“Woe from Wit” is a reflection of the turning point at the turn of two eras. How is the historical conflict of eras reflected in Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

20.04.2019

“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. Yes, the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of the comedy, both of its storylines. The play was written in those days (1816-1824), when young people like Chatsky brought new ideas and moods to society. Chatsky’s monologues and remarks, in all his actions, expressed what was most important for future Decembrists: the spirit of freedom, free life, the feeling that “he breathes more freely than anyone else.” Freedom of the individual is the motive of the times and Griboyedov’s comedy. And freedom from dilapidated ideas about love, marriage, honor, service, the meaning of life. Chatsky and his like-minded people strive for “creative, lofty and beautiful arts”, dream of “focusing a mind hungry for knowledge into science”, thirst for “sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity.” They would like to see all people free and equal. Chatsky’s desire is to serve the fatherland, “the cause, not the people.” He hates the whole past, including slavish admiration for everything foreign, servility, sycophancy. And what does he see around him? A lot of people who are looking only for ranks, crosses, “money to live”, not love, but a profitable marriage. Their ideal is “moderation and accuracy,” their dream is “to take all the books and burn them.” So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sane person” (Griboyedov’s assessment) and the conservative majority. As always in a dramatic work, the essence of the protagonist’s character is revealed primarily in the plot. Griboyedov, faithful to the truth of life, showed the plight of a young progressive man in this society. Those around him are taking revenge on Chatsky for the truth, which stings his eyes, for his attempt to disrupt the usual way of life. The girl he loves, turning away from him, hurts the hero the most by spreading gossip about his madness. Here is a paradox: the only sane person is declared insane! "So! I have completely sobered up!” Chatsky exclaims at the end of the play. What is this - defeat or insight? Yes, the end of this comedy is far from cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said about the ending this way: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it in turn a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.” Goncharov believes that the role of all Chatskys is “passive”, but at the same time always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow and others reap. It is surprising that even now it is impossible to read about the suffering of Alexander Andreevich without worry. But such is the power of true art. Of course, Griboyedov, perhaps for the first time in Russian literature, managed to create a truly realistic image positive hero. Chatsky is close to us because he is not written as an impeccable, “iron” fighter for truth and goodness, duty and honor - we meet such heroes in the works of classicists. No, he is a man, and nothing human is alien to him. “The mind and heart are not in harmony,” says the hero about himself. The ardor of his nature, which often makes it difficult to preserve peace of mind and composure, the ability to fall in love recklessly, this does not allow him to see the shortcomings of his beloved, to believe in her love for another - these are such natural traits! “Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived,” wrote Pushkin in the poem “Confession.” Yes, and Chatsky could say the same about himself. And Chatsky’s humor, his witticisms - how attractive they are. All this gives such vitality, warmth to this image, makes us empathize with the hero. And one more thing... Having written about his contemporary, reflecting in comedy, as we have already shown, the problems of his time, Griboyedov at the same time created an image of enduring significance. “Chatsky is a Decembrist,” wrote Herzen. And he is, of course, right. But an even more important thought is expressed by Goncharov: “Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. Every case that requires updating evokes Chatsky’s shadow.” This is the secret of the eternal relevance of the play and the vitality of its characters. Yes, the idea of a “free life” truly has lasting value.

Subject: Woe from mind

Questions and answers to A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

Which historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy “Woe from Wit”?
Do you think I. A. Goncharov was right when he believed that Griboyedov’s comedy would never become outdated?

I think I'm right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of life in Russia after the War of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in the minds of people during the change historical eras. Griboyedov convincingly shows that the new is initially quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools for one smart person, as Griboyedov aptly put it), but “the quality of fresh power” (Goncharov) ultimately wins. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to its own Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression “superfluous person” applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the off-stage heroes (professors of the St. Petersburg Institute, practicing “in... lack of faith,” Skalozub’s cousin, who “picked up some new rules... suddenly left his service in the village I started reading books." Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, and believes in the victory of progress. He actively invades public life, not only criticizes social orders, but also promotes his positive program. His work and his work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. It's not superfluous, but new person.

Could Chatsky have avoided a collision with Famus society?
What is Chatsky’s belief system and why does Famus society consider these views dangerous?
Is it possible for Chatsky to reconcile with Famus society? Why?
Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow?
Do you agree with the assessment of Chatsky given by I. A. Goncharov?
What artistic technique underlies the composition of a comedy?
What attitude does Sofya Famusova have towards herself? Why?
In which comedy episodes do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed?
How do you see the future of comedy heroes?
What are the storylines of a comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: love affair and social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main one is the social conflict (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of the general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

“Social Comedy” begins with a love affair, because, firstly, this is a sure-fire way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author’s psychological insight, since it is precisely at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, What love implies is often where the most severe disappointments with the imperfections of this world occur.

What role does the theme of intelligence play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin’s understanding, intelligence represents not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to this definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of characters. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do their names “say” about the characters in the comedy?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and telling surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance prepares the audience to perceive comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, and patronymic. It appears to be valuable on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from English. famous - “fame”, “glory” or from Lat. fama - “rumour”, “rumor”. The name Sophia means “wisdom” in Greek. The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. Masculinity is emphasized in Chatsky’s name and patronymic: Alexander (from the Greek, winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek, courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero’s last name, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is the list of characters often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical sphere, but in a play as a literary work, as a rule, it is designated as a “list of characters.” At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very laconic but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, and the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of characters in the poster.

The sequence of arrangement of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his household are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, the maid, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him come the guests, ranked by degree of nobility and importance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all kinds, and waiters.

The classic order of the poster is disrupted by the presentation of the Gorich couple: first Natalya Dmitrievna, the young lady, is named, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. The violation of dramatic tradition is associated with Griboyedov’s desire to hint already in the poster about the nature of the relationship between the young spouses.

Try to verbally sketch the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you imagine the heroes when they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed wardrobe, a large clock on the wall. On the right is the door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Lizanka is sleeping, hanging from her chair. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and realizes in horror that it is already morning. He knocks on Sophia's room, trying to force her to break up with Molchalin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begins to beat and play.

Lisa looks worried. She is nimble, fast, resourceful, strives to find a way out difficult situation. Famusov, wearing a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if sneaking, approaches Lisa from behind and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, winds the clock, speaks loudly, and on the other hand, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is cheerful and witty.

Find the beginning of the comedy. Determine what plot lines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky’s house is the beginning of the comedy. The hero connects two storylines together - a love-lyrical one and a socio-political, satirical one. From the moment he appears on stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without in any way violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky’s ridicule of the appearance and behavior of visitors and inhabitants of Famusov’s house, seemingly still benign, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into a political and moral confrontation Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not yet notice, Sophia rejects both his love confessions and hopes, giving preference to Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Silent? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth scene of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from the dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky’s review of him.

He is a man of few words, which justifies his name. Have you not yet broken the silence of the seal?

He did not break the “silence of the seal” even on a date with Sophia, who mistakes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and aversion to insolence. Only later do we learn that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love “to please the daughter of such a man” “on the job,” and can be very cheeky with Liza.

And one believes Chatsky’s prophecy, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that “he will reach the known levels, Because nowadays they love the dumb.”

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky’s sincerity, his emotionality, his devotion to Sophia, remembers with what sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he might lose Sophia’s love during the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his cheerfulness and wit. Her phrase characterizing Chatsky is easy to remember:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!

Sophia, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and the fact that Liza admires him irritates her. And here she strives to distance herself from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to make everyone laugh,” “witty, smart, eloquent,” “pretended to be in love, demanding and sad,” “he thought highly of himself,” “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and makes a statement. waters, mentally contrasting Molchalin with him: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why search for intelligence and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: “Not a man - a snake” and a caustic question whether he had ever, even by mistake, spoken kindly about anyone. Chatsky's critical attitude towards guests Famusovsky house she doesn't share.

How is Sophia's character revealed in the first act? How does Sophia perceive ridicule of people in her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky’s ridicule of people in her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in She feels comfortable, comfortable, and familiar with her father’s company. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize the poor young man. However, as a true daughter of Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow husbands”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov - “A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of a wife’s pages...”. Ridicule at this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia values in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky’s ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky’s personality and his arrival.

Sophia is smart, resourceful, independent in her judgment, but at the same time powerful, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa’s help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but abruptly breaks off when she seems to forget her position as a servant (“Listen, don’t take unnecessary liberties...”).

What conflict arises in the second act? When and how does this happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, the “present century” and the “past century.” If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s ridicule of the visitors to Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that “he knows how to make everyone laugh gloriously,” then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict moves into the stage of serious opposition of socio-political and moral positions on pressing issues in the life of Russia first thirds of the XIX century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and reason for the disagreement between them?

The characters show different understandings of key social and moral problems their modern life. The attitude towards service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening” is the principle of the young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing people, and not on serving the cause, on promoting relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter”: “It’s signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov uses as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important nobleman of Catherine’s (“All in orders, He always rode in a train...” “Who promotes to ranks and gives pensions?”), who did not hesitate to “bend over” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer up the lady. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as a Carbonari, a dangerous person, “he wants to preach freedom,” “he does not recognize the authorities.”

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the destinies of serfs - to sell, separate families, as the owner of the serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out individually...”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be poor, but if you get enough; Souls of a thousand and two clans, - He and the groom,” then Chatsky evaluates such norms as “the vile traits of the past life,” and angrily attacks careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his views on life. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, failure in service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “with three ministers was the head of the department.” His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, with all his talents, does not enjoy the support of the Famous society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” ? in this scene it is decided - scary. Molcha-lin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master of pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.

Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky’s madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by accident. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation that had just ended with the hero? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it is here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further replies are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters, Would you like to try it on yourself?

Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedic scenes, the characters that make up Famus’s circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that the rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The Countess granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed insane to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the Countess and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “damned Voltairian”, “overstepped the law”, “he is in the Pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures give way to a crowd scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue “The Frenchman from Bordeaux” is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had separate conversations with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses healthy, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently twirling in a waltz, old people scatter around the card tables.

Critics note that not only Chatsky’s social impulse, but also Repetilov’s chatter can be understood as the author’s view of Decembrism. Why was Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of Repetilov’s image in comedy. It's unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is telling (Repetilov - from Latin repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and seems to openly express his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the flow of his speeches, and are there any... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched upon, but mostly speaks about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the substance of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings on Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

And finally, main principle, so to speak, Repetilova - “Mime, brother, we’re making noise.”

Chatsky’s assessments of Repetilov’s words are interesting, which indicate the difference in the author’s views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author agrees with the main character in his assessment of the comic character who unexpectedly appeared during the departure of guests: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union is meeting in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “why are you freaking out? » and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it towards a denouement. According to literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “Departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventual tension of the episode. But the tension that is beginning to subside... Repetilov is inflated. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the outcome of the events of the ball, carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue the conversations at the ball, the meeting with the belated guest excites the main impression in everyone’s mind, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an involuntary witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already absolutely established version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramatically integral episode of the comedy, deeply embedded in Act 4 and equal in scope and meaning to the whole act, coming to an end.”

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “the forever young old men of Russian history”? What is Molchalin's true face?

By calling Molchalin this way, the literary scholar emphasizes the typicality of this kind of people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family connections. Even in their youth, they do not have romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for improving public and state life, serve individuals, not business. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “You should learn from your elders,” Molchalin assimilates in Famusov’s society “the meanest traits of past life” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile soil: let us remember what Molchalin’s father bequeathed), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one’s own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is Famusov’s moral character that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a love date with Liza. This is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D.I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and he walked along the road that leads to “famous degrees”; he has gone and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; his mother dies on the side of the road, his beloved woman calls him to the neighboring grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will continue to walk and get there...” Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, not By chance, his name became a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the resolution of the play's social conflict? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?

With the appearance of the XIVth last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins; in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov’s society are summed up and the final gap between the two worlds is affirmed - “the present century and century of the past." It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “a million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced his early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball. Famusov's world is alien to him, he did not accept its laws. And therefore we can assume that moral victory is on his side. Moreover, final phrase Famusova, who concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important master of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?

Griboyedov first called his play “Woe to Wit,” and then changed the title to “Woe from Wit.” What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original?

The original title of the comedy affirmed the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the reasons for the occurrence of grief are indicated, and thus the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated in the title; the reader and viewer are attuned to the perception of problems that always arise before a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal” moral ones. The theme of the mind underlies the comedy's conflict and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboedov wrote to Katenin: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - the clash of intelligence and stupidity or the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is based on the clash not of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other characters in the comedy are not stupid at all. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him such. But they have a practical, worldly, resourceful mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical acumen.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the characters in the play.

About Famusov: “Grumpy, restless, quick...”, “Signed, off your shoulders!”, “... we have been doing this since ancient times, / That there is honor for father and son,” “How will you begin to present to the cross?” , to the town, Well, how can you not please your loved one,” etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely,” “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us,” “May the Lord destroy this unclean spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation...", "Try about the authorities, and God knows what they'll tell you. / Bow a little low, bend like a ring, / Even in front of the monarch’s face, / That’s what he’ll call you a scoundrel!..”

About Molchalin: “Silent people are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “At my age I should not dare to have my own judgment”, “Famous servant... like a thunderbolt", "Molchalin! Who else will settle everything so peacefully! / There he will stroke the pug in time, / Here he will rub the card just in time...”

Get acquainted with various assessments of Chatsky's image. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...” Goncharov: “Chatsky is positively smart. His speech is seething with wit...” Katenin: “Chatsky is the main person... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.” Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and versatility of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboyedov’s play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was his first acquaintance with the work; by that time, the aesthetic positions of both poets had diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he has recognized for himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy.” Subsequently, “Woe from Wit” will be included in Pushkin’s work through hidden and explicit quotations.

Reproaches to Chatsky for verbosity and preaching inappropriately can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set for themselves: to express their positions in any audience. They were distinguished by the directness and sharpness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their verdicts, without taking into account secular norms, they called things by their proper names. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, a progressive person of the 20s of the 19th century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read critical study I. A. Goncharov “A Million Torments.” Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society”?

The condition designated in the comedy as “the mind and heart are not in harmony” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to affirm progressive views, to speak out against injustice, the inertia of social foundations, to find answers to current spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times. Material from the site

B. Goller in the article “The Drama of a Comedy” writes: “Sofya Griboyedova is the main mystery of comedy.” What do you think is the reason for this assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the young ladies of her circle: independence, sharp mind, sense of her own dignity, disdain for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like the Tugoukhovsky princesses, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, mistakes his visits for dates and tender silence for love and devotion, and becomes Chatsky’s persecutor. Her mystery also lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V.A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia, who loves Chatsky, but because of his departure she feels offended, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, and able to control herself well. Mockery and grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina revealed a strong character and deep feeling in Sophia. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of Famus society, but did not denounce it, but despised it. Love for Molchalin was generated by her power - he was an obedient shadow of her love, but she did not believe Chatsky’s love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious for the reader, viewer, and theater workers to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action), characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it followed in comedy?

In the comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place within a day), place (in Famusov’s house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: “I’m not talking about poetry: half should be included in the proverb.” What is the innovation of the language of Griboyedov’s comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become popular.

Griboyedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial character of the language is given by the free (different foot) iambic. Unlike works of the XVIII century there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three styles and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in “Woe from Wit” and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed is he who believes.

Signed, off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many of them are weekly.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.

Oh! If someone loves someone, why bother searching and traveling so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called “Woe from Wit” a comedy in verse. Sometimes doubt arises whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be classified as comic; on the contrary, he suffers from deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence comedic intrigue(the scene with the clock, Famusov’s desire, while attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around Molchalin’s fall from the horse, Chatsky’s constant misunderstanding of Sophia’s transparent speeches, “little comedies” in the living room at the guests’ gathering and when rumors about Chatsky's madness spread), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give every reason to consider “Woe from Wit” a comedy, but a high comedy, since it raises significant social and moral issues.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “superfluous man” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in his judgments, critical of high society, and indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not “serve his superiors.” And such people, despite their intelligence and abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit” belongs to the “present century”?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: Skalo-zub’s cousin, who “suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village”; Princess Fyodor’s nephew, who “doesn’t want to know the officials! He is a chemist, he is a botanist"; professors at the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who “practice in schisms and lack of faith.”

Which of the characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit” belongs to the “past century”?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs of it they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky “changed the law”, the countess - “he is a damned Voltairian”, Famusov - “try about the authorities - and God knows what he will say,” that is, the main sign of madness, according to the views of Famusov’s society, is freethinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia choose Molchalin over Chatsky?

Sophia was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, it seems to her, is pure, shy, and sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was raised by the Famus environment, in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and position in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy “Woe from Wit”, which have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Pass us away more than all sorrows and lordly anger and lordly love.

I walked into the room and ended up in another.

He never said a smart word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is it better? Where we are not!

More in number, cheaper in price.

A mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod.

Not a man, a snake!

What a commission, creator, to be a father to an adult daughter!

Read not like a sexton, but with feeling, with sense, with order.

The legend is fresh, but hard to believe.

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening, etc.

Why is the comedy “Woe from Wit” called the first realistic play?

The realism of the play lies in the choice of a vital social conflict, which is resolved not in an abstract form, but in the forms of “life itself.” In addition, the comedy conveys real features of everyday life and social life in Russia early XIX century. The play ends not with the victory of virtue over evil, as in the works of classicism, but realistically - Chatsky is defeated by the larger and more united Famus society. Realism is also manifested in the depth of character development, in the ambiguity of Sophia’s character, in the individualization of the characters’ speech.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

How gossip spread in the comedy Woe from Wit
love in the understanding of Chatsky and Sophia
explain the expression - comedic effect
answers to questions woe from mind action 3
essay Moscow and Muscovites in the comedy Woe from Wit

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 game and gossip. They oblige and flatter before their superiors, 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 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. Griboedov 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 advanced people who want to serve the Fatherland.

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 people don’t watch the clock.” 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 Griboedov’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 thunder, noise, admiration, 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, you can’t find many works that, like “Woe from Wit,” short term would have gained such undoubted national fame. At the same time, contemporaries fully felt the socio-political relevance of comedy, perceiving it as a topical work of the new literature emerging in Russia, which set as its main task the development of “its own wealth” (that is, material national history and modern Russian life) - and with our own, original, non-borrowed funds. The plot of “Woe from Wit” was a dramatic conflict between an intelligent, noble and freedom-loving hero and the inert environment of reactionaries surrounding him. This conflict depicted by Griboedov was vitally truthful and historically reliable. From a young age, 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 social life of his time - the struggle 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 militant guardians of the Old Testament, reactionary orders, as depicted in "Woe from Wit." Griboedov himself, in a widely known, constantly quoted letter to (January 1825, revealed the contents and ideological meaning dramatic collision that forms the basis of “Woe from Wit”: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is contrary to the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little above others."
And further Griboyedov shows how systematically and uncontrollably, becoming more and more aggravated, Chatsky’s “contradiction” with Famus society is growing, how this society betrays Chatsky with anathema, which has the character of a political denunciation - Chatsky is publicly declared a troublemaker, a carbonari, a man encroaching on the “legitimate” state and social order; how, finally, the voice of universal hatred spreads vile gossip about Chatsky’s madness: “At first he is cheerful, and this is a vice: “To 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 happy to humiliate, to prick, envious! proud and angry!" Does not tolerate meanness: "ah! “My God, he’s a carbonari.” Someone out of anger made up the idea 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 the 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 position of the Russian people, oppressed by the oppression of serfdom, about the future destinies of Russia, Russian statehood and Russian culture, about the freedom and independence of the human person, about the social calling of man, about his patriotic and civic duty, about a new understanding of personal and civil honor, about the power of human reason and knowledge, about the tasks, ways and means of education and upbringing. The genius of Griboedov 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... brought satire onto the stage with equal causticity political concepts and the habits of the societies in which they lived, measuring with a proud gaze the folk morality of their fatherlands." And later the historian even called
""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 and satirical literature, but also because comedy has a rich positive content, which, in turn, has acquired just as 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 is given a really broad and true in all details 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 between the new and the old, in the conditions of which the Decembrist movement arose and revolutionary ideology took shape in Russia.
Famusovism is a reaction, inertia, routine, cynicism, a stable, once forever defined way of life. Here, most of all, they are afraid of rumors (“sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”) and they hush up everything that is new, alarming, and 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 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 techniques, means and colors artistic image. 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”, which ridiculed and stigmatized the serfdom world, at the same time important task It was for Griboyedov 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 collection works, vol. 23, p. 398.
Even though in the time of Griboedov, 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 expressing his understanding in the artistic images of “Woe from Wit,” Griboedov reflected the objective truth of life and 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 Griboyedov’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. Penetrating with creative thought the essence of the basic 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 decided and 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 in speech characteristics, in short - in the very artistic structure of 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.”

The Famusov society, which firmly preserved the traditions of the “past century,” is opposed by Alexander Andreich Chatsky. 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 19th century is the most striking image of the “new man”, a positive hero, a Decembrist in his views, public behavior, moral convictions, throughout the whole 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 nicely”) that he was on military service, had connections with ministers, was abroad for three years (apparently 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 personality, 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 obedience 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 external culture the West, especially France, even neglecting his native language, then Chatsky stands for the development national culture, mastering the best, advanced achievements of 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 has a high opinion of 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 meet him and folk words(just now, really, more than ever, tea), and expressions characteristic only of the Russian language: “not a hair 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: his speech contains a lot old words(veche, finger, pointing at the mind, hungry for knowledge, etc.). Foreign words he uses it 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 quotes from works of art in his speech. 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 apt 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 “bubbly 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...
.

The author of the immortal comedy "Woe from Wit", which had a huge influence 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,” shouts and demands 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 doesn’t 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 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 of Russian literature. In it, the writer reflected his time, the problems of the era, and also showed his attitude towards them.
In this work there is a “new man” who 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 spent a long time abroad, 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 some people in his country 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 sure that this form public relations the only true one. He always ends up in in the right place V 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 a daughter influential person– 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, Griboyedov 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 lies in the interaction of two conflicts - a love conflict, the main characters of which are Sophia and Chatsky, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives.
Sophia is Chatsky’s main plot partner; she occupies a special place in the comedy’s character system. The love conflict with Sofia involved the hero in conflict with everyone in society and 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 Griboedov.” 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 to the skies spiritual qualities Molchalina, 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 the last scenes of “Woe from Wit,” not a trace remains of 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 the tragic fate of Chatsky, whom she rejected. Indeed, as Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has “the hardest time of all, 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:

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 you.” 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 it’s worse than when there were crazy people, deeds, and opinions,” “If you stop evil, take away 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 else 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.

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 their superiors, 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 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.

The opposite of Molchalin is Chatsky. Griboedov 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.

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.