally, she saw and understood in Chatsky his main vices - pride (“He thought about himself highly ...”) and lack of kindness to people:
I want to ask you:
Have you ever laughed? or in sadness?
Mistake? did you say good things about someone?
Now let's return to the fourth phenomenon of the first act, to Sophia's story about her dream, which, according to the unanimous opinion of modern researchers, was invented in order to deceive her father. Usually they see the prophetic meaning of the dream, discovering its connection with the final scene of the play: "Knock! noise! oh! my God! the whole house is running here!"
Let's try to read this dream in a different way. The heroine's happy state at the beginning of the dream ("dear man", "flowery meadow", "meadows and skies") is contrasted with a "dark room" and a threat from others in the second half of the dream:
Here with a thunder the doors were flung open
Some not people and not animals.
We were separated - and they tortured the one who was sitting with me.
He seems to be dearer to me than all treasures.
I want to go to him - you drag with you:
We are accompanied by a groan, a roar. laughter, the whistle of monsters.
From whom does the real danger come, what does Sophia's intuitive, subconscious foreboding speak of? The further text of the play shows us an undoubted, deep connection with Chatsky. Molchalin for Sophia is "more precious than all treasures", and Chatsky, to whom she will later say:
Deadly by their coldness!
To look at you, I have no strength to listen to you, -
about the danger of which Lisa warns ("Look, Chatsky will make you laugh"), such Chatsky ("Not a man, a snake!" - "some not people and not animals") for Sophia is like a "monster Schu" | and * th poisonous attacks on Molchalin will sound for Sophia like "roar, laughter, whistle." And then the words of Sofya Famusov (“Ah, father, sleep in your hand”) acquire a second meaning, and not only express the desire of a resourceful daughter to put a suspicious father on the wrong track.
In the second act of the play, we will single out only one semantic line, we will pay attention not to the "merciless scolding" of Chatsky in a conversation with Famusov ("I scolded your age mercilessly"), not to his passionate monologue ("And who are the judges ..."), but on associative and explicit connections, the similarity of Chatsky with Skalozub, confirming the meaning of the comedic rhyme "hiter-oster" ... he is especially happy with his friends, He thought highly of himself ... "
They react equally to the fall from Molchalin's horse, not showing him the slightest sympathy.
Puffer. The reins were tightened. Well, what a miserable rider.
Look at how he cracked - in the chest or in the side?
Chatsky. Let him break his neck.
You almost got tired.
And Skalozub's story about the widow Princess Lasova is not inferior in wit to Chatsky's witticisms. And finally, Lisa directly puts Chatsky and Skalozub on a par, as equally dangerous for Sophia's reputation:
Look at that, Chatsky will make you laugh;
And Skalozub, as his crest will spin.
He will tell a faint, add a hundred embellishments;
To joke and he is much, because now who does not joke!
The third act is the key to confirming our previous observations, to understanding the main ideas of the comedy. Sophia really speaks the "truth" about Chatsky: he is "ridiculous" in his pride, in his "biliousness", in his desire to judge everyone mercilessly, in his misunderstanding of his own vices, in his passion, which "enrages", in a misunderstanding of the one he loves:
Do you want to know the truth two words?
The slightest oddity in whom is barely visible.
Your gaiety is not modest,
Your sharpness is ready at once,
And you yourself...
- I myself? isn't it funny?
-Yes!..
The intelligent and passionate Chatsky, in his denunciations, in his revolt against society, crosses a certain line and becomes ridiculous himself, just as a person’s trait that is good in itself in Gogol’s characters from Dead Souls, if a person violates the sense of proportion, crosses a certain line, turns into its opposite: Manilov's gentleness, politeness, tact turn into endless lisping and "something ingratiating"; the economic and cautious Korobochka becomes "strong-headed" and "cudgel-headed"; active and restless, with a rich imagination, Nozdryov turns into a "many-sided" and "historical" person, into an inspired liar, like Khlestakov; "thrifty owner" Plyushkin is reborn into a "hole in humanity", with an unbridled passion for accumulation.
Chatsky loves Sophia without memory, of course, not only for her outward beauty ("At seventeen, you blossomed charmingly"). He sees in her, sees through the high, ideal, holy ("The face of the most holy pilgrimage!"), That, according to Goncharov, "strongly resembles Tatyana Pushkin." Chatsky feels spiritual kinship with Sophia, which is manifested in their attitude to love as the highest value of being.
Sophia. He seems to be dearer to me than all treasures.
……
Which one do I value?
I want - I love, I want - I will say.
……
What do I care who? before them? to the whole universe?
Funny? - let them joke; annoying? -
let them scold.
Chatsky. Let Molchalin have a lively mind, a brave genius,
But does it have that passion, that feeling,
ardor that?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Has love accelerated towards you?
So that all thoughts and all his deeds
Soul - you, pleasing to you?
But why in this sincere passionate monologue does the inaccurate, false word "pleasure" appear, a word from Mol-chalin's lexicon? The words "worship", "serve" the beloved and "please" her have completely different meanings. Is this inaccuracy in the choice of the word accidental, or does it speak of some flaw in Chatsky's feeling, is it connected with his state of "confusion", "madness" and "child"?
If Sophia’s love for Molchalin is calm, deep, contemplative (“Forgotten by music, and time went so smoothly”), spreads to “the whole world” and evokes good feelings for everyone (“you can be kind to everyone and indiscriminately”), then passion Chatsky "boils, excites, infuriates" and intensifies his malicious laughter at people. Khlestova rightly reproaches him:
Well, what did you find funny?
he's glad? What's the laugh?
Laughing at old age is a sin.
Chatsky does not understand the truth, obvious to Sophia, that the main thing in a person is “the kindness of the soul” (this is what she mistakenly saw in Molchalin), that the mind, combined with pride, with contempt for people, is worse than the “plague” and “soon will resist. Chatsky does not understand that for Sophia all his virtues are crossed out by his main vice. And Sophia's dislike is a terrible blow for him and the most severe punishment.
Both Chatsky and Sofya are mistaken in their understanding and assessment of Molchaliv, "not mean enough," according to Pushkin. They express two polar points of view, and both are "blind". For Chatsky, Molchalin is "stupid, the most miserable creature", for Sophia - kind and smart. Sophia "draws to Chatsky a portrait of the righteous, with whom" God brought her ", and thereby formulates her moral ideal - an ideal, in fact, Christian."
But why did the wise Sophia invent Molchalin for herself and deceived herself in love? What is she punished for, for what sins? Despite the fact that "the female character in those years (the first half of the 19th century), more than ever, was shaped by literature (Yu. Lotman), it is unlikely that everything can be explained only by the influence of books. This is only an external factor that cannot be decisive. Apparently , the main reason is in Sophia herself, in her proud, resolute and independent character, in her perhaps unconscious desire for power in the family, and then, perhaps, in society, which
corresponds to the general atmosphere of the noble society of that time, and in Griboyedov's play it is expressed by such characters as Natalya Dmitrievna. Tatyana Yurievna, Marya Alekseevna. In the understanding of Chatsky, we see the wisdom of Sophia; in self-deception about pushing to Molchalin, Sophia's blindness is explained by the manifestation of a "deep and dark instinct for power" (S.N. Bulgakov).
In the third act, a parodic double of Chatsky appears - Countess Khryumina, who herself chuckles at him in his own spirit ("Monsieur Chatsky! Are you in Moscow! How were you, everyone is like that? .. Did you return the singles?"), Who talks about everyone almost like Chatsky :
Well ball! Well Famusov! knew how to call guests! Some freaks from the other world
And there is no one to talk to, and no one to dance with.
D
Chatsky's frame is a drama of an intelligent person with a high, noble soul, but overshadowed by a dangerous vice - pride, which is born in a person, as L. Tolstoy showed, in adolescence. And if a person does not realize this vice in himself, does not seek to overcome it in himself, then, "set free," he threatens to destroy the soul, despite all its "beautiful impulses." The mind, directed only at criticism, denunciation and destruction, itself becomes "spiritual and heartless" and represents the greatest danger to the person himself, is a "terrible and empty force" (I. Ilyin).
In this sense, Chatsky is the first among such heroes of Russian literature as the "moral cripple" Pechorin, the "self-broken" Bazarov, the "terribly proud" Raskolnikov, for whom a person is a "louse", a "trembling creature", or a lyrical hero in early lyrics. Mayakovsky with his "holy malice" "to everything", for whom "there are no people", but there are "images" and "a crowd ... a hundred-headed louse". The worldview of these heroes is based on the idea of godlessness, unbelief, reflecting "the world-historical crisis of the religious worldview" (I. Vinogradov). The mind, combined with pride, leads them to an internal split, to a tragic conflict between the mind, consciousness, idea and the heart, soul, moral nature of man.
Will Chatsky perish like Pechorin and Bazarov, or will he be able to change, see the light, be reborn to life, like Raskolnikov with his "great sadness" and "sorrow", thanks to which he was able to make a painful path from "evil contempt" to "infinite love" for people? The finale of Griboyedov's play remains open, but Chatsky's "million torments", his sufferings, often so gracious and necessary for the human soul, give hope for this. The surname "Chatsky" itself (having opposite meanings: both "children" and "to hope", that is, to hope) leaves the reader this hope ...
Viacheslav VLASHCHENKO
is a comedy, where one of the conflicts is social. This work shows us the Famus society with its outdated views and the representative of the progressive views of Chatsky. There is also a love theme and a love triangle. Let's try to understand Chatsky's relationship to Sophia and try to answer the question why Chatsky loves Sophia and what kind of relationship our heroes had.
The relationship between Chatsky and Sophia
So, what are Chatsky's feelings for Sophia? Reading the work, we learn that Chatsky and Sophia have a relationship history that begins at a young age, when Chatsky was brought up in the Famusov family. There really were friendly relations between them, but there were no hints of love at such a young age. Later, Chatsky leaves for distant lands and nothing is known about him for a long time. Maybe such a long separation awakened Chatsky's feelings for Sophia, and they became more than friendship. Was it just love?
Chatsky went to Moscow in a good mood, dreaming of meeting Sophia, and what did he get? He is met with coldness from Sophia, he sees her passion for others. Who is he, for whom did Sophia exchange Chatsky? It turned out to be Molchalin, who turned the girl's head, and now our heroine is passionate about him. Only here is the question: did the girl exchange Chatsky for Molchalin? More likely no than yes. After all, the girl did not promise the hero anything, they did not swear love. Chatsky was gone for a long time, naturally, the girl’s heart could open up to feelings for another. But Chatsky perceives this hobby as a betrayal, begins to mock Sophia's chosen one.
Chatsky does not try to understand the girl, her feelings, because he is completely blinded by feelings. And this is the conflict between Chatsky and Sophia. The girl was offended by such ridicule, so Sophia decides to take revenge on Chatsky by spreading the rumor that he is crazy. Convinced that Sophia loves another and realizing that he is a stranger in this society, where his views are not understood, Chatsky flees from Moscow.
Essay text:
In his unfading comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboedov managed to create a whole gallery of truthful and typical characters, recognizable even today. The images of Chatsky and Sophia are the most interesting for me, because their relationship is far from being as simple as it might seem at first glance.
Both Sofya and Chatsky carry in themselves those qualities that most representatives of the Famus society do not possess. They are distinguished by willpower, the ability to experience "living passions", selflessness, the ability to draw their own conclusions.
Sofya and Chatsky grew up and grew up together in Famusov's house:
The habit of being together every day inseparably Has bound us with childhood friendship...
During the time spent together, Chatsky managed to recognize in Sophia a smart, outstanding, determined girl and fell in love with her for these qualities. When he, having matured, gained his mind, having seen a lot, returns to his homeland, we understand that his feelings "were not cooled by distance, neither entertainment, nor a change of place." He is happy to see Sophia, who has surprisingly grown prettier during the separation, and sincerely rejoices at the meeting.
Chatsky cannot understand in any way that in the three years that he was gone, the Famus society left its ugly imprint on the girl. Having read French sentimental novels, Sophia yearns for love and wants to be loved, but Chatsky is far away, she chooses a lyricist to express her feelings of a person who is by no means worthy of her love. A flatterer and a hypocrite, "the most miserable creature" Mol-chalin only uses his relationship with Sophia for selfish purposes, hoping for further promotion. But Sophia, overwhelmed by feelings, unable to see the true face under the mask, and the lyricist directs sincere, tender, ready-to-sacrifice love to a coward and a low worshipper.
Chatsky soon realizes that Sophia does not share his feelings, and wants to know who her chosen one is his rival. We talk a lot about the fact that this lucky Molchalin, but Chatsky does not want and cannot believe this, seeing at a glance the true essence of the low toady.
But does it have that passion, that feeling,
fervor, that.
So that, besides you, the whole world seemed to him Dust and vanity? So that every beat of the heart accelerates towards you with Love?
Accepting the coldness of Sophia, Chatsky does not require reciprocal feelings from her, because it is impossible to make the heart fall in love! However, he strives to know the logic of her actions, choice, he wants to know those virtues of Molchalin that forced the girl to choose him, but he does not find them. To believe that Sophia and Molchalin are close, for Chatsky, means the destruction of his faith and ideas, the recognition that Sophia not only did not grow spiritually during the separation, did not learn to critically comprehend what was happening, but also turned into an ordinary representative of Famus society.
Sophia really went to a good school in her father's house, she learned to pretend, lie, dodge, but she does this not out of selfish interests, but trying to protect her love. She has a deep dislike for people who speak impartially about her chosen one, lyricist Chatsky, with his ardor, witticisms and attacks, turns into an enemy for the girl. Defending her love, Sophia is even ready to take revenge on an old close friend who is madly in love with her: she spreads a rumor about Chatsky's madness. We see that Sophia rejects Chatsky not only out of female pride, but also for the same reasons that Famus Moscow does not accept him: his independent and mocking mind frightens Sophia, he is "not his own", from a different circle:
Is this the kind of mind that makes the family happy?
And Chatsky, meanwhile, is still looking for definitions for Sophia's feelings and is deceived, because everything that is despised by him is elevated to the rank of virtue in noble Moscow. Chatsky still hopes for the clarity of mind and feelings of Sophia, and once again writes off Molchalin to the lyricist:
With such feelings, with such a soul, We love!.. The deceiver laughed at me!
But here is the tragic moment of solution! This moment is really cruel and tragic, because everyone suffered from it. What did our heroes learn from this lesson?
Chatsky is so shocked by the simplicity of the solution that he not only tears up everyone that connects him with the Famus society, he breaks off his relationship with Sophia, offended and humiliated by her choice to the core:
Here I am donated to whom!
I don’t know how I tempered the rage in myself!
I looked and saw and did not believe!
He cannot contain his emotions, his disappointment, indignation, resentment, and blames Sophia for everything. Losing self-control, he reproaches the girl for deceit, although it was in her relationship with Chatsky that Sophia was at least cruel, but honest. Now the girl is really in an unenviable position, but she has enough willpower and self-esteem to break off relations with Molchalin and admit to herself her illusions and mistakes:
I haven't known you since.
Reproaches, complaints, my tears
Do not dare to expect, you are not worth them,
But so that the dawn does not find you in the house here,
Never to hear from you again.
For everything that happened, Sophia blames "herself around." Her situation seems hopeless, because, having rejected Molchalin, having lost a devoted friend Chatsky and left with an angry father, she is again alone. There will be no one to help her survive grief and humiliation, to support her. But I want to believe that she will cope with everything, and that Chatsky, saying: "You will make peace with him, after mature reflection," is wrong.
Griboedov's comedy once again reminded me that the origins of people's actions are ambiguous, often contradictory motives, and in order to correctly solve them, you need to have not only a clear mind, but also intuition, a wide heart, an open soul.
The rights to the essay "Images of Chatsky and Sophia in A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"" belong to its author. When citing material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to
