Chatsky's victory in the comedy Woe from Wit. Who is Chatsky: winner or loser? The ideological and moral victory of Chatsky in A.S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"

I.A. Goncharov wrote about the protagonist of the comedy "Woe from Wit": "Chatsky is broken by the number old force. He dealt her, in turn, a mortal blow with the quality of fresh strength. Chatsky is a winner, an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim. In the words of Goncharov, there is a certain contradiction that needs to be resolved. So who is Chatsky: winner or loser?

The comedy "Woe from Wit" presents a complex historical process replacement of the old views of the landowners-feudal lords with new progressive ideas for the organization of society. This process cannot happen overnight. It takes time and a lot of effort and sacrifice on the part of representatives of a new type of thinking.

The play presents the struggle of the conservative nobility, the "past century", with the "present century" - Chatsky, who has an extraordinary mind and desire to act for the good of his Fatherland. The old Moscow nobles are defending their personal well-being and personal comfort in this struggle. Chatsky, on the other hand, seeks to develop the country by increasing the value of the individual in society, the development of sciences and education, deeply despising and leaving servility and careerism in the background.

Already in the title of the comedy, Griboyedov points out that the mind, in its broadest sense, will not bring happiness to the main character of the comedy. His accusatory speeches are not liked by both the world, because they threaten his usual way of life, and his beloved Sophia, because they threaten her personal happiness.

In love, Chatsky is definitely defeated. Sophia preferred Chatsky, who is "sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp," Molchalin, who differs only in his modesty and helpfulness. And the ability to "serve" is very important in the world. And Famusov admires this quality, citing as an example his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who was not afraid to expose himself to ridicule in order to please the empress. For Chatsky, this is a humiliation. He says that "I would be glad to serve - it's sickening to serve." And this unwillingness to please noble society leads to the fact that the hero is expelled from him.

A love conflict gives rise to Chatsky's conflict with the Famus Society, with which, as it turned out, he disagrees on all fundamental issues. The whole comedy is Chatsky's verbal struggle with the Moscow nobility. The hero is opposed to the numerous camp of the "gone century". Chatsky, alone, fearlessly opposes him. The main character of the comedy is disgusted that Famusov considers teaching a “plague”, that Skalozub received the rank of colonel not with the help of personal merits, but with the help of connections, that Molchalin is trying in every possible way to please Famusov and his guests, humiliating himself in front of them only because he does not have much weight in this society, that no one is ready to sacrifice personal gain for the good of the Fatherland.

Representatives of the Famus society do not want to allow their ideals to be debunked. They do not know how to live differently and are not ready. Therefore, defending itself, the world quickly spreads gossip that Chatsky is "out of his mind." By declaring Chatsky crazy, society makes his words safe. The hero leaves Moscow, which dispelled "all the smoke and smoke" of his hopes. It seems that Chatsky is leaving defeated.

However, it is impossible to answer unambiguously the question of who Chatsky is - the winner or the loser - in the comedy "Woe from Wit". He didn't win just because he was outnumbered. But he remained true to his views, and his words, like seeds, will soon sprout. Like-minded people will gather around him. By the way, they are mentioned in the play. For example, Skalozub's cousin, who, leaving successful career, went to the village, where he began to lead a quiet life and read a lot. People who are indifferent to ranks and money, who put their mind and heart above all else, will ultimately win over the Famus society.

Chatsky leaves, not knowing that he is the winner. History will show this later. This hero is forced to suffer, to grieve, but his words will not go unheard. The struggle between the old and the new cannot last forever. Sooner or later it will end with the collapse of outdated views. That is why, as Goncharov writes, in this comedy Chatsky refutes famous proverb"there is safety in numbers". If he is Chatsky, then he is a warrior, "and, moreover, a winner."

The above reasoning about the image of Chatsky the winner and the vanquished will be useful to 9 classes while searching for materials on the topic of the essay “Who is Chatsky: the winner or the vanquished?”

Artwork test

A. S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is one of the most remarkable works of Russian literature XIX century. Unfortunately, the author did not leave precise instructions about the start of work on the comedy. Some researchers name both 1816, and 1813, and 1821. Only the time when work on the work was completed is documented: 1324. But the exact dating of the play is important only to researchers, and the reader needs to know the era of creation of the work and the historical situation in the country at that moment. So, the main thing is that the comedy was created at a time when young people, such as A. A. Chatsky (the main character of A. S. Griboyedov’s work “Woe from Wit”), carried new ideas and moods to society. In his monologues and remarks, in all his actions, what was most important for the future Decembrists was expressed: the spirit of liberty, free life, the feeling that "everyone breathes more freely." Freedom of the individual is the motive of time in Griboyedov's comedy. Therefore, those people who strove for freedom from decrepit ideas about love, marriage, honor, service, the meaning of life can be deservedly called the heroes of their time, because they believed that the struggle for justice was their moral duty.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" is constructed in such a way that only Chatsky speaks about the "current century", about the ideas of socio-political transformations. He is the one new person", which carries the" spirit of the times "; the idea of ​​life, the goal of which is freedom. It should be noted that Chatsky is alone in his struggle. But Griboyedov makes it clear to the reader that the main character has like-minded people, for example, Skalozub's cousin, who unexpectedly left the service when "the rank followed him." Chatsky and his associates aspire to "creative, lofty and beautiful arts", they dream of staring into the sciences "a mind that is hungry for knowledge", they crave "sublime love". Chatsky's desire is to serve the fatherland, the cause, and not individuals. He hates everything vulgar, including slavish admiration for everything foreign, servility, servility. The hero's beliefs are not always expressed directly to him. For reasons of censorship, Griboedov often allows the hero to only hint at the most important ideas.

The image of Chatsky reflects the features of the Decembrist of the era of 1816-1818. At that time, a Russian citizen of advanced convictions did not strive for active revolutionary activity, for the overthrow of the monarchy and the like. First of all, he wanted to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland, he wanted to serve him honestly. That is why, three years before the events described in the comedy, Chatsky, “drenched in tears,” broke up with Sophia and went to St. Petersburg. Therefore, a brilliantly started career was cut short: “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve.” But the state, it turns out, does not need selfless service, it requires servitude. IN totalitarian state the question: "To serve or not to serve, to live in the country or to travel" - goes beyond the problem of personal freedom. The personal life of a citizen is inseparable from his political convictions, and the desire to live in his own way, contrary to the norm, is in itself a challenge.

What does Chatsky see around him? A lot of people who are looking only for ranks, crosses, "money to live", not love, but a profitable marriage. Their ideal is "moderation and accuracy", their dream is "to take away all the books and burn them." Griboyedov, true to life's truth, showed the plight of a young progressive man in this society. The environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth that pricks his eyes, for trying to break the usual way of life. Chatsky, endowed with the temperament of a fighter, actively opposes the Famus society. But does he see his real opponent when he denounces Famusov, Skalozub, the ballroom crowd?

Bye main character Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" traveled for three years, society did not stand still. It did not just return with relief to the cares and joys of a peaceful life, it developed in the clog “resistance” to those ripening changes that threatened to crush this peaceful life. And so Molchalin appears in society and firmly makes his way. Chatsky is not able to take him and his "talents" seriously. Meanwhile, this “most miserable” creature” is not so insignificant. During the absence of Chatsky, Molchalin took his place in Sophia's heart, it is he who is the happy rival of the protagonist.

Mind, cunning, resourcefulness of Molchalin, the ability to find the “key” to every influential person, absolute unscrupulousness are the defining qualities of this hero, the qualities that make him an anti-hero of comedy, the main opponent of Chatsky. The words thrown by him (“The Silent Ones are blissful in the world”) turned out to be a prophecy. Molchalin became a household name for vulgarity and servility. "Always on tiptoe and not rich in words", he managed to win favor the mighty of the world this by not daring to speak his judgment aloud.

In my opinion, the comparison of Famusov, Skalozub, Prince Tugoukhovsky and Molchalin is very interesting. What is the limit of their dreams?

For Famusov, obviously, it is successful to marry off his daughter, and to receive a couple of orders, nothing more. Skalozub also does not pretend to be much: "I just wish I could get into the generals." Prince Tugoukhovsky has long been on parcels with his wife, he probably wants only one thing: they would leave him alone ...

Molchalin will not be satisfied with small things. During the three years of Chatsky's absence, he achieved brilliant success. An unknown, rootless Tver tradesman, he became the secretary of the Moscow "ace", received three awards, the rank of assessor, giving the right to hereditary nobility, became Sophia's beloved and secret fiance. Indispensable in the Famus house, indispensable in society:

There the pug will stroke in time,

Here, at the right time, he will insert a card ...

Will Molchalin stop there? Of course no. Prudently and coldly, Molchalin is gaining strength. He will not tolerate Chatsky on his way - a crazy dreamer, a subverter of the foundations! Molchalin is terrible precisely because of his deepest immorality: one who is ready to endure any humiliation in the struggle for power, wealth, strength, having seized upon the desired heights, will not only humiliate, but also destroy.

It is the Molchalins, whose ideal "to take awards and live happily", to reach "to the well-known degrees", will become in the near future (after the Decembrist uprising) the ideals of society. They will rely new government, because they are obedient, because above all the authorities value their “talents” - “moderation and accuracy”. Molchalin is a man of structure, his comfortable existence is possible only in a well-established state mechanism. And he will do everything possible to prevent the disorder of this mechanism, especially its destruction. Therefore, with such ease, others picked up Sophia's gossip about Chatsky's madness. Here is the paradox: the only sane person is declared insane! But this is easy to explain, since Chatsky is not afraid of a crazy person. It is convenient for society to write off all the revealing arguments of Chatsky to his madness. Chatsky and famous society incompatible. They live, as it were, in different dimensions, the world sees him as a madman, considering himself reasonable, normal. Chatsky, of course, considers his world, his beliefs to be the norm and sees in those around him only a concentration of vices: ... He will come out of the fire unharmed, Who will have time to stay with you for a day, Breathe in the air, alone, And his mind will survive.

"So! I sobered up completely! exclaims Chatsky at the end of the comedy. What is defeat or enlightenment? Yes, the end of this work is far from cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said this about the finale: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength.”

The hero knows what he is fighting for and against. He interrupts the chatter of Repetilov, carried away by an unknown, distant ideal and senselessly denying "laws, conscience, faith": "Listen, lie, but know the measure!"

Chatsky demands service “to the cause, not to individuals”: ​​“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” He does not mix fun or tomfoolery with business, like Molchalin. Chatsky is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men." He refuses to bow before their authorities, who "knew honor before everyone", in "ranks were taken out and pensions were given", but "when it was necessary to serve", and they "bent over".

Chatsky does not accept those disgusting morals, “where they overflow in feasts and extravagance, and where foreign clients of a past life will not resurrect the meanest traits,” where “lunches, dinners and dances are clamped to their mouths.” He openly demonstrates his positions in monologues, and the inert society, frightened by his speeches, exposes his weapon against him - slander. In the third act, which is the climax public conflict in a comedy, the Famus society declares him crazy, a social lunatic. But the hero is experiencing the collapse of not only his convictions, but also the collapse of personal happiness, and the reason for this is Sophia, Famusov's daughter, who inadvertently said: "He reluctantly drove me crazy." Gossip is based on a pun. Love madness becomes social madness: You glorified me insane all in unison, You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed, Whoever has time to stay with you for a day, Breathe in the air alone, And his mind will survive.

The theme of the hero's imaginary madness is connected with the motive of imprisonment and imprisonment. First, Chatsky is assigned a lunatic asylum ("They seized it, into the yellow house, and put him on a chain"). Zagoretsky’s words are picked up by the countess-grandmother: “To prison, prince, who grabbed Chatsky?”

Thus, a society accustomed to living according to long-established rules, honoring patriarchal foundations, afraid of any changes that could disturb their calm, carefree existence, cracks down on an intelligent person who dares to openly speak out against social vices and shortcomings. It deals with him, choosing gossip as a weapon. This is all that the Famus society could oppose diatribes hero.

Chatsky is a typical representative of his time, whose fate turned out to be so deplorable in the conditions public life Russia in the 10-20s of the XIX century.

1. "Swamp" of ignorance and ignorance.

2. Beads for pigs.

3. Win or lose.

Thinking about the question whether the main character won "Woe from Wit" in the confrontation described by the author, one can answer only one thing - no. Alexander Andreevich Chatsky lost. And this answer is not unfounded. We understand this already from the very name of the comedy: grief, trouble from the mind. Smart people are not needed by the society in which Chatsky falls. The dominant role there is played not by the mind or knowledge, but by position. That is why Famusov speaks so flatteringly about Skalozub: “ A famous person, solid, / And picked up the darkness of distinction: / Out of years; and an enviable rank, / Not today, tomorrow the general. And then the Skalozub himself confirms the current opinion about the dangers of studying, about people falling ill with this “disease”. “But I firmly picked up some rules. / Chin followed him: he suddenly left the service. / I started reading books in the village.” Enlightenment is harmful to those who live in darkness and do not want to cross this threshold. People voluntarily perish in the "swamp" of ignorance and ignorance.

The concept of rank reigns in the play, it seems to be animated. Only the rank can become that cherished door that opens Big world. Perhaps that is why there are no ranks own opinion. Yes, and the source of information is "decrepit" news. Chatsky's famous monologue begins in this vein: “And who are the judges? - For the antiquity of years / Their hostility is irreconcilable to a free life, / Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers / The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea ... "

The people into whose world Chatsky got into have not changed at all. He seemed to return to the same atmosphere that he had left for a while. But if this time was good for him, then this time did not give anything to the world of the Famusovs. And what can it give if Maxim Petrovich rules the ball with them.

One of the topics that is in the center of everyone's attention is the rumor about Chatsky's insanity. “Everyone repeats the absurdity about me in a voice! / And for others it’s like a triumph, / Others seem to sympathize ... / Oh! if someone penetrated people: / What is worse in them? soul or tongue! And who becomes the culprit of such gossip - a loved one - Sofia!

We can say that Chatsky beats his head against a blank wall of incomprehension and inability to perceive anything new and progressive. He is trying to open the door to others to another world, full of interesting and unknown. Wasted labor! “I wish you to doze in happy ignorance,” Chatsky comments on his retreat.

On his visit, Chatsky encounters another controversial and interesting figure - Molchalin. The name itself betrays the essence this character. He found his niche: "At my age, one should not dare to have one's own judgment." With this motto, he goes through life. And why say anything if others still decide everything for you. You just need to find the appropriate environment, and Molchalin achieved this. Chatsky quite rightly says about him: “There will be another, well-behaved, / Low worshiper and businessman, / Finally, in virtues / He is equal to the future father-in-law.” In this world, both old and young follow the same road that leads nowhere. Young people do not even try to resist it. Trying to change the situation only Chatsky. He openly enters the fight. Does anyone need all this? IN this case the words that Kuteikin recalls are quite fair: "... it is written for there, do not cast beads in front of pigs, but they will not trample him underfoot."

Despite the whole picture as a whole, which is formed quite quickly, you can find small episodes where the answer to the question can be positive. An example is the shape former friend Chatsky - Platon Mikhailovich. Once they were united by "camp noise, comrades and brothers." However, Chatsky's friend is now married and in poor health. “Yes, brother, now it’s not like that ...” - Platon Mikhailovich sadly states. And later he repeats several times that "now, brother, I'm not the one ..." The former military man, who could do everything, regrets that the glorious time has passed.

Before us - good example what could have happened to Chatsky himself if he had stayed in Moscow. Fate gave Alexander Andreevich Chatsky the opportunity not to regret his glorious life, but to remember it with delight. In the words of Chatsky, a portrait of a single Platon Mikhailovich is drawn. “Is it not last year, at the end, / I knew you in the regiment? only morning: a foot in the stirrup / And you rush about on a greyhound stallion; / Autumn wind blow, even in front, even from the rear.

Griboyedov knowingly introduces the image of Platon Mikhailovich into the comedy. With the help of it, the author tells readers that the answer to the question whether Chatsky won is very ambiguous. In the world where the protagonist got after some time, he was a loser. But if we recall Platon Mikhailovich, then in this case Chatsky can be called the winner. He did not allow himself to be destroyed at the everyday level, starting at family life. His inquisitive mind, which ultimately leads to failure, is able to perceive new knowledge. And in this case, Chatsky, of course, won.

Therefore, it is probably quite difficult to give a categorical answer: is it a victory or a defeat. The society that Chatsky falls into turns out to be stronger. But even in it there are those who are close in spirit to Chatsky. Among them can be called Platon Mikhailovich. And in comparison with this image, Chatsky's victory is visible. Alexander Andreevich does not sink like his friend does. He chooses another path - escape. The world is not ready for new trends and, moreover, cardinal changes. Therefore, the main character has to state: “You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed, / Whoever has time to stay with you for a day, / Breathes the air alone / And his mind will survive.” So Chatsky's departure is not a flight to literally this word. This is a temporary retreat. When it is impossible to go ahead, there are workarounds. And no matter what grief may be from the mind, still only the mind moves a person forward.

In Griboedov's comedy, victory and defeat are on different scales. And so far we have to state that the “defeat” cup outweighs. But this is not the final answer. Although Chatsky is almost alone, he is there - which means there is hope for the best.

Nesterova I.A. The tragedy of Chatsky in the comedy Woe from Wit // Encyclopedia of the Nesterovs

What is the tragedy of Chatsky and his problem?

The end of the eighteenth century is marked by the appearance of a large number satirical works. At the beginning of the 19th century, Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" came out, which took a leading place among the works of its genre. The comedy bore the stamp of Alexander's reforms and the war of 1812.

According to Goncharov, "the comedy Woe from Wit is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy ... which is hardly found in other literatures ...".

The main character of the work is A.A. Chatsky. He was born into a small noble family. His childhood passed next to the Famusov family. He was connected with Sophia, first friendship, and then love.

The life of the Moscow nobility quickly bored Chatsky. He wanted to visit other countries. Returning three years later to Moscow, Chatsky realized that nothing had changed, but still he was glad to return home. "I wanted to travel around the whole world, And I didn't travel a hundredth."

The most precious memories in a foreign land were memories of the homeland. In Moscow, Chatsky notes that morals in the capital have not changed at all. "When you wander, you return home, And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant for us!" From all other characters of Chatsky's comedy is distinguished by a piercing mind, freshness of views. Here is how Famusov speaks of him: "It's a pity, it's a pity, he is small with a head; And he writes and translates nicely." Even Sophia, despite her dislike for Chatsky, says about him that he is "handsome, smart, eloquent ...".

The tragedy of Chatsky is that his mind will not allow him to close his eyes to the lawlessness that is happening in secular society. The atmosphere of lies and servility to the more influential and senior nobles and officials of the highest rank. Chatsky cannot calmly look at the admiration for everything foreign:

Oh! if we were born to adopt everything,
At least we could borrow a few from the Chinese
Wise among them is the ignorance of foreigners;
Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion?
So that our people are smart, peppy.
Although the language did not consider us Germans.

Chatsky criticizes the methods of upbringing and education operating in a secular society. He is annoyed that anyone who is not lazy becomes a teacher. Chatsky condemns the fashion for foreign teachers, who sometimes do not know how to speak Russian:

Not that they are far in science;
In Russia, under a great fine,
We are told to recognize each
Historian and geographer!

Alexander Andreevich is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom. He sees the attitude of the landowners towards the servants and openly protests against this. In a conversation with Famusova, he indignantly gives an example of the manifestation of serfdom:

That Nestor of noble villains,
Crowd surrounded by servants;
Zealous, they are in the hours of wine and fight
Both honor and his life saved him more than once: suddenly
He traded three greyhounds for them"!!!

Chatsky is a very educated person. He has great respect for science and art. His speech is figurative and rich in intonations. Chatsky is characterized by depth and constancy of feelings. He is very emotional and open. This is clearly manifested in his attitude towards Sophia. He loves her, sincerely, tenderly. Despite Sophia's neglect, he does not try to hide his feelings. There is no falsehood in Chatsky's behavior. He does not say what he does not think, what he does not believe. Chatsky does not set himself the goal of rising in rank at all costs. He does not approve of servility and flattery for the sake of social position. He demands to serve "the cause, not the persons." He says:

Ranks are given by people;
And people can be deceived.

The tragedy of Chatsky is due to the fact that his moral principles cannot live with the hypocrisy of secular society. He does not like the theft and idleness of officials, but he cannot do anything about it due to the fact that he is not endowed with ranks and power. For the protagonist in a person, it is not the social position that is important, but his moral principles and quality.

The tragedy of comedy is aggravated by the fact that Chatsky, unlike most representatives of secular society, appreciates and respects the Russian people. He considers him "smart and peppy".

Griboyedov endows Chatsky with the ability to very subtly notice the peculiarities of a person’s character, therefore he is the first to expose a scoundrel in Molchalin and bitterly notes that "Molchalins are blissful in the world ...".

Griboyedov creates tragic image a new man in an old society. However, everything new that is already in Chatsky is the future, which is already being embodied and is preparing to change " old world", i.e. Famunsovshchina. However, Alexander Andreevich is not able to move from words to action. He finds himself alone with the old society and his criticism, unable to change something. This is the tragedy of Chatsky, i.e. grief from the mind.

A.S.Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, work on which was completed in 1824, is an innovative work both in terms of issues, and in style, and in composition. For the first time in Russian dramaturgy, the task was set to show not just a comedy action based on a love triangle, not images-masks corresponding to the traditional roles of comedies of classicism, but living, real types of people - Griboedov's contemporaries, with their real problems and not only personal, but also social conflicts.

Very accurate about the features of the construction

Comedy "Woe from Wit" said in his critical study"A million torments". I.A. Goncharov: “Two comedies seem to be nested one into the other: one, so to speak, private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Lisa: this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, another unexpectedly appears in between, and the action is tied up again, a private comedy is played out in a general battle and tied into one knot.

This fundamental position allows us to correctly assess and understand both the problems and the heroes of the comedy, and therefore, to understand what is the meaning of its finale. But before

All you have to do is determine which ending in question. After all, if, as Goncharov convincingly says, there are two intrigues and two conflicts in a comedy, then there should be two denouements. Let's start with a more traditional - personal - conflict.

In the comedies of classicism, the action was usually based on a "love triangle", which was made up of characters with a clearly defined function in the plot and character. This "role system" included: the heroine and two lovers - a lucky one and an unlucky one, a father who is unaware of his daughter's love, and a maid who arranges dates for lovers - the so-called soubrette. There is some similarity of such "roles" in Griboyedov's comedy.

Chatsky should have played the role of the first, successful lover, who in the finale, having successfully overcome all difficulties, successfully marries his beloved. But the development of the action of the comedy and especially its ending refute the possibility of such an interpretation: Sophia clearly prefers Molchalin, she gives way to gossip about Chatsky's madness, which forces Chatsky to leave not only Famusov's house, but also Moscow and, at the same time, give up hopes for Sophia's reciprocity . In addition, Chatsky also has the features of a reasoning hero, who in the works of classicism served as an exponent of the author's ideas.

Molchalin would fit the role of a second lover, especially since the presence of a second one - a comic one - is also associated with him. love triangle"(Molchalin - Lisa). But in fact, it turns out that it is he who is lucky in love, Sophia has a special disposition for him, which is more suitable for the role of the first lover. But here, too, Griboyedov departs from tradition: Molchalin is clearly not positive hero, which is mandatory for the role of the first lover, and is depicted with a negative author's assessment.

Griboyedov somewhat departs from tradition in the depiction of the heroine. In the classical "role system" Sophia should have become the perfect heroine, but in "Woe from Wit" this image is interpreted very ambiguously, and in the final it will not happy marriage but a deep disappointment.

The author deviates even more from the norms of classicism in the image of the soubrette - Lisa. As a soubrette, she is cunning, quick-witted, resourceful and bold enough in dealing with her masters. She is cheerful and laid-back, which, however, does not prevent her, as it should be in her role, to take an active part in a love affair. But at the same time, Griboedov endows Lisa with traits that are quite unusual for such a role, making her related to the reasoning hero: she gives clear, even aphoristic characteristics to other heroes, formulates some of the most important positions of Famus society (“sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”, “and golden bag, and aims for generals ”- about Skalozub).

Famusov in the “role system” plays the role of a noble father who is unaware of his daughter’s love, but by changing the traditional ending, Griboedov deprives this character of the opportunity to successfully complete the development of the action: usually in the end, when everything was revealed, a noble father who cares about his daughter’s happiness , blessed the lovers for marriage and it all ended in a wedding.

Obviously, there is nothing like this in the finale of "Woe from Wit Does Not Happen." Famusov really knows nothing about the real state of things until the very end. But even there, he still remains in happy ignorance about the true passions of his daughter - he believes that Sophia is in love with Chatsky, and he doesn’t even think about Molchalin as the subject of his daughter’s sighs, otherwise everything would have ended much worse, especially for Molchalin, Certainly. Indeed, in addition to what it implies the role of a noble father, the image of Famusov includes the features of a typical Moscow “ace”, a big boss, a gentleman who is not used to his subordinates allowing themselves much less liberties - it’s not for nothing that Molchalin is so afraid of showing sympathy for him from Sophia, despite all the girl's precautions:

And I'm so shaking

And at one thought I crush,

That Pavel Afanasich once

Someday will catch us

Disperse, curse! .. -

Molchalin complains to Lisa. Yes, and all the other participants in this "triangle" went so far beyond their roles precisely because, while creating realistic images, Griboedov could not endow them with some kind of standard set crap. And as full-blooded, living images, they began to behave quite differently from the rules of classicism.

Responding to reproaches of “lack of a plan”, that is, exactly what was just said, Griboedov argued that, on the contrary, his plan “is simple and clear in execution. The girl, herself stupid, prefers the fool smart person". More precisely, you can't say. And as a result, it turns out that even in what somehow still retained a connection with the traditions of classicism, Griboyedov acted as a true innovator. His characters in the personal sphere behave as it, alas, quite often happens in life: they make mistakes, are lost in conjectures and choose a clearly erroneous path, but they themselves do not know this.

So, Sophia was clearly mistaken in Molchalin, but she believes that the quiet young man actually looks like noble heroes sentimental novels which she loves to read. At the same time, preferring to command rather than obey, she sharply rejects the noble, but overly ardent, sometimes even passionate in disputes Chatsky, who manages to inadvertently offend such dear to my heart Sofia Molchalin. As a result, instead of entertaining, making the girl laugh, Chatsky provokes a storm of her anger. She cruelly takes revenge on the unlucky lover: she launches gossip about his madness into society. But she herself will be deeply disappointed: Molchalin turns out to be an ordinary careerist and scoundrel.

Don't be shy, stand up...

Reproaches, complaints, my tears

Do not dare to wait, you are not worth them, -

Sofya angrily throws Molchalin, caught in a lie in relation to her, but insight comes only in the finale.

But Chatsky is also waiting for a very unexpected discovery. From the very beginning, he lived in the world of his illusions: for some reason he decided that Sophia, after his unexpected departure from the Famusov house three years ago, treats him with the same sympathy, although we see no reason for this - after all, he I didn't even write letters to her. Then, finally feeling her coldness, he begins to look for an opponent - and finds him in the face of Skalozub, again without any reason in behavior or words from Sophia. She is an independent girl and can hardly accept her father's opinion of a young and promising colonel so easily. She has her own ideas about her husband, however, also somewhat reminiscent of the image of a husband-boy, husband-servant, traditional for Famus society.

Chatsky nevertheless had a suspicion about Molchalin as a possible rival when Sophia fainted when she saw how he was thrown off by a horse. But Chatsky cannot take the position of a girl, he is too convinced of his judgments, including about Molchalin, which means, in his opinion, Sophia cannot love such a person either. According to some very strange logic, when he heard Sophia praise Molchalin without restraint, he makes a paradoxical conclusion: “She does not respect him. … She doesn’t give a damn about him.”

So Griboedov leads the action to a natural finale: the collapse of the illusions of all the main characters. But such an ending is motivated not from the point of view of the traditional "role system", but from the standpoint of the psychological appearance of each of the characters, the internal motivation of their actions, arising from the individual characteristics of the characters.

As you can see, everything with Griboyedov goes “not according to the rules”: the characters are not the same, and the plot develops in the wrong way, and in the finale, instead of the traditional happy-end, everyone will have the collapse of illusions and hopes. By the way, this “incorrectness” of the comedy caused a negative assessment among many of Griboyedov’s contemporaries, although, of course, true connoisseurs of art, who immediately appreciated the innovative nature of the work, gave very high reviews about it. And yet, even Pushkin, as you know, did not accept this work in everything, in particular, the character of Chatsky seemed to him unconvincing, apparently precisely because he retained the features of a reasoning hero.

But the play has another line of development, which means the finale of another conflict. In it, Chatsky, as a representative of the young progressive-minded generation of Russia of that era, enters into an unequal struggle with the Famus society - that conservative majority that does not want to accept anything new: neither in politics nor in social relations, neither in the system of ideas, nor in the usual way of life. He is one against all and the finale of the conflict is, in fact, a foregone conclusion: "Chatsky is broken by the amount of the old force," as Goncharov wrote.

Although Chatsky despises the Famus society, expulsion from this society is still painful for him: he grew up here, Famusov once replaced his father and, whatever you say, he loves Sophia, and therefore he really suffers, receiving his “million of torments”, which gives the finale of the comedy even a tragic sound:

Who was he with? Where did fate take me?

Everyone is racing! Everyone curse! A crowd of tormentors!

And yet, if his collapse in love is absolutely obvious, then the question of whether the expulsion of Chatsky from Famus society can be called a victory over the hero remains open. “Get out of Moscow! I don’t come here anymore, ”Chatsky shouts in despair. But the world is wide, in it one can find not only a place “where there is a corner for an offended feeling,” but also one’s like-minded people, one’s work in life. After all, if we agree with the legitimacy of comparing Chatsky with the Decembrists - and this was done even by Griboedov's contemporaries, the Decembrists themselves, with whom the author of Woe from Wit was well acquainted - then we have to admit that the dispute of such heroes as Chatsky with the old foundations is only starts.

Continuing the conversation about the significance of the final clash between Chatsky and the Famus society, Goncharov noted that, in spite of everything, the hero dealt the conservatives "a mortal blow with the quality of fresh force." It may be premature to talk about a "mortal blow", but it is obvious that the once monolithic Famus society really made a gap - and Chatsky is to blame for this. Now there is no rest for the old Moscow "aces" and noble ladies, because there is no confidence in the inviolability of their positions, although they are still strong. Goncharov is absolutely right when he calls Chatsky "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher", who is always a victim - such is the fate of those who go first.

And maybe main point the finale of Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit for us is that a person who dares to go first in the era of a turning point, the change of one century by another, the collapse of old ideas and the emergence of new sprouts, must be ready to sacrifice himself. Always, at all times, woe to the mind that dared to oppose new concepts to generally accepted ones. But also praise to a man who can keep such a mind free and healthy, despite all the vicissitudes of his personal fate.