Disagreements between Chatsky and Famusov. The main reasons for the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov society

Objective of the lesson: to understand how the author portrays the protest of progressive people of the first half of the 19th century against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of the autocratic serfdom system; cultivate an irreconcilable attitude towards inertia, injustice, hypocrisy, and meanness. This lesson uses differentiated, problem-based learning technologies.

Download:

Preview:

Literature lesson in 9th grade

Subject: Chatsky and Famusov – two worlds or two views? (Based on the comedy by A.S.

Griboedov "Woe from Wit".)

Target: Analyzing the text of act II of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of the landowners

Societies; use anger for educational purposes,

The writer’s irreconcilable attitude towards inertia, injustice,

Hypocrisy, meanness.

During the classes:

I.Organizational moment. Psychological mood of students.

II. Teacher's opening speech. State the topic and purpose of the lesson.

(Music sounds. “Waltz” by R. Barshai.)

“Worlds fly, years fly,” said the famous Russian poet of the early 20th century A.A. Block. One social formation is replaced by another, people and living conditions change. But there are values ​​to which the power of time does not apply. They are eternal, immortal. An example is the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

The topic of our lesson today: “Chatsky and Famusov - two worlds or two views? (Based on the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit.”).” Purpose of the lesson: to understand why Chatsky enters into an argument with Famusov; find out what an advanced person in Famus society has to fight with.

III. Individual student message.

Historical reference.

Let's see what the historical content of A.S.'s comedy is. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

IV. Work on new material.

1. Let’s see how the features of this era were reflected in the comedy “Woe from Wit.” Let us turn to phenomenon II of act II.

What was the reason for the verbal duel between Chatsky and Famusov?

(Chatsky’s question about Sophia, i.e. a personal question.)

2. I offer you questions of varying degrees of difficulty, and you choose for yourself those that you can answer. (A differentiated task is proposed.)

“4” What are Chatsky and Famusov arguing about?

“5” What is the social and moral position of both in this dispute?

(Chatsky’s dispute with Famusov, which turned into a real duel between the “present century” and the “past century,” began because of Sophia: Chatsky asks about her health - Famusov gets annoyed, since Chatsky, in his opinion, cannot be a suitable groom for Sophia With great skill, Griboyedov turns the conversation to social issues. To Chatsky’s words: “Let me get married, what would you tell me?” - Famusov responds with the proposal “not to fool around,” not to mismanage the estate, and most importantly, to go to work, for what? Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.” Chatsky is outraged by Famusov’s demands; he is not capable of giving up his convictions for the sake of love.

The motives of civic duty and service are widely deployed further in two monologues: Famusov and Chatsky, who express sharply opposing opinions. Famusov is a fan of the old order of service, obtaining places and ranks, Chatsky is an exponent of the view of service as the fulfillment of a person’s civic duty. He opposes hypocrisy, buffoonery, sycophancy, servility.)

3. We draw a conclusion. Why does Chatsky enter into an argument with Famusov?

(Chatsky does not share Famusov’s views on service; he contrasts the “past century” with the “present century.” Chatsky has a different view of society and the role of man in it.)

4. How do Famusov and others like him feel about Chatsky?

(For Famusov, Chatsky is a “carbonari”, a “dangerous person”; everyone condemns Chatsky.)

5. Work on Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?”

Let's see, who are these judges? To find out, let’s listen to Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?” But first, pay attention to words and expressions that you will encounter in the text and may not be clear to you.

Vocabulary work

The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea -that is, from ancient times. The capture of the Turkish fortress of Ochakov by Russian troops and the annexation of Crimea to Russia dates back to 1783 (≈ 40 years before the comedy was written).

Nestor – the name of a Greek commander (from Homer’s poem “The Iliad”). In the common sense, the name Nestor began to mean leader, leader.

Debtor. – In Griboyedov’s time, this word meant not only the one who owes money, but also the one who lent it (the creditor).

After listening to the monologue, you will need to answer the questions:

“4” What did you learn about the representatives of Famus society from this monologue?

“5” What is the nature of the monologue?(Accusatory.)

A recorded monologue performed by actor Tsarev M is listened to. Then the students' answers to the questions posed are listened to. The following are questions for everyone.

1) Do these people have the moral right to condemn Chatsky?

2) What kind of person does Chatsky oppose to this society?

3) How will Famus society react to such a person? Why?

4) With what feeling does Chatsky pronounce the monologue? In which lines is this most evident?

5) Can these people live in peace and harmony?

(Chatsky in his monologue is indignant at the fact that those who hate freedom, who draw judgments “from forgotten newspapers,” who cover their weakness and poverty of reason with an embroidered uniform are recognized as judges in society, role models.

Chatsky condemns the lack of movement, development, and progress in Moscow society. He talks about those who criticize new orders, new thoughts.

Chatsky angrily denounces the wrong court, which defends people with influential friends and relatives with “robbery of the rich.”

Chatsky indignantly tells how the nobles, “filled with feasts and extravagance” (idleness), control the lives of their serfs. They exchange honest and loyal servants for greyhounds or sell them at auction.

The monologue is accusatory in nature. Chatsky denies everyone whom Famusov considers an ideal decency, honesty, speaks of their inertia (backwardness), insignificance, immorality. In this ionologist, Chatsky denounces serfdom, the inhuman treatment of serfs by nobles, unfair courts and courts that defend “robbery of the rich.”)

V. Vocabulary work.

Conflict – clash, serious disagreement, dispute. (From the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegov.)

VI. Consolidation.

Considering what you already know about Chatsky and Famusov, compare their positions in life. Support your thoughts with text.

The following plan is written on the board.

1. Attitude to serfdom.

2. Views on service, education.

3. Lifestyle.

4. The ideal of a person.

VII. Generalization.

1. Let’s return to the question: “Chatsky and Famusov – two different worlds or two views”?

2. How A.S. Does Griboyedov depict the protest of progressive people of the 19th century against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of landowner society?

3. What character traits and views would you like to borrow from Chatsky?

VIII. Homework.

Today you have observed the beginning of the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov; the hero will face more than one serious clash with Famuov and others like him. And who will emerge victorious in this situation, you will find out by reading acts III and IV.

“3” Prepare an answer to the question: “How do you introduce Famusov’s guests? Describe (orally) the appearance of one of them.”

“4” Select the quotation characteristics of Molchalin and draw a conclusion.

“5” Analyze Chatsky’s monologue “There is an insignificant meeting in that room...”.

IX. Lesson summary.

1. The history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
2. The reason for the disagreements between representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”.
3. The immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy.

A. S. Griboedov created the comedy “Woe from Wit” at the beginning of the 19th century. In those years, new trends began to replace the orders of Catherine’s era; other people appeared in Russian society, with progressive views, who wanted to serve their country, without demanding titles or awards for this. This was, of course, connected with the patriotic upsurge that Russian society experienced after the Patriotic War of 1812. This led the leading part of the nobles in 1825 to Senate Square with demands for the provision of civil liberties and the signing of the constitution.

At the center of Griboyedov’s comedy is such a person. In his appearance, behavior, even in his last name, contemporaries guessed the real person - P. Ya. Chaadaev. He was a Western philosopher, and Chaadaev was declared crazy for his progressive views and criticism of the contemporary order. So, the confrontation between Alexander Chatsky and Famus society constitutes the main socio-political conflict of the play.

Chatsky is a young man, he is educated and has his own opinion on many very serious problems of his time. Alexander Andreevich spent two years abroad, where he became acquainted with the advanced ideas of our time and saw how people live in other countries. And here he is in Moscow, among people of high society, in the house of his uncle, the Moscow “ace” Famusov. Chatsky is in love with Famusov's daughter, Sophia, with whom they grew up together. Childhood affection develops over time into a serious feeling. Chatsky is sincerely glad to meet Sophia and immediately begins to explain his feelings to her. He still doesn’t know that while he was away, Sophia became interested in Molchalin, her father’s secretary. Therefore, she is cold with Chatsky and is even dissatisfied with his ardor and passion. Chatsky is confused, he cannot understand the reason for this attitude towards himself. The further development of events is determined by Chatsky’s attempts to find out who the lucky rival is: Molchalin or Skalozub. But the love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia is only external, which subsequently reveals a deeper, socio-political conflict.

Seeing these people, communicating with them, Chatsky cannot understand why Sophia does not notice in them what is so clearly visible to him. The situation is heating up, and Chatsky pronounces his famous monologues. First of all, this is a monologue about old people, about the so-called “judges”, trendsetters who “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” The other is about the dominance of everything foreign, about “slavish, blind imitation,” about the “foreign power of fashion.” Chatsky angrily asks:

Where? Show us, fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?
We found protection from court in friends,
related,
Magnificent building chambers...

But Chatsky’s fiery speeches remain without support; moreover, his attacks are met with protest, hostility, and dull misunderstanding. In the end, he is left completely alone against the hostile Famus society. Moreover, Sophia started a rumor that Chatsky was not himself.

A. S. Griboyedov shows readers not only those who do not accept Chatsky’s position and enter into open struggle with him, but also those who are unable to fight injustice, whose will is paralyzed. Such heroes include Gorich, a former colleague and friend of Chatsky. But Gorich got married, fell “under his wife’s heel” and dutifully bears his burden, although he understands that he has fallen: “Now, brother, I’m not the same.” When Chatsky was declared crazy, Gorich did not want to believe it, but he did not dare to openly contradict the general opinion. Chatsky found himself alone. His accusatory monologues hung in the air, no one sympathizes with him, and all his “millions of torments,” as I. A. Goncharov said, at first glance, seems futile to us. But that's not true. A. S. Griboedov, in the image of his main character, showed the changes emerging in Russian society, the emergence among the progressive people of the era of the desire to become useful to society, to care about the common good, and not just about personal well-being.

The comedy by A. S. Griboedov shows us the life of Russian society in the first third of the 19th century in all its complexity, inconsistency and heterogeneity. The author realistically depicts the types of that era despite some of the romantic traits of the main character. The writer raises eternal problems in the play - relationships between generations, the contradiction between personal and public well-being, the egoistic principle in a person and his unselfish readiness to help people. Therefore, this work is relevant now, at the beginning of the 21st century, because it helps to understand modern problems, which are practically no different from the life conflicts of the era of A. S. Griboyedov.

The Russian envoy A. S. Griboyedov, nicknamed Vazir-Mukhtar by the Persians, was killed in Tehran in the winter of 1826 as a result of a conspiracy of Muslim fanatics. But the murder was prepared in advance in distant, snowy Russia, frightened by the December events on Senate Square. Griboedov was not among the Decembrists, but he was feared no less than the rebels who came out to protest to the tsar. The comedy “Woe from Wit,” which passed from hand to hand, sowed sedition even in the manuscript, like Radishchev’s “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” Mortal

The sentence to the writer - a mission to Persia - was confirmed by the highest hand on the banks of the Neva. Griboyedov became Vazir-Mukhtar. Society doomed a brilliant personality to death. But the play lived on despite everything...

The ideological basis of the work is the conflict of the young nobleman Chatsky with the society from which he himself came. The events of the comedy develop in a Moscow aristocratic house over the course of one day. But, despite the narrow spatial and temporal framework, the author vividly and in detail painted a picture of the life of the noble society of that time and showed everything new, living, advanced that timidly arose in its depths.

Chatsky is a representative of the advanced part of the noble youth, who are already aware of the inertia and cruelty of the surrounding reality, the insignificance and emptiness of people who consider themselves the creators and masters of life.

There are still few heroes like Chatsky, but they are appearing, and this is a sign of the times. Griboedov reflected the main conflict of the era - the clash between the conservative forces of society and freedom-loving individuals, heralds of new trends and ideas. This conflict was not invented by the author; behind it are the best people of the era, future Decembrists, full of anxiety for their homeland and people, embarking on the path of struggle for happiness, for bright ideals, for the future.

Griboedov showed a new type of person, active, caring, capable of speaking out against serfdom and rigidity of views in defense of freedom, intelligence and humanity. This is exactly how Chatsky wants to see the features of the “present century”, in which “... the unclean Lord destroyed this spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation.” With passionate speeches, free thoughts, and the entire behavior of the hero, outdated standards of life are rejected and a new ideology is glorified, the views of the Decembrists are preached.

Famus society, preserving the privileges and traditions of the “past century”, the century of obedience and fear, defends the ideology of servility, veneration and hypocrisy. In the understanding of society, “intelligence is the ability to make a career,” “winning awards,” and “living a fun life.” People who live by such principles are deeply indifferent to the fate of their homeland and people. Their cultural and moral level can be judged by Famusov’s remarks: “They would take away all the books and burn them,” “Learning is the reason that now there are more crazy people, deeds, and opinions than ever.”

The main task of this society is to preserve the way of life intact, to do as “the fathers did.” It is not for nothing that Chatsky often reminds of this very thing: “everyone sings the same song,” “judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers.” And Famusov instructs everyone: “You should learn by looking at your elders.” The path to cherished well-being is, for example, the career of Maxim Petrovich:

When do you need to help yourself?

And he bent over.

Here everyone, as Chatsky puts it, does not “serve”, but is “served.” This is most clearly manifested in Molchalin, whom his father taught to “please all people without exception,” and even “to the janitor’s dog, so that it was affectionate.”

In the musty world of Famus, Chatsky appears like a cleansing thunderstorm. He is in every way the opposite of the ugly representatives of this society. If Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub see the meaning of life in their well-being (“bureaucratic”, “shtetls”), then Chatsky dreams of selfless service to the fatherland in order to benefit the people, which he considers “smart and vigorous.” Chatsky sharply criticizes a society mired in hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and debauchery. He values ​​people who are ready to “put their minds hungry for knowledge into science” or engage in “creative, lofty and beautiful” art. Famusov cannot calmly listen to Chatsky’s speeches; he covers his ears. Living deaf is the only opportunity to protect yourself from Chatsky’s accusations!

In his speeches, Chatsky constantly uses the pronoun “we”. And this is no coincidence, since he is not alone in his desire for change. On the pages of the comedy, a number of off-stage characters are mentioned who can be classified as allies of the protagonist. This is Skalozub’s cousin, who left the service, “in the village he began to read books; these are professors from the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute; This is Prince Fedor - a chemist and botanist.

Chatsky, as the hero of the work, not only embodies the ethics and aesthetics of the Decembrists, but has much in common with real historical figures.

He left the service, like Nikita Muravyov, Chaadaev. They would be happy to serve, but “being served is sickening.” We know that Chatsky “writes and translates nicely,” like most of the Decembrists: Kuchelbecker, Odoevsky, Ryleev...

There were still several years left before the great and tragic events of the twenty-fifth year, but with the final scene of Chatsky’s defeat, Griboedov perhaps anticipated the outcome of these events.

With fervor and mockery, Chatsky utters his last words, in which he pours out “all the bile and all the annoyance,” and leaves, leaving the “tormenting crowd” alone with slander, deceit, hostility towards each other, inventions and nonsense - in a word, with the emptiness of decrepit light.

At the end of the action, a carriage appears. Maybe this is a symbol of farewell, or maybe a long road that the hero is still destined to travel.

Half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the Chatskys, who miraculously survived in the Nerchinsk mines, returned to freedom, the words of the play’s finale sounded very convincing. After all, the “loyal sons of Russia” returned as winners.

At all times there have been, are and probably will be their own Chatskys, Griboyedovs, Vazir-Mukhtars, who, 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. But for true prophets there is and cannot be any other way than to go forward - “for the honor of the fatherland, for convictions, for love.”

Russian diplomat, state councilor and Russian classic A. S. Griboyedov served in the East and was nicknamed Vazir-Mukhtar by the Persians. He was killed in the winter of 1826 in Tehran by Muslim conspirators. However, his murder was being prepared in Russia, which was frightened. Griboyedov was not among them, but he was feared no less than those nobles. His great work “Woe from Wit” was banned and was secretly passed from hand to hand. The death warrant was signed when an opposition diplomat was sent on a mission to Persia. So society got rid of a genius personality. However, his play survived.

The play “Woe from Wit” is based on the conflict between the young and progressive nobleman Chatsky and high society. The plot describes the events of one day in the house of the old aristocrat Famusov. Despite such a narrow time frame, the author painted a detailed picture of the events taking place. He showed everything new and young that was emerging in the deep depths of noble society.

Chatsky became a representative of modern youth of the “present century” with freedom-loving views. His opponent in the definition as “a bygone century” was a man of the old formation, Famusov, and his invited guests.

Now let’s try to speculate a little about what kind of conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

The atmosphere of Famusov's house

It may immediately seem that Chatsky is biased in his judgments about the present, he believes that the world is no longer the same, and his morals are too outdated. All this is due to his youth and to some extent naivety. Of course, Chatsky has already lived abroad for three years, and now it is difficult for him to understand the atmosphere that reigned in Famusov’s house. He was waiting for some changes. However, upon returning, he realized that secular morals, alas, remained the same, and people were still revered for their ranks, the number of serf souls and money, and not for their intelligence and nobility. Now, in some respects, it becomes clear what conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

Dispute between generations

From the very first pages of the work it already becomes clear that in this house they constantly lie. But the lie of the maid Liza has a certain noble character, since in this way she saves her mistress, Famusov’s daughter Sophia, who is in love with Molchalin, her father’s secretary. But, according to her father, he is not a match for her, since he is very poor.

Sophia's lies are also justified because of her love for Molchalin. But after a while we see the lies of Molchalin, who begins to flirt with the servant Lisa. It is clear that he is having an affair with Sophia for profit.

But Famusov is no better in this regard; he, too, is secretly after the maid Liza. And then in his dialogue with the guests he will say the following words about himself: “He is known for his monastic behavior.” Griboyedov specifically devotes so much time to describing this entire situation in order to more accurately reflect the moral atmosphere of life in that society.

And now Chatsky became the most serious opponent of old man Famusov; the conflict of their opposing views on simple things gradually develops into a socio-political one. And the further they go, the more difficult it is for them to find common ground.

Chatsky and Famusov society. Composition

Famusov is a wealthy landowner, accustomed to doing whatever he pleases, and therefore largely devoid of moral goals. All that interests him in a person is his position and condition. He doesn’t want to read, because he considers this activity very boring, so some statements characterize him as a narrow-minded and superficial person. He is conservative in his views.

Chatsky, on the contrary, is a revolutionary man. He does not accept all the ideals that Famusov talks about. In the question of what conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society, this is precisely what can serve as the answer. After all, the main character exposes the most unpleasant features of the entire Famus society, which includes many people. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a careerist and a smug martinet, whom Famusov fawns over, considering him a “gold bag.”

The next character is Molchalin, who pleases meek and obedient behavior and takes advantage of people's connections with position. Sophia fell in love with him for his imaginary modesty. Chatsky considers him a complete fool and an empty person, in principle, like all the other guests present.

Revenge

Chatsky denounces everyone left and right; his main criterion by which he evaluates everyone is intelligence and spirituality. Therefore, one can imagine what kind of conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

The revenge of the cold-blooded fool was not long in coming. Chatsky opposed serfdom and was the bearer of advanced ideas - education and He wanted renewal and improvement of society, but this did not happen. And then comes a premonition of Chatsky’s break with society, and he is declared crazy. Humiliated and insulted, he leaves this damned house and Moscow in horror.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" reflects the brewing split in noble society. The change from one century to another, the end of the War of 1812, required landowners to reassess values ​​and change their outlook on public life. In this regard, nobles appear who want to improve the position of Russia by increasing the value of the human personality and civic consciousness. The struggle between two groups of nobles is designated in the play as a clash of the “present century” with the “past century.” In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Famusov are the main opponents.

The Problem of the Mind in Comedy

A.S. Griboedov wrote about his work: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” By “sensible person” Griboyedov means the main character of the comedy - Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. But in the process of analyzing the work, it becomes clear that Famusov cannot be called a fool. Since Griboedov put his own thoughts and ideals into the image of Chatsky, the author finds himself completely on the side of the protagonist. However, both Chatsky and Famusov have their own truth, which each of the heroes defends. And each of them has their own mind, it’s just that Chatsky’s mind and Famusov’s mind differ in quality.

The mind of a nobleman, adhering to conservative views and ideals, is aimed at protecting his comfort, his warm place from everything new. The new is hostile to the old way of life of the feudal landowners, because it threatens its existence. Famusov adheres to these views.

Chatsky, on the other hand, is the owner of an effective, flexible mind, aimed at building a new world in which the main values ​​will be the honor and dignity of a person, his personality, and not money and position in society.

Values ​​and ideals of Chatsky and Famusov

The views of Chatsky and Famusov differ sharply on all issues related to the nobleman’s way of life. Chatsky is a supporter of education, enlightenment, he himself is “sharp, smart, eloquent,” “writes and translates well.” Famusov and his society, on the contrary, consider excessive “learning” harmful to society and are very afraid of the appearance of people like Chatsky in their midst. The Chatskys threaten Famusov’s Moscow with the loss of its usual comfort and the opportunity to spend life “in feasts and in extravagance.”

The dispute between Chatsky and Famusov also flares up around the attitude of the nobles to the service. Chatsky “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in that.” The main character of the comedy explains it this way: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” But conservative noble society is structured in such a way that without “serving” it is impossible to achieve anything. Chatsky wants to serve “the cause, not individuals.”

But Famusov and his supporters have a completely different view on the issue of service.

Famusov’s ideal is his late uncle Maxim Petrovich. He earned the respect of the empress herself because he once behaved like a buffoon at a reception. Having stumbled and fallen, he decided to turn this awkward situation to his advantage: he fell several more times on purpose to make the audience and Empress Catherine laugh. This ability to “curse the favor” brought Maxim Petrovich enormous wealth and weight in society.

Chatsky does not accept such ideals; for him this is humiliation. He calls this time an age of “submission and fear” that clamps down on human freedom. The hero’s comparison of the “present century” and the “past century” does not turn out to be in favor of the latter, because now “everyone breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.”

Family values ​​of Chatsky and Famusov

The clash between Famusov and Chatsky also occurs over the divergence of their views on family values. Famusov believes that when creating a family, the presence of love is not at all important. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” he tells his daughter. Both in society and in the family, money is at the forefront. Wealth for Famus society is the same as happiness. Personal qualities do not matter either in the world or in the family: “Be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.”

Chatsky is a supporter of living feelings, which is why he is terrible for Famusov’s Moscow. This hero puts love above money, education above position in society. Therefore, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov flares up.

conclusions

A comparative description of Chatsky and Famusov reveals all the meanness and immorality of Famusov and his supporters. But Chatsky’s time in the society described in the comedy “Woe from Wit” has not yet come. The main character is expelled from this environment, declaring him crazy. Chatsky is forced to retreat due to the numerical superiority of the “past century.” But he leaves Moscow not a loser, but a winner. Secular Moscow was frightened by his speeches. His truth is scary for them, it threatens their personal comfort. His truth will prevail, so the replacement of the old with the new is historically natural.

The clash between Famusov and Chatsky is a dispute between two generations, two different worlds. The arguments and causes of the conflict described in this article can be used by 9th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “Characterization of Chatsky and Famusov in the comedy “Woe from Wit””

Work test