Woe from mind
3. The problem of the mind in the comedy Woe from Wit
4. Chatsky and silent (comparative characteristics)
5.My favorite character
1) Is Chatsky smart? In the comedy Woe from Wit? 2) The comedy "Woe from Wit" - a drama due to the uselessness of the mind in Russia? 3) Honesty and kindness are more important4) Does the country need smart people; what is the tragedy of smart people in the comedy "Woe from Wit".....
Help with my essay. Please! Submit tomorrow! Comedy "Woe from Wit"I need an essay on one of these topics:
1. "Chatsky - winner or loser"
2. Chatsky is an exponent of the ideas of his time.
3. Master's Moscow in Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"
4. Why are molchalins dangerous?
5. "The present century and the past century"
6. Author and hero in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".
If anyone has an essay on one of these topics, please respond. If it's good, with a plan, and I can't find a copy, I'll pay 40 points
not fully solved" (A. Blok)
The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written between 1815 and 1820. The content of the play is closely related to historical events that time in Russia. The work remains relevant in our time. In those days, society included defenders of serfdom and Decembrists, imbued with love for the Motherland and opposing violence against individuals.
The comedy describes the clash of two centuries: the “present century” with the “past century.” A striking example of the old times is the so-called Famus society. These are acquaintances and relatives of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, a wealthy Moscow gentleman, in whose house the play takes place. These are Khlestova, the Gorichi spouses, Skalozub, Molchalin and others. All these people are united by one point of view on life. They are all cruel serf owners; human trafficking is considered normal among them. The serfs save their lives and honor, serve sincerely, and they can exchange them for a pair of greyhounds. So at Famusov’s ball, Khlestova tells Sophia to give her a sop from dinner for her blackamoor - a girl and a dog. She doesn't see any difference between them. This remains relevant today. When a rich person with power and money can humiliate another person of lower level. The ideals for the current society are rich people in ranks. Famusov uses Kuzma Petrovich as an example to Chatsky, who was a venerable chamberlain, “with a key,” “rich and was married to a rich woman.” Pavel Afanasyevich wants a groom like Skalozub for his daughter, because he “has a golden bag and aspires to be a general.”
All representatives Famusov society characterizes an indifferent attitude towards affairs. Famusov, a “manager in a government place,” deals with affairs only once; at Molchalin’s insistence, he signs the papers, despite the fact that they “contradict and contain many things.” He thinks: “It’s signed, off your shoulders.” The saddest thing is that these days people think exactly the same as Famusov. Almost everyone has an irresponsible attitude towards work. This is the unsurpassability of great comedy; it remains vital and relevant in the 20th century.
Main character plays by Chatsky, through whom the author expresses his progressive ideas. He opposes the senseless imitation of everything foreign. He wants to punish those around him that they must love and respect Russian culture. Chatsky says that a Frenchman from Bordeaux, who came to Moscow, did not hear “a word of a Russian” and did not see “a Russian face” here. The comedy "Woe from Wit" is unique in world literature, since no one except Griboedov reveals the whole reality of the events taking place.
In the comedy, Chatsky is declared crazy because representatives of Famus society do not understand his ideas. He alone does not want to put up with the humiliation of people over people. Chatsky failed to correctly prove the correctness of his beliefs and still cannot reveal the secret. The comedy remains unsolved because humanity blindly follows life events without wanting to change anything.
4. Note what is innovative in the image system of the comedy “Woe About Wit”:A) compliance with the “role” system
B) number of characters – more than twenty
C) the image system is based on the principle of typification
D) lack of division of characters into positive and negative
D) introduction of off-stage characters
5. Match the comedy hero and the role to which he corresponds:
A) Chatsky
1) a father who has no idea about his daughter’s love
B) Famusov
2) lucky hero-lover
B) Sophia
3) soubrette
D) Lisa
4) heroine of a love triangle
D) Molchalin
5) hero-reasoner
6. Match the name of the hero and the role he plays in the comedy:
A) Khryumins, Tugoukhovskys, Khlestovas
1) main characters
B) Prince Fedor, Kuzma Petrovich, Maxim Petrovich
2) minor
B) Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin, Famusov
3) episodic
D) G.D.-G.N.
4) parody image
D) Skalozub, Lisa, Zagoretsky, Gorich, Repetilov
5) off-stage characters
E) Repetilov
6) heroes. Necessary for stage action connection
7. Note the main means of creating satirical characters in comedy:
Individualization of language, aphorism, tragic pathos, author's remark, hyperbole, farcical details,
catharsis, phraseological units, drama, vernacular, irony, sarcasm.
8. Name the hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit”, whose speech is aphoristic, the influence of the manner of speaking of other heroes is noticeable, literary and colloquial forms of speech are intertwined, there are features of servility:
A) Molchalin B) Repetilov C) Zagoretsky D) Liza
9. Combine off-stage characters related to the “present century” and the “past century”:
Prince Fyodor, Maxim Petrovich, three of the boulevard figures, Tatyana Yuryevna, Skalozub’s cousin, Baron von
Klots, a Frenchman from Bordeaux, young people - “who travels, who lives in the village”, Kuzma Petrovich, Sophia’s aunt.
11. Where does Khlestova live:
A) on Tverskaya B) on Kuznetsky Most C) on Pokrovka D) at the Nikitsky Gate
12. Whose portrait is this:
Curly! The hump of the shoulder blade!
Angry! All cat tricks!
Yes, how black! How scary!
A) Khlestovoy
B) Princess Maria Alekseevna
B) Khryumina
D) arapki
How was the historical conflict of eras reflected in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”?
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov tells the story of the life of noble Moscow in the 19th century. This is the time when the orders of the old, Catherine’s era are changing to a new one, in which a person does not want to put up with the backwardness of the country, wants to serve his homeland without demanding ranks and awards. Chatsky is such a person, and his relationship with Famus society is the main conflict in the comedy.
Representatives of Moscow society are: old woman Khlestova, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Skalozub, Sophia, Molchalin, Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov and others. The life of this society is busy with dinners, balls, card games and gossip. They oblige and flatter before those in higher positions, and their attitude towards serfs is very cruel: they are exchanged for dogs, separated from their relatives and sold individually.
The main representative of Moscow society is Famusov. What interests him most about people is them social status. Therefore, for his daughter he wants a husband with “stars and ranks.” In his opinion, Skalozub is ideally suited for this role, who “is both a golden bag and aspires to be a general.” Famusov is not bothered by Skalozub’s mental limitations or his martinet manners. However, despite all her father’s efforts, Sophia chooses Molchalin.
Molchalin is young and energetic, he has his own “philosophy of life” - “to please all people without exception.” Personal gain and self-interest come first for him. He does not have his own opinion on anything: “At my age I should not dare to have my own opinion.” To achieve his goals, Molchalin pretends to be in love with Sophia.
The opposite of Molchalin is Chatsky. Griboyedov portrayed Chatsky as a bright representative of the “present century.” A young nobleman, not rich, fairly educated, has his own opinion on many problems of our time. He rebels against serfdom, an empty way of life, unreasonable upbringing, and dishonest service.
But since the rest of the heroes of the comedy belong to the “past century,” they simply do not understand Chatsky. Everything he talks about is alien to Famusov’s society. If for Molchalin it is considered normal to serve others, then Chatsky says: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” And if there are people who understand him, for example Gorich, then they are simply afraid to go against public opinion. When society declares Chatsky crazy, he is forced to leave Moscow.
Thus, the nature of the main conflict in the comedy lies in Chatsky’s opposition to Famus society. As a result of this confrontation, Chatsky found himself completely alone. His accusatory monologues do not evoke sympathy among those present, and all of Chatsky’s “million torments” turn out to be in vain. However, it is not. The fact is that in the image of Chatsky, Griboedov portrayed progressive people who want to serve the Fatherland.
“Woe from Wit” is one of the most topical works of Russian drama, a brilliant example of the close connection between literature and public life, an example of the writer’s ability to respond in an artistically perfect form to current phenomena of our time. The problems posed in “Woe from Wit” continued to excite Russian social thought and Russian literature many years after the play appeared. The comedy reflects the era that came after 1812. artistic images it gives a vivid idea of Russian social life in the late 10s and early 20s. XIX century In the foreground in "Woe from Wit" lordly Moscow is shown. But in the conversations and remarks of the characters, the appearance of the capital’s ministerial Petersburg appears, and the Saratov wilderness, where Sophia’s aunt lives, and the vast plains, “the same wilderness and steppe” of the endless expanses of Russia (cf. Lermontov’s “Motherland”), which appear to Chatsky’s imagination . The comedy features people of very different social status: from Famusov and Khlestova - representatives of the Moscow nobility - to serf servants. And in Chatsky’s accusatory speeches the voice of all advanced Russia sounded, the image of our “smart, vigorous” people arose (cf. Griboedov’s note “Country Trip”, 1826).
“Woe from Wit” is the fruit of Griboyedov’s patriotic thoughts about the fate of Russia, about the ways of renewal and reconstruction of its life. With this high point view and illuminated in comedy the most important political, moral, cultural issues era: the question of serfdom, the fight against serfdom reaction, the relationship between the people and the noble intelligentsia, the activities of secret political societies, the education of noble youth, education and Russian national culture, the role of reason and ideas in public life, the problem of debt, honor and dignity of a person and so on.
The historical content of “Woe from Wit” is revealed primarily as a collision and change of two great eras of Russian life - the “present century” and the “past century” (in the minds of leading people of that time, the historical boundary between the 18th and 19th centuries was the Patriotic War of 1812 - the fire of Moscow, the defeat of Napoleon, the return of the army from foreign campaigns).
The comedy shows that the clash of the “present century” with the “past century” was an expression of the struggle between two social camps that developed in Russian society after Patriotic War, - the camps of feudal reaction, the defenders of serfdom in the person of Famusov, Skalozub and others, and the camps of advanced noble youth, whose appearance is embodied by Griboedov in the image of Chatsky.
The clash of progressive forces with the feudal-serf reaction was a fact of not only Russian, but also Western European reality of that time, a reflection of the socio-political struggle in Russia and in a number of countries Western Europe. “The public camps that collided in Griboedov’s play were a world-historical phenomenon,” M. V. Nechkina rightly notes. “They were created at the time of the revolutionary situation in Italy, and in Spain, and in Portugal, and in Greece, and in Prussia , and in other European countries. Everywhere they took on peculiar forms... Figuratively speaking, Chatsky in Italy would be a carbonari, in Spain - an “exaltado”, in Germany - a student.” Let us add that the Famus society itself perceived Chatsky through the prism of the entire European liberation movement. For the countess-grandmother he is a “damned Voltairian”, for Princess Tugoukhovskaya he is a Jacobin. Famusov calls him with horror
« the main role“, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without whom there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.” (I.A. Goncharov) One cannot but agree with Goncharov. The figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of the comedy, both of its storylines. Griboyedov describes...
The idea for “Woe from Wit” apparently originated with Griboyedov in 1816. Begichev points out that “he made the plan for this comedy back in St. Petersburg in 1816 and even wrote several scenes; but I don’t know, in Persia or in Georgia, Griboyedov changed a lot...
What outrages Chatsky in the episode with the “Frenchman from Bordeaux”? Before answering this question, I would like to briefly return to past events and see how the action of the comedy developed before this angry and accusatory speech by Chatsky. So,...
The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin was given in our country...
Pimenovskaya secondary school.
Supervisor:
and literature
Pimenovskaya secondary school.
With. Pimenovka
year 2012
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter I. The richness and specificity of the social content embedded in the comedy “Woe from Wit”
2. 1.1. The socio-historical theme of the turning point of two eras – “the present century” and the “past century”……………………………………………………………4-5
3. 1.2. The power of exposing the morals of serf owners…………………6-8
4. 1.3. critics’ reflections on the comedy “Woe from Wit”……………………… 9-12
5. Conclusions on Chapter I……………………………………………………………… 13
Chapter II. The images of the heroes of the comedy “Woe from Wit” are a reflection of the way of life in 1812.
6. 2.1.The image of Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit”……………………………………………………………………………………… 14-16
7. 2.2. Comparative characteristics Famusov and Chatsky…………………… 17-19
8. 2.3. Chatsky and Mochalin in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”……………… 20-21
9. 2.4. The role of Sophia in the comedy……………………………………………………… 22-23
10. Conclusions on Chapter II……………………………………………………………… 24
11. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Introduction
Oh! Evil tongues are worse than a gun. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” was written 180 years ago, but is still fresh, imaginative, and bright thanks to the author’s language. There is, perhaps, no other example of a work of art in Russian and world literature that would “scatter” with “winged words” and expressions, enriching vernacular, as happened with Griboyedov’s comedy. Pushkin brilliantly foresaw this: “I’m not talking about poetry: half of it should become a proverb.” We, without thinking about who said it, repeat “catch phrases” everywhere, decorating our speech with them, making it more figurative and intelligible. What to wake up? You wind the clock yourself, you sound a symphony throughout the whole block. Or: " Happy Hours They’re not watching.” The comedy turned out to be surprisingly relevant and topical in modern era, since all of her “types” are alive to this day, they have only acquired a modern gloss, are not so frank, “repainted”, but the essence remains the same: “Silent people are blissful in the world!”, But doesn’t he have two very important talents: “moderation and accuracy.
This is what attracted me to this comedy. And I chose a topic for mine research work: “Woe from Wit” - a reflection of the turning point at the turn of two eras"
Goal: Through studying materials about Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, to find out its modern essence.
1. Find out the specific social content of comedy.
2. Trace the history of the turning point of two eras.
3. Through studying and comparing the main characters, understand the way of life in 1812.
This work consists of two chapters containing three parts, conclusions, and applications in the form of a presentation.
ChapterI. The richness and specificity of the social content embedded in the comedy “Woe from Wit”
1.1. The socio-historical theme of the turning point between two eras – “the present century” and “the past century”.
THE SUCCESS of “Woe from Wit,” which appeared on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, was extremely great. “There is no end to the thunder, the noise, the admiration, the curiosity,” is how Griboedov himself described the atmosphere of friendly attention, love and support that surrounded the comedy and its author among the progressive Russian people of the twenties.
According to Pushkin, the comedy “produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed Griboyedov alongside our first poets.” In world literature one can not find many works that, like “Woe from Wit,” would have gained such undoubted national fame in a short time. At the same time, contemporaries fully felt the socio-political relevance of comedy, perceiving it as a topical work that originated in Russia new literature, which set as its main task the development of “own wealth” (that is, material of national history and modern Russian life) - and with its own, original, non-borrowed funds. The plot basis of “Woe from Wit” was a dramatic conflict between a stormy clash between an intelligent, noble and freedom-loving hero and the inert environment of reactionaries surrounding him. This conflict depicted by Griboyedov was vitally truthful and historically reliable. WITH youth moving in the circle of advanced Russian people who had embarked on the path of struggle with the world of autocracy of serfdom, living in the interests of these people, sharing their views and beliefs, Griboyedov had the opportunity to closely and daily observe the most important, characteristic and exciting phenomenon of the social life of his time - the struggle of two worldviews, two ideologies, two ways of life, two generations.
After the Patriotic War, during the years of the formation and rise of the socio-political and general cultural movement of the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists, the struggle of the new - emerging and developing - with the old - obsolete and hindering the movement forward - was most acutely expressed in the form of just such an open clash between the young heralds of the "free" life" and the militant guardians of the Old Testament, reactionary orders, as depicted in "Woe from Wit". mind": "... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than the others."
And further Griboedov shows how systematically and uncontrollably, becoming more and more aggravated, Chatsky’s “contradiction” with Famusov’s society is growing, how this society betrays Chatsky with an anathema, which has the character of a political denunciation - Chatsky is publicly declared a troublemaker, a Carbonari, a man, those who encroach on the “legitimate” state and social system; how, finally, the voice of universal hatred spreads vile gossip about Chatsky’s madness: “At first he is cheerful, and this is a vice: “You joke and joke forever, how will you get on with it!” - Lightly goes over the oddities of his former acquaintances, what to do if there is no their noblest noticeable trait! His ridicule is not sarcastic, as long as it does not enrage him, but still: “He is glad to humiliate, to prick, envious! proud and angry!" Does not tolerate meanness: "ah! “Oh my God, he’s a carbonari.” Someone out of anger thought up about him that he was crazy, no one believed it and everyone repeated it, the voice of general unkindness reaches him, and, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he came to Moscow alone , it is completely explained to him, he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone and was like that.” Griboyedov told in his comedy about what happened in one Moscow house during one day. But what breadth in this story! The spirit of the times, the spirit of history breathes in it. Griboyedov, as it were, pushed aside the walls of Famusov's house and showed the whole life of the noble society of his era - with the contradictions that tore this society apart, the boiling of passions, the enmity of generations, the struggle of ideas. Within the framework of the dramatic picture of the hero’s collision with the environment, Griboedov included the enormous socio-historical theme of the turning point that has emerged in life - the theme of the turn of two eras - the “present century” and the “past century.”
Hence the extraordinary richness of the ideological content of comedy. In one form or another and to one degree or another, Griboedov touched upon in “Woe from Wit” many of the most serious issues of social life, morality and culture, which in the Decembrist era had the most relevant, most topical significance. These were questions about the situation of the Russian people, oppressed by the oppression of serfdom, about the future fate of Russia, Russian statehood and Russian culture, about freedom and independence human personality, about the social vocation of man, about his patriotic and civic duty, about a new understanding of personal and civil honor, about the power of the human mind and knowledge, about the tasks, ways and means of education and upbringing. The genius of Griboyedov responded to all these questions, and this response was filled with such an ardent civic-patriotic passion, such indomitable indignation at evil and untruth, that the comedy could not fail to make the deepest and most striking impression both in the advanced circles of Russian society and in the camp of reactionaries .
1.2. The power of exposing the morals of serf owners
1.2. RRRRRRR thoughts of critics about the comedy “Woe from Wit”
It is not for nothing that the critics of the 19th century immediately rightly assessed “Woe from Wit” as the first “political comedy” in Russian literature. In this sense, bringing it closer to Beaumarchais’s comedy “The Marriage of Figaro,” which at one time (in 1784) dealt a powerful blow absolutism and feudal remnants in pre-revolutionary France, criticism pointed out that “Beaumarchais and Griboedov... with equal caustic satire brought onto the stage the political concepts and habits of the societies in which they lived, measuring with a proud gaze the popular morality of their fatherlands.” And later he even called the historian
""Library for Reading", 1834, vol. 1, No. 1, department VI, p. 44. Also, speaking about the socio-historical significance of "Woe from Wit", I remembered in this connection the comedy of Beaumarchais, which had, according to According to Herzen, the meaning of a "coup d'etat".
Griboyedov's comedy "the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century."
There were, in fact, very good reasons for such an assessment. And not only because “Woe from Wit” is one of the most remarkable monuments of Russian and world accusatory-satirical literature, but also because comedy has a rich positive content, which, in turn, has acquired an equally strong socio-political sound, as well as an angry denunciation of the feudal world.
Woe from Wit, of course, remains one of the masterpieces of punitive social satire. But true satire is never one-sided, because a satirist writer, if he stands at the forefront of ideological and artistic positions, always denounces evil and vices in the name of goodness and virtues, in the name of establishing a certain positive ideal - social, political, moral. Also, Griboyedov in “Woe from Wit” not only exposed the world of serf owners, but also asserted his positive ideal, full of deep socio-political meaning. This ideal found artistic embodiment in the image of the only true hero of the play - Chatsky.
As a national and popular writer, Griboyedov, naturally, could not limit himself to one image of Famus’s world, but he certainly had to reflect in his historical picture the other side of reality - the ferment of young, fresh, progressive forces, undermining the strongholds of the autocratic-serf system.
This task was also brilliantly accomplished by Griboyedov. The ideological content of “Woe from Wit,” of course, is not limited to exposing the orders and morals of serf-owning society. The comedy gives a truly broad and in all details correct historical picture of all Russian life in Griboyedov’s time - both its shadow and light sides. The comedy reflected not only the life and customs of the old noble Moscow, which lived according to the Old Testament legends of the “times of the Ochakovskys and
"V. Klyuchevsky. Course of Russian history, vol. V, M., Gospolitizdat, 1958, p. 248.
conquest of the Crimea,” but also the social ferment of the era - that struggle of the new with the old, in the conditions of which the Decembrist movement arose and revolutionary ideology took shape in Russia.
Famusism is a reaction, inertia, routine, cynicism, a stable, once and for all defined way of life. Here, most of all, they are afraid of rumors (“sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”) and they keep silent about everything new, alarming, that does not fit into the norm and ranking. The motif of “silence” runs like a red thread through all the scenes of the comedy dedicated to Famus’s world, where “Silent people are blissful in the world.” And into this musty world, like a discharge of a refreshing thunderstorm, Chatsky bursts in with his anxiety, dreams, thirst for freedom and thoughts about the people. He is a real troublemaker in the circle of the Famusovs, Skalozubovs and Molchalins; they are afraid even of his laughter. He spoke openly, publicly, about what was diligently kept silent in their circle - about freedom, about conscience, about honor, about nobility - and. his passionate speech was picked up by the entire advanced Russian literature XIX century.
Portraying Chatsky as an intelligent and noble man, a man of “lofty thoughts” and progressive beliefs, a herald of “free life” and a champion of Russian national identity. Griboyedov solved the problem facing progressive Russian literature of the twenties of creating the image of a positive hero. The tasks of civic, ideologically oriented and socially effective literature in the writer’s understanding of the Decembrist movement were not at all reduced to just a satirical denunciation of the orders and morals of serfdom. This literature set itself other, no less important goals: to serve as a means of revolutionary socio-political education, to arouse love for the “public good” and to inspire the fight against despotism. This literature was supposed to not only condemn vices, but also praise civic virtues.
Griboyedov responded to both of these demands put forward by life itself and the course of the liberation struggle.
Returning to the remarkably correct idea that “Woe from Wit” provides an almost scientific analysis of the Russian historical reality of the Decembrist
era, it should be emphasized for complete clarity that Griboedov entered history and our lives not as a scientist-researcher and not as a thinker, even a remarkable one, but as a poet of genius. Studying reality as an inquisitive analyst, he reflected it as an artist, and as a brave innovator. He painted his own accurate and reliable picture, using the techniques, means and colors of artistic depiction. He embodied the meaning of what he noticed and studied in artistic images. And because of this, the picture he painted of ideological life in the Decembrist era turned out to be much brighter, deeper, more voluminous than even the most attentive research scientist could have done.
When the truth of life becomes the content of art, the power of its influence on people’s thoughts and feelings increases even more. This is the “secret” of art, that it allows people to see even what they know well more clearly, more distinctly, and sometimes from a new, not yet familiar side. The phenomenon of life, visible to everyone, known to everyone, even familiar, being transformed by the great generalizing power of art, often appears as if in a new light, grows in its meaning, reveals itself to contemporaries with such completeness that was previously inaccessible to them.
“Woe from Wit” is, of course, one of the most tendentious works of Russian world literature. Griboyedov set himself a very specific moral and educational goal and was concerned that this goal would become clear to the reader and viewer of the comedy. He wrote “Woe from Wit” to ridicule and stigmatize the serf-dominated world; at the same time, an important task for Griboedov was to reveal his positive ideal to the reader and viewer, to convey to them his thoughts and feelings, his moral and social ideas.
Griboyedov did not retreat in Woe from Wit in the face of open tendentiousness, and it did not cause any damage to his creation, for no correct, historically justified tendency will ever harm art if it is artistically translated, if it flows logically and naturally from the essence and the content of the conflict underlying the work, from the clash of passions, opinions, characters.
The task of creating a typical character in typical circumstances, which realistic art sets for itself, involves revealing the meaning of the phenomenon of socio-historical reality on which the artist’s attention focused. In “Woe from Wit” the socio-historical situation itself is typical, since it truly and deeply reflects the conflict that is quite characteristic of this era. That's why everyone is typical human images, created by Griboyedov. In this regard, it is necessary to dwell first of all on the image of Chatsky. In the individual and special embodiment of his character, the essence of that new, progressive social force, which in Griboyedov’s time entered the historical stage in order to enter into a decisive struggle with the reactionary forces of the old world and win in this struggle, is clearly and clearly expressed. The realist artist keenly discerned this then still maturing force in the reality around him and realized that the future belonged to it.
During the time of Griboyedov, the cause of the liberation struggle was carried out by a few " the best people from the nobles” (according to the characteristics), distant from the people and powerless without the support of the people. But their cause was not lost, because, as Lenin said, they “...helped to awaken the people,” because they prepared the further rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia.
". Complete Works, vol. 23, p. 398.
Even though in the time of Griboyedov, on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, Famusovism still seemed to be a solid foundation of social life in an autocratic serfdom state, even though the Famusovs, Skalozubs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others like them still occupied a dominant position at that time, but as a social force, Famusovism was already rotting and was doomed to dying. There were still very few Chatskys, but they embodied that fresh, youthful strength that was destined to develop and which was therefore irresistible.
Having understood the pattern of historical development and expressed his understanding in the artistic images of “Woe from Wit,” Griboyedov reflected the objective truth of life, created a typical image of the “new man” - a public Protestant and fighter - in the typical circumstances of his historical time.
Equally typical and historically characteristic are the representatives of another social camp acting in Griboedov’s comedy. Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Skalozub, Zagoretsky, Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Countess Khryumina and all the other characters of Old Bar Moscow, each in their own way, in their own individual artistic embodiment, with remarkable completeness and sharpness express the essence of that social force that stood guard over the protection of the old, reactionary orders of the feudal-serf world.
In “Woe from Wit,” he boldly and innovatively solved the problem of typicality. Griboyedov thereby, with complete clarity, not allowing any misinterpretation, said with his work in the name of what, in the name of what ideals, he exposed Famusism. Having penetrated with creative thought into the essence of the main social and ideological contradictions of his time, showing that Chatsky represented in his person the growing and developing force of Russian society, generously endowing his character with heroic traits. Griboyedov thereby solved the political problem. This was primarily the impact of Griboedov’s socio-political position, and this was where the ideological orientation of his work was most convincingly revealed.
Conclusions onIchapter:
Griboyedov did not retreat in Woe from Wit in the face of open tendentiousness, and it did not cause any damage to his creation, for no correct, historically justified tendency will ever harm art if it is artistically translated, if it flows logically and naturally from the essence and the content of the conflict underlying the work, from the clash of passions, opinions, characters.
“Woe from Wit” embodies a whole system of ideological views in connection with the most acute, most pressing topics and issues of our time, but these views are expressed with the greatest artistic tact - not in the form of direct declarations and maxims, but in images, in composition, in plot V speech characteristics, in short - in the very artistic structure comedy, in its very artistic fabric.
Related to this is the important question of how Griboyedov solved the main problem of the “forming artistic realism- the problem of typicality.
ChapterII. The images of the heroes of the comedy “Woe from Wit” are a reflection of the way of life in 1812.
2.1.The image of Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
It is opposed to Famus society, which firmly preserved the traditions of the “past century”. This is a leading man of the “present century,” more precisely, of the time when, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened the social consciousness of the Russian people, secret revolutionary circles and political societies began to emerge and develop. Chatsky in the literature of the 20s of the XIX century is the most bright image a “new man”, a positive hero, a Decembrist in his views, social behavior, moral convictions, and in his entire mentality and soul.
The son of Famusov's late friend, Chatsky grew up in his house; as a child, he was raised and studied together with Sophia under the guidance of Russian and foreign teachers and tutors. The framework of the comedy did not allow Griboyedov to tell in detail where Chatsky studied next, how he grew and developed. We only know that he is an educated man, engaged in literary work (“he writes and translates well”), that he was in military service, had connections with ministers, and was abroad for three years (obviously, as part of the Russian army). Staying abroad enriched Chatsky with new impressions, expanded his mental horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. Chatsky was protected from this groveling before Europe, so typical of Famus society, by his inherent qualities: genuine patriotism, love for his homeland, for its people, a critical attitude towards the reality around him, independence of views, a developed sense of personal and national dignity.
Returning to Moscow, Chatsky found in the life of noble society the same vulgarity and emptiness that characterized it in his old years. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, suppression of the individual, which reigned in this society before the War of 1812.
The collision of Chatsky - a man with a strong-willed character, integral in his feelings, a fighter for an idea - with Famus society was inevitable. This clash gradually takes on an increasingly fierce character; it is complicated by Chatsky’s personal drama - the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness; his attacks against noble society become more and more harsh.
Chatsky enters into a fight with Famus society. In Chatsky’s speeches, the opposition of his views to the views of Famusov’s Moscow clearly appears.
1. If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky, with the indignation of a Decembrist revolutionary, speaks about serf owners, about serfdom. In the monologue “Who are the judges?” he angrily speaks out against those people who are
pillars of noble society. He speaks sharply against the order of the Catherine’s age, dear to Famusov’s heart, “the age of humility and fear - the age of flattery and arrogance.”
Chatsky’s ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and “hunter of indecency,” but an independent, free person, alien to slavish humiliation.
2. If Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub view service as a source of personal benefits, service to individuals and not to business, then Chatsky breaks ties with ministers, leaves service precisely because he would like to serve his homeland, and not serve his superiors: “I would serve I’m glad, it’s sickening to be waited on,” he says. He defends the right to serve the education of the country through scientific work, literature, art, although he is aware of how difficult this is under autocratic-serfdom.
building:
Now let one of us
Among the young people there will be an enemy of quest,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;
Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul
To the creative, high and beautiful arts,
They immediately: - robbery! fire!
And he will be known to them as a dreamer! dangerous!!
By these young people we mean people like Chatsky, Skalozub’s cousin, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “a chemist and a botanist.”
3. If Famus society treats everything with disdain. folk, national, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, especially France, even neglecting his native language, then Chatsky stands for development national culture mastering the best, most advanced achievements European civilization. He himself “searched for intelligence” during his stay in the West, but he is against “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of foreigners.
Chatsky stands for the unity of the intelligentsia with the people. He high opinion about the Russian people. He calls him “smart” and “cheerful,” that is, cheerful.
4. If Famus society evaluates a person by his origin and the number of serf souls he has, then Chatsky sees the value of a person in his personal merits.
5. For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of aristocratic society is sacred and infallible; the most terrible thing is “what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!” Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts and opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own beliefs and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?”
6. Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, against flattery, hypocrisy, against the emptiness of those vital interests that live the conservative circles of the nobility.
With great completeness and clarity, Chatsky’s spiritual qualities are revealed in his language: in the selection of words, in the construction of phrases, intonations, and manner of speaking.
Chatsky's speech is the speech of an orator with excellent command of words, a highly educated person.
In terms of its vocabulary, Chatsky’s speech is rich and varied. He can express any concept and feeling, give an apt description of any person and touch on different aspects of life. We find in him both popular words (just now, really, more than ever, tea), and expressions characteristic only of the Russian language: “not a hair’s breadth of love,” “she doesn’t put him in a penny,” “that’s a lot of nonsense,” and others. Chatsky, like the Decembrists, appreciates
national culture: in his speech there are many old words (veche, perst, vperit mind, hungry for knowledge, etc.). He uses foreign words if there is no corresponding Russian word to express the required concept: climate, province, parallel, etc.
Chatsky constructs his speech syntactically in a variety of ways. As a speaker, he makes extensive use of periodic speech. As a writer, he cites in his speech quotes from works of art. In his words:
When you have spaced out, you return home,
And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us! -
the last line is a slightly modified verse by Derzhavin:
Good news about our side is good for us;
Fatherland and smoke is sweet and pleasant to us.
(“Harp”, 1798.)
Chatsky’s intelligence is reflected in his widespread use of aphorisms, that is, short sayings and characteristics: “The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe,” “Blessed is he who believes: he has warmth in the world,” “The houses are new, but the prejudices are old,” etc. P. Chatsky knows how to give concise but apt characteristics of people: “A sycophant and a businessman” (Molchalin), “A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas” (Skalozub), “And Guillaume, a Frenchman, knocked down by the wind?”
The tone of Chatsky’s speech always clearly expresses him state of mind. Joyfully excited by the meeting with Sophia, he is “buoyant and talkative.” His jokes about Muscovites at this moment are good-natured, his speech addressed to Sophia breathes lyricism. Subsequently, as his struggle with Famus society intensifies, Chatsky’s speech is increasingly colored with indignation and caustic irony.
2.2. Comparative characteristics of Famusov and Chatsky
He (Chatsky) is the eternal exposer of lies, hidden in the proverb “alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky...
.
Author immortal comedy"Woe from Wit", which had a huge impact on all Russian literature and occupied a special place in it. The comedy “Woe from Wit” became the first realistic comedy in the history of Russian literature. In the images of the comedy, Griboyedov accurately reproduced the “high society society” of that time, showed the conflict between two opposing sides - Chatsky and Famusov, representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”.
Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov is a bright representative of the “past century”, a narrow-minded manager in a government place, a cruel serf owner. It costs Famusov nothing to humiliate the dignity of his servant or threaten to exile his serfs for unknown reasons “to settlement.” Landowners do not consider their serfs to be people. For example, old woman Khlestova puts her maid on an equal footing with a dog:
Out of boredom I took it with me
A little black girl and a dog.
Education, science, and the movement towards progress cause particular hatred among people in Famus’s circle. Famusov gives his daughter an upbringing that precludes the possibility of true enlightenment:
To teach our daughters everything -
And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!
And Famusov himself is not distinguished by his education and says that there is no use in reading, and his “comrade-in-arms,” in the “scientific committee that has settled,” screams for oaths so that “no one knows or learns to read and write,” and even teachers for his children. Famusov speaks about freedom of thought:
Learning is the plague, learning is the cause.
What is worse now than then,
Crazy people and affairs and opinions
And his final word about enlightenment and education in Russia is “to take away all the books and burn them.”
Representatives of the "Famusovism" think only about rank, wealth and profitable connections. They treat the service formally; they see it only as a means to make a career. “I just wish I could become a general,” says Colonel Skalozub, an organic and rude man. Famusov also does not hide his attitude towards the service:
As for me, what matters and what does not matter.
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
Be bad, but if you get enough
Two thousand family souls, -
He's the groom.
Of course, Sofia’s beloved Molchalin, the penniless and rootless secretary Famusov, has no chance, because the father strictly punishes his daughter: “whoever is poor is not a match for you.” But Colonel Skalozub is “a gold bag and aims to become a general.” Ranks, uniforms, money - these are the ideals that the “past century” worships. Women “just cling to uniforms,” “because they are patriots,” says Famusov.
The main representative of the “present century” is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, a young, well-educated, intelligent, noble, honest and brave man. Chatsky has a completely different attitude “to stars and ranks.” He left the service because “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” He hates careerism and sycophancy:
As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;
As not in war, but in peace they took it head on,
They hit the floor without regret!...
But in the meantime, who will the hunt take?
Even in the most ardent servility,
Now, to make people laugh,
Bravely sacrifice the back of your head...
Chatsky stands for true enlightenment, and not for external gloss, condemns the desire to “recruit a regiment of teachers, in larger numbers, at a cheaper price”:
Now, let one of us
Among the young people there will be an enemy of quest,
Without demanding either places or promotion,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge.
Chatsky most sharply denounces the vices of serfdom. He indignantly condemns “Nestor the noble scoundrel,” who exchanged his devoted servants for greyhounds, and the heartless landowner who
He drove to the serf ballet on many wagons
From mothers and fathers of rejected children?!
I myself am immersed in mind in Zephyrs and Cupids,
Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!
But the debtors did not agree to a deferment:
Cupids and Zephyrs all
Sold out individually!!!
Chatsky also advocates the development of folk culture; he condemns blind submission to foreign fashion:
Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion,
So that our smart, kind people
Although by language we are Germans.
Chatsky attracts people with his deep and sharp mind, independence of judgment, willpower, courage, noble desire to help his homeland and change the world for the better. It seems to me that Chatsky is both a winner and a loser, he “lost the battle, but won the war.” Of course, Chatsky could not change Famus society in one day. Goncharov wrote: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of strength, inflicting it in turn with the quality of fresh strength.” Famus society understands that it cannot cover its ears all its life and scatter to the sides, fleeing the truthful speeches of the hero. But, nevertheless, he managed to disturb the peace of the measured life of the inhabitants of Moscow, which means that Chatsky has already won.
2.3. Chatsky and Mochalin in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”
The comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the best works Russian literature. In it, the writer reflected his time, the problems of the era, and also showed his attitude towards them.
In this work " new person", which is filled with sublime ideas. Chatsky protests against all the old orders that existed in Moscow at that time. The hero of the comedy fights for “new” laws: freedom, intelligence, culture, patriotism. This is a person with a different mindset and soul, a different view of the world and people.
Arriving at Famusov's house, Chatsky dreams of the daughter of this rich master - Sophia. He is in love with a girl and hopes that Sophia loves him. But in the house of his father’s old friend, the hero faces only disappointments and blows. Firstly, it turns out that Famusov’s daughter loves someone else. Secondly, that the people in this master’s house are strangers to the hero. He cannot agree with their views on life.
Chatsky is sure that everything changed in his time:
No, the world is not like that these days.
Everyone breathes more freely
And he’s in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.
Chatsky believes that education is necessary for every person. The hero himself for a long time spent abroad and received a good education. The old society, led by Famusov, believes that learning is the cause of all troubles. Education can even make a person go crazy. That is why Famus society so easily believes the rumor about the hero’s madness at the end of the comedy.
Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a patriot of Russia. At a ball in Famusov’s house, he saw how all the guests groveled before the “Frenchman from Bordeaux” simply because he was a foreigner. This caused a wave of indignation in the hero. He fights for everything Russian in the Russian country. Chatsky dreams that people would be proud of their homeland and speak Russian.
The hero cannot understand how in his country some people can own others. He does not accept slavery with all his soul. Chatsky fights for the abolition of serfdom.
In a word, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky wants to change his life, to live better, more honestly, more justly.
In order to more clearly show Chatsky’s character, his antipode, Molchalin, is also depicted in the comedy. This person is very resourceful, able to find an approach to any influential person.
Molchalin’s worldview and his life position in no way fit into the moral code of life. He is one of those who serve the rank, not the cause. Molchalin is confident that this form of social relations is the only correct one. He always ends up in the right place in right time and indispensable in Famusov’s house:
There he will stroke the pug in time,
It’s time to rub the card...
In addition, this is a person who is ready to endure any humiliation in order to achieve power and wealth. It is precisely such prospects that force the hero to turn his attention to Sophia. Molchalin tries to evoke feelings for the girl, but his sympathy is false. If Sophia’s father had not been Famusov, he would have been indifferent to her. And if instead of Sophia there was a more mediocre girl, but the daughter of an influential man, Molchalin would still pretend to be in love.
Another fact is surprising: Molchalin’s remarks are short and laconic, which indicates his desire to appear meek and compliant:
At my age I shouldn't dare
Have your own judgment.
The only person who sees Molchalin’s true nature is Chatsky. With all his being he denies people like Alexey Stepanych. Chatsky sarcastically tells Sophia about the true state of affairs:
You will make peace with him, after mature reflection.
Destroy yourself, and why!
Think you can always
Protect and swaddle, and send to work.
Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife's pages -
The high ideal of all Moscow men.
Chatsky gives a precise definition of Molchalin and others like him: “... not in war, but in peace, they took it head on, hit the floor without regret.” The main character sees Molchalin's main problem - his inability to be sincere due to excessive egoism and the desire to benefit from everything.
Thus, Chatsky and Molchalin are completely different people who seem to belong to the same generation. They are both young, living at the same time. But how different their natures are! If Chatsky is a progressive person, filled with the ideas of the “new time,” then Molchalin is a product of “Famusov’s Moscow”, a successor of their ideas.
In his work, Griboedov shows that, although outwardly victory remained with Molchalin’s philosophy of life, the future undoubtedly belongs to Chatsky and his supporters, whose number is increasing every day.
2.4. The role of Sophia in the comedy
Griboedov is a man of one book,” he noted. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”
The main feature of the comedy is the interaction of two conflicts - love, the main actors which are Sophia and Chatsky, and the socio-ideological one, in which Chatsky clashes with conservatives.
Sophia is Chatsky’s main plot partner; she occupies a special place in the comedy’s character system. Love conflict with Sophia involved the hero in a conflict with everyone in society, served, according to Goncharov, as “a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov.” Sofia does not take Chatsky’s side, but she does not belong to Famusov’s like-minded people, although she lived and was raised in his house. She is a closed, secretive person and difficult to approach.
Sofia’s character has qualities that sharply distinguish her from the people of Famus society. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in its disdain for gossip and rumors: “What do I need rumors? Whoever wants to, judges it that way...” However, Sofia knows the “laws” of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly uses public opinion to take revenge on her former lover.
Sofia’s character has not only positive, but also negative traits. Goncharov saw “a mixture of good instincts with lies” in this image. Willfulness, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. After all, having slandered Chatsky, Sophia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among the guests gathered in Famusov’s house, convinced that Chatsky was a completely normal person.
Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but her love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sofia extols Molchalin’s spiritual qualities to the skies; she is so blinded by her feelings that she does not notice “how the portrait turns out vulgar” (Goncharov).
Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. She idealizes Molchalin, without even trying to find out what he really is, without noticing his “vulgarity” and pretense.
Sofia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different. She doesn’t love him, so she doesn’t want to listen, doesn’t strive to understand him, and avoids explanations. Sofia is unfair to Chatsky, considering him callous and heartless: “Not a man, a snake.” Sofia attributes to him an evil desire to “humiliate” and “prick” everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: “What do you need me for?”
Sofia, the main culprit of Chatsky’s mental torment, herself evokes sympathy. Sincere and passionate in her own way, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. This love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is preoccupied with finding her a rich groom.
Sofia is proud, proud, and knows how to inspire self-respect. At the end of the comedy, her love gives way to contempt for Molchalin: “Don’t you dare expect reproaches, complaints, my tears, you’re not worth them...”. Sofia realizes her self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely repents. IN last scenes There is no trace of “woe from mind” from the former capricious and self-confident Sophia. Sophia's fate, at first glance, is unexpected, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, it comes close to tragic fate Chatsky, rejected by her, Indeed, as Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has it “harder than everyone else, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets “a million torments.” The outcome of the love plot of the comedy turned into grief and a life disaster for the smart Sofia.
Conclusions onIIchapter:
Chatsky attracts people with his deep and sharp mind, independence of judgment, willpower, courage, noble desire to help his homeland and change the world for the better. It seems to me that Chatsky is both a winner and a loser, he “lost the battle, but won the war.” Of course, Chatsky could not change Famus society in one day. Goncharov wrote: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of strength, inflicting it in turn with the quality of fresh strength.” Famus society understands that it cannot cover its ears all its life and scatter to the sides, fleeing the truthful speeches of the hero. But, nevertheless, he managed to disturb the peace of the measured life of the inhabitants of Moscow, which means that Chatsky has already won.
Conclusion.
The comedy “Woe from Wit” shows Chatsky’s opposition to the Russian nobility. All characters can be considered insane. Each side thinks the other side is crazy. In all actions, the characters gossip and defame each other. And they do this not openly, but behind their backs. They criticize everything new and advanced. But not a single hero sees himself from the outside. Famusov says about Chatsky: “A dangerous man,” “He wants to preach freedom,” “He doesn’t recognize the authorities!” Sophia about Chatsky: “I’m ready to pour out bile on everyone.” Chatsky, in turn, about Molchalin: “Why not a husband? There is only little intelligence in him; But who lacks intelligence to have children?” Natalya Dmitrievna about Chatsky: “retired and single.” Platon Mikhailovich about Zdgoretsky: “An out-and-out swindler, a rogue...”, “...and don’t play cards: he’ll sell.” Khlestova considers Zagoretsky “a liar, a gambler and a thief.” And all together about Chatsky: “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason that now there are more crazy people, and deeds, and opinions,” “If we stop evil, we should take all the books and burn them.”
So everyone in society hates each other. When you read this comedy, it seems that everything is happening not in an intelligent society, but in Chekhov’s “Ward No. 6”. People seem to be delirious. They live in this world only for intrigues, which from the outside look like madness. Chatsky is smart, but he does not like the people around him, just as those around him do not like him. As a result, a struggle of opposites ensues, an insane society with a “minus” sign fights with Chatsky, who, of course, should be marked with a “plus” sign. He, in turn, is fighting the stupidity, illiteracy, inertia and dishonesty of his fellow tribesmen. You have glorified me as crazy by the whole choir. You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed, whoever manages to spend a day with you will breathe the same air, and his sanity will survive. Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore. I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go searching around the world, Where there is a corner for an offended feeling! - Carriage for me, carriage!
He ends his work with this monologue. And we understand that the “mad” Chatsky failed to change anything in “smart” people. Famusov’s last remark confirms this: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?”
The author himself is the judge - he takes Chatsky’s side and declares him smart and everyone else stupid. Here I completely agree with the position. But there is one “but”. Yes, Chatsky returned from abroad. Yes, he has seen a lot, he knows what his purpose in life is. But a smart person will never enter into an argument with a stupid person, especially with a stupid society. Should Griboyedov also show Chatsky from the “crazy” side? But he simply punished Chatsky for his intelligence, calling him “crazy.” Maybe he wanted to describe Russia at that time? Or maybe he intended to show that everything in this world is crazy and it’s difficult for the only smart person to be among a host of crazy people. As soon as someone begins to rise above everyone thanks to his education, the “turbulent sea” of madmen will be overwhelmed by a huge wave of an unsupported smart guy. The same Chatsky. Yes, it seems to me that this is exactly the case. Chatsky unwittingly showed that he was smarter than people like Famusov, and he immediately announced to the whole society that he was the lowest person in the world. So who is considered smart, if the smart one among the crazy ones looks even crazier? Only a madman can start a confrontation with people who live for their own pleasure, because they are always satisfied with everything, and they do not want any changes.
In the comedy “Woe from Wit” Griboyedov tells the story of the life of noble Moscow in the 19th century. This is the time when the orders of the old, Catherine’s era are changing to a new one, in which a person does not want to put up with the backwardness of the country, wants to serve his homeland without demanding ranks and awards. Chatsky is such a person, and his relationship with Famus society is the main conflict in the comedy.
Representatives of Moscow society are: old woman Khlestova, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Skalozub, Sophia, Molchalin, Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov and
Other. The life of this society is busy with dinners, balls, card games and gossip. They oblige and flatter before those in higher positions, and their attitude towards serfs is very cruel: they are exchanged for dogs, separated from their relatives and sold individually.
The main representative of Moscow society is Famusov. What interests him most about people is their social status. Therefore, for his daughter he wants a husband with “stars and ranks.” In his opinion, Skalozub is ideally suited for this role, who “is both a gold bag and aspires to be a general.” Famusov is not bothered by Skalozub’s mental limitations or his martinet manners. However, despite all her father’s efforts, Sophia chooses Molchalin.
Molchalin is young and energetic, he has his own “philosophy of life” - “to please all people without exception.” Personal gain and self-interest come first for him. He does not have his own opinion on anything: “At my age I should not dare to have my own opinion.” To achieve his goals, Molchalin pretends to be in love with Sophia.
The opposite of Molchalin is Chatsky. Griboyedov portrayed Chatsky as a bright representative of the “present century.” A young nobleman, not rich, fairly educated, has his own opinion on many problems of our time. He rebels against serfdom, an empty way of life, unreasonable upbringing, and dishonest service.
But since the rest of the heroes of the comedy belong to the “past century,” they simply do not understand Chatsky. Everything he talks about is alien to Famusov’s society. If for Molchalin it is considered normal to serve others, then Chatsky says: “I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served.” And if there are people who understand him, for example Gorich, then they are simply afraid to go against public opinion. When society declares Chatsky crazy, he is forced to leave Moscow.
Thus, the nature of the main conflict in the comedy lies in Chatsky’s opposition to Famus society. As a result of this confrontation, Chatsky found himself completely alone. His accusatory monologues do not evoke sympathy among those present, and all of Chatsky’s “million torments” turn out to be in vain. However, it is not. The fact is that in the image of Chatsky, Griboedov portrayed progressive people who want to serve the Fatherland.
(No ratings yet)
An essay on literature on the topic: How was the historical conflict of eras reflected in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”?
Other writings:
- Russia's victory in the War of 1812 showed the strength and power of the Russian people, who selflessly rose to defend the fatherland. But, having defeated the hordes of Napoleon, the victorious Russian people again found themselves under the stick of the feudal landowner. Outraged by this situation, the advanced Russian officers are rising up to fight for relief of their lot Read More......
- The image of Chatsky embodies the features of a “new” person who feels lonely in Famus society. After a three-year trip abroad, without stopping at his home, straight from the carriage, he appears at Famusov’s house and meets with a very cool reception from Read More ......
- “Woe from Wit” is the work of A. S. Griboyedov, revealing one of the most important problems of society - the problem of the collision of two worlds: “the present century” and the “past century”. Later, many classics would raise this topic in their works. Russian literature. In Griboedov's play Read More ......
- The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a truly realistic work, because the author reproduced typical life circumstances. The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. It's really witty, honest and positive hero works. But Griboyedov contrasts Chatsky with another hero - Molchalin. This man Read More......
- 1. The history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit”. 2. The reason for the disagreements between representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”. 3. The immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy. A. S. Griboyedov created the comedy “Woe from Wit” in early XIX century. In those years, Read More ......
- I think the point of the comedy is to show the life of Moscow at that time, the period of Russian life from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The author wanted to show who dominated that era, how people received ranks and how they helped the Motherland. In this work Read More......
- Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov is one of the greatest minds of his era, a prominent political figure who entered Russian literature as the author of one work. But he called his play “Woe from Wit”, already in the title itself bringing out the sharp, “not comedic” problem XIX century. Read More......
- There he is on tiptoe, and not rich in words; What kind of sorcery he knew how to get into her heart! A. S. Griboyedov. Woe from the mind. Molchalin is one of the most prominent representatives of Famus society in A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” More Read More......