home › Chassis › Griboedov "Woe from Wit". What is Chatsky fighting for and against? (Based on the comedy A

Griboedov "Woe from Wit". What is Chatsky fighting for and against? (Based on the comedy A

What and against what is Chatsky fighting.

"Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov is the work of one hero. Chatsky ... It's so strange, but for the first time, when it comes to him, Griboyedov rhymes his last name with the word "stupid":

Excuse me, right, how holy God is,

I wanted this stupid laugh

Helped to cheer you up a bit.

To you Alexander Andreevich Chatsky

These are Lisa's words. And really, is Chatsky's struggle really necessary for the author himself to use such rhymes, isn't it stupid to fight chimeras. Outside the 20s 19th century- the time of reaction and censorship, when they preferred to turn a blind eye to everything and everyone and only "hit the back of the head", like the notorious Maxim Petrovich. But still, the fruit of freedom is gradually ripening, and who knows if our Chatsky was not on Senate Square along with those who dared. But is this struggle necessary, and in general, what is in it - this struggle?

Comedy conflict is multifaceted. One conflict grows out of another, but everywhere we see this struggle of Chatsky, whether it is love or disputes with the "gone century". Without a struggle, there is no Chatsky, and rather he fights against. Against the members of the English Club, against "three of the boulevard faces who have been young for half a century", against the "consumptive" gentleman, the "enemy of books". But since Chatsky is fighting, then, apparently, they should also fight, defend their point of view, discuss, object. How can they reflect, for example, such a call:

As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;

As not in the war, but in the world they took it with their foreheads,

Knocked on the floor without regret!

Who needs - there arrogance, they lie in the dust,

And for those who are higher, flattery, like weaving lace.

Direct was the age of humility and fear.

This is downright an insult, a challenge to a duel, albeit a verbal one. Probably, the past century had arguments, its own arguments, but either he did not dare to express them aloud, or he was afraid. Nevertheless, if you argue, then it means to be aware that it is necessary to seek the truth, and the truth here is on the side of Chatsky. They, this “regiment of jesters”, are certainly dumber, but also more cunning. After all, Chatsky does not accept cunning, he goes to war with an open visor, holding a spear at the ready, ready to fight an enemy in a fair fight, on the side of which there is a numerical superiority. And they stick a knife in his back, shouting “Ah! My God! he's carbonari!" It's probably a war windmills, but it deserves to be called a war. For someone must draw our attention to all this inertia and servility, to this dominance of "mixing languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod", to prejudices that will not exterminate "neither their years, not fashions, nor fires", someone must fight the pufferfish and the silent ones, someone must say at least a word of truth.

Ignorance is another key point that Chatsky is disgusted with, here he is ready to fight to the victory, and, I think, the ill-fated word "carbonari" sounds more like a compliment to him. Chatsky is educated, well-read, has traveled half the world and knows that the world is not limited to Moscow and society balls. After all, in this world of Chatsky, there is so much beauty: philosophers, travelers, freethinkers. Contempt for the sciences is the worst sin, we see how fiercely he defends himself:

Now letting one of us

Of the young people, there is an enemy of quests,

Not demanding either places or promotions,

In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge;

Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat

To creative arts, lofty and beautiful, -

They are the hour: robbery! fire!

So, "there is one warrior in the field," according to Goncharov, but only if he is Chatsky!

However, Chatsky not only goes on the attack, but he also defends himself, or rather, fights for ... He fights for his love, also to the end. And here he is defeated and defeated, and his banners are trampled into the mud by the cavalry of the enemy, who by deceit entered the "palace". That's what he wasn't ready for. He feels in himself enough strength to fight the entire Moscow world, but he does not have them to resist the "insignificant" Molchalin.

Blind! in whom I was looking for the reward of all labors!

Hurry! .. flew! trembled! Here's happiness, I thought close.

Chatsky is defeated, this was the last, mortal wound, from which he may never recover. The fight is over...

Griboyedov's work has a sad end, however, the author called it a comedy. Probably because everything worked out well for the main character: he did not stay with a woman who would deceive him, he was not sent to prison for free speeches, he did not shoot with anyone because of the insults. He just laughed and fought, with the same smile on his lips. Chatsky did not win in his struggle, or rather, he did not win at that time, we, the readers, are well aware of the course of history. But the victory was not so important. Chatsky is the initiator of this struggle of “two centuries”, then it will be continued by the Decembrists, Herzen and many others, in the 20th century it, this struggle, for sure, would have turned into the Red Terror, but we cannot know this. We like Chatsky, we love him with all our hearts, and together with him we leave Moscow, from this struggle, from broken dreams. "Carriage for me, carriage!"

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.easyschool.ru/ were used.

What is Chatsky fighting for and against? (According to the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”.)

Comedy "Woe from Wit" gives big picture throughout Russian life in the 10-20s of the XIX century, reproduces the eternal struggle of the old and the new, which unfolded with great force at that time throughout Russia, and not only in Moscow, between two camps: advanced, Decembrist-minded people and feudal lords, a stronghold antiquity.
The Famusovsky society in comedy, which firmly preserved the traditions of the "past century", is opposed by Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. This is an advanced man of the "current century", more precisely, of the time when, after Patriotic War 1812, which sharpened the self-consciousness of all sections of society in Russia at that time, secret revolutionary circles began to arise and develop, political societies. Chatsky in the literature of the 20s of the XIX century is a typical image of a “new” person, goodie, a Decembrist in views, social behavior, moral convictions, in the whole cast of mind and soul. The clash of Chatsky - a man with a strong-willed character, whole in his feelings, a fighter for an idea - with the Famus society was inevitable. This clash gradually takes on an increasingly violent character, it is complicated by Chatsky's personal drama - the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness. His views against the existing foundations of society are becoming more and more harsh.
If Famusov is the defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky, with the indignation of a Decembrist revolutionary, speaks of feudal lords and serfdom. In the monologue "Who are the judges?" he angrily opposes those people who are the pillars noble society. He sharply speaks out against the orders of the golden Catherine's age, dear to Famusov's heart, "the age of humility and fear - the age of flattery and arrogance."
Chatsky's ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and a "hunter to be mean", but an independent, free personality, alien to slavish humiliation.
If Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub consider service as
a source of personal gain, service to individuals, not to the cause, then Chatsky breaks ties with the ministers, leaves the service precisely because he would like to serve the cause, and not to servility to the authorities. “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” he says. He defends the right to serve education, science, literature, but it is difficult in these conditions of the autocratic-feudal system:
Now let one of us, Among young people, there is an enemy of quests, Without demanding either places or promotions, Into sciences he will fix the mind, hungry for knowledge; Or in his soul, God himself will excite the heat To creative, high and beautiful arts, They immediately: - robbery! fire! And they will pass for a dangerous dreamer ...
These young people are understood to mean such people as Chatsky, the cousin of Skalozub, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - "a chemist and botanist."
If the Famus society disdainfully treats everything folk, national, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, especially France, even neglecting its native language, then Chatsky stands for the development national culture mastering the best, advanced achievements European civilization. He himself "searched for the mind" during his stay in the West, but he is against the "empty, slavish, blind imitation" of foreigners. Chatsky stands for the unity of the intelligentsia with the people.
If the Famus society regards a person by his origin and the number of serf souls he has, then Chatsky appreciates a person for his mind, education, his spiritual and moral qualities.
For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of the world is sacred and infallible, the worst of all is “what will Princess Marya Alekseevna say!”
Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts, opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own convictions and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are the opinions of others only holy?”
Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, flattery, hypocrisy, and the emptiness of those vital interests by which the conservative circles of the nobility live.
His spiritual qualities are revealed in the choice of words, in the construction
phrases, intonation, manner of speaking. The speech of this literary hero- this is the speech of a speaker who is fluent in the word, a highly educated person. As his struggle with the Famus society intensifies, Chatsky's speech is increasingly colored with indignation and caustic irony.

"Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov is the work of one hero. Chatsky ... It's so strange, but for the first time, when it comes to him, Griboyedov rhymes his last name with the word "stupid":

Excuse me, right, how holy God is,

I wanted this stupid laugh

Helped to cheer you up a bit.

To you Alexander Andreevich Chatsky

These are Lisa's words. And really, is Chatsky's struggle really necessary for the author himself to use such rhymes, isn't it stupid to fight chimeras. In the courtyard of the 20s of the XIX century - the time of reaction and censorship, when they preferred to turn a blind eye to everything and everyone and only "hit the back of the head", like the notorious Maxim Petrovich. But still, the fruit of freedom is gradually ripening, and who knows if our Chatsky was not on Senate Square along with those who dared. But is this struggle necessary, and in general, what is in it - this struggle?

As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;

As not in the war, but in the world they took it with their foreheads,

Knocked on the floor without regret!

Who needs - there arrogance, they lie in the dust,

And for those who are higher, flattery, like weaving lace.

Direct was the age of humility and fear.

This is downright an insult, a challenge to a duel, albeit a verbal one. Probably, the past century had arguments, its own arguments, but either he did not dare to express them aloud, or he was afraid. Nevertheless, if you argue, then it means to be aware that it is necessary to seek the truth, and the truth here is on the side of Chatsky. They, this “regiment of jesters”, are certainly dumber, but also more cunning. After all, Chatsky does not accept cunning, he goes to war with an open visor, holding a spear at the ready, ready to fight an enemy in a fair fight, on the side of which there is a numerical superiority. And they stick a knife in his back, shouting “Ah! My God! he's carbonari!" This is probably a war with windmills, but it deserves to be called a war. For someone must draw our attention to all this inertia and servility, to this dominance of "mixing languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod", to prejudices that will not exterminate "neither their years, not fashions, nor fires", someone must fight the pufferfish and the silent ones, someone must say at least a word of truth.

Ignorance is another key point that Chatsky is disgusted with, here he is ready to fight to the victory, and, I think, the ill-fated word "carbonari" sounds more like a compliment to him. Chatsky is educated, well-read, has traveled half the world and knows that the world is not limited to Moscow and secular balls. After all, in this world of Chatsky, there is so much beauty: philosophers, travelers, freethinkers. Contempt for the sciences is the worst sin, we see how fiercely he defends himself:

Now letting one of us

Of the young people, there is an enemy of quests,

Not demanding either places or promotions,

In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge;

Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat

To creative arts, lofty and beautiful, -

They are the hour: robbery! fire!

So, "there is one warrior in the field," according to Goncharov, but only if he is Chatsky!

Blind! in whom I was looking for the reward of all labors!

Hurry! .. flew! trembled! Here's happiness, I thought close.

Chatsky is defeated, this was the last, mortal wound, from which he may never recover. The fight is over...

Chatsky is not like the rest of the characters in the play and, in general, many people of that time. Famus Society does not aspire to anything and lives according to old traditions. People do not seek education and often do not pay attention to education. Chatsky, on the contrary, considers education and upbringing of a person to be the highest value. Therefore, he fights against the ignorance and stupidity of society.

The main character doesn't bend to anyone. He considers service to the fatherland as a duty. In addition, Chatsky believes that a person should be useful to society, and not to higher ranks. He was close to the ministers, but since they needed service, he refused this society. Chatsky opposed slavery, every person is free and should not serve anyone. Serving and subordinating caused the hero a feeling of anger.

Chatsky also opposed everything foreign. In those days, high society communicated in a mixture of native and foreign language, Although native language knew how. A person, first of all, should know his native language and adhere to his traditions, the hero of the play believed. He fought against the ignorance of society and advocated that a person should be well-mannered and educated. Chatsky firmly believed in the correctness of his views and defended them to the end, trying to open the eyes of representatives of the Famus society.

What is Chatsky for and against?

I. Introduction

Chatsky - a young nobleman early XIX century. He resolutely opposes the orders of the "past century" and affirms ideals close to the ideals of the Decembrists, the advanced nobility of this time,

II. main part

IN social sphere Chatsky is a consistent opponent of serfdom (the monologue “Who are the judges?”, His own experience in managing the estate (Famusov: “Do not manage the estate by mistake”),
Chatsky's attitude to service. He wants to “serve the cause, not individuals”: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” Services) as a way to make a career, get rich, receive awards and distinctions Chatsky rejects. In the service, he wants to benefit the Fatherland. Such an understanding of the service was very characteristic of the progressive-minded nobility in the first quarter of the 19th century.
Chatsky opposes the thoughtless imitation of everything foreign, against the "foreign power of fashion", for the preservation and development of national culture (the monologue "There is an insignificant meeting in that room ..."). It is important to note that Chatsky considers “our smart, cheerful people” to be the basis of national culture.
In the moral field, Chatsky advocates the freedom of the individual both from state pressure (it is no coincidence that Famusov exclaims to Chatsky’s phrase “Who travels, who lives in the village”: “Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!”), And from the oppression of public opinion. Chatsky does not recognize authorities associated with wealth, position in society, influence, etc. (see his conversation with Molchalin in the third act).

III. Conclusion

Speaking against the way of life of "the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea", Chatsky affirms, first of all, such values as freedom, independence, citizenship, patriotism.