Travel around Karelia
Ideas of Decembrism in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” Chatsky and the Decembrists.
“Woe from Wit” is a socio-political comedy. Griboyedov gave in it a true picture of Russian life after the Patriotic War of 1812. The comedy raised the topical social issues of that time: about public service, serfdom, education, education, about the slavish imitation of the nobles to everything foreign and contempt for everything national and popular.
Griboedov's comedy showed the reasons for the emergence of Decembrism, in addition, the social issues posed in “Woe from Wit” are resolved by the author in the same way as the Decembrists solved them.
In Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", the ethical and aesthetic views of the Decembrists were reflected as in a mirror.
The aesthetics of the Decembrists arose at the intersection of the classicism of the noble Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and romanticism and was called “Civil Romanticism.” Ethics, that is, moral laws, obliged the heroes of the works of the Decembrists to perceive the public as their own personal, to take, as we now say, an active civic position. Such, for example, is the hero of Ryleev’s poem of the same name, Voinarovsky. Such is the lyrical hero of Raevsky’s “Message to Priklonsky,” who exclaims: “Living for the benefit of one’s neighbor is a sweet dream.”
Chatsky, the hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” can be put on a par with them. The witty, eloquent Chatsky evilly ridicules the vices of the society in which he moves. His tireless mind, rich and figurative language find abundant material for this, and the direction of his speeches is in many ways similar to the ideas of the works of the Decembrist poets.
Let us remember Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” In this monologue, Chatsky, and with him the author, ridicules the nobles who live according to the canons of the 18th century, drawing knowledge from “forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” Chatsky also denounces serf owners who sell and exchange people for dogs. Very indicative here is the image of a nobleman who traded for two greyhounds devoted servants who, in difficult times, “saved his life and honor.”
In another monologue (“A Frenchman from Bordeaux…”) Chatsky attacks the Gallomaniacs who worship everything foreign, foreign.
In his speeches, Chatsky constantly uses the pronoun “we”. And this is no coincidence, since Chatsky is not alone in his desire for change. On the pages of the comedy, a number of off-stage characters are mentioned who can be classified as allies of the protagonist. This is Skalozub’s cousin, who left the service, “began reading books in the village,” this is a professor at the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, this is Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, Prince Fedor, a chemist and botanist. Chatsky, as the hero of the work, not only embodies the ethics and aesthetics of the Decembrists, but also has much in common with real historical figures.
Chatsky left the service, as did Nikita Muravyov, Nikolai Turgenev, Ryleev, Chaadaev. Chatsky has especially much in common with Chaadaev P.Ya., who wrote “Philosophical Letters,” for which he was severely punished - declared crazy. Initially, the surname Chatsky was written as Chadsky. The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written a year before the Decembrist uprising. The events there seemed to anticipate the events on Senate Square. The comedy “Woe from Wit” made a huge contribution to the development of Russian literature. Inheriting the traditions of Fonvizin, Griboyedov gave comedy a civic sound, raised the reasoner Chatsky to a tragic hero on the level of Hamlet, thereby violating the classical law of non-mixing of genres. We can say that together with the comedy “Woe from Wit” Russian drama was born. And the traditions of Russian drama, including the plays of Gogol, Ostrovsky, Chekhov, largely rely on this comedy.
The nature of the main conflict in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".
Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov was one of the smartest people of his time. He received an excellent education, knew several oriental languages, and was a keen politician and diplomat. Griboedov died a painful death at the age of 34, torn to pieces by fanatics, leaving his descendants with two wonderful waltzes and the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
“Woe from Wit” is a socio-political comedy. Griboyedov gave in it a true picture of Russian life after the Patriotic War of 1812. The comedy shows the process of the advanced part of the nobility moving away from an inert environment and fighting their class. The reader can trace the development of the conflict between two socio-political camps: serf owners (Famus society) and anti-serf owners (Chatsky).
Famus society is traditional. His principles of life are such that “one must learn by looking at one’s elders,” destroy free-thinking thoughts, serve with obedience to persons standing a step higher, and most importantly, be rich. A unique ideal of this society is represented in Famusov’s monologues by Maxim Petrovich and Uncle Kuzma Petrovich:
... Here's an example:
The deceased was a respectable chamberlain, who knew how to deliver the key to his son; Rich, and married to a rich woman; Married children, grandchildren; He died, everyone remembers him sadly: Kuzma Petrovich! Peace be upon him! - What kind of aces live and die in Moscow!... The image of Chatsky, on the contrary, is something new, fresh, bursting into life, bringing change. This is a realistic image, an exponent of the advanced ideas of its time. Chatsky could be called a hero of his time. A whole political program can be traced in Chatsky’s monologues. He exposes serfdom and its products: inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid military, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives a merciless characterization of Famus society.
The dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle. At the beginning of the comedy, it does not yet appear in acute form. After all, Famusov is Chatsky’s teacher. At the beginning of the comedy, Famusov is favorable to Chatsky, he is even ready to give up Sophia’s hand, but sets his own conditions: I would say, firstly: don’t be a whim, Don’t mismanage your property, brother, And, most importantly, do some service. To which Chatsky throws out: I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.
But gradually another struggle begins to ensue, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw down the gauntlet to each other.
If only we could watch what our fathers did, we could learn by watching our elders!
Famusov's war cry rang out. And in response - Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?” In this monologue, Chatsky brands “the meanest traits of his past life.” Each new face that appears during the development of the plot becomes in opposition to Chatsky. Anonymous characters slander him: Mr. N, Mr. D, 1st Princess, 2nd Princess, etc. Gossip grows like a snowball. The social intrigue of the play is shown in the clash with this world. But in comedy there is another conflict, another intrigue - love. I.A. Goncharov wrote: “Every step of Chatsky, almost every word of his in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia.” It was Sophia’s behavior, incomprehensible to Chatsky, that served as the motive, the reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov. Chatsky is tormented, not understanding who his opponent is: either Skalozub or Molchalin? Therefore, he becomes irritable, unbearable, and caustic towards Famusov’s guests. Sophia, irritated by Chatsky’s remarks, who insult not only the guests, but also her lover, in a conversation with Mr. N mentions Chatsky’s madness: “He’s out of his mind.” And the rumor about Chatsky’s madness sweeps through the halls, spreads among the guests, acquiring fantastic, grotesque forms. And he himself, still not knowing anything, confirms this rumor with a hot monologue “The Frenchman from Bordeaux,” which he pronounces in an empty hall. In the fourth act of the comedy, both conflicts come to a denouement: Chatsky finds out who Sophia’s chosen one is. This is Molchalin. The secret is revealed, the heart is empty, there is no end to the torment.
Oh! How to comprehend the game of fate? A persecutor of people with a soul, a scourge! “The silent ones are blissful in the world!” says the grief-stricken Chatsky. His hurt pride, the escaping resentment, burns. He breaks up with Sophia: Enough! With you I am proud of my breakup.
And before leaving forever, Chatsky angrily throws out to the entire Famus society:
He will come out of the fire unharmed, Whoever manages to spend a day with you, Breathe the same air, And his sanity will survive...
Chatsky leaves. But who is he - the winner or the loser? Goncharov answered this question most accurately in his article “A Million Torments”: “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it in turn a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power. He is the eternal denouncer of lies, hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” There is no warrior if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.”
“A Million Torments” by Chatsky.
A.S. Griboedov entered Russian literature as the author of one work. His comedy “Woe from Wit” cannot be put on a par with the immortal creation of A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”, since “Eugene Onegin” has already become history for us, an encyclopedia of the life of the Russian nobility of the early 19th century, and Griboedov’s play was, is and will be a modern and vital work until careerism, veneration, and gossip disappear from our lives, as long as our society is dominated by the thirst for profit, living at the expense of others, and not at the expense of one’s own labor, as long as hunters to please and serve.
All this eternal imperfection of people and the world is superbly described in Griboyedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit.” Griboedov creates a whole gallery of negative images: Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov, Skalozub, etc. They seem to have absorbed all the negative features of the development of their contemporary society. But all these heroes are opposed alone by the main character of the comedy, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. He came to Moscow, “returning from distant wanderings,” only for the sake of Sophia, his beloved. But, having returned to his once dear and beloved home, he discovers very strong changes: Sophia is cold, arrogant, irritable, she no longer loves Chatsky.
Trying to find an answer to his feeling, the main character appeals to his former love, which was mutual before his departure, but all in vain. All his attempts to bring back the old Sophia are a complete fiasco. To all Chatsky’s passionate speeches and memories, Sophia replies: “Childishness!”
This is where the young man’s personal drama begins, which ceases to be narrowly personal, but develops into a clash between a man in love and the entire Famus society. The main character stands alone against the army of old “warriors”, starting an endless struggle for a new life and for his love.
He encounters Famusov himself and argues with him about the way and path of life. The owner of the house acknowledges the correctness of his uncle’s life:
Maxim Petrovich: he didn’t eat silver, he ate gold; one hundred people at your service.
It is absolutely clear that he himself would not refuse such a life, which is why he does not understand Chatsky, who demands “service to the cause, not to persons.” Love and social conflicts are combined, becoming a single whole. For the hero, personal drama depends on society’s attitude towards him, and public drama is complicated by personal relationships. This exhausts Chatsky and, as a result, he experiences “a million torments,” as Goncharov aptly puts it.
The state of uncertainty in life drives him into a frenzy. If at the beginning of the action he is calm and confident:
No, today the world is not like that... Everyone breathes more freely And is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters, With patrons yawning at the ceiling. Show up to be silent, shuffle around, have lunch, offer a chair, bring a handkerchief.
Then in the monologue at the ball in Famusov’s house, all the imbalance of the soul and mind is visible. He makes himself a laughing stock, from which everyone shies away. But, at the same time, his image is very tragic: his entire monologue is a consequence of unhappy love and society’s rejection of those thoughts and feelings, those beliefs that Chatsky defends throughout the comedy.
Under the weight of “a million torments,” he breaks down and begins to contradict common logic. All this entails absolutely incredible rumors that seem unfounded, but the whole world is talking about them: She’s crazy, it seems to her! No wonder? So... Why would she even think so?
But Chatsky not only does not refute the rumors, but, with all his might, without knowing it, confirms them, arranging a scene at the ball, then a scene of farewell to Sophia and the exposure of Molchalin: You are right, he will come out of the fire unharmed, Whoever has time to spend an hour with you , will breathe the air alone, And in whom reason will survive... Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore, I run, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world Where there is a corner for an offended feeling!
In a fit of passion, our hero more than once sins against logic, but in all his words there is truth - the truth of his attitude towards Famus society. He is not afraid to say everything to everyone’s face and rightly accuse representatives of Famusov’s Moscow of lies, hypocrisy, and hypocrisy. He himself is clear proof that the outdated and sick closes the way to the young and healthy.
The image of Chatsky remains unfinished; the framework of the play does not allow us to fully reveal the full depth and complexity of this character’s nature. But we can say with confidence: Chatsky has strengthened in his faith and, in any case, will find his way in a new life. And the more such Chatskys there are on the path of the Famusovs, Molchalins and Repetilovs, the weaker and quieter their voices will sound.
The following material is worth a look:
Dramatic destinies of the individual in the conditions of a totalitarian social order (based on the novel “We” by E. Zamyatin) The destinies of the Russian village in the literature of 1950-80s The moral choice of heroes in the story “Sotnikov” by V. Bykov The life and work of A. Solzhenitsyn The moral power of good (based on the works V. Shukshina, A. Aleksina, G. Shcherbakova) Modern Soviet prose about the Great Patriotic War. My favorite poet is V. Vysotsky.
Ideas of Decembrism in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”
The comedy “Woe from Wit” was written on the eve of the December uprising of 1825. Griboyedov was associated with the Decembrists both political views and friendly ties. They had one opinion about autocracy, the need to abolish serfdom, and change the political system of Russia. However, formally he was not a member of any secret society. Griboedov did not share the views of his friends on methods of fighting, and did not believe in the success of their plans. He said that “a hundred warrant officers are not able to change the political system of Russia.” But he was so closely connected with secret societies that their defeat threatened him too. Friends understood this, and it was decided not to extradite the two Alexanders (Griboyedov and Pushkin) in case of failure. A subtle diplomat, a man with an excellent understanding of military affairs, an excellent musician, composer, Griboyedov was, first of all, a citizen of his Fatherland. And he could not help but reflect in his work the vices that reigned in the feudal Russian Empire. The comedy was a sharp and angry satire on the life and customs of noble Russia; it seemed to indirectly, but very clearly showed the struggle between the conservatism of the feudal landowners, the backwardness of the autocracy and the new moods that reigned among the progressive noble youth. The representative of this youth in comedy is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Chatsky is an exponent of the ideas of Decembrism. Herzen wrote that if the Decembrist type was reflected at all in Russian literature, it was in Chatsky. Chatsky's biography is typical of the Decembrists. A man of a noble noble family, he was brought up in the house of his father’s friend, Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, an important Moscow official. Then he “moved out” from them. He had three hundred (or four hundred) peasant souls. He served in St. Petersburg. Molchalin tells him that they heard “with the ministers about your connection, then the break...”. Like many progressive people, Chatsky left the service. “Who travels, who lives in the village...” he says about his friends. Consequently, there are friends, Chatsky is not alone. It’s not for nothing that he so often pronounces Famusov’s frightening “we”: “Where, show us, are the fathers of the Fatherland?”, “Now let one of us, one of the young people...” Behind his every word is the strength of a new generation of young people who do not demand “no places, no promotion in rank,” but serving the cause of their Motherland. The Decembrists primarily fought for the abolition of serfdom and revealed its entire parasitic essence. All of Famusov’s guests are serf-owners. They do not consider a serf to be a person, it is their property, their thing. You can make him sing like a nightingale while the guests dance and have fun, you can send him to a settlement, send a man who grew up in a city house to the village “to follow the bird,” as Famusov promises Liza. Chatsky angrily denounces tyranny, “wild lordship” in the monologue “Who are the judges?” Here in front of us
Nestor of noble scoundrels, surrounded by a crowd of servants; Zealous, they saved his honor and life more than once during the hours of wine and fights: suddenly he exchanged three greyhounds for them!!!
Serf theaters were also in use. But the amateur landowners who kept them never thought about the tragedies that played out in life, and not on the stage, when serf actors, brought up in different conditions, literate, educated, knowing even foreign languages, were sent back to the village or sold. And in the theaters themselves, the whip more often reigned than the muse. And such “lovers” are denounced by Chatsky. He rebels against the tyranny and lawlessness of those who, having “built magnificent chambers” and having made friends in court, live calmly “not seeing tears, not heeding groans” (Pushkin). Serfdom is inextricably linked with the bureaucracy of officials. “He doesn’t serve, that is, he doesn’t find any benefit in it,” Famusov condemns Chatsky. For Famusov himself, service is not a benefit to his homeland, which he does not care about, but a benefit to himself, a means to strengthen his position and the position of his relatives: “With me, strangers serving are very rare, more and more sisters, sisters-in-law and children.” The Decembrists opposed such an attitude towards service. As a sign of protest, they abandoned her, resigned, and went to the villages. Famusov’s ideal is Maxim Petrovich, who achieved all ranks by “bending over.” For Chatsky’s like-minded people, this is already a legend. Their ideal is a person who is in no hurry to “fit into the regiment of jesters,” “who serves the cause, not individuals,” as Chatsky says without hiding. These words cause a storm of indignation in Famusov: “I would strictly forbid these gentlemen to approach the capitals for a shot.” We know how Famusov feels about the matter: “What’s my business, what’s not my business, my custom is this: if it’s signed, then off my shoulders.” And the fact that Chatsky, like all progressive people, openly speaks of his contempt for “low-worshippers and businessmen,” gives Famusov an irresistible desire to get rid of people like Chatsky. "I'm not listening! On trial!” - he shouts. In this dispute, Chatsky’s citizenship is manifested. “I am not a poet, I am a citizen,” said the Decembrist poet Ryleev. The duty of a citizen is to serve for the good of the Fatherland. And here we see Chatsky’s connection with the Decembrists. We see Chatsky’s civic spirit in his struggle against gallomania and admiration for the West. “As from childhood, we are accustomed to believe that without the Germans there is no salvation for us,” he said with regret. His accusatory monologue about meeting a Frenchman from Bordeaux is one of the most passionate. Progressive people of Russia, many of whom came to Senate Square, fought for the national identity of the Russian people, against blind imitation of the West. Bitter irony sounds in Chatsky’s words:
Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion? So that our smart, cheerful people would not at least consider us Germans based on our language.
The Decembrists were supporters of universal education. They believed that learning should embrace everyone and teach what would be useful for serving the Fatherland. The military introduces a system of Lancaster training for soldiers and soldiers' children. This is reflected in the comedy. The princess speaks indignantly about the pedagogical institute in St. Petersburg.
... You'll go crazy from these, from boarding schools, schools, lyceums, whatever you call them, and from lankart mutual education, -
heard from all sides. And it’s not for nothing that Famusov’s guests attack the teaching: they feel this is a danger to themselves. “Learning is a plague!” - exclaims Famusov. Skalozub echoes him. In this hatred of theirs one can feel the power of what they hate: the power of teaching, the living word. Chatsky is a representative of progressive youth. “This is the Decembrist!” - wrote Herzen, Chatsky is close to the Decembrists not only in his ideas and views, but also in his passionate conviction, faith in the correctness of his ideas and the justice of his cause. Griboyedov was often accused of Chatsky expressing his most cherished thoughts to Famusov and others like him, that he was “throwing pearls before swine.” But that's not true. Firstly, like most of the Decembrists, he believed that if you point out a person’s shortcomings, he will improve. In addition, Famusov, with his laudatory “ode” to Maxim Petrovich, seemed to challenge Chatsky. “You, the current ones, well?” And Chatsky, who selflessly believes in the correctness of his words and ideals, cannot help but accept the challenge. Sophia? Chatsky fights for her. Every word he says is addressed to her. And he leaves only after realizing that his efforts were in vain. Chatsky does not leave, but flees from Moscow. He fails. This is like a premonition of the defeat of the Decembrists. But both Chatsky and all the Decembrists can be attributed to Goncharov’s words that Chatsky and the Decembrists were broken by the amount of old force, but they dealt a mortal blow to it with the quality of the fresh force. The Decembrists were the first. “...Advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim,” continues Goncharov. “Our sorrowful work will not be lost, a flame will ignite from a spark!” - wrote the Decembrist poet Odoevsky from Siberia. And to all of them, the Decembrists, as well as to Chatsky, the words of Pushkin can be attributed:
Comrade! Believe, she will rise, the Star of captivating happiness. Russia will awaken from its sleep And on the ruins of autocracy They will write our names!
Similar articles:
Griboyedov A.S. → Chatsky and Molchalin
Griboyedov A.S. → Chatsky and Famusov society
Griboyedov A.S. → Chatsky against Famusov’s society (based on A. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”)
Griboyedov A.S. → Chatsky and Famusov society
Griboyedov A.S. → Features of classicism and realism in A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”
