Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov realistically depicted the life of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century in his comedy “Woe from Wit.” Living images of Russian people of that time appeared before us, their views, habits, and customs were shown. All of them are typical representatives of their time and class.
The main conflict of the play is the collision of the “present century” and the “past century,” two eras of Russian life, the old, patriarchal way of life and the new, advanced one, represented in the image of the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

/> “The Past Century” was skillfully outlined in the images of Famusov’s Moscow, that is, the master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov himself and his entourage.
Famusov is a typical Moscow gentleman with all the views, manners and way of thinking characteristic of that time. The only thing he bows to is rank and wealth. “Like all Moscow people, your father is like this: he would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks,” the maid Lisa characterizes her master.
Nepotism and patronage flourish in Famusov’s service. He himself declares this openly: “With me, strangers’ employees are very rare, more and more sisters, sisters-in-law and children.”
Famusov’s ideal is “a nobleman in the case,” Maxim Petrovich, who “promotes him to rank” and “gives pensions.” He “either ate on silver or on gold, he had a hundred people at his service, all wearing orders, he was always traveling in a train.” However, for all his arrogant disposition and “he bent over backwards” in front of his superiors when it was necessary to curry favor.
Famusov prefers to serve “persons, not business” and invites Chatsky to do the same: “Go and serve,” to which he indignantly remarks: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.”
Nepotism is another of the ideals so dear to Famusov’s heart. Kuzma Petrovich, “the venerable chamberlain,” with “the key, and knew how to deliver the key to his son,” “rich and was married to a rich woman,” deserves deep respect from Famusov.
Famusov is not very educated, and he “sleeps well from Russian books,” unlike Sophia, who does not “sleep from French books.” But at the same time, Famusov developed a rather sober attitude towards everything foreign. Valuing the patriarchal way of life, he stigmatizes Kuznetsky Most and the “eternal French,” calling them “destroyers of pockets and hearts.”
Poverty is considered a big vice in Famus society. So Famusov directly declares to Sophia, his daughter: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” or: “We have had it since ancient times that according to father and son there is honor, be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, that is the groom.” . At the same time, a caring father shows truly worldly wisdom, caring about the future of his daughter.
An even greater vice in this society is learning and education: “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason that today there are more crazy people, and deeds, and opinions than before.”
The world of interests of the Famus society is quite narrow. It is limited to balls, dinners, dances, name days. Resisting the onset of the “present century,” the Famusovs, silent and toothy, continue to defend the Catherine era, caring most of all about preserving the old life, the autocratic serfdom system, and maintaining the “age of obedience and fear” longer.
In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” Griboyedov exposes the moral decay and inertia of the Moscow nobility, its inhumane attitude towards serfs, admiration for everything foreign and complete isolation from the people and everything Russian. Among them, a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod languages” dominates.
“The present century” is presented in the comedy by Chatsky and the young generation on whose behalf he speaks.
Chatsky is a nobleman. He has 300-400 serf souls of peasants, received the usual upbringing and education for noble youth, and then, like many young people of that time, he left to “search for his mind.” The image of Chatsky embodies features that make him similar to the Decembrists: deep love for the Russian people, hatred of serfdom, a desire to serve the cause and not individuals, a highly developed sense of self-esteem, true culture and enlightenment, unwillingness to put up with an unjust social system. Therefore, having returned from travels and not finding any changes for the better, he enters into open conflict with those people to whose circle he belonged by right of birth.
Chatsky sharply denounces serfdom. He attacks those “noble scoundrels” who exchange their devoted servants for greyhounds, drive “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the serf ballet, and then sell them off one by one.
A hero is a true patriot of his homeland, who dreams of benefiting his Fatherland and serving his people. He wants to serve “a cause, not persons,” and when he does not find such a cause, he refuses to serve altogether, because “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”
As a passionate patriot of his homeland, Chatsky believes in the wonderful future of his people. The hero of the comedy dreams of a time when Russia will rise up “from the foreign power of fashion” and “our smart, cheerful people, at least in language,” will not consider their masters to be Germans. With bitter irony, he talks about a Frenchman from Bordeaux who traveled to Russia “with fear and tears,” but arrived and found that “there was no end to the caresses, not a Russian sound, not a Russian face.”
Since Griboyedov, in the person of Chatsky, wanted to show a representative of the Northern Secret Society, he portrayed him as a passionate agitator. There is a lot of monologue speech in comedy. Chatsky is an excellent speaker: he is characterized by the vocabulary of the Decembrists, he often uses words such as “Fatherland”, “freedom”, “free”. He has a sharp, critical mind. This suggests that the main character was not just an intelligent person, but a freethinker. He is the bearer of the advanced ideas of his time, but, like all progressive people of that time, he collapses from his mind, his advanced mind.
Griboedov created the first realistic comedy in Russian literature, showed typical people of his time and class, endowing them with living features. The realism of the comedy lies in the fact that victory, contrary to the sympathies of the author, is on the side of Famus society, which strives with all its might to preserve the established order longer. Chatsky is forced to flee Moscow. Griboyedov seems to predict the political defeat of the Decembrists in 1825 on Senate Square.

1. What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy “Woe from Wit”? Do you think I. A. Goncharov was right when he believed that Griboedov’s comedy...
2. Act 1 Phenomenon 1 Morning, living room. Lisa wakes up in a chair. Sophia did not let her go to bed the day before, because she was waiting for Molchalin, and Liza had to keep an eye on...
3. - “French infection.” He could make promises at the European Diet, but at home things did not come to real steps. Moreover, domestic policy has become repressive...
4. “Woe from Wit” brought Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov worldwide fame. This comedy presents the morals of the Moscow nobility of the 19th century in a satirical manner. The main conflict flares up between...
5. The comedy “Woe from Wit” was written by Griboyedov on the eve of the decisive performance of the Decembrist revolutionaries and was directed against the reactionary nobility. The work reflected the opposition of new ideas to old ones. Griboyedov...
6. Various assumptions are made: 1790, 1794, 1795. Most likely, he was born on January 4 (15), 1790 in Moscow. His family belonged to the middle-class nobility, but...
7. The comedy “Woe from Wit” was created at the intersection of three literary movements and styles: classicism, romanticism and emerging realism. Griboyedov finished work on the comedy on the eve of the December uprising...
8. The Emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the “French infection.” He could make promises at the European Diet, but at home it was a matter of taking real steps...
9. In a comedy there is only one character who reflects many important personality traits of the author. Chatsky is the only hero to whom the author trusts his views...
10. Having won the War of 1812, Russia showed the strength and power of the Russian people, who selflessly defended the Fatherland. But the victorious Russian people, having defeated the hordes of Napoleon, found themselves again under oppression...
A. S. Griboyedov was born into a noble family. His life (1794-1829) and activities took place during the period of the heroic struggle of the Russian people against Napoleon,...
11. 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...
12. The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written on the eve of the December uprising of 1825. Griboyedov was associated with the Decembrists both political views and friendly ties. One opinion was...

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" the main task of A.S. Griboyedov was intended to reflect the morals of the Moscow conservative nobility in the first decades of the 19th century. The main idea of ​​this play is to identify outdated, outdated aristocratic views on important social problems; the eternal struggle of the old with the new is reflected.

This is the Famusov society - the last century. He includes: the rich, noble master Famusov Pavel Afanasyevich, as well as his relatives, such as the Gorich couple, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Colonel Skalozub, old woman Khlestova. They are united by a common outlook on life, a common interest - wealth. People in ranks are ideal for the Famus circle of personalities. They are ruthless serf owners. It is considered normal for them to traffic people.

Famus society has its own fears. The biggest one is education. Famusov believes that education is a “plague” and is sure that it is necessary to collect all the books and burn them. Personal qualities and training do not play any role in his life. He is guided by cunning calculations and the ability to climb higher on the career ladder.

People in Famus's circle are indifferent to work. Pavel Afanasyevich, being in the service of a manager in a government place, takes on work only once during the whole day. He also signs the papers without looking, completely showing his indifference. In addition, people in this circle adore the West. They are convinced that the best place in the world is France. Chatsky reports that the “Frenchman from Bordeaux” did not find “neither the sound of a Russian nor a Russian face” in Famusov’s house. Representatives of the old system are stupidly and illiterately trying to borrow the customs, culture, and even language of the French.

So, the people of Famus’s circle are self-interested and very selfish, thirsting for power. They spend all their time having fun at balls, dinner parties, and social events. During this, they gossip, slander, and act hypocrites.

The Famus society has the main and only goal in life - career advancement. This is actually why Famusov praises Skalozub and considers him the best over others. On the contrary, he despises Chatsky, although he notices excellent potential for a career in him.

Thus, Griboyedov’s comedy shows us the way of life and morals of Russian society, its different cultural layers with old conservative views and new revolutionary ideas.

Option 2

The immortal comedy of the great writer Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov “Woe from Wit” reveals many acute social conflicts of that time. One of the main themes against which the entire conflict unfolds is the collision of the present and past centuries. If the present century is represented by the progressive innovator Chatsky, who glorifies the ideals of freedom and universal equality, then the past century is represented by the so-called Famus society, consisting of several people of noble blood. What ideals does it glorify and does it still exist?

The Famus society can be called ardent conservatives, defending the ideals of real exploiters and slave owners, who have thousands of serfs with them. Their views on many issues accurately convey the spirit of that time, when human rights were worthless. The basis of the life of the participants in Famusov’s society consists of holidays, gambling and a huge number of other entertainments. They do not recognize work and are constantly looking for reasons to shirk their responsibilities. It is enough just to remember the workweek schedule of Famusov himself. He works for 2-3 hours, then goes to dinner at the best restaurants, and then goes to a funeral by invitation.

It is especially worth noting the attitude of these conservatives towards education. They only care about its availability, not its quality. They are ready to increase the number of teachers who do not have teaching skills. The consequences of such training can be seen in the example of Skalozub, who can only carry on conversations on military topics. This person is a classic person who received a high position not for his own merits.

The indifference of Famus society to the ordinary person is noticed immediately after reading the first act. Famusov does not show any respect for his servant Petrushka. But the chaos reaches its peak at the ball. Mrs. Khlestova brought Arapka with her, who she kept on a leash. She equates low-class people with animals without seeing any difference.

Of course, the Famus society exists in the modern world, but not on such a scale. Its representatives continue to promote the wrong priorities in life. But a liberal and advanced society must confront such people in order to achieve universal equality throughout the world.

Famus Society

A.S. Griboyedov was a versatile and talented person. But his play “Woe from Wit” made him a famous playwright. The author himself attributed his creation to the genre of social comedy. Critics and contemporaries doubted the humorous form of the work.

The book gives us a wide polyphony of images. But the plot revolves around four heroes: Chatsky, Famusov, his daughter Sophia and secretary Molchalin. These personalities are most revealed by the author. The main conflict of the work is the confrontation between the foundations of the “Famus society” and the modern, European ideas of Chatsky.

Among the representatives of the “past century” there are not only old people, nobles living out their days. There are young people who are infected, thoroughly saturated with these ideas, spoiled by an idle, empty life. Education and science are not in honor here. Famusov considers teaching to be evil, poison, and is sure that all books should be burned. Despite this, he “cares” about raising his daughter “from the cradle”, hiring foreign teachers for her. Not because it will bring results, but simply because it is accepted in this environment.

In this society there is no need to be respectable, honest, noble, educated. It is only important to appear so. Adulation and veneration are the main virtues here. You can be a good military man, diplomat, official who does his job properly, but never get a high position. But those “whose neck often bent” at rank.

Marriages here are concluded only for convenience; there can be no talk of love. “Even if it’s bad,” but there must be at least two thousand souls in the family estate. Let him not shine with intelligence and eloquence, but “with rank and with the stars.” No other son-in-law will be accepted into the family. So Famusov is looking for a future husband for his only daughter.

Pavel Afanasyevich’s uncle, Maxim Petrovich, is set as an example for everyone. He rose to the “grain” position by being a jester under Catherine. And he knew how to make the wayward empress laugh with the help of ridiculous falls. Therefore, he “ate on gold,” “promoted him to ranks, gave him pensions.”

Sophia spends the entire play as if between two fires. This is a brave, determined girl who is ready to love; rumor is not her authority. But she is ultimately ruined by the influence of “Famusov’s Moscow”, in which she grew up and was raised.

Several interesting essays

• Essay: Katerina's emotional drama, play Thunderstorm

  Katerina is the central character of Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”. Since its writing, the work has enjoyed enormous popularity. Performances based on the play

• Essay Examples of the inner world from life

  Man is a beautiful creature, capable of creating and creating. Every person has something special that is not characteristic of other people. Each one has some kind of mystery and mystery. The inner world of a person is what you want to know

One of the most long-awaited holidays of the year is undoubtedly a person’s birthday. After all, it was on this day that we appeared on the round planet

• Comparative characteristics of Andrei Dubrovsky and Kirila Troekurov in the novel Dubrovsky

  Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin is the greatest poet and writer of Russia, his name is known all over the world, Pushkin’s works still do not leave anyone indifferent, they give food for thought, because in his works the author raised fundamental questions

• Essay on the painting Behind the toilet. Self-portrait of Serebryakova 6th grade

  It was an early, summer, sunny morning. Waking up, the girl stretched a little in bed, and getting up, went to the dressing table. In the mirror she saw an exact copy of herself - her reflection

The main problem of Russian literature is the problem of “Personality and Society”, as well as the search for ways to restructure society on more humane, democratic principles, “how can a person achieve happiness and prosperity” (L.N. Tolstoy) and why he does not achieve it.

For the first time this problem was posed as the main problem by the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, a novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” and the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Their heroes turn out to be unclaimed by society, “superfluous”. Why is this happening? Why are three different authors considering the same problem almost at the same time? Does this problem belong only to the 19th century? And finally, what is the main way to solve this problem?

1. Time: its hero and antihero.

In order to better understand the ideological content of the comedy “Woe from Wit” and its socio-political issues, it is necessary to evaluate the characteristic features of the historical era reflected in the play.

The heroic war of 1812 is behind us. And the people who won it, who won freedom for the Fatherland with their blood, are still enslaved and oppressed in this Fatherland. Dissatisfaction with the injustice of state domestic policy is brewing in Russian society. In the minds of honest citizens, the idea of ​​​​the need to protect not only their rights, but also the rights of the lower class, is growing stronger. And in 1816 (the estimated date for the start of work on the comedy), the first secret organization of future Decembrists, the Union of Salvation, was created in Russia. It included people who believed that the restoration of social justice was their historical and moral duty.

Thus, Russian society has taken a step that causes enormous force of inertial movement. But no real changes occurred in Russia, and the main obstacle to the transformation was the strong authoritarian government - the Russian absolute monarchy.

This form of government was perceived by Europe and enlightened Russians as an anachronism. It is no coincidence that the demand to limit autocracy, to introduce it into the framework of the law and the constitution, was voiced at the European Diet of 1818, where Emperor Alexander I was present. The Tsar gave solemn assurances. Europe expected changes in Russia. But Russian society, already tired of believing, was skeptical about the sovereign’s promises.

The Emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the “French infection.” He could make promises in the European Diet, but at home he did not take real steps. Moreover, domestic policy took repressive forms. And the discontent of the progressive Russian public was gradually ripening, for Arakcheev’s firm hand brought external order to the country. And this order, this pre-war prosperity, of course, was joyfully welcomed by people like Famusov, Skalozub, Gorichy and Tugoukhovsky.

2. Chatsky and time.

The comedy is structured in such a way that only Chatsky speaks on stage about the “present century”, about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spiritual and political freedom. He is the one "new Human", which carries within itself the “spirit of the times”, the idea of ​​life, the goal of which is freedom. His ideological convictions were born of the spirit of change, that “present century” that the best people of Russia tried to bring closer. “His ideal of a free life is definite: it is freedom from all ... the chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - to focus on science “a mind hungry for knowledge”, or to freely indulge in “creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom to serve or not serve, live in a village or travel…” - this is how I.A. explains. Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments”, what content Chatsky and people ideologically close to him put into the concept of “freedom”.

The image of Chatsky reflected the delight that Russian society experienced when it felt itself to be a historical figure, the winner of Napoleon himself. This is something new that has appeared in the social life of Russia, which has become the key to future transformations.

Chatsky not only connects all the lines of opposition in the play, he becomes the very reason for its movement and development. His personality and fate are fundamentally important for Griboyedov, because Chatsky's story is a story about the fate of truth, sincerity, authentic life in a world of substitutions and ghosts.

2.1. Alexander Andreich CHATSKY

The image of Chatsky reflects the features of the Decembrist era of 1816-18.

The son of Famusov's late friend, Chatsky grew up in his house; as a child, he was raised and studied together with Sophia under the guidance of Russian and foreign teachers and tutors. The framework of the comedy did not allow Griboyedov to tell in detail where Chatsky studied next, how he grew and developed. First of all, he wanted to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland, he wanted to serve it honestly. But the state, it turns out, does not need selfless service; it only requires servitude. Three years before the events described in the comedy, Chatsky, “shed with tears,” broke up with Sophia and went to St. Petersburg. But the brilliantly started career was cut short: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” And Chatsky leaves the capital. He tries to serve the Fatherland differently: “he writes and translates nicely.” But in a totalitarian state, the question of “to serve or not to serve, to live in a village or to travel” goes beyond the problem of personal freedom. The personal life of a citizen is inseparable from his political convictions, and the desire to live in his own way, contrary to the norm, is in itself a challenge. For three years Chatsky was abroad (apparently as part of the Russian army). Staying abroad enriched Chatsky with new impressions, expanded his mental horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. Chatsky was protected from this groveling before Europe, so typical of Famus society, by his inherent qualities: love for the Motherland, for its people, a critical attitude towards the reality around him, independence of views, a developed sense of personal and national dignity.

Returning to Moscow, Chatsky found in the life of noble society the same vulgarity and emptiness that characterized him before. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, suppression of personality that reigned in this society before the War of 1812.

Chatsky’s position on the most pressing and significant problems of our time is not at all determined by the desire to destroy or destroy something - just as he did not come to Famusov’s house to denounce. The hero came to people who had always been family to him, returned with the desire to love and be loved - but as he is, cheerful and mocking, sharp and not always “convenient,” but he is no longer needed here.

2.2. Chatsky's first monologues

After a long absence, Chatsky is again at Famusov’s house and meets Sophia. He had been waiting for this date for a long time. The excitement is so great that he does not immediately find the right words to express his feelings, and the literary cliche comes to mind: “... I am at your feet.” Chatsky is so excited that he even admits some tactlessness. He says that Sophia did not meet him the way he expected. He tries to explain the coldness of the meeting by the suddenness of his appearance. Chatsky is in a hurry to find out if Sophia was waiting for him, if she was thinking about him.

The abundance of verbs, questions, and exclamations conveys the confusion of the hero’s feelings and the depth of his experiences. Thought runs into thought, speech is confused and intermittent. From the present, Chatsky turns to those joyful and not-so-distant days when he and Sophia were alone. Chatsky lived with these memories during his travels. However, the coldness of the meeting cannot temper Chatsky’s delight. Sophia is in front of him. She's beautiful. And he will tell her about how he was waiting for this meeting:

More than seven hundred versts flew by - wind, storm;
And I was completely confused, and fell how many times -
And here is the reward for your exploits!

This monologue shows the hero’s openness, his sincerity, youthful excitement, the strength of feelings, the high culture that we feel in his speech. Chatsky knows folk speech very well: hence the colloquial sayings and idioms in his language. At the same time, Chatsky’s speech is also rich in literary expressions. This organic fusion of folk and book speech gives special expressiveness and flexibility to his language.

2.3. Chatsky and Famusov society

While Chatsky traveled for three years, society did not stand still. It was not just a relief to return to the worries and joys of peaceful life. It developed in itself “resistance” to those ripening changes that threatened to crush this peaceful life.

Famus’s world stands as a thick wall on the path of real transformations, the inhabitants of which “take care” only of their own “little man” and see as the ultimate dream “a hundred people at their service”, “an enviable rank” and similar benefits. Yes, Chatsky, endowed with the temperament of a fighter, actively opposes Famus society. But does he see his real opponent when he denounces Famusov, Skalozub, and the ballroom crowd?

Chatsky understands well who he is dealing with, but he cannot help but speak: he is forced into such a conversation, he responds to the “blow.” Monologue “Who are the judges?”- this is one of those scenes that make the comedy closest to the ideology of the Decembrists. She takes the reader out of the narrow circle of Famusov’s world and points out what happened in Russian society during the “dead pause” of the reign of Alexander 1, between 1812 and 1825, she talks about the “transformations” that took place in Russian society during this time.

One of these transformations is crushing, vulgarization of the military person. For Chatsky, the army is the most important force called upon to defend the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Such an army makes a person who belongs to it truly strong and whole, proud of his consciousness of belonging to a common cause. Such were once Chatsky recalls their army training, recalls the time “when from the guard, others from the court came here for a while...”, the time of his own “tenderness” for the military uniform - that is, directly following the victories of the Russian army over Napoleon. The current army of parades cannot evoke in the hero any other feelings than shame even for his then childhood hobby.

Another transformation is strengthening women's power. “The “dead pause” in the reign of Alexander 1 after the Patriotic War of 1812, when they expected a response to the victory of the heroic people, first of all, with the abolition of slavery, was filled in Moscow with the semblance of female power” (Yu. Tynyanov).

And one more transformation: the heroic war of 1812, in which Griboedov took part, passed, its immediate tasks ended. Expectations that in response to the exploits of the people the fall of slavery did not come true. A transformation has begun: businesslike, insinuating, timid Molchalin has already appeared to replace the heroes of 1812.

Chatsky is unable to take him and his “talents” seriously. Meanwhile, this “most pitiful creature” is not so insignificant. During Chatsky's absence, Molchalin took his place in Sophia's heart; it was he who was the happy rival of the protagonist. And this is just the beginning. Chatsky's personal defeat does not exhaust his future drama. The words thrown at him: “Silent people are blissful in the world!” turn out to be prophetic.

Molchalin’s intelligence, cunning, resourcefulness, ability to find the “key” to every influential person, absolute unscrupulousness - these are the defining qualities of this hero. Qualities that make him the anti-hero of the play, Chatsky’s main opponent. His life attitudes, beliefs, and entire system of moral values ​​are opposed to Chatsky’s moral code, ideas and ideals. And in this Molchalin is no different from the entire Famus society. What distinguishes him is something else: strength.

In his assessments of civic duty, service, the army, serfdom, education and upbringing, the authorities of the past, patriotism and imitation of foreign models, Chatsky speaks out, in essence, against only one thing: the substitution of the actual content of such concepts as Fatherland, duty, patriotism, heroism, moral the ideal, free thought and speech, art, love are their pathetic imitation. He is against all possible forms of depersonalization of a person: serfdom, “uniform”, foreign fashion, outdated concepts of “the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea”, “obedience and fear”.

2.4. Gossip about madness

The guests are just getting ready, and Chatsky is already suffocating among them. Finding himself next to Sophia, Chatsky reports on the new low qualities of her chosen one Molchalin and goes “to that room” because he no longer has the strength to restrain himself.

Sophia, once again offended by Molchalin, deals Chatsky the most terrible blow: “He is out of his mind.” These words instantly become not only the property of Famusov’s society, Famusov and his guests immediately believed the rumor because they were prepared for it. Sophia starts the rumor carefully, deliberately, with the goal of making Chatsky a laughing stock, to take revenge on him for his arrogance and barbs towards others (including Molchalin), because, in her opinion, he is “not a man, a snake!” By starting a rumor about Chatsky, she perfectly imagines society's reaction to him, given the public mood. Chatsky is rejected by society as something alien, incomprehensible, and does not merge with it. The schadenfreude with which the news is discussed is an indicator of the public mood; thanks to the rumor, the moral conflict of the play is revealed. Griboyedov masterfully depicts the process itself - fleeting, growing, avalanche-like, taking on specific forms: the first person to whom Sophia informs about Chatsky’s madness is a certain G.N.; he conveys the news to the equally faceless G.D.; the latter - to the famous chatterbox Zagoretsky. Unlike G.N. and G.D., who received the news with some doubt, Zagoretsky, without doubting for a second, immediately declares:

A! I know, I remember, I heard,

How could I not know, an example case has come out;

His uncle, the rogue, hid him in the insane...

They grabbed me, took me to the yellow house, and put me on a chain.

G.D. stunned by such an outright lie. Zagoretsky, in turn, reports the news to the Countess-granddaughter, who, it turns out, “she herself noticed” signs of madness in Chatsky, and then to the Countess’s grandmother, who pronounces the verdict: “Ah! damned Voltairean!” Khlestova is amazed by the hero’s irreverence, Molchalin’s opinions about the service are strange, for Natalya Dmitrievna madness seems like “advice ... to live in the village.”

An empty, absurd rumor spreads “nimbly”, as everyone finds their own justification for this “nonsense”.

And now everyone is talking about it. To the question of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich: “Who disclosed it first?” - his wife Natalya Dmitrievna replies: “Oh, my friend, that’s it!” (although Famusov attributes this “discovery” to himself). And if that’s all, that means it’s already the so-called. public opinion:

Fools believed it, they passed it on to others,
The old women instantly sound the alarm -
And here is public opinion!

It rules the show. At the end of the play, Famusov, having caught Sophia in the company of Chatsky and Lisa, pours out his anger on his daughter and the maid, and Chatsky is threatened with further consequences of the rumor:

...and this is your last feature,
That every door will be locked:
I will try, I will ring the alarm bell,
I'll cause trouble for everything around the city,
And I will announce to all the people:
I will submit it to the Senate, to the ministers, to the sovereign.

After all, the version of Chatsky’s madness should distract “Princess Marya Aleksevna” from another rumor - about his daughter Sophia. Famusov has well mastered the ancient custom of spreading rumors and fables in order to divert attention from another event (“ringing bells”). The phrase "lost my mind" varies in different meanings. Sophia said: “He is out of his mind” - in the sense in which Chatsky himself had said earlier that he was going crazy with love. Mr. N. gave it a direct meaning. Sophia picks up this idea and affirms it in order to take revenge on Chatsky. And Zagoretsky reinforces: “He’s crazy.” But when the signs of Chatsky’s madness are mentioned, another meaning of this phrase is revealed: crazy, that is, a freethinker.

And then the causes of madness are established. Zagoretsky plays a special role in spreading gossip - he moves the conversation about the reasons for Chatsky’s madness into the realm of fabulous assumptions. Gradually, gossip becomes more widespread and reaches the point of grotesquery.

Countess grandmother:

What? To the pharmazons in the club? Did he become a Pusurman?

The arguments in favor of Chatsky's madness that Famusov and his guests put forward make them themselves ridiculous, since facts are given that actually prove his normality.

About what? About Chatsky, or what?
What is doubtful? I'm the first, I opened it.
I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try the authorities, and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
So he will call you a scoundrel.

Thus, the main sign of Chatsky’s “madness,” in the understanding of Famusov and his guests, is his free-thinking.

While gossip about his madness was spreading, Chatsky ran into a Frenchman from Bordeaux and the princesses in the next room.

Inflamed by this fight, Chatsky appears in the living room at the moment when the development of gossip has reached its climax.

2.5. Monologue “There’s an insignificant meeting in that room...”

What is Chatsky talking about in this monologue? About the Frenchman from Bordeaux, about the Russians exclaiming: “Ah! France! There is no better region in the world!”, about “so that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation”, about how “our north has become worse a hundred times since it gave everything in exchange for a new way - and morals, and language, and holy antiquity, and stately clothes for another according to the clownish model,” and just like at a meeting of a secret society, he asks - exclaims:

Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion?
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans...

These are again exactly the same thoughts for which he was just declared crazy...

While Chatsky is speaking, everyone gradually disperses. The last phrase of the monologue remains unsaid: Chatsky looks around and sees that everyone is spinning in the waltz with the greatest zeal...

The Famus world brought against Chatsky everything it had at its disposal: slander and complete ignorance of him as a person - an intelligent person was denied intelligence.

2.6. Denouement - monologue “I won’t come to my senses, it’s my fault...”

In the last monologue, as nowhere else before, Chatsky’s public and personal dramas, his “Million Torments,” merged together. He will speak soulfully about the strength of his feelings for Sophia, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places” cooled in him. He “breathed”, “lived”, “was constantly busy” with these feelings. But everything is crossed out by Sophia...

Chatsky finds scathing words about Sophia’s environment, staying in which is destructive for an honest and thinking person: “He who will come out of the fire unharmed, whoever manages to spend a day with you, will breathe the same air, and his sanity will survive!”

Literary critic Fomichev sees the meaning of Chatsky’s last monologue in the fact that the hero “finally realized his opposite to Famus’s world and broke with it: “Enough!.. with you I’m proud of my break.”

3. A new type of person in Russian literature.

Chatsky is a new type of person active in the history of Russian society. His main idea is civil service. Such heroes are called upon to bring meaning to public life and lead to new goals.

For Russian critical thought, which has always presented a literary work as an illustration of the history of the liberation movement, this is a socially significant person, devoid of a field of activity.

Griboyedov was the first in Russian literature to show the “superfluous person” and the mechanism of his appearance in society. Chatsky is the first in this row. Behind him are Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Bazarov.

One can imagine the future fate of such a hero in society. The most likely paths for him are two: revolutionary and philistine.

Chatsky could have been among those who came out to Senate Square on December 14, 1825, and then his life would have been predetermined for 30 years in advance: those who took part in the conspiracy returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856.

But it could have been something else - an insurmountable disgust for the “abominations” of Russian life would have made him an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - melancholy, despair, bile and, what is most terrible for such a hero - a fighter and enthusiast - forced idleness and inactivity.

Introduction

people society Russian literature

Russian literature of the 19th century brought the whole world the works of such brilliant writers and poets as A.S. Griboyedov, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, N.V. Gogol, I.A. Goncharov, A.N. Ostrovsky, I.S. Turgenev, N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov and others.

In many works of these and other Russian authors of the 19th century, themes of man, personality, and people developed; the individual was opposed to society (“Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedov), the problem of the “superfluous (lonely) person” was demonstrated (“Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin, “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov), ​​“ poor man" (“Crime and Punishment” by F.M. Dostoevsky), problems of the people (“War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy) and others. In most of the works, within the framework of the development of the theme of man and society, the authors demonstrated the tragedy of the individual.

The purpose of this essay is to consider the works of Russian authors of the 19th century, to study their understanding of the problems of man and society, and the peculiarities of their perception of these problems. The study used critical literature, as well as the works of writers and poets of the Silver Age.

The problem of the “new man” in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

Consider, for example, the comedy by A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, which played an outstanding role in the socio-political and moral education of several generations of Russian people. She armed them to fight violence and tyranny, meanness and ignorance in the name of freedom and reason, in the name of the triumph of advanced ideas and true culture. In the image of the main character of Chatsky's comedy, Griboedov, for the first time in Russian literature, showed a “new man”, inspired by lofty ideas, rebelling against a reactionary society in defense of freedom, humanity, intelligence and culture, cultivating a new morality, developing a new view of the world and human relationship.

The image of Chatsky - a new, smart, developed person - is contrasted with the “Famus society”. In "Woe from Wit" all of Famusov's guests simply copy the customs, habits and outfits of French milliners and rootless visiting crooks who made a living on Russian bread. They all speak “a mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod” and are dumbfounded with delight at the sight of any visiting “Frenchman from Bordeaux.” Through the lips of Chatsky, Griboedov with the greatest passion exposed this unworthy servility to others and contempt for one’s own:

So that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit

Empty, slavish, blind imitation;

So that he would plant a spark in someone with a soul.

Who could, by word and example

Hold us like a strong rein,

From pathetic nausea, on the stranger's side., page 57

Chatsky loves his people very much, but not the “Famus society” of landowners and officials, but the Russian people, hardworking, wise, powerful. The distinctive feature of Chatsky as a strong man, in contrast to the prim Famus society, is the fullness of his feelings. In everything he shows true passion, he is always ardent in soul. He is hot, witty, eloquent, full of life, impatient. At the same time, Chatsky is the only openly positive hero in Griboyedov’s comedy. But one cannot call him exceptional and lonely. He is young, romantic, ardent, he has like-minded people: for example, professors of the Pedagogical Institute, who, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, “practice in schisms and lack of faith,” these are “crazy people” inclined to study, this is the princess’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, “ chemist and botanist." Chatsky defends human rights to freely choose his own activities: travel, live in the countryside, “focus his mind” on science or devote himself to “creative, high and beautiful arts.”

Chatsky defends the “folk society” and ridicules the “Famus society”, its life and behavior in his monologue:

Aren't these rich in robbery?

They found protection from the court in friends, in kinship.

Magnificent building chambers,

Where they spill out in feasts and extravagance., page 73

We can conclude that Chatsky in the comedy represents the young, thinking generation of Russian society, its best part. A. I. Herzen wrote about Chatsky: “The image of Chatsky, sad, restless in his irony, trembling with indignation, devoted to a dreamy ideal, appears at the last moment of the reign of Alexander I, on the eve of the uprising on St. Isaac's Square. This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter the Great and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...”, p. 11.

“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov Katenina. This statement by the author clearly identifies the main problem of “Woe from Wit” - the problem of intelligence and stupidity. It is included in the title of the play, which should also be paid close attention to. This problem is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, and therefore requires a detailed analysis.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was cutting-edge for its time. It was accusatory in nature, like all classic comedies. But the problems of the work “Woe from Wit”, the problems of the noble society of that time are presented in a wider spectrum. This became possible due to the author’s use of several artistic methods: classicism, realism and romanticism.

It is known that Griboedov initially called his work “Woe to Wit,” but soon replaced this title with “Woe from Wit.” Why did this change occur? The fact is that the first title contained a moralizing note, emphasizing that in the noble society of the 19th century, every intelligent person would suffer persecution. This did not quite correspond to the playwright's artistic intent. Griboedov wanted to show that an extraordinary mind and progressive ideas of a particular person may turn out to be untimely and harm its owner. The second name was able to fully realize this task.

The main conflict of the play is the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century,” old and new. In Chatsky’s disputes with representatives of the Old Moscow nobility, a system of views of one and the other side emerges on education, culture, in particular on the problem of language (a mixture of “French with Nizhny Novgorod”), family values, issues of honor and conscience. It turns out that Famusov, as a representative of the “past century,” believes that the most valuable thing in a person is his money and position in society. Most of all, he admires the ability to “curry favor” for the sake of acquiring material benefits or respect for the world. Famusov and others like him have done a lot to create a good reputation among the nobles. Therefore, Famusov only cares about what they will say about him in the world.

Molchalin is like that, even though he is a representative of the younger generation. He blindly follows the outdated ideals of the feudal landowners. Having your own opinion and defending it is an unaffordable luxury. After all, you can lose respect in society. “You shouldn’t dare to have your own judgment in mine,” this is the life credo of this hero. He is a worthy student of Famusov. And with his daughter Sophia, he plays a love game only in order to curry favor with the girl’s influential father.

Absolutely all the heroes of “Woe from Wit,” with the exception of Chatsky, have the same ailments: dependence on other people’s opinions, passion for rank and money. And these ideals are alien and disgusting to the main character of the comedy. He prefers to serve “the cause, not the persons.” When Chatsky appears in Famusov’s house and begins to angrily denounce the foundations of noble society with his speeches, Famusov’s society declares the accuser crazy, thereby disarming him. Chatsky expresses progressive ideas, pointing out to aristocrats the need for a change of views. They see in Chatsky’s words a threat to their comfortable existence, their habits. A hero called mad ceases to be dangerous. Fortunately, he is alone, and therefore simply expelled from a society where he is not welcome. It turns out that Chatsky, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, throws the seeds of reason into the soil, which is not ready to accept and nurture them. The hero's mind, his thoughts and moral principles turn against him.

Here the question arises: did Chatsky lose in the fight for justice? One may believe that this is a lost battle, but not a lost war. Very soon Chatsky’s ideas will be supported by the progressive youth of that time, and “the meanest traits of the past” will be overthrown.

Reading Famusov’s monologues, watching the intrigues that Molchalin carefully weaves, one cannot say at all that these heroes are stupid. But their mind is qualitatively different from Chatsky’s mind. Representatives of Famus society are accustomed to dodging, adapting, and currying favor. This is a practical, worldly mind. And Chatsky has a completely new mindset, forcing him to defend his ideals, sacrifice his personal well-being, and certainly not allowing him to gain any benefit through useful connections, as the nobles of that time were used to doing.

Among the criticism that fell upon the comedy “Woe from Wit” after it was written, there were opinions that Chatsky could not be called an intelligent person. For example, Katenin believed that Chatsky “talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.” Pushkin, having read the list of the play brought to him at Mikhailovskoye, spoke about the main character like this: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...”

Indeed, Chatsky is presented as very hot-tempered and somewhat tactless. He appears in a society where he was not invited, and begins to denounce and teach everyone, without mincing words. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “his speech is seething with wit,” as I.A. wrote. Goncharov.

This diversity of opinions, even the presence of diametrically opposed ones, is explained by the complexity and diversity of the problems of Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”. It should also be noted that Chatsky is an exponent of the ideas of the Decembrists, he is a true citizen of his country, opposing serfdom, sycophancy, and the dominance of everything foreign. It is known that the Decembrists were faced with the task of directly expressing their ideas wherever they were. Therefore, Chatsky acts in accordance with the principles of the progressive man of his time.

It turns out that there are no outright fools in comedy. There are simply two opposing sides defending their understanding of the mind. However, intelligence can be opposed not only by stupidity. The opposite of intelligence can be madness. Why does society declare Chatsky crazy?

The assessment of critics and readers can be anything, but the author himself shares Chatsky’s position. This is important to consider when trying to understand the artistic intent of the play. Chatsky’s worldview is the views of Griboyedov himself. Therefore, a society that rejects the ideas of enlightenment, personal freedom, service to a cause, and not servitude, is a society of fools. Having been afraid of an intelligent person, calling him crazy, the nobility characterizes itself, demonstrating its fear of the new.

The problem of the mind, brought out by Griboyedov in the title of the play, is key. All clashes that occur between the outdated foundations of life and Chatsky’s progressive ideas should be considered from the point of view of the opposition of intelligence and stupidity, intelligence and madness.

Thus, Chatsky is not mad at all, and the society in which he finds himself is not so stupid. It’s just that the time for people like Chatsky, exponents of new views on life, has not yet come. They are in the minority, so they are forced to suffer defeat.

Work test