Refutation of criticism and comments on his own writings - A. Pushkin. Griboyedov, Woe from Wit

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 distorts 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 society and secret meetings

On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, of Repetilov is “We make noise, 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 unexpectedly appeared at the departure of the guests: firstly, he ironizes that the most 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 a significant 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 begins to subside ... inflates Repetilov. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the denouement of the events of the ball, deliberately carried out 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, who hid 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 coming to an end, deeply rooted in the 4th act and in its volume and meaning equal 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 critic 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 assimilates 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 he bequeathed Molchalin's father), 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 love 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 “famous 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 come ... "Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become 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 vanquished?

With the appearance of the XIV last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins, 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 break of the two worlds is affirmed - “the current century and the past century”. It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “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 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, Famusov's final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow.

repetitive comedy? How do you understand this image?

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's social 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 distorts 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...

would openly express 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 society and secret meetings

On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, Repetilov - "Let's make noise, brother, make noise."

Of interest are Chatsky's assessments of Repetilov's words, which

testify to the difference between 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 most 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 a significant 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 begins to subside ... inflates Repetilov. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the denouement of the events of the ball, deliberately carried out 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, who hid 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 coming to an end, deeply rooted in the 4th act and in its volume and meaning equal 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 critic 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 Famusov’s famous advice “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin assimilates 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 that he bequeathed Molchalin's father), 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 love 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 “famous 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 ... ”Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become 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 social conflict of the play 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 present century and the century of the past”. It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “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 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, Famusov's final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will he say

Princess Marya Alexevna!

Glossary:

Chatsky winner or loser
Composition on the topic Chatsky the winner or the vanquished
who is Chatsky winner or loser
critics will notice that not only Chatsky's public impulse
what is the outcome of the social conflict of the play Woe from Wit

Other works on this topic:

Chatsky - winner or loser? After reading the tragedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov “Woe from Wit”, it is difficult to say who the main character Chatsky turned out to be: a winner or a loser. In that...
The famous Russian playwright A. S. Griboyedov is the author of the immortal classic play “Woe from Wit”, which depicts two major social problems: a love conflict and misunderstanding...
Chatsky comes to Moscow, hoping for great changes that have taken place in society, and the remaining Sophia. But it turns out to be in a completely different situation. Sophia turned everything past...
I. A. Goncharov wrote about the main character of the comedy “Woe from Wit”: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power. Inflicted a fatal blow on her...
... They can't get away from the two main motives of the struggle: from the advice to learn "by looking at the Elders" and from the thirst to strive ... To a "free life". I. A. Goncharov...
The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself somewhat apart in literature and is distinguished by a stronger vitality from other works of the word. The main role in the comedy "Woe from Wit", ...

As a Russian writer, I have always considered it my duty to follow the current
literature and always read with particular attention the criticisms that I gave
occasion. I sincerely confess that the praises touched me as obvious and,
probably sincere signs of favor and friendliness. Reading the most
hostile, I dare say that I always tried to enter into the mindset of my
criticism and follow his judgments without refuting them with a proud
impatiently, but wishing to agree with them with all sorts of copyright
self-denial. Unfortunately, I noticed that for the most part we
did not understand. As regards critical articles written for one purpose
offend me in any way, I will only say that they are very
annoyed me, at least in the first minutes, and that, consequently, the writers
they can be satisfied.

"Ruslan and Lyudmila" was generally received favorably. Apart from one article in
"Bulletin of Europe", in which she was scolded very unreasonably, and very
there were no practical "questions" exposing the weakness of the creation of the poem
bad things were said about her. No one even noticed that she was cold.
She was accused of immorality for some slightly voluptuous descriptions,
for the verses I published in the second edition:

Oh terrible sight! frail wizard
Caresses with a wrinkled hand, etc.

For the intro, I don't remember which song:

In vain you lurked in the shadows, etc.

And for the parody of "The Twelve Sleeping Maidens"; for the last one could have me
scold order, as for a lack of esthetic feeling. unforgivable
it was (especially in my years) to parody, to please the mob, virginal,
poetic creation. Other reproaches were rather empty. Is there in
"Ruslan" at least one place that, in the liberties of jokes, could be compared with
pranks, even, for example, Ariosta, about whom they constantly told me? Yes and
the place I released was a very, very toned down imitation of Arios
(Orlando, canto V, o. VIII).

"Prisoner of the Caucasus" - the first unsuccessful experience of character with which I
forcibly coped; it was received best of all that I have written, thanks
some elegiac and descriptive verses. But Nicholas and Alexander
Raevsky and I - we laughed at him plenty.

The "Fountain of Bakhchisaray" is weaker than the "Prisoner" and, like it, resonates with reading
Byron, which made me crazy. Zarema's scene with Maria has
dramatic merit. He doesn't seem to have been criticized. A. Raevsky laughed
over the following verses:

He is often in fatal battles
Raises a saber - and on a grand scale
Suddenly remains immovable
Looks around with madness
Turns pale etc.

Young writers do not know how to depict physical movements at all.
passions. Their heroes are always shuddering, laughing wildly, gnashing their teeth and
other All this is funny, like a melodrama.

I don’t remember who noticed to me that it’s incredible that they were chained together
the robbers could swim across the river. All of this is true and
happened in 1820, when I was in Ekaterinoslavl.

About "Gypsies" one lady remarked that in the whole poem there is only one honest
man, and then a bear. The late Ryleev was indignant why Aleko was leading a bear
and still collects money from the staring public. Vyazemsky repeated the same
comment. (Ryleev asked me to make at least a blacksmith out of Aleko, which would not
a nobler example.) It would be better to make an 8th grade official out of him or
landowner, not a gypsy. In that case, however, there would be no whole poem, ma
tanto meglio (1).

Our critics left me alone for a long time. This does them credit: I was
away under unfavorable circumstances. Out of habit they believed me still
a very young man. The first hostile articles, I remember, became
to appear on the printing of the fourth and fifth songs of "Eugene Onegin". Parsing
of these chapters, published in the Atheneum, surprised me with a good tone, a good style
and the strangeness of the bindings. The most common rhetorical figures and tropes
stopped criticism: is it possible to say the glass sizzles instead of the wine sizzles in
glass? does the fireplace breathe instead of steam coming out of the fireplace? Isn't it too boldly jealous
suspicion? wrong ice?
What do you think this means:

Boys
Skates cut the ice noisily?

The critic guessed, however, what this meant: the boys run across the ice on
skates.
Instead of:

(Thought to swim in the bosom of the waters)
Steps carefully on the ice

The critic read:

Heavy goose on red paws
Thought to swim

And he rightly noticed that you would not swim far away on red paws.
Some poetic liberties: after a negative particle, not -
accusative, not genitive; time instead of times (as, for example, in
Batyushkov:

That is ancient Rus' and customs
Vladimir vremyan)

My critics were led into great bewilderment. But most annoying
his verse: People's talk and horse top.
“Is this how we, who studied according to the old grammars, express ourselves, is it possible
distort the Russian language?" This verse was then cruelly laughed at, and in
"Bulletin of Europe". Molv (speech) is a native Russian word. Top instead of stomp
just as common as a spike instead of a hiss1 (hence, the clap
instead of clapping is not at all contrary to the spirit of the Russian language). For that misfortune and a verse
not all of mine, but taken entirely from a Russian fairy tale:
"And he went out of the gates of the city, and heard the horse's top and the people's talk."
Bova Royal.
The study of old songs, fairy tales, etc. is necessary for a perfect
knowledge of the properties of the Russian language. Our critics needlessly despise them.
Poem:

I don't want to quarrel for two centuries

The criticism seemed wrong. What does grammar say? What
the real verb, ruled by the negative particle, no longer requires
accusative and genitive case. For example: I don't write poetry. But in my
In verse, the verb to quarrel is controlled not by a particle, but by the verb I want. Ergo (2)
rule does not apply here. Take, for example, the following sentence: I cannot
let me start writing ... poetry, and certainly not poetry. Really
the electrical force of the negative particle must pass through this entire circuit
verbs and respond in a noun? Don't think.

Speaking of grammar. I write gypsies, not gypsies, Tatars, not Tatars.
Why? because all nouns ending in anin, yanin,
arin and yarin, have their genitive plural in an, yan, ar and yar, and
nominative plural on ana, yana, are and yara. Yet the nouns
ending in an and yan, ar and yar, have a plural nominative in ana,
yans, arys and yars, and the genitive on ans, yans, ars, yarov.
The only exception is proper nouns. Descendants of Mr. Bulgarin
will be Messrs. Bulgarins, not Bulgars.

Many of us (among others, Mr. Kachenovsky, who, it seems, cannot be
reproach for ignorance of the Russian language) conjugate: I decide, I decide, I decide,
decide, decide, decide instead of decide, decide, and so on. Decide how to hide
sin.

Foreign proper names ending in e and, o, y, not
bow down. Those ending in a, b and b are inclined in the masculine gender, and in the feminine
no, and many of us err against this. They write: a book composed by Goetem,
and so on.

How should I write: Turks or Turks? both are correct. Turk and
Turkish are equally common.

It's been 16 years since I've been typing, and critics have noticed in my poems 5
grammatical errors (and rightly so):
1. fixed his gaze on distant masses
2. on the theme of mountains (crown)
3. howl instead of howl
4. was refused instead of being refused
5. to the abbot instead of the abbot.
I have always been sincerely grateful to them and always corrected what I noticed.
place. I write prose much more incorrectly, but I speak even worse and almost like this,
as G. writes **.

Many write yupka, wedding, instead of a skirt, wedding. Never in derivatives
in words, t does not change to d, nor n to b, but we say skirt, wedding.

Twelve, not twelve. Two is abbreviated from two as three from
three.

They write: cart, cart. Isn't it more correct: a cart (from the word
calf - carts are harnessed by oxen)?

The spoken language of the common people (who do not read foreign books and,
thank God, not expressing, like us, his thoughts in French)
also worthy of the deepest research. Alfieri studied Italian at
Florentine bazaar: it is not bad for us sometimes to listen to Moscow
mallow. They speak amazingly clear and correct language.

The Moscow accent is extremely delicate and whimsical. Sound letters u and h
before other consonants in it are changed. We even say women, nosle (cf.
Bogdanovich).

Spies are like the letter b. They are needed in some cases only, but here too
you can do without them, but they are used to popping in everywhere.

The omitted stanzas have repeatedly given cause for censure. What is
stanzas in "Eugene Onegin", which I could not or did not want to print, this
nothing to marvel at. But, being released, they break the connection of the story, and
wherefore the place where they were to be is signified. It would be better to replace these
stanzas by others, or smuggle and fuse those I have saved. But to blame
I'm too lazy for this. I also humbly confess that in Don Juan there are 2
stanzas released.

Mr. Fedorov, in a magazine that he was about to publish, examining quite
favorably chapters 4 and 5, he remarked, however, to me that in the description of autumn
several verses in a row begin with me with a particle already, which he called
snakes, and what in rhetoric is called single-mindedness. He also condemned the word cow
and reprimanded me for being young ladies of noble and, probably, bureaucratic
called girls (which, of course, impolitely), meanwhile, as a simple
called the village girl a virgin: Singing in a hut, a virgin
Spinning...

The sixth song was not analyzed, it was not even noticed in Vestnik Evropy
Latin typo. By the way: since I left the Lyceum, I have not disclosed
Latin book and completely forgot the Latin language. Life is short;
no time to read. Remarkable books crowd one after another, but no one
today he does not write them in Latin. In the 14th century, on the contrary, Latin was
necessary and rightly considered the first sign of an educated person.

Criticism of the 7th song in the "Northern Bee" I ran at a party and in such
a minute, as I was not up to Onegin ... I noticed only very well
written poetry and a rather funny joke about a beetle. I said: was
evening. The sky was dark. Water
They flowed quietly. The beetle buzzed.
The critic rejoiced at the appearance of this new face and expected character from him,
better than aged others. It seems, however, not a single sensible remark
or there was no critical thought. I have not read any other critics, because, really, I
was not up to them.
N.B. Criticism of the "Northern Bee" was in vain attributed to Mr. Bulgarin: 1)
the verses in it are too good, 2) the prose is too weak, 3) Mr. Bulgarin did not say
would that the description of Moscow is taken from "Ivan Vyzhigin", for Mr. Bulgarin did not
says that the tragedy "Boris Godunov" is taken from his novel.

Probably my tragedy will not have any success. Magazines on me
embittered. For the public, I no longer have the main attraction: youth and
novelty of a literary name. In addition, the main scenes have already been printed or
distorted in other people's imitations. Opening at random the historical novel of Mr.
Bulgarin, I found that he, too, comes to announce the appearance of the Pretender
king prince. V. Shuisky. I have Boris Godunov talking alone with Basmanov about
the destruction of localism, - at Mr. Bulgarin as well. Everything is dramatic
fiction, not history.

Having read these verses for the first time in Voinarovsky:

The wife of the sufferer Kochubey
And the daughter he seduced,

I was amazed how the poet could pass by such a terrible circumstance.
To burden historical characters with fictional horrors is not surprising and
not generous. Slander in poems has always seemed to me not commendable. But in
description of Mazepa to miss such a striking historical feature was still
more unforgivable. But what a disgusting thing! not one good
good feelings! not a single comforting feature! temptation, enmity,
treason, slyness, cowardice, ferocity ... Strong characters and deep,
the tragic shadow cast over all these horrors is what captivated me.
I wrote "Poltava" in a few days, could no longer deal with it and gave up
everything.

Among other literary accusations, they reproached me with too expensive
at the price of "Eugene Onegin" and saw in it a terrible greed. This is good
speak to someone who has never sold his writings or whose writings have not
sold, but how could the publishers of Severnaya
bees"? The price is set not by the writer, but by the booksellers.
poems, the number of applicants is limited. It is made up of the same
who pay 5 rubles for a place in the theater. Booksellers, having bought, put,
a whole edition for a ruble copy, after all, they would sell it for 5 rubles. Is it true,
in such a case, the author could proceed with the second cheap edition, but also
the bookseller could then lower his price himself, and thereby lower
new edition. These trading turnovers are very well known to us, philistine writers.
We know that the cheapness of a book does not prove the disinterestedness of the author, but either
a great demand thereof or a perfect stop in the sale. I ask what
more profitable - to print 20,000 copies of one book and sell for 50 kopecks.
or print 200 copies and sell for 50 rubles?
The price of the latest edition of Krylov's fables, in all respects the most
our national poet (le plus national et le plus populaire3)), not
contradicts what we have said. Fables (like novels) are read by both the writer and
a merchant, and a man of the world, and a lady, and a maid, and children. But the poem
the lyric is only read by lovers of poetry. Are there many of them?

The jokes of our critics sometimes lead to astonishment in their innocence. Here
a true anecdote: in the lyceum one of our younger comrades, and, not be that
remember, good boy, but rather simple and last in all classes,
once composed two poems known to the entire Lyceum:

Ha ha ha, hee hee hee
Delvig writes poetry.

What was it like for us, Delvig and me, in the last 1830 in the first book
important "Bulletin of Europe" to find the following joke: Almanac "Northern Flowers"
divided into prose and poetry - hee, hee! Imagine how happy we are
our old friend! That's not enough. This hee hee seemed, apparently, so
intricate that it was reprinted with great praise in the "Northern Bee": "hee
hee, as it was very wittily said in the Vestnik Evropy" etc.

Young Kireevsky in an eloquent and thoughtful review of our
literature, speaking of Delvig, used this exquisite expression: "Ancient
his muse is sometimes covered with a warm-heartedness of the newest despondency. "The expression,
of course, funny. Why not just say: "In Delvig's verses
sometimes the despondency of the latest poetry responds"? - Our journalists, about whom Mr.
Kireevsky responded rather disrespectfully, they rejoiced, picked up this
a warm jacket, torn into small shreds, and for a year now they have been flaunting them,
trying to make his audience laugh. Suppose, all the same joke every time they
succeed; but what is their profit from that? the public almost does not care about literature,
and a small number of lovers finally believe not in a joke, constantly repeated, but
constantly, albeit slowly, breaking through the opinions of sound criticism and
impartiality.

1 He let out a thorn like a snake. "Ancient Russian Poems" (approx.
Pushkin.)

Subject: Woe from Wit

Questions and answers to the comedy by A. S. Griboedov "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 subrette 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 the arrangement of characters in the poster remains the same as that adopted 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 Sofya 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 Lisa.

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.

Sofya 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 you 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 you have enough; Souls of a thousand two family members, - He is the groom, ”Chatsky evaluates such norms as “the meanest traits of the past life”, with anger falls on careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of education.

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 it 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 series of phenomena that is very interesting from a dramatic point of view. Gossip arises at first glance by chance. 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 comedy 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 vanquished?

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 cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...” Gonchar-dov: “Chatsky is positively intelligent. 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 Griboedova 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!