As a critical response to Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov creates “A Million Torments.” The summary of the article is a deep social and ideological analysis of this work. It is characteristic that the title of the article was a phrase dropped by Griboyedov’s character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Thus, already when reading the title it becomes clear what will be discussed.
A comedy demanded by the era
Was this assessment given in a timely manner? Without a doubt. Russia lived in a transitional era from the capitalist era. There were no commoners yet, and yet the nobility remained the most advanced layer of society. But is it all the nobility? That is the question. The development of a huge country could no longer be stimulated either by heroes like Pushkin’s Onegin or Lermontov’s Pechorin. Article by I.A. Goncharova’s “A Million Torments” popularly and logically led its readers to this conclusion. Of course, society was in demand for a new, fresh view of society, the role of a citizen, education, and social activities. And this look was presented by the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Chatsky's character
Chatsky’s character is not just central, but centrifugal in Goncharov’s “A Million Torments” was dedicated to an adequate, fair assessment of the meaning of this image (which simply did not exist before). The summary of the comedy is that Chatsky confronts the “old world,” intelligently and meaningfully testifying to the truth. It’s not customary to talk like that in aristocratic circles in Moscow. And an honest description of the “pillars of society” is perceived by the highest nobility as an “attack on the foundations” and sacrilege. The nobility is powerless in the face of his rhetoric; they shun him, declaring him insane.
Is this legal? Yes, and to the highest degree! Let us remember that even Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin did not understand Chatsky. The famous poet, noting the justice of the comedy hero’s statements, is at the same time perplexed: “Why is he saying all this if no one hears him” (i.e. the veiled question is clearly felt: “Isn’t Chatsky a fool?”). Dobrolyubov openly ironically treated this character - “a gambling fellow.” Since the fundamental novelty of the talentedly created image was not noticed by almost the entire society, in fact, that’s why Goncharov wrote “A Million Torments.” A brief summary of his work is an analysis of Griboyedov’s work.
So, our hero comes to aristocratic Moscow, taking time away from business, to declare his love to the young, educated and romantic Sofya Famusova, who refuses him. The plot intrigue is built on this. The girl, in turn, had already forgotten about her first feeling for him. She is driven by romantic generosity. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is as mercantile as her chosen one - her father’s mediocre and vile secretary - Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin. People who imitate activities to achieve their career aspirations are unspiritual people, capable of expressing servility and then betraying. Silent people. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to their caustic characterization. The summary of the comedy shows: they must lose. After all, the future state of the “Molchalins” is much more terrible than the state of the “Famusovs”.
Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky. A cowardly, stupid, but “moderate and careful” careerist and in the future a bureaucrat. There is nothing living or natural in the image of Molchalin. But his life calculation is correct - it is precisely such people, by nature slaves, that those in power prefer to elevate, so that they can then rule unchallenged with the help of such people who do not have their own opinions.
conclusions
What is the significance of this work by Ivan Alexandrovich? It's obvious. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to an objective and worthy assessment. The summary of the article is precisely dedicated to this “ray of light in the dark kingdom.”
Goncharov's merit is that after a while he noticed an essential detail: Chatsky is active, he is capable of changing the world around him. He is a man of the future, which cannot be said about the passive dreamers Onegin and Pechorin. The image of Alexander Andreevich, despite the name of Griboyedov's comedy, is optimistic. He inspires confidence in his rightness, being a literary and figurative embodiment of the words “and one in the field is a warrior!”
The beliefs of this man are the beliefs of the Decembrist. Thus, the comedy is a kind of alarm bell for future events in Russian society that occurred on December 14, 1825 on
The image of Chatsky based on the work of I.A. Goncharova A million torments. The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit. He has a heart, and at the same time he is impeccably honest. In a word, this is a man who is not only smart, but also developed, with feeling, or as his maid Lisa recommends, he is sensitive, and cheerful, and witty. He is a sincere and ardent activist. Chatsky strives for a free life and demands service to the cause, and not to individuals. Every step, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end.
He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and for Sophia alone. He doesn't care about others. Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom, not finding living sympathy in anyone, and leave, taking with him only a million torments. A million torments and grief are what he reaped for everything he managed to sow.
Until now, he had been invincible; his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies. He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him. Chatsky, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd and strikes at everyone, but he does not have enough power against the united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost into intoxication of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball. Alexander Andreevich is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux and remains so until the end of the play.
There are only a million more torments ahead. If he had had one healthy minute, if he had not been tormented by a million torments, he would, of course, have asked himself the question: Why and why did I do all this mess? And, of course, he would not have found an answer. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, free life.
He is very positive in his demands and states them in a ready-made program, developed not by him, but by the century that has already begun. Chatsky demands space and freedom for his age, asks for action, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes sycophancy and buffoonery. His ideal of a free life is defined by freedom from all the chains of slavery that bind society, and then freedom - to focus on science a mind hungry for knowledge Every business , requiring updating, evokes Chatsky’s shadow. And no matter who the figures are, no matter what human cause - be it a new idea, a step in science, in politics - people are grouped on, they cannot escape the two main motives of the struggle from the advice to learn, looking at their elders, on the one hand , and from thirst to strive from routine to a free life forward and forward - on the other.
That is why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not grown old until now and it is unlikely that Griboyedov’s Chatsky will ever grow old.
What will we do with the received material:
If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
| Tweet |
More abstracts, coursework, and dissertations on this topic:
A million torments of Chatsky
All this eternal imperfection of people and the world is superbly described in Griboyedov’s immortal comedy Woe from Wit Griboyedov creates a whole gallery... He came to Moscow, returning from distant travels, only for the sake of Sophia.. The main character alone stands against the army of old warriors, starting an endless struggle for a new life and his ..
A million torments of Chatsky
This is truly an immortal work. In the play, which depicts just one day in the house of the Moscow master Famusov, Griboyedov touched upon the most... In the image of Chatsky, Griboedov showed a man of a new mindset and soul, inspired... She cannot love Chatsky, because he, with the mindset of his mind and soul, completely opposes this to society. Sophia..
Typology of the image of a servant in Russian literature of the 19th century based on the works of A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, I.A. Goncharova
Thus, we move from the general concept of a person as a subject of depiction to a more specific and historical concept of character. Character is a certain type of social behavior of a person. This is a personality characterized by its own thoughts, experiences and actions. This is a person in his specific...
And Love created man in Her own image, in the image of Love she created him; male and female she created them
On the website read: ...and love created man in her own image, in the image of love she created him; male and female she created them...
Techniques for creating the image of Asya in the work of the same name by I.S. Turgenev
Started in Sinzig on the banks of the Rhine on June 30, July 12, 1857 on Sunday, finished in Rome on November 15, 27 of the same year on Friday. In this work... The characterization of Asya occupies a significant place in the article by D.I. Pisareva Women.. Pisarev believes that such characters prove the need for the social emancipation of women, because they serve..
The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit"
And freedom from dilapidated ideas about love, marriage, honor, service, the meaning of life. Chatsky and his like-minded people strive for “creative arts.. Their ideal is “moderation and accuracy,” their dream is “to take away all the books, yes.. As always in a dramatic work, the essence of the protagonist’s character is revealed primarily in the plot. ..
Journalistic image as a means of organizing a journalistic work
This problem has been considered by many authors from different angles. Questions of the structure of an author's work were considered by V.V. Vinogradov in.. Starush M.I. in the book "The Author's Self in a Publicistic Work" I examined the reader and author categories..
Tragic images based on works of art
This is no longer loneliness from one’s own greatness, or even loneliness from the indifference of the world around us. Everything is becoming more complicated, and the main motive for this... This pain arises from the slightest contact with the outside world. And this world is perceived in a completely special way. The poet in Mayakovsky's poems is a spender and a spendthrift with priceless words. WITH..
The nature of the educational image in G. Fielding’s work “The Story of Tom Jones, Foundling”
Born into the family of Major Edmund Fielding (Lieutenant General). He graduated from Eton, an aristocratic school, studied for a year and a half in Leiden at what was considered... Fielding received a law degree and began practicing as a lawyer... Here Fielding follows the novelistic tradition laid down by Cervantes, but at the same time strives to create a new, special type...
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is the famous work of A. S. Griboedov. Having composed it, the author instantly stood on a par with the leading poets of his time. The appearance of this play caused a lively response in literary circles. Many were quick to express their opinions on the merits and demerits of the work. The image of Chatsky, the main character of the comedy, caused especially heated debate. This article will be devoted to a description of this character.
Prototypes of Chatsky
Contemporaries of A. S. Griboyedov found that the image of Chatsky reminded them of P. Ya. Chaadaev. Pushkin pointed out this in his letter to P. A. Vyazemsky in 1823. Some researchers see indirect confirmation of this version in the fact that initially the main character of the comedy bore the last name Chadsky. However, many refute this opinion. According to another theory, the image of Chatsky is a reflection of the biography and character of V.K. Kuchelbecker. A disgraced, unlucky man who had just returned from abroad could well have become the prototype of the main character of “Woe from Wit.”
About the similarity of the author with Chatsky
It is quite obvious that the main character of the play, in his monologues, expressed the thoughts and views that Griboyedov himself adhered to. "Woe from Wit" is a comedy that became the author's personal manifesto against the moral and social vices of Russian aristocratic society. And many of Chatsky’s character traits seem to be copied from the author himself. According to contemporaries, Alexander Sergeevich was impetuous and hot-tempered, sometimes independent and harsh. Chatsky’s views on imitation of foreigners, the inhumanity of serfdom, and bureaucracy are Griboyedov’s genuine thoughts. He expressed them more than once in society. The writer was even once actually called crazy when, at a social event, he warmly and impartially spoke about the servile attitude of Russians towards everything foreign.
Author's description of the hero
In response to the critical remarks of his co-author and longtime friend P. A. Katenin that the character of the main character is “confused,” that is, very inconsistent, Griboyedov writes: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” For the author, the image of Chatsky is a portrait of an intelligent and educated young man who finds himself in a difficult situation. On the one hand, he is “at odds with society”, since he is “a little higher than others,” he is aware of his superiority and does not try to hide it. On the other hand, Alexander Andreevich cannot achieve the former location of his beloved girl, suspects the presence of a rival, and even unexpectedly falls into the category of crazy people, which he is the last to know about. Griboyedov explains the excessive ardor of his hero as a strong disappointment in love. That is why in “Woe from Wit” the image of Chatsky turned out to be so inconsistent and confusing. He “didn’t give a damn about anyone and was like that.”
Chatsky in Pushkin's interpretation
The poet criticized the main character of the comedy. At the same time, Pushkin appreciated Griboyedov: he liked the comedy “Woe from Wit.” in the interpretation of the great poet is very impartial. He calls Alexander Andreevich an ordinary hero-reasoner, a mouthpiece for the ideas of the only smart person in the play - Griboyedov himself. He believes that the main character is a “kind fellow” who picked up extraordinary thoughts and witticisms from another person and began to “throw pearls” in front of Repetilov and other representatives of Famus’s guard. According to Pushkin, such behavior is unforgivable. He believes that Chatsky's contradictory and inconsistent character is a reflection of his own stupidity, which puts the hero in a tragicomic position.
The character of Chatsky, according to Belinsky
A famous critic in 1840, like Pushkin, denied the main character of the play a practical mind. He interpreted the image of Chatsky as an absolutely ridiculous, naive and dreamy figure and dubbed him “the new Don Quixote.” Over time, Belinsky somewhat changed his point of view. The characterization of the comedy "Woe from Wit" in his interpretation became very positive. He called it a protest against the “vile racial reality” and considered it “a most noble, humanistic work.” The critic never saw the true complexity of Chatsky’s image.
The image of Chatsky: interpretation in the 1860s
Publicists and critics of the 1860s began to attribute only socially significant and socio-political motives to Chatsky’s behavior. For example, I saw in the main character of the play a reflection of Griboyedov’s “second thoughts”. He considers the image of Chatsky to be a portrait of a Decembrist revolutionary. The critic sees in Alexander Andreevich a man struggling with the vices of his contemporary society. For him, the heroes of “Woe from Wit” are characters not of “high” comedy, but of “high” tragedy. In such interpretations, Chatsky’s appearance is extremely generalized and interpreted very one-sidedly.
Goncharov's appearance of Chatsky
Ivan Aleksandrovich, in his critical sketch “A Million Torments,” presented the most insightful and accurate analysis of the play “Woe from Wit.” The characterization of Chatsky, according to Goncharov, should be made taking into account his state of mind. Unhappy love for Sophia makes the main character of the comedy bilious and almost inadequate, forcing him to pronounce long monologues in front of people indifferent to his fiery speeches. Thus, without taking into account the love affair, it is impossible to understand the comic and at the same time tragic nature of Chatsky’s image.
Issues of the play
The heroes of "Woe from Wit" collide with Griboedov in two plot-forming conflicts: love (Chatsky and Sofia) and socio-ideological (the main character). Of course, it is the social issues of the work that come to the fore, but the love line in the play is also very important. After all, Chatsky was in a hurry to Moscow solely to meet with Sofia. Therefore, both conflicts - socio-ideological and love - strengthen and complement each other. They develop in parallel and are equally necessary for understanding the worldview, character, psychology and relationship of the heroes of the comedy.
Main character. Love conflict
In the system of characters in the play, Chatsky is in the main place. It links two storylines into a coherent whole. For Alexander Andreevich, it is the love conflict that is of main importance. He understands perfectly well what kind of people he has found himself in, and has no intention of engaging in educational activities. The reason for his stormy eloquence is not political, but psychological. The young man's "impatience of heart" is felt throughout the entire play.
At first, Chatsky’s “talkativeness” is caused by the joy of meeting Sofia. When the hero realizes that the girl has no trace of her former feelings for him, he begins to do inconsistent and daring things. He stays in Famusov’s house with the only purpose: to find out who has become Sofia’s new lover. At the same time, it is quite obvious that his “mind and heart are not in harmony.”
After Chatsky learns about the relationship between Molchalin and Sofia, he goes to the other extreme. Instead of loving feelings, he is overcome by anger and rage. He accuses the girl of having “lured him with hope,” proudly announces to her the breakup of the relationship, swears that he has “sobered up... completely,” but at the same time he is going to pour out “all the bile and all the frustration” on the world.
Main character. The conflict is socio-political
Love experiences increase the ideological confrontation between Alexander Andreevich and Famus society. At first, Chatsky treats the Moscow aristocracy with ironic calm: “... I’m a stranger to another miracle / Once I laugh, then I’ll forget...” However, as he becomes convinced of Sofia’s indifference, his speech becomes more and more impudent and unrestrained. Everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Chatsky touches on in his monologues many pressing problems of his contemporary era: questions about national identity, serfdom, education and enlightenment, real service, and so on. He talks about serious things, but at the same time, from excitement, he falls, according to I. A. Goncharov, into “exaggeration, into almost drunkenness of speech.”
The protagonist's worldview
The image of Chatsky is a portrait of a person with an established system of worldview and morality. He considers the main criterion for assessing a person to be the desire for knowledge, for beautiful and lofty matters. Alexander Andreevich is not against working for the benefit of the state. But he constantly emphasizes the difference between “serve” and “being served,” which he attaches fundamental importance. Chatsky is not afraid of public opinion, does not recognize authorities, protects his independence, which causes fear among Moscow aristocrats. They are ready to recognize in Alexander Andreevich a dangerous rebel who encroaches on the most sacred values. From the point of view of Famus society, Chatsky’s behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible. He “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections in any way. He responds to Famusov’s proposal to live “like everyone else” with a contemptuous refusal.
In many ways, Griboyedov agrees with his hero. The image of Chatsky is a type of enlightened person who freely expresses his opinion. But there are no radical or revolutionary ideas in his statements. It’s just that in Famus’s conservative society, any deviation from the usual norm seems outrageous and dangerous. It was not for nothing that in the end Alexander Andreevich was recognized as a madman. This was the only way they could explain for themselves the independent nature of Chatsky’s judgments.
Conclusion
In modern life, the play “Woe from Wit” remains more relevant than ever. The image of Chatsky in comedy is a central figure who helps the author to declare his thoughts and views to the whole world. By the will of Alexander Sergeevich, the main character of the work is placed in tragicomic conditions. His impetuousness is caused by disappointment in love. However, the problems that are raised in his monologues are eternal topics. It is thanks to them that the comedy entered the list of the most famous works of world literature.
The future will appreciate this worthily
comedy and put it among the first
folk creations.
A. Bestuzhev
Comedy "Woe from Wit"
and a picture of morals, and a gallery of the living
types, and always sharp, burning satire,
and at the same time a comedy...
I. A. Goncharov
Almost half a century after A. S. Griboyedov created his great comedy “Woe from Wit”, in 1872, the most talented Russian writer, author of the famous novels “An Ordinary Story”, “Oblomov” and “Cliff”, returned from the play “Woe from Wit” ”, wrote notes about this comedy, which then grew into the article “A Million Torments” - the best work of critical literature about Griboyedov’s masterpiece.
Goncharov begins the article with a very bold statement that, unlike even the greatest literary works (he names Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” and Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time”), “Woe from Wit” will never age, not will become simply a literary monument, albeit a brilliant one: ““Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and everything lives its imperishable life, will survive many more eras and all will not lose its vitality.”
Why? Goncharov answers this question in detail, proving that the unfading youth of comedy is explained by its fidelity to the truth of life: a truthful picture of the morals of the Moscow nobility after the war of 1812, the vitality and psychological truth of the characters, the discovery of Chatsky as a new hero of the era (before Gris -Boedov there were no such characters in literature), in the innovative language of comedy. He emphasizes the typicality of the pictures of Russian life and its heroes created by Griboyedov, the scale of the action, despite the fact that it lasts only one day. The comedy canvas captures a long historical period - from Catherine II to Nicholas I, and the viewer and reader, even half a century later, feel like they are among living people, the characters created by Griboyedov are so truthful. Yes, during this time the Famusovs, the Molchalins, the Skalozubs, the Zagoretskys have changed: now no Famusov will set Maxim Petrovich as an example, no Molchalin will admit to what commandments of his father he obediently fulfills, etc. But for now there will be a desire to receive undeserved honors, “and take awards and live happily,” as long as there are people for whom it seems natural “not... dare to have your own opinion,” while gossip, idleness, emptiness prevail and this is not condemned by society, Griboyedov’s heroes will not grow old, not will become a thing of the past.
“Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life.” Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, he knows what he wants and does not give up. He suffers a temporary—but only temporary—defeat. “Chatsky is 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.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.”
Further, Goncharov makes the most important conclusion about Chatsky’s typicality: “Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another.” And, reading the article, you understand: Chatsky may look different at different times, speak differently, but his uncontrollable impulse, ardent desire for truth, honesty and selflessness make him a contemporary and an ally of the advanced part of all generations. Material from the site
The writer explains in detail the characters and psychology of the other heroes of the comedy: Famusov, Sophia, Molchalin, and his arguments are very convincing. Goncharov, a connoisseur of human characters, places the talent of Griboyedov the psychologist very highly. The brilliant talent of Griboyedov as a playwright, according to Goncharov, was manifested in the way he managed, having raised the most important social issues of his time in the work, not to “dry out” the comedy, not to make it ponderous. The satire in “Woe from Wit” is perceived very naturally, without drowning out either comic or tragic motives. Everything is like in life: the Famusovs, the Silencers, and the Skalozubs are funny, but also scary; smart Sophia herself started gossip, declaring Chatsky crazy; the once worthy man Platon Mikhailovich has become vulgar; Repetilov and Zagoretsky are accepted into society as nonentities.
Goncharov no less highly appreciates the mastery of the language of “Woe from Wit,” seeing in the language one of the main reasons for the popularity of the comedy. The audience, in his words, “dispersed all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech... and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that they literally exhausted the comedy to the point of satiety.” But, moving from the book to live speech, comedy became even more dear to readers, so accurate, wise and convincing were Griboyedov’s “winged expressions”, so natural were the speech characteristics of the heroes, very diverse, but always truthful, determined by the psychology of the heroes and their social status.
Giving a deservedly very high assessment of “I’m Burning from Wit,” Goncharov (and time has confirmed this!) correctly identified its place in the history of Russian literature and accurately predicted its immortality.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
- summary of the comedy Woe from Wit Goncharov
- summary of Goncharov's million torments
- summary of I.A.Goncharov a million torments
- Farce Makhnysy Hound
- article by I.A. Goncharov on the comedy Woe from Wit
I. A. Goncharov “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal exposer of lies." Chatsky's drama is that he sees tragedy in the fate of society, but cannot influence anything.
I. A. Goncharov “Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another... Every business that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky.”
A. S. Pushkin “What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart person (namely Griboyedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks... The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and others like him."
A. Grigoriev Chatsky Griboyedova is the only truly heroic face of our literature..., an honest and active nature, and also the nature of a fighter.
V. G. Belinsky “A boy on a stick on horseback, a screamer, a phrase-monger, an ideal jester, Chatsky’s drama - a storm in a teacup.”
A. I. Herzen “Chatsky is an ideal hero, taken by the author from life itself... A real positive hero of Russian literature. Enthusiast Chatsky is a Decembrist at heart."
M.A. Dmitriev Chatsky... is nothing more than a madman who is in the company of people who are not at all stupid, but uneducated, and who plays smart in front of them because he considers himself smarter.
A. Lebedev “Chatsky does not leave, but exits the stage. To infinity. His role is not completed, but begun."
A.V. Lunacharsky Comedy [“Woe from Wit”] is an accurate, completely accurate self-report of how an intelligent person lives, or rather dies, how an intelligent person dies in Rus'.
A. Skabichevsky “Chatsky is a vivid personification of Griboyedov’s contemporaries... Chatsky was precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball.”
N. K Piksanov Optimism is the main mood of “Woe from Wit”. Whatever the outcome, the internal powerlessness of Famus society and the strength of Chatsky are obvious to the reader and viewer.
M. Dunaev “What is Chatsky’s grief? In the fatal discrepancy between the system of his life values and those he encounters in Famusov’s house. He is alone. And they don’t understand him. And his mind is failing. And for him here is death, grief, “a million torments.” And the internal reason is in himself. For grief is from his mind. More precisely: from the originality of his mind."
P. Vail, A. Genis So modern and timely is the main question: is Chatsky stupid or smart? If, as a bearer of progressive opposition ideas, he is stupid, then it is understandable why he fusses, chatters, throws pearls and profanely. If we recognize Chatsky as smart, then we must also admit that he is smart in a different way. We dare say; not smart in Russian. To someone else. In a foreign way. For him, word and deed are not so irrevocably separated, the idea of obligatory seriousness does not put pressure on his lively, temperamental intellect. It's different in style.