Historical era in the comedy Woe from Wit. The composition "Woe from Wit" is the fruit of Griboyedov's thoughts about the fate of Russia

How was the historical conflict of eras reflected in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"? In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboedov tells about the life of noble Moscow in the 19th century. This is the time when the orders of the old, Catherine's era are changing to a new one, in which a person does not want to put up with the backwardness of the country, wants to serve his homeland without demanding ranks and awards. Such a person is Chatsky, and his relationship with the Famus society is the main conflict in comedy. Representatives of Moscow society are: the old woman Khlestova, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Hryumins, Skalozub, Sofya, Molchalin, Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov and others. The life of this society is busy with dinners, balls, card games and gossip. Before the highest in position, they please and flatter, and their attitude towards serfs is very cruel: they are exchanged for dogs, separated from their relatives and sold one by one. The main representative of Moscow society is Famusov. Most of all in people he is interested in their social position.

Therefore, for his daughter, he wants a husband with "stars and ranks." For this role, in his opinion, Skalozub is ideally suited, who "both a golden bag and aims for generals." Famusov is not worried about the mental limitations of Skalozub, his martinet manners. However, despite all the efforts of her father, Sophia chooses Molchalin.

Molchalin is young and energetic, he has his own "philosophy of life" - "to please all people without exception." Personal gain and self-interest are in the first place for him. He has no opinion of his own in anything: "At my age, one should not dare to have one's own opinion." To achieve his goals, Molchalin pretends to be in love with Sophia. The opposite of Molchalin is Chatsky. Griboedov portrayed Chatsky as a prominent representative of the "current century." A young nobleman, not rich, sufficiently educated, has his own opinion on many problems of our time. He rebels against serfdom, an empty way of life, unreasonable upbringing, dishonest service.

But since the rest of the heroes of the comedy belong to the "past century", they simply do not understand Chatsky. Everything he talks about is alien to Famus's society. If for Molchalin it is considered normal to serve others, then Chatsky says: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” And if there are people who understand him, for example Gorich, they are simply afraid to go against public opinion. When society declares Chatsky crazy, he is forced to leave Moscow. Thus, the nature of the main conflict in comedy is Chatsky's opposition to the Famus society. As a result of this confrontation, Chatsky found himself all alone.

His accusatory monologues do not arouse sympathy among those present, and all of Chatsky's "million torments" turn out to be in vain. However, it is not. The fact is that in the image of Chatsky, Griboedov portrayed advanced people who want to serve the Fatherland.

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of comedy - the clash of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, and goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and respect for rank, the appearance of such people makes their clash with society inevitable. The problem of mutual understanding of the “current century” and the “past century” was relevant at the time of the creation of the comedy “I Burn from Wit” by Griboyedov, and it is still relevant today.

So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sane person” (according to Goncharov) and the “conservative majority”. It is on this that the internal development of the conflict between Chatsky and the Famus environment surrounding him is based.

The “age of the past” in comedy is represented by a number of vivid images-types. This is Famusova Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Liza. In a word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov stands out, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned a general location in metropolitan circles. He is affable, courteous, sharp-smart, cheerful - in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the outer side. The author, on the other hand, shows Famusov in an all-sided way. He also appears as a convinced, fierce opponent of enlightenment. “Take away all the books and burn them!” he exclaims. Chatsky, on the other hand, a representative of the “current century,” dreams of “putting a mind hungry for knowledge into science.” He is outraged by the order established in the Famus society. If Famusov dreams of more profitable marriage of his daughter Sofya (“Whoever is poor is not a match for you”), then Chatsky longs for "sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity."

Chatsky's desire is to serve the fatherland, "the cause, not the persons." Therefore, he despises Molchalin, who is accustomed to pleasing "all people without exception":

owner, where will happen live,

to the chief, With by whom will I serve,

Servant his, which cleans dresses,

doorman janitor, For escape evil,

dog janitor to affectionate was.

Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of the immoral careerist. Chatsky bitterly speaks of such people: "The silent ones are blissful in the world!" It is Molchalin who suits his life best of all. He is talented in his own way. He earned the favor of Famusov, the love of Sophia, received awards. He values the two qualities of his character most of all - moderation and accuracy.

In the relationship between Chatsky and the Famus society, the views of the "past century" on career, service, on what is most valued in people are revealed. Famusov takes only relatives and friends to his service. He respects flattery and servility. Famusov wants to convince Chatsky to serve, "looking at the elders," "put up a chair, pick up a handkerchief." To which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” Chatsky is very serious about the service. And if Famusov is a formalist and a bureaucrat (“it’s signed, so off his shoulders”), then Chatsky says: “When I’m in business, I hide from fun, when I’m fooling around, I’m fooling around, and mixing these two crafts is the darkness of artisans, I am not one of them. Famusov worries about the affairs of only one side: he is mortally afraid, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Skalozub is another representative of the “gone past century”. It was such a son-in-law that Famusov dreamed of having. After all, Skalozub is “and a golden bag, and aims for generals.” This character combines the typical features of the reactionary shareholder of the Arakcheev time. “Wheezy, strangled, bassoon. A convocation of maneuvers and mazurkas, he is the same enemy of education and science, like Famusov. “You don’t fool me with learning,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of the Famus society makes the representatives of the younger generation show their negative qualities. So, Sophia fully corresponds to the morality of the "fathers". And although she is a smart girl, with a strong, independent character, a warm heart, a pure soul, they managed to bring up many negative qualities in her, which made her part of a conservative society. She does not understand Chatsky, does not appreciate his sharp mind, his logical, merciless criticism. She also does not understand Molchalin, who "loves her ex officio." The fact that Sophia has become a typical lady of the Famus society is her tragedy.

And the society in which she was born and lived is to blame: “She is ruined, in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated” (Goncharov. “Million of Torments”).

One more character of the comedy is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, an idler, but he was the only one who considered Chatsky a “high mind” and, not believing in his madness, called the pack of Famusov’s guests “chimeras” and “game”. Thus, he was at least one step above them all.

"So! I sobered up completely! exclaims Chatsky at the end of the comedy.

What is it - defeat or insight? Yes, the finale of this comedy is far from being cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said this: “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of the fresh force.” And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all the Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always “winning”.

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and feudal lords. He fights against noble villains and sycophants, swindlers, rogues and scammers. In his famous monologue “And who are the judges?” he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar Famus world, in which After that, the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where the landowners exchanged serfs who saved “both honor and life ... more than once” for “three greyhounds”. Chatsky defends real human qualities: humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He defends the Russian people, his Russia, from everything inert and backward. Chatsky wants to see Russia enlightened. He defends this in disputes, conversations with all the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit", directing all his mind, evil, ardor and determination to this. Therefore, the environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth, for trying to break the usual way of life. The "past century", that is, the Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the way of life, which is the basis of the well-being of the feudal lords. The last century, which Famusov admires so much, Chatsky calls the century of "submission and fear." A strongly Famus society, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has like-minded people. These are episodic characters: a cousin of Skalozub (“The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service ...”), the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. Chatsky himself constantly says “we”, “one of us”, speaking, therefore, not only on his own behalf. So A. S. Griboedov wanted to hint to the reader that the time of the “past century” is passing, and it is being replaced by the “current century” - strong, intelligent, educated.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It sold thousands of handwritten copies even before it was printed. The advanced people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and the representatives of the reactionary nobility were outraged. What is this - the collision of the "age of the past" and the "age of the present"? Of course yes.

Griboyedov ardently believed in Russia, in his Motherland, and the words written on the writer's grave monument are absolutely true: "Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory."

How did the historical incident of the epochs affect Griboyedov's comedy "The Hill from Reason"?

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboedov tells about the life of noble Moscow in the 19th century. This is the time when the orders of the old, Catherine's era are changing to a new one, in which a person does not want to put up with the backwardness of the country, wants to serve his homeland without demanding ranks and awards. Such a person is Chatsky, and his relationship with the Famus society is the main conflict in comedy.

Representatives of Moscow society are: the old woman Khlestova, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Hryumins, Skalozub, Sofya, Molchalin, Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov and others. The life of this society is busy with dinners, balls, card games and gossip. Before the highest in position, they please and flatter, and their attitude towards serfs is very cruel: they are exchanged for dogs, separated from their relatives and sold one by one.

The main representative of Moscow society is Famusov. Most of all in people he is interested in their social position. Therefore, for his daughter, he wants a husband with "stars and ranks." For this role, in his opinion, Skalozub is ideally suited, who "both a golden bag and aims for generals." Famusov is not worried about the mental limitations of Skalozub, his martinet manners. However, despite all the efforts of her father, Sophia chooses Molchalin.

The opposite of Molchalin is Chatsky. Griboedov portrayed Chatsky as a prominent representative of the "current century." A young nobleman, not rich, sufficiently educated, has his own opinion on many problems of our time. He rebels against serfdom, an empty way of life, unreasonable upbringing, dishonest service.

Thus, the nature of the main conflict in comedy is Chatsky's opposition to the Famus society. As a result of this confrontation, Chatsky found himself all alone. His accusatory monologues do not arouse sympathy among those present, and all of Chatsky's "million torments" turn out to be in vain. However, it is not. The fact is that in the image of Chatsky, Griboedov portrayed advanced people who want to serve the Fatherland.

Help me write an essay on literature, on one of these topics: 1. The conflict of two eras in the comedy Woe from Wit 2. The theme of enlightenment in comedy

Woe from Wit

3. The problem of the mind in the comedy Woe from Wit

4. Chatsky and Molchilain (comparative characteristics)

5. My favorite character

1) Is Chatsky smart? In the comedy Woe from Wit? 2) Comedy "Woe from Wit" - a drama from the uselessness of the mind in Russia? 3) Honesty and kindness are more important

4) Does the country need smart people; what is the tragedy of smart people in the comedy "Woe from Wit" .....

Help with an essay. Please! Submit tomorrow! Comedy "Woe from Wit"

I need an essay on one of these topics:
1. "Chatsky - winner or loser"
2. Chatsky spokesman for the ideas of his time.
3. Barskaya Moscow in Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"
4. What are the dangers of silence.
5. "The current century and the past century"
6. Author and hero in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".
If anyone has an essay on one of these topics please reply. If it's good, with a plan and I don't find a copy, I'll pay 40 points

Make a plan and cut the text according to the plan "Woe from Wit" - an unsurpassed work, the only one in world literature,

unsolved to the end "(A. Blok)

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written between 1815 and 1820. The content of the play is closely connected with the historical events of that time in Russia. The work remains relevant today. In those days, there were defenders of serfdom and Decembrists in society, imbued with love for the Motherland, opposing violence against individuals.

The comedy describes the clash of two centuries: "the present century" with the "past century". A striking example of the old time is the so-called Famus society. These are acquaintances and relatives of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, a wealthy Moscow gentleman, in whose house the play takes place. These are Khlestova, the spouses Gorichi, Skalozub, Molchalin and others. All these people are united by one point of view on life. They are all cruel feudal lords, they consider human trafficking to be a normal phenomenon. Serfs save their lives and honor, sincerely serve, and they can exchange them for a pair of greyhounds. So at the ball at Famusov's, Khlestova tells Sofya to give a sop from dinner for her arapka - a girl and a dog. She sees no difference between them. This remains relevant today. When a rich person who has power and money can humiliate another person who is lower in level. The ideals for today's society are rich people, in ranks. Famusov cites Kuzma Petrovich as an example to Chatsky, who was a respectable chamberlain, "with a key", "rich and was married to a rich woman." Pavel Afanasyevich wants for his daughter such a groom as Skalozub, because he "both a golden bag and aims for generals."

All representatives of the Famus society are characterized by an indifferent attitude to business. Famusov, the "manager in a state-owned place," deals with business only once; at Molchalin's insistence, he signs papers, despite the fact that "there is a contradiction in them and a lot of weekly." He considers - "signed, so off your shoulders." The saddest thing is that nowadays people think in exactly the same way as Famusov. Attitude to work, almost all irresponsible. This is the unsurpassed great comedy, it remains vital, relevant in the 20th century.

The main character of the play is Chatsky, through whom the author expresses his progressive ideas. He opposes the senseless imitation of everything foreign. He wants to punish those around him that they are obliged to love and respect Russian culture. Chatsky says that a Frenchman from Bordeaux, who came to Moscow, did not hear "a word of a Russian" and did not see "a Russian face" here. The comedy "Woe from Wit" is the only one in world literature, since no one except Griboyedov reveals the whole reality of the events taking place.

In the comedy, Chatsky is declared crazy because the representatives of the Famus society do not understand his ideas. He alone does not want to put up with the humiliation of people over people. Chatsky failed to correctly prove the correctness of his beliefs and still cannot reveal the secret. The comedy remains unsolved, because humanity blindly follows life events, not wanting to change anything.

4. Mark what is the innovation of the system of images of the comedy "Woe for Wit":

A) compliance with the "role" system
B) the number of actors - more than twenty
C) the system of images is based on the principle of typification
D) lack of division of characters into positive and negative
D) introduction of off-stage characters
5. Correlate the comedy hero and the role to which he corresponds:
A) Chatsky
1) a father who is unaware of his daughter's love
B) Famusov
2) a lucky hero-lover
B) Sophia
3) soubrette
D) Lisa
4) the heroine of a love triangle
D) Molchalin
5) hero reasoner
6. Match the name of the hero and the role he plays in the comedy:
A) Khryumins, Tugoukhovskys, Khlestov
1) main characters
B) Prince Fedor, Kuzma Petrovich, Maxim Petrovich
2) minor
C) Chatsky, Sofia, Molchalin, Famusov
3) episodic
D) G.D.-G.N.
4) image-parody
D) Skalozub, Lisa, Zagoretsky, Gorich, Repetilov
5) off-stage characters
E) Repetilov
6) heroes. Necessary for the connection of the stage action
7. Mark the main means of creating satirical characters in comedy:
Individualization of language, aphorism, tragic pathos, author's remark, hyperbole, farcical details,
catharsis, phraseological units, dramatism, vernacular, irony, sarcasm.
8. Name the hero of the comedy "Woe from Wit", whose speech is aphoristic, the influence of the manner of speaking of other heroes is noticeable, the literary and colloquial forms of speech are intertwined, there are features of servility:
A) Molchalin B) Repetilov C) Zagoretsky D) Liza
9. Combine off-stage characters related to the "current century" and "past century":
Prince Fyodor, Maxim Petrovich, three of the boulevard faces, Tatyana Yurievna, Skalozub's cousin, Baron Von
Klotz, a Frenchman from Bordeaux, young people - "who travels, who lives in the countryside", Kuzma Petrovich, Sophia's aunt.
11. Where does Khlestova live:
A) on Tverskaya B) on the Kuznetsk bridge C) on Pokrovka D) at the Nikitsky gate
12. Whose portrait is this:
Curly! Hump of the shoulder blade!
Angry! All cat tricks!
How black! Yes, how terrible!
A) Khlestov
B) Princess Maria Alekseevna
B) Hryumina
D) arapki

"Woe from Wit" is one of the most topical works of Russian dramaturgy, a brilliant example of the close connection between literature and social life, an example of the writer's ability to respond in an artistically perfect form to the current phenomena of our time. The problems posed in Woe from Wit continued to excite Russian social thought and Russian literature many years after the play appeared. The comedy reflects the era that came after 1812. In artistic images, it gives a vivid idea of Russian social life in the late 10s and early 20s. 19th century In the foreground in "Woe from Wit" shows aristocratic Moscow. But in conversations, replicas of characters, the appearance of the capital's ministerial Petersburg, and the Saratov wilderness, where Sophia's aunt lives, and the boundless plains, "all the same wilderness and steppe" of the vast expanses of Russia (cf. Lermontov's "Motherland"), which appear to Chatsky's imagination . People of the most diverse social status perform in the comedy: from Famusov and Khlestova - representatives of the Moscow noble environment - to serf servants. And in the accusatory speeches of Chatsky, the voice of all advanced Russia sounded, the image of the “clever, vigorous” of our people arose (cf. Griboyedov’s note “Country trip”, 1826).

"Woe from Wit" is the fruit of Griboyedov's patriotic thoughts about the fate of Russia, about the ways of renewal, the reorganization of her life. From this high point of view, the most important political, moral, and cultural problems of the era are illuminated in the comedy: the question of serfdom, the struggle against serf-owning reaction, the relationship between the people and the noble intelligentsia, the activities of secret political societies, the education of noble youth, education and Russian national culture, the role of reason and ideas in public life, the problems of duty, honor and dignity of a person, and so on.

The historical content of "Woe from Wit" is revealed primarily as a collision and change of two great epochs of Russian life - the "current century" and the "past century" (in the minds of the progressive people of that time, the Patriotic War of 1812 was the historical boundary between the 18th and 19th centuries - the fire of Moscow, the defeat of Napoleon, the return of the army from foreign campaigns).

The comedy shows that the clash of the "current century" with the "past century" was an expression of the struggle of two social camps that developed in Russian society after the Patriotic War - the camp of feudal reaction, the defenders of serf antiquity in the person of Famusov, Skalozub and others, and the camp of the advanced noble youth, whose appearance is embodied by Griboedov in the image of Chatsky.

The clash of progressive forces with feudal-serf reaction was a fact not only of Russian but also of Western European reality of that time, a reflection of the socio-political struggle in Russia and in a number of Western European countries. “The social camps that collided in Griboedov’s play were a world-historical phenomenon,” M.V. Nechkina rightly notes. “They were created at the time of the revolutionary situation in Italy, and in Spain, and in Portugal, and in Greece, and in Prussia and in other European countries. Everywhere they took on peculiar forms ... Figuratively speaking, Chatsky in Italy would have been a carbonari, in Spain - an “exaltado”, in Germany - a student. We add that the Famus society itself perceived Chatsky through the prism of the entire European liberation movement. For the Countess-grandmother, he is a “cursed Voltairian”, for Princess Tugoukhovskaya he is a Jacobin. Famusov calls him carbonarius with horror. As we can see, the main stages of the liberation movement in the West are the enlightenment of the 18th century, the Jacobin dictatorship of 1792-1794. and the revolutionary movement of the 1920s are very accurately indicated in the comedy. As a truly great artist, Griboyedov reflected in Woe from Wit the essential aspects of the reality of his time, a whole great era of world-historical scale and significance. The main and important at that time was the contradiction and clash of the two indicated social camps, the struggle of which Griboyedov reveals in its broad historical connections, both modern and past.

Characteristic of the Famus society is the worthless screamer Repetilov. The image of Repetilov is very important for understanding the ideological concept of comedy and understanding the political situation that developed in the early 1920s. Vulgar sociological criticism unreasonably interpreted the image of Repetilov as a manifestation of Griboyedov's political skepticism in relation to the goals and forms of the liberation movement of the 1920s. 19th century In fact, the image of Repetilov, in comparison with the image of Chatsky, testifies to the writer's deep understanding of the difference that existed between the truly advanced, free-thinking people of Russian society of his time and that scum of Moscow club liberalism and political opportunism, a vivid expression of which is Repetilov.

At the beginning of the XIX century. many sympathized with the liberal movement, not because of their ideological convictions and noble aspirations, but because the fashion for liberalism reigned in the noble society, caused by the hypocritical liberal promises of the government. Skillfully using the "liberal" moods of Alexander I, some "liberals" made a good service career. Later, in connection with the ever-increasing influence of the Arakcheevshchina, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, with the growth of anti-serfdom sentiments in the country, especially after the uprising of the Semyonovsky regiment in 1820, with the increasing aggravation of the struggle between the two warring camps in Russian society, many, masquerading as liberals, revealed their real faces as liberal idlers and loudmouths, from whom both warring camps turned away with contempt. In the image of Repetilov, Griboyedov exposes this kind of liberals, whose emptiness and noisy activity he could observe during his stay in Moscow in the spring of 1823.

Repetilov is not averse to criticizing state power, but mainly for his own failures in his service. He admires the "most secret alliance", never for a moment thinking about its true goals. To match Repetilov and other members of the "secret union": Alexei Lakhmotiev, who verbally demands radical drugs, Levon and Borinka, "wonderful guys", the Angloman Prince Grigory, the "genius" Udushyev Ippolit Markelych, who wrote an essay on the topic "Look and Something", and others. Repetilovism is ostentatious liberalism, empty phrase-mongering, so clearly expressed in the famous words of Repetilov: “We make noise, brother, we make noise ...” and in Chatsky’s remark: “Are you making noise? but only?"

Chatsky's accusatory speeches and Famusov's enthusiastic stories recreate the image of the eighteenth, "past century". This is the "age of humility and fear", the "age of Catherine" with its "nobles in the event", with flattering courtiers, with all the pomp and depraved morals, with insane extravagance and feasts in "magnificent chambers", with "luxurious amusements" and poverty serfs and with the “cursed Voltairians”, whom the countess-grandmother recalls with senile indignation.

"The past century" is the ideal of the lordly, Famus society. “And to take awards and live happily” - in these words of Molchalin, as well as in Famusov’s admiration for Catherine’s nobleman and rich man Maxim Petrovich, the whole ideal of Famusov’s society, his crudely egoistic philosophy of life, is expressed.

Pimenovskaya secondary school.

Supervisor:

and literature

Pimenovskaya secondary school.

With. Pimenovka

year 2012

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3

Chapter I

2.1.1. The socio-historical theme of the turning point of two epochs - “the current century” and “the past century”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4-5

3. 1.2. The power of exposing the mores of the feudal lords…………………………………6-8

4. 1.3. reflections of critics on the comedy "Woe from Wit"……………………… 9-12

5. Conclusions on Chapter I……………………………………………………………… 13

Chapter II. The images of the heroes of the comedy "Woe from Wit" are a reflection of the way of life in 1812.

6. 2.1.The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit"………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14-16

7.2.2. Comparative characteristics of Famusov and Chatsky…………………… 17-19

8.2.3. Chatsky and Mochalin in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”……………… 20-21

9.2.4. The role of Sophia in comedy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-23

10. Conclusions on Chapter II……………………………………………………………… 24

11. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 25

Introduction

Oh! Evil tongues are worse than a gun. Griboedov "Woe from Wit" was written 180 years ago, but is still fresh, imaginative, bright thanks to the author's language. There is, perhaps, no other example of a work of art in Russian and world literature that would “shatter” with “winged words” and expressions, enriching the national language, as happened with Griboedov’s comedy. Pushkin brilliantly foresaw this: "I'm not talking about poetry: half should become a proverb." Without thinking about who said it, we repeat everywhere “catch phrases”, decorating our speech with them, making it more figurative and intelligible. Why wake up? You wind up the clock yourself, you thunder the symphony for the whole quarter. Or: "Happy hours do not watch." Comedy turned out to be surprisingly relevant and topical in the modern era, since all its “types” are still alive, they have only acquired a modern gloss, are not so frank, “repainted”, but the essence remains the same: “The Silent people are blissful in the world!”, And doesn’t he have two very important talents: “moderation and accuracy.

That's what attracted me to this comedy. And I chose a topic for my research work: "Woe from Wit" - a reflection of the turning point of two eras"

Purpose: Through the study of materials about Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", to find out its modern essence.

1. Find out the specificity of the social content of the comedy.

2. To trace the history of the turning point of two eras.

3. Through the study and comparison of the main characters, to understand the way of life in 1812.

This work consists of two chapters, containing three parts, conclusions, applications in the form of a presentation.

ChapterI. The richness and concreteness of the social content embedded in the comedy "Woe from Wit"

1.1. The socio-historical theme of the turning point of two epochs is “the present century” and “the past century”.

The success of "Woe from Wit", which appeared on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, was extremely great. “There is no end to the thunder, noise, admiration, curiosity,” Griboedov himself described the atmosphere of friendly attention, love and support that the advanced Russian people of the twenties surrounded the comedy and its author.
According to Pushkin, the comedies "produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed Griboedov along with our first poets." In world literature, one can not find many works that, like "Woe from Wit", in a short time would gain such undoubted national fame. At the same time, contemporaries fully felt the socio-political relevance of comedy, perceiving it as a topical work of a new literature, which set as its main task the development of "its own wealth" (that is, the material of national history and modern Russian life) - and its own, original, non-borrowed funds. a hero with the inert environment of reactionaries surrounding him. This conflict depicted by Griboedov was vitally truthful, historically reliable. From a young age, rotating in the circle of advanced Russian people who embarked on the path of struggle with the world of autocracy of serfdom, living in the interests of these people, sharing their views and convictions, Griboyedov had the opportunity to closely and daily observe the most important, characteristic and exciting phenomenon of the social life of his time - the struggle of two worldviews, two ideologies, two ways of life, two generations.
After the Patriotic War, during the years of the formation and rise of the socio-political and general cultural movement of the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists, the struggle of the new - emerging and developing - with the old - obsolete and hindering progress - was most sharply expressed in the form of just such an open clash between the young heralds of the "free life "and the militant guardians of the Old Testament, reactionary orders, which is depicted in" Woe from Wit ". Griboyedov himself in a widely known, constantly quoted letter to (January 1825, with the utmost clarity revealed the content and ideological meaning of the dramatic conflict underlying "Woe from Wit". mind”: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools per sane person; and this person, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive, why he is a little higher than the others.
And then Griboyedov shows how systematically and irresistibly, more and more aggravated, the “contradiction” of Chatsky with the Famus society is growing, how this society betrays Chatsky with an anathema, which is in the nature of a political denunciation - Chatsky is announced to all ears as a troublemaker, carbonarius, a man, encroaching on the "legitimate" state and social system; how, finally, the voice of universal hatred spreads vile gossip about Chatsky's madness: "At first he is cheerful, and this is a vice:" To joke and joke for a century, how will you become like that! their noblest conspicuous feature!His mockery is not caustic until he is enraged, but still: "I'm glad to humiliate, prick, envious! proud and angry!" Does not tolerate meanness: "ah! My God, he’s a carbonari. Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed and everyone repeats, the voice of general unkindness even reaches him, moreover, the dislike for him of that girl for whom he was the only one who came to Moscow , he completely explained, he didn’t give a damn about her and everyone else and was like that. Griboedov told in his comedy about what happened in a Moscow house in one day. But what breadth in this story! It has the spirit of the time, the spirit of history. Griboyedov, as it were, pushed apart the walls of the Famusov's house and showed the whole life of the noble society of his era - with the contradictions that torn this society, the boiling of passions, the enmity of generations, the struggle of ideas. Within the framework of the dramatic picture of the hero's encounter with the environment, Griboedov included the enormous socio-historical theme of a turning point that has become apparent in life - the theme of the boundary of two eras - the "current century" and the "past century".
Hence - the extraordinary richness of the ideological content of the comedy. In one form or another and in one way or another, Griboedov touched upon in Woe from Wit many of the most serious issues of social life, morality and culture, which had the most relevant, most topical significance in the Decembrist era. These were questions about the situation of the Russian people, crushed by the yoke of serfdom, about the future fate of Russia, Russian statehood and Russian culture, about the freedom and independence of the human person, about the public calling of a person, about his patriotic and civic duty, about a new understanding of personal and civic honor, about the power of human reason and knowledge, about the tasks, ways and means of enlightenment and education. The genius of Griboedov responded to all these questions, and this response was filled with such an ardent civic-patriotic passion of such indomitable indignation at evil and untruth that the comedy could not help but make the deepest and most striking impression both in the advanced circles of Russian society and in the camp of reactionaries. .

1.2. The power of exposing the mores of the feudal lords

1.2. RRRRRRR critics' thoughts on the comedy "Woe from Wit"

It is not for nothing that critics of the 1900s immediately, in all fairness, assessed "Woe from Wit" as the first "political comedy" in Russian literature. Bringing it closer in this sense to Beaumarchais's comedy "The Marriage of Figaro", which at one time (in 1784) dealt a severe blow absolutism and feudal remnants in pre-revolutionary France, criticism pointed out that "Beaumarchais and Griboedov ... with equal causticity of satire brought to the stage the political concepts and habits of the societies in which they lived, measuring the national morality of their homelands with a proud look." And later the historian even called
"Library for Reading", 1834, vol. 1, No. 1, sec. VI, p. 44. Also, speaking of the socio-historical significance of "Woe from Wit", I recalled in this connection the comedy of Beaumarchais, which had, according to According to Herzen, the meaning of the "coup d'état".
Griboyedov's comedy "the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century".
For such an assessment, in fact, there were very good reasons. And not only because "Woe from Wit" is one of the most remarkable monuments of Russian and world accusatory satirical literature, but also because comedy has a rich positive, positive content, which, in turn, has acquired an equally strong socio-political sound, as well as an angry exposure of the feudal world.
Woe from Wit, of course, remains one of the masterpieces of punishing social satire. But genuine satire is not one-sided, because a satirist writer, if he stands at the forefront of ideological and artistic positions, always denounces evil and vices in the name of goodness and virtue, in the name of affirming some positive ideal - social, political, moral. Likewise, Griboyedov in Woe from Wit not only exposed the world of feudal lords, but also asserted his positive ideal, full of deep social and political meaning. This ideal found an artistic embodiment in the image of the only true hero of the play - Chatsky.
As a national and popular writer, Griboedov, of course, could not confine himself to one image of the Famus world, but he certainly had to reflect in his historical picture the other side of reality - the ferment of young, fresh, progressive forces that undermine the strongholds of the autocratic feudal system.
This task was also brilliantly performed by Griboyedov. The ideological content of Woe from Wit, of course, is not limited to exposing the orders and mores of serf society. The comedy gives a truly broad and in all details true historical picture of all Russian life in Griboedov's time - both its shadow and light sides. The comedy reflected not only the life and customs of the old noble Moscow, which lived according to the Old Testament traditions of the “times of the Ochakov and
"V. Klyuchevsky. The course of Russian history, vol. V, M., Gospolitizdat, 1958, p. 248.
conquest of the Crimea”, but also the social ferment of the era - that struggle between the new and the old, in the conditions of which the Decembrist movement was born, the revolutionary ideology took shape in Russia.
Famusovism is a reaction, inertia, routine, cynicism, a stable, once and for all definite way of life. Here, rumors are most feared (“sin is not a problem, rumors are not good”) and they hush up everything new, disturbing, which does not fit into the norm and ranking. The motif of "silence" runs like a red thread through all the scenes of the comedy dedicated to the Famus world, where "The Silent people are blissful in the world." And Chatsky bursts into this musty world, like a discharge of a refreshing thunderstorm, with his anxiety, dreams, thirst for freedom and thought about the people. He is a real troublemaker in the circle of the Famusovs, Skalozubs and Molchalins; they are even afraid of his laughter. He openly, publicly spoke about what was zealously hushed up in their circle - about liberty, about conscience, about honor, about nobility, - and his ardent speech was taken up by all the progressive Russian literature of the 19th century.
Portraying Chatsky as a smart and noble man, a man of "lofty thoughts" and advanced convictions, a herald of "free life" and a zealot of Russian national identity. Griboyedov solved the problem of creating the image of a positive hero that confronted the progressive Russian literature of the twenties. The tasks of civic, ideologically directed and socially effective literature, as the writer understood the Decembrist trend, did not at all boil down to a satirical denunciation of the orders and mores of serf society. This literature set itself other, no less important goals: to serve as a means of revolutionary socio-political education, to arouse love for the "public good" and inspire the fight against despotism. This literature was supposed not only to stigmatize vices, but also to praise civic virtues.
Griboyedov responded to both of these demands put forward by life itself and the course of the liberation struggle.
Returning to the remarkably correct idea that Woe from Wit provides an almost scientific analysis of the Russian historical reality of the Decembrist
epoch, it should be emphasized for complete clarity that Griboyedov entered history and our lives, nevertheless, not as a research scientist and not as a thinker, even if it is remarkable, but as a poet of genius. Studying reality as an inquisitive analyst, he reflected it as an artist, moreover, as a bold innovator. He painted his accurate and reliable picture, using the techniques, means and colors of the artistic image. He embodied the meaning of what he noticed and studied in artistic images. And because of this, the picture he painted of ideological life in the Decembrist era turned out to be much brighter, deeper, more voluminous than even the most attentive research scientist could do.
When the truth of life becomes the content of art, the power of its influence on the thoughts and feelings of people increases even more. This is precisely the “secret” of art, that it allows people to see even what they know well more clearly, more distinctly, and sometimes from a new, yet unfamiliar side. The phenomenon of life, visible to everyone, known to everyone, even becoming familiar, being transformed by the great generalizing power of art, often appears as if in a new light, grows in its meaning, reveals itself to contemporaries with such fullness that was previously inaccessible to them.
Woe from Wit is, of course, one of the most tendentious works of Russian world literature. Griboyedov set himself a very definite moral and educational goal and was concerned that this goal should become clear to the reader and viewer of the comedy. He wrote "Woe from Wit" to ridicule and stigmatize the feudal world, at the same time, it was an important task for Griboedov to reveal his positive ideal to the reader and viewer, to convey to them his thoughts and feelings, his moral and social ideas.
Griboedov did not retreat in Woe from Wit before open tendentiousness, and it did not cause any damage to his creation, for no correct, historically justified tendency will ever harm art if it is artistically translated, if it follows logically and naturally from the essence and the content of the conflict underlying the work, from the clash of passions, opinions, characters.

The task of creating a typical character in typical circumstances, which realistic art sets itself, provides for revealing the meaning of that phenomenon of socio-historical reality, on which the artist's attention has stopped. In Woe from Wit, the socio-historical situation itself is typical, since it faithfully and deeply reflects the conflict that is quite characteristic of this era. That is why all the human images created by Griboyedov are typical. In this regard, it is necessary to dwell first of all on the image of Chatsky. In the individual and special incarnation of his character, the essence of that new, progressive social force, which in Griboedov's time entered the historical stage in order to enter into a decisive struggle against the reactionary forces of the old world and win this struggle, is clearly and clearly expressed. The realist artist vigilantly discerned in the reality surrounding him this then only brewing force and realized that the future belongs to it.
At the time of Griboyedov, the work of the liberation struggle was carried out by a few "best people from the nobility" (according to the characteristics), far from the people and powerless without the support of the people. But their cause was not lost because, as Lenin said, they "...helped to wake up the people", because they prepared the further upsurge of the revolutionary movement in Russia.
". Complete Works, vol. 23, p. 398.
Let in the time of Griboyedov, on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, famusism still seemed to be a solid foundation for social life in an autocratic-feudal state, even if the Famusovs, Skalozubs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others like them still occupied a dominant position then, but as a social force, famusism was already rotting and was doomed for dying. There were still very few Chatskys, but they embodied that fresh, youthful force that was destined to develop and which was therefore irresistible.
Understanding the pattern of historical development and expressing his understanding in the artistic images of "Woe from Wit", Griboedov reflected the objective truth of life, created a typical image of a "new man" - a public Protestant and a fighter - in the typical circumstances of his historical time.
Equally typical and historically characteristic are representatives of another social camp acting in Griboyedov's comedy. Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Skalozub, Zagoretsky, Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Countess Khryumina and all the other characters of old baroque Moscow, each in their own way, in their individual artistic embodiment, express with remarkable fullness and sharpness the essence of that social force that stood guard the preservation of the old, reactionary orders of the feudal-serf world.
Boldly, innovatively solving the problem of typicality in Woe from Wit. Griboyedov thus, with complete clarity, not allowing any misunderstandings, said with his work, in the name of what, in the name of what ideals, he exposed the Famusism. Penetrating creative thought into the essence of the main social and ideological contradictions of his time, showing that Chatsky represented in himself the growing and developing power of Russian society, generously endowing his character with heroic traits. Griboyedov thus solved the political problem. This was primarily the socio-political position of Griboedov, and this was the most convincing ideological orientation of his work.

Conclusions onIchapter:

Griboedov did not retreat in Woe from Wit before open tendentiousness, and it did not cause any damage to his creation, for no correct, historically justified tendency will ever harm art if it is artistically translated, if it follows logically and naturally from the essence and the content of the conflict underlying the work, from the clash of passions, opinions, characters.
Woe from Wit embodies a whole system of ideological views in connection with the sharpest, most topical topics and issues of our time, but these views are expressed with the greatest artistic tact - not in the form of direct declarations and maxims, but in images, in composition, in plot. in speech characteristics, in short, in the very artistic structure of comedy, in its very artistic fabric.
Related to this is the important question of how Griboyedov solved the main problem of "forming artistic realism - the problem of typicality.

ChapterII. The images of the heroes of the comedy "Woe from Wit" are a reflection of the way of life in 1812.

2.1. The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit".

The Famus society, which firmly preserved the traditions of the "past century", is opposed by Alexander Andreyich Chatsky. This is an advanced man of the "current century", more precisely, of the time when, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened the public self-consciousness of the Russian people, secret revolutionary circles and political societies began to emerge and develop. Chatsky in the literature of the 20s of the 19th century is the most vivid image of the “new man”, a positive hero, a Decembrist in his views, social behavior, moral convictions, throughout the whole cast of mind and soul.
The son of a late friend of Famusov, Chatsky grew up in his house, in childhood he was brought up and studied with Sophia under the guidance of Russian and foreign teachers and tutors. The framework of the comedy did not allow Griboedov to tell in detail where Chatsky studied further, how he grew and developed. We only know that he is an educated person, engaged in literary work (“he writes and translates well”), that he was in the military service, had connections with ministers, was abroad for three years (obviously, in the Russian army). Staying abroad enriched Chatsky with new impressions, broadened his mental horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. From this servility to Europe, so typical of the Famus society, Chatsky was protected by his inherent qualities: genuine patriotism, love for the motherland, for its people, a critical attitude towards the reality around him, independence of views, a developed sense of personal and national dignity.
Returning to Moscow, Chatsky found in the life of the noble society the same vulgarity and emptiness that characterized it in the old years. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, the suppression of the individual, which reigned in this society even before the war of 1812.
The clash of Chatsky - a man with a strong-willed character, whole in his feelings, a fighter for an idea - with the Famus society was inevitable. This clash gradually takes on an increasingly fierce character, it is complicated by Chatsky's personal drama - the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness; his attacks against the noble society are becoming more and more harsh.
Chatsky comes to grips with the Famus society. In Chatsky's speeches, the opposite of his views to the views of Famus Moscow is clearly expressed.
1. If Famusov is the defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky, with the indignation of a Decembrist revolutionary, speaks of serfs, of serfdom. In the monologue "Who are the judges?" he angrily opposes those people who are
pillars of noble society. He sharply speaks out against the orders of the Catherine's age, dear to Famusov's heart, "the age of humility and fear - the age of flattery and arrogance."
The ideal of Chatsky is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and a “hunter to be mean”, but an independent, free person, alien to slavish humiliation.
2. If Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub consider service as a source of personal benefits, service to individuals, and not to the cause, then Chatsky breaks ties with the ministers, leaves the service precisely because he would like to serve the motherland, and not serve the authorities: “I would serve happy to serve sickly, ”he says. He defends the right to serve the enlightenment of the country through scientific work, literature, art, although he is aware of how difficult it is in the conditions of autocratic serfdom.
building:

Now let one of us
Among young people, there is an enemy of searches,
In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge;
Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat
To creative arts, lofty and beautiful,
They immediately: - Robbery! fire!
And they will be known as a dreamer! dangerous!!

These young people are understood to mean such people as Chatsky, the cousin of Skalozub, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - "a chemist and botanist."
3. If the Famus society treats everything with disdain. folk, national, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, especially France, even neglecting his native language, then Chatsky stands for the development of a national culture that masters the best, advanced achievements of European civilization. He himself "searched for the mind" during his stay in the West, but he is against the "empty, slavish, blind imitation" of foreigners.
Chatsky stands for the unity of the intelligentsia with the people. He has a high opinion of the Russian people. He calls him “smart” and “peppy”, that is, cheerful.
4. If the Famus society evaluates a person by his origin and the number of serf souls he has, then Chatsky sees the value of a person in his personal merits.
5. For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of aristocratic society is sacred and infallible, the worst of all is “what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!” Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts, opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own convictions and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are the opinions of others only holy?”
6. Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, flattery, hypocrisy, and the emptiness of those vital interests by which the conservative circles of the nobility live.
With great completeness and clarity, the spiritual qualities of Chatsky are revealed in his language: in the choice of words, in the construction of a phrase, intonation, manner of speaking.
Chatsky's speech is the speech of a speaker who is fluent in the word, a highly educated person.
In terms of vocabulary, Chatsky's speech is rich and varied. He can express any concept and feeling, give an accurate description of any person and touch on different aspects of life. We meet with him both folk words (nowadays, indeed, more than tea), and expressions peculiar only to the Russian language: “not a hair of love”, “she doesn’t put a penny on him”, “yes, it’s full of nonsense to grind” and others. Chatsky, like the Decembrists, appreciates
national culture: there are a lot of old words in his speech (veche, finger, vperit mind, hungry for knowledge, etc.). He uses foreign words in the event that there is no corresponding Russian word to express the desired concept: climate, province, parallel, etc.
Chatsky builds his speech syntactically in a variety of ways. As a speaker, he makes extensive use of periodical speech. As a writer, he quotes from works of art in his speech. In his words:
When you space, you return home,
And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us! -
The last line is a slightly modified verse by Derzhavin:
Good news about our side is dear to us;
Fatherland and smoke are sweet and pleasant to us.
("Harp", 1798.)
Chatsky’s mind is reflected in his wide use of well-aimed aphorisms, that is, short sayings-characteristics: “Fresh legend, but hard to believe”, “Blessed is he who believes: it is warm in the world”, “Houses are new, but prejudices are old”, etc. n. Chatsky knows how to give concise, but well-aimed characteristics to people: “A base worshiper and a businessman” (Molchalin), “A constellation of maneuvers and a mazurka” (Skalozub), “And Guillaume, a Frenchman, lined with a breeze?”
The tone of Chatsky's speech always clearly expresses his state of mind. Joyfully excited by the meeting with Sophia, he is "lively and talkative." His witticisms over the Muscovites at this moment are good-natured, his speech, addressed to Sophia, breathes lyricism. In the future, as his struggle with the Famus society intensifies, Chatsky's speech is increasingly colored with indignation and caustic irony.

2.2. Comparative characteristics of Famusov and Chatsky

He (Chatsky) is an eternal debunker of lies, hiding in the proverb "one man is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky ...
.

The author of the immortal comedy "Woe from Wit", which had a huge impact on all Russian literature and occupied a special place in it. The comedy "Woe from Wit" became the first realistic comedy in the history of Russian literature. In the images of the comedy, Griboyedov accurately reproduced the "high society" of that time, showed the conflict between two opposite sides - Chatsky and Famusov, representatives of the "current century" and the "past century".
Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov is a bright representative of the "past century", a narrow-minded manager in a state-owned place, a cruel serf-owner. It doesn't cost anything to Famusov to humiliate the dignity of his servant or threaten to exile his serfs "to a settlement" for no reason. Landlords do not consider their serfs to be people. For example, the old woman Khlestova puts her maid on a par with a dog:
Out of boredom, I took with me
Arapka-girl and dog.
Enlightenment, science, movement towards progress causes special hatred among people of the Famus circle. Famusov gives his daughter an education in which the possibility of true enlightenment is excluded in advance:

To teach our daughters everything -
And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!

And Famusov himself is not distinguished by education and says that there is no use in reading, and his “comrade-in-arms”, in the “scientific committee that settled”, shouting demands oaths that “no one knew and did not learn to read”, and teachers for their Famusov says this about freedom of thought:

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause.
What is now more than ever,
Crazy divorced people and deeds and opinions

And his final word about enlightenment and education in Russia is "to take away all the books, but burn them."

Representatives of "famusism" think only about rank, wealth and profitable connections. They treat the service formally, they see it only as a means to make a career. “If only I could get into the generals,” says Colonel Skalozub, a narrow-minded and rude person. Famusov also does not hide his attitude to the service:

And I have what's the matter, what's not the case.
My custom is this:
Signed, so off your shoulders.

Be bad, yes if you get it
Souls of a thousand two tribal, -
That and the groom.

Of course, the beloved Sofya Molchalin, the penniless and rootless secretary Famusov has no chance, because the father severely punishes his daughter: "who is poor, he is not a match for you." Ranks, uniforms, money - these are the ideals that the "age of the past" worships. Women “cling to uniforms,” “but because they are patriots,” says Famusov.
The main representative of the "current century" is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, a young, well-educated, intelligent, noble, honest and courageous person. Chatsky treats “stars and ranks” in a completely different way. He left the service because “he would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” He hates careerism and sycophancy:

As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;
As not in the war, but in the world they took it with their foreheads,
They knocked on the floor without regret! ...
But meanwhile, whom the hunt will take,
Though in the most ardent servility,
Now to make people laugh
To bravely sacrifice the back of the head...

Chatsky stands for true enlightenment, and not for external gloss, condemns the desire to "recruit regimental teachers, more in number, at a cheaper price":

Now let one of us
Of the young people there is an enemy of searches,
Not demanding either places or promotions,
In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge.

Most sharply Chatsky denounces the vices of serfdom. He indignantly denounces "Nestor of the noble nobles", who exchanged his devoted servants for greyhounds, and the heartless landowner who

He drove to the fortress ballet on many wagons
From mothers, fathers of rejected children?!
He himself is immersed in mind in Zephyrs and Cupids,
Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!
But the debtors did not agree to the postponement:
Cupids and Zephyrs all
Sold out individually!!!

Chatsky also advocates the development of folk culture, he condemns the blind obedience to foreign fashion:

Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion,
So that our smart kind people
Although the language of us for the Germans.

2.3. Chatsky and Mochalin in Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"

The comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the best works of Russian literature. In it, the writer reflected his time, the problems of the era, and also showed his attitude towards them.
In this work there is a "new man", which is filled with lofty ideas. Chatsky protests against all the old orders that existed then in Moscow. The hero of the comedy fights for "new" laws: freedom, mind, culture, patriotism. This is a person with a different mindset and soul, a different view of the world and people.
Arriving at Famusov's house, Chatsky dreams of the daughter of this rich gentleman - Sophia. He is in love with a girl and hopes that Sophia loves him. But in the house of an old friend of his father, only disappointments and blows await the hero. First, it turns out that Famusov's daughter loves another. Secondly, that the people in this gentleman's house are strangers to the hero. He cannot agree with their views on life.
Chatsky is sure that everything changed in his time:

No, today the world is not like that.
Everyone breathes freely
And not in a hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.

Chatsky believes that education is necessary for every person. The hero himself spent a long time abroad, received a good education. The old society, headed by Famusov, believes that scholarship is the cause of all troubles. Education can even drive you crazy. Therefore, the Famus society so easily believes the rumor about the madness of the hero at the end of the comedy.
Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky is a patriot of Russia. At a ball in Famusov's house, he saw how all the guests kowtow before the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" just because he was a foreigner. This caused a wave of indignation in the hero. He fights for everything Russian in the Russian country. Chatsky dreams that people are proud of their homeland, they speak Russian.
The hero cannot understand how some people can rule over others in his country. He does not accept slavery with all his soul. Chatsky fights for the abolition of serfdom.
In a word, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky wants to change his life, to live better, more honestly, more justly.

In order to more clearly show the character of Chatsky, his antipode, Molchalin, is also drawn in the comedy. This person is very resourceful, able to find an approach to any influential person.
Molchalin's worldview, his life position in no way fits into the moral code of life. He is one of those who serve the rank, not the cause. Molchalin is sure that this form of social relations is the only true one. He always ends up in the right place at the right time and is indispensable in the Famus house:

There the pug will stroke in time,
Here at the right time the card will be rubbed ...

In addition, this is a person who is ready to endure any humiliation in order to achieve power and wealth. It is these perspectives that force the hero to turn his attention to Sophia. Molchalin is trying to evoke feelings for the girl, but his sympathy is false. If Sophia's father was not Famusov, she would be indifferent to him. And if instead of Sophia there was a more mediocre girl, but the daughter of an influential person, Molchalin would still portray love.
Another fact is also surprising: Molchalin's remarks are short, concise, which indicates his desire to appear meek and compliant:

In my summers must not dare
Have your own opinion.
The only person who sees the true nature of Molchalin is Chatsky. With all his being he denies such people as Aleksey Stepanych. Chatsky sarcastically tells Sophia about the true state of affairs:
You will make peace with him, according to mature reflection.
To destroy yourself, and for what!
Think you can always
Protect and swaddle, and send for business.
Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife's pages -
The lofty ideal of all Moscow men.

Chatsky gives an exact definition of Molchalin and his ilk: "... not in war, but in peace, they took it with their foreheads, knocked on the floor without sparing." The main character sees the main problem of Molchalin - his inability to be sincere due to excessive selfishness and the desire to benefit from everything.

Thus, Chatsky and Molchalin are completely different people who, it would seem, belong to the same generation. Both of them are young, live at the same time. But how different are their natures! If Chatsky is a progressive person, filled with the ideas of the "new time", then Molchalin is a product of the "Famus Moscow", the successor of their ideas.
In his work, Griboedov shows that, although outwardly the victory remained with the philosophy of life of Molchalin, the future is undoubtedly with Chatsky and his supporters, whose number is increasing every day.

2.4. Sophia's role in comedy

Griboedov is a man of one book, - he noted. “If not for Woe from Wit, Griboedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”
The main feature of the comedy is the interaction of two conflicts - a love conflict, the main characters of which are Sofia and Chatsky, and a socio-ideological one, in which Chatsky clashes with conservatives.
Sophia is the main plot partner of Chatsky, she occupies a special place in the system of comedy characters. The love conflict with Sophia involved the hero in a conflict with everyone in society, served, according to Goncharov, "a motive, a reason for irritation, for that" million torments, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov. Sofia does not take the side of Chatsky, but does not belong to Famusov's like-minded people, although she lived and was brought up in his house. She is a closed, secretive person, it is difficult to approach her.
There are qualities in Sophia's character that sharply distinguish her among the people of Famus society. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in her dismissive attitude to gossip and gossip: “What is rumor to me? Whoever wants, so judges ... ". Nevertheless, Sophia knows the "laws" of the Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she deftly connects public opinion to take revenge on her former lover.
Sophia's character has not only positive, but also negative traits. “A mixture of good instincts with a lie,” Goncharov saw in this image. Self-will, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of both good and bad deeds. After all, having slandered Chatsky, Sophia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among the guests gathered in Famusov's house, convinced that Chatsky was a completely normal person.
Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but love for Molchalin, both selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sophia extols Molchalin's spiritual qualities to the skies, she is so blinded by her feeling that she does not notice "how the portrait comes out" (Goncharov).
Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. She idealizes Molchalin, not even trying to find out what he really is, not noticing his "vulgarity" and pretense.
Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different. She does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not seek to understand him, avoids explanations. Sophia is unfair to Chatsky, considering him callous and heartless: "Not a man, a snake." Sophia ascribes to him an evil desire to “humiliate” and “prick” everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: “What are you doing to me?”.
Sophia, the main culprit of Chatsky's mental anguish, evokes sympathy herself. Sincere and passionate in her own way, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. This love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is anxious to find her a rich groom.
Sophia is proud, proud, knows how to inspire respect for herself. At the end of the comedy, her love is replaced by contempt for Molchalin: “Don’t you dare expect reproaches, complaints, tears of mine, you don’t deserve them ...”. Sophia is aware of self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely repents. In the last scenes of "Woe from Wit" there is no trace of the former capricious and self-confident Sophia. The fate of Sophia, at first glance, is unexpected, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, it approaches the tragic fate of Chatsky rejected by her. Indeed, as Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has "harder than everyone else, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets it" a million torments." The denouement of the love plot of the comedy turned into grief for the smart Sophia, a life catastrophe.

Conclusions onIIchapter:

Chatsky attracts with a deep and sharp mind, independence of judgment, willpower, courage, a noble desire to help the motherland and change the world for the better. It seems to me that Chatsky is both a winner and a loser, he "lost the battle, but won the war." Of course, Chatsky could not change the Famus society in one day. Goncharov wrote: "Chatsky is broken by the amount of strength, inflicting with it the quality of fresh strength." But, nevertheless, he managed to disturb the calmness of the measured life of the inhabitants of Moscow, which means that Chatsky has already won.

Conclusion.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" shows Chatsky's opposition to the Russian nobility. All characters can be considered insane. Each side thinks the other side is crazy. In all actions, the characters gossip and defame each other. And they do it not openly, but behind their backs. They scold everything new and advanced. But not a single hero sees himself from the outside. Famusov says about Chatsky: “A dangerous person”, “He wants to preach freedom”, “Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!” Sofya about Chatsky: “I’m ready to pour out bile on everyone.” Chatsky, in turn, about Molchalin: “Why not a husband? There is only little mind in him; But in order to have children, who lacked intelligence? Natalya Dmitrievna about Chatsky: "retired and single." Platon Mikhailovich about Zdgoretsky: “A notorious swindler, a rogue ...”, “... and don’t get into cards: he will sell.” Khlestova considers Zagoretsky "a liar, a gambler and a thief." And all together about Chatsky: “Learning is the plague, scholarship is the reason that now it’s more than when crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions”, “If you stop the evil: take away all the books and burn them.”
So everyone in society hates each other. When you read this comedy, it seems that everything is happening not in an intelligent society, but in Chekhov's "Ward No. 6". People seem to be delusional. They live in this world only for intrigues, which from the outside look like madness. Chatsky is smart, but he does not like the people around him, just as, however, those around him do not like him. As a result, a struggle of opposites sets in, an insane society with a “minus” sign, struggles with Chatsky, who, of course, should be marked with a “plus” sign. He, in turn, is fighting the stupidity, illiteracy, inertness and dishonesty of his own fellow tribesmen. Insane you glorified me with all the chorus. You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed, Whoever manages to stay with you for a day, Breathes the same air, And his mind will survive. Get out of Moscow! I don't come here anymore. I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world, Where there is a corner for an offended feeling! - Carriage to me, carriage!
This monologue ends his work. And we understand that the "mad" Chatsky failed to change anything in "smart" people. Famusov's last remark confirms this: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!
The author himself is the judge - he takes the side of Chatsky and declares him smart, and everyone else is stupid. Here I fully agree with the position. But there is one “but”. Yes, Chatsky returned from abroad. Yes, he has seen a lot, he knows what his goal in life is. But a smart person will never enter into an argument with a stupid, especially with a stupid society. Did Griboedov have to show Chatsky also from the “crazy” side? And he simply punished Chatsky for his mind, calling him “crazy”. Maybe he wanted to describe Russia of that time? Or maybe he decided to show that everything in this world is insane and among a host of madmen it is difficult to be alone, the only smart person. As soon as someone begins to rise above everyone thanks to his education, how the “churned sea” of madmen will be overwhelmed by a huge wave of an unsupported nerd. The same Chatsky. Yes, I think that's exactly what's going on. Chatsky unwittingly showed that he was smarter than people like Famusov, and he immediately announced to the whole society that he was the lowest person in the world. So who is considered smart if the smart among the crazy looks even crazier? Only a madman can start a confrontation with people who live for their own pleasure, because they are always satisfied with everything, and they do not want any changes.

Subject: Woe from Wit

Questions and answers to the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit"?
What do you think, is I. A. Goncharov right, who believed that Griboyedov's comedy will never become obsolete?

I guess that's right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of the life of Russia after the war of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in people's minds when changing historical eras. Griboedov convincingly shows that at first the new is quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools per intelligent person, as Griboyedov aptly puts it), but "the quality of fresh strength" (Goncharov) wins in the end. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to their Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression "an extra person" applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the non-stage heroes (professors of the St. started reading books. Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, he believes in the victory of progress. He actively interferes in public life, not only criticizes public order, but also promotes his positive program. His layer and work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not superfluous, but a new person.

Could Chatsky avoid a collision with the Famus society?
What is Chatsky's system of views and why does the Famus society consider these views dangerous?
Is Chatsky's reconciliation with the Famus society possible? Why?
Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow?
Do you agree with Chatsky's assessment given by I. A. Goncharov?
What artistic technique underlies the composition of comedy?
What attitude does Sofya Famusova evoke? Why?
In what episodes of the comedy do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed?
How do you see the future of comedy heroes?
What are the plot lines of the comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: a love affair and a social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main conflict is public (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of a general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

"Public Comedy" begins with a love affair, because, firstly, it is a reliable way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author's psychological insight, since it is at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, what love implies, often the most difficult disappointments with the imperfection of this world occur.

What role does the mind theme play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role, because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave and behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin's understanding, the mind is not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to such a definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of actors. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do they "say" about the characters of the comedy, their names?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and speaking surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumina, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance sets the audience up for the perception of the comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be of value on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from the English. famous - "fame", "glory" or from lat. fama- "rumor", "rumor". The name Sophia in Greek means "wisdom". The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. In the name and patronymic of Chatsky, masculinity is emphasized: Alexander (from the Greek. Winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek. Courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero's last name, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is a list of actors often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical sphere, in the play, as in a literary work, as a rule, it is denoted by the "list of characters." At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very concise but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of the characters in the poster.

The sequence of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his relatives are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, a servant, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him follow the guests, arranged according to the degree of nobility and significance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all sorts, waiters.

The classic order of the poster breaks the presentation of the Gorich couple: first, Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady, is named, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. Violation of the dramatic tradition is connected with Griboedov's desire to hint already in the poster at the nature of the relationship of the young spouses.

Try to verbally draw the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you envision the characters as they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed closet, a large clock on the wall. To the right is a door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Hanging from the armchair, Lizanka sleeps. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and is horrified to realize that it is already morning. Knocking on Sophia's room, trying to force her to part with Silent Lin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begin to beat and play.

Lisa looks flustered. She is nimble, quick, resourceful, seeking to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, in a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if stealthily, comes up behind Lisa and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, starts the clock, speaks loudly, on the other hand, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is funny, witty.

Find the plot of the comedy. Determine what storylines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky's house is the beginning of a comedy. The hero links together two storylines - love-lyrical and socio-political, satirical. From the moment he appears on the stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky's mockery of the appearance and behavior of the visitors and inhabitants of the Famusov house, seemingly still harmless, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into a political and moral opposition to the Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not notice yet, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, preferring Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Silence-not? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth phenomenon of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions about Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky's review of him.

He is laconic, which justifies his surname. Have you yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who takes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, rejection of insolence. Only later do we find out that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love "for the sake of the daughter of such a person" "by position", and can be very free with Liza.

And one believes in the prophecy of Chatsky, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that "he will reach the known degrees, After all, now they love the dumb."

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky's sincerity, his emotionality, devotion to Sophia, recalls with what a sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he could lose Sophia's love over the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. It is easy to remember her phrase characterizing Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!

Sofya, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and what Lisa admires in him irritates her. And here she seeks to move away from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to laugh at everyone”, “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “pretends to be in love, exacting and distressed”, “he thought highly of himself”, “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and makes you waters, mentally opposing Molchalin to him: “Ah, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: "Not a man - a snake" and a caustic question, it did not happen to him even by mistake to respond kindly about someone. She does not share Chatsky's critical attitude towards the guests of the Famusov's house.

How is Sophia's character manifested in the first act? How does Sophia perceive the ridicule of the people of her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky's mockery of the people of her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of an independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in the company of her father, she is comfortable, convenient, familiar. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize a poor young man. However, as a true daughter of the Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow men”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov, “Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife’s pages ...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia appreciates in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky's ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky's personality, his arrival.

Sophia is smart, resourceful, of independent judgment, but at the same time, she is domineering, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa's help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but cuts off abruptly when she seems to forget her position as a maid ("Listen, don't take too many liberties...").

What conflict arises in the second action? When and how does it happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famus society, the “present century” and the “past century”. If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s mockery of the visitors of the Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that “gloriously knows how to make everyone laugh”, then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict passes into the stage of a serious opposition of socio-political and moral positions on topical issues in the life of Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and cause of the disagreement between them?

The characters show a different understanding of the key social and moral problems of contemporary life. The attitude to the service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve” - the principle of a young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing people, and not on serving the cause, on promotion of relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter” “Signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov cites as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important Catherine’s grandee (“All in orders, He always rode in a train ...” “Who takes him to the ranks and gives pensions?”), Who did not disdain to “bend over backwards” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer the sovereign. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as carbonari, a dangerous person, "he wants to preach liberty", "does not recognize the authorities."

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the fate of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of a serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out one by one…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if it is typed; Souls of a thousand two generic ones, - He is the groom, ”Chatsky evaluates such norms as“ the meanest traits of the past life ”, with anger falls upon careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“You didn’t get ranks, did you fail at work?”), Gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised at Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “at three ministers was the head of the department. His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story of his father's will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, with all his talents, does not enjoy the support of the Famus society, because their views differ sharply. And, of course, a considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky gives Molchalin his success with Sophia. Molchalin's life principles can only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, one must depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Molchalin is funny or terrible ? in this scene is decided - scary. Silently-lin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of the Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the characters in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of the Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And to take awards, and have fun”, “If only I got to be a general!”. The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the price of Zagoretsky (“He is a liar, a gambler, a thief / I was from him and the door was locked ...”), accepts him, because he is a “master of pleasing”, got her a black-haired girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin has good prospects to enter this category of husbands and make a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. The true evil of noble Moscow was gallomania.

Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness arise and spread? Why are Famusov's guests so willing to support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a very interesting series of phenomena in terms of dramaturgy. Gossip arises at first glance by accident. G.N., catching Sophia's mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean, being under the impression of the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It is unlikely that she put a direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And here in the head of Sophia, insulted for Molchalin, an insidious plan arises. Of great importance for explaining this scene are the remarks to Sophia's further remarks: "after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side." Her further remarks are already aimed at the conscious introduction of this idea into the head of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor spread will be picked up and filled with details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! Do you like to dress up everyone in jesters, Would you like to try on yourself?

Rumors of madness are spreading with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news, tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes, because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedic scenes, the characters of the characters that make up the Famus circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the go with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes, Chatsky's judgments seemed insane to her. Ridiculous is the dialogue about Chatsky of the Countess and Grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky, who, because of their deafness, add a lot to the rumor launched by Sophia: “the accursed Voltairian”, “crossed the law”, “he is in pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, appearance XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the meaning of Chatsky's monologue about a Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famusovsky society. After the hero had conversations separately with Molchalin, Sofya, Famusov, his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he delivers a monologue in front of the whole society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed in the rumor about his madness and therefore they expect from him obviously delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions. It is in this vein that the guests perceive Chatsky's speeches condemning the cosmopolitanism of the noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses healthy, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart cheerful people”; by the way, the condemnation of gallomania sometimes sounds in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently circling in a waltz, the old people disperse over the card tables.

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's public impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism. Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of the image of Repetilov in comedy. She is unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is speaking (Repetilov - from lat. repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and, as it were, openly expresses his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and whether there are any ... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but speaks more about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the essence of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, of Repetilov is “Shu-mim, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky's assessments of Repetilov's words are interesting, which testify to the difference in the author's views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author is in solidarity with the main character in the assessments of the comic character, who suddenly appeared at the departure of the guests: firstly, he ironizes that the secret union meets in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “what are you raging about? » and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays an essential role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it to a denouement. According to the literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventful tension of the episode. But the tension that is starting to subside ... Repetilov inflates. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberately slowed down denouement of the events of the ball by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue conversations at the ball, a meeting with a belated guest arouses in the minds of everyone the main impression, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an unwitting witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already completely settled version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramaturgically integral episode of the comedy being completed, deeply rooted in the 4th act and equal in its volume and meaning to the whole act.

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins "forever young old men of Russian history"? What is the true face of Molchalin?

Calling Molchalin so, the literary scholar emphasizes the typicality of such people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family ties. Even in their youth, they are not characterized by romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for the improvement of public and state life, they serve individuals, not the cause. Implementing the famous advice of Famusov “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin learns in the Famus society of “the past life the meanest traits” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: remember what his father bequeathed to Molchalin), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one's own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is the moral image of Famusov that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a loving date with Lisa. Such is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D. I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “known degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother away from the road, call his beloved woman to a nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will keep going and reach-det ... ”Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, not by chance, his name became a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the denouement of the social conflict of the play? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the defeated?

From the appearance of the XIV last act, the play’s social conflict is resolved, in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusovsky society are summed up and the final rupture of the two worlds is affirmed - “the century of the present and past century." It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “A million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced the early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely from those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, they are ready to preach even when no one is listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at the Famusov's ball. Famusovsky world is alien to him, he did not accept his laws. And therefore we can assume that the moral victory is on his side. Moreover, the final phrase of Famusov, completing the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!

Griboyedov first called his play "Woe to the Wit", and then changed the title to "Woe from Wit". What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original one?

The original title of the comedy affirmed the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the reasons for the occurrence of grief are indicated, and thus the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated in the title, while the reader and viewer are tuned in to the perception of problems that always confront a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal”, moral ones. The theme of the mind is at the heart of the comedy's conflict and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: "In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person." How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - on the clash of mind and stupidity, or on the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is not based on the clash of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other comedy characters are not at all stupid. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him to be such. But they have a practical, worldly, quirky mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man of an open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical ingenuity.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the heroes of the play.

About Famusov: "Obsessive, restless, quick...", "Signed, so off your shoulders!" , to the place, Well, how not to please your own little man, ”etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely”, “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant for us”, “So that the Lord destroys this unclean spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation…”, “Try about the authorities, and knows what they will say. / Bow a little low, bend down in a ring, / Even in front of the royal face, / So he will call a scoundrel! ..».

About Molchalin: “Molchalins are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “In my years you should not dare to have your own judgment”, “The famous servant ... like a thunderous tap”, “Molchalin! Who else will settle things so peacefully! / There he will stroke the pug in time, / Here he will rub the card just right ... ”.

Get acquainted with the various assessments of the image of Chatsky. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...” Gonchar-dov: “Chatsky is positively smart. His speech boils with wit ... "Katenin:" Chatsky is the main person ... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately. Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and diversity of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was the first acquaintance with the work, by that time the aesthetic positions of both poets diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboyedov's comedy. Subsequently, "Woe from Wit" will enter Pushkin's work with hidden and explicit quotations.

Chatsky's accusations of verbosity and inopportune preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set themselves: to express your positions in any audience. They were distinguished by directness and sharpness of judgments, categoricalness of their sentences, not taking into account secular norms, they called a spade a spade. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, an advanced person of the 20s of the XIX century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical study by I. A. Goncharov “A Million of Torments”. Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not translated in society”?

The state, designated in the comedy as “the mind is out of tune with the heart,” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to approve progressive views, to oppose injustice, the inertia of social principles, to find answers to urgent spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times. material from the site

B. Goller in the article "The Drama of a Comedy" writes: "Sofya Griboyedova is the main mystery of comedy." What, in your opinion, is connected with such an assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the ladies of her circle: independence, a sharp mind, a sense of her own dignity, disregard for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like Princess Tugoukhovskaya, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, accepts his comings on dates and gentle silence for love and devotion, becomes a persecutor of Chatsky. Her mystery lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V. A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia loving Chatsky, but because of his departure, feeling insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, well able to control herself. Mockingness, grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina discovered in Sophia a strong character and a deep feeling. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of the Famus society, but did not denounce him, but despised him. Love for Molchalin was generated by her imperiousness - he was an obedient shadow of her love, and she did not believe Chatsky's love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious to the reader, viewer, theater figures to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action) characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it respected in comedy?

In comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place during the day), place (in Famusov's house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: "I'm not talking about poetry: half must be included in a proverb." What is the novelty of the language of Griboyedov's comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become winged.

Griboedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial nature of the language is given by the free (variegated) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three calms and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in "Woe from Wit" and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed are those who believe.

Signed, so off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many a week.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And the golden bag, and marks the generals.

Oh! If someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called "Woe from Wit" a comedy in verse. Sometimes there is a doubt whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be attributed to the category of comics, on the contrary, he endures a deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of a comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov's desire, attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around the fall of Silent-on from the horse, Chatsky's constant misunderstanding of Sophia's transparent speeches, "little comedies" in the living room during the congress of guests and during the spread of rumors about Chatsky's madness), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give full reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, as it raises significant social and moral problems.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “extra person” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not "serve the higher-standing". And such people, despite their intelligence, abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "current century"?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: the cousin of Rock-tooth, who “suddenly left the service, began to read books in the village”; nephew of Princess Fedor, who “does not want to know the officials! He is a chemist, he is a botanist”; professors of the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who "practice in schisms and disbelief."

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "gone century"?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, the old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of the Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky “changed the law”, the countess - “he is a cursed Voltairian”, Famusov - “try about the authorities - and he knows what he will tell”, that is, the main sign of insanity, according to the views of the Famus society, is free-thinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia prefer Molchalin to Chatsky?

Sofya was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, as she thinks, is pure, shy, sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-but-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was brought up by the Famusov environment in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and positions in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy "Woe from Wit", which have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Bypass us more than all sorrows and master's anger, and master's love.

Went to a room, got into another.

He never uttered a wise word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!