The ideological meaning of the comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, serfdom, represented by Famusov, Skalozub, Khlestova, Molchalin and the new, progressive; in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. The struggle of the “present century” with the “past century” is Chatsky’s struggle, advanced person of his time, and the backward Famus society. The idea of comedy is revolutionary: denunciation of obscurantism, abolition of serfdom, honor in the mind, personal freedom.
Most representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of civic thoughts and interests. These are people devoid of a sense of humanity, enemies of freedom, oppressors of enlightenment, their main desire is “to take all the books and burn them.”
Demonstrating in the comedy "Woe from Wit" the socio-political struggle of the conservative and progressive camps, social characters, morality and life in Moscow, Griboyedov reproduces the situation of the entire country. "Woe from Wit" is a mirror of feudal-serf Russia with its social contradictions, the struggle between the outgoing world and the new one that won. Comedies by A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe of Wit" is an expression of the ideas of the first stage of the Russian liberation movement.
Satirically denouncing the local and bureaucratic nobility, A. S. Griboedov saw the emergence and growth of new, progressive aspirations and ideas. Thus, Skalozub complains to Famusov that his cousin neglected the rank that followed him, left the service and “began reading books in the village.” Princess Tugoukhovskaya says that her relative, who studied at the pedagogical institute, “doesn’t want to know the ranks!” Famusov, referring to the widespread prevalence of freethinking, calls his time a “terrible century.”
Awakening national identity embodied in the image of Chatsky. He stigmatizes ignorance, denounces the nobility and acts as an ardent propagandist of science, education, and art. Deeply believing in the correctness of his ideas, Chatsky is convinced that his dreams will come true, that the future belongs to new people.
In the comedy, the conflict ends with the general recognition of Chatsky as crazy, and the love drama ends with the exposure of the love affair led by Molchalin. Chatsky’s madness is convenient and beneficial to society, because it gives its representatives some chance of justification. At the end of the play, Chatsky feels abandoned by everyone, and his feeling of alienation from society intensifies.
Denouement love drama influences the main conflict: Chatsky leaves all contradictions unresolved and leaves Moscow. In a clash with Famus’s society, Chatsky is defeated, but, losing, he remains undefeated, since he understands the need to fight the “past century,” its norms, ideals, and life position.
The author shows in the play the generation of future Decembrists who are imbued with love for their homeland and the people; they are revolutionaries who fight against moral violence against individuals.
In the clash between the ardent lover of truth, Chatsky, and Famusov’s world, a gulf became apparent, separating the democratically minded intelligentsia from the bulk of the feudal lordship.
|
|
|
|
The main problem of Russian literature is the problem of “Personality and Society”, as well as the search for ways to restructure society on more humane, democratic principles, “how can a person achieve happiness and prosperity” (L.N. Tolstoy) and why he does not achieve it.
For the first time this problem was posed as the main problem by the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, a novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” and the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Their heroes turn out to be unclaimed by society, “superfluous”. Why is this happening? Why are three different authors considering the same problem almost at the same time? Does this problem belong only to the 19th century? And finally, what is the main way to solve this problem?
1. Time: its hero and antihero.
To understand more deeply ideological content comedy "Woe from Wit", its socio-political issues, it is necessary to evaluate the characteristic features historical era reflected in the play.
The heroic war of 1812 is behind us. And the people who won it, who won freedom for the Fatherland with their blood, are still enslaved and oppressed in this Fatherland. Dissatisfaction with the injustice of state domestic policy is brewing in Russian society. In the minds of honest citizens, the idea of the need to protect not only their rights, but also the rights of the lower class, is growing stronger. And in 1816 (the estimated date of the start of work on the comedy), the first secret organization of future Decembrists, the Union of Salvation, was created in Russia. It included people who believed that the restoration of social justice was their historical and moral duty.
Thus, Russian society took the step that causes enormous power inertial movement. But no real changes occurred in Russia, and the main obstacle to the transformation was the strong authoritarian government - the Russian absolute monarchy.
This form of government was perceived by Europe and enlightened Russians as an anachronism. It is no coincidence that the demand to limit autocracy, to introduce it into the framework of the law and the constitution, was voiced at the European Diet of 1818, where Emperor Alexander I was present. The Tsar gave solemn assurances. Europe expected changes in Russia. But Russian society, already tired of believing, was skeptical about the sovereign’s promises.
The Emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the “French infection.” He could make promises in the European Diet, but at home he did not take real steps. Moreover, domestic politics took repressive forms. And the discontent of the progressive Russian public was gradually maturing, for Arakcheev’s firm hand brought external order to the country. And this order, this pre-war prosperity, of course, was joyfully welcomed by people like Famusov, Skalozub, Gorichy and Tugoukhovsky.
2. Chatsky and time.
The comedy is structured in such a way that only Chatsky speaks on stage about the “present century”, about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spiritual and political freedom. He is the one "new Human", which carries within itself the “spirit of the times”, the idea of life, the goal of which is freedom. His ideological beliefs were born of the spirit of change, that “present century” that they tried to bring closer best people Russia. “His ideal of a free life is definitive: it is freedom from all... the chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - to focus on the sciences “a mind hungry for knowledge”, or to freely indulge in “creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom to serve or not serve, live in a village or travel…” - this is how I.A. explains. Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments”, what content Chatsky and people ideologically close to him put into the concept of “freedom”.
The image of Chatsky reflected the delight that Russian society experienced when it felt itself to be a historical figure, the winner of Napoleon himself. This is something new that has appeared in the social life of Russia, which has become the key to future transformations.
Chatsky not only connects all the lines of opposition in the play, he becomes the very reason for its movement and development. His personality and fate are fundamentally important for Griboyedov, because Chatsky's story is a story about the fate of truth, sincerity, authentic life in a world of substitutions and ghosts.
2.1. Alexander Andreich CHATSKY
The image of Chatsky reflects the features of the Decembrist era of 1816-18.
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. First of all, he wanted to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland, he wanted to serve it honestly. But the state, it turns out, does not need selfless service; it only requires servitude. Three years before the events described in the comedy, Chatsky, “shed with tears,” broke up with Sophia and went to St. Petersburg. But the brilliantly started career was cut short: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” And Chatsky leaves the capital. He tries to serve the Fatherland differently: “he writes and translates nicely.” But in a totalitarian state, the question of “to serve or not to serve, to live in the countryside or to travel” goes beyond the issue of personal freedom. The personal life of a citizen is inseparable from his political convictions, and the desire to live in his own way, contrary to the norm, is in itself a challenge. For three years Chatsky was abroad (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: love for the Motherland, 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 him before. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, suppression of personality that reigned in this society before the War of 1812.
Chatsky’s position on the most pressing and significant problems of our time is not at all determined by the desire to destroy or destroy something - just as he did not come to Famusov’s house to denounce. The hero came to people who had always been family to him, returned with the desire to love and be loved - but as he is, cheerful and mocking, sharp and not always “convenient,” but he is no longer needed here.
2.2. Chatsky's first monologues
After a long absence, Chatsky is again at Famusov’s house and meets Sophia. He had been waiting for this date for a long time. The excitement is so great that he does not immediately find the right words to express your feelings, and the literary cliche comes to mind: “... I’m at your feet.” Chatsky is so excited that he even admits some tactlessness. He says that Sophia did not meet him the way he expected. He tries to explain the coldness of the meeting by the suddenness of his appearance. Chatsky is in a hurry to find out if Sophia was waiting for him, if she was thinking about him.
The abundance of verbs, questions, and exclamations conveys the confusion of the hero’s feelings and the depth of his experiences. Thought runs into thought, speech is confused and intermittent. From the present, Chatsky turns to those joyful and not-so-distant days when he and Sophia were alone. Chatsky lived with these memories during his travels. However, the coldness of the meeting cannot temper Chatsky’s delight. Sophia is in front of him. She's beautiful. And he will tell her about how he was waiting for this meeting:
More than seven hundred versts flew by - wind, storm;
And I was completely confused, and fell how many times -
And here is the reward for your exploits!
This monologue shows the hero’s openness, his sincerity, youthful excitement, the strength of feelings, the high culture that we feel in his speech. Chatsky knows folk speech very well: hence his language has colloquial sayings and idioms. At the same time, Chatsky’s speech is also rich in literary expressions. This organic fusion of folk and book speech gives special expressiveness and flexibility to his language.
2.3. Chatsky and Famusov society
While Chatsky traveled for three years, society did not stand still. It was not just a relief to return to the worries and joys of peaceful life. It developed in itself “resistance” to those ripening changes that threatened to crush this peaceful life.
Famus’s world stands as a thick wall on the path of real transformations, the inhabitants of which “care” only for their own “little man” and see as the ultimate dream “a hundred people at their service”, “an enviable rank” and similar benefits. Yes, Chatsky, endowed with the temperament of a fighter, actively opposes Famus society. But does he see his real opponent when he denounces Famusov, Skalozub, and the ballroom crowd?
Chatsky understands well who he is dealing with, but he cannot help but speak: he is forced to such a conversation, he responds to the “blow.” Monologue “Who are the judges?”- this is one of those scenes that make the comedy closest to the ideology of the Decembrists. She takes the reader out of the narrow circle of Famusov’s world and points out what happened in Russian society during the “dead pause” of the reign of Alexander 1, between 1812 and 1825, she talks about the “transformations” that took place in Russian society during this time.
One of these transformations is crushing, vulgarization of the military person. For Chatsky, the army is the most important force called upon to defend the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Such an army makes a person who belongs to it truly strong and whole, proud of his consciousness of belonging to a common cause. Such were once Chatsky recalls their army training, recalls the time “when from the guard, others from the court came here for a while...”, the time of his own “tenderness” for the military uniform - that is, directly following the victories of the Russian army over Napoleon. The current army of parades cannot evoke in the hero any feelings other than shame even for his then childhood hobby.
Another transformation is strengthening women's power. "Dead pause" in the reign of Alexander 1 after Patriotic War The year of 1812, when they expected a response to the victory of the heroic people, first of all, with the abolition of slavery, was filled in Moscow with the semblance of female power” (Yu. Tynyanov).
And one more transformation: heroic war 1812, in which Griboyedov took part, has passed, its immediate tasks are over. Expectations that in response to the exploits of the people the fall of slavery did not come true. A transformation has begun: businesslike, insinuating, timid Molchalin has already appeared to replace the heroes of 1812.
Chatsky is unable to take him and his “talents” seriously. Meanwhile, this “most pitiful creature” is not so insignificant. During Chatsky's absence, Molchalin took his place in Sophia's heart; it was he who was the happy rival of the protagonist. And this is just the beginning. Chatsky's personal defeat does not exhaust his future drama. The words thrown at him: “Silent people are blissful in the world!” turn out to be prophetic.
Molchalin’s intelligence, cunning, resourcefulness, ability to find the “key” to every influential person, absolute unscrupulousness - these are the defining qualities of this hero. Qualities that make him the anti-hero of the play, Chatsky’s main opponent. His life attitudes, beliefs, and entire system of moral values are opposed to Chatsky’s moral code, ideas and ideals. And in this Molchalin is no different from the entire Famus society. What distinguishes him is something else: strength.
In his assessments of civic duty, service, the army, serfdom, education and upbringing, the authorities of the past, patriotism and imitation of foreign models, Chatsky speaks out, in essence, against only one thing: the substitution of the actual content of such concepts as Fatherland, duty, patriotism, heroism, moral the ideal, free thought and speech, art, love are their pathetic imitation. He is against all possible forms of depersonalization of a person: serfdom, “uniform”, foreign fashion, outdated concepts of “the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea”, “obedience and fear”.
2.4. Gossip about madness
The guests are just getting ready, and Chatsky is already suffocating among them. Finding himself next to Sophia, Chatsky reports on the new low qualities of her chosen one Molchalin and goes “to that room” because he no longer has the strength to restrain himself.
Sophia, once again offended by Molchalin, deals Chatsky the most terrible blow: “He is out of his mind.” These words instantly become not only the property of Famusov’s society, Famusov and his guests immediately believed the rumor because they were prepared for it. Sophia starts the rumor carefully, deliberately, with the goal of making Chatsky a laughing stock, to take revenge on him for his arrogance and barbs towards others (including Molchalin), because, in her opinion, he is “not a man, a snake!” By starting a rumor about Chatsky, she perfectly imagines society's reaction to him, given the public mood. Chatsky is rejected by society as something alien, incomprehensible, and does not merge with it. The schadenfreude with which the news is discussed is an indicator of the public mood; thanks to the rumor, the moral conflict of the play is revealed. Griboyedov masterfully depicts the process itself - fleeting, growing, avalanche-like, taking on specific forms: the first person to whom Sophia informs about Chatsky’s madness is a certain G.N.; he conveys the news to the equally faceless G.D.; the latter - to the famous chatterbox Zagoretsky. Unlike G.N. and G.D., who received the news with some doubt, Zagoretsky, without doubting for a second, immediately declares:
A! I know, I remember, I heard,
How could I not know, an example case has come out;
His uncle, the rogue, hid him in the insane...
They grabbed me, took me to the yellow house, and put me on a chain.
G.D. stunned by such an outright lie. Zagoretsky, in turn, reports the news to the Countess-granddaughter, who, it turns out, “she herself noticed” signs of madness in Chatsky, and then to the Countess’s grandmother, who pronounces the verdict: “Ah! damned Voltairean!” Khlestova is amazed by the hero’s irreverence, Molchalin’s opinions about the service are strange, for Natalya Dmitrievna madness seems like “advice ... to live in the village.”
An empty, absurd rumor spreads “nimbly,” as everyone finds their own justification for this “nonsense.”
And now everyone is talking about it. To the question of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich: “Who disclosed it first?” - his wife Natalya Dmitrievna replies: “Oh, my friend, that’s it!” (although Famusov attributes this “discovery” to himself). And if that’s all, that means it’s already the so-called. public opinion:
Fools believed it, they passed it on to others,
The old women instantly sound the alarm -
And here is public opinion!
It rules the show. At the end of the play, Famusov, having caught Sophia in the company of Chatsky and Lisa, pours out his anger on his daughter and the maid, and Chatsky is threatened with further consequences of the rumor:
...and this is your last feature,
That every door will be locked:
I will try, I will ring the alarm bell,
I'll cause trouble for everything around the city,
And I will announce to all the people:
I will submit it to the Senate, to the ministers, to the sovereign.
After all, the version of Chatsky’s madness should distract “Princess Marya Aleksevna” from another rumor - about his daughter Sophia. Famusov has well mastered the ancient custom of spreading rumors and fables in order to divert attention from another event (“ringing bells”). The phrase "lost my mind" varies in different meanings. Sophia said: “He is out of his mind” - in the sense in which Chatsky himself had said earlier that he was going crazy with love. Mr. N. gave it a direct meaning. Sophia picks up this idea and affirms it in order to take revenge on Chatsky. And Zagoretsky reinforces: “He’s crazy.” But when the signs of Chatsky’s madness are mentioned, another meaning of this phrase is revealed: crazy, that is, a freethinker.
And then the causes of madness are established. Zagoretsky plays a special role in spreading gossip - he moves the conversation about the reasons for Chatsky’s madness into the realm of fabulous assumptions. Gradually, gossip becomes more widespread and reaches the point of grotesquery.
Countess grandmother:
What? To the pharmazones in the club? Did he become a Pusurman?
The arguments in favor of Chatsky's madness that Famusov and his guests put forward make them themselves ridiculous, since facts are given that actually prove his normality.
About what? About Chatsky, or what?
What is doubtful? I'm the first, I opened it.
I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try the authorities, and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
So he will call you a scoundrel.
Thus, the main sign of Chatsky’s “madness,” in the understanding of Famusov and his guests, is his free-thinking.
While gossip about his madness was spreading, Chatsky ran into a Frenchman from Bordeaux and the princesses in the next room.
Inflamed by this fight, Chatsky appears in the living room at the moment when the development of gossip has reached its climax.
2.5. Monologue “There’s an insignificant meeting in that room...”
What is Chatsky talking about in this monologue? About the Frenchman from Bordeaux, about the Russians exclaiming: “Ah! France! There is no better region in the world! new way- and morals, and language, and holy antiquity, and stately clothes for another according to the clownish model,” and just like at a meeting of a secret society, he asks - exclaims:
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...
These are again exactly the same thoughts for which he was just declared crazy...
While Chatsky is speaking, everyone gradually disperses. The last phrase of the monologue remains unsaid: Chatsky looks around and sees that everyone is spinning in the waltz with the greatest zeal...
The Famus world brought against Chatsky everything it had at its disposal: slander and complete ignorance of him as a person - an intelligent person was denied intelligence.
2.6. Denouement - monologue “I won’t come to my senses, it’s my fault...”
In the last monologue, as nowhere before, Chatsky’s public and personal dramas, his “Million Torments,” merged together. He will speak soulfully about the strength of his feelings for Sophia, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places” cooled in him. He “breathed”, “lived”, “was constantly busy” with these feelings. But everything is crossed out by Sophia...
Chatsky finds scathing words about Sophia’s surroundings, a stay in which is destructive for an honest and thinking person: “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!”
Literary critic Fomichev sees the meaning of Chatsky’s last monologue in the fact that the hero “finally realized his opposite to Famus’s world and broke with it: “Enough!.. with you I’m proud of my break.”
3. A new type of person in Russian literature.
Chatsky – new type person acting in the history of Russian society. His main idea is civil service. Such heroes are called upon to contribute to social life meaning, to lead to new goals.
For Russian critical thought which has always represented literary work as an illustration of the history of the liberation movement, this is a socially significant person deprived of a field of activity.
Griboyedov was the first in Russian literature to show the “superfluous person” and the mechanism of his appearance in society. Chatsky is the first in this row. Behind him are Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Bazarov.
One can imagine the future fate of such a hero in society. The most likely paths for him are two: revolutionary and philistine.
Chatsky could have been among those who went out on December 14, 1825 Senate Square, and then his life would have been predetermined for 30 years in advance: those who took part in the conspiracy returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856.
But it could have been something else - an insurmountable disgust for the “abominations” of Russian life would have made him an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - melancholy, despair, bile and, what is most terrible for such a hero - a fighter and enthusiast - forced idleness and inactivity.
Already in the very title of the comedy “Woe from Wit” (1822 - 1824) a significant contradiction is reflected. For Enlightenment philosophy, intelligence and happiness were perceived as synonymous. The basis of the beliefs of the Enlightenment was the belief that the enlightened mind is the arbiter of the destinies of mankind. This found a vivid expression in Pushkin’s “Bacchanalian Song” (1829): “So false wisdom flickers and smolders // Before the immortal sun of the mind.” But in the 20s of the XIX century. in conditions of serious social contradictions, the most insightful thinkers began to understand that the powers of reason would face difficult tests. This is what happens in Griboyedov's comedy.
It is no coincidence that the theme of the mind (learning, knowledge) is touched upon by almost all the characters in the comedy. And immediately a sharp contrast emerges. For Chatsky, the highest value is “a mind hungry for knowledge”; for Famusov, “Learning is a plague...”. Repetilov is convinced that “an intelligent person cannot help but be a rogue.” Skalozub contemptuously throws out: “You can’t faint with your learning...”. And Sophia, already from her position, asks (knowing the answer in advance): “Why look for intelligence?” and “Will such a mind make a family happy?”, which determines its place in the system of images. Chatsky, a pious believer in the power of the mind, notices with horror that no one understands him - and does not want to understand that the mind brings him not joy, not happiness, but grief. This debate about the mind is fundamentally important in comedy, because it touches on an issue that has acquired socio-political significance. Thus, from the very beginning, a sharp division appears: the inert Famus society, which thinks primarily about the usual values: money, career, position in the world, and Chatsky, who is an expression of the ideals of the Decembrists, educators according to his fundamental convictions. This conflict is outlined immediately; it unites two storylines in the play: personal, psychological, associated with Chatsky’s love for Sophia, and socio-political.
Chatsky arrives early in the morning at Famusov’s house not at all in order to enter into battle with outdated views or pronounce loud monologues. He is in a hurry to see his beloved girl. But it turns out that the hero’s love is doomed to failure - and not just because Sophia does not reciprocate Chatsky’s feelings, but also for another reason: there is nothing in common that would connect the hero with her world. Chatsky and representatives of Famus’s circle (not excluding Sophia) think, say, and act differently. In Act II, Chatsky talks to Famusov about Sophia. We are talking about matchmaking, that is, about things that seem to be of a purely family, everyday nature. But this conversation instantly turns into an open debate about life, economics, worldview, and finally politics. Thus, the difference in human characters and psychology is defined by Griboedov as fundamentally opposite life positions, direct antagonism in value orientations.
In "Woe from Wit" there is a constant, direct and fierce struggle between two camps. It would seem that Chatsky is alone in this struggle. However, if you carefully read the text, it turns out that he also has like-minded people, people close to his views.
This, for example, is Skalozub’s cousin, who suddenly left the service, although he was about to receive another rank. He “got a strong grip on some new rules” and “began to read books in the village.” In the same row is Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, who “does not want to know the ranks”, but is engaged in science. Academician M.V. Nechkina, who paid a lot of attention to the problem of Chatsky’s camp, drew attention to Sophia’s words about the hero of the comedy: “I am especially happy with friends.” Consequently, he has friends, he has his own camp, on behalf of which he speaks here, in Famusov’s house: “Now let one of us, one of the young people, be found...” The plural here is far from accidental. Chatsky clearly speaks not only on his own behalf: “Where, point out to us, are the fathers of the fatherland, // Which we should take as models,” etc. And Famusov, in turn, does not mean only Chatsky alone when he exclaims , talking about Maxim Petrovich’s sycophancy: “Huh? what do you think? in our opinion, he’s smart.”
It is significant that representatives of Famus’s world very quickly find the appropriate political terminology that defines Chatsky’s position in the social struggle of the era. They compare him with figures of the European liberation movement. From Famusov’s point of view, he is a Carbonari, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, he is a Jacobin. And even the deaf countess-grandmother immediately found the appropriate term: “Oh, damned Voltairian.”
Conflict manifests itself in everything: in the definition of value human personality, both in relation to the people and in the understanding of patriotism. For Chatsky main value a person lies in his civil service to the Motherland. For Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, the ideas of the good of the Fatherland simply do not exist. It’s enough to remember with what taste and pleasure they talk about awards, chips, insignia - about anything, just not about business: “And what I have to do, what’s not my business, // My custom is this: // Signed, so with off your shoulders." The conflict is ideological, conscious in nature. Chatsky preaches his ideas, but Famusov also diligently strives to instill in his interlocutor his view of food, to attract him to his side: “You should learn by looking at your elders...” And even Molchalin tries to teach Chatsky: “You should go to Tatyana Yuryevna at least once.” ..."
System of images. At the center of the comedy’s image system is, of course, Chatsky. His views, thoughts, actions, character are revealed not only in monologues, but also in relation to Sophia, Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin. And they, in turn, manifest themselves in contacts both with Chatsky and with each other. Thus, to complete the picture of Famusov, it is necessary to take into account both his self-characteristics and relationships with other characters. The result is an idea of a living, multifaceted human character. Famusov is shown both as a father, and as an important Moscow gentleman, and as a hospitable host. But he has main feature, giving his image the necessary integrity and unity. He finds support in the unshakable foundations consecrated by antiquity. Famusov is a conservative by conviction, by nature, by habit, finally. Everything that threatens this system threatens him personally. Therefore, Famusov passionately and convincingly defends not just everyday life and morals, but also the ideas of the old world, defending its indispensable attributes: careerism, sycophancy, servility, unprincipledness, immorality.
Without being officially published, the comedy "Woe from Wit" becomes one of the most popular works in Russia, and above all in the circle of the Decembrists. This was not at all accidental: problems The comedy fully corresponded to the ideological and moral aspirations of the Decembrists. Griboedov did not become a member of the secret society of Decembrists, although he was very sympathetic to many Decembrist ideas and was also in opposition to the government. It is no coincidence that the Decembrists highly appreciated the accusatory pathos of the comedy and perceived it as a poetic declaration of the ideas of Decembrism. However, a special quality of Griboedov’s comedy turned out to be that the depth of its content became more and more noticeable with the passage of time. On the one hand, the comedy was illuminated by the tragic reflection of the Decembrist uprising and revealed the fundamental depth of the concrete historical conflict. In the clash between the ardent lover of truth, Chatsky, and Famusov’s world, a gulf became apparent, separating the democratically minded intelligentsia from the bulk of the feudal lordship. Griboedov's comedy became a vivid artistic document of the Decembrist era. Thus, the plot basis of "Woe from Wit" is a conflict expressing the main content of its time - the collision of the “present century” and the “past century”.
the main idea of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is revolutionary : denunciation of obscurantism, abolition of serfdom, honor according to the mind, personal freedom. Griboedov himself realized this great idea, which is why the great Russian poet took off his hat to the dead Griboedov. At this moment, Pushkin bowed to the future freedom of our Fatherland!
As a truly great national and people's writer, Griboyedov posed and resolved in his work the main, most important questions related to the life and destinies of the Russian people. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" played an outstanding role in the socio-political and moral education of several generations of Russian people. She armed them to fight violence and tyranny, meanness and ignorance in the name of freedom and reason, in the name of the triumph of advanced ideas and true culture.
The brilliant mind of the author of the work, embodied in Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, the main character of the comedies, is merciless towards the stupid and overweight inhabitants of the Moscow “society”, mired in lazy idleness and nostalgia. enlightenment, humanism. Its representative is Chatsky, who for the first time in our literature challenged the society of serf owners and conservatives.
The action of Griboyedov's play develops rapidly. Choosing for the plot .classic “love triangle” and preserving the traditional form of comedy (the action takes place in one place - Famusov’s mansion for one day. And the circle characters constant). Griboedov immediately makes it clear to us: personal intrigue gives way to a conflict of a different kind - social. Nevertheless, Sophia’s “secret” is revealed to Chatsky only in the finale, until which he still hopes for something. Who knows, without this hope, he would have come into conflict with Famusov. Skalozub and the like. would he express what he thinks about them?.. But he did it. His monologues, however, are still warnings, they are still just words, but what words!
The conflict develops all the more interestingly because what is purely external at first glance is a trifle (a remark from an irritated Sophia is a typical reaction of a spoiled creature) is immediately picked up by those around him and inflated to social proportions. Chatsky’s madness is convenient and beneficial to society, because it gives its representatives some chance of justification. “Dangerous dreamers” like Chatsky too unceremoniously tear off the masks of hypocritical prosperity. And now Famusov is no longer there. a respectable official and a loving father, not a hospitable and hospitable host, but a ruthless serf owner, an enemy of enlightenment. The owner of a brilliant colonel's uniform, Skalozub, is a stupid martinet, the "witty" Repetilov is an empty talker, and Zagoretsky, who is always needed by everyone, is an arrogant swindler. And around them are crowds of ghosts like the Grandmother Countess and the Tugoukhovsky princes...
Griboyedov idealizes his hero, whose sincere monologues are somewhat long, and their wit scares rather than convinces the listeners gathered at Famusov's. But Chatsky’s words were actually heard in our literature for the first time! And not just boldly, ardently, but smartly, deeply
At all times there were and are. there will probably be their own Griboyedovs and Chatskys. Wazir-Mukhtars, who, first of all, thanks to their brilliant and far-sighted mind, become prophets in their fatherland. As a rule, this violates the established social order, the “natural” course of things, and society comes into conflict with the individual.
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" the writer reflects the clashes of two camps: the camp young Russia, presented by Chatsky and the camp cruel serf owners , presented by Famusov, Skalozub, Khlestova, Molchalin and others. This conflict is not an artistic invention of the author of the work, he shows in the play the generation of future Decembrists who are imbued with love for their homeland and people, they are revolutionaries who fight against moral violence against individuals. In the work, Chatsky opposes this. He is the son of Famusov’s late friend, grew up in his house, was brought up and studied together with Sophia. Chatsky is an educated man, engaged in literary work: “He writes and translates nicely,” served in military service, had connections with ministers, was abroad for three years, this enriched him with new views, broadened his horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. The struggle between Chatsky and Famusov's society is becoming increasingly fierce; it turns into Chatsky's personal drama, the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness. If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the time of serfdom, then Chatsky speaks with indignation about the serf owners, about serfdom. In a monologue “Who are the judges?” he angrily speaks out against the order of the Catherine century, dear to Famusov’s heart. Chatsky’s ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and “hunter of indecency,” but independent, free personality . For Famusov, the ideal is Skalozub, who views service as a source of personal benefits. Chatsky breaks ties with the ministers, leaves the service, because he wants to serve the Motherland, and not serve his superiors. “I’d be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!” - he says. Chatsky - for the development of Russian culture. He himself “searched for intelligence” during his stay in the West, but he is against empty, meaningless, blind imitation of foreigners. Chatsky defends freedom of speech and thoughts; he believes that every person has the right to express his opinion. In the comedy, Chatsky is forced to fight on his own. But among the off-stage images like-minded people who share his views are mentioned. The comedy does not end with the defeat of Chatsky, although he is declared crazy, readers do not get the impression that he is defeated. He leaves Moscow to join members of a secret society in order to continue the fight for the liberation of the people from serfdom.
The problem of the mind in the comedy of A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit" is key. The name itself testifies to this. Speaking about comedy, its themes and figurative system, the problem of mind and madness has been relevant at all times. Smart people were declared crazy and often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries. advanced people of its time. Ideas that ran counter to generally accepted ones and preached by leading people of our time were persecuted. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov touches on this problem in his work. The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written before the December uprising and tells the story of society's reaction to the emergence of advanced intelligence in Russia. The original title of the comedy was “Woe to Wit,” then the author replaced it with “Woe from Wit.” "Woe from Wit" makes us think about whether Chatsky needs intelligence at all in such a situation, and we understand that this intelligence makes the hero himself feel bad. That is, the problem becomes two-sided. But in fact, "woe" from Chatsky's intelligence is not only for him himself, but also to Famusov’s society. Education and enlightenment deal an irreparable blow to old Moscow. We see that Chatsky alone quite frightened everyone present at Famusov’s evening, and only with their numbers they were able to oust the “foreign body” from their circle. , like Chatsky, there will be many, then Famus society will suffer a final and crushing defeat. So, “Woe from Wit,” with all the complexity of the problem, gives us hope for “enlightenment at the end of the tunnel,” so to speak, in the person of such smart people. highly educated people like Chatsky. And Famus society looks something deathly pale and dying in its attempts to resist this. 44 The image of Chatsky, a patriotic citizen
The creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit” came at a turning point in the history of our country. After Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, the young generation of nobles who participated in this war saw that the defeated peoples of Europe were in better position than the Russian people. It became clear that Russia needed urgent reforms, and as a result of this, various secret societies of future Decembrists began to emerge. Griboedov knew all these attitudes of young people and understood the need for reforms. And it was precisely this theme of the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century” that formed the basis of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” The main character of the play is Alexander Chatsky. In his image, the writer embodied the features of a leading man of that time, the features of the Decembrists from Griboedov’s circle of acquaintances. Chatsky is a man of new views, a true citizen and patriot. He is an enlightened person, striving for freedom and self-improvement. He is distinguished by such features as love for his people, criticism of serfdom, and patriotism. Chatsky refuses to serve the state, saying: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served” - and seeing in the service only servility, veneration and sycophancy. However, Chatsky is not alone in his desires for change! In his monologues, he uses the pronoun “we,” thereby emphasizing that there are many people like him. And indeed, Princess Tugoukhovskaya recalls her nephew, who, one might say, followed in the footsteps of Chatsky: Therefore, we still have hope that Russia will still come to some positive changes. Chatsky defends his views by entering into a dispute with the whole society, and not with its individual representatives. He is a fighter calling for the reign of justice, the abolition of serfdom and the destruction of the patriarchal way of life. Chatsky always speaks clearly, passionately and passionately, and his monologues show the absolute irreconcilability of the positions of two hostile sides: “the present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is convinced that he is right and does not need the support or approval of others. He is simply trying to convey to people the essence and need for reform in their lives. Therefore, we can say for sure that Chatsky embodies those thoughts and ideas that were characteristic of the progressive people of that time - the Decembrists.
The main thing is those public relations that existed in Russia. Serfdom was hated by every free-thinking person. Chatsky is depicted in the comedy not just as a “desert sower of freedom,” but as a future Decembrist: With anger and pain, he denounces ardent serf owners in his monologues. Chatsky is a humanist, defender of freedom and independence of the individual. He is especially angry at the landowners’ bullying of the peasant’s personality: Chatsky loves people , calls him “kind and smart,” hence his suffering about the fate of the people. The vices of Famus society especially make Chatsky suffer. This society slows down everything progressive and blocks its path to the people. They especially hate enlightenment: The fact that society fiercely resists the influence of noble ideas deals a blow to Chatsky’s philosophy and adds to his torment. These people see the ideal in the army. This is a product of the era of Arakcheev, who saw the army as a stronghold of serfdom. Serfdom and the throne rest on the skalozubs, which is why they are so dear to the Famus family and hated by Chatsky. The tailcoat of a foreigner also evokes admiration, which is also painful for Chatsky to see. Chatsky opposes “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” But when Chatsky utters these words, everyone is convinced that he is crazy. The image of Chatsky is the image of a citizen in the high sense of the word. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famusovs and Sillins with a high understanding honor and duty ; he is ready to serve the Motherland and its interests . “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served”. This also contains the hero’s suffering. High understanding of duty – bright side Chatsky's personality. The tragic collision between duty and feeling tragically ends everything in Chatsky’s soul.
He does not tolerate lies and injustice. Therefore, Alexander Andreevich sees his duty and calling in life in serving the Motherland. He is outraged by the traditions that formed in high society during these times. He does not like sycophancy, he prefers to “serve the cause, not persons,” and does not mix “fun or tomfoolery with business.” All this is not to Chatsky’s liking, so he angrily denounces the “noble scoundrels” (Famus society). Griboedov, through the image of Chatsky, wanted to show how he represents a true patriot of the Motherland. A person who has the courage to condemn high society, to speak out against the tsar and serfdom. Main character understands the danger of his too sincere speeches, but never deviates from the work he has begun. He knows exactly what he is fighting for and what his purpose in life is. He does not get lost in his speeches and actions. Chatsky fought for better changes in the lives of ordinary Russian people, for free life, independent of “noble scoundrels,” who are characterized by servility, sycophancy, hypocrisy and meanness. the image of Chatsky is intertwined with the very image of Griboedov. He is also brave and courageous, he is smart, he does not like the political structure of the country, so he boldly enters the battle for the future of his Motherland. There are few such people among the “Famus society” that was formed in those days. These are just a few people. The only thing that kept Chatsky in Famusov's house was his love for Sofia. After he realized that there are no mutual feelings between them, he decides to leave Moscow forever... Chatsky chose the word as his weapon. What precise, apt and merciless characteristics he gives to the Moscow rich: “their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable”, “... rich in robbery”, “... poured out in feasts and extravagance”! In accusatory monologues, Chatsky rises to high civil pathos. The hero is convinced that people should be judged not by their position and wealth, but by their business and moral qualities. Because of this, Chatsky is hated by society as new person. And society is taking its own measures to neutralize him - slandering him. Will it come to terms with Chatsky’s condemnation of the education system, when young people despise their people? national culture? He puts all the passion of his soul into denouncing “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” Chatsky dared to “publicly announce” his sound thoughts, but such people are hated in society, called “dangerous dreamers,” crazy. And wouldn’t they have treated Chatsky this way if he had been among our contemporaries? Until recently, all dissidents were declared crazy, put in psychiatric hospitals, expelled from the country, and imprisoned. Chatsky's grief is not only from the mind, but also from love. He found out that Sophia did not love him. But this grief can be overcome. If Sophia had fallen in love with another Chatsky, it would certainly have been hard and painful for Alexander Andreich, but he would have survived. What causes Chatsky the greatest suffering is that it was Molchalin who was able to become Sophia’s hero. This is where the tragedy lies. It’s scary that Sophia is in the crowd of tormentors, among those who persecute and curse. Chatsky realized that he was surrounded by enemies, and no one, not even his beloved girl, understood him. How many examples of such dramas can be observed today! After all, even now “silent people are blissful in the world,” they are loved because they know how to please everyone. For us, today, Chatsky remains, first of all, a Russian person who realized not only his national pride, but also the high moral tasks of a citizen. The time of Griboyedov is an era far from us, but the brave struggle of the patriot Chatsky against everything backward, vulgar and base in man and society evokes the sympathy and sympathy of the modern reader and viewer. Griboyedov's comedy helps our fight against sycophancy towards everything foreign, against such social phenomena, like careerism, money-grubbing, sycophancy/bureaucracy, servility, reminds of high moral concepts and goals worthy of a Russian person.
The problem of mind and madness has been relevant at all times. Smart, progressive people of their time often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries and were declared crazy. This is how society reacted to ideas that ran counter to generally accepted ones, ideas that were preached by progressive people of their time. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov touches on this problem in his work. His comedy “Woe from Wit,” written before the December uprising, tells the story of advanced intelligence and the reaction of society to it. The original title of the comedy was “Woe to Wit,” then the author replaced it with “Woe from Wit.”
The main character Chatsky has not yet appeared in Famusov’s house, but the idea of madness associated with a negative attitude towards education and enlightenment is already in the air there. So, Famusov says: “And reading is of little use.” Later, all the characters in the comedy will speak out on this matter, each will put forward their own version of Chatsky’s madness, but the whole society will unanimously come to one opinion: “Learning is the plague, learning is the reason.” The Famus society will get rid of Chatsky by declaring him crazy, not accepting accusatory speeches that stigmatize their way of life, and will choose gossip as a weapon. Famusov, as a typical representative of his society, has his own opinion regarding the mind and smart person.
For him, an intelligent person is a practical, worldly wise person. Although he does not deny Chatsky’s intelligence, he nevertheless considers Skalozub to be a more suitable match for Sophia: “A respectable man and has picked up many marks of distinction, beyond his years and an enviable rank, not today’s general.” In a conversation with Skalozub, the Moscow gentleman talks about the danger that comes from such wise men as Chatsky. In addition, Chatsky incorrectly uses the acquired knowledge. Everything should be aimed at achieving ranks, at maintaining traditions, we should live “as our fathers did.” Famusov puts forward his ideal of an intelligent person. In his opinion, this is Maxim Petrovich, who has reached high ranks and high position in society thanks to his practical mind, his ability to “bend over backwards” when it was necessary to “curry favor.” Famusov himself has not reached such heights, which is why he curries favor with the princes Tugoukhovsky and Skalozub. Molchalin, Famusov's secretary, also embodies a practical mind. This was noticed by Chatsky: Molchalin! – Who else will settle everything so peacefully! There he will pet the pug in time! It's time to rub the card in! By his nature, Molchalin is a petty person, striving by any means to achieve his cherished goal in life, the meaning of which boils down to “winning awards and having fun.” In his practice, he follows his father’s precepts - “to please all people without exception,” but at the same time he believes that “at his age he should not dare to have his own judgment,” since “he is in small ranks.” He loves Sophia “out of position,” and calms the angry Khlestova with a game of cards.
According to Chatsky, Molchalin “will reach the famous levels, because nowadays they love the dumb.” Chatsky is the complete opposite of Molchalin, despite the fact that they are both young. The hero has ardor, passionate nature. He is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his ideals, filled with civic meaning. He wants to serve “the cause, not the individuals.” For Chatsky, intelligence and truth, truth and honor are the main values in life. The hero opposes the upbringing adopted in Famus society, when they strive to “recruit regiments of teachers, more in number, at a cheaper price.” He is not alien to patriotic feelings, which is why he is irritated by “blind imitation” of everything foreign. Chatsky expresses his thoughts in accusatory speeches directed against the foundations of Famus society. His monologues, oratorical in style, testify to the education and enlightenment of the protagonist, which is why they contain so many aphorisms.
Chatsky’s mind is the mind of an advanced person, this is precisely the reason that the inert society does not accept his views and ideas, since they contradict the way of life of the old Moscow nobility. Chatsky’s love for Sophia is not accidental, because she also has intelligence. But Sophia's mind is practical. Sophia, as a typical girl of her time and class, draws her mind from French sentimental novels, which is why she chooses Molchalin as her lover in order to subsequently make him “a boy-husband, a servant-husband.” She is guided by worldly wisdom, because she is the daughter of her father. In comedy there is another type of mind that we can see in the maid in Famusov's house, Lisa.
As a second reasoner in a comedy, she expresses author's position, therefore, it is from her lips that we hear the characteristics of various characters: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, like Alexander Andreich Chatsky,” “Like all Moscow, your father is like this: he would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks,” and so on further. Undoubtedly, Lisa has the natural intelligence and worldly wisdom of a commoner; she is resourceful, cunning, but at the same time devoted to her mistress. Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” various types of minds are presented, ranging from the worldly wise to the advanced, progressive mind. But Famus society does not accept the progressive mind, rejects it, declaring Chatsky a social madman and forcing him to leave Moscow.
(1
ratings, average: 5.00
out of 5)
Essays on topics:
- “Woe from Wit” is a famous comedy by Alexander Griboyedov, familiar to almost every reader. Despite the fact that the work was first published...