FEATURES OF CONFLICT IN A. S. A’S COMEDY “WOE FROM MIND”
The present century and the past century.
A. S. Griboyedov. Woe from mind
The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a reflection of the intense political struggle that took place at the beginning between the reactionary serf owners and the progressive nobility. The first sought to preserve the autocratic serfdom system and lordly life in everything, seeing this as the basis of their well-being. The latter fought against the “past century” and contrasted it with the “present century.” The clash of the “past century” and the “present century”, the angry protest of the representative of the young, progressive generation in the person of Chatsky against everything that is becoming obsolete constitutes main topic"Fire from mind."
In the first scenes of the comedy, Chatsky is a dreamer who cherishes his dream - the idea of the opportunity to change a selfish, vicious society. And he comes to him, to this society, with a passionate word of conviction. He willingly enters into an argument with Famusov, revealing to Sophia the world of his feelings and experiences. The portraits he paints in his first monologues are even funny. The characteristics of the tag are accurate. Here are “the old, faithful member of the “English Club” Famusov, and Sophia’s uncle, who has already “jumped back his age,” and “that dark little one,” who is everywhere “here, in the dining rooms and in the living rooms,” and the fat landowner-theater with his skinny serf artists, and Sophia’s “consumptive” relative is “an enemy of books,” demanding with a cry “an oath so that no one knows or learns to read and write,” and Chatsky and Sophia’s teacher, “all signs of learning” of whom are a cap and a robe and the index finger, and “Ghiglione, the Frenchman, hit by the wind.” And only then, slandered and insulted by this society, he is convinced of the hopelessness of his preaching and frees himself from his illusions: “Dreams are out of sight, and the veil has fallen.” The clash between Chatsky and Famusov is based on the opposition of their attitude to service, to freedom, to authorities, to the “past century” and the “present century,” to foreigners, to enlightenment, etc.
With the dignity of a master, in a tone of superiority, Famusov reports about his service:
What's the matter with me?
that doesn't matter
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
At work, he surrounds himself with relatives: he won’t let you down, and “how can you not please your loved one.” Service for him is a source of ranks, awards and income. The surest way to achieve these benefits is groveling before one’s superiors. It is not for nothing that Famusov’s ideal is Maxim Petrovich, who, in order to curry favor, “bent over”, “bravely sacrificed the back of his head.” But he was “treated kindly at court,” “knew honor before everyone.” And Famusov convinces Chatsky to learn worldly wisdom from the example of Maxim Petrovich. Famusov's revelations outrage Chatsky, and he pronounces a monologue filled with hatred of “servility” and buffoonery. Listening to Chatsky’s seditious speeches, Famusov becomes increasingly incensed. He is already ready to take the strictest measures against dissidents like Chatsky, he believes that they should be banned from entering the capital, that they should be brought to justice. Next to Famusov is a colonel, the same enemy of education and science. He is in a hurry to please the guests by
That there is a project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums;
There they will only teach in our way: one, two;
And the books will be saved like this: for big occasions.
For all those present, “learning is a plague,” their dream is “to take away all the books and burn them.” Ideal Famusov society- “And win awards and have fun.” Everyone knows how to achieve rank better and faster. Skalozub knows many canals. Molchalin received from his father the whole science of “pleasing all people without exception.” Famus society tightly guards its noble interests. A person here is valued by origin, by wealth:
We have been doing this since ancient times,
What an honor for father and son.
Famusov’s guests are united by their defense of the autocratic-serf system and hatred of everything progressive. An ardent dreamer, with reasonable thoughts and noble impulses, Chatsky is contrasted with the close-knit and multifaceted world of the famus, rock-toothed people with their petty goals and base aspirations. He is a stranger in this world. Chatsky’s “mind” places him in the eyes of the Famusovs outside their circle, outside their usual norms of social behavior. The best human properties and inclinations of the heroes make him in the minds of others " strange man", "carbonarius", "eccentric", "mad". Chatsky's clash with Famus society is inevitable. In Chatsky’s speeches, the opposition of his views to the views of Famusov’s Moscow clearly appears.
He speaks with indignation about serf owners, about serfdom. In the central monologue “Who are the judges?” he angrily opposes the order of the Catherine century, dear to Famusov’s heart, “the century of obedience and fear.” For him, the ideal is an independent, free person.
He speaks indignantly about the inhuman landowners-serfs, “noble scoundrels,” one of whom “suddenly exchanged his faithful servants for three greyhounds!”; another drove to the “serf ballet”<…>from mothers, fathers of rejected children,” and then they were sold one by one. And there are not a few of them! Chatsky also served, he “gloriously” writes and translates, managed to visit military service, has seen the light, has connections with ministers. But he breaks all ties, leaves the service because he wants to serve his homeland, and not his superiors. “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,” he says. It is not his fault that, being an active person, in the conditions of the current political and social life he is doomed to inaction and prefers to “scour the world.” Staying abroad broadened Chatsky's horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign, unlike Famusov's like-minded people. Chatsky is outraged by the lack of patriotism among these people. His dignity as a Russian person is insulted by the fact that among the nobility “a confusion of languages still prevails: French with Nizhny Novgorod.” Painfully loving his homeland, he would like to protect society from longing for the foreign side, from “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of the West. In his opinion, the nobility should stand closer to the people and speak Russian, “so that our smart, cheerful people, even in language, do not consider us Germans.”
And how ugly is secular upbringing and education! Why “are they bothering to recruit regiments of teachers, more in number, at a cheaper price”? The intelligent, educated Chatsky stands for true enlightenment, although he is well aware that it is difficult under autocratic conditions. serfdom. After all, the one who, “without demanding either places or promotion to rank...”, “focuses his mind on science, hungry for knowledge...”, “will be known among them as a dangerous dreamer!” And there are such people in Russia. Chatsky's brilliant speech is evidence of his extraordinary mind. Even Famusov notes this: “he’s a smart guy,” “he speaks as he writes.”
What keeps Chatsky in a society alien in spirit? Only love for Sophia. This feeling justifies and makes understandable his stay in Famusov’s house. Chatsky's intelligence and nobility, sense of civic duty, indignation of human dignity come into sharp conflict with his “heart,” with his love for Sophia. The socio-political and personal drama unfolds in the comedy in parallel. They are inseparably fused. Sophia belongs entirely to Famus’s world. She cannot fall in love with Chatsky, who opposes this world with all his mind and soul. Chatsky's love conflict with Sophia grows to the scale of his rebellion. As soon as it turned out that Sophia had betrayed her former feelings and turned everything that had happened into laughter, he leaves her house, this society. In his last monologue, Chatsky not only accuses Famusov, but also frees himself spiritually, courageously defeating his passionate and tender love and breaking the last threads that connected him with Famusov’s world.
Chatsky still has few ideological followers.
His protest, of course, does not find a response in the environment
... sinister old women, old men,
Decrepit over inventions and nonsense.
For people like Chatsky, being in Famus’s society only brings “a million torments,” “woe from the mind.” But the new, progressive is irresistible. Despite the strong resistance of the dying old, it is impossible to stop the forward movement. Chatsky’s views deal a terrible blow with their denunciations of Famus and Silence. The calm and carefree existence of Famus society is over. His philosophy of life was condemned and people rebelled against it. If the Chatskys are still weak in their struggle, then the Famusovs are powerless to stop the development of enlightenment and advanced ideas. The fight against the Famusovs did not end in comedy. It was just beginning in Russian life. The Decembrists and the exponent of their ideas, Chatsky, were representatives of the first early stage of the Russian liberation movement.
Play by A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" is a work that is in many ways innovative, unusual for its time, and original.
Main feature comedy - the interaction of two plot-forming conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house.
From the point of view of problematics, the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society is in the foreground in the work. But in the development of the plot, traditional love conflict: After all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting with Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both collisions - love and socio-ideological - complement and strengthen each other. I believe they are equally necessary to understand worldviews, characters, psychology and relationships characters.
In the two storylines of “Woe from Wit” all the elements of the classic plot are easily revealed: exposition - all the scenes of the first act preceding Chatsky’s appearance in Famusov’s house; the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the beginning of a love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sofia. The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famusov's society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov.
Both conflicts develop in parallel in the comedy. Stages of development of a love conflict - dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The hero is persistent in his attempts to call Sofia to openness and find out why she became so cold towards him and who her chosen one is. Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society includes a number of private conflicts: Chatsky’s verbal “duels” with Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin and other representatives of Moscow society.
Private conflicts in “Woe from Wit” allow many people to take to the stage minor characters, force them to reveal their life position in remarks or actions. Based on the above, we come to the conclusion that Griboedov creates not only a broad “picture of morals”, but also shows the psychology and life principles people surrounding Chatsky from all sides in Famusov’s house and, more broadly, in life.
We can say that the two main conflicts of the comedy run side by side throughout the entire play, touching and diverging again. Information from the site Bigreferat.ru / bigreferat.ru But in climax conflicts are connected, depicting the general collapse of Chatsky and other heroes of the comedy
The climax of the socio-ideological plot is based on the rumor of Chatsky’s madness. The reason for its emergence was given by Sofia with her remark “to the side”: “He is out of his mind.” The annoyed girl threw these words out by accident, meaning that Chatsky “went crazy” with love and became simply unbearable for her.
Here the author uses a technique based on a play on words and meanings: the words of Sophia were heard by the social gossip Mr. N. and understood them literally. The heroine decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his ridicule of Molchalin. It is important that, having become the source of gossip about Chatsky’s madness, the girl “burned all the bridges” between herself and her former lover.
Based on the above, we come to the conclusion that the culmination of the love plot predetermines the culmination of the socio-ideological plot. Thanks to this, both seemingly independent plot lines of the play intersect at a common climax - a scene, the result of which is Chatsky’s recognition as crazy:
Lost my mind! I humbly ask!
Yes, by chance! Yes, how quickly!
Based on the above, we come to the conclusion that the arrival of the lover Chatsky gave rise to fundamental disputes between him (“the present century”) and those who stubbornly cling to life values"of the past century"
At the end of the play, Sofia’s “slander” about the “crazy” lover led society to a complete ideological separation from Chatsky. In fact, any dissent, the reluctance of Alexander Andreevich and his like-minded people to live as “public opinion” prescribed, was declared “madness” in Famusov’s house.
After the climax, the storylines of "Woe from Wit" diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict.
The night scene in Famusov's house, in which Molchalin and Lisa participate, and in addition Sofia and Chatsky, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret obvious. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin’s hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:
Here is the solution to the riddle at last!
Here I am donated to!
Actual defeat, failure both in love and in Moscow society force the main character to flee away from the city.
Formally, at the end of the comedy, Chatsky loses in both conflicts and finds himself completely defeated. Is this really true? If you look more broadly, it seems to me that everything is not so simple. The future will show that Chatsky is a man of new times, and in the long term he will win. At least in a socio-political conflict. This is evidenced by many details scattered throughout the text of the play. The future belongs to Chatsky and his supporters - the author of the work is convinced of this, and we, the readers, are once again convinced of this.
In the conflict of Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” two lines stand out: love (personal) and public (social). The love conflict is based on a classic love triangle. Purpose literary work classicism was the proclamation of an ideal that consisted in the fulfillment of civic duty, the subordination of individual interests to public interests and the awareness of reasonable laws of life. To implement these ideas, we chose main character as a bearer of a positive ideal, its antipode - bad guy And ideal heroine, who gave her love to the positive hero and thereby confirmed that he was right. This was the composition love triangle in a classic work. On stage, traditional roles have developed to play these roles: hero-lover (first lover), unworthy hero (fool, fop, rogue) and ingenue (young lady in love).
Griboyedov rethinks the content of the classic love triangle: Chatsky - goodie, but not flawless, as the main character should be; Molchalin is low and mean, he is a negative hero, but Sophia loves him; Sophia makes the wrong choice, preferring Molchalin to Chatsky. Sophia's mistake distorts the classical perspective of the development of the play and determines the development of the plot.
It is interesting that the name Sophia translated from Greek means “wise,” in which, of course, one can hear the sad irony of the author. The heroine speaks about Chatsky and Molchalin, belittling one and extolling the other. In scene 5 of act 1, Sophia's servant Lisa, fearing that Sophia and Molchalin's dates could lead to trouble, tries to draw her attention to others possible suitors- Colonel Skalozub and Chatsky.
The beginning of the love conflict occurs in scene 7 of act 1, which describes the first meeting of Chatsky and Sophia. The hero is shocked by the change in Sophia's attitude towards him; he cannot realize it and understand its reason. At first, Chatsky reproaches Sophia. Having met such a reception, Chatsky seeks sympathy:
Are you happy? good morning.
However, who is sincerely happy like that?
I think this is the last thing
Chilling people and horses,
I was just amusing myself.
He tries to evoke in the girl the memory of the past, hoping that in three years she simply forgot the feelings that connected them. However, Sophia again cools Chatsky’s ardor, answering: “Childishness!”
Only then does Chatsky begin to understand the real reason changes in Sophia's attitude towards him. He asks her a direct question whether she is in love, and, having received an evasive answer, guesses the truth. And after the words: “For mercy, not you, why be surprised?” - showing a completely natural reaction to Sophia’s behavior, Chatsky suddenly starts talking about Moscow:
What new will Moscow show me?
T made a deal - he made it, but he missed.
All the same sense, and the same poems in the albums.
This change in the topic of conversation is determined psychologically, since Chatsky, finally realizing that he has a rival, begins to look for him. Each phrase of the hero’s previous statement confirms this, that is, each phrase contains a psychological background: the rival is in Moscow, she met him at the ball, they all want to marry advantageously, and they are all the same.
It has long been noted that a social conflict arises from a love conflict, and Chatsky attacks Moscow because he is disappointed in his position as a rejected lover. If the whole scene is the beginning of a love conflict, then Chatsky’s words about Moscow are the beginning of a social conflict, the beginning of which will be at the beginning of Act 2. It is Chatsky’s search for an opponent that will determine the nature of the development of the action, and the play will end when the scales fall from Chatsky’s eyes.
The social conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov lies in the clash between the progressive nobleman-intellectual Chatsky and the conservative Famus society. The conflict is found not only in the dispute between specific people representing certain circles of society, it is a conflict of time. Griboyedov the playwright accomplished what his hero wanted to do, saying:
How to compare and see
The present century and the past...
The expression “the present century and the past century” should be understood in two meanings: these are periods of Russian history, separated Patriotic War 1812, as well as the conflict of the era, expressed in the struggle of new ideas and forms of life with old ones. The ideas of modern times were most clearly expressed, according to Pushkin’s poetic formulation, in the “high aspirations of thought” of the Decembrists. And in many ways, Chatsky’s views reflect the advanced ideas of the Decembrists.
The social conflict of the comedy is manifested in the disputes between Chatsky and Famusov, in the attitude of these heroes to this or that social problem. The peculiarity of the social conflict in the play is that it depends on the love conflict, that is, it is not represented in specific actions and events, and we can only judge it by the monologues and remarks of the characters.
One of the most pressing issues in noble society At that time there was an attitude towards power and service. It is this that serves as the beginning of the social conflict in Act 2, Act 2:
Chatsky
I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.
Famusov
That's it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
Famusov tells Chatsky the story of his uncle Maxim Petrovich, sincerely believing that it is instructive for Chatsky and can bring him to his senses - after all, in the behavior of Maxim Petrovich, in his deep conviction, lies the highest wisdom. The formula for this is:
When you need to help yourself,
And he bent over...
The question of service appears in three aspects. First of all, it is a moral question, to be mean and “bend over” or to maintain dignity and honor. At the same time, service shows a person’s civic position: to serve the Fatherland, a cause, or to serve only for oneself, to care about personal gain. And finally, the political side of the issue, which is clearly expressed in Chatsky’s remark: “Who serves the cause, not the individuals.”
The next most important issue in comedy is the problem of serfdom and serfdom. Chatsky expresses his attitude towards serfdom in the monologue “Who are the judges?” in phenomenon 5 there are 2 actions:
Who are the judges? - In ancient times
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers.
Chatsky talks about two cases of inhuman behavior of serf owners. In the first of them, the serf owner exchanged “three greyhounds” for his faithful servants. Note that Griboyedov’s criticism is in to a greater extent moral than social character. Of course, a ruthless and depraved serf owner could do this because according to the law he had the right to do so, but Griboedov is struck by the blatant inhumanity here - a person is equated with an animal. The playwright, calling the serf owner “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” makes it clear that this man is not some exceptional villain; there are many “noble scoundrels” around. Treating serfs as inferior beings was the norm for a serf society. Thus, old woman Khlestova tells Sophia about the blackamoor girl and the dog as equal, identical creatures (act 3, phenomenon 10):
Tell them to feed, already, my friend,
A handout came from dinner.
In the same monologue, Chatsky exposes the terrible consequence of serfdom - human trafficking. One serf owner brings a serf theater to Moscow, driving “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the ballet. Griboedov shows how the right to control the lives and fate of serfs corrupts the nobles and they lose their human qualities. The real goal of the owner of the serf theater was to make all of Moscow “marvel at the beauty” of the ballet and small artists in order to persuade creditors to grant a deferment for the payment of debts. However, he did not achieve his goal and sold the children.
One of the most negative phenomena of Russian reality at that time was dependence on foreign morals, fashion, language, and rules of life. Chatsky treats the dominance of foreigners in the life of the country, “slavish, blind imitation” with particular intransigence; his indignation was most fully expressed in the monologue “There is an insignificant meeting in that room...” (act 3, phenomenon 22). Story episode, which is described in this monologue, is not presented on stage. Chatsky was struck by a chance, “insignificant” meeting: he saw how his compatriots courted a Frenchman simply because he was a foreigner. Chatsky calls him “a Frenchman from Bordeaux” not out of disrespect for the person, but wanting to emphasize the offensive contrast between the mediocrity of the guest and the servility of the hosts. Chatsky believes that imitation of a foreign language is a terrible scourge for a nation. It seems to a Frenchman that he is in a French province, so selflessly everyone around him imitates French customs and outfits, speaking in a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod.” Chatsky mourns the loss of the Russian nobles national traditions, national clothes, appearance. With bitterness he throws out the phrase: “Ah! If we are born to adopt everything,” noting that such behavior is characteristic of a Russian person, but his negative side- “empty slavish, blind imitation” - must be eliminated. D.I. wrote about this. Fonvizin in the comedy “The Brigadier” (1769), I.S. complains about this. Turgenev in the story “Asya” (1858), A.P. laughs at this. Chekhov in the comedy " Cherry Orchard"(1903), this problem was repeatedly raised in the literature of the 20th century. Thus, Griboedov raised a question that was relevant not only in his time, he tried to penetrate into the essence of the phenomenon.
The problem of the dominance of foreigners in Russian life is connected with the issue of patriotism. Chatsky’s position and his sympathies are expressed very clearly in the monologue:
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although, based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans.
The problem of patriotism is presented in the work widely and diversified. The author shows that patriotism should not be confused with imitation of foreign things or, on the contrary, stubborn arrogance and isolation from the experience of other cultures. This is precisely the position of Chatsky, for whom preserving the dignity of his nation means respect for other peoples. By calling the foreigner “a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” Chatsky does not belittle the guest—he laments the behavior of his compatriots. The rest of the characters are afraid and do not approve of everything foreign, as, for example, Khlestova is afraid of the arapka girl or “lankart mutual training,” or they are obsequious to everything foreign. Famusov, Chatsky’s main opponent, is arrogant in some cases, calling foreigners “tramps”; in others, on the contrary, he is touched that the Prussian king was amazed at the Moscow girls, since they are not inferior to French and German women (act 2, phenomenon 5):
They won’t say a word in simplicity, everything is done with a grimace;
French romances are sung to you
And the top ones bring out notes...
This means that the dignity of one’s nation for Famusov is a variable value, since it depends on whether foreigners are beneficial or ruinous for him in each specific case.
The lifestyle of the Moscow nobility is another problem raised by Griboyedov in the comedy. Famusov’s monologue in Act 1, Act 2 is indicative of this topic. What’s remarkable about this scene is that Famusov, a government manager, plans his week as if it consists of personal affairs and entertainment. He has three “important” things planned for the week: trout on Tuesday, a burial on Thursday, and a christening “on Friday, and maybe Saturday.” Famusov’s diary not only notes the schedule of the “business” week, but also reflects the philosophy and content of his life: it consists of eating, dying, being born, eating again and dying... This is the monotonous circle of life for Famusov and the Famusovites.
Discussing the lifestyle of the nobility, Griboyedov touches on the problem of entertainment. At the ball, Chatsky says to Molchalin (act 3, phenomenon 3):
When I'm busy, I hide from fun,
When I'm fooling around, I'm fooling around
And to mix these two crafts
There are many masters, I am not one of them.
Chatsky is not against entertainment, but against mixing it with business and work. However, responsibility and work disappear from the lives of most nobles, giving way all the time to pleasure and entertainment. Such a life is empty and meaningless. Let us remember what Chatsky said about Moscow (act 1, scene 7):
Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.
Or the words of Countess Grandma Khryumina, which sounded comical, but filled with a tragic meaning for a person (act 4, scene 1):
Let's sing, mother, I can't sing,
Someday I fell into the grave.
It's not that balls or others social entertainment bad in themselves - this is part of the culture of the noble class of that time. But when the ball takes up the whole life, becomes its content, then for a person its brilliance passes into the darkness of the grave, as if life itself did not exist. Only work and rest are natural, alternating forms human life, they complement and enrich each other, making life meaningful and rich.
A special place in comedy is occupied by the theme of the mind - enlightenment, education and upbringing. The title of the work indicates this, and the author himself drew attention to this when he wrote: “In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person.” Griboyedov called the first sketch of the comedy “Woe to Wit.” The change in name shows a shift in emphasis from a general philosophical idea, which can be defined in such a way that every mind is woe, to a social one: the mind in society is the cause of grief. The theme of the mind in the play divides the characters in their attitude towards life. For Famus people, only practical benefits are of value, so for them, intelligence is the ability to get along in life. Chatsky has an exalted mind, everything is important to him: personal and general issues. His ideas about life are broad, they go beyond personal interests. We can say that Chatsky’s judgments are based on reason and a moral attitude towards life. The judgments of Famusites are limited by their narrow ideas, determined by personal interests and benefits. So, for Sophia, the one who is next to her is smart (action 1, phenomenon 5):
Oh! if someone loves someone,
Why search for the mind and travel so far?
For Molchalin, smart behavior is the ability to please anyone on whom he in any way depends (action 3, phenomenon 3):
At my age I shouldn't dare
Have your own judgment.
For Skalozub, the world order is a military system, and a “smart” position is to be in the ranks, and smart behavior is to strive to move to the front rank. Skalozub is even a “philosopher” in his own way. He judges like a philosopher (act 2, phenomenon 4):
I just wish I could become a general.
So, each character speaks about intelligence, about education. It seems that the ideas of the Enlightenment have finally penetrated Moscow society. However, the perception of these ideas turns out to be false: Famus residents are hostile to education and reading, their ideas about proper upbringing are distorted. The Famusites see that the threat comes from Chatsky’s mind, his enlightenment and education, and therefore they resort to the only effective way to deal with him - they neutralize his mind so that everything he says does not matter, because he is speaking as a madman. In this struggle, general and personal interests coincide, so it is no coincidence that it is Sophia who starts the rumor about Chatsky’s madness. The plot lines representing the love and social conflict of the play develop together, but compositionally differently. The exposition is common to both lines and ends before the 7th phenomenon of the 1st act. The beginning of the love conflict took place in the 7th scene of the 1st act, the social conflict - in the 2nd scene of the 2nd act. The culmination of the social conflict occurs at the end of Act 3, when society turns away from Chatsky, and a dispute between them is no longer possible. The culmination of the love conflict occurs in scene 12 of act 4: Chatsky regains his sight, Sophia is close to fainting, Molchalin “hides into his room.” The denouement of both storylines coincides at the moment when Chatsky leaves Famusov’s house with the words (act 5, scene 14):
Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.
Nevertheless, the ending of the comedy remains open: what follows is unknown - neither where Chatsky will go, nor what he will do, nor how his arrival affected Famus society. However, Goncharov correctly noted that “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting on it, in turn, death blow quality of fresh strength." This is the realism of comedy.
Source (abbreviated): Moskvin G.V. Literature: 8th grade: in 2 hours. Part 2 / G.V. Moskvin, N.N. Puryaeva, E.L. Erokhin. - M.: Ventana-Graf, 2016
In the play “Woe from Wit” there are several conflicts, whereas a necessary condition for a classic play was the presence of only one conflict.
“Woe from Wit” - a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and social (between Chatsky and Famus’s society).
The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to visit his beloved girl. Gradually, the love conflict develops into a social one. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky encounters Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality early XIX century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and what they live with. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.
The social conflict in A. S. Griboedov’s play is connected with another conflict - between the “present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is a type of new person, he is an exponent of the new ideology of the new time, the “present century.” And the old conservative society Famusovs refers to the “past century”. The old does not want to give up its position and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between old and new is one of the main ones in Russian life at that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in XIX literature century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “The Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the conflicts of comedy.
Among the heroes of Griboyedov’s play, perhaps, there are no stupid people; each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of \u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in “Woe from Wit” knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give a reason to be condemned by the powerful socialites, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That is why Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. Molchalin’s goal in life is to quietly, even if slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“and win awards and have fun”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.
In the play "Woe from Wit" there are several conflicts, whereas a necessary condition for a classic play was the presence of only one conflict.
“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and social (between Chatsky and Famus’s society).
The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to visit his beloved girl. Gradually, the love conflict develops into a social one. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky encounters Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality of the early 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and what they live with. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.
The social conflict in A. S. Griboyedov’s play is connected with another conflict - between the “present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is a type of new person, he is an exponent of the new ideology of the new time, the “present century.” And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century.” The old does not want to give up its position and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between old and new is one of the main ones in Russian life at that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in the literature of the 19th century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “The Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the conflicts of comedy.
Among the heroes of Griboyedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people; each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of \u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in “Woe from Wit” knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give a reason to be condemned by powerful socialites, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That is why Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. Molchalin’s goal in life is to quietly, even if slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“and win awards and have fun”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.
Sophia, as one of the representatives of Famus society, having read sentimental novels, dreams of a timid, quiet, gentle beloved, whom she will marry and make of him a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant”. It is Molchalin, and not Chatsky, who fits her standards of a future husband.
So, Griboyedov in his comedy not only shows how immoral and conservative typical representatives of Moscow society are. It is also important for him to emphasize that they all have different understandings of life, its meaning and ideals.
If we turn to the final act of the comedy, we will see that each of the heroes turns out to be unhappy in the end. Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia - everyone is left with their own grief. And they are unhappy because of their wrong ideas about life, their wrong understanding of life. Famusov always tried to live according to the laws of the world, tried not to cause condemnation or disapproval of the world. And what did he get in the end? He was disgraced by his own daughter! "Oh! My God! “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say,” he exclaims, considering himself the most unfortunate of all people.
Molchalin is no less unhappy. All his efforts were in vain: Sophia will no longer help him, and maybe, even worse, she will complain to daddy.
And Sophia has her own grief; she was betrayed by her loved one. She became disillusioned with her ideal of a worthy husband.
But the most unfortunate of all turns out to be Chatsky, an ardent, freedom-loving educator, a leading man of his time, an exposer of the rigidity and conservatism of Russian life. The smartest in comedy, he cannot with all his intelligence make Sophia fall in love with him. Chatsky, who believed only in his own mind, in the fact that a smart girl cannot prefer a fool to a smart one, is so disappointed in the end. After all, everything that he believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy.
Thus, Griboyedov proves that the reason for Chatsky’s tragedy and the misfortunes of the other heroes of the comedy is the discrepancy between their ideas about life and life itself. “The mind is not in harmony with the heart” - this is the main conflict of “Woe from Wit”. But then the question arises, what ideas about life are true and whether happiness is possible at all. The image of Chatsky, in my opinion, gives a negative answer to these questions. Chatsky is deeply sympathetic to Griboyedov. It compares favorably with Famus society. His image reflected typical features Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboyedov foresaw the tragedy of the Decembrists, who believed in their idealistic theory, divorced from life.
Thus, in “Woe from Wit” there are several conflicts: love, social, the conflict of the “present century” and the “past century”, but the main one, in my opinion, is the conflict of idealistic ideas about life and real life. Griboyedov was the first writer to raise this problem, which many will turn to in the future writers XIX. centuries: I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy.
