The comedy work Woe from Wit is one of the most illustrative examples on the issue of generational change. The work, although through the prism of comedy, clearly and distinctly raises the issue of incompatibility between two generations, saying that the old must be replaced by the new. Raising the issue of generations in the work, we get acquainted with the generation of Chatsky and the generation of Famusov. Chatsky’s generation is people who are optimistic about progress and innovation in their lives, and the Famus generation is people who live in reclusion and conservatism.
Since the work is dominated by people like Famuskov’s society, the people of Chatsky’s society, and in particular Chatsky, have a very difficult time communicating, and simply being next to each other. Chatsky is desperately trying to convince Famusov’s society of their conservatism, however, having failed, Chatsky tries many more times, but never achieves his goal. Thus, the author showed us the problem of the old generation and the new generation, trying to teach everything through the prism of comedy and satire.
Due to complete misunderstanding on the part of others Chatsky arrives in splendid isolation, and most likely it will remain there. Chatsky is doomed to loneliness for a number of reasons, united in one word - misunderstanding. Chatsky, who is a new generation, simply cannot interact with the old generation, due to stereotypical thinking and an outdated philosophy of life. The old generation, which is the majority in the work, simply does not understand Chatsky, mistaking him for a crazy or very strange type. That is why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness until his generation becomes dominant.
With the help of comedy, which is the simplest literary way to convey an idea to the masses, it conveys to us the idea of the collision of two centuries, thereby telling us to think more broadly and constantly develop, trying not to be from Famusov’s generation, that is, conservatives and not wanting change. I believe that the author well revealed all the characters in the work, which made us understand the essence of his message in it.
Option 2
This topic sounds scary, of course. Doomed means that he will always be alone, despite his desire to find someone.
Alexander Chatsky is in love with Sophia. He realized his love, which grew from childhood love into a strong feeling. Alexander Andreevich was abroad for so long, he met, of course, many interesting women, but didn’t find the one among them. Sophia from a distance began to seem even sweeter to him, I think. When he returned, he saw how beautiful Sophia had become. So he fell in love!
“It’s barely light” he’s already flown to his beloved, but she’s been in love with someone else for a long time. The one, by the way, who doesn’t deserve her is Molchalin. And Chatsky cannot even imagine Sophia with this sycophant. In general, this strong feeling of Alexander Andreevich will not find a response from Sophia, she will even laugh at him, spreading the rumor that he is crazy. I think that he angered her with his truthfulness, and also because he saw “through and through” this bad Molchalin, who is already deceiving even Sophia.
But one failure is not a problem... Why is it doomed? It can be assumed that Chatsky will remain faithful to the image of Sophia and good memories. Maybe Chatsky is monogamous. It is possible that he is now so hurt by an unsuccessful romance (his first love) that he will not be able to look at other women. And marriage for “convenience,” like that of his suffering friend, whom Chatsky sees with his wife at the ball, is not for Alexander Andreevich. In general, Chatsky doesn’t care about the opinion of the world. I don’t care if somewhere they ever say that you, my friend, are not married, and this is not accepted... He will just laugh. Or marrying for position in society, career, wealth - not for him.
And we must not forget how Chatsky, excuse me, hates and despises everyone... He laughs at the cutesy ladies of the world. But a simple woman (from the people!) is also not for him - she would not understand this subtle soul.
Yes, and it’s not just about family! Loneliness also means the absence of friends, acquaintances... But here the situation is similar. Due to the fact that “you need to have acquaintances,” Chatsky would not communicate. And finding people “up to his level” is not so easy. He needs to be more tolerant. He sees the shortcomings of those around him, speaks about it openly, and this offends people. And he himself experiences so much negativity!
It turns out that if not for first love, not for calculation, then he does not need to get married. I think that Chatsky is not afraid of loneliness... And yet I want to believe that he will find a wise woman who could understand him and calm him down a little. Now he won't be alone anymore!
Why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness essay
In Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” everything socially was reflected as in a mirror - moral problems Russian society that time. Here the “past century” and the “present century” collide. The representative of new ideas exposing the vices of the Moscow nobility is Chatsky. Boldly and fiercely criticizing Famusov's guests and friends, he becomes their enemy. The very title of the work partially contains the answer to why Chatsky remains alone in his aspirations.
Alexander Chatsky is an educated, thinking, witty and brave young nobleman. He is ready with all determination to resist the mores of lordly society. The meaning of life for these people is alien to him - wealth, high ranks, profitable marriage, cheerful idleness. “Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two,” that’s all they do in Moscow, Chatsky notes indignantly. He does not accept their views on serving the Fatherland. He considers serving his superiors for the sake of a career a low and vile thing. Chatsky considers enlightenment a blessing for man, while his opponents dream of collecting all the books and “and burning them.” Famusov warns that reading books leads to “freethinking” and considers Alexander a dangerous person.
In his monologues, Chatsky boldly defends his civic position. He passionately criticizes his opponents, ridiculing their vulgarity and moral insignificance. Accustomed to their traditional way of life, they are indignant and do not understand Alexander. His speeches about enlightenment, about science, about the love of freedom are taken as the thoughts of a person who is “out of his mind.” Famus' circle spreads rumors about Chatsky's madness.
Not like everyone else, Chatsky is rejected by society. IN final scene he exclaims that it is difficult for someone “who breathes the same air with you” to come out unharmed and not lose his mind! It is better for him to run to where there is a corner for reason and feeling, away from these vicious people. The tragedy of Chatsky’s personality was predetermined. A person who decides to challenge the system remains alone. But this does not mean that his struggle was in vain, Russia was on the verge of change and, perhaps, Chatsky would join the “Decembrist” movement.
Also read:
Popular topics today
- Essay reasoning Separation
Every person is always separated from someone or something, because man is limited. The first separation occurs at birth, when people are left without their cozy “home” and find themselves in the outside world.
What is history? In books and textbooks we can find a fairly short definition that says that history is the science of the past. History, most often written but sometimes spoken
The concept of “loneliness” has always been paired with words like “special,” “unique,” or “new.” It’s all because of our life in society, or rather, the strength of this society. On the one hand, being part of a large organism is protection that is so important for each of us. But, on the other hand, it is in society that we “freeze” and stop developing. After all, it is very important to be like everyone else. If you start to stand out, you will question your reputation. It is these things that Griboyedov is trying to convey to us in his work “Woe from Wit.”
This “social” comedy shows us, using the example of Chatsky, how difficult it is to bring something new into the world.
The author presents us with the main character as an ideal person. He awarded Chatsky with all those character traits that must certainly be present in every personality. This is your opinion on everything that happens in the world, and the desire to fight for new order. The hero is imbued with a feeling of love for the people and a desire to go against the serfdom system that poisons people. Chatsky is a man with a large and generous soul, who is capable of loving as sincerely and purely, as happens in the most delightful stories.
Griboyedov created a “new man”. And this already means that he is not like those people who are in society. Therefore, this is a “stranger” and there is no place for him.
main idea the work is to show the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusov’s world. The hero comes into this world not to become part of it, but in order to expose the old orders that are so deeply rooted in the hearts of people. Chatsky condemns the morals that have become the basis of life, the serfdom. The author showed it strong man, courageous, ready to fight to the end for their ideals and principles.
Chatsky is lonely because millet is incompatible with the society that surrounds him. He is trying to change something, but sometimes there are things that are not so easy to overthrow and create in a new way. Chatsky and Famus society... There can be no compromise here. For Chatsky, giving up his beliefs means giving up himself and becoming a gray person in an equally gray crowd. But for the Famus world, he is just a madman who is not given much importance.
Like any person who decides to go against the system, our hero remains completely alone. Nobody understands him. The path of the outcast is the only way out. After all, two of these different worlds They simply cannot exist side by side.
Words
27. Why M.Yu. Does Lermontov call his love for his homeland strange?
Love for the homeland is a special feeling, it is inherent in every person, but at the same time it is very individual. Is it possible to consider him “strange”? It seems to me that here we are rather talking about how the poet, who spoke about the “unusuality” of his love for his homeland, perceives “ordinary” patriotism, that is, the desire to see the virtues, positive features inherent in his country and people.
Many works of M. Yu. Lermontov are also filled with love for the Motherland. His feeling for his homeland is ambiguous and even painful, since there are things that contradict his human nature. Lermontov's love is sincere, but at the same time contradictory. Thus, in the poem “Motherland,” written in 1841, he admits: “I love my fatherland, but with a strange love!” What is this “strangeness”? The poet speaks coldly about royal glory, bought with the blood of the people. He loves his homeland, its nature, its breadth and vastness. He loves the village of his day, because it still contains the patriarchy that is dear to his heart, which has been preserved, perhaps at the cost of poverty. And if there is prosperity (“a full threshing floor”, “a hut covered with straw”), then this evokes a feeling of joy in the poet. Here live simple, hard-working people who are not indifferent to beauty (“windows with carved shutters”), who know how to not only work, but also have fun. Simple people They know how to devote themselves entirely to both work and holiday. The poet loves the village because people there live in harmony with nature, with each other and with God. This way of life has almost disappeared from city life, where there are so few real people who know how to work and enjoy life.
Lermontov conveys his love for the Motherland with epithets:
... But I love - for what, I don’t know myself -
Its steppes are coldly silent,
Her boundless forests sway,
The floods of its rivers are like seas,
On a country road I like to ride in a cart
And, with a slow gaze, piercing the shadow of the night.
Meet on the sides, sighing for an overnight stay,
Trembling lights of sad villages...
These epithets are discreet and simple, but there is so much deep feeling and meaning in them, so much imagery. This landscape, given at the beginning of the poem, appears as if from a bird's eye view. Such is the power of Lermontov's creative imagination.
Of course, Lermontov creates his own image of his homeland. In his poems, she appears in her heroic past, and in the grandeur of her vast expanses, and in the poet’s bitter thoughts about lawlessness and spiritual slavery.
Lermontov’s love for the Motherland can be expressed in one line: “But I love – for what, I don’t know myself.” Yes, his love and deep affection for his homeland is “strange.” Being a secular man and mostly communicating with people from the highest circles, he, nevertheless, with his soul strove for the people's Russia, in it he saw powerful forces, a moral foundation.
Words
The fruits of “evil morality” in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin today
When the playwright began writing “The Minor,” the word in the title did not mean anything bad. Minors were called teenagers under 15 years of age, that is, the age determined by Peter 1 for entering the service. In 1736, the period of stay in the “undergrowth” was extended to 20 years. The decree on the freedom of the nobility abolished the compulsory term of service and gave nobles the right to serve or not to serve, but confirmed the compulsory training introduced under Peter1. What and how to teach remained an open question.
The title character is Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka) - an undergrowth, the son of the landowners Prostakovs. He is 15 years old. Fonvizin's comedy is a play about a teenager, about his monstrous upbringing, which turns a teenager into a cruel and lazy creature. Prostakova follows the law, although she does not approve of it. She also knows that many, including those from her family, are circumventing the law. Mitrofanushka has been studying for four years now, but Prostakova wants to keep him with her for ten years.
The cause of “evil morality” is the moral consequence of Catherine’s law “On the Liberty of the Nobles,” published on February 18, 1762. Peter1 once legalized the compulsory service of nobles and this became a moral and legal justification for landowners having serfs. The nobleman served the state and the fatherland, the peasant served the nobleman; cruel landowners had to be subject to guardianship. Catherine's decree formally freed nobles from the obligation to serve the state; and, although the state's service still was considered an honorable duty of the nobility, a matter of honor, nevertheless, the moral right of a nobleman to own peasants became doubtful, in contrast to nobles like Starodum, Pravdin and Milon, and in contradiction with the formal meaning of the decree, the majority of the nobility understood it in the spirit of Prostakova - as complete and fatherless power over serfs without any moral, social, public or other restrictions.
Thus, the reason for Prostakova’s “evil morality” is a perverse idea of the “liberty” of the nobility, not subject to moral standards. At the end of the comedy, Prostakova is defeated. Its collapse is the defeat of the old “system” of education and the guarantee of victory for the new ideas proclaimed positive characters. Last words Prostakova “stands”, as P.A. said. Vyazemsky, “On the boundary between comedy and tragedy.” But with Prostakova’s personal tragedy, Fonvizin connected the coming triumph of a new morality, excluding “evil morality” from everyday life and based on the benefit of the fatherland.
Words
29. “It annoys me that the word “honor” is forgotten...” (V. Vysotsky)
The lines written by V. Vysotsky “It’s a shame... the word “honor” has been forgotten...” today are more relevant than ever. The concept of “honor” has lost its meaning for modern people.
If we start from afar, then people first came up with the exchange of goods, thus making up for the lack of what they needed to conduct normal life. XVIII century was marked by the beginning of the process of destruction of the walls between classes.
The amount of money began to increase, and gradually everything began to turn into a commodity, on which, in the end, the world became isolated.
In society, leading positions were assigned to merchants of all types and formats. As a result of the “innocent” replacement, the moral attitude of the overwhelming majority of members of the new society began to change. As an example, let's consider a certain Ivanov, who in former times was publicly rude to Petrova, who, in turn, had to challenge the offender to a duel, or be known as a coward, wearing a stupid cap.
Today things are different. Nothing prevents the conditional Sidorov from insulting the conditional Petrov, since there is guaranteed to be no duel. What’s amazing is that Sidorov and Petrov don’t have to wake up as enemies tomorrow! The same Sidorov will most likely be offered a mutually beneficial deal in the morning. This is how they turn from potential enemies into partners! Business interest today is put at the forefront. Concepts such as honor and dignity automatically turn into atavism, and they are replaced by a sense of economic expediency.
But, returning to the topic of duels, let us cite Pushkin and Dantes as examples. A situation in which Alexander Sergeich in court demands compensation for moral damages in money would look wild. This means that he values his own honor and dignity in monetary terms. Modern citizens of a democratic society act in a similar way.
The world has changed, and this should be recognized. This happens regardless of human will. Human relationships today are built on the basis of criteria - goods and money. You need to live in this world, adhering to its laws, in order to become successful.
The majority is important in the life of society; it is extremely difficult to resist it, especially when alone.
This is the special tragedy of the image of Chatsky confronting the crowd. Of the two dozen characters presented in Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov’s play “Woe from Wit,” only Chatsky can undoubtedly be considered partly a heroic figure, challenging Famus’s society, but also therefore endlessly lonely.
The main character's desire for independence
The main character is endowed with inner independence and a desire for freedom. He is trying to fight the injustice that surrounds him. He has his own opinion and defends it fiercely. He sincerely loves his country and his people, wants to destroy the system based on serfdom and humiliation of human dignity. The sincerity of his feelings and aspirations is beyond doubt.
Lonely Chatsky in Famus society
Chatsky is rightfully considered an example of how difficult it is to convey new thoughts to the masses. Special difficulty evokes the astonishing inertia of the views of Famus society. They are almost impossible to change, so main character doomed to exile and loneliness. In a comedy, only one person talks about morality, social change and spirituality. The rest don't care. They strive only for their own well-being. Serving the cause - the principle that Chatsky proclaims, contradicts the way of thinking of Famusov and his circle.
In the image of the main character, we see a new man of the era, different from the majority. This person does not adapt to the conventions of the world, therefore he is doomed to be unaccepted by the people around him. Chatsky is an ardent preacher new, reformist ideas, he condemns the morality of the Moscow nobility, the morals that underlie their existence. His courage undoubtedly deserves respect.
His innovative views do not find a response among representatives of the Famus society. He is harmful to conservatives. His ideas disrupt the usual course of things, convenient for the majority. The main character strives for change, but faces difficulties.
Deciding to fight, Chatsky rebels alone against everyone. The Moscow aristocracy cannot forgive his love of freedom, spreading rumors about the madness of the protagonist, thus completely rejecting him.
What is the loneliness of the main character?
Chatsky's loneliness is explained by his incompatibility with the conservative majority. Their values and aspirations conflict with each other. Aristocrats do not accept his ideas, since following them will require them to change the convenient structure of the world. This becomes the reason for Chatsky’s loneliness.
In human society, the majority plays a huge role; it is almost impossible to resist the crowd, therefore the image of Chatsky, who took on the role of a warrior, but is still lonely, is tragic.
In A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” out of 20 characters, only A.A. Chatsky is positive hero. He opposes the entire Famus society with his views, finding no understanding, he is forced to leave Moscow. What lies at the heart of the contradiction between Chatsky and Famus society?
Firstly, this is a different view of education. Famusov believes that all evil lurks in science and education: “If we stop evil: / Take all the books and burn them.”
Skalozub states: “I will make you happy: the general rumor / That there is a project for lyceums, schools, gymnasiums; / There they will only teach in our way: one, two; / And the books will be preserved like this: for big occasions." But Chatsky, on the contrary, sees education as a benefit for Russia, which is perhaps why he spent several years in Europe, gaining his “smarts.” Secondly, the heroes look at the way of life and its meaning differently. For Famusov, Skalozub and other representatives of “old Moscow”, service comes first. But by “service” they mean the ability to obtain the “golden key” (the title of chamberlain - the highest rank at court). For Famusov, an authoritative person is Maxim Petrovich, who was awarded the highest smile for a quick fall in front of the empress, after which a promotion followed. Skalozub, without taking part in a single battle, practically rose to the rank of general. It’s not for nothing that Lisa says about him: “And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.” But Chatsky “would be glad to serve,” but he “is sick of being served.” For he, just like Starodum from Fonvizin’s predecessor comedy “The Minor,” sees the meaning of his existence in serving the fatherland, and not individuals. But if they have some kind of opinion, then the rest, like Molchalin, generally believe that they do not have the right to judge such things: “At my age I should not dare / have my own judgment.” In addition, the severity of the problem lies in the fact that Famus society consists of people in whom there is even little humanity left, in them there is little moral qualities. Chatsky himself sees who is given preference in this world and says: “Silent people are blissful in the world.” And Famus society tries to expel people like Chatsky so that nothing interferes with a calm and familiar life. Yes, if a person lives guided only by personal benefits, knows how to remain silent at the right time, “pat a pug”, or raise a handkerchief - he is “one of his own”!
Strengthens the tragedy of the image of Chatsky and love line plays. Sophia, being a smart girl, prefers Molchalin to Chatsky, the same Molchalin who managed to please everyone. And, of course, Alexander Andreevich cannot understand why she made such a choice: “Am I more stupid than Mochalina?” His love for Sophia is so great that he cannot even believe her words; he needs to see for himself. And he is convinced that Sophia, having been in Famus’s society for so long, has become the bearer of his traits. Sophia's coldness, her hostility towards him, and even the slander she launched caused swipe after Chatsky's heart.
However, it is impossible to say that Chatsky is absolutely alone in comedy. After all, Skalozub says about his brother: “... he has firmly picked up some new rules. /The rank followed him; He suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books.” And Mrs. Khlestova talks about her nephew: “Professors!! - our relatives studied with them, / And left! at least now to the pharmacy, to become an apprentice./He runs away from women, and even from me!/Chinov doesn’t want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist, /Prince Fyodor, my nephew.” Despite the fact that these faces do not appear on stage, it still becomes clear that Chatsky is not at all alone in his aspirations.
Thus, we see that rejection from society and the refusal of his beloved girl make the image of Chatsky tragically lonely, but capable of resisting in the war. The appearance of people of his type gives hope for an incipient change in the social consciousness of Russians in the 19th century.
Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) -
Who at that time cared little about his spirituality, moral and moral state. The main character of the work, Chatsky, is very brave. He pronounces all accusatory speeches out loud and immediately receives a response negative reaction. Therefore, the question arises: why does a society that is ossified in its rules not accept anything new, does not want to change and rebuild? Why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness? Will he really not have any support and approval? It is through the example of his hero that Griboedov shows how difficult it is to introduce new ideas into an established society, because they are immediately rejected and ridiculed.
Why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness?
It’s not that difficult to write an essay on the comedy “Woe from Wit,” because a lot can be said about the main character. Chatsky Alexander Andreevich has an independent and freedom-loving character, hence all his problems. He is ready to fight lies and injustice at any moment. He always has his own view of what is happening around him. Chatsky is a cultured and enlightened person. Griboyedov instilled in him the long-suffering Russian people, who were cruelly oppressed by the serfdom system.
This is how the author saw man new era. So why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness? An essay on this topic should begin with the fact that the main character is not like everyone else. He is a “hermit” and a “stranger,” which means he is doomed to misunderstanding, because he challenged a challenge that is mired in hypocrisy and deception, where a person is assessed only by his wealth, the number of serfs and his position. Strong and courageous Chatsky fought as hard as he could for his ideals and principles, but he was condemned and ridiculed, recognizing him as crazy. This is why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness.
Be like everyone else
He is invited to become the same as everyone else and forever abandon his ardent revolutionary speeches and thoughts. But he does not see himself in that gray crowd that is afraid to disturb its cozy swamp. For him, this is tantamount to death; his conscience simply will not agree to this. Expanding deeper into the topic “Why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness,” we must understand that we have before us a real hero who, without the support of like-minded people, decided to go against the whole system, which is why he is mistaken for a madman.
No one can understand or appreciate such a “madman”, so everything that awaits him in best case scenario, is expulsion from society, and at worst - hard labor in Siberia. Such freethinking posed a threat to the autocracy, and the supreme rulers brutally dealt with the revolutionary-minded masses.
Hermit
Returning to the question of why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness, it should be noted that the forced recluse of the protagonist is due to incompatibility with the environment around him. Famusovsky society. These rich and capricious people from the social circle have completely different life priorities, values and ideals. They will never be able to give up their benefits for the sake of someone; this is simply impossible for them.
Therefore, Chatsky has only one path - a hermit and an outcast who dared to go against the existing system. Two different worlds, and there is no way for them to reconcile.