Problematic issues are woeful. Concept and problems for the comedy Woe from Wit (A. S. Griboyedov)

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 the ideal, which consisted in the fulfillment of civic duty, the subordination of individual interests to public interests and the awareness of the reasonable laws of life. To embody these ideas, the main character was chosen as the bearer of a positive ideal, his 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 classicist perspective of the development of the play and determines the development of the plot.

It is interesting that the name Sophia means “wise” in Greek, which certainly conveys the author’s sad irony. 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 love conflict falls on the 7th scene 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 by the Patriotic War of 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 judge it only 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 morals 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, Griboyedov 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—where Chatsky will go, what he will do, or what impact his arrival will have on Famusov 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

There are cases in the history of art and literature when just one work makes its author immortal. A.S. Griboedov forever entered literature with his socio-political comedy “Woe from Wit,” which shows the spiritual life of Russia after Patriotic War 1812, the contradictions between the “present century” and the “past century.”

Ethical and philosophical views A.S. Griboyedov are already reflected in the title of the comedy. A person who thinks about the rational structure of society and does not accept reactionary views has a difficult time among those who understand intelligence as “the ability to live.”

The main conflict of the work unfolds between Chatsky and Famus society. It reflected the struggle between two social forces: progressive liberal nobles and reactionary serf-owning nobles.

A.S. Griboedov satirically depicts noble-bureaucratic Moscow and, more broadly, Russia. Despite the commonality of many features (selfish interests, lack of high morality, low level of education, fear of enlightenment), each image embodies a specific specific historical type.

Famusov personifies the “past century.” He is a wealthy landowner and a major official, who, however, does not burden himself with service (“what is business, what is not business, is signed, so off your shoulders”). Perceiving the service as his own patrimony, Famusov surrounded himself with relatives and acquaintances:

When I have employees, strangers are very rare,

More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children...

How are you going to present yourself to the cross?

to the place, how can you not please your loved one!

Famusov is a hypocrite and a hypocrite. The ideal of Famusov’s entire entourage is Maxim Petrovich, who, despite his gray hair, fell several times in front of the empress to amuse her, which earned him royal favor. Famusov is ready to give his daughter in marriage to anyone, as long as he has money and power. He sees his son-in-law even in the rude and ignorant martinet Skalozub, whom Chatsky aptly described as “a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas.” Skalozub reveals his dreams:

...to get ranks, there are many channels...

I just wish I could become a general.

And, without feeling cynicism, he is glad that

The vacancies are just open;

Then the Elders will turn off others,

The others, you see, have been killed.

The entire Famus society is afraid of enlightenment, seeing it as a threat to its own foundations. Famusov is sure that “learning is the plague, learning is the cause” of all troubles; he is echoed by the princess, who scolds the pedagogical institute and professors; Skalozub would like the lyceums and gymnasiums to teach “our way: one, two,” he “can’t be fooled by his learning,” and he will give “a sergeant major like Voltaire” to those who conduct philosophical debates. The views of this society were expressed by Famusov:

...To stop evil,

Collect all the books and burn them.

The younger generation is represented in the play by the images of Chatsky, Molchalin, Sophia and Lisa. This is absolutely different types young people who differ in their moral concepts.

Molchalin personifies the lower part of bureaucratic Russia. His portrait is described in one phrase: “here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words.” He has two talents that he is proud of - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin is one of those who achieves a career by being able to stroke the pug of an influential lady at the right time, and play cards (dying of boredom) with old men. This is a sycophant, a hypocrite who follows the rule:

...At my age one should not dare

Have your own opinions.

Such Molchalins support the foundations of Famus society.

One of the most complex in the play is the image of Sophia. As noted by A.S. Pushkin, “it is written unclearly.” Quite educated and smart, she prefers Molchalin to Chatsky. Without being evil and cruel, she hurts her childhood friend and slanders him, declaring him crazy. Her actions are contradictory. This is probably because some features of her character (independence, freedom of judgment) were formed in adolescence under the influence of Chatsky, but after his departure she found herself at the mercy of a conservative society, which instilled in her its own moral code. It can be assumed that Sophia does not love Molchalin, but has created an ideal in her imagination. Chatsky is right when he says that by admiring him, you gave him darkness of your qualities.

Objectively, Sophia also finds herself in the Famusov camp, defending its foundations.

Famus society is opposed by Chatsky. A young educated man, after a three-year absence, returns to Moscow, driven by a romantic impulse to serve the Fatherland, “the smoke of which is sweet and pleasant to us.” He is an honest, noble man with a sharp mind. It pains him to see that hypocrisy and ignorance still reign, that in Moscow “the houses are new, but the prejudices are old.” His patriotic feeling offends the spirit of “blind, slavish, empty imitation” of everything foreign, admiration for the empty “Frenchman from Bordeaux.”

Chatsky’s moral concepts - independence, self-esteem (“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”), integrity - are in irreconcilable contradiction with the morality of Famus society. His monologue “Who are the judges?” - denunciation of the conservatism of the “fathers of the fatherland”, who live according to the laws of the 18th century, “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea.” They are enemies of freedom, serf owners who value the lives of peasants at nothing, exchanging their devoted servants for dogs.

Chatsky has an ardent character, which is manifested in his romantic love to Sophia, and in his harsh assessments of others. The image of Chatsky is given in development. He first overcomes socio-political illusions, and then his love hopes are destroyed. According to I.A. Goncharov, Chatsky experiences “a million torments” before he “sobers up completely.”

Although the play was written a year before the uprising, the image of Chatsky embodied many of the features moral character and social views of the Decembrists. In the play itself there are hints that Chatsky is not alone in his views on existing society. These are off-stage characters - cousin Skalozub: “the rank followed him, ... he suddenly left the service,” “in the village he began to read books”; nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Prince Fyodor.

The realism of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is expressed in the fact that Famus’s society defeats Chatsky, although, undoubtedly, the playwright’s sympathies are on the side of the hero. But real circumstances did not allow for a positive outcome.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” was an original, vibrant work that has not lost its relevance today. Chatsky’s unusually lively language, specific and apt statements led to the fact that many lines of the play became aphorisms. Sometimes, using expressions such as “ Happy Hours they don’t observe”, “The legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe”, “To have children who lack intelligence”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”, “In more numbers, at a cheaper price”, the speaker does not even know the source catchphrase. These phrases organically entered into colloquial speech, becoming truly popular.

Comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedova reflected the sentiments of the progressive nobility of Russia first quarter of the XIX V.

Without being officially published, the comedy "Woe from Wit" becomes one of the most popular works in Russia, and above all in the circle of the Decembrists. This was not at all accidental: problems The comedy fully corresponded to the ideological and moral aspirations of the Decembrists. Griboyedov did not become a member of the secret society of Decembrists, although he was very sympathetic to many Decembrist ideas and was also in opposition to the government. It is no coincidence that the Decembrists highly appreciated the accusatory pathos of the comedy and perceived it as a poetic declaration of the ideas of Decembrism. However, a special quality of Griboedov’s comedy turned out to be that the depth of its content became more and more noticeable with the passage of time. On the one hand, the comedy was illuminated by the tragic reflection of the Decembrist uprising and revealed the fundamental depth of the concrete historical conflict. In the clash between the ardent lover of truth, Chatsky, and Famusov’s world, a gulf became apparent, separating the democratically minded intelligentsia from the bulk of the feudal lordship. Griboedov's comedy became a vivid artistic document of the Decembrist era. Thus, the plot basis of "Woe from Wit" is a conflict expressing the main content of its time - the collision of the “present century” and the “past century”.

the main idea of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is revolutionary : denunciation of obscurantism, abolition of serfdom, honor according to the mind, personal freedom. Griboyedov himself realized this great idea, which is why the great Russian poet took off his hat to the dead Griboyedov. At this moment, Pushkin bowed to the future freedom of our Fatherland!

As a truly great national and people's writer, Griboyedov posed and resolved in his work the main, most important questions related to the life and destinies of the Russian people. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" played outstanding role in the matter of socio-political and moral education of several generations of Russian people. She armed them to fight violence and tyranny, meanness and ignorance in the name of freedom and reason, in the name of the triumph of advanced ideas and true culture.

The brilliant mind of the author of the work, embodied in Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, the main character of the comedies, is merciless towards the stupid and overweight inhabitants of the Moscow “society”, mired in lazy idleness and nostalgia. enlightenment, humanism. Its representative is Chatsky, who for the first time in our literature challenged the society of serf owners and conservatives.

The action of Griboyedov's play develops rapidly. Choosing for the plot .classic “love triangle” and preserving the traditional form of comedy (the action takes place in one place - Famusov's mansion for one day, and the circle of characters is constant). Griboyedov immediately makes it clear to us: personal intrigue gives way to a conflict of a different kind - social. Nevertheless, Sophia’s “secret” is revealed to Chatsky only in the finale, until which he still hopes for something. Who knows, without this hope, he would have come into conflict with Famusov. Skalozub and the like. would he express what he thinks about them?.. But he did it. His monologues, however, are still warnings, they are still just words, but what words!

The conflict develops all the more interestingly because what is purely external at first glance is a trifle (a remark from an irritated Sophia is a typical reaction of a spoiled creature) is immediately picked up by those around him and inflated to social proportions. Chatsky’s madness is convenient and beneficial to society, because it gives its representatives some chance of justification. “Dangerous dreamers” like Chatsky too unceremoniously tear off the masks of hypocritical prosperity. And now Famusov is no longer there. respectable official and loving father, not a welcoming and hospitable owner, but a ruthless serf owner, an enemy of enlightenment. The owner of a brilliant colonel's uniform, Skalozub, is a stupid martinet, the "witty" Repetilov is an empty talker, and Zagoretsky, who is always needed by everyone, is an arrogant swindler. And around them are crowds of ghosts like the Grandmother Countess and the Tugoukhovsky princes...

Griboyedov idealizes his hero, whose sincere monologues are somewhat long, and their wit scares rather than convinces the listeners gathered at Famusov's. But Chatsky’s words were actually heard in our literature for the first time! And not just boldly, ardently, but smartly, deeply

At all times there were and are. there will probably be their own Griboyedovs and Chatskys. Wazir-Mukhtars, who, first of all, thanks to their brilliant and far-sighted mind, become prophets in their fatherland. As a rule, this violates the established social order, the “natural” course of things, and society comes into conflict with the individual.

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" the writer reflects the clashes of two camps: the camp young Russia, presented by Chatsky and the camp cruel serf owners , presented by Famusov, Skalozub, Khlestova, Molchalin and others. This conflict is not an artistic invention of the author of the work, he shows in the play the generation of future Decembrists who are imbued with love for their homeland and people, they are revolutionaries who fight against moral violence against individuals. In the work, Chatsky opposes this. He is the son of Famusov’s late friend, grew up in his house, was brought up and studied together with Sophia. Chatsky is an educated man, engaged in literary work: “He writes and translates nicely,” served in military service, had connections with ministers, was abroad for three years, this enriched him with new views, broadened his horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. The struggle between Chatsky and Famusov's society is becoming increasingly fierce; it turns into Chatsky's personal drama, the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness. If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the time of serfdom, then Chatsky speaks with indignation about the serf owners, about serfdom. In a monologue “Who are the judges?” he angrily speaks out against the order of the Catherine century, dear to Famusov’s heart. Chatsky’s ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and “hunter of indecency,” but independent, free person . For Famusov, the ideal is Skalozub, who views service as a source of personal benefits. Chatsky breaks ties with the ministers, leaves the service, because he wants to serve the Motherland, and not serve his superiors. “I’d be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!” - he says. Chatsky - for the development of Russian culture. He himself “searched for intelligence” during his stay in the West, but he is against empty, meaningless, blind imitation of foreigners. Chatsky defends freedom of speech and thoughts; he believes that every person has the right to express his opinion. In the comedy, Chatsky is forced to fight himself. But among the off-stage images like-minded people who share his views are mentioned. The comedy does not end with the defeat of Chatsky, although he is declared crazy, readers do not get the impression that he is defeated. He leaves Moscow to join members of a secret society in order to continue the fight for the liberation of the people from serfdom.

The problem of the mind in the comedy of A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit" is key. The name itself testifies to this. Speaking about comedy, its themes and figurative system, the problem of mind and madness has been relevant at all times. Smart, progressive people of their time were declared crazy and often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries. Ideas that ran counter to generally accepted ones and preached by leading people of our time were persecuted. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov touches on this problem in his work. The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written before the December uprising and tells the story of society's reaction to the emergence of advanced intelligence in Russia. The original title of the comedy was “Woe to Wit,” then the author replaced it with “Woe from Wit.” "Woe from Wit" makes us think about whether Chatsky needs intelligence at all in such a situation, and we understand that this intelligence makes the hero himself feel bad. That is, the problem becomes two-sided. But in fact, "woe" from Chatsky's intelligence is not only for him himself, but also to Famusov’s society. Education and enlightenment deal an irreparable blow to old Moscow. We see that Chatsky alone quite frightened everyone present at Famusov’s evening, and only with their numbers they were able to oust the “foreign body” from their circle. , like Chatsky, there will be many, then Famus society will suffer a final and crushing defeat. So, “Woe from Wit,” with all the complexity of the problem, gives us hope for “enlightenment at the end of the tunnel,” so to speak, in the person of such smart people. highly educated people like Chatsky. And Famus society looks something deathly pale and dying in its attempts to resist this. 44 The image of Chatsky, a patriotic citizen

The comedy “Woe from Wit” was created during turning point in the history of our country. After Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, the younger generation of nobles who participated in this war saw that the defeated peoples of Europe were in a better position than the Russian people. It became clear that Russia needed urgent reforms, and as a result of this, various secret societies of future Decembrists began to emerge. Griboedov knew all these attitudes of young people and understood the need for reforms. And it was precisely this theme of the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century” that formed the basis of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” The main character of the play is Alexander Chatsky. In his image, the writer embodied the features of a leading man of that time, the features of the Decembrists from Griboyedov’s circle of acquaintances. Chatsky is a man of new views, a true citizen and patriot. He is an enlightened person, striving for freedom and self-improvement. He is distinguished by such features as love for his people, criticism of serfdom, and patriotism. Chatsky refuses to serve the state, saying: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served” - and seeing in the service only servility, veneration and sycophancy. However, Chatsky is not alone in his desires for change! In his monologues, he uses the pronoun “we,” thereby emphasizing that there are many people like him. And indeed, Princess Tugoukhovskaya recalls her nephew, who, one might say, followed in the footsteps of Chatsky: Therefore, we still have hope that Russia will nevertheless come to some positive changes. Chatsky defends his views by entering into a dispute with the whole society, and not with its individual representatives. He is a fighter calling for the reign of justice, the abolition of serfdom and the destruction of the patriarchal way of life. Chatsky always speaks clearly, passionately and passionately, and his monologues show the absolute irreconcilability of the positions of two hostile sides: “the present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is convinced that he is right and does not need the support or approval of others. He is simply trying to convey to people the essence and need for reform in their lives. Therefore, we can say for sure that Chatsky embodies those thoughts and ideas that were characteristic of the progressive people of that time - the Decembrists.

The main thing is those public relations that existed in Russia. Serfdom was hated by every free-thinking person. Chatsky is depicted in the comedy not just as a “desert sower of freedom,” but as a future Decembrist: With anger and pain, he denounces ardent serf-owners in his monologues. Chatsky is a humanist, defender of freedom and independence of the individual. He is especially angry at the landowners’ bullying of the peasant’s personality: Chatsky loves people , calls him “kind and smart,” hence his suffering about the fate of the people. The vices of Famus society especially make Chatsky suffer. This society slows down everything progressive and blocks its path to the people. They especially hate enlightenment: The fact that society fiercely resists the influence of noble ideas deals a blow to Chatsky’s philosophy and adds to his torment. These people see the ideal in the army. This is a product of the era of Arakcheev, who saw the army as a stronghold of serfdom. Holds on cliff teeth serfdom and the throne, that’s why they are so dear to the Famus family and hated by Chatsky. The tailcoat of a foreigner also evokes admiration, which is also painful for Chatsky to see. Chatsky opposes “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” But when Chatsky utters these words, everyone is convinced that he is crazy. The image of Chatsky is the image of a citizen in the high sense of the word. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famusovs and Sillins with a high understanding honor and duty ; he is ready to serve the Motherland and its interests . “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served”. This also contains the suffering of the hero. High understanding of duty – bright side Chatsky's personality. The tragic collision between duty and feeling tragically ends everything in Chatsky’s soul.

He does not tolerate lies and injustice. Therefore, Alexander Andreevich sees his duty and calling in life in serving the Motherland. He is outraged by the traditions that formed in high society during these times. He does not like sycophancy, he prefers to “serve the cause, not persons,” and does not mix “fun or tomfoolery with business.” All this is not to Chatsky’s liking, so he angrily denounces the “noble scoundrels” (Famus society). Griboedov, through the image of Chatsky, wanted to show how he represents a true patriot of the Motherland. A person who has the courage to condemn high society, to speak out against the tsar and serfdom. Main character understands the danger of his too sincere speeches, but never deviates from the work he has begun. He knows exactly what he is fighting for and what his purpose in life is. He does not get lost in his speeches and actions. Chatsky fought for better changes in the lives of ordinary Russian people, for a free life that does not depend on “noble scoundrels,” who are characterized by servility, sycophancy, hypocrisy and meanness. the image of Chatsky is intertwined with the very image of Griboyedov. He is also brave and courageous, he is smart, he does not like the political structure of the country, so he boldly enters the battle for the future of his Motherland. There are few such people among the “Famus society” that was formed in those days. These are just a few people. The only thing that kept Chatsky in Famusov's house was his love for Sofia. After he realized that there are no mutual feelings between them, he decides to leave Moscow forever... Chatsky chose the word as his weapon. What precise, apt and merciless characteristics he gives to the Moscow rich: “their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable”, “... rich in robbery”, “... poured out in feasts and extravagance”! In accusatory monologues, Chatsky rises to high civil pathos. The hero is convinced that people should be judged not by their position and wealth, but by their business and moral qualities. Because of this, Chatsky is hated by society as new person. And society is taking its own measures to neutralize him - slandering him. Will it come to terms with Chatsky’s condemnation of the education system, when young people despise their people? national culture? He puts all the passion of his soul into denouncing “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” Chatsky dared to “publicly announce” his sound thoughts, but such people are hated in society, called “dangerous dreamers”, crazy. And wouldn’t they have treated Chatsky this way if he had been among our contemporaries? Until recently, all dissidents were declared crazy, put in psychiatric hospitals, expelled from the country, and imprisoned. Chatsky's grief is not only from the mind, but also from love. He found out that Sophia did not love him. But this grief can be overcome. If Sophia had fallen in love with another Chatsky, it would certainly have been hard and painful for Alexander Andreich, but he would have survived. What causes Chatsky the greatest suffering is that it was Molchalin who was able to become Sophia’s hero. This is where the tragedy lies. It’s scary that Sophia is in the crowd of tormentors, among those who persecute and curse. Chatsky realized that he was surrounded by enemies, and no one, not even his beloved girl, understood him. How many examples of such dramas can be observed today! After all, even now “silent people are blissful in the world,” they are loved because they know how to please everyone. For us, today, Chatsky remains, first of all, a Russian man, who realized not only his national pride, but also the high moral tasks of a citizen. The time of Griboedov is an era far from us, but the brave struggle of the patriot Chatsky against everything that is backward, vulgar and base in man and society evokes sympathy and sympathy modern reader and the viewer. Griboyedov's comedy helps our fight against sycophancy towards everything foreign, against such social phenomena, like careerism, money-grubbing, sycophancy/bureaucracy, servility, reminds of high moral concepts and goals worthy of a Russian person.

1. The comedy “Woe from Wit” was written by A.S. Griboedov at the beginning of the 19th century, and the era of the change of centuries, as a rule, is accompanied by profound changes in the social environment and a rapid increase in contradictions between representatives of the two centuries, characteristic of this time. Griboedov grasped the main social conflict that emerged after the Patriotic War of 1812. The comedy poses the most burning questions of that time: the situation of the Russian people, serfdom, the relationship between landowners and peasants, autocratic power, the insane wastefulness of the nobles, the state of enlightenment, the principles of upbringing and education, independence and freedom of the individual, national identity. 2. The ideological meaning of comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, lifestyles , worldviews: old, serfdom, and new, progressive; in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. The struggle of the “present century” with the “past century” is the struggle of Chatsky, a leading man of his time, and the backward Famus society. Representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of any civic thoughts and interests. They see the meaning of life primarily in getting rich; they are careerists and envious people. They are in power and occupy a high social position. They view service only as a source of income, as a means to receive undeserved honors. Famusov’s confession is very indicative: And what is my business, what is not my business, My custom is this: It’s signed, so off my shoulders. In the society of Moscow nobles, such phenomena as nepotism and nepotism are common. Famusov says: Well, how can you not please your own little man, and he doesn’t hide the fact that he has... strangers’ employees are very rare: More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children. These are people devoid of a sense of humanity, enemies of freedom, stranglers of enlightenment, their deepest desire is to “take away all the books and burn them.” One of them exchanges a crowd of his servants for three greyhound dogs, who “saved his honor and life more than once.” Another, for the sake of empty amusement, drives “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the serf ballet, and then sells them off one by one. 3. Satirically denouncing the local and bureaucratic nobility, the entire feudal-serf system, A. S. Griboyedov clearly saw the positive social forces of his era, the emergence and growth of new, progressive aspirations and ideas. Thus, Skalozub complains to Famusov that his cousin, having acquired “some new rules,” neglected the rank that followed him, left the service and “began reading books in the village.” Princess Tugoukhovskaya says that her relative, who studied at the pedagogical institute, “doesn’t want to know the ranks!” Famusov, referring to the widespread prevalence of freethinking, calls his time a “terrible century.” But the awakening of national and social self-awareness is most fully embodied in the image of Chatsky. This is undoubtedly an ardent patriot, a fearless warrior against serfdom and despotic autocracy, a courageous knight of truth, a merciless judge of all lies and falsehood, of everything that is hostile to the new, that stands in the way of reason. He stigmatizes ignorance, denounces the nobility and acts as an ardent propagandist of science, education, and art. Griboedov wrote: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person is, of course, in conflict with the society around him.” Deeply believing in the correctness of his ideas, Chatsky is convinced that his dreams will come true, that the future belongs to new people, his brothers in spirit. 4. In the comedy, the conflict ends with the general recognition of Chatsky as crazy, and the love drama ends with the exposure of the love affair led by Molchalin. At the end of the play, Chatsky feels abandoned by everyone, and his feeling of alienation from the society to which he once belonged intensifies. The denouement of the love drama affects the main conflict: Chatsky leaves all contradictions unresolved and leaves Moscow. In a clash with Famusov’s society, Chatsky is defeated, but, losing, he remains undefeated, since he understands the need to fight the “past century,” its norms, ideals, and position in life. 5. Depicting in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the socio-political struggle between the conservative and progressive camps, social characters, morals and way of life in Moscow, Griboyedov reproduces the situation of the entire country. “Woe from Wit” is a mirror of feudal-serf Russia with its social contradictions, the struggle of the passing world and the new one, called to win. The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is an expression of the ideas of the first stage of the Russian liberation movement.

The problem of mind and madness has been relevant at all times. Smart, progressive people of their time often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries and were declared crazy. This is how society reacted to ideas that ran counter to generally accepted ones, ideas that were preached by progressive people of their time. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov touches on this problem in his work. His comedy “Woe from Wit,” written before the December uprising, tells the story of advanced intelligence and the reaction of society to it. The original title of the comedy was “Woe to Wit,” then the author replaced it with “Woe from Wit.” 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. So, Famusov says: “And reading is of little use.” Later, all the characters in the comedy will speak out on this matter, each will put forward their own version of Chatsky’s madness, but the whole society will unanimously come to the same opinion: “Learning is the plague, learning is the reason.” The Famus society will get rid of Chatsky by declaring him crazy, not accepting accusatory speeches that stigmatize their way of life, and will choose gossip as a weapon. 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.” In a conversation with Skalozub, the Moscow gentleman talks about the danger that comes from such wise men as Chatsky. In addition, Chatsky incorrectly uses the acquired knowledge. Everything should be aimed at achieving ranks, at maintaining traditions, we should live “as our fathers did.” 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. Molchalin, Famusov's secretary, also embodies a practical mind. This was noticed by Chatsky: Molchalin! - Who else will settle everything so peacefully! There he will pet the pug in time! It's time to rub the card in! 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.” Chatsky is the complete opposite of Molchalin, despite the fact that they are both young. The hero has ardor, passionate nature. He is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his ideals, filled with civic meaning. He wants to serve “the cause, not the individuals.” For Chatsky, intelligence and truth, truth and honor are the main values in life. The hero opposes the upbringing adopted in Famus society, when they strive to “recruit regiment 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 expresses his thoughts in accusatory speeches directed against the foundations of Famus society. His monologues, oratorical in style, testify to the education and enlightenment of the protagonist, which is why they contain so many aphorisms. 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, as a typical girl of her time and class, 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: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, like Alexander Andreich Chatsky,” “Like all Moscow, your father is like this: I would like his son-in-law has stars and ranks” and so on. 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.

Already in the very title of the comedy “Woe from Wit” (1822 - 1824) a significant contradiction is reflected. For Enlightenment philosophy, intelligence and happiness were perceived as synonymous. The basis of the beliefs of the enlighteners was the belief that the enlightened mind is the arbiter of the destinies of mankind. This found a vivid expression in Pushkin’s “Bacchic Song” (1829): “So false wisdom flickers and smolders // Before the immortal sun of the mind.” But in the 20s of the XIX century. in conditions of serious social contradictions, the most insightful thinkers began to understand that the powers of reason would face difficult tests. This is what happens in Griboyedov’s comedy.

It is no coincidence that the theme of the mind (learning, knowledge) is touched upon by almost all the characters in the comedy. And immediately a sharp contrast emerges. For Chatsky highest value- “a mind hungry for knowledge”, for Famusov - “Learning is a plague...”. Repetilov is convinced that “ smart man can’t help but be a rogue.” contemptuously throws out: “You can’t faint with your learning...”. And Sophia, already from her position, asks (knowing the answer in advance): “Why look for intelligence?” and “Will such a mind make a family happy?”, which determines its place in the system of images. Chatsky, a pious believer in the power of the mind, notices with horror that no one understands him - and does not want to understand that the mind brings him not joy, not happiness, but grief. This debate about the mind is fundamentally important in comedy, because it touches on an issue that has acquired socio-political significance. Thus, from the very beginning, a sharp division appears: the inert Famus society, which thinks primarily about the usual values: money, career, position in the world, and Chatsky, who is an expression of the ideals of the Decembrists, educators according to his fundamental convictions. This conflict is outlined immediately; it unites two storylines in the play: personal, psychological, associated with Chatsky’s love for Sophia, and socio-political.

Chatsky arrives early in the morning at Famusov’s house not at all in order to enter into battle with outdated views or pronounce loud monologues. He is in a hurry to see his beloved girl. But it turns out that the hero’s love is doomed to failure - and not just because Sophia does not reciprocate Chatsky’s feelings, but also for another reason: there is nothing in common that would connect the hero with her world. Chatsky and representatives of Famus’s circle (not excluding Sophia) think, say, and act differently. In Act II, Chatsky talks with Famusov about Sophia. It's about about matchmaking, that is, about things that seem to be of a purely family, everyday nature. But this conversation instantly turns into an open debate about life, economics, worldview, and finally politics. Thus, the difference in human characters and psychology is defined by Griboyedov as fundamentally opposite life positions, direct antagonism in value orientations.

In "Woe from Wit" there is a constant, direct and fierce struggle between two camps. It would seem that Chatsky is alone in this struggle. However, if you carefully read the text, it turns out that he also has like-minded people, people close to his views.

This is, for example, Skalozub’s cousin, who suddenly left the service, although he was about to receive another rank. He “got a strong grip on some new rules” and “began to read books in the village.” In the same row is Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, who “does not want to know the ranks”, but is engaged in science. Academician M.V. Nechkina, who paid a lot of attention to the problem of Chatsky’s camp, drew attention to Sophia’s words about the hero of the comedy: “I am especially happy with friends.” Consequently, he has friends, he has his own camp, on behalf of which he speaks here, in Famusov’s house: “Now let one of us, one of the young people, be found...” The plural here is far from accidental. Chatsky clearly speaks not only on his own behalf: “Where, point out to us, are the fathers of the fatherland, // Which we should take as models,” etc. And Famusov, in turn, does not mean only Chatsky alone when he exclaims , talking about Maxim Petrovich’s sycophancy: “Huh? what do you think? in our opinion, he’s smart.”

It is significant that representatives of Famus’s world very quickly find the appropriate political terminology that defines Chatsky’s position in the social struggle of the era. They compare him with figures of the European liberation movement. From Famusov’s point of view, he is a Carbonari, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, he is a Jacobin. And even the deaf countess-grandmother immediately found the appropriate term: “Oh, damned Voltairian.”

Conflict manifests itself in everything: in the definition of value human personality, both in relation to the people and in the understanding of patriotism. For Chatsky main value a person lies in his civil service to the Motherland. For Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, the ideas of the good of the Fatherland simply do not exist. It’s enough to remember with what taste and pleasure they talk about awards, chips, insignia - about anything, just not about business: “And what I have to do, what’s not my business, // My custom is this: // Signed, so with off your shoulders." The conflict is ideological, conscious in nature. Chatsky preaches his ideas, but Famusov also diligently strives to instill in his interlocutor his view of food, to win him over to his side: “You should learn by looking at your elders...” And he even tries to teach Chatsky: “You should go to Tatyana Yuryevna at least once. ..”

System of images. At the center of the comedy’s image system is, of course, Chatsky. His views, thoughts, actions, character are revealed not only in monologues, but also in relation to Sophia, Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin. And they, in turn, manifest themselves in contacts both with Chatsky and with each other. Thus, to complete the picture of Famusov, it is necessary to take into account both his self-characteristics and relationships with other actors. As a result, an idea of a living, multifaceted human character. Famusov is shown both as a father, and as an important Moscow gentleman, and as a hospitable host. But he has main feature, giving his image the necessary integrity and unity. He finds support in the unshakable foundations consecrated by antiquity. Famusov is a conservative by conviction, by nature, by habit, finally. Everything that threatens this system threatens him personally. Therefore, Famusov passionately and convincingly defends not just everyday life and morals, but also the ideas of the old world, defending its indispensable attributes: careerism, sycophancy, servility, unprincipledness, immorality.

If homework on the topic: » “Woe from Wit” – Issues and main conflict If you find it useful, we will be grateful if you post a link to this message on your page on your social network.