Griboedov’s play “Woe from Wit” was written a long time ago, but still does not lose its relevance, which, in fact, is a rather rare thing, especially for political satire. Typically, such books are relevant right up to the moment when there is a criticized regime. This is evident in the example of the most popular sharp, intelligent, caustic works of outstanding Soviet dissidents. Were these good books? Of course yes. Are they interesting now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Not. No more.
The secret of relevance
In order for a political satire not to look like a black and white photograph of a long-forgotten relative, it should have something more, not just an ingenuous indication of the momentary shortcomings of society. References to universal human problems and values, recognizable, close at any time and to everyone.
And Griboedov, creating his play, invested much more in it than just criticizing the existing political and social system. This is noted by almost any review taken at random, works of “Woe from Wit” concerning at least casually. The most accurate picture of morals - and not only from the time of Alexander I. These same people live now. Yes, they are dressed differently, smoke cigarettes, and not snuff tobacco, discuss Putin’s latest speech at the summit, and not the king before the noble assembly. But the people are the same. Absolutely recognizable traits.
Comedy characters
Careerist and conformist. Rough, brave servant. An influential tradesman with ideologically correct views. The old people are fragments of past times. Sisters concerned only with their own matrimonial plans. A romantic girl imagining life only from books. Finally, the main character is a fiery liberal and a fighter.
Everyone will be able to name one or two of his friends, fully consistent with these definitions. Not a single review of the book “Woe from Wit” will do without an analysis of these recognizable characters, whether it was written in the 19th century or in the 21st. Just the relationship between these, such different people, the constant conflict of innovation and retrograde, liberalism and conservatism is one of the two semantic pillars of the play.
Criticism of Goncharov
For two years Griboedov wrote "Woe from Wit." The review by I. Goncharov, one of the best critics of his time, referred this work to the masterpieces of Russian literature. His review to this day is one of the best analyzes of the play. This is a complete, detailed, thorough study of both the plot of the work and its characters, a comparison with other authors contemporary to Griboedov. This critical article was written almost 50 years after the publication of the comedy. For literature, even 50 years is a long time, two generations. During this time, the work will either become outdated or become a classic.
Goncharov himself noted that the images of the lyrical heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov - Onegin and Pecherin, occupying a place incomparably higher in the literary hierarchy compared to Griboedov - are no longer too interesting to the public. They are unrecognizable. This type is a thing of the past along with the time that gave rise to them. Their thoughts, their feelings, their troubles and hopes are a thing of the past along with the brilliant 18th century.
The image of the protagonist
Chatsky is still recognizable - both in his strengths and in his shortcomings. He is decisive, often reckless and sincere. Perhaps even overly sincere - many of his remarks are no longer even sarcastic, but frankly cruel, which Sophia blames him for. However, if we recall the age (Chatsky is hardly over twenty), this is quite expected and natural. Youth is characterized by maximalism and cruelty. His speech is aphoristic - in many respects this is what ensured the success of the play. Quotations from Chatsky’s monologues are still in use, people often don’t even know that their favorite saying is a line from Griboedov’s comedy.
A rare review of the book “Woe from Wit” does without comment on Chatsky’s mind and his desire for change. They pay much less attention to the moment that he talks a lot, but does nothing.
Chatsky and his liberalism
This moment somehow escapes the attention of most critics. They do not compare the theses declared by Chatsky with his way of life. He considers serfdom a monstrous relic of the past - but he lives quietly at the expense of serfs. Pride does not allow him to grovel in front of those in power - but at the same time Chatsky quietly exists on money that he did not earn. He reproaches Skalozub for the nearness and solidarity — but he completely ignores the fact that he is a military officer with military awards, and not a “parquet warrior” at all.
Chatsky's liberal activity begins and ends with the most voluminous monologues spoken to the public, which certainly cannot be convinced.
Comedy is called "Woe from Wit." The meaning of the name is quite transparent. But is the grief of Chatsky crazy? As, however, and most of the liberal movement of Russia, which is so in tune with the mood of the protagonist. If you think about it, it turns out that the point is not in the excess of the mind, but in the inability to use it.
Critics and characters
What is a critical review? This is just a detailed, reasoned opinion of the reader about the work. True, the critic is not just a reader, but a professional, trained reader, but still. And, as Labruyer rightly remarked, the book is like a mirror. If a monkey looks into it, one cannot expect the reflection to show the apostle. That is, any critical review is primarily a reflection of the worldview of the reader, not the writer. And any review of the book “Woe from Wit” is a vivid confirmation of this. Writers are rarely active people. For them, talking is already a job. Perhaps this is why such a striking discrepancy between declared intentions and actual behavior eludes their attention.
Prototypes Chatsky
In this regard, the composition of the play is quite indicative - not one review of the book “Woe from Wit” has ignored it. The work is divided into two equal storylines. The first is a love relationship between Sophia and Chatsky, in any other play it would be the main one. But not here. In this play, the romantic line is just the plot engine, canvas, canvas. Any action, any act of the characters is just an occasion for yet another Chatsky's monologue. He is really unusually talkative. The amount of text that falls on Chatsky several times exceeds the volume of replicas of any other character. He speaks with other heroes, with himself, with the audience.
It seems that the characters of the play go on stage so that Chatsky could give them his own broad assessment. Actually, it was this particular feature that gave rise to suspect the author's alter ego as a peculiar mouthpiece, the ability to loudly declare one’s own position from the stage, but through the lips of others. Often, among the possible prototypes of the character is called the smartest, most talented Chaadaev. Here and the distant similarity of the name, and the reputation of a madman. Perhaps he really served as the prototype of the protagonist of the play “Woe from Wit”. The meaning of the name in this case is obvious - indeed, Chaadaev was known for his deep, philosophical
mentality, and nothing but harm came to him.
An unusual look at Chatsky
Although there is a completely opposite theory, albeit not widespread. A number of literary scholars believe that the satire of Griboedov is thinner and deeper. Her subject is not only the unfortunate Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov and Skalozub, but Chatsky himself. Perhaps his uncontrollable talkativeness with complete inactivity is just another joke of the author. And the image of the protagonist is a parody of the liberal talker, incapable of action and not wanting him.
Of course, such a review looks very unusual against the general background. The comedy “Woe from Wit” has long been prescribed a standard, generally accepted interpretation. It is presented in literature lessons, it can be read in any reference book. But an innovative approach to the study of a work also has a right to exist. Although the design of the play nevertheless makes such an assumption unlikely. If the parody of the liberal is Chatsky himself, then why introduce Repetilov into the plot? Then they occupy the same logical niche. The only difference is that Chatsky is smart, and Repetilov is frankly stupid.