home › Miscellaneous › Features of the conflict in Griboedov's comedy “Woe from Wit. There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. What is the essence of the dual conflict of Griboedov's comedy

Features of the conflict in Griboedov's comedy “Woe from Wit. There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. What is the essence of the dual conflict of Griboedov's comedy

There are several conflicts in the play “Woe from Wit”, while the presence of only one conflict was a necessary condition for the classic play.

“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and public (between Chatsky and Famus Society).

The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to his girlfriend. Gradually, a love conflict develops into a public one. Finding out if Sophia loves him, Chatsky is faced with the Famus society. In comedy, the image of Chatsky represents new type personalities early XIX century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and how they live. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.

The social conflict in the play by A. S. Griboedov is connected with another conflict - between the “current century” and the “past century”. Chatsky is a type of a new person, he is the spokesman for the new ideology of the new time, the “current century”. And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century”. The old does not want to give up its positions and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict of the old and the new is one of the main ones in the Russian life of that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in literature XIX century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the collisions of comedy.

Among the heroes of Griboedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people, each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of \u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in Woe from Wit knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give a reason to be condemned by the powerful socialites, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yurievna. Therefore, Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. The purpose of Molchalin's life is to quietly, even slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“to take rewards and live happily”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.

A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is a reflection of an acute political struggle that took place at the beginning of the 19th century between the reactionary serf-owners and the progressive nobility. The former strove in everything to preserve the autocratic serf system and the lordly life, seeing this as the basis of their well-being. The latter struggled with the "past age" and opposed it with the "present age". The clash of the "past century" and the "current century", the angry protest of the representative of the young, progressive generation in the person of Chatsky against everything

The obsolete amounts main theme"Woe from the mind."

In the first scenes of the comedy, Chatsky is a dreamer who cherishes his dream - the thought of the possibility of changing a selfish, vicious society. And he comes to it, to this society, with an ardent word of conviction. He willingly enters into an argument with Famusov, Skalozub, reveals to Sophia the world of his feelings and experiences. The portraits that he draws in the first monologues are even funny.

Label specifications, accurate. Here are “an old, faithful member of the“ English Club ”Famusov, and Sophia’s uncle, who has already“ jumped off his age ”, and“ that black-haired one ”who is everywhere“ right there,

In dining rooms and living rooms, and a fat landowner-theater with his skinny serf artists, and Sophia’s “consumptive” relative, an “enemy of books”, demanding with a cry “an oath so that no one knows and does not learn to read”, and Chatsky’s teacher and Sophia, whose "all signs of learning" are a cap, a dressing gown and an index finger, and "Guillon, a Frenchman, lined with a breeze."

And only then, slandered, offended by this society, he is convinced of the hopelessness of his sermon, freed from his illusions: "Dreams out of sight, and the veil fell off." The clash between Chatsky and Famusov is based on the opposition of their attitude to service, to freedom, to the authorities, to the “past century” and “the current century”, to foreigners, to education, etc.

With the dignity of a gentleman, in a tone of superiority, Famusov reports about his service:

And what's the matter with me

that's not the point

My custom is this:

Signed, so off your shoulders.

In the service, he surrounds himself with relatives: his man will not let you down and “how not to please his own little man.” Service for him is a source of ranks, awards and income. The surest way to achieve these benefits is servility to the superiors. It is not for nothing that Famusov's ideal is Maxim Petrovich, who, cursing himself, "bent into an inflection", "bravely sacrificed the back of his head". On the other hand, he was "kindly treated at court", "he knew honor before everyone." And Famusov convinces Chatsky to learn worldly wisdom from the example of Maxim Petrovich.

Famusov's revelations outrage Chatsky, and he utters a monologue saturated with hatred for " servility", buffoonery. Listening to Chatsky's seditious speeches, Famusov becomes more and more inflamed. He is already ready to take the strictest measures against such dissidents as Chatsky, he believes that they should be banned from entering the capital, that they should be brought to justice. Next to Famusov is a colonel, the same enemy of education and science. He hurries to please the guests with those

That there is a project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums;

There they will only teach in our way: one, two;

And the books will be kept like this: for big occasions.

For all those present, “learning is the plague,” their dream is “to take away all the books and burn them.” The ideal of the Famus society is "And take awards and live happily." Everyone knows how to achieve ranks better and faster. Puffer knows many channels. Molchalin received from his father a whole science "to please all people without exception." The Famus Society guards its noble interests. A person is valued here by origin, by wealth:

We have been going on for a long time,

What a father and son honor.

Famusov's guests are united by the defense of the autocratic serf system, hatred of everything progressive. A fiery dreamer, with a reasonable thought and noble impulses, Chatsky is opposed to the close-knit and diverse world of famous, pufferfish with their petty goals and base aspirations. He is a stranger in this world. The “mind” of Chatsky puts him in the eyes of the Famusians outside their circle, outside the norms of social behavior familiar to them. The best human properties and inclinations of the heroes make him in the representation of others " a strange person”, “Carbonaria”, “eccentric”, “crazy”. Chatsky's clash with the Famus society is inevitable. In Chatsky's speeches, the opposite of his views to the views of Famus Moscow is clearly expressed.

He speaks indignantly about the feudal lords, about serfdom. In the central monologue "And who are the judges?" he angrily opposes the order of the Catherine's age, dear to Famusov's heart, "the age of humility and fear." For him, the ideal is an independent, free person.

He speaks indignantly about the inhuman feudal landowners, "noble scoundrels", one of whom "suddenly traded his faithful servants for three greyhounds!"; another drove to the "fortress ballet<…>from mothers, fathers of rejected children, ”and then they were sold one by one. And there are not a few! Chatsky also served, he writes and translates “gloriously”, managed to visit military service, has seen the light, has connections with ministers. But he breaks all ties, leaves the service because he wants to serve his homeland, and not his superiors. “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” he says. It is not his fault that he, being an active person, in the conditions of the prevailing political and public life doomed to inaction and prefers to "scour the world."

Staying abroad expanded Chatsky's horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign, unlike Famusov's like-minded people. Chatsky resents the lack of patriotism among these people. His dignity of a Russian person is offended by the fact that among the nobility "a mixture of languages still dominates: French with Nizhny Novgorod." Painfully loving his homeland, he would like to protect society from yearning for a foreign side, from “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of the West. According to him, the nobility should stand closer to the people and speak Russian, "so that our smart, vigorous people, although in language we are not considered Germans."

And how ugly is secular upbringing and education! Why are “they bothering to recruit teachers for regiments, more in number, at cheaper prices”? Smart, educated Chatsky stands for genuine enlightenment, although he is well aware of how difficult it is in the conditions of an autocratic-feudal system. After all, the one who, "without demanding either places or promotion to the rank ...", "puts the mind into science, hungry for knowledge ...", "will be known to them as a dangerous dreamer!". And there are such people in Russia. Chatsky's brilliant speech is evidence of his extraordinary mind. Even Famusov notes this: “he is small with a head,” “he speaks as he writes.”

What keeps Chatsky in a society alien in spirit? Only love for Sophia. This feeling justifies and makes understandable his stay in Famusov's house. The mind and nobility of Chatsky, feeling civic duty, resentment human dignity enter into acute conflict with his "heart", with his love for Sophia. Socio-political and personal drama unfolds in a comedy in parallel. They are inseparably merged. Sophia belongs entirely to the Famus world. She cannot fall in love with Chatsky, who opposes this world with all his mind and soul.

Chatsky's love conflict with Sophia grows to the extent of the rebellion he raised. As soon as it turned out that Sophia had betrayed her former feelings and turned everything past into laughter, he leaves her house, this society. Chatsky in last monologue not only blames Famusov, but he himself is spiritually freed, courageously conquering his passionate and tender love and breaking the last threads that connected him with the Famus world.

Chatsky still has few ideological followers.

His protest, of course, does not find a response in the environment.

... sinister old women, old men,

Decaying over fiction, nonsense.

For such people as Chatsky, being in a Famus society brings only “a million torments”, “woe from wit”. But the new, progressive is irresistible. Despite the strong resistance of the dying old, it is impossible to stop the forward movement. The views of Chatsky deal a terrible blow with their denunciations of famous and silent. The calm and carefree existence of the Famus society is over. His philosophy of life was condemned, it was rebelled against.

If the Chatskys are still weak in their struggle, then the Famusovs are powerless to stop the development of enlightenment, advanced ideas. The fight against the Famusovs did not end in comedy. She was just beginning in Russian life. The Decembrists and their spokesman Chatsky were representatives of the first early stage of the Russian liberation movement.

The innovation of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" is innovative. It is connected with artistic method comedy. Traditionally, "Woe from Wit" is considered the first Russian realistic play. The main departure from classicist traditions lies in the author's rejection of the unity of action: there is more than one conflict in the comedy Woe from Wit. In the play, two conflicts coexist and flow from one another: love and social. It is advisable to refer to the genre of the play to identify the main conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit".

The role of love conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit"

As in the traditional classic play, the comedy Woe from Wit is based on a love affair. However, the genre dramatic work- public comedy. Therefore, social conflict predominates over love.

Nevertheless, the play opens with a love conflict. Already in the exposition of the comedy, a love triangle is drawn. Sophia's nightly meeting with Molchalin in the very first appearance of the first act shows the girl's sensual preferences. Also in the first appearance, the maid Lisa recalls Chatsky, who was once associated with Sophia by youthful love. Thus, a classic love triangle unfolds before the reader: Sofia - Molchalin - Chatsky. But, as soon as Chatsky appears in Famusov's house, a social line begins to develop in parallel with the love one. The plot lines closely interact with each other, and this is the originality of the conflict in the play "Woe from Wit".

To enhance the comic effect of the play, the author introduces two more love triangles into it (Sofya - Molchalin - the maid Lisa; Lisa - Molchalin - the barman Petrush). Sofya, who is in love with Molchalin, does not suspect that the maid Lisa is much dearer to him, which he explicitly hints to Lisa. The maid is in love with the barman Petrusha, but is afraid to confess her feelings to him.

Public conflict in the play and its interaction with the love line

The basis of the social conflict of the comedy was the confrontation between the "current century" and the "past century" - the progressive and conservative nobility. The only representative of the "current century", with the exception of off-stage characters, in comedy is Chatsky. In his monologues, he passionately adheres to the idea of serving "the cause, not the persons." Alien to him moral ideals Famus society, namely the desire to adapt to circumstances, to "serve" if it helps to get another rank or other material benefits. He appreciates the ideas of the Enlightenment, in conversations with Famusov and other characters he defends science and art. This is a man free from prejudice.

The main representative of the "past century" is Famusov. It concentrated all the vices of the aristocratic society of that time. Most of all, he is concerned about the opinion of the world about himself. After Chatsky's departure from the ball, he is only concerned about "what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say." He admires Colonel Skalozub, a stupid and shallow man who only dreams of "getting" himself a general's rank. This is his Famusov would like to see as his son-in-law, because Skalozub has the main advantage, recognized light, - money. With rapture, Famusov talks about his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who, during an awkward fall at the reception of the Empress, was "granted with the highest smile." Admiration, according to Famusov, is worthy of the uncle's ability to "serve": in order to amuse those present and the monarch, he fell two more times, but this time on purpose. Famusov is sincerely afraid of the progressive views of Chatsky, because they threaten the usual way of life of the conservative nobility.

It should be noted that the clash between the "current century" and the "past century" is not at all a conflict between fathers and children of "Woe from Wit". For example, Molchalin, being a representative of the generation of "children", shares the views of the Famus society on the need to make useful contacts and skillfully use them to achieve their goals. He eats the same quivering love to awards and honors. In the end, he only associates with Sophia and supports her infatuation with him out of a desire to please her influential father.

Sophia, Famusov's daughter, cannot be attributed either to the "current century" or to the "past century". Her opposition to her father is connected only with her love for Molchalin, but not with her views on the structure of society. Famusov, frankly flirting with a maid, is a caring father, but is not good example for Sophia. The young girl is quite progressive in her views, smart, not concerned about the opinion of society. All this is the cause of disagreement between father and daughter. "What a commission, creator, to be adult daughter father!" Famusov laments. However, she is not on the side of Chatsky. With her hands, or rather with a word spoken out of revenge, Chatsky was expelled from the society he hated. Sophia is the author of rumors about Chatsky's madness. And the world easily picks up these rumors, because in diatribes Everyone sees Chatsky as a direct threat to their well-being. Thus, in spreading the rumor about the madness of the protagonist in the world, a love conflict played a decisive role. Chatsky and Sophia collide not on ideological grounds. Sophia is just worried that former lover can destroy her personal happiness.

conclusions

Thus, main feature conflict of the play "Woe from Wit" - the presence of two conflicts and their close relationship. The love affair opens the play and serves as a pretext for Chatsky's clash with the "gone century". love line it also helps the Famus society to declare its enemy insane and disarm him. However, the social conflict is the main one, because "Woe from Wit" is a public comedy, the purpose of which is to denounce the morals noble society early 19th century.

Artwork test

1) I. A. Goncharov believed that Griboedov's comedy would never become outdated. How can you explain her immortality?

In addition to historically specific pictures of the life of Russia after the war of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle of the new with the old in the minds of people when changing historical eras. Griboyedov convincingly shows that at first the new is quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools per smart person, as Griboedov aptly puts it), but “the quality of fresh strength” (Goncharov) eventually wins. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to their Chatskys and that they are invincible.

2) Why can't the expression "an extra person" be applied to Chatsky?

On the stage, we do not see his like-minded people, although there are some of them among the off-stage heroes (professors of the St. began to read). Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, he believes in the victory of progress. He actively interferes in public life, not only criticizes public order, but also promotes his positive program. Word and deed are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not superfluous, but a new person.

3) Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the type " extra person»?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not "serve the superiors." And such people, despite their intelligence, abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

4) What are storylines comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: a love affair and a social conflict.

5) What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main conflict is public (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of the general trend.

6) Why does a comedy start with a love affair?

"Public Comedy" begins with a love affair, because, firstly, it is a fail-safe way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author's psychological insight, since it is at the moment of the most vivid experiences that a person is most open to the world, which implies love itself, often the most severe disappointments with the imperfection of this world occur.

7) What role does the theme of the mind play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role, because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave and behave.

8) How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin's understanding, the mind is not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to such a definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

9) What do their names “say” about the characters of the comedy?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and speaking names: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance adjusts the audience to the perception of the comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be of value on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from the English. famous - "fame", "glory" or from lat. fama- "rumor", "rumor". The name Sophia in Greek means "wisdom". The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. In the name and patronymic of Chatsky, masculinity is emphasized: Alexander (from the Greek. Winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek. Courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero's surname, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

10) What is the plot of the comedy. What storylines are outlined in the first act?

Arrival at Chatsky's house is the beginning of a comedy. The hero links together two storylines - love-lyrical and socio-political, satirical. From the moment he appears on the stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but not in the least violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky's mockery of the appearance and behavior of the visitors and inhabitants of the Famusov house, seemingly still harmless, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into political and moral opposition to the Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not notice yet, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, preferring Molchalin.

11) Under what circumstances do the first impressions of Molchalin develop? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth phenomenon of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky's review of him.

He is laconic, which justifies his surname.

Have you yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who takes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and aversion to insolence. Only later do we find out that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love "for the sake of the daughter of such a person" "by position", and can be very cheeky with Lisa.

The reader believes Chatsky's prophecy, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that "he will reach the known levels, because now they love the dumb."

12) How do Sofya and Liza evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky's sincerity, his emotionality, devotion to Sophia, recalls with what a sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he could lose Sophia's love over the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. It is easy to remember her phrase characterizing Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp,

Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky!

Sofya, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and what Lisa admires in him annoys her. And here she seeks to move away from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to laugh at everyone”, “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “pretends to be in love, exacting and distressed”, “he thought highly of himself”, “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and draws a conclusion, mentally contrasting to him Molchalin: “Oh, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: "Not a man - a snake" and a caustic question, it did not happen to him even by mistake to respond kindly about someone. Chatsky's critical attitude towards guests famus house she does not share.

13) Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and cause of the disagreement between them?

The characters show different understanding of key social and moral problems their contemporary life. The attitude to the service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve” - principle young hero. On pleasing people, and not serving the cause, on the promotion of relatives and acquaintances, Famusov builds his career, whose custom “what matters, what does not matter” is “Signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov cites as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important Catherine’s grandee (“All in orders, He always rode in a train ...” “Who leads to ranks and gives pensions?”), Who did not disdain to “bend over backwards” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer up the empress. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as carbonari, dangerous person, "he wants to preach liberty", "does not recognize the authorities."

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky's denunciation of the tyranny of those landlords whom Famusov venerates ("That Nestor of the noble scoundrels ...", who exchanged his servants for "three greyhounds"). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the fate of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of a serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out one by one…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if it is typed; Souls of a thousand two tribal souls, - He is the groom, ”Chatsky evaluates such norms as“ the meanest traits of the past life ”, with anger falls upon careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of education.

15) What are the moral and life ideals famous society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the characters in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of the Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And to take awards, and have fun”, “If only I got to be a general!”. The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the price of Zagoretsky (“He is a liar, a gambler, a thief / I was from him and the door was locked ...”), accepts him, because he is a “master of pleasing”, got her a black-haired girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. All of them seek kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. The true evil of noble Moscow was gallomania.

16) Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action), characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it respected in comedy?

In comedy, two unities are observed: time (events occur during the day), place (in Famusov's house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

17) Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness arise and spread? Why are Famusov's guests so willing to support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a series of phenomena that is very interesting from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by accident. G.N., catching Sophia's mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean, being under the impression of the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It is unlikely that she put a direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And here in the head of Sophia, insulted for Molchalin, an insidious plan arises. Great importance to explain this scene, they have remarks for Sophia's further remarks: "after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side." Her further remarks are already aimed at the conscious introduction of this idea into the head of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor spread will be picked up and overgrown with details.

He is ready to believe!

Ah, Chatsky! you love to dress up everyone in jesters,

Would you like to try on yourself?

Rumors of madness are spreading with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news, tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes, because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedy scenes, the characters of the characters that make up the Famus circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the go with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes, Chatsky's judgments seemed insane to her. Ridiculous is the dialogue about Chatsky, the Countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor launched by Sophia: “the accursed Voltairian”, “crossed the law”, “he is in pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, phenomenon XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

18) Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “forever young old men Russian history"? What is the true face of Molchalin?

Calling Molchalin so, the literary critic emphasizes the typicality of such people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family ties. Even in their youth, they are not characterized by romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for the improvement of public and public life serve individuals, not the cause. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin learns in the Famus society of “the past life the meanest traits” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: remember what he bequeathed Molchalin's father), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one's own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. Exactly moral character Famusova reproduces Molchalin, seeking a love date with Lisa. Such is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D. I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “famous degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother away from the road, call his beloved woman to a nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will keep going and come ... "Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

19) What is the denouement public conflict plays? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the defeated?

From the appearance of the XIV last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins, in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusovsky society are summed up and the final rupture of the two worlds is affirmed - "the present century and the past century". It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “Million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced him early in childhood and adolescence lost family. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely from those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, they are ready to preach even when no one is listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at the Famusov ball. Famusovsky world is alien to him, he did not accept his laws. And therefore it can be considered that moral victory on his side. Moreover, Famusov's final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will he say

Princess Marya Alexevna!

20) Get acquainted with the various assessments of the image of Chatsky.

Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...”

Goncharov: “Chatsky is positively intelligent. His speech boils with wit ... "

Katenin: "Chatsky is the main person ... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately."

Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently?

The reason is the complexity and diversity of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was the first acquaintance with the work, by that time aesthetic positions both poets parted ways. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboyedov's comedy. Subsequently, "Woe from Wit" will enter Pushkin's work with hidden and explicit quotations.

Chatsky's accusations of verbosity and inopportune preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set themselves: to express their positions in any audience. They were distinguished by directness and sharpness of judgments, categoricalness of their sentences, not taking into account secular norms, they called a spade a spade. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of the hero of his time, an advanced person of the 20s of the 19th century.

21) Why do the Chatskys live and are not translated in society? (According to the article by I. A. Goncharov "A Million of Torments".)

The state, designated in the comedy as “mind and heart out of tune”, is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to approve progressive views, to oppose injustice, inertia of social principles, to find answers to urgent spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times.

22) B. Goller in the article “The Drama of a Comedy” writes: “Sofya Griboedova - main riddle comedy." What is the reason for such an assessment of the image?

Sophia in many ways differed from the young ladies of her circle: independence, sharp mind, self-esteem, disregard for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like Princess Tugoukhovskaya, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, accepts his comings on dates and gentle silence for love and devotion, becomes a persecutor of Chatsky. Her mystery lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V. A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia loving Chatsky, but because of his departure, feeling insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, well able to control herself. Mockingness, grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T. V. Doronina opened in Sofia a strong character and deep feeling. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of the Famus society, but did not denounce him, but despised him. Love for Molchalin was generated by her imperiousness - he was an obedient shadow of her love, and she did not believe Chatsky's love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious for the reader, the viewer, theatrical figures to this day.

23) Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: "I'm not talking about poetry: half should become a proverb." What is the innovation of the language of Griboyedov's comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions (5-6) that have become winged.

Griboyedov widely uses spoken language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial nature of the language is given by the free (variegated) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three calms and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in "Woe from Wit" and have become widespread in speech practice:

Went to a room, got into another.

Signed, so off your shoulders.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And the golden bag, and marks the generals.

Oh! If someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far, etc.

happy hours are not watching.

Bypass us more than all sorrows and master's wrath, and lordly love.

He never uttered a wise word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!

The peculiarity of the conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov

Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", no doubt, best work great playwright. It was written the day before December uprising. The comedy was a sharp and angry satire on the life and customs of noble Russia, indirectly showed the struggle between the conservatism of the feudal landlords, the backward autocracy, and the new moods that reigned among the progressive noble youth.

There are still disputes between different researchers about the conflict "Woe from Wit", even Griboyedov's contemporaries understood it differently. If we take into account the time of writing "Woe from Wit", then we can assume that Griboyedov uses clashes of reason, public duty and feelings. But, of course, the conflict of Griboedov's comedy is much deeper and has a multi-layered structure. Chatsky - eternal type. He tries to harmonize feeling and reason. He himself says that "mind and heart are not in harmony," but he does not understand the seriousness of this threat. Chatsky is a hero whose actions are built on one impulse, everything he does, he does in one breath, practically not allowing pauses between declarations of love and monologues denouncing aristocratic Moscow.

Griboedov wrote: "I hate cartoons, you won't find a single one in my picture." His Chatsky is not a caricature; Griboyedov portrays him so alive, full of contradictions, that he begins to seem like a person who almost really existed. The conflict that arises between him and Famusov is of a socio-political nature. Griboedov's contemporaries and his Decembrist friends perceived the comedy as a call to action, as an approval and proclamation of their ideas, and its conflict as a struggle between progressive youth in the person of Chatsky, a representative of the "current century", and the old conservative ideas of the "past century". But, carried away by the heated monologues of Chatsky, the adherents of this point of view did not pay due attention to the ending of the play. She does not call for action at all, Chatsky leaves Moscow disappointed, and the picture of the final does not carry optimism. In fact, there is no sharp struggle between the progressive Chatsky and Famus society. No one is going to conflict with Chatsky, he is only asked to be silent": Famusov: "I don’t listen, I’m on trial! / I asked to be silent, / Not a great service."

Much has been said in literary criticism about the conflict between the "current century" and the "past century". "The current age" represented the youth. But young people are Molchalin, Sophia, and Skalozub. It is Sophia who first speaks about Chatsky's madness, and Molchalin is not only alien to Chatsky's ideas, he is also afraid of them. His motto is to live by the rule: "My father bequeathed to me ...". Skalazub is generally a man of an established order, he is only concerned about his career. Where is the conflict of the ages? So far, we are only observing that both centuries not only coexist peacefully, but also that the "current century" is a complete reflection of the "past century", that is, there is no conflict of centuries. Griboyedov does not push "fathers" and "children" together; he opposes them to Chatsky, who finds himself alone.

So, we see that at the heart of Griboedov's comedy is not a socio-political conflict, not a conflict of the centuries. Chatsky's phrase "the mind is out of tune with the heart", said by him at the moment of a moment of insight, is not a hint at the conflict of feelings and duty, but at a deeper, philosophical conflict of living life and the limited ideas about it of our mind.

It cannot be said about love conflict plays that serve to develop the drama. The first lover, so smart, brave, is defeated, the ending of the comedy is not a wedding, but a bitter disappointment. From love triangle: Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin - the winner is not the mind, and not even narrowness and mediocrity, but disappointment. The play gets an unexpected end, the mind turns out to be untenable in love, that is, in what is inherent in living life. At the end of the play, everyone is confused. Not only Chatsky, who says: “I won’t come to my senses ... I’m guilty, / And I listen, I don’t understand ...”, but also Famusov, unshakable in his confidence, in whom suddenly everything that used to go smoothly turns upside down: “My fate is still Isn’t she deplorable? / Oh! My God! What will he say / Princess Marya Aleksevna! ” The peculiarity of the comedy conflict is that in life everything is not the same as in French novels, the rationality of the characters comes into conflict with life.

The significance of "Woe from Wit" can hardly be overestimated. One can speak of the play as a thunderous blow to the society of famous, silent, puffers, a play-drama "about the collapse of the human mind in Russia."