Essay: How does Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia change during the action of A. S.’s comedy

In his timeless comedy “Woe from Wit,” Griboedov managed to create a whole gallery of truthful and typical characters that are still recognizable today. The images of Chatsky and Sophia are the most interesting to me, because their relationship is far from being as simple as it might seem at first glance.

Both Sophia and Chatsky carry within themselves those qualities that most representatives of Famus society do not possess. They are distinguished by willpower, the ability to experience “living passions,” dedication, and the ability to draw their own conclusions.

Sophia and Chatsky grew up and were brought up together in Famusov’s house:

The habit of being together every day inseparably

She bound us together with childhood friendship...

During the time spent together, Chatsky managed to recognize in Sophia an intelligent, extraordinary, determined girl and fell in love with her for these qualities. When he, matured, gained intelligence, and has seen a lot, returns to his homeland, we understand that his feelings “were not cooled by the distance, nor by entertainment, nor by a change of place.” He is happy to see Sophia, who has become surprisingly prettier during the separation, and is sincerely happy to meet.

Chatsky cannot understand that in the three years while he was gone, Famus society left its ugly mark on the girl. Having read French sentimental novels, Sophia longs for love and wants to be loved, but Chatsky is far away, so she chooses to express her feelings a person who is certainly not worthy of her love. A flatterer and a hypocrite, a “most pitiful creature,” Molchalin only uses his relationship with Sophia for selfish purposes, hoping for further advancement up the career ladder. But Sophia, overwhelmed by feelings, is unable to see the true face under the mask, and therefore directs sincere, tender, sacrifice-ready love to the coward and sycophant.

Chatsky soon realizes that Sophia does not share his feelings, and wants to know who her chosen one is - his rival. Much says that this lucky man is Molchalin, but Chatsky does not want and cannot believe this, seeing in the palm of his hand the true essence of the low sycophant.

But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor,

So that he has the whole world besides you

Did it seem like dust and vanity?

So that every beat of the heart

Has love accelerated towards you?

Accepting Sophia's coldness, Chatsky does not demand reciprocal feelings from her, because it is impossible to make a heart fall in love! However, he strives to know the logic of her actions, her choice, he wants to know those merits of Molchalin that made the girl choose him, but he just can’t 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 through 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 feels a deep dislike for people who speak impartially about her chosen one, so Chatsky, with his ardor, witticisms and attacks, turns into an enemy for the girl. Defending her love, Sophia is even ready to take treacherous revenge on an old close friend who madly loves her: she starts a rumor about Chatsky’s madness. We see that Sophia rejects Chatsky only out of female pride, but also for the same reasons for which Famusov’s Moscow does not accept him: his independent and mocking mind scares Sophia, he is “not his own,” from a different circle:

Will such a mind make a family happy?

Meanwhile, Chatsky is still looking for a definition of 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 Sophia’s mind and feelings, and therefore once again writes Molchalin off:

With such feelings, with such a soul

We love you!.. The liar laughed at me!

But here is the tragic moment of the solution! This moment is truly 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 breaks not only the threads connecting him with Famusov’s society, he breaks off his relationship with Sophia, offended and humiliated by her choice to the depths of his soul:

Here I am donated to!

I don’t know how I curbed my rage!

I looked and saw and didn’t believe it!

He cannot contain his emotions, his disappointment, indignation, resentment, and blames Sophia for everything. Losing his composure, he reproaches the girl for deception, 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:

From then on, it was as if I didn’t know you.

Reproaches, complaints, my tears

Don't you dare expect, you're not worth it,

May I never hear from you again.

Sophia blames “herself” for everything that happened. Her situation seems hopeless, since, having rejected Molchalin, having lost her devoted friend Chatsky and being left with an angry father, she is alone again. 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.

Griboyedov's comedy once again reminded me that at the origins of people's actions lie ambiguous, often contradictory motives, and in order to correctly unravel them, you need to have not only a clear mind, but also intuition, a wide heart, and an open soul.

Question 5 of the exam ticket (ticket number 18, question 3)

How does Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia change during the action of A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”?

The play “Woe from Wit” by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov belongs to the genre of social comedies. This means that its main conflict is social: the contradiction between the positive protagonist Chatsky, who represents the progressive forces of Russian society, and the conservative, vicious environment that surrounds him. At the same time, the action of the comedy is also driven by a psychological conflict associated with the hero’s unrequited love. The plot embodiment of this conflict becomes the so-called “love triangle”, the parties of which are Chatsky, Sophia and Molchalin.

In its most general form, the plot looks like this. Chatsky and Sophia communicated a lot at a young age. They were united by feelings of mutual sympathy. When Sophia was fourteen years old, Chatsky left to gain intelligence on distant travels. During his absence, the girl matured three years and fell in love with Molchalin, her father’s secretary, who lives with her in the same house. Chatsky returned, full of ardent feelings for Sophia, but was met with coldness and hostility in response. He tried to find out the reason for this and eventually found out that Sophia loved someone else. Her chosen one seemed to Chatsky unworthy of such a girl as Sophia. She, offended by his ridicule of the object of her love, in order to take revenge, started a rumor that Chatsky had gone crazy. At the end of the play, Sophia was shocked to learn that Chatsky was right: Molchalin does not love her, and behind her back he is trying to seduce the maid Lisa. When everything was revealed, Chatsky delivered an angry monologue denouncing everyone, including Sophia, and left her and the Famusovs’ house.

To understand these intricacies of the plot and try to understand why everything happened this way, you need to determine what Sophia’s character is. Is she really a “scoundrel,” as Chatsky apparently believes and as the author of the comedy called her in one of his letters? In other words, can her actions towards Chatsky be called treason, and her gossip about Chatsky’s madness - downright meanness? But why did Chatsky decide that Sophia should love him? After all, when they broke up, she was still a teenager, and it is unlikely that such an intelligent person as Chatsky considers himself could have taken seriously the relationship that previously connected them. And he certainly should not have assumed that during the three years of their separation no changes would occur in Sophia’s moral development. Nevertheless, having arrived at the Famusovs’ house after a long absence, he rushes to Sophia as if they had parted only yesterday. Sophia at this moment is not thinking about Chatsky at all.

On the contrary, he is only an annoying nuisance in the current circumstances. After all, just before his arrival, with great difficulty she managed to convince her father that Molchalin was at the door of her room by accident. She is now busy with her new, and maybe her first, we don’t know for sure, love. She simply has no time for Chatsky now. Nevertheless, when Lisa, just before his appearance, gently reproaches her for forgetting about Chatsky, Sophia answers her:

I was very windy, perhaps I acted

And I know and I’m guilty; but where did it change?

To whom? so that they could reproach with infidelity.

Yes, it’s true that we were brought up and grew up with Chatsky; The habit of being together every day inseparably tied us together with childhood friendship; but then he moved out, he seemed bored with us,

And he rarely visited our house;

Then he pretended to be in love again,

Demanding and distressed!!.

Sharp, smart, eloquent,

I am especially happy with friends.

So he thought highly of himself -

The desire to wander attacked him,

Oh! if someone loves someone,

Why search for the mind and travel so far?

So, here is Sophia’s opinion about their past relationship with Chatsky: childhood friendship. Although, contrary to this definition, in Sophia’s words one can also hear resentment towards Chatsky for leaving her. But, from her point of view, Chatsky has no right to reproach her for falling in love with another. She did not give him any obligations. If Chatsky had not been so blinded by his feelings, he would have quickly realized that he had a lucky rival. In fact, he is constantly on the verge of this conjecture. But he just can’t believe her. Firstly, because he himself is in love. And secondly, he cannot possibly imagine that Sophia is capable of loving such an insignificant person as Molchalin is in his eyes.

And what about Molchalin himself? He is burdened by Sophia's love. Although, it would seem, in accordance with his character, he should rejoice at such happiness. The goal of his life is a career, and becoming Famusov’s son-in-law is a direct road to bureaucratic heights. However, Molchalin, for all his vices, is by no means as stupid as Chatsky thinks. He understands perfectly well that if his relationship with Sophia is revealed, he will even lose his current place: why does Famusov need a poor and unofficial son-in-law? In addition, Sophia does not attract him as a love partner. Molchalin, like Famusov himself, by the way, is attracted to Lisa. By the way, her participation in the plot allows us to talk not about a triangle, but about a quadrangle. True, Lisa’s participation in all these ups and downs is passive. For her, “masterly love”, Molchalin’s advances, and the possible anger of the hostess, who is also of a tough temperament, are equally dangerous. And Lisa wonders if she should fall in love with the bartender Petrusha? She probably likes him, and at the same time, perhaps, he will protect her from attacks from other men. Molchalin, moreover, having studied Sophia’s character, among other things, fears that her attachment to him will also be short-lived. “I once loved Chatsky, but she will stop loving me as much as he did,” he astutely notes.

Thus, having examined the love conflict of the comedy, we can conclude that everything here is not so simple and unambiguous. And this is explained by the fact that “Woe from Wit” is a realistic work. Everything in it is complex and confusing, just like in life itself. No, Sophia did not cheat on Chatsky. On the contrary, she herself suffered, having been deceived by Molchalin. Her act towards Chatsky, of course, is a cruel joke, explained by her annoyance at the caustic words he said about her loved one. And maybe, when Sophia repented after Molchalin was exposed, Chatsky should have consoled her and supported her in her grief, and not aggravated it with angry words. But Chatsky can also be understood: his anger after what happened was such that his emotions suppressed his reason. However, other opinions on this matter are possible. This means that Griboedov’s immortal comedy still excites us with its not fully resolved mysteries.

Many modern researchers, in understanding the “final content” of Griboyedov’s comedy, remain within the boundaries of the semantic field that was defined by I. Goncharov in his article “A Million Torments.” But if the great philologist-thinker of the 20th century M. Bakhtin is right in his statement 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 Are comedies opening up to the modern reader today in meaningful images? How do we understand today the main characters of “Woe from Wit” - Chatsky and Sophia? What is their relationship with the Famus society in which they grew up?
Let's try to read Griboedov's play differently from how L.S. recently read it. Yzerman (see "Literature", No. 1, 1995), not on a specific 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 whose "mind I'm not right with my heart."
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 further develops in its subsequent links. The reader first learns about Chatsky from the words of Lisa, who compares him with Skalozub:
Yes, sir, so to speak, he is talkative, but painfully not cunning: But be a military man, be a civilian.
Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp. Like Alexander Andreich 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 evokes in the attentive reader, sensitive to the word, an as yet unconscious, ambivalent attitude towards the hero. It can be assumed that this is the author’s attitude, since it is the author, creating the text, choosing words and rhymes, who conveys to the reader and 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 a "comedy in verse", unlike a "novel in verse", does not sound separately and independently. It is distinguishable (except for stage directions) only in the voices of different characters. We simply will not see much or will misunderstand in Griboedov’s play if we do not constantly take into account the dialogic nature of the artistic word (the presence of at least two voices) and not the subjective-monological, but the objective-dialogical position of the author.

Now let's see how the main character first appears on stage. And again the rhyme will be the focus of our attention:

Lisa. Forgive me, really, as God is holy,
I wanted this stupid laugh
Helped to cheer you up a bit.

Servant. Alexander Andreich Chatsky is here to see you.

This unexpected purely comedic rhyme “stupid - Chatsky” inevitably affects the reader’s subconscious, evoking certain feelings and emotions (smile, good laughter, irony?). And the very first words of the smart Chatsky carry a hint of the comic:

It's barely light and you're already on your feet! and I am at your feet. (Kisses your 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 and laugh at himself? Does he himself notice how comical, for example, his words sound when he speaks of his passionate love for Sophia: “Tell me to the fire: I’ll go as if for dinner”? This could be said by Skalozub or Famusov, for whom “love” and “dinner” are words of the same class.
If our feelings caused by the influence of rhyme are true, 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. Liza’s prosaic word (“how holy God is”), when placed in 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 comedic rhymes, there are words from Lisa, which undoubtedly express the author’s attitude towards the hero:

But only? as if? ~ Shed tears,
I remember, poor thing, how he parted with you.
…..
The poor thing seemed to know that in three years...
Thus, through the rhyme and “voice” of Lisa, the author shows his attitude towards Chatsky and infects the reader with his feelings. 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 towards himself and natural pity and compassion. The complexity and non-obviousness for many readers of this ambivalent attitude of the author towards his hero is explained by the fact that pity is expressed in open text, in the words of Lisa, who inspires confidence in the readers, and irony is “only” through rhyme.
The remark “fervently kisses the hand” and the next twelve verses of Chatsky’s first statement reveal significant features in the character of the hero: not only the passion of his nature, but also high demands on others (almost demanding love for himself) with a complete absence of feelings of his own guilt. He left his beloved for three years without reasons that were important, in her opinion, and did not even write, and suddenly a passionate feeling for forty-five hours and a demand for immediate reward for his “deeds.”
Let us note one more 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 entire play to deceive oneself, not to believe the obvious (Sophia’s sincere words about Molchalin: “ That's why I love him") and condemn Sophia for an imaginary deception ("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 an obvious mockery of himself in Sophia’s words: Whoever flashes by will open the door With a question, I, even if I were a sailor: I haven’t met Is there somewhere in the postal carriage for you?
In Chatsky’s next monologue, the “persecution of Moscow” begins, in which we see more evil irony and “abuse” than good-natured and cheerful wit. Sophia perceives his ridicule, attacks on “father”, “uncle” and “auntie”, on all his relatives (“Living with them will get boring, and in whom can you not find stains?”), Sophia perceives them as social gossip: I wish I could bring you and my aunt together. To count everyone you know.
And here, naturally, a question arises, which usually, due to the imaginary obviousness of the answer, is not raised by researchers: is Chatsky speaking the truth and the truth about Moscow, about noble society, or is this “gossip” and slander against the fatherland? What is unique, what is special about this view of Moscow? Is this also the author's 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 Famus society through the eyes of Chatsky. That’s why we see predominantly Famusov’s Moscow, that is, “spots,” vices and shortcomings, and we do not see that Griboyedov’s Moscow, which M. Gershenzon and N. Antsiferov wrote about, which was depicted in the novel “War and Peace” by L. Tolstoy.
But “bright Moscow” (P. Vyazemsky), reflecting the spiritual beginning and life of the soul of noble society, can be seen in the images of Sophia and Chatsky. Moreover, in Chatsky the type of noble revolutionary, future Decembrist is expressed, which was convincingly shown by Y. Lotman in the article “Decembrist in Everyday Life”, and behind Sophia one can discern another part of advanced society that did not accept the path of the revolutionary reorganization of Russia.

Chatsky’s view of Moscow is, perhaps, the view of Griboyedov himself, but in his youth, in his youth, in a previous era of his life. This is the view of an idealist and romantic, a person who passionately desires to realize his dreams, 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 view of a person who has an almost Gogolian gift of seeing in every person, first of all, his funny, comic side; This is an unfortunate gift - to see mainly evil, vices and sins in other people, this is “spiritual crippling, spiritual dislocation” (N. Berdyaev). But if in Gogol we feel the deepest compassion and great pity for man, the artist’s grief for man, then Chatsky “stings” everyone without the slightest pity. "Not a man, a snake!" - says Sophia when it’s time to mock Molchalin.

Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky changed dramatically over three years, and there were several reasons for this. First of all, let us note the woman’s strong and deep resentment: he became bored with her, first he went to see friends, and then he left completely. Chatsky’s very passionate feeling (“kisses his hand with fervor”) evokes doubt, coldness, and even hostility in Sophia. It can quickly pass and burn out. It makes Chatsky too talkative, impudent, and unceremonious. Sophia has a different temperament: calmer, more contemplative - and in love she seeks not “wind, storm”, which threaten “falls”, but inner peace, spiritual harmony (“Neither worry, nor doubt...”). Chatsky was not only “completely at a loss” on the road, but also at a loss within himself (“his mind and heart are not in harmony”). And in Sophia there lives that pure and poetic feeling of falling in love with Molchalin, when “the shyness and timidity of the beloved 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 and flute.”
Sophia herself has changed over these three years, her attitude towards people and the world has changed. The age of cute fun, funny jokes, carefree laughter has passed; The time has passed when she liked to laugh with Chatsky at others, at loved ones, and the old laughter, apparently, was cheerful, and not evil. Finally, she saw and understood in Chatsky his main vices - pride (“He thought highly of himself...”) and lack of kindness towards people:

I want to ask you:
Has it ever happened that you laughed? or sad?
A mistake? did they say good things about anyone?

Now let's return to the fourth scene 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 a dream, discovering its connection with the final scene of the play: “Knock! noise! ​​ah! my God! the whole house is running here!”
Let's try to read this dream differently. The happy state of the heroine at the beginning of the dream (“sweet man,” “flowery meadow,” “meadows and skies”) is contrasted with a “dark room” and a threat from others in the second half of the dream:

Then the doors opened with thunder
Some are not people or animals.
We were separated - and they tortured the one sitting with me.
It’s like he’s dearer to me than all the treasures.
I want to go to him - you bring with you:
We are followed by a groan and a roar. laughter, whistling of monsters.

From whom does the real danger come, what does Sophia’s intuitive, subconscious premonition indicate? The further text of the play shows us an undoubted, deep connection with Chatsky. Molchalin is “more precious than all treasures” for Sophia, and Chatsky, to whom she later says:

Murderous with their coldness!
I have no strength to look at you, to listen to you, -

about the danger of which Liza warns (“Just look, Chatsky will make you laugh”), such Chatsky (“Not a man, a snake!” - “some kind of not people and not animals”) for Sophia is like a “monster” | and poisonous attacks on Molchalin will sound to Sophia like “roar, laughter, whistle.” And then Sofia’s words to Famusov (“Ah, father, sleep in hand”) acquire a second meaning, and not only express the desire of the resourceful daughter to put her suspicious father on the wrong trail.
In the second act of the play, we will highlight only one semantic line, we will pay attention not to Chatsky’s “merciless abuse” in a conversation with Famusov (“I scolded your age mercilessly”), not to his passionate monologue (“And who are the judges...”), but on associative and obvious connections, the similarity between Chatsky and Skalozub, confirming the meaning of the comedic rhyme “cunning-oster”... The words of Skalozub, who dreams of the rank of general (“I am quite happy among my comrades”), are reminiscent of Sophia’s statement about Chatsky: “In He’s especially happy with his friends, so he thought highly of himself..."
They react the same way to Molchalin falling from his horse, without showing the slightest sympathy for him.
Skalozub. He tightened the reins. Well, what a miserable rider.
Look at how it cracked - in the chest or in the side?
Chatsky. Let him break his neck.
Almost killed you.
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 to Sophia’s reputation:

Just look, Chatsky will make you laugh;
And Skalozub will twirl his crest.
He will tell the story of fainting, add a hundred embellishments;
He’s also good at making jokes, because nowadays who doesn’t joke!

The third act is 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 “bile,” in his desire to judge everyone mercilessly, in his lack of understanding of his own vices, in his passion, which “infuriates,” in his lack of understanding of the one he loves:

Do you want to know two words of truth?
The slightest oddity in someone is barely visible.
Your gaiety is not modest,
You've got a joke ready right away,
And you yourself...
- Me myself? isn't it funny?
-Yes!..

The intelligent and passionate Chatsky, in his denunciations, in his rebellion against society, crosses a certain line and himself becomes funny, just as a good trait of a person 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 lisp and “something ingratiating”; the thrifty and cautious Korobochka becomes “strong-headed” and “club-headed”; active and restless, with a rich imagination, Nozdryov turns into a “multilateral” and “historical” person, into an inspired liar, like Khlestakov; The “thrifty owner” Plyushkin is reborn into “a hole in humanity,” with an unbridled passion for accumulation.
Chatsky loves Sophia madly, of course, not only for her external beauty (“At seventeen you blossomed beautifully”). He sees in her, perceives the lofty, ideal, holy (“The face of the most holy praying mantis!”), something that, according to Goncharov, “strongly resembles Pushkin’s Tatyana.” Chatsky feels a spiritual kinship with Sophia, which is manifested in their attitude towards love as the highest value of existence.

Sophia. It’s like he’s dearer to me than all the treasures.
……
Which one do I value?
I want - I love, I want - I will say.
……
What do I care about whom? 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 he have that passion, that feeling,
that ardor?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Did it seem like dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Has love accelerated towards you?
So that all his thoughts and all his deeds
Soul - you, do you please?

But why does the inaccurate, false word “pleasing,” a word from Molchalin’s vocabulary, appear in this sincere, passionate monologue? The words “worship”, “serve” a loved one and “please” her have completely different meanings. Is this inaccuracy in the choice of words accidental, or does it speak of some kind of flaw in Chatsky’s feelings, connected with his state of “confusion,” “madness,” and “chad”?
If Sophia’s love for Molchalin is calm, deep, contemplative (“Forgotten by the music, and time passed so smoothly”), extends to “the whole world” and evokes good feelings for everyone (“you can be kind to everyone indiscriminately”), then passion Chatsky “boils, worries, infuriates” and intensifies his evil laughter at people. Khlestova rightly reproaches him:

Well, what did you find funny?
he's glad? What kind of laughter is there?

It's a sin to laugh at old age.

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 intelligence combined with pride, with contempt for people, is worse than the “plague” and “will soon become disgusting.” Chatsky does not understand that for Sophia all his advantages are crossed out by his main vice. And Sophia’s dislike is a terrible blow and the most severe punishment for him.
Both Chatsky and Sophia are mistaken in their understanding and assessment of Silent, “not vile enough,” according to Pushkin. They express two polar points of view, and both are “blind”. For Chatsky, Molchalin is “stupid, the most pitiful creature”; for Sophia, he is kind and smart. Sophia “paints to Chatsky a portrait of the righteous man with whom “God brought her together,” and thereby formulates her moral ideal - an ideal that is essentially Christian.”
But why did the wise Sophia invent Molchalin for herself and be deceived in love? Why was she punished, for what sins? Despite the fact that “the female character in those years (the first half of the 19th century), as never before, 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 lies in Sophia herself, in her proud, decisive and independent character, in her perhaps unconscious desire for power in the family, and then, perhaps, in society, that
corresponds to the general atmosphere of noble society of that time, and in Griboyedov’s play it is expressed by such characters as Natalya Dmitrievna. Tatyana Yurievna, Marya Alekseevna. In Chatsky’s understanding we see the wisdom of Sophia; in self-deception, according to Molchalin, Sophia’s blindness is explained by the manifestation of a “deep and dark instinct of power” (S.N. Bulgakov).
In the third act, Chatsky’s parody double appears - Countess Khryumina, who herself laughs at him in his own spirit (“Monsieur Chatsky! you’re in Moscow! How were you, everyone is like that?.. Are you back single?”), who speaks about everyone almost like Chatsky :
Well done! Well Famusov! knew how to name 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 the drama of an intelligent man 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 recognize this vice in himself and does not strive to overcome it, then, “set free,” he threatens the death of the soul, despite all its “beautiful impulses.” The mind, aimed only at criticism, denunciation and destruction, itself becomes “spiritless and heartless” and represents the greatest danger for the person himself, is a “terrible and empty force” (I. Ilyin).
In this sense, Chatsky stands first in the ranks of such heroes of Russian literature as the “moral cripple” Pechorin, the “self-deluded” Bazarov, the “terribly proud” Raskolnikov, for whom man is a “louse”, a “trembling creature”, or a lyrical hero in early poetry Mayakovsky with his “holy malice” “towards everything”, for whom “there are no people”, but there are “images” and “the crowd... a hundred-headed louse”. The basis of the worldview of these heroes is the idea of ​​godlessness, lack of faith, 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, and moral nature of man.
Will Chatsky die 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 “endless love” for people? The ending of Griboyedov’s play remains open, but Chatsky’s “millions of torments,” his suffering, often so beneficial and necessary for the human soul, give hope for this. The very name “Chatsky” (which has opposite meanings: both “chad” and “hope,” i.e., hope) leaves the reader with this hope...

Vyacheslav VLASHCHENKO

Comedy A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit" is one of the best works of Russian literature. The hero of the comedy, the young nobleman Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, experiences the collapse of all his plans and hopes in just one day. You can say that his life changes overnight. The hero returned home, to his beloved girl, to a happy life, but there he found only coldness, disappointment and persecution.

Arriving at the house of his father’s friend Famusov, Chatsky in the very first seconds strives to see his daughter, Sophia. The hero has been in love with her since childhood and is waiting for a reciprocal feeling from the girl. But Sophia greets Alexander Andreevich very coldly. Throughout the play, Chatsky tries to find out the reason for Sophia’s cooling, to find his happier rival.

In the 1st scene of Act III of the comedy, an explanation takes place between the characters. Chatsky wants to “extract a confession” from Sophia: “Who, finally, is dear to her? Molchalin? Skalozub? The hero does not believe that a girl could fall in love with one of these people - after all, one is more insignificant than the other. Chatsky gives succinct characteristics to both candidates:

Molchalin was so stupid before!..

Most pathetic creature!

Has he really grown wiser?..And he -

Khripun, strangled, bassoon,

A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!

But Sophia, dousing the hero with coldness, claims that she loves many people much more than Chatsky. Alexander Andreich, in her words, is very “intemperate in his tongue” and cruel to people: “The slightest oddity in anyone is barely visible, Your gaiety is not modest, You are immediately ready for wit...” It would be better if Chatsky turned his gaze to himself, to his shortcomings . After all, cursing everyone and everything, he looks funny:

Yes! A menacing look and a harsh tone,

And there are an abyss of these characteristics in you;

And the thunderstorm above itself is far from useless.

Sophia doesn’t want to talk to the hero anymore and tries to leave. Chatsky, in order to still recognize her “sweetheart,” decides to pretend (for the only time in his life!) and admit that Molchalin could have changed. The hero agrees: okay, maybe Alexey Stepanych is a worthy person, but does he love Sophia the way Chatsky loves her?

Let Molchalin have a lively mind, a brave genius,

But does he have that passion? That feeling?

that ardor?

So that, besides you, he has the whole world

Did it seem like dust and vanity?

Chatsky then tries to convince Sophia that she has largely invented Molchalin for herself: “God knows what secret is hidden in him; God knows what you came up with for him, what his head has never been filled with. Perhaps, your qualities were darkness, Admiring them, you gave them to him...” Then, fearing the girl’s anger, she recognizes Molchalin’s intelligence. He begs Sophia to give him the opportunity to see for himself that his opponent is a worthy person: “As a person who has grown up with you, As your friend, as a brother, Let me be convinced of that...” Then Chatsky will be able to calm down (“from madness I can beware") and forget.

But Sophia is not at all moved by Alexander Andreevich’s passionate words. She was very offended by Chatsky’s unflattering reviews of Molchalin. Whether she loves her father’s secretary or not, “why be... so intemperate with my tongue?” Sophia accuses the hero of being only capable of joking in life: “Joking! And joke forever! How will you care about this!” However, if he had gotten to know Molchalin better, he would have appreciated him.

Chatsky is stung by jealousy: how does Sophia know Alexei Stepanovich so well? And the girl continues to convince Chatsky of Molchalin’s undoubted “merits”: silence, communication with old people, a small but strong mind, compliance, modesty, calmness, etc.

Chatsky can’t believe his ears:

Plays all day!

He is silent when he is scolded!

She doesn't respect him! ...She doesn't give a damn about him.

As a result, the hero concludes: “He’s being naughty, she doesn’t love him.” Having calmed down about Molchalin, he wants to find out Sophia’s attitude towards Skalozub. Chatsky begins to praise him, but Sophia immediately interrupts Alexander Andreevich: Skalozub is not the hero of her novel. Chatsky is perplexed: the girl cannot love the insignificant Molchalin, she is indifferent to Skalozub. Who captured her heart? The scene ends with the hero asking: “Who will solve you?”

Thus, Chatsky’s intentions were not crowned with success. He never found out who his opponent was. The hero does not have the opportunity to calm down; he will be in tense excitement until the very end of the play.

This episode finally clarifies Sophia’s attitude towards Chatsky and the reasons for her dissatisfaction with the hero. The reader is also convinced that the girl loves Molchalin and does not see his shortcomings, so obvious to Chatsky. Sophia invented a romantic hero for herself, without seeing the true face of her chosen one. But Chatsky is convinced that the intelligent Sophia chose someone much more worthy. This thought haunts the hero, intensifies his doubts and torment.

“Woe from Wit” is a multifaceted work. In it one can see a social parody, a criticism of the regime, and a historical sketch of morals. Not the least important place in the book is the love affair. Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia, their feelings are the core that serves as the basis of the plot, filling 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 completely differently. And they are analyzed in accordance with the recommendations of methodological publications.

There is a certain type of topic that the Ministry of Education regularly offers students for comprehension and subsequent writing of essays: “Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky’s love?”, “Was Karenina right in making the decision to divorce?”, “Characteristics of the actions of Prince Myshkin.” It is not entirely clear what the education system wants to achieve with this. Such an analysis has nothing in common with the literature itself. This is, rather, a monologue of a grandmother at the entrance, discussing whether Klava from the third apartment was right when she kicked out Vaska the alcoholic, or whether she was wrong.

And the life experience of a 9th grade student hardly allows one to judge what the character should have done. It is unlikely that he will be able to understand what irritates Sophia in Chatsky and why. Except, of course, for the obvious things - those that the heroine herself talks about.

Peculiarities of perception of the play

Traditional

The interpretation of the play “Woe from Wit” is as follows - principled, noble and uncompromising. Those around him are low, narrow-minded and conservative people who do not understand or accept the advanced, innovative ideology of the protagonist. Chatsky speaks, denounces and mocks, attacks the vices of society with words, and society cringes from well-aimed hits, is angry and indignant.

It is difficult to say whether this is the effect Griboedov was trying to achieve. There is an opposite version, which explains the construction of the play with endless monologues and appeals of the main character 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 by how the reader perceives the work. In the first case, he sees an idealistic hero and a bourgeois woman who did not appreciate his impulses, in the second - a chatterbox-demagogue and... still not an appreciative of 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 his guardian’s house and returned to the family estate. Didn't come, didn't write. He just took it 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 groom, just picks up and leaves? Not for a week, not for a month. For three years. Even at thirty this is a long time. And at fourteen it’s an eternity. What was he doing all this time? Who were you thinking about? Can she be sure that love is still alive?

At fourteen years old, 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 the girl, and not the omniscient reader to whom Griboyedov told 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 point fled like a moth from a clearing for three whole years. He had an impulse from his soul. Feelings. Offended dignity. What about her? She shouldn't have felt offended, bewildered, angry in such a situation? Finally disappointed? Penelope, of course, waited for Odysseus much longer - but the situation was completely different. Chatsky is far from Odysseus.

Sophia close up

But all this remains behind the scenes. Yes, the attentive reader will understand everything himself if

thinks, but the situation is still presented in hints, snippets of conversations, memories. Therefore, it may well elude a person who is accustomed to seeing only the main plot line of the work. What's there?

Chatsky suddenly returns to his guardian's house, 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 she already 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 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 is coping 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 probably 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? She traded the eagle for a plucked sparrow, stupid.

Who is Sophia? A girl who grew up without a mother, locked up, almost never leaving the threshold of the house. Her social circle is her father, who has no idea about raising children in general and daughters in particular, and a maid. What might Sophia know about men? Where can she get any experience? The only source of information is books. Ladies' French novels that her daddy allows her to read. How could such a girl discern the insincerity of a person who had gained the trust of much older and more experienced people? This is 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 simply could not help but fall in love.

What about Chatsky?

Chatsky’s personality deserves the same close attention. Is this a mistake?

does Sophia do? If you look at the situation objectively, is this marriage a big loss in her life?

Chatsky is twenty-one. He couldn't find a place for himself. Tried there, tried here. But... “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” But a position that would meet his needs still doesn’t come across. On what means does Chatsky live? He has an estate. And, naturally, serfs. This is the main source of income for the young liberal. The very one who ardently and sincerely condemns it calls it barbarism and savagery. This is such a funny problem.

Does Chatsky have any prospects? He won't make a career, that's obvious. Neither the military - he is not a stupid martinet. Neither financially - he is not a huckster. Neither political - he will not betray ideals. He won’t become another Demidov either - his grip is not the same. Chatsky is one of those who speak, and not one of those who do.

His reputation is already ruined, society is running away from him like the plague. It is very likely that Chatsky will spend his entire life in his family name, occasionally traveling to resorts and the capital. What irritates Sophia in Chatsky already 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 keeps this love? Hardly. Perhaps the ending of the play is tragic only for the main character. Sophia was just lucky. Got off cheap.

And about posing the question

Although, when Chatsky’s attitude towards Sophia is discussed in the key: is she 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 bonus? Promotion? Compliance with the position held? They don’t love for something, they love for no reason. Because this person is needed, and no one else. That's 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 tell whether it is worth what they ask for it. And even schoolchildren should be clearly aware of this, not to mention older people.