Comparative characteristics of Chatsky and Silent in the comedy Woe from Wit Griboedov's composition. Chatsky - the image of people and the spokesman for the views of the new generation Chatsky's point of view on the main problems of the time
A series of lessons on the topic of A.S. Griboedov "Woe from Wit"
Creativity A.S. Griboyedov
Lesson 1
The creative path and fate of A.S. Griboyedov
The history of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Objectives: to introduce students to the fate of A.S. Griboyedov and the history of the creation of comedy, to repeat the specific features of the composition of a dramatic work and the genre features of comedy.
I. Creative path and fate of A.S. Griboyedov (1795-1829).
1. The teacher's story about Griboyedov
1) Childhood and youth of the writer
Griboyedov comes from an old noble family. 1803 - studying at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School. 1806 - student of the verbal department of Moscow University. Previously, a manifestation of talent: he knew the main European, ancient, oriental languages, composed music, was a pianist-improviser. Military service- 1812-1816.
2) Start literary activity and civil career
1815 - the debut of Griboyedov - playwright (the comedy "Young Spouses"); in the late 1810s - the plays "Student", "Feigned infidelity"; 1817 - entering the service of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs with the rank of provincial secretary; 1818 - Secretary of the Russian diplomatic mission in Persia
3) 1812-1824 - work on "Woe from Wit". The idea of a comedy arose in 1820
4) 1825-1829 - the last years of his life. Bringing Griboyedov to the investigation after the Decembrist uprising.
Griboyedov in the Caucasus. The role of the writer in the conclusion of the Turkmenchay peace (1828). Appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary - Resident of Russia in Persia.
On January 30, 1829, Griboyedov was killed during an attack on the Russian mission in Tehran by a crowd of militant Muslims.
2.Customized student message:
- Griboyedov and the Decembrists;
- Griboyedov and Pushkin;
- Griboedov is a diplomat.
3. In a strong class - a review of the novel by Yu. Tynyanov "The Death of Vazir - Mukhtar."
II. Repetition of the typological features of the dramatic kind of literature, the specifics of the composition of a dramatic work and genre features comedy.
III. The history of the creation of comedy.
IV. Homework
2. Analyze the dialogues of Chatsky and Sophia: the behavior of the characters, their attitude towards each other, the nature of the statements.
3. What causes the condemnation of Chatsky in the manners of the Moscow nobility?
Lesson 2
Analysis of the first act of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Objectives: during the analysis of the first action, to identify the plot of the comedy, to form an initial idea of the conflict, to continue the formation of the skill of analysis dramatic work taking into account its genre specificity.
I. Introductory speech of the teacher
In 1919, a century after the creation of Woe from Wit, the great Russian poet Alexander Blok wrote: “The 19th century immediately created a great comedy. "Woe from Wit" is still unsolved and, perhaps, the greatest creation of all literature.
Today, more than two centuries have passed, and Griboedov's comedy not only continues to be staged, but is still fiercely argued about. it seemed that everything was said about “Woe from Wit”: the images of the characters were examined from all sides, thought and pathos were interpreted in different ways, but the “textbook gloss” does not prevent new readers from admiring Griboedov’s skill and seeing living people behind the textbook images. Let us, together with Griboyedov, "enter" Famusov's house.
II. Analysis of the first action.
What is the exposition and setting of the first act? What does it consist of external conflict and how does it develop?
Acquaintance with the house of the Moscow gentleman Famusov, the emergence of an intrigue: the secret love of a lord's daughter and a rootless secretary. The unexpected arrival of Chatsky is the beginning of a comedy action, a love conflict: Chatsky is in love with Sophia, she is in love with Molchalin.
The dialogue between Chatsky and Sophia is Chatsky's satirical denunciation of Moscow morals. What in the way of life and behavior of the Moscow nobility causes Chatsky's condemnation? How is the nature of the hero himself revealed in his accusatory speeches? The plot of the socio-political conflict of the comedy between Chatsky and the Moscow nobility.
III. Generalization
The exposition introduces the reader to the house of the Moscow gentleman Famusov. His 17-year-old daughter Sophia is in love with the poor secretary of Father Molchalin. They meet secretly from their father. Sophia's maid Lisa helps in this. From the conversations of Lisa and Sophia, we learn that three years ago Chatsky, who was brought up in the Famusovs' house, left to "seek his mind" in St. Petersburg, then abroad.
The plot of the comedy is the unexpected arrival of Chatsky, who passionately confesses his love to Sophia. This is how an external conflict arises: a struggle for a bride, a love triangle - Sophia loves Molchalin, Chatsky loves Sophia. The dialogue between Sophia and Chatsky reveals Sophia's complete indifference to her childhood friend. The conflict is complicated by the fact that the father of Sophia Famusov would not be pleased with either one or the other applicant: Molchalin is poor and waterless, Chatsky is also not rich, in addition he is free-thinking, impudent.
IV. Homework
1. Prepare an oral report on the first act of the comedy. Where does the comedy take place? What event becomes the beginning of a comedy? What intrigue drives the action? How does the first dialogue between Chatsky and Sophia reveal the hero's attitude towards the Moscow lords?
2. Read the second act of the comedy. What is the essence of the conflict emerging between Chatsky and Famusov? Define the positions of the disputants. What does Moscow look like in the perception of the heroes? Describe Colonel Skalozub.
3. What do you think is the conflict of the play? How does it develop in the second act?
4. Analyze the dialogues between Chatsky and Molchalin. Can heroes be called antipodes? Why?
Lesson 3
Analysis of the second act of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Objectives: during the analysis of the second act, to determine the ambiguity of the comedy conflict; to show the collision of the "current century" and the "past century" in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky.
I. A brief oral summary of students on the first action (answers to homework questions).
II. Analysis of the second act
1. Reading and analysis of the second act, phenomenon 2.
What is the essence of the conflict emerging in the dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky? Identify the disputants' positions.
Let us designate the initial conflict between Famusov and Chatsky as a conflict of generations. The younger generation, in order to achieve something in life, must be guided by the ideals of their fathers - this is the position of Famusov; uncle Maxim Petrovich as a role model.
The preaching of a new way of life in the speeches of Chatsky, the rejection of the ideals of the Moscow nobility. Whose position is preferred? Is there any rightness in Famusov's statements.
2. Moscow in the perception of heroes
For Famusov, the regularity and smoothness of Moscow life, the strength of traditions, and the patriarchal way of life are valuable.
For Chatsky, Moscow is a world of inert, conservative rules, habits, he hates the emptiness, the fussiness of Moscow life, the lack of creative free thought, and the cruelty of the feudal lords.
The development of the socio-political conflict of comedy, the clash of the old and new generations.
3.Characteristics of Colonel Skalozub. A new twist in the love affair: Skalozub as a possible contender for Sophia's hand. New turn public conflict: not so much a conflict of generations as a conflict of advanced and conservative views, life values.
4. Modern interpretations of the comedy conflict, ambiguous assessments, the desire to remove class antagonism.
III. Generalization
In the second act, it is not so much the love conflict that develops as the social conflict of the comedy. It has several aspects. interpretation of the conflict of comedy as a conflict of generations (Famusov - Chatsky), as a clash between the "current century" and the "past century" can be regarded as correct, but this is a rather narrow interpretation. A broader understanding of the conflict is a clash of advanced views on life and a stagnant, stagnant worldview (lordly Moscow and Chatsky).
IV. Homework
2. Analyze the ball scene as a climax (see questions for analysis during next lesson us. 64)
3. Repetilov and his role in the play.
Lesson 4-5
Analysis of the third, fourth acts of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
Objectives: in the course of the analysis of the third and fourth acts, to generalize ideas about the lifestyle and ideals of the Moscow nobility, to show the role of Repetilov in the play, to determine the climax and denouement of the comedy.
I. Generalization on the second act of the comedy
The development of love and social comedy conflict. Views on the life of Chatsky and Famusov.
II. Analysis of the third act
1. Molchalin and his role in comedy. Dialogue between Sofia and Chatsky about Molchalin. Molchalin in the perception of Sophia - moral ideal, essentially Christian, with its humility, love for neighbor, spiritual purity, readiness for self-sacrifice, unwillingness to judge, etc.
Why does Chatsky perceive Sophia's words as a mockery of Molchalin?
Molchalin in the perception of Chatsky is a low-flyer, a person deprived of independence, a flatterer, a saint, extremely not smart.
Why is Molchalin scary?
He is a hypocrite, hides his true face, changes his behavior all the time depending on the situation, nothing is dear to him, he is a man without principles and honor.
Chatsky and Molchalin as antipodes.
2. Analysis of the ball scene.
Describe the guests at the ball. What is the role of supporting characters in comedy?
In the play, events follow one after another, but suddenly seem to stop, giving way to a panoramic image of a ball in Famusov's house. Invited people come to the house. The ball begins with a peculiar parade of guests, each of whom appears for the first time in the play. But with just a few expressive strokes, above all speech characteristics, Griboyedov manages to create a three-dimensional image, a lively, full-blooded character.
The first in the guest gallery is the Gorich couple. Platon Mikhailovich, former colleague Chatsky, now not just a retired military man, but a “charming husband”, a man without a will, who completely obeyed his wife. His remarks are monotonous and short, and he does not have time to answer Chatsky, his wife does it for him. All he can say ex friend: "Now, brother, I'm not the one ...".
It seems to him that he is “not the one”, because he fell under the heel of his wife. But in fact, he is “not the same” primarily because he has lost his former ideals. Not having the will to defend Chatsky decisively against the slanderers, he eventually betrays his friend. And it is no coincidence that in the fourth act, at the departure, Gorich grumbles over the wire of boredom and does not remember his slandered comrade in a word.
A string of guests pass in front of the audience. The princes Tugoukhovsky, concerned only with successfully marrying off their daughters, the evil and caustic countess - a granddaughter who finds flaws in each of those present; "an inveterate swindler, a rogue" Anton Antonych Zagoretsky, a gossip and a cheater, but a master of obsequiousness; the old woman Khlestova, an old Moscow lady, distinguished by her rude frankness.
The dispute between Khlestova and Famusov is indicative of how many serf souls Chatsky has. Everything here is significant: both the exact knowledge of the state of another person (“I don’t know other people’s estates!”), And the famous Khlestov’s “Everyone lies calendars”, and the fact that she has the last word.
All the characters of the second plan are important in comedy not in themselves - in the aggregate they represent the world of noble Moscow, where their own laws and rules reign. In their midst, Chatsky's foreignness is especially clearly manifested. If in a collision with Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub they "converged" one on one, then the ball scene revealed the complete loneliness of Chatsky.
3. The climax of the play
The culmination of the whole comedy is gossip about the hero's madness. How did it happen? Was Chatsky's announcement as crazy inevitable and followed from the whole development of the action, or is it still an accident?
Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness spread so quickly?
Do the guests fully believe in Chatsky's madness?
What do the guests and members of the Famusov family see as signs and causes of Chatsky's "madness"?
Sophia's first remark: "He's out of his mind" - just slipped out of her mouth, but secular gossips G.N., then G.D. saw an opportunity to have fun spreading rumors. Then Sophia made a conscious decision, which was dictated by resentment for Molchalin: “Ah, Chatsky, you love everyone as a joke, Would you like to try on yourself?”
The gossip spread with unusual rapidity. Why? Firstly, from the point of view of the Famus society, Chatsky really looks crazy. All in chorus list the not quite normal actions of Chatsky to the doubting Platon Mikhailovich:
Try about the authorities - and what will he say? (Famusov)
I said something and he started laughing. (Khlestova)
He advised me not to serve in the Archives in Moscow. (Molchalin)
He deigned to call me a fashionista! (Countess - granddaughter)
And he gave my husband advice to live in the countryside. (Natalya Dmitrievna)
And the overall verdict is "crazy all over".
Arriving at the ball, the countess - granddaughter, entering the room, full of people tell grandma:
Well, who arrives early!
We are first!
It is hard to imagine that she did not notice at least a dozen faces in the room at that moment. Of course not, it speaks arrogance. Griboyedov shows that there is no friendliness or intimacy among Famusov's guests. It is amazing how this mutual hostility will turn into complete unanimity, with which all those present, forgetting about their own strife, will fall upon Chatsky. And here there will be no time for their own petty grievances, because everyone will equally feel the danger posed by Chatsky for their world.
III.Conclusion
The ball scene ends with Chatsky's famous monologue about "a million torments." Exploring Russian culture, Yu. Lotman wrote that the Decembrists loved to "rattle at the ball and in society", to publicly express their advanced views. But Chatsky utters his monologue into the void: having declared him insane, everyone immediately forgot about him. He speaks passionately of "empty, slavish, blind imitation," but "everyone waltzes with the greatest zeal." This episode reinforces Chatsky's loneliness and to some extent demonstrates the meaninglessness of his speech - a knock on a closed door. Here, at the ball, he himself begins to feel his loneliness.
IV. Analysis fourth act
1. Chatsky and Repetilov. Repetilov's self-disclosure.
Repetilov pretends to be a man of advanced convictions, although he has no convictions at all. His stories about "secret meetings" reveal all the vulgarity, pettiness, stupidity of this man. Repetilov is a kind of parody of Chatsky. His appearance further exacerbates the loneliness and drama of Chatsky's position.
2.Decoupling of comedy.
V. Generalization
In the third act, the way of life and ideals of the Moscow nobility were clearly revealed - emptiness and monotony, the absence of bright events, hatred of enlightenment and education.
Do the guests fully believe in Chatsky's madness? Yes and no. Of course, his actions are illogical from the point of view of the Moscow nobility, but in many ways their desire to declare the hero insane is similar to revenge, reprisal against dissent. This is exactly what they will do not in the play, but in life with P.Ya. Chaadaev, somewhat similar to Chatsky.
The comedy conflict reached its logical conclusion at a ball in Famusov's house.
Chatsky's freethinking has become synonymous with madness for his opponents.
VI. Homework
1.Individual task: to restore the biography of Chatsky according to the text of the play.
2. Give examples from the text of the comedy proving the ambiguity of Chatsky's character.
3. Formulate Chatsky's point of view on the main problems of the time. Validate with quotes.
4. Write reviews about Chatsky A.S. Pushkin, I.A. Goncharova, I. Ilyin to comment on them.
5. Using the book by M. Nechkina "Decembrists", find parallels between the images of Chatsky and the Decembrists.
Lesson 6
Image of Chatsky (seminar)
Objectives: to generalize and systematize students' knowledge about the comedy hero, to give a detailed description of the image in the historical and cultural context, through historical and functional analysis to show the diversity of interpretation and evaluation of the image.
I. Biography of Chatsky
Approximate content of the answer
The biography of the hero is typical for a representative of the advanced noble youth of 1810-1820.
Chatsky's childhood passed in the manor house of Famusov. In the years, "when everything is so soft, and tender, and immature," his young heart reacts sharply to the impressions of the life of the Moscow nobility. The spirit of the "past century", "low worship" and the emptiness of life aroused boredom and disgust in Chatsky early. Despite his friendship with Sophia, Chatsky leaves the Famusovs.
... he seemed bored with us,
And rarely visited our house, -
says Sophia.
started independent life. At that time, the Guards, who had just returned with a victory from foreign campaigns, were visiting Moscow. An ardent patriotic feeling and ideas of liberty also embraced the ardent hero.
All this decided his fate. Neither a carefree secular life, nor a happy friendship, nor even a youthful, but deep and then still mutual love for Sophia could not satisfy him.
Here he thought highly of himself ...
The desire to wander attacked him, -
Sophia continues her story about his life.
Chatsky ended up in Petersburg just at the time when the "liberalist" movement was being born there, at first still uncertain in terms of program and plans, but full of freedom-loving hopes and free-thinking. In this situation, the views, aspirations and mind of Chatsky were formed.
He appears to have taken an interest in literature. Even in Moscow, Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky "writes and translates nicely." Passion for literature was typical for free-thinking noble youth. Many of the Decembrists were writers.
At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated by social activities. He has a "connection with the minister." However, not for long ... The comedy clearly states that "communication with the ministers" ended with Chatsky's break ("then a break").
After that, Chatsky may have visited the village. He, according to Famusov, "enjoyed." Obviously, this "whim", which led to the "mistaken management" of the estate, meant humane attitude to the serfs and progressive economic reforms.
Then Chatsky went abroad. At that time they began to look askance at "travels", as a manifestation of the liberal spirit and oppositional independence.
Acquaintance of advanced Russian people with life, philosophy, history Western Europe was undoubtedly important for their ideological development.
After three years of absence, Chatsky returns to Moscow to Famusov's house.
II. The ambiguity of the character of the hero; the inconsistency of his nature: laughing at others, he himself is ridiculous, while he does not feel mockery of himself and suffers deeply; is quite insightful, but he himself is in the power of self-deception ”blaming others, he never feels guilty. The ambiguity of the character of the hero also causes ambiguity of assessments: both irony and compassion. Chatsky is at the same time a hero - a lover included in a comic plot, and a hero - a reasoner.
III. The role of Chatsky in the play and the history of literature is determined not by character, but by convictions. The views of the hero characterize him as an advanced person of his time:
- protest against serfdom, humane treatment of serfs;
- the fight against ignorance, the need for enlightenment;
- condemnation of servility and careerism;
- a call for freedom of thought and expression against slave morality;
- protest against admiration for foreignness.
IV. Russian criticism, starting with A.S., Grigoriev and A. Herzen, began to bring the image of Chatsky closer to the Decembrists. This was facilitated not only by the views of the hero, but also by certain biographical parallels: Chatsky does not want to serve, Ants and Ryleev left the service; traveling around Europe as a sign of freethinking; high speech system, oratorical intonations (“he speaks as he writes”), characteristic of the Decembrists.
Chatsky's loneliness is softened by the fact that he has like-minded people: in historical context these are the Decembrists, in the play - off-stage characters(cousin Skalozub, Prince Fyodor).
V. Chatsky is a tragicomic figure. The "double" tragedy is embodied in his fate: he is rejected by Sophia and society. The tragedy of Chatsky is the tragedy of an intelligent person when his mind, talent, honesty are not in demand.
VI. Chatsky in the mirror of criticism.
A.S. Pushkin believed that Chatsky was stupid, since he was “throwing pearls” in front of Repetilov, and the only intelligent person in the play was Griboyedov himself.
I. Goncharov in the article “A Million of Torments” emphasizes that Chatsky is a hero who appears when one century changes to another. He is "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher, but always a victim."
I. Ilyin, a religious philosopher of the early 20th century, noted that the drama of Chatsky is that his mind is overshadowed by pride. The mind, directed only at criticism and denunciation, becomes heartless and is a terrible and empty force.
In modern interpretations, Chatsky is undoubtedly a bright personality, an advanced, educated, honest person, but at the same time he is largely mistaken and makes mistakes. His image is inherent in the tragic conflict between the mind, ideas, on the one hand, and the heart, the moral nature of man, on the other. Perhaps Chatsky will learn to live not only with his mind, but also with his heart; his ability to feel deeply is said by the “million torments” that he experiences at the end of the comedy.
VII. Homework
1. What problems does Griboyedov raise in his comedy? How are the title of the comedy and its poetics related?
2. What does it mean to be smart in understanding the lordly Moscow?
3. Is Chatsky smart? What is his mind?
4. How do you understand the meaning of what has become catch phrase"Mind and heart are not in harmony"?
5.Individual task: to prepare a report on the topic "What was the importance attached to the concept of "smart" in the Griboedov era?"
Lesson 7
The Meaning of the Comedy Title and the Problem of the Mind
Objectives: to generalize and consolidate knowledge about the conflict and the problems of comedy, the system of characters, to reveal the key problem of the mind for the play.
I. Opening speech of the teacher. Creation of a problem situation.
“What do you think? In our opinion, he is smart, ”Famusov says to Chatsky, talking about his uncle, Maxim Petrovich. What does "smart" mean "our way" and "your way"?
Sofya says about Molchalin: “Of course, there is no mind in this, that a genius for others, but for others a plague.” What is this?
The reader immediately sees that key concept comedy "mind" is interpreted by the characters in different ways and is generally ambiguous. No wonder the word "mind" is also included in the title of the play.
II. Conversation with the class.
1. What does it mean to be smart in understanding the lordly Moscow?
For Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub, the concept of "mind" is interpreted from an everyday, practical point of view. This is the mind that brings prosperity to its owner: promotion, profitable marriage, useful acquaintances. From their point of view, “it is impossible not to wish that with such a mind” Chatsky does not want such well-being for himself.
It is impossible not to see that Sophia is smart enough. At the same time, although she stands head and shoulders above her father and his entourage, her mind is of a very special kind. Dreamy and at the same time pragmatic, she sees her ideal in Molchalin, because he is “yielding, modest, quiet” and will, as it seems to her, be an excellent husband. The rebelliousness and love of freedom of Chatsky scare her away: “Will such a mind make the family happy?”
2. Is Chatsky smart? What is his mind?
From the very beginning of the comedy, the hero is evaluated by other characters as an intelligent person. Famusov does not deny him the mind ("he is small with a head"), Sophia is forced to admit that Chatsky is "sharp, smart, eloquent." What is the mind of Chatsky? First of all, in high intelligence, education, brilliant speech (“he speaks as he writes”). Many of his statements are aphoristic, accurate, witty (give examples) and - derogatory (Skalozub - "creating maneuvers and mazurka", Molchalin - "on tiptoe and not rich in words", etc.).
Chatsky is the bearer of new advanced ideas, his judgments reflect courage and independence of views.
But what made Sophia say: “Is he out of his mind?”
With all his mind, Chatsky often does things that are incompatible with the idea of an intelligent person. Everyone is familiar with Pushkin's statement that Chatsky is stupid, because he "throws pearls" in front of unworthy people who simply do not hear him. In addition, he is devoid of insight: he does not see anyone but himself;
Can Chatsky's critical statements addressed to Sophia's friends and relatives in the very first hours of their meeting after a long separation be called smart? Did he do it smartly at the end of the play, when, having witnessed the shame and humiliation of Sophia, he discovered his presence, and even uttered another diatribe? Thus, the mind of Chatsky is manifested in comedy in his passionate speeches and judgments, he is not in behavior and actions. Chatsky has an ardent loving heart, but his mind is abstract and sketchy, it is not for nothing that he himself notices that his “mind and heart are out of tune.”
III. The problem of the mind in the context of time (speech by a prepared student or teacher's message).
In democratic criticism back in the 19th century, the opinion was established that for Griboedov and other progressive people of that time, the concept of smart was directly connected with the freedom-loving ideals of the era. In Griboedov's times, the very problem of "mind" was extremely relevant and was interpreted very broadly, as in general the problem of intelligence, education, and career. The concepts of "mind", "smart", "smart", etc. was given at that time, in addition to the usual, also a special meaning. Then, as a rule, these concepts were associated with the idea of a person not just smart, but free-thinking, a person of independent convictions, a herald of new ideas.
IV. Generalization
In Griboyedov's comedy, the problem of the mind, the understanding of what it means to be smart, determines the main conflict of the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov's society, and the behavior of the characters. Griboyedov himself noted that in his comedy "25 fools per sane person", but in the course of the play it becomes clear that the concept of the mind is ambiguous. The mind, in the understanding of Famusov and his guests, is associated with the ability to "reach certain degrees." The mind of Chatsky is in his education and advanced ideas, of which he is the bearer. At the same time, often in specific situations, in communicating with other people, Chatsky lacks subtlety and sensitivity, he does not always control the situation and can give an objective assessment of what is happening, that is, his abstract mind, according to the hero himself, "is out of tune with the heart."
Calling the comedy "Woe from Wit", Griboyedov primarily had in mind Chatsky's mind as free-thinking, freedom-loving. Woe from wit, intertwined with grief from love, became the "driving force" of the entire comedy action, determined its conflicts and problems.
Lesson 8
Humor and satire in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
Objectives: to generalize students' knowledge of the poetics of comedy, to focus students' attention on the skill of Griboedov - a comedian and satirist, to give an example monologue speech on a literary topic; to form the skill of perceiving the lecture in accordance with the plan, recording the main theses.
Teacher's lecture.
Lecture plan
1. The specifics of comedy as a genre
2. Humor and satire in comedy
A) the "double" plan of the scenes of "Woe from Wit"; combination of dramatic and comic.
B) satirical pathos in exposing the morals of the Moscow nobility. relevance of satire.
C) Chatsky as a "comic face".
D) the language of the play and its role in creating a special element of the comedy movement.
3.Conclusion
A.S. Griboyedov is the author of one work, but so bright and amazing that for almost two centuries it continues to captivate readers and viewers. We laugh at the heroes of the famous play, we sympathize with Chatsky, we never get tired of following the comedic intrigue, we are again and again amazed at the bright and figurative language.
Textbook is the idea that at the heart of "Woe from Wit" is the struggle of the protagonist with Famusov's Moscow, and the role of Chatsky is "a passive role." I.A. also wrote about this. Goncharov in his article "A Million of Torments".
Meanwhile, Griboedov himself defined his play as a comedy, and comedy presupposes that the plot is based on a comic (that is, funny) contradiction between the characters, their views and actions, humor and satire dominate it.
Laughter pervades the whole play; in the words of Gogol, this is a peculiar, positive hero comedy. A hero who conquers a gloomy environment, teeming with silent, puffer, Khryumin, Tugoukhov. The strength felt in Chatsky is poured throughout the play and manifests itself precisely in that crushing and cleansing laughter that we perceive as an ally of the hero.
The main events taking place in Woe from Wit are, of course, dramatic in their essence, and nevertheless, almost every scene of the play carries a double semantic load: in addition to serious contradictions, it reveals a humorous essence. So, during the clash of the main characters, Famusov, accusing Chatsky of freethinking, waiting for an answer, quickly forgets his ears, “sees and hears nothing,” as the remark says. Here is Puffer. There is a lot of humor in this whole scene: Famusov, like a parrot, repeats his “to court”, and Chatsky vainly draws his attention to the fact that someone has come to visit. Famusov, on the other hand, “does not see or hear anything,” but instead shouts out: “Huh? rebellion? There is a comically exaggerated result of the feelings and thoughts of the well-intentioned and loyal subject Pavel Afanasyevich. Now this last remark - the hyperbole of the character - contains not only a humorous meaning, but also reveals Famusov's obvious fear of a new way of thinking. Humor gives way to a different tone, satire takes over.
In the image of the "past century" satirical pathos reaches its intensity. Griboyedov denounces the mores of the Moscow nobility, ridicules Famus's views on career, stupid martinetism. Skalozub, obsequiousness and wordlessness of Molchalin. The edge of Griboedov's satire is directed against mental and spiritual stagnation, against a world where "noble scoundrels" and sycophants, notorious swindlers and swindlers, scammers and "sinister old women" flourish, united, as if by mutual responsibility, by irreconcilable hostility to " free life". Unfortunately, it must be admitted that these vices were not the offspring of serfdom. Griboedov's satire is universal in nature and is relevant today more than ever.
This was foreseen by I.A. Goncharov, noting that “Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, will hardly ever grow old.”
The main character Chatsky is a “passionate person”, he enters into an irreconcilable conflict with the Famus society, his fate is dramatic. But even a contemporary of the playwright P.A. Vyazemsky noted that Chatsky is "a comical person." He is "madly in love" and therefore does stupid things. Indeed, Griboyedov was not afraid in a number of cases to put the hero in a comic position. So, Chatsky's incredulity about Sophia's love for Molchalin is ridiculous, but Griboedov's ability to create not a rhetorical figure, but a living person can be seen behind such an image of the hero. “Chatsky's distrust ... charming! - and how natural! - Pushkin admired. But this comedic shade in the image of Chatsky exists along with the high intensity of the true drama of the position and behavior of the hero, with the penetrating lyricism of expressing his feelings.
The poetic language of the play itself undoubtedly contributes to the elements of the fast comedy movement.
"Woe from Wit" is written in multi-foot iambic. This size perfectly conveys live, colloquial intonations. No wonder the lines of comedy have become proverbs. Perhaps there is no other work in Russian literature that would contain such an abundance of phrases sparkling with humor.
“Ah, evil tongues are worse than a gun!”, “That’s something by chance, notice you”, “Ah, mother, don’t complete the blow! Who is poor is not a couple for you”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve”, “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe”.
In general, the entire linguistic, stylistic element of "Woe from Wit" reflected the main features of speech, and hence national character Russian person.
Pushkin wrote about this very accurately in connection with Krylov's fables: "... distinguishing feature in our morals there is some kind of cheerful cunning of the mind, mockery and a picturesque way of expressing ... "
Turning to Griboyedov comedy, every time we admire her catchy, capacious phrases that hit right on target, without stopping, we follow unexpected plot twists, situations full of irresistible humor and satirical energy.
Lesson 9
Speech development
Themes of essays on the work of Griboyedov
1) Why hasn’t Griboedov’s Chatsky grown old, and with him the whole comedy?
2) The conflict of two eras in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
3) The theme of education in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
4) Theme national consciousness in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
5) The problem of the mind in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
6) Analysis of the episode and its role in the composition of the comedy (episodes: ball scene, meeting with Repetilov, dialogue between Chatsky and Molchalin).
7) Chatsky's friends on stage and behind the stage (in A.S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit").
“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov Katenina. This statement by the author expressly states the main problem“Woe from Wit” is the problem of the mind and stupidity. It is also placed in the title of the play, which should also be paid close attention. This problem is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, and therefore it requires a detailed analysis.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" was cutting edge for its time. It was accusatory, like all classic comedies. But the problems of the work "Woe from Wit", problems noble society of that time are presented in a wider range. This was made possible by the author's use of several artistic methods: classicism, realism and romanticism.
It is known that initially Griboyedov called his work "Woe to the Wit", but soon changed this title to "Woe from Wit". Why did this change take place? The fact is that the first name contained a moralizing note, emphasizing that in the noble society of the 19th century, every intelligent person would endure persecution. This did not quite correspond to the artistic intent of the playwright. Griboyedov wanted to show that his extraordinary mind, progressive ideas specific person may be untimely and harm their owner. The second name was able to fully implement this task.
The main conflict of the play is the confrontation between the "current century" and the "past century", old and new. In the disputes between Chatsky and representatives of the old Moscow nobility, a system of views of one and the other side on education, culture, in particular on the problem of language (a mixture of "French with Nizhny Novgorod"), family values, questions 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 "serve" for the sake of acquiring material benefits or respect for the world. A lot has been done by Famusov and people like him to create a good reputation among the nobles. Therefore, Famusov is only concerned about what will be said about him in the world.
Such is Molchalin, although he is a representative of more younger generation. He blindly follows the outdated ideals of the feudal landlords. Having an 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,” 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 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 the opinions of others, passion for ranks and money. And these ideals are alien and disgusting to the protagonist of the comedy. He prefers to serve "the cause, not the persons." When Chatsky appears in Famusov's house and begins to angrily expose the foundations of the noble society with his speeches, the Famusov society declares the accuser crazy, thereby disarming him. Chatsky expresses progressive ideas, pointing out to aristocrats the need to change their views. They see in the words of Chatsky a threat to their comfortable existence, their habits. A hero called insane ceases to be dangerous. Fortunately, he is alone, and therefore simply expelled from society, where he is not pleasing. 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? It can be assumed that this is a lost battle, but not a lost war. Very soon, the ideas of Chatsky will be supported by the progressive youth of that time, and "the meanest traits of the past life" will be overthrown.
Reading Famusov's monologues, watching the intrigues carefully weaved by Molchalin, one cannot at all say that these heroes are stupid. But their mind is qualitatively different from the mind of Chatsky. Representatives of the Famus society are accustomed to dodge, adapt, curry 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 used to do.
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 either. For example, Katenin believed that Chatsky "talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately." Pushkin, after reading the list of the play brought to him at Mikhailovskoye, spoke of the main character as follows: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...”
Indeed, Chatsky is presented as very quick-tempered and somewhat tactless. He appears in a society where he was not invited, and begins to denounce and teach everyone, not embarrassed in expressions. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “his speech boils with wit,” as I.A. wrote. Goncharov.
Such a variety of opinions, up to 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 a spokesman for the ideas of the Decembrists, he is a true citizen of his country, opposing serfdom, cringing, the dominance of everything foreign. It is known that the Decembrists were faced with the task of expressing their ideas directly, wherever they were. Therefore, Chatsky acts in accordance with the principles of the advanced man of his time.
It turns out that there are no outright fools in comedy. It's just that two opposing sides are fighting for their understanding of the mind. However, the mind can be opposed not only to stupidity. The opposite of mind can be madness. Why does society declare Chatsky crazy?
The assessment of critics and readers can be anything, but the author himself shares the position of Chatsky. This is important to consider when trying to understand the artistic intent of the play. Chatsky's worldview is the views of Griboedov himself. Therefore, a society that rejects the ideas of enlightenment, individual freedom, service to the cause, and not subservience, is a society of fools. Being afraid of a smart person, calling him crazy, the nobility characterizes itself, demonstrating its fear of the new.
The problem of the mind, brought out by Griboedov in the title of the play, is the key one. All clashes that take place between the obsolete foundations of life and the progressive ideas of Chatsky should be considered from the point of view of opposing intelligence and stupidity, intelligence and madness.
Thus, Chatsky is not at all insane, and the society in which he finds himself is not so stupid. It's just that the time of people like Chatsky, spokesmen for new views on life, has not yet come. They are in the minority, so they are forced to suffer defeat.
Artwork test
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is the famous work of A. S. Griboyedov. Having composed it, the author instantly stood on a par with the leading poets of his time. The appearance of this play caused a lively response in literary circles. Many were in a hurry to express their opinion about the merits and demerits of the work. Particularly heated debate was caused by the image of Chatsky, the main character of the comedy. This article will be devoted to the description of this character.
Chatsky's prototypes
The contemporaries of A. S. Griboedov found that the image of Chatsky reminds them of P. Ya. Chaadaev. This was pointed out by Pushkin in his letter to P. A. Vyazemsky in 1823. Some researchers see indirect confirmation of this version in the fact that initially main character Comedy bore the surname Chadsky. However, many refute this opinion. According to another theory, the image of Chatsky is a reflection of the biography and character of V.K. Kuchelbecker. A disgraced, unfortunate person who had just returned from abroad could well become the prototype of the protagonist of Woe from Wit.
On the similarity of the author with Chatsky
It is quite obvious that the protagonist of the play in his monologues expressed the thoughts and views that Griboedov himself adhered to. "Woe from Wit" is a comedy that has become the author's personal manifesto against the moral and social vices of Russian aristocratic society. Yes, and many of Chatsky's character traits seem to be written off from the author himself. According to contemporaries, Alexander Sergeevich was impetuous and hot, sometimes independent and sharp. Chatsky's views on imitating foreigners, the inhumanity of serfdom, and bureaucracy are the true thoughts of Griboyedov. He repeatedly expressed them in society. The writer was even once really called crazy when at a social event he warmly and impartially spoke about the servile attitude of Russians to everything foreign.
Author's characterization of the hero
In response to the critical remarks of his co-author and longtime friend P. A. Katenin that the character of the protagonist is "confused", that is, very inconsistent, Griboedov writes: "In my comedy there are 25 fools per sane person." The image of Chatsky for the author is a portrait of an intelligent and educated young man who finds himself in a difficult situation. On the one hand, he is in "contradiction with society", since he is "a little higher than the others", he is aware of his superiority and does not try to hide it. On the other hand, Alexander Andreevich cannot achieve the former location of his beloved girl, suspects the presence of an opponent, and even unexpectedly falls into the category of crazy people, which he learns about last. Griboyedov explains the excessive ardor of his hero by a strong disappointment in love. Therefore, in "Woe from Wit" the image of Chatsky turned out to be so inconsistent and inconsistent. He "spit in the eyes of everyone and was like that."
Chatsky in the interpretation of Pushkin
The poet criticized the main character of the comedy. At the same time, Pushkin appreciated Griboyedov: he liked the comedy Woe from Wit. in the interpretation of the great poet is very impartial. He calls Alexander Andreevich an ordinary reasoning hero, a mouthpiece for the ideas of the only intelligent person in the play - Griboyedov himself. He believes that the main character is a "kind fellow" who picked up extraordinary thoughts and witticisms from another person and began to "throw pearls" in front of Repetilov and other representatives of the Famus Guard. According to Pushkin, such behavior is unforgivable. He believes that Chatsky's contradictory and inconsistent character is a reflection of his own stupidity, which puts the hero in a tragicomic position.
The character of Chatsky, according to Belinsky
A well-known critic in 1840, like Pushkin, denied the protagonist of the play a practical mind. He interpreted the image of Chatsky as an absolutely ridiculous, naive and dreamy figure and dubbed him "the new Don Quixote." Over time, Belinsky somewhat changed his point of view. The characterization of the comedy "Woe from Wit" in his interpretation has become very positive. He called it a protest against "vile racial reality" and considered it "the noblest humanistic work". The critic did not see the true complexity of the image of Chatsky.
The image of Chatsky: interpretation in the 1860s
Publicists and critics of the 1860s began to attribute only socially significant and socio-political motives to Chatsky's behavior. For example, I saw in the protagonist of the play a reflection of Griboyedov's "back thoughts". He considers the image of Chatsky a portrait of a Decembrist revolutionary. The critic sees in Alexander Andreevich a man struggling with the vices of contemporary society. For him, the characters of Woe from Wit are characters not of a "high" comedy, but of a "high" tragedy. In such interpretations, the appearance of Chatsky is extremely generalized and interpreted very one-sidedly.
The appearance of Chatsky at Goncharov
Ivan Alexandrovich in his critical study"A Million of Torments" presented the most insightful and accurate analysis of the play "Woe from Wit". The characterization of Chatsky, according to Goncharov, should be made taking into account his state of mind. Unhappy love for Sophia makes the protagonist of the comedy bilious and almost inadequate, makes him pronounce long monologues in front of people who are indifferent to his fiery speeches. Thus, without taking into account the love affair, it is impossible to understand the comic and at the same time tragic nature of the image of Chatsky.
The problems of the play
The heroes of "Woe from Wit" face Griboedov in two plot-forming conflicts: love (Chatsky and Sofia) and socio-ideological and the main character). Of course, it is the social problems of the work that come to the fore, but the love line in the play is very important. After all, Chatsky was in a hurry to Moscow solely to meet with Sofia. Therefore, both conflicts - socio-ideological and love - reinforce and complement each other. They develop in parallel and are equally necessary for understanding the worldview, character, psychology and relationships of comedy characters.
Main character. love conflict
In the system of characters in the play, Chatsky is in the main place. He links two storylines into a whole. For Alexander Andreevich, it is precisely love conflict. He perfectly understands the society of which people he got into, and is not at all going to engage in educational activities. The reason for his stormy eloquence is not political, but psychological. "Impatience of the Heart" young man felt throughout the entire play.
At first, Chatsky's "talkativeness" was caused by the joy of meeting Sophia. When the hero realizes that the girl has no trace of her former feelings for him, he begins to do inconsistent and daring acts. He stays in Famusov's house with the sole purpose of finding out who became Sofia's new lover. At the same time, it is quite obvious that his "mind and heart are not in harmony."
After Chatsky learns about the relationship between Molchalin and Sofia, he goes to the other extreme. Instead of loving feelings, he is overcome by anger and rage. He accuses the girl of "luring him with hope", proudly tells her about the break in relations, swears that he "sobered up ... completely", but at the same time he is going to pour out "all the bile and all the annoyance" on the world.
Main character. Socio-political conflict
Love experiences increase the ideological confrontation between Alexander Andreevich and the Famus society. At first, Chatsky refers to the Moscow aristocracy with ironic calmness: "... I'm a weirdo for another miracle / Once I laugh, then I'll forget ..." However, as he becomes convinced of Sophia's indifference, his speech becomes more and more impudent and unrestrained. Everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Chatsky in his monologues touches on many topical issues of his contemporary era: questions about national identity, serfdom, education and enlightenment, real service, and so on. He talks about serious things, but at the same time, from excitement, he falls, according to I. A. Goncharov, into "exaggerations, into almost drunkenness of speech."
The worldview of the protagonist
The image of Chatsky is a portrait of a person with an established system of worldview and morality. He considers the main criterion for evaluating a person to be the desire for knowledge, for beautiful and lofty matters. Alexander Andreevich is not against working for the benefit of the state. But he constantly emphasizes the difference between "serve" and "serve", which he attaches fundamental importance to. Chatsky is not afraid public opinion, does not recognize authorities, preserves its independence, which causes fear among Moscow aristocrats. They are ready to recognize in Alexander Andreevich a dangerous rebel who encroaches on the most sacred values. From the point of view of the Famus society, Chatsky's behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible. He "is familiar with the ministers", but does not use his connections in any way. Famusov's offer to live "like everyone else" replies with a contemptuous refusal.
In many respects he agrees with his hero Griboyedov. The image of Chatsky is a type of an enlightened person who freely expresses his opinion. But in his statements there are no radical and revolutionary ideas. It's just that in a conservative Famus society, any deviation from the usual norm seems outrageous and dangerous. Not without reason, in the end, Alexander Andreevich was recognized as a madman. only in this way could they explain for themselves the independent nature of Chatsky's judgments.
Conclusion
IN modern life the play "Woe from Wit" remains more relevant than ever. The image of Chatsky in comedy is the central figure that helps the author to express his thoughts and views to the whole world. By the will of Alexander Sergeevich, the protagonist of the work is placed in tragicomic conditions. His impetuous are caused by disappointment in love. However, the problems that are raised in his monologues are eternal topics. It is thanks to them that comedy entered the list of the most famous works world literature.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written during the years of the creation of secret revolutionary organizations, whose members were the Decembrists. The struggle against numerous opponents - revolutionary nobles, the struggle between the new and the old flared up more and more, penetrating into all spheres of life. Seeing this struggle, directly participating in it, Griboedov in his comedy showed it from the point of view of an advanced person, close in views to the Decembrists.
This man is the main character of the work “Woe from Wit” - Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. He served for some time, then, disappointed, left the service, like Nikita Muravyov and Nikolai Turgenev. But the hero preaches the idea of serving the Fatherland and explains his behavior with the following phrase: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” Chatsky looks at life differently than the typical representatives of the noble society of that time. He embodies everything best features Decembrists, does not deviate a single step from his ideas, is ready to sacrifice everything for the good of others. The author creates the image of a smart, educated person who knows how to defend his point of view, knowing life ordinary people. Chatsky acts in the interests of the entire Russian people, trying to draw the attention of the nobility not to the petty problems of their own well-being, but to the plight of the peasantry. He is indignant at the deeds of the feudal landowners, "noble scoundrels." One of them exchanged his faithful servants, who “saved both his honor and his life more than once”, for greyhounds, and the other - a theater landowner:
He drove to the fortress ballet on many wagons
From mothers, fathers of rejected children?!
He himself is immersed in mind in Zephyrs and Cupids,
Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!
And when the theater “burned out”, he sold these children one by one. Serfdom, according to Chatsky, is the source of all troubles. He advocates reforms following the example of the advanced Western countries, but at the same time the hero is a resolute opponent of the stupid imitation of the West:
So that the Lord destroyed this unclean spirit
Empty, slave, 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 side of a stranger.
The dignity of a Russian person is offended in Chatsky, offended by the fact that among the nobility "a mixture of languages \u200b\u200bdominates: French with Nizhny Novgorod", by the stormy reception given by eminent Muscovites to a rootless Frenchman from Bordeaux, who arrived and found that "there is no end to caresses, not a sound of Russian , no Russian face”. Chatsky believes that if you are to adopt, then adopt only the best:
Oh! If we are born to adopt everything,
At least we could borrow a few from the Chinese
Wise they have ignorance of foreigners ...
In the comedy Woe from Wit, the protagonist, in a playful but accurate form, shows the far from ridiculous shortcomings of a society that cannot oppose him with any reasonable arguments in his favor. Chatsky’s main weapon is free, well-aimed speeches, the words with which he describes his attitude to the “past century” and characterizes individual representatives of this century: Skalozub - “a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas”, Molchalin - “a low worshiper and businessman”. What is the society of soulless and vulgar serf-owners doing in response to this? Just as tsarism fought against the Decembrists: arrests, exile, strict censorship, this society is fighting “with a dangerous dreamer.” It declares Chatsky crazy. The hero is forced to flee from Famusov’s house and from Moscow, “to search the world where there is a corner for the offended feeling.”
If we imagine the future fate of Chatsky, then it seems that he will become one of those people who will later be called the Decembrists, whose performance, as Griboedov shows, will not be crowned with victory, but which cannot be called a defeat either.
“Chatsky is broken by the number old force, inflicting on her, in turn, a mortal blow with the quality of fresh strength - this is how the meaning of the hero Goncharov defines in his article “A Million of Torments”. - He is the eternal debunker of lies, hidden in the proverb: "One in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim. I think that this statement can be attributed not only to Chatsky, but also to all Decembrists.
“In my comedy there are twenty-five fools to one sane person; and this person, of course, is in contradiction with the society surrounding him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than the others, ”A.S. Griboyedov about his play. It is quite possible to agree with this author's point of view, and central question, set in the work, I would formulate as follows: why is an intelligent person rejected by both society and his girlfriend? What are the reasons for this misunderstanding?
These kinds of questions may arise
At any time in a variety of social environment and therefore they do not lose their relevance over time. Perhaps that is why “Chatsky will never grow old,” as I.A. Goncharov.
In fact, the era of carriages and palaces has long sunk into oblivion; people seem to live in completely different conditions, but it is still difficult for an intelligent person to find understanding in society, it is still difficult for him to communicate with loved ones, stereotypes that are very difficult to destroy still dominate people. Probably, in such a "overtime" formulation of the problem of the mind in comedy lies one of the secrets of longevity.
This work, the modernity of its sound.
The problem of the mind is the ideological and emotional core around which all other issues of a socio-political, philosophical, national-patriotic and moral-psychological nature are grouped.
Due to the special significance of the problem of the mind, a serious controversy unfolded around it. So, M.A. Dmitriev believed that Chatsky was only being clever, despising others, and in his pretentiousness looked the most comical of all. From other positions, but also critically assesses the mental abilities of the protagonist of the play A.S. Pushkin. Without denying the depth of thoughts expressed by Chatsky (“Everything that he says is very clever”), the poet argued: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs ... ". He was skeptical about the formulation of the problem by P.A. Vyazemsky, who declared that "among the fools of various kinds" Griboedov showed "one smart person, and even then a mad one."
V.G. Belinsky at first expressed an opinion about Chatsky, close to what he said about the hero Dmitirev: “This is just a screamer, a phrase-monger, an ideal noise, profaning everything sacred about which he speaks at every step. Does it really mean to enter society and start scolding fools and beasts in the eyes to be deep man? But later the critic revised his point of view, seeing in Chatsky's monologues and remarks an outpouring of "bilious, thunderous indignation at the sight of a rotten society of insignificant people", whose sleepy life is actually "the death of ... any reasonable thought."
Thus, there has been a radical turn in the assessments of the mind of the protagonist, which was reflected in the look of D.I. Pisarev, who attributed Chatsky to the number of characters suffering from the fact that "issues long resolved in their minds cannot yet be even represented in real life."
This point of view found its final expression in the article by I.A. Goncharov "A Million of Torments", where Chatsky is called the smartest person in comedy. According to the writer, the main character of "Woe from Wit" is a universal typological figure, inevitable "with each change of one century to another", far ahead of its time and preparing the arrival of a new one.
As for Chatsky's ability to recognize people, Goncharov believed that he had it. Not intending to initially express his views in Famusov's company, having arrived only to see Sofya, Chatsky is stung by her coldness, then hurt by her father's demands, and, finally, psychologically he cannot withstand the stress, starting to respond with blow for blow. The mind is at odds with the heart, and this circumstance leads to a dramatic clash
Keeping in mind Pushkin's principle of judging a writer "according to the laws he himself recognizes over himself", one should turn to Griboyedov's position, to what he himself puts into the concept of "mind". Calling Chatsky smart, and other heroes - fools, the playwright expressed his point of view unambiguously. At the same time, the conflict is structured in such a way that each of the opposing sides considers itself smart, and those who do not share its views are insane.
The mind of Famusov and the characters of his circle is the ability to adapt to the existing conditions of life and extract the maximum material benefit from them. Success in life is expressed in the number of souls of serfs, in obtaining a title and rank, in a profitable marriage or marriage, in money, luxury goods. The one who has managed to achieve this (regardless of the means of achieving it) is revered as smart.
An example of “smart” behavior is clearly demonstrated in the story about Famusov’s uncle Maxim Petrovich, who, it would seem, was an absolutely lost situation (he “fell down in front of the empress, so much so that he almost hit the back of his head”), instantly orienting himself, managed to turn into a winning one for himself, deliberately falling again, amusing Catherine and receiving compensation for this in the form of her special location.
Similar examples of "smart behavior" are shown by Sophia, and Molchalin, and Skalozub. From their point of view, a person who has given up his position and career, who does not want to be cunning, who openly expresses his views that run counter to generally accepted ones, who has made so many enemies in one evening, cannot be considered smart - only a madman can do this.
At the same time, many representatives of the Famus society are well aware that Chatsky's views are not insane, but are built on a different logic, different from their own and fraught with a threat to their usual state of complacency.
The logic of a smart person, according to Chatsky, implies not just the ability to use the already existing conditions of life and not only education (which in itself is mandatory), but the ability to freely and unbiasedly evaluate the conditions themselves from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they common sense does not match.
So, being at the head of a scientific committee, it does not make sense to cry out to demand "an oath so that no one knows and does not learn to read and write." How long can one hold on to such a position with such views? Not only dishonorably, but really stupidly, he exchanged for the servants who saved the “life and honor” of the master, “three greyhounds”, for who will save his life next time!
It is senseless and dangerous to use material and cultural goods without giving any access to them to the people, to the very “intelligent, vigorous” people who had just saved the monarchy from Napoleon. It is no longer possible to stay at court using the principles of Maxim Petrovich. Now it is not enough just personal devotion and desire to please - now it is necessary to be able to do the job, because state tasks became much more difficult.
All these examples clearly show the author's position: the mind, which only adapts, thinks in standard stereotypes, Griboedov is inclined to consider stupidity. But that's the essence of the problem, that the majority always thinks in a standard and stereotyped way.
Griboedov does not reduce the conflict only to the opposition of the minds inherent in people of different generations. So, for example, Chatsky and Molchalin can be attributed to the same generation, but their views are diametrically opposed: the first is a personality type of the “current century” and even most likely the century of the future, and the second, for all its youth, is the “past century”, since he is satisfied with the life principles of Famusov and the people of his circle.
Both heroes - both Chatsky and Molchalin - are smart in their own way. Molchalin, having made successful career, having taken at least some place in society, understands the system that underlies it. This is quite in line with his practical mind. But from the position of Chatsky, who fights for the freedom of the individual, such behavior, due to stereotypes accepted in society, cannot be considered smart:
I'm strange, but who's not strange?
The one who looks like all fools;
Molchalin, for example ...
According to Chatsky, a really smart person should not depend on others - this is exactly how he behaves in the Famusov house, as a result of which he deserves the reputation of being insane.
Thus, the problem of the mind in comedy is connected not simply with an attempt by some of the youth to assert themselves, but with the fact that the foundations of the life of the nobility that have developed over the centuries have actually outlived themselves. The most far-sighted people have already understood this, while others, feeling the general unhappiness, strive to preserve these foundations by all means or are content with only superficial changes.
It turns out that the nobility, for the most part, as a force responsible for arranging life in the country, has ceased to meet the requirements of the time. But if Chatsky's point of view, which reflects the positions of a smaller part of society, is recognized as the right to exist, then it will be necessary to somehow respond to it. Then it is necessary either, realizing its correctness, to change in accordance with the new principles - and many do not want to do this, and the majority simply cannot do it. Or it is necessary to fight against the position of Chatsky, which contradicts the previous system of values, which happens throughout the second, third and almost all of the fourth act of the comedy.
But there is a third way: to declare the one who expresses views so unusual for the majority as crazy. Then you can safely ignore his angry words and fiery monologues. This is very convenient and fully corresponds to the general aspirations of the Famus society: to bother yourself with any worries as little as possible. It is quite possible to imagine the atmosphere of complacency and comfort that reigned here before the appearance of Chatsky. Having expelled him from Moscow society, Famusov and his entourage, apparently, will feel calm for a while. But only for a short time.
After all, Chatsky is by no means a lone hero, although in a comedy he alone opposes everything Famus Society. Chatsky reflects a whole type of people who marked a new phenomenon in society and revealed all its pain points.
Thus, in the comedy "Woe from Wit" various types of mind are presented - from worldly wisdom, practical mind, to the mind that reflects the high intellect of a free thinker, boldly confronting that which does not meet the highest criteria of truth. It is to such a mind that “woe”, its carrier is expelled from society and it is unlikely that success and recognition will await him somewhere else.
This is the strength of Griboedov's genius, that by showing the events of a specific time and place, he turns to the eternal problem - not only Chatsky, who lives in the era on the eve of the "disturbance on St. Isaac's Square", will face a sad fate. It is prepared for anyone who comes into conflict with the old system of views and tries to defend their way of thinking, their mind - the mind of a free person.
