The logic of an intelligent person, according to Chatsky, presupposes not just the ability to use existing living conditions and even not only education (which in itself is mandatory), but the ability to freely and impartially evaluate the conditions themselves from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they does not correspond to common sense. So, being at the head of the academic committee, it makes no sense to shout and demand “an oath so that no one knows or learns to read and write.” How long can you hold out in such a position with such views? It was not only dishonest, but really stupid to exchange “three greyhounds” for the servants who saved the master’s “life and honor,” because who will save his life next time! It is pointless and dangerous to use material and cultural benefits without providing any access to them to the people, those same “smart, vigorous” people who just saved the monarchy from Napoleon. It is no longer possible to stay at court using the principles of Maxim Petrovich. Now it is not enough just personal loyalty and the desire to please - now it is necessary to be able to get things done, since state tasks have become much more complicated. All these examples clearly show author's position: a mind that only adapts, thinks in standard stereotypes, Griboyedov is inclined to consider stupidity. But the essence of the problem is that the majority always thinks in a standard and stereotypical way. Griboyedov does not reduce the conflict only to the opposition of minds inherent in people different generations. So, for example, Chatsky and Molchalin can be attributed to the same generation, but their views are diametrically opposed: the first is a personality type of the “present century” and even most likely the future century, and the second, despite his youth, is of the “past century”, since he is satisfied life principles Famusov and the people of his circle. Both heroes - Chatsky and Molchalin - are smart in their own way. Molchalin, having made a successful career, having taken at least some place in society, understands the system that underlies it. This is quite consistent with his practical mind. But from the position of Chatsky, who fights for personal freedom, such behavior, conditioned by accepted stereotypes in society, cannot be considered smart:
I'm strange, but who isn't?
The one who is like all fools...
According to Chatsky, a truly smart person should not depend on others - this is exactly how he behaves in Famusov’s house, as a result of which he deserves the reputation of being insane. It turns out that the nobility, for the most part, as the force responsible for organizing life in the country, has ceased to meet the requirements of the time. But if we recognize Chatsky’s point of view, which reflects the positions of a smaller part of society, as having a right to exist, then it will be necessary to somehow respond to it. Then you must either, having realized that she is right, change in accordance with new principles - and many people do not want to do this, and most simply cannot do it. Or you need to fight Chatsky’s position, which contradicts the previous system of values, which is what happens throughout the second, third and almost the entire fourth act of the comedy. But there is a third way: to declare someone who expresses views so unusual for the majority to be crazy. Then you can safely ignore his angry words and fiery monologues. This is very convenient and fully corresponds to the general aspirations of the Famus society: to bother yourself with any worries as little as possible. It is quite possible to imagine the atmosphere of complacency and comfort that reigned here before Chatsky appeared. Having expelled him from Moscow society, Famusov and his entourage will apparently feel calm for some time. But only for a short time. After all, Chatsky is by no means a lone hero, although in the comedy he alone opposes the entire Famus society. Chatsky reflects a whole type of people who identified a new phenomenon in society and discovered all its pain points. Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” various types of mind are presented - from worldly wisdom, the practical mind, to the mind that reflects the high intelligence of a free thinker who boldly enters into confrontation with that which does not meet the highest criteria of truth. It is precisely this kind of mind that is “woe”; its bearer is expelled from society and it is unlikely that success and recognition will await him somewhere else. This is the strength of Griboyedov’s genius, that by showing the events of a specific time and place, he addresses an eternal problem - not only Chatsky, who lives in the era on the eve of the “outrage on St. Isaac’s Square,” faces a sad fate. It is destined for anyone who enters into a struggle with the old system of views and tries to defend their way of thinking, their mind - the mind of a free person.
The very title of Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” contains significant interpretation. The playwright poses a riddle for his contemporaries and future generations. Many smart people“were scratching our heads” over the meaning of the play’s title. In fact, is grief from the mind possible? The more smart the better. The happier the bearer of the mind and the society in which he lives should be. In our case, the hero experiences bitterness of disappointment and “a million torments,” and society rejoices at Chatsky’s imminent departure from Moscow. Chatsky is woeful from his mind because society did not understand him, did not recognize him and considered his mind dangerous, giving rise to new ideas that are unacceptable by the world, as unnecessary, inconvenient, impractical and even dangerous for a given society. A great mind needs great understanding and recognition. And then there will be happiness from the mind and peace, and not suffering or, in Goncharov’s words, torment. Chatsky is unhappy because he is not understood.
In the comedy A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, the problem of the mind is one of the key ones. This, in fact, is evidenced by the name.
The main character Chatsky has not yet appeared in Famusov’s house, but the idea of madness associated with a negative attitude towards education and enlightenment is already in the air there.
Famusov, as a typical representative of his society, has his own opinion regarding the mind and an intelligent person. For him, an intelligent person is a practical, worldly wise person. Although he does not deny Chatsky’s intelligence, he nevertheless considers Skalozub to be a more suitable match for Sophia: “A respectable man and has picked up many marks of distinction, beyond his years and an enviable rank, not today’s general.”
Famusov puts forward his ideal of an intelligent person. In his opinion, this is Maxim Petrovich, who achieved high ranks and a high position in society thanks to his practical mind, the ability to “bend over” when it was necessary to “curry favor.” Famusov himself has not reached such heights, which is why he curries favor with the princes Tugoukhovsky and Skalozub.
By nature, Molchalin is a petty person, striving by any means to achieve his cherished goal in life, the meaning of which boils down to “winning awards and having fun.” In his practice, he follows his father’s precepts - “to please all people without exception,” but at the same time he believes that “at his age he should not dare to have his own judgment,” since “he is in small ranks.” He loves Sophia “out of position,” and calms the angry Khlestova with a game of cards. According to Chatsky, Molchalin “will reach the famous levels, because nowadays they love the dumb.”
For Chatsky, mind and truth, truth and honor are the main ones life values. The hero opposes the upbringing adopted in Famusov society, when they strive to “recruit a regiment of teachers, in larger numbers, at a cheaper price.” He is not alien to patriotic feelings, which is why he is irritated by “blind imitation” of everything foreign. Chatsky’s mind is the mind of an advanced person, this is precisely the reason that the inert society does not accept his views and ideas, since they contradict the way of life of the old Moscow nobility.
Chatsky’s love for Sophia is not accidental, because she also has intelligence. But Sophia's mind is practical. Sophia, how typical girl of her time and class, she draws her mind from French sentimental novels, which is why she chooses Molchalin as her lover, in order to subsequently make him “a boy-husband, a servant-husband.” She is guided by worldly wisdom, because she is the daughter of her father.
In comedy there is another type of mind that we can see in the maid in Famusov's house, Lisa. As the second reasoner in the comedy, she expresses the author’s position, therefore it is from her lips that we hear the characteristics of various characters: Undoubtedly, Lisa has the natural intelligence and worldly wisdom of a commoner, she is resourceful, cunning, but at the same time devoted to her mistress. Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” various types of minds are presented, ranging from the worldly wise to the advanced, progressive mind. But Famus society does not accept the progressive mind, rejects it, declaring Chatsky a social madman and forcing him to leave Moscow.
The problem of the “mind” of Griboyedov’s comedy is that it is valuable for Chatsky, what is valuable for Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub.
Comedy "Woe from Wit" - famous work A. S. Griboedova. Having composed it, the author instantly stood on a par with the leading poets of his time. The appearance of this play caused a lively response in literary circles. Many were quick to express their opinions on the merits and demerits of the work. The image of Chatsky, the main character of the comedy, caused especially heated debate. This article will be devoted to a description of this character.
Prototypes of Chatsky
Contemporaries of A. S. Griboyedov found that the image of Chatsky reminded them of P. Ya. Chaadaev. Pushkin pointed out this in his letter to P. A. Vyazemsky in 1823. Some researchers see indirect confirmation of this version in the fact that initially main character comedy bore the name Chadsky. However, many refute this opinion. According to another theory, the image of Chatsky is a reflection of the biography and character of V.K. Kuchelbecker. A disgraced, unlucky man who had just returned from abroad could well have become the prototype of the main character of "Woe from Wit."
About the similarity of the author with Chatsky
It is quite obvious that the main character of the play, in his monologues, expressed the thoughts and views that Griboyedov himself adhered to. "Woe from Wit" is a comedy that became the author's personal manifesto against the moral and social vices of Russian aristocratic society. And many of Chatsky’s character traits seem to be copied from the author himself. According to contemporaries, Alexander Sergeevich was impetuous and hot-tempered, sometimes independent and harsh. Chatsky’s views on imitation of foreigners, the inhumanity of serfdom, and bureaucracy are Griboyedov’s genuine thoughts. He expressed them more than once in society. The writer was even once actually called crazy when, at a social event, he warmly and impartially spoke about the servile attitude of Russians towards everything foreign.
Author's description of the hero
In response to the critical remarks of his co-author and longtime friend P. A. Katenin that the character of the main character is “confused,” that is, very inconsistent, Griboyedov writes: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” For the author, the image of Chatsky is a portrait of an intelligent and educated young man who finds himself in a difficult situation. On the one hand, he is “at odds with society”, since he is “a little higher than others,” he is aware of his superiority and does not try to hide it. On the other hand, Alexander Andreevich cannot achieve the former location of his beloved girl, suspects the presence of a rival, and even unexpectedly falls into the category of crazy people, which he is the last to know about. Griboyedov explains the excessive ardor of his hero as a strong disappointment in love. That is why in “Woe from Wit” the image of Chatsky turned out to be so inconsistent and confusing. He “didn’t give a damn about anyone and was like that.”
Chatsky in Pushkin's interpretation
The poet criticized the main character of the comedy. At the same time, Pushkin appreciated Griboyedov: he liked the comedy “Woe from Wit.” in the interpretation of the great poet is very impartial. He calls Alexander Andreevich an ordinary hero-reasoner, a mouthpiece for the ideas of the only smart person in the play - Griboedov himself. He believes that the main character is a “kind fellow” who picked up extraordinary thoughts and witticisms from another person and began to “throw pearls” in front of Repetilov and other representatives of Famus’s guard. According to Pushkin, such behavior is unforgivable. He believes that Chatsky's contradictory and inconsistent character is a reflection of his own stupidity, which puts the hero in a tragicomic position.
The character of Chatsky, according to Belinsky
A famous critic in 1840, like Pushkin, denied the main character of the play a practical mind. He interpreted the image of Chatsky as an absolutely ridiculous, naive and dreamy figure and dubbed him “the new Don Quixote.” Over time, Belinsky somewhat changed his point of view. The characterization of the comedy "Woe from Wit" in his interpretation became very positive. He called it a protest against the “vile racial reality” and considered it “the most noble, humanistic work.” The critic never saw the true complexity of Chatsky’s image.
The image of Chatsky: interpretation in the 1860s
Publicists and critics of the 1860s began to attribute only socially significant and socio-political motives to Chatsky’s behavior. For example, I saw in the main character of the play a reflection of Griboyedov’s “second thoughts”. He considers the image of Chatsky to be a portrait of a Decembrist revolutionary. The critic sees in Alexander Andreevich a man struggling with the vices of his contemporary society. For him, these are characters not of “high” comedy, but of “high” tragedy. In such interpretations, Chatsky’s appearance is extremely generalized and interpreted very one-sidedly.
Goncharov's appearance of Chatsky
Ivan Alexandrovich in his critical study"A Million Torments" presented the most insightful and accurate analysis of the play "Woe from Wit." The characterization of Chatsky, according to Goncharov, should be made taking into account his state of mind. Unhappy love for Sophia makes the main character of the comedy bilious and almost inadequate, forcing him to pronounce long monologues in front of people indifferent to his fiery speeches. Thus, without taking into account the love affair, it is impossible to understand the comic and at the same time tragic nature of Chatsky’s image.
Issues of the play
The heroes of "Woe from Wit" collide with Griboedov in two plot-forming conflicts: love (Chatsky and Sofia) and socio-ideological (and the main character). Of course, it is the social issues of the work that come to the fore, but also love line very important in the play. After all, Chatsky was in a hurry to Moscow solely to meet with Sofia. Therefore, both conflicts - socio-ideological and love - strengthen and complement each other. They develop in parallel and are equally necessary for understanding the worldview, character, psychology and relationship of the heroes of the comedy.
The main character. Love conflict
In the system of characters in the play, Chatsky is in the main place. He links two storylines into a single whole. For Alexander Andreevich, it is the love conflict. He understands perfectly well what kind of people he has found himself in, and has no intention of engaging in educational activities. The reason for his stormy eloquence is not political, but psychological. "Impatience of the Heart" young man is felt throughout the entire play.
At first, Chatsky’s “talkativeness” is caused by the joy of meeting Sofia. When the hero realizes that the girl has no trace of her former feelings for him, he begins to do inconsistent and daring things. He stays in Famusov’s house with the only purpose: to find out who has become Sofia’s new lover. At the same time, it is quite obvious that his “mind and heart are not in harmony.”
After Chatsky learns about the relationship between Molchalin and Sofia, he goes to the other extreme. Instead of loving feelings, he is overcome by anger and rage. He accuses the girl of having “lured him with hope,” proudly announces to her the breakup of the relationship, swears that he has “sobered up... completely,” but at the same time he is going to pour out “all the bile and all the frustration” on the world.
The main character. The conflict is socio-political
Love experiences increase the ideological confrontation between Alexander Andreevich and Famus society. At first, Chatsky treats the Moscow aristocracy with ironic calm: “... I’m a stranger to another miracle / Once I laugh, then I’ll forget...” However, as he becomes convinced of Sofia’s indifference, his speech becomes more and more impudent and unrestrained. Everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Chatsky touches on many things in his monologues current problems contemporary era: questions about national identity, serfdom, education and enlightenment, real service, and so on. He talks about serious things, but at the same time, from excitement, he falls, according to I. A. Goncharov, into “exaggeration, into almost drunkenness of speech.”
The protagonist's worldview
The image of Chatsky is a portrait of a person with an established system of worldview and morality. He considers the main criterion for assessing a person to be the desire for knowledge, for beautiful and lofty matters. Alexander Andreevich is not against working for the benefit of the state. But he constantly emphasizes the difference between “serve” and “be served,” which he attaches fundamental importance. Chatsky is not afraid of public opinion, does not recognize authorities, protects his independence, which causes fear among Moscow aristocrats. They are ready to recognize in Alexander Andreevich a dangerous rebel who encroaches on the most sacred values. From the point of view of Famus society, Chatsky’s behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible. He “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections in any way. He responds to Famusov’s proposal to live “like everyone else” with a contemptuous refusal.
In many ways, Griboyedov agrees with his hero. The image of Chatsky is a type of enlightened person who freely expresses his opinion. But there are no radical or revolutionary ideas in his statements. It’s just that in Famus’s conservative society, any deviation from the usual norm seems outrageous and dangerous. It was not for nothing that in the end Alexander Andreevich was recognized as a madman. The heroes of “Woe from Wit” could only explain for themselves the independent nature of Chatsky’s judgments.
Conclusion
IN modern life The play "Woe from Wit" remains as relevant as ever. The image of Chatsky in comedy - central figure, which helps the author to express his thoughts and views to the whole world. By the will of Alexander Sergeevich, the main character of the work is placed in tragicomic conditions. His impetuous accusatory speeches are caused by disappointment in love. However, the problems that are raised in his monologues are eternal topics. It is thanks to them that the comedy entered the list of the most famous works world literature.
), belongs to the best part of the then Russian younger generation. Many literary critics claimed that Chatsky was a reasoner. This is completely false! One can call him a reasoner only insofar as the author expresses his thoughts and experiences through his lips; but Chatsky is a living, real face; he, like every person, has his own qualities and shortcomings. (See also Image of Chatsky.)
We know that Chatsky in his youth often visited Famusov’s house and, together with Sophia, studied with foreign teachers. But such an education could not satisfy him, and he went abroad to travel. His journey lasted 3 years, and now we see Chatsky again in his homeland, Moscow, where he spent his childhood. Like any person who has returned home after a long absence, everything here is sweet to him, everything evokes pleasant memories associated with childhood; he takes pleasure in going over the memories of acquaintances in whom, by the nature of his sharp mind, he certainly sees funny, caricatured features, but he does this at first without any malice or bile, and so, for laughter, to embellish his memories: “a Frenchman, knocked down by the wind ...”, and “this... dark one, on crane legs...”
Woe from the mind. Maly Theater performance, 1977
Going through the typical, sometimes caricatured aspects of Moscow life, Chatsky passionately says that when
“...you wander, you return home,
And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!”
In this, Chatsky is completely different from those young people who, returning from abroad to Russia, treated everything Russian with contempt and praised only everything that they saw in foreign countries. It was precisely thanks to this external comparison of native Russian with foreign language that the language developed in that era to a very strong extent. gallomania, which so outrages Chatsky. His separation from his homeland, the comparison of Russian life with European life, only caused him to become even stronger, more deep love to Russia, to the Russian people. That is why, having found himself again after a three-year absence among Moscow society, under a fresh impression he sees all the exaggeration, all the funny sides of this gallomania.
But Chatsky, who is hot by nature, no longer laughs, he is deeply indignant at the sight of how the “Frenchman from Bordeaux” reigns among Moscow society only because he is a foreigner; is indignant at the fact that everything Russian and national causes ridicule in society:
“How to put the European in parallel
Something strange about the national one!” –
someone says, causing general laughter of approval. Reaching the point of exaggeration, Chatsky, in contrast to the general opinion, says with indignation:
“At least we could borrow a few from the Chinese
Their ignorance of foreigners is wise.”
………………………
“Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion,
So that our smart, kind people
Although he didn’t consider us Germans based on our language?” –
meaning by “Germans” foreigners and hinting that in society in that era everyone spoke to each other in foreign languages; Chatsky suffers, realizing what an abyss separates millions of the Russian people from ruling class nobles
WITH early years children were given a foreign upbringing, which gradually alienated secular youth from everything native and national. Chatsky casually sneers at these “regiments” of foreign teachers, “more in number, at a cheaper price,” who were entrusted with the education of noble youth. Hence the ignorance of their people, hence the lack of understanding of the difficult situation in which the Russian people found themselves, thanks serfdom. Through the mouth of Chatsky, Griboedov expresses the thoughts and feelings of the best part of the nobility of that time, who were indignant at the injustices that entailed serfdom, who fought against the tyranny of avid serf owners. Chatsky (monologue “Who are the judges?..”) bright colors depicts pictures of such tyranny, recalling one master, “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who exchanged several of his faithful servants for three greyhounds; another, a theater lover, who
“I drove to the serf ballet on many wagons
From mothers and fathers of rejected children"; –
he made “all Moscow marvel at their beauty.” But then, in order to pay off creditors, he sold off these children, who portrayed “cupids and zephyrs” on stage, one by one, separating them forever from their parents...
Chatsky cannot calmly talk about this, his soul is indignant, his heart aches for the Russian people, for Russia, which he loves dearly, which he would like to serve. But how to serve?
“I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,”
he says, hinting that among the many government officials he sees only the Molchalins or such nobles as Famusov’s uncle Maxim Petrovich.
I don't go here anymore.
I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world,
Where is there a corner for an offended feeling!
Give me a carriage, a carriage!”
In this stormy outburst of despair, Chatsky’s entire ardent, unbalanced, noble soul is visible.
These heroes are completely different in all respects. According to their worldview, upbringing, character, in the desire to earn their place in the sun. Silent people accept flattery, humiliation, and all the basest qualities of a person.
Chatsky is a nobleman by birth, so all the best features are reflected in him noble man. Molchalin does not have noble roots; he achieved his position in society thanks to his boss.
Thanks to his origin, Chatsky is educated and comprehensively developed as a person. Molchalin, on the contrary, is stupid and uneducated in his aspirations, other than obtaining a new rank, he is not interested in anything else.
Chatsky is the opposite in all views. A completely different person in aspirations and character. Chatsky loves his homeland and country, a very ardent and bright young man.
Molchalin, on the contrary, is completely invisible and faceless, the main goal of his life is to get a position. And the more prestigious the better, this is a dishonest, two-faced man who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
Chatsky does not like the past; he strives for a bright future. And hopes that society will change in better side. Chatsky served in the army, rose to the rank of officer, and is now retired.
In society, when discussing various topics of interest to society, Chatsky openly and frankly shares his conclusions.
Molchalin, on the contrary, does not express his thoughts, but agrees with the thoughts of officials who are higher in rank than him in order to win them over and move up the career ladder.
Chatsky will not obey and flatter in order to be loved in society, while Molchalin is ready for all humiliations for the sake of career growth. And his recognition in society.
While reading the work, it turns out that Chatsky is a frank and courageous person. Molchalin is his absolute opposite, a liar, a coward and a careerist.
In Famusov's house, Chatsky is considered an incomprehensible person. Soon because of this he leaves. Molchalin, on the contrary, fit well into this society. As a result, Chatsky leaves Moscow, and Molchalin remains to live here and earn a new rank for himself.
Molchalin plays the role of a liar, flatterer, silent man and careerist. Who is ready to do anything to be recognized in society and given a new title. For this, he does not disdain anything, except for everything, Chatsky and Molchalin became rivals in winning Sophia’s love.
And what’s interesting is that she liked the flatterer and liar Molchalin, and not the honest, frank and ardent Chatsky. But soon, Sophia leaves Molchalin after learning that he is also caring for Liza.
The conclusion from all this is the following: our society is full of Chatskys and Molchalins. Some are honest and frank, proud and self-confident with their own point of view in everything. Others are quiet and calm hypocrites who agree with everything, who think one thing and say another. They are lying and being nice to achieve their goals.
Essay comparison between Chatsky and Molchalin for 9th grade
“Woe from Wit” is a work that gives an accurate picture of the life of Moscow nobles XIX century. In his immortal creation A.S. Griboyedov tried to raise the main problems of this time: the political system, serfdom, education, human relationships. These questions are considered by the writer from two opposite angles: “ present century"in the person of Alexander Chatsky and the "past century", in the person of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub, Zagoretsky. Through the struggle of Molchalin and Chatsky, Griboyedov tried to describe the struggle of these generations.
Alexander Chatsky is the central figure in the play. This is a poor nobleman, educated and intelligent and has his own point of view on everything, which he is not afraid to express.
First of all, Chatsky actively opposes the system of serfdom. He speaks with rage and indignation about how one landowner exchanged his servants for purebred dogs. His anger also arouses the bow of the nobility to the West, where even Russian speech is pronounced mixed with French words.
Chatsky actively advocates and promotes the revival of Russia. Strive to selflessly serve the Fatherland and benefit society. However, he does not want to be a hypocrite and be a sycophant, just to receive a high rank and honor.
All the talk about a successful career, wealth, successful and mutually beneficial marriages makes the main character want to fight and try to change such a society.
But Alexei Molchalin lives and exists quite comfortably in Famusov’s society. To please everyone who is above his rank - in this matter Molchalin successfully succeeds. The young man considers his main virtues to be: the ability to remain silent, moderation, accuracy, helpfulness and the ability to remain careful in everything. He understands well that a rootless official cannot make his way into the people without the support of people with position in society and power. The deceitfulness of this character can be seen in his attitude towards people. Without a twinge of conscience, Molchalin is able to please and flatter Famusov, the 65-year-old Mrs. Khlestova, whispering sweet compliments to her, only to “get a higher rank.”
The difference between Chatsky and Molchalin is clearly manifested in their attitude to the theme of love. If Molchalin lies about his tender feelings for Sophia for the sake of his career, then Chatsky is capable of sincere feelings. For her sake, he tries to stay in a society that openly considers him crazy and a “dangerous person.” Chatsky suffers from the fact that the girl he loves, succumbing to the mood of her environment, chose as her husband a convenient and close-minded man, and not him, a sensible man and “hungry for knowledge.”
Unfortunately, the social and love torments of Alexander Chatsky remain unresolved. His insightful mind cannot in any way influence the frozen and immoral world. But Chatsky’s desire and desire to fight bureaucracy and indifference of society certainly characterize him as an extraordinary and progressive-minded person.
Several interesting essays
- Essay by Ivan Petrovich Berestov in the story The Young Lady-Peasant by Pushkin
Ivan Petrovich Berestov is the hero of the story by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin entitled “The Young Lady-Peasant Woman”. From the author's story we learn that he is a landowner in Tugilov and Alexei's father
- Analysis of Astafiev’s work Cursed and Killed
The work is a reproduction of the events of the Great Patriotic War and was initially conceived by the writer in the volume of three books, the first and second of which describe the realities of wartime,
- Listnitsky in Sholokhov's novel Quiet Don characterization and image essay
Listnitsky Evgeniy – minor character novel " Quiet Don" Eugene came from a family of famous monarchist nobles. His father, Nikolai Listnitsky, was a heroic participant in the Russian-Turkish war
- Essay reasoning Lifestyle
You can often hear the phrase: “It’s like a lifestyle for him,” thrown towards a person. But what is it? And how to acquire a lifestyle? How to make others know about it?
- The image of Kuligin in the play Groz Ostrovsky essay
Among the heroes of A. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm,” Kuligin is one of the key figures, although not the main one. A self-taught mechanic, he really looks at the processes taking place in the town. Kuligin understands that changes are needed in life
