The logic of an intelligent person, according to Chatsky, presupposes not just the ability to use already established living conditions and even not only education (which in itself is obligatory), but the ability to freely and impartially assess the conditions themselves from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they are do not correspond to common sense. So, being at the head of the scientific committee, it makes no sense to shout and demand "oaths so that no one knows and does not learn to read and write." How long can you hold out in such a position with similar views? Not only dishonestly, but really stupidly exchanged for the servants who saved the "life and honor" of the master, "three greyhounds", for who next time will save his life! It is senseless and dangerous to use material and cultural benefits without giving any access to them to the people, the very "smart, vigorous" people who have just saved the monarchy from Napoleon. It is no longer possible to hold out at court using the principles of Petrovich's maxim. Now it is not enough just personal loyalty and the desire to please - now it is necessary to be able to do business, since government tasks have become much more complicated. All these examples clearly show the author's position: a mind that only adapts, thinks in standard stereotypes, Griboyedov is inclined to consider it stupid. But the essence of the problem is that the majority always thinks in a standard and stereotyped manner. Griboyedov does not reduce the conflict only to the opposition of the minds inherent in people of different generations. So, for example, Chatsky and Molchalin can be attributed to the same generation, but their views are diametrically opposed: the first is a type of personality of the “present century” and even most likely the century of the future, and the second, for all its youth, is the “past century”, because he is satisfied with the life principles of Famusov and the people of his circle. Both heroes - both Chatsky and Molchalin - are smart in their own way. Molchalin, having made a successful career, having taken at least some place in society, understands the system that underlies it. This is quite consistent with his practical mind. But from the position of Chatsky, who is fighting for personal freedom, such behavior, conditioned by stereotypes accepted in society, cannot be considered smart:

I'm strange, not strange who is?

The one who looks like all fools ...

According to Chatsky, a really smart person should not depend on others - this is how he behaves in Famusov's house, as a result of which he deserves a reputation as insane. It turns out that the nobility, for the most part, as a force responsible for arranging life in the country, has ceased to meet the requirements of the time. But if we recognize the right to exist for the point of view of Chatsky, which reflects the positions of a smaller part of society, then it will be necessary to somehow react to it. Then it is necessary either, realizing its correctness, to change in accordance with the new principles - and many do not want to do this, but the majority simply cannot. Or it is necessary to fight against the position of Chatsky, which contradicts the previous system of values, which happens during the second, third and almost the entire fourth act of the comedy. But there is a third way: to declare the one who expresses such unusual views for the majority, crazy. Then you can safely ignore his angry words and fiery monologues. This is very convenient and fully corresponds to the general aspirations of the Famus society: to bother oneself with any worries as little as possible. It is quite possible to imagine the atmosphere of complacency and comfort that prevailed here before the appearance of Chatsky. Having expelled him from Moscow society, Famusov and his entourage, apparently, will feel calm for a while. But only for a short time. After all, Chatsky is by no means a lone hero, although in a comedy he alone opposes the entire Famus society. Chatsky reflects a whole type of people who have designated a new phenomenon in society and discovered all of its pain points. Thus, in the comedy "Woe from Wit" various types of mind are presented - from worldly wisdom, practical mind, to the mind reflecting the high intellect of a free thinker who boldly enters into confrontation with what does not meet the highest criteria of truth. It is to such a mind that "grief", its bearer is expelled from society and it is unlikely that it will be successful and recognized somewhere else. This is the strength of Griboyedov's genius, that showing events of a specific time and place, he addresses the eternal problem - not only Chatsky, who lives in the era on the eve of the "indignation on St. Isaac's Square", will face a sad fate. It is prepared for anyone who enters into a struggle with the old system of views and tries to defend their way of thinking, their mind - the mind of a free person.

Article menu:

The image of Alexander Chatsky successfully combined the features of the Byronic hero and the superfluous person. He is the herald of the new order, a man ahead of his time. That is why his personality is clearly opposed in the comedy to all other characters, and he is, in fact, lonely and misunderstood by his society.

Family, childhood and youth of the hero

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a hereditary nobleman, an aristocrat by birth. He was born in Moscow and from childhood was included in the world of high society so desired by many. Chatsky's parents died early, leaving their son a legacy of a significant estate.

Dear Readers! We suggest that you familiarize yourself with the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Alexander Andreyevich has no brothers and sisters - he is the only child in the family. Most likely, Chatsky did not have other relatives (even distant ones), since after the death of his parents, his father's friend, Pavel Famusov, is an official and a noble person in aristocratic circles and in Moscow circles in particular.

Chatsky lives in the house of Pavel Afanasevich for some time. Having matured, he sets off on an independent voyage. Apparently, Famusov was a good educator, since Chatsky has pleasant memories of him. Alexander Andreevich comes to Famusov's house full of positive thoughts and friendly intentions.

Chatsky is a member of the English Club - a club of gentlemen for aristocrats. The English club provided for a varied expression of social and political life. However, in general, it boiled down to card games and dinners. Apparently, Alexander Andreevich was not his frequent guest. At first, this was due to his age, later, Chatsky went abroad, which a priori makes it impossible to visit this club. At the end of the three-year term, Chatsky returns to his homeland, where the main events of Griboyedov's comedy take place.

Abroad, Alexander Andreevich gets the opportunity not only to be impressed by the peculiarities of the architecture and cultural heritage of Europe, but also to learn about the peculiarities of relationships between people, their social and social position.

Personality characteristic

Like any other aristocrat, Chatsky received a basic education, which included a basic concept of the arrangement of the world and the economy, was taught foreign languages ​​(in particular French, as the most common of all foreign languages). In addition, Alexander Andreevich was trained in dance and music - it was common for the aristocracy. On this, Chatsky's education did not end, but passed into the hypostasis of self-development. Alexander Andreevich actively learns the world and is engaged in independent study and deepening of his knowledge in one category or another. An active and inquisitive personality type and an inquisitive mind allowed Chatsky to accumulate a significant store of knowledge, thanks to which he became a philosopher without reaching gray hair.

Chatsky had previously served in the military, but he soon became disillusioned with a military career and resigned. Alexander Andreevich did not start civil service. She was of little interest to him.

He plans to devote his future life to the affairs of his estate. However, in the eyes of the public, such an act looks like an unthinkable action - others believe that an adequate person cannot do this, because it is thanks to these two types of activities that a young person can make a name for himself and earn authority in society - other activities, even if they are beneficial and do not contradict the rules and principles of morality are not accepted by others and are considered absurd.

Chatsky does not consider it a disadvantage to freely express his position - he thinks that this should be the norm in an educated society.

His speech is often sarcastic and ironic. Apparently, this is due to his open opposition to other representatives of society. He is a sincere person, Chatsky believes that it is necessary to tell people the truth - he does not accept guile and lies. Alexander Andreevich has a sensitive and sincere disposition. He is a passionate person, so it is difficult for him to contain his emotions.

Chatsky recognizes the need for science and art in human life. People who neglect their education and development disgust Chatsky.

He sincerely loves his homeland and is overwhelmed with the desire to improve the life of his people, not only at the level of the aristocracy, but also at the level of ordinary people.

Chatsky's life position and his conflict with Famusovsky society

Chatsky actively opposes the so-called Famusian society - a group of aristocrats united by the personality of his educator, an important official - Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. In fact, on the basis of this group of aristocrats, a typical situation in aristocratic circles is shown. Representatives of Famus society speak not of unique personalities, but typical ones, characteristic of high society. And their position is not exclusively theirs, but an everyday occurrence.

On our site you have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the comedy by Alexander Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”.

First of all, the difference between Chatsky and his vision from Famusov and his hangers-on lies in the attitude to business management and the peculiarities of moving up the career ladder - in the world of aristocracy, bribes and mutual responsibility decide everything - honor and pride have long been forgotten by high society. They are ready to admire people who serve and are ready to please their boss in every possible way - no one appreciates people who do their job well, professionals in their field, and this is very upsetting for the young man. To the special amazement of Alexander Andreevich, not only their own people take bribes, but also foreigners, for whom this is an unacceptable business.

The next stumbling block was attitudes to activities, as well as to science and art. In the vision of the aristocrats, only civil service or military service is worthy of attention and honor - they consider other types of activity second-rate and shameful for a person of noble birth. They subject ministers of science and muse to special hatred and persecution. This position is concluded, first of all, in the absolute disregard for education. Almost all representatives of the Famus society think that science and education do not bring any benefit, but only takes time and energy from people. They have approximately the same opinion about art. People who are ready to engage in science or art, they consider abnormal and are ready to ridicule in every possible way.

Chatsky also gives an unsatisfactory characterization to the landowners, analyzing their attitude towards the serfs - very often serfs for the nobility are nobody - they can be a commodity or a living toy in the hands of the aristocracy. This applies not only to people who have performed their duties in bad faith, but also to those who diligently serve their landowner. Nobles can sell their serfs and even exchange them for dogs. In general, Griboyedov, either personally or with the help of his heroes, never campaigned or criticized serfdom in general, as, incidentally, he was not a supporter of it. His criticism was directed not at the very construction of relationships, but at specific cases of cruelty and injustice on the part of landowners in relation to their serfs.

Chatsky and Sonya Famusova

Alexander Chatsky and Sonya Famusova were longtime acquaintances - they knew each other from childhood. After the death of Chatsky's parents, the girl actually replaced his sister - their relationship was always friendly and positive. As they grew older, they began to change, and love came to replace childhood affection and friendship. However, the novel was prevented from fully developing by Chatsky's trip and the fact that he left Famusov, which Sonya perceived not as a routine associated with Chatsky's achievement of a new stage in life - independent formation, but as a disappointment. In her opinion, Chatsky left their house because he was bored with life there.

On his trip, Chatsky took away not only fond memories of his teacher, but also falling in love with his daughter, Sonya. Upon returning home, he hoped to renew their relationship and develop it. Alexander Andreevich saw his future wife in the image of Sonya. However, immediately after his arrival, he was sharply upset in his intentions to marry the girl by her father, who believed that an exceptionally rich man who was ready to pursue his career could apply for the position of his son-in-law. Chatsky did not fit the criteria - he was wealthy, but not rich enough, and completely abandoned his career, which was extremely negatively perceived by Famusov. From that time on, children's admiration for Famusov gradually began to melt.

Alexander Andreevich hopes that the girl's feelings towards him are sincere, and they will be able to convince his father of the need for a wedding. Sonya reciprocates Chatsky, however, over time it turns out that his beloved is no better than her father. Her gratitude and reciprocity is just a game for the audience, in fact, the girl loves another person, and Chatsky was just fooling.

The annoyed Chatsky denounces the girl for her unworthy behavior and is sincerely glad that he did not become her husband, for that would be a sheer punishment.

Thus, Alexander Chatsky's image is generally humane and full of the desire to change the lives of the people around him for the better. He sincerely believes in the benefits of science and art, and people who pay attention to their development arouse interest and admiration in him. According to Chatsky, lies and self-interest should recede into the background, and goodness and humanity should take its place. People, in his understanding, should live guided by the laws of morality, and not by personal gain.

), belongs to the best part of the then Russian young generation. Many literary critics have argued that Chatsky is a reason. This is completely wrong! He can be called a resonator only insofar as the author expresses his thoughts and feelings through his lips; but Chatsky is a living, real face; he, like any person, has his own qualities and shortcomings. (See also Image of Chatsky.)

We know that in his youth Chatsky often visited Famusov's house, and studied with Sophia with foreign teachers. But such an education could not satisfy him, and he went abroad to wander. His journey lasted 3 years, and now we see Chatsky again at home, in Moscow, where he spent his childhood. Like every person who has returned home after a long absence, everything is sweet here, everything awakens pleasant memories associated with childhood; he gladly sorts out his acquaintances in his memory, in whom, by the nature of his sharp mind, he certainly sees funny, caricatured features, but does this at first without any anger and bile, and so, for laughter, for embellishment of memories: “a Frenchman, knocked out by the breeze ... ", and" this ... little black one, on the legs of cranes ... "

Woe from wit. Maly Theater performance, 1977

Going through the typical, sometimes caricatured sides of Moscow life, Chatsky ardently says that when

"... you will wander, you will return home,
And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us! "

In this, Chatsky is completely different from those young people who, returning from abroad to Russia, treated everything Russian with contempt and praised only everything that they saw in foreign countries. It was thanks to this external comparison of a native Russian with a foreign one that developed in that era to a very strong degree. gallomania, which so outrages Chatsky. His separation from his homeland, the comparison of Russian life with European life, only aroused an even stronger, deeper love for Russia, for the Russian people. That is why, having found himself again after a three-year absence in the environment of Moscow society, he, under a fresh impression, sees all the exaggeration, all the ridiculous aspects of this Gallomania.

But naturally hot Chatsky no longer laughs, he is deeply indignant at the sight of how the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" reigns among Moscow society only because he is a foreigner; indignant at the fact that everything Russian, national causes ridicule in society:

"How to put the European in parallel
With the national - something strange! " -

says someone, stirring up a general laugh of approval. Going, in turn, to exaggeration, Chatsky, in contrast to the general opinion, says with indignation:

“If only we could borrow from the Chinese
Wise their ignorance of foreigners. "
………………………
"Will we be resurrected when from the foreign rule of fashions,
So that our smart, kind people
Although by language he did not consider us Germans? " -

meaning by "Germans" foreigners and hinting that in society in that era, everyone spoke to each other in foreign languages; Chatsky suffers, realizing what an abyss separates the millions of the Russian people from the ruling class of the nobility.

From an early age, children were given a foreign upbringing, which gradually alienated the secular youth from everything that was native, national. Chatsky casually sneers at these "regiments" of foreign teachers, "in more numbers, at a cheaper price", who were entrusted with the education of young nobility. Hence - ignorance of their people, hence the lack of understanding of the difficult situation in which the Russian people found themselves, thanks to serfdom... Through the lips of Chatsky, Griboyedov expresses the thoughts and feelings of the best part of the then nobility, indignant at the injustices that serfdom entailed, fighting the tyranny of inveterate serf owners. Chatsky (monologue "Who are the judges? ..") vividly depicts pictures of such arbitrariness, recalling one master, "Nestor of the noble scoundrels", who exchanged several of his faithful servants for three greyhound dogs; another - a theater lover - who

“I drove to the serf ballet in many wagons
From mothers, fathers of rejected children ”; -

he made "all of Moscow marvel at their beauty." But then, in order to pay off creditors, he sold one by one these children, who portrayed "cupids and marshmallows" on the stage, separating them forever from their parents ...

Chatsky cannot calmly talk about this, his soul is indignant, his heart aches for the Russian people, for Russia, which he dearly loves, which he would like to serve. But how to serve?

“I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve,” -

he says, hinting that among the many government officials he sees only the Molchalins or such nobles as Famusov's uncle Maxim Petrovich.

Here, I am no longer a rider.
I'm running, I won't look back, I'm going to look around the world,
Where for the offended there is a corner!
A carriage for me, a carriage! "

In this stormy outburst of despair, the whole ardent, unbalanced, noble soul of Chatsky is visible.

Output: the views of Chatsky and Famus society are opposed to many issues, so their conflict is inevitable. In the play, there is a clash of incompatible views, ideas concentrated in the characters of Chatsky and Famusov. However, there are still issues on which the positions of Chatsky and Famusov are generally close: this is the attitude to the foreign, to the "Frenchization" of the way of Russian life, the feeling of patriotism.

5. How is "the bygone age" portrayed in the comedy? What is the author's position and how is it embodied? ("The Age Bygone" is depicted satirically.)
Teacher's word 1

The characters of the characters - representatives of the "past century" are shown satirically.

For example, the theme of women's diktat (diktat is a requirement imposed for immediate fulfillment) is played up, connected with the theme of doom, exhaustion of the "past century": degradation of will, energy, strength (men are satirically portrayed as "direct retired chancellors - in mind") ...

The satirical orientation of the depiction of the "past century" is also realized in the language of comedy. The confusion of foreign and colloquial words, inappropriately used military terminology, incorrectly constructed phrases, the characteristic "-s" (sir), cliches, clericalism, the use of words, the meaning of which is not known to the speaking critic - all this strengthens the criticism of the "present century."

Let us turn again to the first epigraph of the lesson: “25 fools for one sane person ...” Can we agree with the author and call all representatives of the Famus society “fools”? (Of course not. And first of all, one cannot say that about Famusov: his judgments are sometimes well-marked, witty, actions are deliberate - checking the homework of the 3rd group is a characteristic of Famusov.)

In the quoted words - "25 fools for one sane person ..." - there is undoubtedly a certain amount of Griboyedov's cunning, explaining the true complexity of the play's conflict in life. This is not about the confrontation between stupidity and common sense, but about different understanding of "mind".

In the work of Griboyedov, the word "mind" is encountered quite often, and it sounds both in the speech of Chatsky and in the speech of representatives of the Famus society.

The concept of "mind" in comedy is ambiguous. There are two types of mind: the mind in the understanding of Famusov and the mind in the understanding of Chatsky, or, in the words of Famusov, “mind in our way” and “mind in your way”. What content do Griboyedov's heroes put into these concepts? (Checking the homework of the 4th group.)
EXAMPLE ANSWER

Famusov's mind

Mind as understood by Chatsky

1. F a m u s about about very smart and l y d e m and: A? what do you think? In our opinion, he's smart. He fell painfully, got up well. 2. F a mus o v o m a d m R o z e: She was smart: a quiet disposition, rare rules. One thing does not serve her to honor: For an extra five hundred rubles a year She allowed herself to be enticed by others. 3.Famus about Chatsk about m: It's a pity, it's a pity, he is small with a head, And he writes and translates nicely. It is impossible not to regret that with such Scientists are a plague, scholarship is What's more important now than when, Crazy people divorced, and deeds, and opinions. Output: For Famus society, intelligence is the ability to make a career, achieve rank, live by the rule: “take awards and have fun living”. The mind of Famus society is a practical, everyday, resourceful mind.

1. Ch and c k and i p r about m M O l ch and l n and g about in about r and t s and r about n and e: Molchalin was so stupid before! .. Miserable creature! Have you really grown wiser? .. There is only little intelligence in him; But to have children Who lacked intelligence? 2.Chatsk and y about bum e: Now let one of us, Of young people, there is - enemy of quest, Requiring no seats no promotion, In science he will stick a mind hungry knowledge; Or God himself will stir up a fever in his soul To the creative arts, high and beautiful, - They immediately: - robbery! fire! And he will be known as a dreamer! dangerous! Output: Chatsky's mind is a mind associated with advanced views, with enlightenment, with the desire to seek benefits not for oneself, but for the motherland. For Famusov, this is the mind of a rebel, a "carbonarius", and Famusov does not assess Chatsky's actions in this way, not even his statements themselves, but precisely his mindset. That is why, in his perception, Chatsky's mind is madness.

6. What is the main reason for the social conflict of comedy? (Opposing views, ideas of heroes, different mindsets.)

7. The title of the comedy states the attitude of Griboyedov to his hero. It is no coincidence that the playwright changed the original title of the work - "Woe to the mind." What is the difference? (A change in the grammatical form of a word entails a radical change in meaning: woe (to whom?) To the mind - woe to an intelligent person, a bearer of the mind. In the original version, the name itself sounded like a sentence to every mind for all time. The final version aims at something completely different: grief ( from what?) - what are the causes of grief? So, already in the title, the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated.)

8. How do you understand the meaning of the title of the comedy "Woe from Wit?" (The mind of Chatsky (the mind associated with advanced views, with enlightenment, with the desire to seek benefits not for oneself, but for the fatherland, is a positive quality of personality!) Brings grief to him, makes him suffer.)
Teacher's word 1

We have already said that the Woe from Wit genre is a comedy. The preposition "from" brings a touch of irony to its title, deepening the idea of ​​the work. The question arises latently: "If Chatsky is so smart, why is he so unhappy?"

Chatsky's grief is not only that he is a stranger in the society in which he lives. The main character is bad first of all with himself, because he cannot but see what is happening to him and around him, and not think about it. It is Chatsky's mind that makes him suffer: the hero suffers because ... he thinks. Not only Griboyedov wrote about this, but also Pushkin: "I want to live in order to think and suffer." A few decades later, Dostoevsky will say: "Suffering and pain are a sign of a great heart." This idea of ​​the author was quite clearly and distinctly understood by I.A. Goncharov, when in the article "Million of Torments" he wrote that the role of Chatsky is "passive".

9. Why did Griboyedov abandon the original idea to create a play in five acts? Why is there only four acts in his comedy and there is no traditional denouement?

(Griboyedov could not know what specific features the struggle between the “present century” and the “past century” would acquire in the future (the time of the creation of the comedy - 1824), he only believed in the coming victory of reason, kindness, enlightenment.

That is why in the very plot-compositional structure of the play all this was involuntarily reflected - after all, its plot does not develop under the influence of the beginning or end of this struggle. The end was not yet in reality itself. Consequently, it could not be in the play, which realistically reflected the concrete forms of this struggle. The play in this sense ended as if in mid-sentence. A sharp, conflicting dialogue between Chatsky and Famusov was cut short. But it continues, it is projected into the future - this is a dialogue that always arises at the turn of eras, when changing worldviews ...) 1
V... Homework by groups- prepare for a seminar on the issues previously given on cards 14 and 15.

Card 14 (questions for group 1)

The mystery of Sofia Famusova

1. Who do you think Sophia is: a fellow-thinker of Chatsky or a defender of the mores of Famus society?

2. What is common in the attitude of Sofia and Chatsky to love? Why did Sofia prefer Molchalin to Chatsky?

3. Why, with all her positive qualities, the heroine not only dislikes Chatsky, but becomes his persecutor, hurts him more painfully than all others?

5. In the final scene of the comedy, Sofia turns to Chatsky with the words: "Don't go on, I blame myself all around ..." What do you think Sofia Famusova blames herself for?

6. Compare the three characteristics given by Sofia Famusova A.S. Pushkin, I.A. Goncharov and Yu.N. Tynyanov. Which one seems to you the most correct? Prove your opinion. Write down the quote of your choice in your notebook.

A.S. Pushkin in a letter to A.A. Bestuzhev (end of January 1825): "Sophia is not clearly drawn."

I.A. Goncharov: “... Sofia Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as it seems. ... She is, of course, the hardest of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets her "million torments".

Yu.N. Tynyanov believed that Sofia was the "main representative" of society, with whom Chatsky was "in opposition", the main culprit of the hero's "million torments".

Card 15 (questions for group 2)

Is Molchalin funny or scary?

1. Which of the heroes, why and until the end, managed to unravel Molchalin?

2. What is more in the characterization given to Molchalin by Chatsky - anger, bewilderment, rejection?

3. What is Molchalin as seen by Sophia and what is he really like?

4. What is the modernity of the image of Molchalin?

5. Can we say that even now “the silent people are blissful in the world”?

6. Compare different statements about Molchalin. Which one is closer to you? Give reasons for your thought. Write down the quote of your choice in your notebook.

DI. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself:“ I want to make a career ”and went down the road that leads to the“ famous degrees ”; went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother on the side of the road, call his beloved woman to the nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop his movement, he will keep walking and coming ... "

N.V. Gogol: “Molchalin ... a wonderful guy. Aptly captured this face, silent, low, while quietly sneaking into people, but in which, according to Chatsky, the future Zagoretsky is preparing. "

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin: “Oh happy, oh hundredfold blessed Molchalins! They silently, without haste, crawl from one period of history to another, without throwing a word of sympathy to anyone, but also without harassing anyone ... No one is interested in them, no one wants to know if they are doing something or just sit and beat thumbs up, no one trembles and does not revere them .. what a wonderful, blessed lot! "

F.M. Dostoevsky: "The special cynicism, the special devilry of Molchalin in his ability to impeccably pretend to be a saint."

IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko: “Our modern age has bred a myriad of Molchalins. Almost of all types of "Woe from Wit" this is the strongest, the most tenacious, the most sticky, the most productive ... Molchalin stayed on his feet for three quarters of a century. Chatsky could not destroy him. "

LESSON 32

YOUNG GENERATION IN COMEDY.

THE RIDDLE OF SOPHIA. CHATSKY AND MOLCHALIN
DURING THE CLASSES
... With such a soul we love!?.

A.S. Griboyedov
I. Word of the teacher.

The heroes, which will be discussed today in the lesson, belong to the younger generation in age, they live in the "present century." What are their views, ideals, aspirations? Why did they end up in the camp of the "past century"? To answer these questions, we will run a workshop lesson in which you will take notes of your main thoughts. As a result of the lesson, you will have accumulated material for the upcoming essay.
II. Discussion of questions of the 1st group("The Mystery of Sofia Famusova").
Teacher's word 1

Sophia is perhaps the most mysterious character in the entire comedy. Her name (translated from Greek - "wisdom") is the key to the secret of her character. The name "Sophia" (the author uses the spelling "Sophia" - high style) is traditionally for the Russian comedy of the 18th - early 19th centuries. (from Fonvizin to Pushkin), but Griboyedov violated the traditional positivity of the main character. Probably, this, to some extent, explains Pushkin's ill-will about her. Sofia Pavlovna is drawn not "not clearly", but rather unusual from the point of view of the canon (classicistic and even romantic): she is romantic and calculating at the same time. Pushkin, as a writer and poet, apparently was not attracted by the inconsistency in women: his positive heroines, starting with Lyudmila from the early, well-known poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila" and ending with the captain's daughter Masha Mironova, are solid and noble natures. His favorite heroine from "Eugene Onegin" - Tatiana Larina - will become the poet's "sweet ideal" precisely because of the integrity of her nature. We probably won't find a combination of positive and negative in Pushkin's heroines. That is why, in Sofia Famusova, Pushkin sees one-dimensionality, moreover negative, but this is more a matter of literary taste.
III. Discussion of issues of the 2nd group("Is Molchalin ridiculous or scary?")

Compilation of the table "What is Molchalin in the representation of Sophia and what he really is."
EXAMPLE VARIANT OF THE TABLE

What is Molchalin in Sofia's view?	What is Molchalin really like?
1. Respectful, timid, humble, quiet. 2. The romantic hero. 3. Selfless: "Molchalin is ready to forget himself for others ...", compliant, "the enemy of insolence." 4. "... born in poverty ..." 5. "And in my heart no misconduct ..." For Sophia, the soul is important, not wealth or rank; it seems to her that his soul of a little man can be loved.	1. Cynical, hypocritical, deceitful. 2. A notorious scoundrel. 3. Molchalin does everything only for his own benefit. 4. "Will reach the degrees of the known" (already now he "got" the rank of 8th grade, which gives the right to hereditary nobility). 5. Mental emptiness, immorality.

Teacher's word

One of our contemporaries 2 claims that the words of Molchalin "And now I am taking the form of a lover to please the daughter of such a person!" - it's a lie. Let's try to substantiate this idea.

The lie is that he does not act to please her, but at some stage he needs her in order to use her intercession, her location and go further for new brilliant victories, in order to "take rewards and live happily." Molchalin is a werewolf. And in this capacity, the hero is no longer funny, but terrible.
IV. Teacher's word.

The story of the stage interpretation of the role of Molchalin is interesting. The first performers of the role of Molchalin (DT Lensky, II Samarin, II Monakhov) clearly belittled this image, played it in a caricatured manner, which contradicted Griboyedov's assertion: “I hate a caricature, you will not find a single one in my picture”. In their view, Molchalin is a character with "petty passions," a sycophant.

An outstanding event on the Russian stage was the performance of the Maly Theater in 1938. In it the role of Molchalin was played by G.M. Terekhov. His Molchalin has endurance, will, intelligence; there is a hidden power in him; passions, greedy and tough, secretly rage in his chest. About such Molchalin - a poem by the modern poet F. Krivin:
Molchalins

The taciturn cannot be silent,

To lacquer, to stroke other people's dogs,

I can't get along with the bosses,

To knock on subordinates with a fist.

A process takes place in him secretly,

Invisible, but old and tenacious

Now he will get up, protest,

Will dispute everything that he considered indisputable,

Where is Chatsky, the hero of loud phrases,

That sounded enough!

But wait, listen

The hour will come

The time will come - Molchalin will speak!

No, it won't come ...

He knows their futility, -

All these phrases, heroism and bravado.

Silent is unbearable to be silent.

But he will be silent, bypassing all obstacles,

And tomorrow will be the same as yesterday

Keep your rebelliousness off limits.

When it's time to leave the stage,

The Molchalin is not served a carriage.
In the play (1962) of the Leningrad (now Petersburg) Bolshoi Drama Theater, staged by G.A. Tovstonogov, Chatsky was played by Sergei Yursky, Molchalin - by Kirill Lavrov. Lavrov-Molchalin clearly surpasses Chatsky in his insight, thoroughness, makes the opponent pass, is proud and confident in himself: he is not in the future, but already now "blissful" in the world, triumphing over Chatsky.

Such are the diverse stage solutions for this image of the Griboyedov comedy. They talk about the possibility of his different reading and interpretation, about his versatility and inexhaustibility, about the unfading genius of Griboyedov and the immortality of his creation.
Homework.

Prepare a reasoned oral answer to the question "Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?"

Each new generation reads the works of Russian classics in its own way. Griboyedov's comedy is no exception. It is in dire need of a modern reading. How do you make the comedy resonate with today's schoolchildren? How can you help ninth graders find their way to understanding the work? One of the options is to build a conversation about comedy in the technology of a pedagogical workshop, where learning, communication and creativity are combined.

The workshop is held in two stages, which are divided in time: the first part is the second lesson in comedy (depending on how the biography of the writer was studied), the second part is the penultimate lesson.

Students are asked in advance to keep records of their own and others' observations. This is one of the necessary conditions of work, since these records are the basis for the creation of subsequent oral and written statements.

Workshop on the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Characters of "Woe from Wit" on the pedestal of the monument to A.S. Griboyedov in Moscow.

Part I

The imaginary mind and the real mind

The first part of the workshop gives an opportunity to reflect on the concept of “mind” in different eras, to introduce different moral concepts into the vocabulary of students, and to make the problem personally significant.

I. Remember what an intelligent person you have met in your life.

1. Fill in by explaining what makes a person smart.
   An intelligent person is ...
2. Working in pairs:
   a) compare your definitions;
   b) offer a general definition of the mind;
   c) choose the antonyms for the word "mind".

Read aloud what happened and supplement your notes by listening to your classmates.

From student records

• A person with a large amount of knowledge and abilities.
• The one who first weighs everything, and then decides what to do.
• Not only knowledgeable, but also able to use their knowledge correctly.
• A person with well-developed thinking.
• Anyone who knows a lot of interesting things and can get out of a difficult situation.
• Smart and thinking outside the box.
• Prudent, knowledgeable, able to reason.
• A person with extensive life experience who thinks quickly.
• This is a strong personality who learns not only from his own but also others' mistakes.
• Who is endowed not only with knowledge, but also with reason, high spiritual qualities.
• With a large amount of knowledge, erudite.

The mind is: intelligence, reason, high development of intelligence, the ability to think out of the ordinary, common sense, rationalism, logic in actions.

Antonyms for the word "mind": stupidity, thoughtlessness, stupidity, little knowledge, unreasonableness, idiocy, stupidity, narrow-mindedness, narrow-mindedness.

II. The original title of the comedy is Woe to the Mind. Everyone talks about intelligence and madness in comedy. Let's reflect on the main characters of the comedy - Famusov, Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin.

(The class is divided into four groups. The teacher resembles the order of work in a group: everyone should be included in the work, and responsibilities should be distributed among the members of the group: someone takes notes, someone prepares to speak, someone prepares questions for the other group. )

Group assignments

a) After reviewing the illustrations for the comedy, choose the one in which your character is depicted most expressively and convincingly.
b) If your hero is smart, then try to prove it or disprove it (working with the text and your own comments).
c) Pick one scene that proves your point and act it out in faces.

During the performance of the groups, the listeners write down the main thing and write questions to the group or objections.

III. We continue to work in groups.

1. From the definitions of different concepts put on the desks, choose the one that, in your opinion, is associated with your hero. (Definitions of such concepts as "pragmatism", "conformism", "careerism", "prudence", "rationalism", "servility", "sycophancy", "opportunism" are offered.)
2. Discuss in the group and conclude from what point of view your character is smart. Who would think he was smart and why?
3. Speech from the group.

From notes in notebooks of different groups

Famusov

Mind is like mind. Famusov follows a “convenient” morality for himself in order to achieve rank and live in peace, to please someone.

Famusov's mind is an everyday, pragmatic mind, not inspired by lofty goals. It serves as a vehicle for career, opportunism, prosperity, deception. "Yes, an intelligent person cannot but be a cheat."

Sophia

Romantic idea of ​​life, striving for the ideal.

Lack of real views on things, I read French books. He sees what he wants.

But it's not for nothing that Chatsky loves her: she is somewhat equal to him (manner of speaking, exact characteristics).

Sophia has a “lively”, sharp mind, human dignity, sincerity.

Mind for Sophia is a guarantee of family well-being and happiness. She does not like Chatsky, since with his mentality and soul he does not correspond to her idea of ​​mind, happiness, and family.

Molchalin

"To please all people without exception." The mind of an immoral person, an obliging sycophant (pleaser).

Ability to win a place in life. An applied mind based on benefit.

Molchalin is a fool for Chatsky, but Chatsky is also a fool for Molchalin.

Chatsky

"Sharp, smart, eloquent." Everyone is talking about his lofty mind, “a mind hungry for knowledge”.

“Freethinking”; too smart - "got a lot of new rules, new ideas."

The concept of the mind includes a certain system of advanced ideas, beliefs, new views.

Chatsky is young, in love, annoyed, hot.

The mind turns into tragedy, loneliness. The comedy is called Woe from Wit.

IV. Formulate questions that still remain unanswered or that have appeared now. ( Questions are written on the board.)

Who is smarter - Chatsky or Sophia?
Why did Molchalin deceive Sophia?
If Sophia is smart, how could Molchalin mislead her?
Does Sofya Molchalina really love?
Did Sophia understand Chatsky, did she believe in his feelings?
What is Sophia's true character?
Who can be considered smarter - Chatsky or Molchalin?
Who's really smart?
Do stupid people need to prove anything? How to do it?
Chorus Why Chatsky could not change at least one person from the Famus society?
Why doesn't society accept bright people?
Maybe grief from love?
Why Chatsky, if he is smart, tried to instill his thoughts in Famus society?
If Chatsky treated people more gently, would his opinion be accepted?
"Woe from Wit" to whom: Chatsky or society?
Why is an intelligent person rejected by both society and his girlfriend?
Why does Griboyedov put smart people in a stupid position?

Explanation for the teacher. The questions are very different. They show that some of the students have an external understanding of the plot, someone comes to understand the conflict of the play, to the peculiarities of the genre, to a deep explanation of the hero from the point of view of the author, and not from his own. Questions allow you to go in the next lessons to the problems of comedy, to the peculiarities of the genre.

Homework. Written Job: Select one of the questions for the job title.

Part II

Is it grief for the mind?

Before the workshop is given individual homework: “My soul here is squeezed by some kind of grief ...” Find the scenes in which you can see that Chatsky's soul is “compressed by grief,” and what kind of grief it is. It is better to give this task to a strong student who will be able to combine the emotional level (grief from misunderstanding, lack of a soul mate, from loneliness) and the philosophical level of the question posed.

I. Chatsky says about himself: “The mind and the heart are out of tune”. Think if this has happened to you.

II.“Everything that he says is very clever ...” - wrote A.S. Pushkin about Chatsky. Let's take his thought into account. Look at the title of the comedy and ask questions about it. (Individually or in pairs.) Examples of questions: What mind grief? Can grief be wise? Where is grief visible? Whose grief? Why is the mind grieving? ..

III. a) Select the questions that the table material about the ideals of Chatsky and Famus society helps to answer. (Use the table from the homework assignment for the previous lessons.)

b) Chatsky's ideals characterize him as a person ... (continue the sentence).

c) In groups of four to six, read your answers. Prepare a general response from the group.

• Chatsky's ideals characterize him as a man of “lofty” thoughts about honor, duty, conscience, nobility, a man of a genuine, high mind, seeking truth and serving the transformation of life.
  
• He is strange to them, the Famus society does not suit his views on things.
  
• He rejects the very foundations of their lives. For Chatsky, they are immoral.
  
• On the one hand, Chatsky is terrible for them, they are afraid of him, on the other hand, they want to make fun of him, assert their superiority and create terrible gossip.

d) Let us supplement our observations with a direct statement on this score by the author. In a letter to P.A. Griboyedov wrote to Katenin (January 1825): “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person, and this person, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive, why is he a little higher than others”.

IV. Comparison of two points of view. A.S. Pushkin and I.A. Goncharov on the mind of Chatsky. ( Quotes are projected onto a screen or handed out to desks.)

A.S. Pushkin in a letter to A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, after Ivan Pushchin, who came to the exiled poet, read Woe from Wit to him, wrote: “In the comedy Woe from Wit, who is the clever character? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow who spent some time with a very intelligent person (namely with Griboyedov) and was saturated with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of the Repetilovs and the like ... "

In the article "Million of Torments" dedicated to "I Burn From Wit", I.A. Goncharov gave the hero the following description: “... Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is seething with intelligence, wit. He also has a heart, and at the same time he is impeccably honest. In a word, this person is not only smart, but also developed, with a feeling ... "

Assignment to groups. Think about what you agree with and what you object to. Try to substantiate your point of view. Formulate it and write it down.

From notes in notebooks

• Chatsky is wasting his energy, the Famus society is not able to understand him, they do not want and will not change ...
  
• “Throwing beads” is worth it, otherwise the best ideas will forever be left without an application. It is immoral to be silent ...

V. Read the sayings of literary scholars, looking for possible answers to unclear questions.

“Straightness, a certain naivety, the ability to fall into funny, from a secular point of view, positions are just as compatible with the behavior of a Decembrist, as are harshness, pride and even arrogance” (Lotman Yu.M. Decembrist in everyday life. Everyday behavior as a historical and psychological category).

“Mind” for Pushkin was not just a synonymous substitute for what could be called “intellectualism” - “mind” was also a moral category for him. At the same time, it was about the spiritual world, the spiritual appearance of a person as a whole, this is how personality was characterized ... ”(Lebedev AA Griboyedov. Facts and hypotheses).

“The logic of an intelligent person, according to Chatsky, presupposes not only the ability to use already established living conditions and even not only education (which in itself is mandatory), but also the ability to freely and impartially assess the conditions themselves from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions, if they do not correspond to common sense ...

... A mind that only adapts to what is already known, thinking in standard stereotypes, Griboyedov is inclined to consider it stupidity. But the essence of the problem is that the majority always thinks in a standard and stereotyped way ... ”(AL Krupchanov, AS Griboyedov).

“In Griboyedov's time ...“ the mind was understood broadly ”- as intelligence, enlightenment, culture in general. At that time, the concept of “smart”, “smart guy” was associated with the idea of ​​a person who was not just smart, but “free-thinking”, about a person of advanced political convictions, a bearer of new ideas - and even more definitely - about a member of a secret political society, a future Decembrist ”(Orlov V. , A.S. Griboyedov and his comedy).

Vi. A student's speech with individual homework on the topic "What grief is compressed by Chatsky's soul?" (The abstracts of the speech are recorded by the audience.)

Vii. Select and write down the title of your written work.

1. I agree with ... (Whose point of view is closer to me: A.S. Pushkin or I.A.Goncharova?)
2. "Yes, no urine: a million torments ..."
3. Write a few theses as a gift to a person writing an essay on the topic “Genuine mind and imaginary mind in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" ".

Some snippets of answers

• ... Chatsky wasted his time senselessly, not realizing that he simply “scattered beads” in front of the Famus society, where people are only interested in rank, wealth and entertainment. Nobody listens to him, does not understand ...
  
• Chatsky is a white crow ...
  
• People like Chatsky will never get enough attention, they will always be alone ...
  
• Chatsky alone realizes all the vulgarity and stupidity of society, he turns out to be superior to these people in intelligence, but the grief is that he is alone ...
  
• Chatsky is a sincere, decent, honest person, but he is not too smart, because he went to the Famus society with an "open visor", but he had to act differently ...
  
• He is ingenuous, "open soul" that he thought and said what he was very different from the Famus society, where everyone dodged, cunning and lied, proving his innocence, Chatsky very annoyed those around him. He turned out to be superfluous in this society ...
  
• He was in love, and therefore his feelings prevailed over reason, he was overwhelmed by emotions, he had “a mind and heart out of tune” ...
  
• Chatsky never declares that he is smart, and this only confirms that he is really smart ...
  
• Chatsky is quick-tempered, harsh, alone opposes society, which is obviously losing ...
  
• The grief is that an intelligent person tries to explain things completely incomprehensible to them to limited, not interested in anything new people ...
  Woe in Russian reality: the winner is always not the one who is smart, but the one who is cunning or rich. This is similar to the situation in our country ...
  
• Woe to the big mind, as it is never recognized and thrown out of society ...
  
• Woe to Chatsky's mind, as he wastes his strength and abilities in vain ...
  
• For Famus society, there is a different concept of mind and sanity, in their eyes love, wealth, education, service, ideals are seen differently. With their level of development, they simply cannot and do not want to understand a new person, therefore, in the Famus society, Chatsky is superfluous ...
  
• Chatsky is defeated, because he became disillusioned with Moscow, did not find love, could not change society ...
  
• Chatsky is not a winner or a loser, although he could not convince everyone that he was right, he did not go over to their side, but remained unconvinced ...
  
• I believe that Chatsky is the winner, since he "frightened" everyone with his intelligence and considerations, although the Famus society did not fully realize this ...
  
• In my opinion, Chatsky knew perfectly well who he was dealing with and with whom he was arguing; he understood the outcome and consequences of his speeches ... I believe that this is the act of the winner. He left, and they were left with their gossip, conspiracies. This is an example of the fact that society never accepts an intelligent person, but always remains in its empty and mundane life, which is based on material well-being ...

Reflection

Add one or two sentences, comprehend your condition at the last workshop: “What was important ...”, “When it was difficult ...”, “What did you like ...”

From recordings to reflection
What was important ...

• I could feel the tension in the air when we asked each other questions. Perhaps this was the most important moment of the work,because we learn to listen and hear and defend our opinions.
  
• It seems to me that the most important moment in the workshop was when we tried for a long time to prove that Chatsky is the smartest, and a slide with the texts of Goncharov and Pushkin appeared on the screen, and our argument turned the other way.
  
• It was important for me to understand what our hero is, to find answers to questions.

When it was difficult ...

• It is not so easy to defend our point of view, sometimes we cannot find a common language.
  
• There were many interesting ideas at the workshop ... it was difficult for me to understand Chatsky.
  
• I still did not understand what the true character of Sophia is.
  
• It was difficult for me when, during the performance, they tried to instill in me a different point of view, but I had my own, I was confused.
  
• The moment was uncomfortable when everyone interrupted each other, tried to express their opinion out of turn, because it was hard to concentrate.

What did you like ...

• In a group, you can get the opinion of others and contribute to the common cause.
  
• In the workshop, you understand what others want, their feelings, emotions, impressions.
  
• It's great when everyone can bring something new, memorable, fresh look.
  
• I liked that you can discuss other people's opinions and listen to comments about your work. In the group, you need to listen to the opinions of others, take into account the wishes and advice and in no case interrupt each other. This was not enough for our group.
  
• What I liked the most is that comedy poses questions that everyone can answer in their own way.
  
• The workshop allows you to freely express your thoughts.
  
• I liked that you can criticize the statements of others, even Pushkin.