Social problems in the comedy Woe from Wit. The problem of the mind in the comedy "Woe from Wit"

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 enlighteners 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.” contemptuously throws out: “You can’t faint with your learning...”. And Sophia asks from her position (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Chatsky arrives early in the morning at Famusov’s house not at all in order to enter into battle with outdated views or pronounce loud monologues.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 with 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 is, for example, 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 win him over to his side: “You should learn by looking at your elders...” And he even 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 actors. 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.

If homework on the topic of: » “Woe from Wit” – Issues and main conflict If you find it useful, we will be grateful if you post a link to this message on your page on your social network.

• Latest news

• Categories

• News

• Essays on the topic

  Chatsky and Famusov society. (3) I read the magnificent comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”. It was created by the author over eight

  Reversible and irreversible chemical reactions. Chemical equilibrium. Shift in chemical equilibrium under the influence various factors 1. Chemical equilibrium in the 2NO(g) system

  Niobium in its compact state is a lustrous silvery-white (or gray when powdered) paramagnetic metal with a body-centered cubic crystal lattice.

  Noun. Saturating the text with nouns can become a means of linguistic figurativeness. The text of the poem by A. A. Fet “Whisper, timid breathing...”, in his

There are cases in the history of art and literature when just one work makes its author immortal. A.S. Griboedov forever entered literature with his socio-political comedy “Woe from Wit,” which shows the spiritual life of Russia after Patriotic War 1812, the contradictions between the “present century” and the “past century.”

Ethical and philosophical views of A.S. Griboyedov are already reflected in the title of the comedy. A person who thinks about the rational structure of society and does not accept reactionary views has a difficult time among those who understand intelligence as “the ability to live.”

The main conflict of the work unfolds between Chatsky and Famus society. It reflected the struggle between two social forces: progressive liberal nobles and reactionary serf-owning nobles.

A.S. Griboedov satirically depicts noble-bureaucratic Moscow and, more broadly, Russia. Despite the commonality of many features (selfish interests, lack of high morality, low level of education, fear of enlightenment), each image embodies a specific specific historical type.

Famusov personifies the “past century.” He is a wealthy landowner and a major official, who, however, does not burden himself with service (“what’s the matter, what’s not the matter is signed, so off your shoulders”). Perceiving the service as his own patrimony, Famusov surrounded himself with relatives and acquaintances:

When I have employees, strangers are very rare,

More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children...

How are you going to present yourself to the cross?

to the place, how can you not please your loved one!

Famusov is a hypocrite and a hypocrite. The ideal of Famusov’s entire entourage is Maxim Petrovich, who, despite his gray hair, fell several times in front of the empress to amuse her, which earned him royal favor. Famusov is ready to give his daughter in marriage to anyone, as long as he has money and power. He sees his son-in-law even in the rude and ignorant martinet Skalozub, whom Chatsky aptly described as “a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas.” Skalozub reveals his dreams:

...to get ranks, there are many channels...

I just wish I could become a general.

And, without feeling cynicism, he is glad that

The vacancies are just open;

Then the Elders will turn off others,

The others, you see, have been killed.

The entire Famus society is afraid of enlightenment, seeing it as a threat to its own foundations. Famusov is sure that “learning is the plague, learning is the cause” of all troubles; he is echoed by the princess, scolding the pedagogical institute and professors; Skalozub would like the lyceums and gymnasiums to teach “our way: one, two,” he “can’t be fooled by his learning,” and he will give “a sergeant major like Voltaire” to those who conduct philosophical debates. The views of this society were expressed by Famusov:

...To stop evil,

Collect all the books and burn them.

The younger generation is represented in the play by the images of Chatsky, Molchalin, Sophia and Lisa. This is absolutely different types young people who differ in their moral concepts.

Molchalin personifies the lower part of bureaucratic Russia. His portrait is described in one phrase: “here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words.” He has two talents that he is proud of - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin is one of those who achieves a career by being able to stroke the pug of an influential lady at the right time, and play cards (dying of boredom) with old men. This is a sycophant, a hypocrite who follows the rule:

...At my age one should not dare

Have your own opinions.

Such Molchalins support the foundations of Famus society.

One of the most complex in the play is the image of Sophia. As noted by A.S. Pushkin, “it is written unclearly.” Quite educated and smart, she prefers Molchalin to Chatsky. Without being evil and cruel, she hurts her childhood friend and slanders him, declaring him crazy. Her actions are contradictory. This is probably because some features of her character (independence, freedom of judgment) were formed in adolescence under the influence of Chatsky, but after his departure she found herself at the mercy of a conservative society, which instilled in her its own moral code. It can be assumed that Sophia does not love Molchalin, but has created an ideal in her imagination. Chatsky is right when he says that by admiring him, you gave him darkness of your qualities.

Objectively, Sophia also finds herself in the Famusov camp, defending its foundations.

Famus society is opposed by Chatsky. A young educated man returns to Moscow after a three-year absence, driven by a romantic impulse to serve the Fatherland, “the smoke of which is sweet and pleasant to us.” He is an honest, noble man with a sharp mind. It pains him to see that hypocrisy and ignorance still reign, that in Moscow “the houses are new, but the prejudices are old.” His patriotic feeling offends the spirit of “blind, slavish, empty imitation” of everything foreign, admiration for the empty “Frenchman from Bordeaux.”

Chatsky’s moral concepts - independence, self-esteem (“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”), integrity - are in irreconcilable contradiction with morality Famusov society. His monologue “Who are the judges?” - denunciation of the conservatism of the “fathers of the fatherland”, who live according to the laws of the 18th century, “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea.” They are enemies of freedom, serf owners who value the lives of peasants at nothing, exchanging their devoted servants for dogs.

Chatsky has an ardent character, which is manifested in his romantic love to Sophia, and in his harsh assessments of others. The image of Chatsky is given in development. He first overcomes socio-political illusions, and then his love hopes are destroyed. According to I.A. Goncharov, Chatsky experiences “a million torments” before he “sobers up completely.”

Although the play was written a year before the uprising, the image of Chatsky embodied many features of the moral character and social views of the Decembrists. In the play itself there are hints that Chatsky is not alone in his views on existing society. These are off-stage characters - Skalozub’s cousin: “the rank followed him, ... he suddenly left the service,” “he began to read books in the village”; nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Prince Fyodor.

The realism of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is expressed in the fact that Famus’s society defeats Chatsky, although, undoubtedly, the playwright’s sympathies are on the side of the hero. But real circumstances did not allow for a positive outcome.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” was an original, vibrant work that has not lost its relevance today. Chatsky’s unusually lively language, specific and apt statements led to the fact that many lines of the play became aphorisms. Sometimes, using expressions such as “ Happy Hours they don’t observe”, “The legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe”, “To have children who lack intelligence”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”, “In more numbers, at a cheaper price”, the speaker does not even know the source catchphrase. These phrases organically entered into colloquial speech, becoming truly popular.

Comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedova reflected the sentiments of the progressive nobility of Russia first quarter of the XIX V.

additional literature

Goncharov I. A. A million torments.

Lebedev A. A. Griboedov: Facts and hypotheses. M., 1980.

Meshcheryakov V.P. The life and deeds of Alexander Griboedov. M., 1989.

Fomichev S. A. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” A comment. M., 1983.

Heroes and problems of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

Searched on this page:

• problems in the comedy woe from mind
• woeful problems
• problems in grief from mind
• comedy problems woe from mind
• problems from mind

The problem of “Mind” in Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

Griboyedov worked on his comedy “Woe from Wit” in the late 10s and early 20s of the nineteenth century. These were significant years in the history of Russia. The Patriotic War of 1812 had just ended in victory. This victory confirmed the will of the Russian people for freedom and independence, their ardent love for the Motherland. People hated autocracy and serfdom, which interfered with economic and cultural development countries.
After the Patriotic War, many secret political societies, whose members were revolutionary-minded nobles, ready to fight despotism and tyranny. Future Decembrist societies were born in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Young revolutionaries fought for the rights of their new era, defended new beliefs and opposed a society that was still faithful to the old foundations and lived according to the orders of the old times.
This is the historical situation that Griboedov reflected in his sharp and apt comedy “Woe from Wit.”
In Chatsky’s conflict with the Famusov camp, he showed the struggle of two opposing social forces: the revolutionary nobles and the serf-owning nobles.
It was in this conflict that Griboyedov revealed the theme of “mind.” Observing the development of the struggle, we recognize the Decembrist in the image of Chatsky. He represents a young, ardent mind, who, with his sincerity and honesty, replaced the “notorious scoundrels,” scammers and sycophants, “sinister old women” and old men operating in Famus’s world.
For them, the concept of mind as such does not exist with the meaning that Chatsky puts into it, as long as all sorts of “trouble” does not accumulate, and the goals and desires are only to “be rewarded!” take it and have fun."
The problem of the “mind” of Griboyedov’s comedy is what is valuable for Chatsky, what is valuable for Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub.
In Chatsky’s passionate accusatory speeches, there is clearly a challenge to the dirty world of “sycophants” and “businessmen.” He sees the future of Russia in enlightenment and understands that with contempt for the sciences, for the Russian people, which reigns in Famus’s world, the country will not receive any development.
The social conflict of the comedy is represented by a clash of minds: the mind of Chatsky, thirsty for change and improvement, and the mind of the Famusov and Molchalinsky world, faithful to the foundations of the time.
Feudal society repels Chatsky largely because of his intelligence. Advanced thoughts are not recognized in this world. For them, Chatsky, who “wants to preach freedom” and “does not recognize the authorities”, is a “dangerous person”, “crazy in everything” and
obsessed, Sophia, who previously loved Chatsky for his intelligence, now says to him: “...Will such a mind make a family happy?”
Famusov, recognizing Chatsky’s intelligence, however, believes that he is worthy of regret:
And he writes and translates nicely,
It’s impossible not to regret that with such a mind...
Chatsky is no longer able to bear all this, he is forced to leave Moscow: “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore.”
So, we see that the mind of the protagonist, his progressive aspirations place him outside the circle of the Famusovs, the Silents and the Skalozubs. This is precisely what the internal development of social conflict in comedy is based on: the best features, best qualities Chatsky is made into Famus’s world first as an “eccentric”, “ dangerous person” and in the end just crazy. "So what? Don’t you see that he’s gone crazy?” —
Famusov exclaims confidently at the end of the curtain.

Lecture, abstract. Issues and ideological meaning Comedy A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” - concept and types. Classification, essence and features.

The problem of the mind in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" is key. The name itself testifies to this. Speaking about comedy, its themes and figurative system, this problem must be considered, perhaps, the very first. The problem of intelligence and madness has always been relevant. Smart, progressive people of their time were declared crazy and often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries. Ideas that went against the grain and were preached advanced people modern times, 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.”

The concept of the play was not originally the same as it appears to us today. Griboyedov created many versions of his work. “Woe to Wit” implies the oppression of Chatsky, who becomes an outcast in Famus society. “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.

Despite its primitiveness, it bears wonderful fruits. All members of Old Moscow society, without exception, act according to the same scheme, which is not explicitly formulated in the work, but lies on the surface. If we remember that Maxim Petrovich for the sake of good position acted, in fact, as a jester (“He fell painfully, but got up healthy”), and Silklin’s “philosophy” (“At my age, one should not dare to have one’s own judgment”). To begin with, the formula for success requires respect for rank. You must grovel before everyone who is higher in rank than you (most of the “large” off-stage characters look like demigods). Sooner or later, this will lead the one who previously “took the world head on,” “knocked on the floor without regret,” as Chatsky put it, to power, and then the newly-minted “ big man“has every right to humiliate those below him. Chatsky cannot afford this, he values ​​his honor, dignity and intelligence too much. That is why he has “woe from mind” - he only suffers by not accepting the ideas of Famusov and his like-minded people.

But in fact, “woe” from Chatsky’s mind not only to himself, but also to Famus 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. If there are many people like Chatsky, then Famus society will suffer a final and crushing defeat.

So, “Woe from Wit,” despite 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 and highly educated people as Chatsky. And Famus society looks something deathly pale and dying in its attempts to resist this.

Main character has not yet appeared in Famusov’s house, but the idea of ​​​​madness is already hovering there, associated with a negative attitude towards education and enlightenment. 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 the same 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 a more suitable match for Sophia:

"A respectable man and a character
picked up the darkness of difference,
beyond his years and enviable rank,
not today, tomorrow 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, they should live “as the 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.

By 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 “by virtue of his position” and calms down 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 accepted in Famus society, when they strive to “recruit regiment teachers, in larger numbers, 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 Sophia also has a mind, but a practical one. This is a typical girl of her time and class, drawing her mind from French sentimental novels. And she chooses Molchalin as her husband, in order to eventually make him “a boy-husband, a servant-husband,” and at the same time is guided by worldly wisdom, since she is the true daughter of her father and her time.

There is another type of mind in comedy. We see him with Lisa, the maid in Famusov’s house. She expresses author's position and 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 people, your father is like this: he would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks,” and so on . Undoubtedly, Lisa is naturally smart and has the worldly wisdom of a commoner; she is devoted to her Sophia, but at the same time resourceful and cunning.

So, starting from the worldly wise and ending with the advanced, progressive mind, various types of mind are presented in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”. Declaring Chatsky a social madman and forcing him to leave