In the comedy we meet the mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas, with certain moral requirements. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famusovs and the Silents with the high, Decembrist understanding of honor and duty, public role and human responsibilities. A free and independent way of thinking instead of silent admiration for the “opinions of others”, independence and proud dignity instead of servility and flattery before superiors - these are moral principles Chatsky. Like Griboyedov himself, he sees “the goal not in enjoying life,” but in serving society and the homeland.

The concept of the true honor of a patriot, a true son of the fatherland, was inextricably linked in Griboyedov’s hero with the desire for freedom, with hatred of autocracy, of the serf-owning nobles who, being “rich from robbery,” posed as “fathers of the fatherland.”

Chatsky is a humanist, defender of freedom and independence of the individual. Slavery and serfdom evoke a sharp, decisive protest in him. In his angry speech against the “judges”, he exposes the serf-based basis of the grossly egoistic philosophy of enjoying life inherent in Famus society. In “Nestor of the Noble Scoundrels”, in the landowner-balletomane, in the robbers who found protection for themselves in kinship, Chatsky passionately denounces the feudal system that he hates. Griboyedov's hero is especially angry at the landlord's violence and abuse of the peasant's personality.

Chatsky’s famous words about the peasants “sold out one by one” had a theme great strength that such facts were very common at that time. According to the Decembrist Steingel, this place in the comedy greatly excited him; it reminded his contemporaries of what was confirmed in 1820. State Council The “right” of landowners to sell peasants one by one, separating relatives. The fact that landowners used this “right” very often is also evidenced by the fact that in the literature of that time more than one Griboedov pointed to it. In his poem “I Laugh and Cry,” V. Raevsky denounces the “wild lordship” almost in the words of Chatsky:

• Looking...
• Like a noble helipad, a soulless idle talker,
• Ivana and Semyon are oppressed by a deuce
• Or the poor villagers, taken away from their fathers,
• Exchanges for starlings, a poodle or a jay,
• And he is respected everywhere by the right of nobility!
• Like a hypocrite, a bigot, despising the holy law,
• Having turned gray in debauchery, a harem by right of power
• Creates from the weak victims of his despicable passion.
• When the moan of the innocent stirs my chest, -
• I'm shedding tears!

Both before and after Griboyedov, the leading nobles of the pre-reform era in the person of Pushkin, Herzen, and the young Turgenev denounced the serfdom as a system of violence, bondage, abuse of the peasants and, above all, of the defenseless courtyard servants, who primarily experienced “both lordly anger and lordly love " Chatsky is indignant not only at the abuse of serfdom by landowners, but at the entire serfdom system as a whole.

Chatsky’s anti-serfdom ideology is manifested in his high assessment of character, moral qualities enslaved people. In contrast to the slanderous statements of the feudal landowners about the serf peasantry, Chatsky speaks of a vigorous, intelligent, that is, in the phraseology of the Decembrists, a freedom-loving people.

It is interesting to note that, in contrast to “Woe from Wit,” in which the people themselves hardly act - they are only spoken about, Griboedov, in the tragedy he later conceived about 1812, was going to lead the people out, and the main hero of his new play intended to make a serf. The surviving plan of the tragedy shows that Griboyedov chose the most tragic theme of its time - the contradiction between the powerful forces of the Russian people, who defended their national independence in the fight against foreign invaders, and their serfdom. The tragedy was conceived very broadly, and its main conflict was revealed by the writer historically correctly, in a realistic manner. It was supposed to show the people's liberation character of the war of 1812 and the rise of national self-awareness of the Russian people, with which the existence of serfdom was clearly not compatible. All of it is imbued with deep sympathy for the people, ardent faith in their powerful creative forces, and recognition of their historical role.

In this tragedy, Griboyedov thinks about the question posed by Radishchev, what the people, “born to greatness and glory,” could achieve if they were free. “Devoted to himself, what could he produce?” - the playwright asks with admiration.

1. What is Chatsky right and what is wrong.
2. Exposing the vices of “the present century and the past century.”
3. Annoyance “at the whole world.”

In his comedy, A. S. Griboyedov contrasted Chatsky with Moscow society, endowing him with the features of a tragic rather than a comic character, however, precisely because of this circumstance, Chatsky constantly finds himself in a funny position. Meanwhile, everything he says sounds lively and convincing, and in fact is not at all meaningless. Chatsky's ridicule of the ways in which the courtiers achieved high ranks During the time of Catherine II, the denunciation of tyrant serf-owners and the Russians’ commitment to everything Western and foreign was undoubtedly not without a real basis. One cannot but agree that high-ranking “judges”, whose ideas are hopelessly outdated, can sensibly and impartially determine true priorities social development. However, a question arises that also worried A.S. Pushkin: to whom is Chatsky saying all this? Having answered this question, we logically come across the next one: why is he doing this? If Chatsky spoke in front of an audience that could perceive his speeches with sympathy and understanding, perhaps from passionate tirades, there would be at least some benefit. But the circle of people that Griboedov’s hero is trying to expose obviously cannot have a positive attitude towards similar speeches. The reaction of Moscow society to Chatsky can be compared to a stone thrown into water: for some time circles of bewilderment and indignation scatter across the surface, but very soon this excitement will subside, and Chatsky will be forgotten. He is declared crazy, dangerous, because he takes up arms against the very foundations of the existence of society. But let us repeat again: why is he doing this? Chatsky’s behavior is too reminiscent of the behavior of a child, thoughtlessly teasing geese or an angry dog. These creatures, of course, will not become kinder from such treatment, but they will certainly want to attack the source of irritation they will do this if there are no serious obstacles.Thus, we see that if the ideas expressed by Chatsky themselves are progressive and reasonable, the behavior of the comedy hero can hardly be called reasonable.

But what are Chatsky’s views, which he so sharply throws his accusations in the face of the representatives of the “past century”? The hero of Griboyedov's comedy mockingly compares the way the courtiers of former times behaved with the current “wordlessness.” The comparison, frankly speaking, is not in favor of both eras. If formerly man did not stop at outright buffoonery in order to gain the favor of the monarch, now they began to think more about decency. However, both of these evoke caustic ridicule from Chatsky:

Who needs it: those are arrogant, they lie in the dust,
And for those who are higher, flattery was woven like lace.
It was an age of obedience and fear,
All under the guise of zeal for the king.

...
Although there are hunters everywhere to be mean,
Yes, nowadays laughter frightens and keeps shame in check;
No wonder the sovereigns favor them sparingly.

Chatsky does not serve anywhere. Moreover, it is known that several years ago he collaborated with ministers, and then stopped communicating with them, since he “would be happy to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” However, in bureaucratic circles the idea of ​​selfless service to the homeland is not in fashion: most officials only think about how to get a higher rank and more rewards. In the eyes of these people, Chatsky’s behavior looks very strange. But he doesn’t care about their condemnation - he knows well what these people are:

Who are the judges? - In ancient times

TO free life their enmity is irreconcilable...
...Where, show us, are the fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?

Chatsky contrasts the lifestyle of the Moscow “aces” with a disinterested scientific or creative search, not associated with dreams of profit, which is often viewed as eccentricity. At the same time, Chatsky denounces the admiration for the military uniform characteristic of his era:

Now let one of us
Of the young people, there will be an enemy of quest...
...They immediately: robbery! fire!
And he will be known among them as a dreamer! dangerous! —
Uniform! one uniform! he is in their former life
Once covered, embroidered and beautiful,
Their weakness, their poverty of reason...

Chatsky is especially indignant at the blind copying of everything foreign,” and at the enthusiastic awe of the authority of the West. Recalling in a conversation with Sophia about the dance teacher, the Frenchman Guillaume, Chatsky ironically notes that this dexterous “gentleman” could well marry some princess - from a Russian “they will be required to be with property and in rank," but this is not at all necessary for a courteous Frenchman, given the Russians’ admiration for foreign chic. In a monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” Chatsky sarcastically declares that in Russia the Frenchman did not find “not a sound of Russian, not a Russian face." Such a statement is by no means an exaggeration: for example, A. S. Pushkin in the novel "Eugene Onegin" mentioned that Tatyana did not know the Russian language well, so her letter to Onegin was written in French. Chatsky, denouncing imitation of foreigners is certainly right - when borrowing something good, you don’t need to turn into a monkey, copying everything to the smallest detail.Chatsky is also outraged by the enthusiastic sighs of his fellow citizens dedicated to distant and beautiful France. In the monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” Chatsky appears not just as a patriot. It can be noted that his views are close to the views of the Slavophiles. Chatsky opposes domination foreign words in Russian, ridicules the French cut of clothing, which is not very comfortable and adapted to the climatic conditions of Russia:

I sent wishes away
Humble, yet out loud,
May the Lord destroy this unclean spirit
Empty, slavish, blind imitation...
...Let me be declared an Old Believer,
But our North is a hundred times worse for me
Since I gave everything in exchange for a new way -
And morals, and language, and holy antiquity,
And stately clothes for another
According to the jester's model...

So, Chatsky, in his monologues, touched on almost all of Russia’s contemporary problems? greed and arrogance of high-ranking officials, sycophancy of those below, the arbitrariness of landowners and the shameful stigma of serfdom, disdain for the high ideals of serving the motherland, science or art, excessive admiration for the military and blind imitation of foreigners. However, Chatsky, who expresses the main set of liberal ideas in his monologues, is driven not so much by a sincere desire for beneficial changes as by annoyance “at the daughter and at the father and at the foolish lover,” that is, at Sophia, Famusov and Molchalin. The coldness of Sophia, whom Chatsky had not seen for three years, hurt him greatly. Famusov's teachings, delivered in a fatherly tone in the spirit of the morality reigning in Moscow society, only increased Chatsky's irritation. In addition, the hero’s anger intensifies due to jealousy - either towards Skalozub or towards Molchalin. And Chatsky can’t stand the latter, as a typical “wordless” sycophant, which is clear from his barbs towards Molchalin. Having learned who the object of Sophia’s feelings was, Chatsky leaves, taking away his offended pride:

Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.

Exercise: The image of Chatsky caused a whole controversy in criticism. Get acquainted with the statements of Russian writers and critics about the main character of the comedy “Woe from Wit”. Which point of view, in your opinion, is close to the author’s position?

A.S. Pushkin : “Chatsky is not a smart person at all, but Griboyedov is very smart... In the comedy “Woe from Wit” who is smart actor? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. First sign smart person- to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...”

P.A. Katenin: “...Chatsky has all the virtues and no vices, but, in my opinion, he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.”

P.A Vyazemsky : “The hero of the comedy himself, young Chatsky, looks like Starodum. The nobility ruled him respectfully; but the ability with which he preaches ex-abrupto on every text that comes his way is often tiresome. Those who listen to his speeches can definitely apply the name of comedy to themselves, saying: “Woe from Wit”! A mind like Chatsky’s is not enviable either for himself or for others. In that major vice author, that among fools of various types he brought out one smart man, and even then he was mad and boring.”

M.A. Dmitriev : “Mr. Griboyedov wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who is not liked by the society of uneducated people... But we see in Chatsky a person who slander and says whatever comes to mind; it is natural that such a person will get bored in any society... Chatsky... is nothing more than a madman who is in the company of people who are not at all stupid, but uneducated, and who plays smart in front of them because he considers himself smarter... Chatsky, who should be the smartest person in the play... is presented as the least reasonable of all.”

O.M. Somov : “Griboyedov should have made of Chatsky what the French call un raisonneur, the most boring and difficult face in comedy... G. Griboedov had no intention of presenting an ideal face in Chatsky... He presented Chatsky as smart and kind young man, but not at all free from weaknesses: there are two of them... arrogance and impatience. Chatsky himself understands very well... that, speaking to the ignorant about ignorance and prejudices and to the vicious about their vices, he only loses his speech in vain; but at that moment when prejudice touches him, so to speak, to the quick, he is unable to control his silence: against his will, indignation evokes in him a stream of words, caustic, but fair... This is generally the character of ardent people, and this character is captured Mr. Griboyedov with amazing fidelity.”

V.G. Belinsky : “He’s just a loudmouth, a phrase-monger, an ideal buffoon, profaning at every step everything sacred he talks about. Does entering into society and starting to scold everyone to their face as fools and brutes mean being a deep person?.. Someone deeply appreciated this comedy when he said that this grief is not only from the mind, but from cleverness... we clearly see “that the poet, not jokingly, wanted to portray in Chatsky the ideal of a deep man, in conflict with society, and God knows what happened.”

A.P. Grigoriev : “Chatsky Griboedova is the only truly heroic face of our literature... an honest and active nature, and also the nature of a fighter.”

A.M. Skabichevsky : “Chatsky is a vivid personification of Griboyedov’s contemporaries... Chatsky was precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas and were ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball.” .

Who is Chatsky?- winner or loser?

From point of view social conflict It is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser.

On the one hand, Chatsky is defeated: he is declared crazy by society.

He disturbs the peace of Famus’s world, its decency, because “all Chatsky’s words will spread, be repeated everywhere and produce their own storm”;

Molchalin's mask is pulled off; his fate is still uncertain, but for some time this hero also lost his balance;

Sophia’s “epiphany” came;

The once monolithic Famus society of the “past century” discovered “among its own” an irreconcilable enemy, differing from them not only in “dissent,” but also in “different behavior”;

Chatsky’s victory is already in the fact that he appears on stage as a representative of a new time, a new century (detail - Lisa turns the clock hands in Famusov’s house - with the appearance of Chatsky, the countdown of a new time in comedy begins).

On stage, Chatsky is alone, but there are off-stage characters, indicating that the main character has like-minded people ( cousin Skalozuba, nephew of Tugoukhovskaya, professor pedagogical university), - this is how it is revealed author's position: Griboyedov’s confidence in Chatsky’s impending victory.

ESSAY ON COMEDY A.S. GRIBOEDOV "Woe from Wit"

1. Analysis of the episode “Ball in Famusov’s House.”

2. “The present century” and “the past century” in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

3. Two patriotisms in comedy (dispute between Chatsky and Famusov about Moscow).

4. “Sofia is not clearly outlined...” (A.S. Pushkin)

5. Love in the understanding of Chatsky and Sofia.

6. Is Molchalin funny or scary?

7. “Woe from Wit” - comedy or drama?

8. Reading Griboyedov’s comedy... (essay)

Griboedov was the first in Russian literature to create a realistic image positive hero of his time, embodied in his worldview and character real features and the appearance of a Decembrist.

Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is contrasted with the camp of old Moscow, the enemies of free thought and enlightenment. This is a representative of the new younger generation, following different paths than Famusov and Molchalin. This is how Griboyedov’s hero introduces himself:

Without demanding either places or promotion,

In science he will focus his mind, hungry for knowledge,

Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul

To the creative arts “high and beautiful.”

Chatsky is a humanist, defender of freedom and personal independence. He contrasts the slave morality of the Famusovs and Molchalins with a high understanding of honor and duty, the social role and responsibilities of man. A free and independent way of thinking instead of silent worship before the “opinions of others”, independence and proud dignity instead of servility and flattery before superiors, service to a cause and not to individuals in the name of honor and the good of the homeland - these are the moral principles of the main character of the comedy. He passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power, in the power of the word.

This is the meaning of Chatsky’s spiritual drama. He suffers grief from his mind, which is deep in its critical attitude towards the selfish and unreasonable world of famus and rock-toothed people, but still weak in determining the right ways to fight for the transformation of reality.

As already mentioned, Chatsky was a true representative of the Age of Enlightenment. He saw the reasons for the ugliness of life in the unreasonableness of society. The hero believed that the serf system could be changed and corrected through the influence of noble humane ideas. But life dealt a terrible blow to these hopes and dreams, shattering not only Chatsky’s social but also personal hopes.

But not only Chatsky, but the entire Famus world experiences grief from his own mind. After all, the main character felt like a human being." this century“and did not at all realize that he was alone. And, despite their “grief,” the Chatskys deal a terrible blow to the world of the Famusovs, the Silencers and the Skalozubs. The calm and carefree existence of this society ended: its philosophy of life was condemned and they rebelled against it. And if the Chatskys are still weak in their struggle, then the Famusovs are powerless to stop the development of enlightenment and advanced ideas.

So, central problem and the most important ideological dispute of the comedy is the contradictory attitude of the heroes to the “mind”.

Woe from Wit is a situation when a person lives guided by an internalized system of stereotypes. Chatsky in this sense is no different from others. His tragedy is in excess of enthusiasm with insufficient understanding of his real goals.

Plan

1. About the comedy "Woe from Wit".
2. What is tormenting Chatsky?
   1. Hatred of serfdom
      1. To the feudal landowners
      2. The plight of the people
   2. Vices Famusov society
   3. Duty to the Fatherland
   4. Personal drama
   5. Loneliness
3. What did Chatsky’s torment lead to?

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in the first third of the 19th century. This time is characterized by a difficult political situation. In Russia, awakened by the war of 1812, a wave of protest against serfdom rises. Secret societies are emerging in progressive circles. There is a clash between two socio-political camps. In the comedy, Griboedov depicted this conflict with historical accuracy. Main character comedy Chatsky enters into a fight with Famusov's society, his torment begins.

What is tormenting Chatsky?

The main thing is those public relations that existed in Russia. Serfdom was hated by every free-thinking person. Chatsky is depicted in the comedy not just as a “desert sower of freedom,” but as a future Decembrist:

"...a million torments
Breasts from friendly vices,
Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,
And all sorts of trifles are worse than my head.”

With anger and pain, he denounces ardent serf owners in his monologues. His words about “Nestor of the ignorant nobles,” about the landowner-balletomane, sound like hatred.

Chatsky is a humanist, defender of freedom and independence of the individual. He is especially angry at the landowners’ bullying of the peasant’s personality:

"Cupids and zephyrs are all
Sold out individually!!!”

Chatsky loves the people, calls them “kind and smart,” hence his suffering about the fate of the people. The vices of Famus society especially make Chatsky suffer. This society slows down everything progressive and blocks its path to the people. They especially hate education:

“Learning is a plague,
Learning is the reason
What is worse now than then,
Crazy people got divorced
Both deeds and opinions.”

The fact that society fiercely resists the influence of noble ideas strikes at Chatsky’s philosophy and adds to his torment.

These people see the ideal in the army. This is a product of the era of Arakcheev, who saw the army as a stronghold of serfdom. Holds on cliff teeth serfdom and the throne, that’s why they are so dear to the Famus family and hated by Chatsky.

“Uniform! One uniform!
He is in their former life
Once covered, embroidered and beautiful,
Their weakness, their poverty of reason..."

The tailcoat of a foreigner also evokes admiration, which is also painful for Chatsky to see. He speaks of a “Frenchman from Bordeaux” who in Russia did not encounter “neither the sound of a Russian nor a Russian face.” Chatsky opposes “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” But when Chatsky utters these words, everyone is convinced that he is crazy.

The image of Chatsky is the image of a citizen in the high sense of the word. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famus and Silent people with a high understanding of honor and duty; he is ready to serve the Motherland and its interests. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This also contains the hero’s suffering. A high understanding of duty is the bright side of Chatsky’s personality. The tragic collision between duty and feeling tragically ends everything in Chatsky’s soul. He is haunted by the thought that he is alone: ​​“And in the crowd I am lost,” he says. Chatsky dealt a crushing blow to lordly Moscow, to its aces, who not only live, but also die.