The comedy "Woe from Wit" reflects the brewing split in noble society. The change from one century to another, the end of the War of 1812, required landowners to reassess values and change their outlook on social life. In this regard, nobles appear who want to improve the position of Russia by increasing the value human personality and civic consciousness. The struggle between two groups of nobles is designated in the play as a clash of the “present century” with the “past century.” In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Famusov are the main opponents.
The Problem of the Mind in Comedy
A.S. Griboedov wrote about his work: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” By “sensible person” Griboyedov means the main character of the comedy - Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. But in the process of analyzing the work, it becomes clear that Famusov cannot be called a fool. Since Griboedov put his own thoughts and ideals into the image of Chatsky, the author finds himself completely on the side of the protagonist. However, both Chatsky and Famusov have their own truth, which each of the heroes defends. And each of them has their own mind, it’s just that Chatsky’s mind and Famusov’s mind differ in quality.
The mind of a nobleman, adhering to conservative views and ideals, is aimed at protecting his comfort, his warm place from everything new. The new is hostile to the old way of life of the feudal landowners, because it threatens its existence. Famusov adheres to these views.
Chatsky, on the other hand, is the owner of an effective, flexible mind, aimed at building a new world in which the main values will be the honor and dignity of a person, his personality, and not money and position in society.
Values and ideals of Chatsky and Famusov
The views of Chatsky and Famusov differ sharply on all issues related to the nobleman’s way of life. Chatsky is a supporter of education, enlightenment, he himself is “sharp, smart, eloquent,” “writes and translates well.” Famusov and his society, on the contrary, consider excessive “learning” harmful to society and are very afraid of the appearance of people like Chatsky in their midst. The Chatskys threaten Famusov’s Moscow with the loss of its usual comfort and the opportunity to spend life “in feasts and in extravagance.”
The dispute between Chatsky and Famusov also flares up around the attitude of the nobles to the service. Chatsky “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in that.” The main character of the comedy explains it this way: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” But conservative noble society is structured in such a way that without “serving” it is impossible to achieve anything. Chatsky wants to serve “the cause, not individuals.” But Famusov and his supporters have a completely different view on the issue of service.
Famusov’s ideal is his late uncle Maxim Petrovich. He earned the respect of the empress herself because he once behaved like a buffoon at a reception. Having stumbled and fallen, he decided to turn this awkward situation to his advantage: he fell several more times on purpose to make the audience and Empress Catherine laugh. This ability to “curse the favor” brought Maxim Petrovich enormous wealth and weight in society.
Chatsky does not accept such ideals; for him this is humiliation. He calls this time an age of “submission and fear” that clamps down on human freedom. The hero’s comparison of the “present century” and the “past century” does not turn out in favor of the latter, because now “everyone breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.”
Family values of Chatsky and Famusov
The clash between Famusov and Chatsky also occurs over the divergence of their views on family values. Famusov believes that when creating a family, the presence of love is not at all important. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” he tells his daughter. Both in society and in the family, money is at the forefront. Wealth for Famusov society- the same as happiness. Personal qualities do not matter either in the world or in the family: “Be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.”
Chatsky is a supporter of living feelings, which is why he is terrible for Famusov’s Moscow. This hero puts love above money, education above position in society. Therefore, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov flares up.
Conclusions
Comparative characteristics Chatsky and Famusov reveals all the meanness and immorality of Famusov and his supporters. But Chatsky’s time in the society described in the comedy “Woe from Wit” has not yet come. The main character is expelled from this environment, declaring him crazy. Chatsky is forced to retreat due to the numerical superiority of the “past century.” But he leaves Moscow not a loser, but a winner. Secular Moscow was frightened by his speeches. His truth is scary for them, it threatens their personal comfort. His truth will prevail, so the replacement of the old with the new is historically natural.
The clash between Famusov and Chatsky is a dispute between two generations, two different worlds. The arguments and causes of the conflict described in this article can be used by 9th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “Characterization of Chatsky and Famusov in the comedy “Woe from Wit””
Work test
| Characteristics | This century | The past century |
| Attitude to wealth, to ranks | “They found protection from the court in friends, in kinship, in building magnificent chambers where they indulge in feasts and extravagance, and where the foreign clients of their past lives do not resurrect the meanest traits,” “And for those who are higher, flattery, like weaving lace...” | “Be poor, but if you get enough, two thousand family souls, that’s the groom” |
| Attitude to service | “I’d be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”, “Uniform! one uniform! In their former life, he once covered, embroidered and beautiful, their weakness, poverty of reason; And we follow them on a happy journey! And in wives and daughters there is the same passion for the uniform! How long ago did I renounce tenderness towards him?! Now I can’t fall into this childish behavior...” | “And for me, no matter what’s the matter, what’s not the matter, my custom is this: it’s signed, then off your shoulders.” |
| Attitude towards foreign | “And where foreign clients will not resurrect the meanest traits of their past lives.” “As from an early time we were accustomed to believe that without the Germans there was no salvation for us.” | “The door is open for those invited and uninvited, especially for foreigners.” |
| Attitude towards education | “What, now, just like in ancient times, are they bothering to recruit more teachers from regiments, at a cheaper price? ... we are ordered to recognize everyone as a historian and geographer.” | “They would take all the books and burn them,” “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason that today, more than ever, there are more crazy people, deeds, and opinions.” |
| Attitude to serfdom | “That Nestor is a noble scoundrel, surrounded by a crowd of servants; zealous, they saved his honor and life more than once in the hours of wine and fights: suddenly, he exchanged three greyhounds for them!!!” | Famusov is a defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom. |
| Attitude to Moscow morals and pastimes | “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths gagged at lunch, dinner and dance?” | “I’m called to Praskovya Fedorovna’s house on Tuesday for trout,” “On Thursday I’m called to a funeral,” “Or maybe on Friday, or maybe on Saturday, I have to baptize at the widow’s, at the doctor’s.” |
| Attitude towards nepotism, patronage | “And who are the judges?” - Over the past few years free life their enmity is irreconcilable..." | “When I have employees, strangers are very rare, more and more sisters, sisters-in-law and children.” |
| Attitude to freedom of judgment | “For mercy, you and I are not guys, why are other people’s opinions only sacred?” | Learning is the plague, learning is the cause. What is worse now than before, crazy people and affairs and opinions |
| Attitude towards love | Sincerity of feeling | “Be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.” |
| Ideals | Chatsky’s ideal is a free, independent person, alien to slavish humiliation. | Famusov’s ideal is a nobleman of the Catherine century, “hunters of indecency” |
- Hero Brief description Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov The surname “Famusov” comes from the Latin word “fama”, which means “rumor”: by this Griboedov wanted to emphasize that Famusov is afraid of rumors, public opinion, but on the other hand, there is a root in the root of the word “Famusov” from the Latin word "famosus" - a famous, well-known wealthy landowner and high official. He is a famous person among the Moscow nobility. A well-born nobleman: related to the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, closely acquainted […]
- A. A. Chatsky A. S. Molchalin Character A straightforward, sincere young man. An ardent temperament often interferes with the hero and deprives him of impartial judgment. Secretive, cautious, helpful person. The main goal is a career, position in society. Position in society Poor Moscow nobleman. Receives a warm welcome in local society due to his origin and old connections. Provincial tradesman by origin. The rank of collegiate assessor by law gives him the right to nobility. In light of […]
- The very name of the comedy "Woe from Wit" is significant. For educators, convinced of the omnipotence of knowledge, mind is a synonym for happiness. But the powers of the mind have faced serious tests in all eras. New advanced ideas are not always accepted by society, and the bearers of these ideas are often declared crazy. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov also addresses the topic of the mind. His comedy is a story about progressive ideas and society's reaction to them. At first, the title of the play is “Woe to Wit,” which the writer later replaces with “Woe from Wit.” More […]
- After reading A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” and critics’ articles about this play, I also thought about: “What is he like, Chatsky”? The first impression of the hero is that he is perfect: smart, kind, cheerful, vulnerable, passionately in love, loyal, sensitive, knowing the answers to all questions. He rushes seven hundred miles to Moscow to meet Sophia after a three-year separation. But this opinion arose after the first reading. When in literature lessons we analyzed comedy and read the opinions of various critics about [...]
- The image of Chatsky caused numerous controversy in criticism. I. A. Goncharov considered the hero Griboyedov a “sincere and ardent figure”, superior to Onegin and Pechorin. “...Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit. He has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest,” the critic wrote. Apollo Grigoriev spoke about this image in approximately the same way, who considered Chatsky to be a real fighter, an honest, passionate and truthful person. Finally, I myself held a similar opinion [...]
- When you see a rich house, a hospitable owner, elegant guests, you can’t help but admire them. I would like to know what these people are like, what they talk about, what they are interested in, what is close to them, what is alien. Then you feel how the first impression gives way to bewilderment, then to contempt for both the owner of the house, one of the Moscow “aces” Famusov, and his entourage. There are other noble families, from them came heroes of the War of 1812, Decembrists, great masters of culture (and if great people came from such houses as we see in comedy, then […]
- The title of any work is the key to its understanding, since it almost always contains an indication - direct or indirect - of the main idea underlying the creation, of a number of problems comprehended by the author. The title of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” introduces an extremely important category into the conflict of the play, namely the category of the mind. The source of such a title, such an unusual name, which also originally sounded like “Woe to the Wit,” goes back to a Russian proverb in which the opposition between the smart and […]
- A “social” comedy with a social clash between the “past century” and the “present century” is called the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". And it is structured in such a way that only Chatsky speaks about progressive ideas for transforming society, the desire for spirituality, and a new morality. Using his example, the author shows readers how difficult it is to bring new ideas into the world that are not understood and accepted by a society that is ossified in its views. Anyone who starts doing this is doomed to loneliness. Alexander Andreevich […]
- In the comedy “Woe from Wit” A. S. Griboyedov portrayed noble Moscow of the 10-20s XIX century. In the society of that time, they worshiped uniform and rank and rejected books and enlightenment. A person was judged not by his personal qualities, but by the number of serf souls. Everyone sought to imitate Europe and worshiped foreign fashion, language and culture. The “past century”, presented vividly and fully in the work, is characterized by the power of women, their great influence on the formation of tastes and views of society. Moscow […]
- The comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” consists of a number of small episodes-phenomena. They are combined into larger ones, such as, for example, the description of a ball in Famusov’s house. Analyzing this stage episode, we consider it as one of important stages permissions of the main dramatic conflict, which consists in the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century”. Based on the principles of the writer’s attitude to the theater, it is worth noting that A. S. Griboyedov presented it in accordance with the traditions […]
- It’s rare, but it still happens in art that the creator of one “masterpiece” becomes a classic. This is exactly what happened with Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov. His only comedy "Woe from Wit" became national treasure Russia. Phrases from the work are included in our daily life in the form of proverbs and sayings; We don’t even think about who published them; we say: “Just by chance, keep an eye on you” or: “Friend. Is it possible to choose // a nook further away for a walk?” And such catchphrases in comedy […]
- CHATSKY is the hero of A.S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” (1824; in the first edition the spelling of the surname is Chadsky). The probable prototypes of the image are PYa.Chaadaev (1796-1856) and V.K-Kuchelbecker (1797-1846). The nature of the hero's actions, his statements and relationships with other comedy personalities provide extensive material for revealing the theme stated in the title. Alexander Andreevich Ch. is one of the first romantic heroes of Russian drama, and how romantic hero on the one hand, he categorically does not accept an inert environment, [...]
- The very name of the comedy is paradoxical: “Woe from Wit.” Initially, the comedy was called “Woe to Wit,” which Griboyedov later abandoned. To some extent, the title of the play is a “reversal” of the Russian proverb: “fools have happiness.” But is Chatsky surrounded by only fools? Look, are there so many fools in the play? Here Famusov remembers his uncle Maxim Petrovich: A serious look, an arrogant disposition. When you need to help yourself, And he bent over... ...Huh? what do you think? in our opinion - smart. And myself [...]
- The famous Russian writer Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov said wonderful words about the work “Woe from Wit” - “Without Chatsky there would be no comedy, there would be a picture of morals.” And it seems to me that the writer is right about this. It is the image of the main character of Griboedov’s comedy, Alexander Sergeevich “Woe from Wit,” that determines the conflict of the entire narrative. People like Chatsky always turned out to be misunderstood by society, they brought progressive ideas and views to society, but conservative society did not understand […]
- The comedy “Woe from Wit” was created in the early 20s. XIX century Main conflict, on which the comedy is based, is the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century.” In the literature of that time, the classicism of the era of Catherine the Great still had power. But outdated canons limited the playwright’s freedom in describing real life, therefore, Griboyedov, taking classic comedy as a basis, neglected (as necessary) some of the laws of its construction. Any classic work (drama) should […]
- The great Woland said that manuscripts do not burn. Proof of this is the fate of Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov’s brilliant comedy “Woe from Wit” - one of the most controversial works in the history of Russian literature. A comedy with a political bent, continuing the traditions of such masters of satire as Krylov and Fonvizin, quickly became popular and served as a harbinger of the coming rise of Ostrovsky and Gorky. Although the comedy was written back in 1825, it was published only eight years later, having outlived its […]
- In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Sofya Pavlovna Famusova is the only character conceived and performed close to Chatsky. Griboyedov wrote about her: “The girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person...”. Griboyedov abandoned farce and satire in depicting the character of Sophia. He presented to the reader female character great depth and strength. Sophia was “unlucky” in criticism for quite a long time. Even Pushkin considered the author’s image of Famusova a failure; “Sophia is sketched unclearly.” And only in 1878 Goncharov, in his article […]
- The famous comedy by AS.Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" was created in the first quarter of the XIX centuries. Literary life This period was determined by clear signs of the crisis of the autocratic-serf system and the maturation of the ideas of noble revolutionism. There was a process of gradual transition from the ideas of classicism, with its predilection for " high genres, to romanticism and realism. One of the brightest representatives and founders critical realism and became A.S. Griboyedov. In his comedy "Woe from Wit", which successfully combines [...]
- Molchalin - characteristic features: desire for a career, hypocrisy, ability to curry favor, taciturnity, poverty of vocabulary. This is explained by his fear of expressing his judgment. He says mainly in short phrases and chooses words depending on who he is talking to. Not in the language foreign words and expressions. Molchalin chooses delicate words, adding a postive “-s”. To Famusov - respectfully, to Khlestova - flatteringly, insinuatingly, with Sophia - with special modesty, with Liza - he does not mince words. Especially […]
- In Griboyedv's work "Woe from Wit" the episode "Ball in Famusov's House" is the main part of the comedy, because it is in this scene main character Chatsky shows true face Famusov and his society. Chatsky is a free and free-thinking character; he is disgusted by all the morals that Famusov tried to comply with as much as possible. He is not afraid to express his point of view, which differs from Pavel Afanasyevich. In addition, Alexander Andreevich himself was without ranks and not rich, which means that he was not only a bad party […]
L-9. A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit." Chatsky and Famusov society.
Surrounded by a crowd of servants;
Zealous, they are in the hours of wine and fights
And his honor and life saved him more than once: suddenly
He exchanged three greyhounds for them!!!”;
“Or that one over there, which is for tricks
He drove to the serf ballet on many wagons
From mothers and fathers of rejected children?!
He himself was 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!!!”
Khlestova:
“Out of boredom, I took with me
A little black girl and a dog;
Tell them to feed them already, my friend,
We got a handout from dinner”;
Khlestova about arapka:
“Imagine: they are paraded around like animals,
I heard there... there is a Turkish city...”;
Famusov:
“To work you, to settle you.
They’re ready to sell me for a pittance.”
Attitude to Moscow morals and pastime
“And who in Moscow didn’t have their mouths clamped
Lunches, dinners and dances?
“The houses are new, but the prejudices are old.
Rejoice, they won’t destroy you
Neither their years, nor fashion, nor fires"
Famusov:
“Everyone from Moscow has a special imprint.
Please take a look at our youth,
For young men - sons and grandchildren.
We scold them, and if you figure it out,
At the age of fifteen, teachers will be taught!
What about our old people? - How enthusiasm will take them,
They will condemn deeds, that the word is a sentence...
And sometimes they talk about the government like this,
What if someone overheard them... trouble!
It’s not that new things were introduced - never,
God save us!.. No. And they will find fault
To this, to that, and more often to nothing,
They will argue, make some noise, and... disperse.
What about the ladies? - anyone, try to master it;
Judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them...
And whoever saw the daughters, hang your head!..
And indeed, is it possible to be more educated!
They know how to dress themselves up
Taffeta, marigold and haze,
They won’t say a word in simplicity, everything is done with a grimace;
French novels they sing to you
And the top ones bring out notes,
They flock to military people,
But because they are patriots.
I will say emphatically: barely
Another capital like Moscow will be found.”
Attitude to ideals
“Everyone breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters”;
“Now let one of us
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;
Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul
to creative, high and beautiful arts.
They immediately: robbery! fire!
and will be known among them as a dreamer! dangerous!"
Famusov:
“That’s it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
We would learn by looking at our elders:
We, for example, or the deceased uncle,
Maxim Petrovich: he’s not on silver,
Ate on gold; one hundred people at your service;
All in orders; I was always traveling in a train;
A century at court, and at what a court!
A? what do you think? In our opinion he is smart.
He fell painfully, but got up well”;
Molchalin:
“How is it possible! his syllable is being used as a model here!”
Attitude towards education
“And that consumptive one, your relatives, the enemy of books,
To the scientific committee that settled
And with a cry he demanded oaths,
So that no one knows or learns to read and write?”;
“What is now, just as in ancient times,
The regiments are busy recruiting teachers,
More in number, cheaper in price?
It’s not that they are far off in science;
In Russia, under a great fine,
We are told to recognize everyone
Historian and geographer!
(Chatsky is ironic,
but for him this issue is not completely resolved)
For the Famusovs, education is the main reason for the “madness” that Chatsky and others like him are obsessed with.
Famusov:
“Tell me that it’s not good to spoil her eyes,
And reading is of little use:
She can't sleep from French books,
But the Russians make it hard for me to sleep”;
“We take tramps, both into the house and with tickets,
To teach our daughters everything, everything -
And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!
It’s as if we are preparing them to be buffoons’ wives”;
Famusov:
“Learning is the plague, learning is the cause.
What is worse now than then,
There have been crazy people, deeds, and opinions”;
Khlestova:
“You’ll really go crazy from these, from some
From boarding schools, schools, lyceums, you name it,
Yes from lancard mutual training”;
Princess Tugoukhovskaya:
“No, the institute is in St. Petersburg
Pe-da-go-gic, that’s what their name seems to be:
There they practice schisms and unbelief
Professors!! - Our relatives studied with them,
And he left! At least now to the pharmacy, to become an apprentice.
He runs away from women, and even from me!
Chinov doesn’t want to know! He's a chemist, he's a botanist,
Prince Fedor, my nephew";
Skalozub:
“I will make you happy: universal rumor,
That there is a project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums; There they will only teach in our way: once or twice;
And the books will be preserved like this: for special occasions”;
Famusov:
“... if we stop evil;
take all the books and burn them”;
Zagoretsky:
“No, sir, books are different.
What if, between us,
I was appointed censor
I would lean heavily on fables; Oh! Fables are my death! Eternal mockery of lions! Over the eagles!
Whatever you say:
Although they are animals, they are still kings.”
Attitude to service
The question of attitude to service has been raised since the times of classicism. The classicists considered service to the state (the enlightened monarch) necessary, and the Decembrists put service to the Fatherland in first place.
“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening”;
“Who serves the cause, not individuals...”;
Famusov about Chatsky:
“It does not serve, that is, it does not find any benefit,
But if you wanted to, it would be businesslike.
It’s a pity, it’s a pity, he’s a small head...”;
“When I’m busy, I hide from fun,
When I'm fooling around, I'm fooling around;
And to mix these two crafts
There are tons of skilled people, I’m not one of them.”
Famusov:
"I'm afraid, sir, I'm the only one who's dead,
So that a lot of them (papers) do not accumulate...; ...my custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders”;
Famusov:
“Then it’s not like it is now,
He served under the Empress Catherine...”;
Famusov:
“With me, strangers serving as employees are very rare;
Only Molchalin is not my own,
And then because of business.
to the place
Well, how can you not please your loved one!...”;
Famusov Skalozub:
"You behaved well,
You’ve been a colonel for a long time, but you’ve only served recently”;
Molchalin to Chatsky:
“Well, really, why would you serve with us in Moscow?
And take awards and have fun?”
Attitude towards foreign
The relationship between the national and the European was an important problem for that time. National identity is the ideal of the Decembrists. The attitude of the “past century” to the dominance of foreigners and the foreign is ambiguous.
“As we have been accustomed to believe since early times,
That without the Germans we have no salvation!”;
“Well, he’s a gentleman.
We will be required to be with property and in rank,
And Guillaume!.. – What’s the tone here these days?
At big conventions,
on parish holidays?
A confusion of languages still prevails:
French with Nizhny Novgorod?”;
“Unfortunate ones! Should there be no reproaches?
From wannabe milliners?
For daring to choose
Original lists?
(about Moscow fashionistas copying foreign fashion);
“I sent desires
Humble, yet out loud,
May the unclean Lord destroy this spirit of Empty, slavish, blind imitation;
So that he would plant a spark in someone with a soul, who could, with word and example,
Hold us like a strong rein,
From pathetic nausea on the stranger’s side"
“Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion?
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans...”
Famusov:
“And all the Kuznetsky Bridge and the eternal French, From there fashion comes to us, and authors, and muses:
Destroyers of pockets and hearts!
When the Creator will deliver us
From their hats! caps! and stilettos! and pins!
And book and biscuit shops!”;
Famusov:
“Who wants to come to us, please,
The door is open for the invited and the uninvited,
Especially for foreigners..."
Attitude to wealth and rank
“The patrons yawn at the ceiling,
Show up to be silent, shuffle around, have lunch, put up a chair, pick up a scarf”;
They found protection from court in friends, in kinship, building magnificent chambers,
Where they spill out in feasts and extravagance,
And where foreign clients will not resurrect the meanest traits of a past life”;
“Now let one of us
Among the young people there will be: the enemy of quests,
Without demanding either places or promotion,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge...”;
“Uniform! one uniform! He is in their former life
Once covered, embroidered and beautiful,
Their weakness, their poverty of mind...";
“Ranks are given by people,
And people can be deceived"
Lisa about Famusov:
“He would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks,
And under the stars, not everyone is rich, between us...”;
Famusov:
“What kind of aces live and die in Moscow!”;
Famusov about Skalozub:
«… Famous person, solid,
And he picked up signs of darkness;
Beyond his years and enviable rank,
Not today or tomorrow, General.
Please, behave modestly in front of him...”;
Famusov:
“Be bad, but if you get enough
Two thousand ancestral souls,
He is the groom";
Molchalin:
“Tatyana Yurievna!!! Famous, at the same time
Officials and officials -
All her friends and all her relatives...";
Molchalin:
“After all, you have to depend on others”
Attitude towards nepotism, patronage
“Where, show us, are the fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?
They found protection from court in friends, in kinship...”;
“Aren’t you the one to whom I was born from the shrouds,
For some incomprehensible plans,
Did they take the child to bow?
That Nestor of noble scoundrels..."
Famusov:
“The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son...”;
Famusov:
"No! I crawl in front of my relatives, wherever I meet;
I will find her at the bottom of the sea.
When I have employees, strangers are very rare;
More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children;
Only Molchalin is not my own,
And then because of business.
How are you going to present yourself to the cross?
to the place
Well, how can you not please your loved one!..”
Attitude to love, marriage, happiness
“What new will Moscow show me?
Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.
He made a match - he managed, but he missed,
All the same meaning, and the same poems in the albums”;
“But does he have that passion? that feeling? that ardor?
So that he has the whole world besides you
Did it seem like dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Has love accelerated towards you?
So that thoughts are everything, and all his deeds
Soul – you? please you?
I feel it myself, I can’t say;
But what’s boiling inside me now, worries me, infuriates me,
I wouldn't want it either personal enemy»;
Chatsky Sophia:
"Think, you can always
Protect, and swaddle, and send to work.
A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of the wife’s pages, The high ideal of all Moscow husbands.”
Lisa:
“Sin is not a problem! Rumor is not good!”;
Lisa:
“Well, people in this side!
She comes to him, and he comes to me.
And I... I am the only one who crushes love to death!
How can you not fall in love with the bartender Petrusha!”;
Molchalin:
"And now I take the form of a lover
To please the daughter of such a man..."
Attitude to freedom of judgment
Chatsky to Molchalin:
“For mercy, you and I are not guys,
Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?”;
“Who are the judges? - In ancient times
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea..."
Molchalin:
"At my age one should not dare
Have your own opinion"
Attitude to the meaning of the word “mind”
“And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid,
You can say with a sigh;
How to compare and see
The present century and the past century";
Chatsky about Molchalin:
“Why not a husband? There is only little intelligence in him;
But to have children,
Who was not smart enough?”;
“Like dresses, hair, and minds are short!..”
Sophia:
"Oh! if someone loves someone,
Why search for intelligence and travel so far?”;
Famusov:
“The other one, at least be quicker, puffed up with all sorts of arrogance,
Let yourself be known as a wise man,
But they won’t include us in the family, don’t wonder at us...”;
Sophia:
“Of course, he doesn’t have this mind,
What a genius is to some, and a plague to others,
Which is quick, brilliant and soon disgusted, Which scolds the world on the spot,
So that the world can at least say something about him;
Will such a mind make a family happy?”;
Repetilov:
"Yes smart man can't help but be a rogue..."
Prepared by: N.D. Pronina, teacher of Russian language and literature
We are talking about the immortality of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". This is not a catchphrase. Comedy truly is immortal. For several generations now, we, readers and viewers, have been drawn into a caring dialogue with her characters, which sounds both excited and modern. In my opinion, a comparison of the two main characters is just as modern, since this allows not only a deeper understanding of the ideological artistic features works, but also to better understand the significance of the images of heroes for revealing the eternal value meanings of life.
Of course, we have a basis for comparing the two most bright characters comedies by Chatsky and Famusov. What is its essence? Yes, in that both live in the same turning point in the development of Russian society, both, by their social origin, belong to the aristocratic elite, that is, both images are typical and socially conditioned.
It would seem that what can unite such dissimilar characters! And yet Famusov and Chatsky have some similarities. Let's think about it: both of them are typical representatives of their environment, both have their own ideal of life, both have a sense of self-esteem.
However, the differences in these characters, of course, are much greater than the similarities. Where does it manifest itself most clearly? Let's take a closer look at the heroes.
Yes, Chatsky is smart. “He is not only smarter than all the other people,” Goncharov notes in the article “A Million Torments,” “but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.” Chatsky's mind sparkles in his passionate monologues, in his apt characterizations, in his every remark. True, we are mainly convinced of Chatsky’s freethinking, but we can only guess about other aspects of his mind. But this freethinking is the main thing that Griboedov values in him.
The smart man Chatsky is opposed to fools, fools and, first of all, Famusov, not because he is stupid in the literal, unambiguous sense of the word. No, he's smart enough. But his mind is the opposite of Chatsky’s. He is a reactionary, which means he is a fool from a social historical point of view, because he defends old, obsolete, anti-people views. He is a fool because he has not been touched by enlightenment with its lofty ideas of goodness, humanism, and the ennobling influence of knowledge on man. As for Famusov’s “free-thinking”, it is only enough to grumble at the “vagrant” teachers, as well as fashionistas - a natural detail of his entire lordly, patriarchal essence.
Chatsky and Famusov. How else do these characters differ? Yes, at least because both heroes have ideals, but how opposite they are!
Chatsky’s ideal is everything new, fresh, bringing change. This is an image that reliably embodies the personality traits of a civilian person.
What is Famusov’s ideal person? His ideal is Uncle Maxim Petrovich, a nobleman of Catherine’s time. In those days, as Chatsky put it, “not in war, but in peace, they took it head on, hit the floor, without regret.” Maxim Petrovich was an important gentleman, he ate on gold, “he rode forever in a train”; “When do you need to help yourself, and he bent over.” It was in this way that he gained weight, was “promoted to rank” and “gave pensions” at the court of Catherine II.
Famusov also admires Kuzma Petrovich:
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich...
Famusov strives to imitate such people; he considers their methods of obtaining ranks and money to be the most correct.
Distinguishes the main characters and their attitude to activity, to service, and slave morality.
Chatsky is undoubtedly from the breed of activists. He served. The scope of his recent activity evokes envy in Molchalin, and regret in Famusov, perhaps even some envy. After all, Chatsky ended up there, in St. Petersburg, closer to the “ministers”, where, it is possible, Famusov would like to go at one time. Chatsky’s credo in this matter is: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” Chatsky is outraged by serving persons rather than business, veneration of rank, and nepotism.
What is service for Famusov? Fulfilling civic duty? No, service for him is only a means of receiving awards, ranks and money. Famusov’s official affairs boil down to signing papers prepared by Molchalin. As a typical bureaucrat, Famusov is not interested in the contents of these papers; he is mortally afraid of only one thing: “So that a lot of them do not accumulate.”
Boasting of his “custom,” he says:
And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
Famusov is not at all embarrassed by the fact that he reduced all official duties to signing papers. On the contrary, he boasts about it smugly.
The heroes have different attitudes towards education. Chatsky is a humanist. As a patriot, he wants to see his people enlightened and free.
For Famusov, enlightenment is a danger that threatens the usual foundations of life. Famusov speaks with hatred:
“Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There have been crazy people, deeds, and opinions..."
Chatsky’s anti-serfdom ideology is manifested in his high assessment of character, moral qualities enslaved people. In contrast to the slanderous statements of the feudal landowners about the serf peasantry, Chatsky speaks of a vigorous, intelligent, that is, in the phraseology of the Decembrists, a freedom-loving people.
Famusov is an avid serf owner. He scolds the servants, without mincing words, “donkeys”, “chumps”, calls them nothing more than Parsleys, Filkas, Fomkas, without regard to the age or dignity of the person.
Once again I think about the characters of the main characters in the comedy. What is the point of comparing Chatsky and Famusov? Why are they opposed to each other in the play?
It seems that comparison is an excellent technique with the help of which the ideological and artistic features of a work are revealed, and the author’s intention and his attitude towards the characters becomes much clearer.
Of course, to some extent, the Famusovs are also necessary in life, because they bring healthy conservatism, stability, and traditions into society, which cannot be avoided. But the flower of society is always the intelligentsia, which excites society, appeals to its conscience, awakens public thought, and thirsts for something new. Such a noble intellectual, a man of the Decembrist circle, was Chatsky - a hero who bequeaths to us love for the Fatherland, a noble desire for truth, love of freedom and the desire to serve people.
Essay on the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
Essay text:
We are talking about the immortality of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". This is not a catchphrase. Comedy truly is immortal. For several generations now, we, readers and viewers, have been drawn into a caring dialogue with her characters, which sounds both excited and modern. I think that a comparison of the two main characters is just as modern, because it allows not only a deeper understanding of the ideological and artistic features of the work, but also a better understanding of the significance of the characters’ images for revealing the eternal value meanings of life.
Of course, we have a basis for comparing the two most striking characters of the comedy - Chatsky and Famusov. What is its essence? Yes, in that both live in the same turning point in the development of Russian society, both, by their social origin, belong to the aristocratic elite, that is, both images are typical and socially conditioned.
It would seem that what can unite such dissimilar characters! Still, Famusov and Chatsky have some similarities. Let's think about it: both of them are typical representatives of their environment, both have their own ideal of life, both have a sense of self-esteem.
However, the differences in these characters, of course, are much greater than the similarities. Where does it manifest itself most clearly? Let's take a closer look at the heroes.
Yes, Chatsky is smart. “He is not only smarter than all the other people,” Goncharov notes in the article “A Million Torments,” “but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.” Chatsky’s mind sparkles in his passionate monologues, in his apt characterizations, in his every remark True, we are mostly convinced of Chatsky’s free-thinking, but we can only guess about other aspects of his mind. But this free-thinking is the main thing that Griboyedov values in him.
The smart man Chatsky is opposed to fools, fools and, first of all, Famusov, not because he is stupid in the literal, unambiguous sense of the word. No, he's smart enough. But his mind is the opposite of Chatsky’s. He is a reactionary, which means he is a fool from a socio-historical point of view, because he defends old, obsolete, anti-people views. He is a fool because he has not been touched by enlightenment with its lofty ideas of goodness, humanism, and the ennobling influence of knowledge on man. As for Famusov’s “free-thinking”, it is only enough to grumble at the “vagrant” teachers, as well as fashionistas - a natural detail of his entire lordly, patriarchal essence.
Chatsky and Famusov. How else do these characters differ? Yes, at least because both heroes have ideals, but how opposite they are!
Chatsky’s ideal is everything new, fresh, bringing change. This is an image that reliably embodies the personality traits of a civilian person.
What is Famusov’s ideal person? His ideal is Uncle Maxim Petrovich, a nobleman of Catherine’s time. In those days, as Chatsky put it, “not in war, but in peace, they took it head on, hit the floor, without regret.” Maxim Petrovich was an important gentleman, he ate on gold, “he rode forever in a train”; “When do you need to help yourself, and he bent over.” It was in this way that he gained weight, was “promoted to rank” and “gave pensions” at the court of Catherine II.
Famusov also admires Kuzma Petrovich:
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich...
Famusov strives to imitate such people; he considers their methods of obtaining ranks and money to be the most correct.
Distinguishes the main characters and their attitude to activity, to service, and slave morality.
Chatsky, of course, is from the breed of activists. He served. The scope of his recent activity causes envy in Molchalin, regret in Famusov, perhaps even some envy. After all, Chatsky ended up there, in St. Petersburg, closer to the “ministers”, where, it is possible, Famusov would like to go at one time. Chatsky’s credo in this matter is: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” Chatsky is outraged by serving persons rather than business, veneration of rank, and nepotism.
What is service for Famusov? Fulfilling civic duty? No, service for him is only a means of receiving awards, ranks and money. Famusov’s official affairs boil down to signing papers prepared by Molchalin. As a typical bureaucrat, Famusov is not interested in the contents of these papers; he is mortally afraid of only one thing: “So that a lot of them do not accumulate.”
Boasting of his “custom,” he says:
And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
Famusov is not at all embarrassed by the fact that he reduced all official duties to signing papers. On the contrary, he boasts about it smugly.
The heroes have different attitudes towards education. Chatsky is a humanist. As a patriot, he wants to see his people enlightened and free.
It is worth noting that for Famusov, enlightenment is a danger that threatens the usual foundations of life. Famusov speaks with hatred:
“Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There have been crazy people, deeds, and opinions..."
Chatsky's anti-serfdom ideology is manifested in his high assessment of the character and moral qualities of the enslaved people. In contrast to the slanderous statements of the feudal landowners about the serf peasantry, Chatsky speaks of a vigorous, intelligent, that is, in the phraseology of the Decembrists, a freedom-loving people.
Famusov is an avid serf owner. He scolds the servants, without mincing words, “donkeys”, “chumps”, calls them nothing more than Parsleys, Filkas, Fomkas, without regard to the age or dignity of the person.
Once again I think about the characters of the main characters in the comedy. What is the point of comparing Chatsky and Famusov? Why are they opposed to each other in the play?
In my opinion, comparison is an excellent technique through which the ideological and artistic features of a work are revealed, the author’s intention and his attitude towards the characters becomes much clearer.
Obviously, to some extent, the Famusovs are also necessary in life, because they bring healthy conservatism, stability, and traditions into society, which cannot be avoided. But the flower of society is always the intelligentsia, which excites society, appeals to its conscience, awakens public thought, and thirsts for something new. Such a noble intellectual, a man of the Decembrist circle, was Chatsky - a hero who bequeaths to us love for the Fatherland, a noble desire for truth, love of freedom and the desire to serve people.
|
|