One sage said: "A person is dependent on society and there is no such great genius who would be completely free from his influence." We cannot but agree with this statement. Indeed, we are born, grow, develop - all these processes of human formation do not take place without interaction with the people around us. Why, over the years, there have been clashes of interests of society and individuals? People think, create, create something new, bringing their contribution to the development of the world around them.
However, quite often this contribution is not perceived as new stage development. Years go by, but life remains the same. Old generations are replaced by new ones, with the same habits and foundations. Over time, some people begin to realize the need for change. This is where the conflict begins.
The problem of the relationship between people in society is at the center of the plots of many works of great writers of different eras. In the middle of the 19th century, M. Yu. Lermontov devoted his work to this theme in the lyric poems "Duma", "I go out on the road alone", "Beggar", in the novel "Hero of Our Time", in the poem "Mtsyri". In the 20th century, Sergei Yesenin addressed the topic of man and society in the poems "Soviet Russia", "I meet everything, I accept everything", "We are now leaving a little".
In the 18th century, A.S. Griboyedov considered the problem of the collision of the new and old worlds. This problem is most deeply revealed in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
"Woe from Wit" is a socio-political comedy. Griboyedov described in it a true picture of Russian life after Patriotic War 1812 year. What is the main conflict revealed? And why is the problem of the relationship between man and society relevant today? The work shows the eternal struggle between the old and the new, which unfolded with special force at that time not only in Moscow, but also throughout Russia between two camps: the progressive, Decembrist-minded people of the "present century" and the ardent feudalists who did not want to change anything, "of the century of the past. "
Sometimes society is by no means the finest creations of nature; on the contrary, due to its complete distortion and damage. Such in the comedy "Woe from Wit" is the Famus society. Why is it spoiled? We find the answer in the attitudes and habits of its representatives. The people who create it are subject to the traditions of their ancestors. These people are stupid and selfish, afraid of enlightenment and progress, their thoughts are directed only to the acquisition of honors and titles, wealth and outfits. Everything new is alien to them, they strive to destroy freethinking, they see no sense in teaching: “Take all the books and burn them!” - says one of its main representatives, Famusov. What does Famus society value most in people? Origin, number of serf souls. They regard service as a source of personal benefits, service to "persons" and not to "business," and respect flattery and servility. Why does Sophia, educated, with a strong and independent character, warm heart, dreamy soul, use her sharp mind to lie, and give love to an unworthy person? Society made her a representative of the generally accepted views in this circle. It forces the representatives of the younger generation to show their negative qualities, adjusts to themselves, changes, instills their ideals. For famus society habitually idle existence, his interests are narrow, extend only to gossip and appearance. Such a life is firmly entrenched in society, its principles are firm. But who is opposed to traditional foundations?
In the fight against Famusian society, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, a representative of the new thinking Russian nobility, a Decembrist fighter, and a romantic, stands out. What is the highest goal of his activity, aspirations? What is he advocating for? What is he opposed to? Chatsky fights against serfdom. He regards the dependence of people on serf-owners as slavery, he is outraged by the inhumanity of those who control other people's destinies: "Or that one else who was for ventures / He drove to the serf ballet in many wagons / From mothers, fathers of rejected children ..." Chatsky responsibly prepares to social life, he is educated, smart: "He writes gloriously, translates." He sees his destiny in serving the people, wants to see Russia as literate and enlightened. But why does he not find himself in this society? In an attempt to influence representatives of the Famus society, Chatsky realizes that he cannot disrupt the usual way of life of these people. Is he looking for a benefit in the service? No, he takes the service seriously. Chatsky loves his homeland, but not "the state of tsars, landowners and officials", he is not used to curry favor and bow to a higher rank: "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve." Did he manage to influence the old society, which slavishly copies the customs, habits and outfits of the French? We soon learn that the hero does not gain the freedom that he preaches, but he does not stop striving for it. Society, his old ways, terrible orders and customs horrified Chatsky, but did not break him. He does not give up his convictions, does not stop believing in the best.
The author brings us to the idea that man is the master of his destiny and his purpose in society. Each of us, like Chatsky, is capable of taking a step towards change, making our contribution to the development of the state, and influencing its future. Can we change something? Perhaps the main thing is that before changing the world, society for the better, you need to start with your own development, which is impossible without the influence of society.
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" the main task of A.S. Griboyedov was to reflect the mores of the Moscow conservative nobility of the first decades of the 19th century. The main idea of \u200b\u200bthis play is to identify outdated, outdated aristocratic views on important social problems, reflecting the eternal struggle of the old with the new.
This is the Famus Society - the past century. These include: the rich, noble master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, as well as his relatives, such as the Gorichi spouses, the Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Colonel Skalozub, the old woman Khlestova. They are united by a common outlook on life, a common interest - wealth. People in ranks are ideal for the Famus circle of personalities. They are ruthless serfs. It is considered normal for them to trade in people.
Famus society has its own fears. The biggest of these is education. Famusov believes that education is a "plague", and he is sure that it is necessary to collect all the books and burn them. Personality and learning play no role in his life. He is guided by a cunning calculation, the ability to climb higher up the career ladder.
Famus people are indifferent to work. Pavel Afanasyevich, being in the service of a manager in a state-owned place, takes up work only once throughout the day. Also, without looking, he signs the papers, completely shows his indifference. In addition, people in this circle worship the West. They are convinced that the best place in the world is France. Chatsky reports that the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" did not find "neither the sound of a Russian, nor a Russian face" in Famusov's house. Representatives of the old system stupidly and illiterately try to borrow customs, culture, and even the language of the French.
So, the people of the Famus circle are greedy and very selfish, they crave power. They spend all their time enjoying themselves at balls, dinner parties, social events. During this they gossip, slander, hypocrite.
Famus society has the main and only goal in life - it is career advancement. That is why Famusov praises Skalozub, considers him the best in front of others. And Chatsky, on the contrary, despises, although he notices in him an excellent potential for a career.
Thus, Griboyedov's comedy shows us the way of life and customs of Russian society, its different cultural strata with old conservative views and new revolutionary ideas.
Option 2
The immortal comedy of the great writer Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" reveals many acute social conflicts of that time. One of the main themes against which the entire conflict unfolds is the collision of the present and the past. If the present century represented by the progressive innovator Chatsky, who glorifies the ideals of freedom and universal equality, then the so-called Famus society, consisting of several people of noble blood, acts as a century of the past. What ideals does it glorify and does it exist now?
Famus society can be called ardent conservatives who defend the ideals of real exploiters and slave owners who have thousands of serfs with them. Their views on many issues accurately convey the spirit of the time when human rights were worthless. The basis of the life of members of the Famusov society is made up of holidays, gambling and a huge number of other entertainments. They do not recognize work and are constantly looking for excuses to shirk their own responsibilities. It is enough just to remember the working week of Famusov himself. He works 2-3 hours, then goes to lunch at the best restaurants, and then goes to the funeral by invitation.
We should also note the attitude of these conservatives to education. They only care about its presence, not quality. They are willing to increase the number of teachers who do not have teaching skills. The consequences of such training can be seen in the example of Skalozub, who can only support conversations on military topics. This person is a classic person who received a high position not for his own merits.
The indifference of Famus society to to an ordinary person is noticed immediately after reading the first act. Famusov shows no respect for his servant Petrushka. But the lawlessness reaches its peak at the ball. Mrs. Khlestova brought with her Arapka, which she kept on a leash. She equates low-class people with animals, not seeing any difference.
Of course, the Famus Society exists in modern world, but not on such a scale. Its representatives continue to promote the wrong priorities in life. But a liberal and advanced society must resist such people in order to achieve universal equality throughout the world.
Famus Society
A.S. Griboyedov was a versatile and talented person. But the play "Woe from Wit" made him a famous playwright. The author himself attributed his creation to the genre of social comedy. Critics and contemporaries have doubted the humorous form of the work.
The book gives us a wide polyphony of images. But the plot revolves around four characters: Chatsky, Famusov, his daughter Sophia and secretary Molchalin. These personalities are most revealed by the author. The main conflict of the work is in the confrontation between the foundations of the "Famus society" and modern, European ideas of Chatsky.
Among the representatives of the "past century" are not only old people, noblemen living out their days. There are young people, infected, soaked through with these ideas, spoiled by an idle, empty life. Education and science are not honored here. Famusov considers the doctrine to be evil, poison, he is sure that all books should be burned. Despite this, she “cares” about raising her daughter “from the cradle”, hiring foreign teachers for her. Not because it will bring results, but simply because it is accepted in this environment.
In this society, you do not need to be respectable, honest, noble, educated. It is only important to appear so. Seriousness and worship are the main virtues here. You can be a good military man, diplomat, official, regularly doing his job, but never get a high position. But those "whose neck bent more often" due to ranks.
Marriages here are concluded only for convenience, love is out of the question. “Even if it’s bad,” but that there are at least two thousand souls in the family estate. Let it not shine with intelligence, eloquence, but "for reasons, but with the stars." Another son-in-law will not be accepted into the family. So Famusov is looking for a future spouse for his only daughter.
The uncle of Pavel Afanasyevich, Maxim Petrovich, is taken as an example for everyone. He rose to the "bread" position by being a jester under Catherine. And he knew how to make the wayward empress laugh with the help of ridiculous falls. Therefore, "ate on gold", "deduced to ranks, gave pensions."
Sophia sits between two fires throughout the play. This is a brave, determined girl who is ready to love, rumor is not her authority. But she is ultimately ruined by the influence of "Famus' Moscow", in which she grew up and was raised.
Several interesting compositions
- Composition Katerina's soulful drama play Thunderstorm
Katerina is the central character in Ostrovsky's play The Thunderstorm. Since its inception, the work has enjoyed immense popularity. Performances based on the play
- Composition Examples of inner peace from life
Man is a wonderful creature capable of creating and creating. Each person has something special that is not characteristic of other people. Each has some kind of mystery and mystery. The inner world of a person is what you want to know
- Comparative characteristics of Andrey Dubrovsky and Kirila Troyekurov in the novel Dubrovsky
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin is the greatest poet and writer of Russia, his name is known all over the world, Pushkin's works still do not leave anyone indifferent, they give food for thought, because in his creations the author raised fundamental questions
- Composition on the picture Behind the toilet. Self-portrait of Serebryakova grade 6
An early summer sunny morning came. Waking up, the girl stretched a little in bed, and got up, went to the dressing table. In the mirror, she saw an exact copy of herself - her reflection
One of the most anticipated holidays of the year is undoubtedly the birthday of a person. After all, it was on this day that we appeared on the round planet
In his comedy Woe from Wit, Griboyedov directly opposes Chatsky to all the other (without exception) characters. The main character is opposed by the society of Famusov and his entourage: Molchalin, Skalozub, Repetilov and others. Outward gloss reigns in their society, but this splendor - catchy, bright, material - hides next to it a terrible moral poverty. Such as Famusov or Skalozub had several dozen serfs, ready to indulge their lordly idleness.
During this period, external French education, external assimilation of French culture was fashionable. In this society, a mixture of "French and Nizhny Novgorod" is observed not only in conversation. Among the members of the Famus society, the wildest feudal manifestations were also observed, because they had complete power over people.
Their classes consisted of “feasts and extravagance,” in balls, lunches, dinners and dances. Representatives of the Famus society are nobles. They, the support of the throne, knowing this, try not to let representatives of other estates into their society, who would overshadow their importance in the state. Only those Silences, Famusov's disciples, who will flatter, “bend into a bend,” etc., can enter their society.
These people appreciate such qualities in a person, because they themselves are such.
Famusov's ideals are Kuzma Petrovich or Maxim Petrovich, who “ate either on silver or on gold, a hundred people at service, a century at court” ...
... Thanks to their ideals, they are characterized by a formal, bureaucratic approach to their duties, if only to become “no worse than others,” if only to break out into people at any cost. In their consciousness, the end justifies the means - and if humiliation can achieve the goal, it is worth humiliating.
... The ideals of the Skalozubs, the Arakcheyev officers, are that they "just got to be a general." Remember the cynicism with which it is said about what method would be good to achieve a promotion! ..
For all manifestations of some kind of free thought, feeling, they want to give the “sergeant major in Voltaire,” to strangle everything with strong stick discipline. However, the Molchalins, “blissful in the world”, are even more terrible: they are representatives of the “younger” generation, who adopted all the worst traits from their elders and added “moderation and neatness” to everything else.
Their ideals: “take rewards and have fun”. And they strive for their ideal through the patronage of some Tatyana Yuryevna. It is with this force that the Chatskys will fight in the future.
Representatives of Famus society are fighting against all innovations that could shake their current position in society.
They want to “collect all the books and burn them,” and not only books, but also everything that is advanced and new that interferes with their path.
But we, the readers, picking up this book at the end of the twentieth century, already know for sure - (Other times have come. And, reading a comedy or seeing its performance, we laugh heartily at Famusov and his entourage, sincerely sympathize with Chatsky .. Griboyedov's humor and satire are truly merciless.
We know the old power will be broken. The Chatskys inflicted such a blow on her from which she could no longer recover. The role of the Chatskys, according to Goncharov (article "Million of torments", "passive, but always victorious, they only sow, and others will live, the Chatskys are broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of their strength" And we, the readers, completely agree with these words.
5. Images of Chatsky and Sophia in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
In his unfading comedy Woe from Wit, Griboyedov managed to create a whole gallery of truthful and typical characters that are still recognizable today. The images of Chatsky and Sophia are the most interesting for me, because their relationship is far from being as simple as it might seem at first glance.
Both Sophia and Chatsky carry those qualities that most representatives of the Famus society do not possess. They are distinguished by willpower, the ability to experience "living passions", dedication, the ability to draw their own conclusions.
Sophia and Chatsky grew up and were brought up together in Famusov's house:
The habit of being together every day is inseparable
Tied us with childhood friendship ...
During the time spent together, Chatsky managed to recognize Sophia as an intelligent, outstanding, decisive girl and fell in love with her for these qualities. When he, who has matured, gained intelligence, who has seen a lot, returns to his homeland, we understand that his feelings "have not cooled down, nor entertainment, nor change of places." He is happy to see Sophia, surprisingly prettier during the time of separation, and is sincerely happy to meet.
Chatsky cannot understand in any way that in the three years before he was away, the Famus society left its ugly mark on the girl. Having read French sentimental novels, Sophia longs for love and wants to be loved, but Chatsky is far away, so she chooses to express her feelings a person who is certainly not worthy of her love. A flatterer and a hypocrite, "the miserable creature" Molchalin only uses his relationship with Sophia for selfish purposes, hoping for further promotion up the career ladder. But Sophia, overwhelmed by feelings, is unable to discern the true face under the mask, and therefore directs sincere, tender, ready for sacrifice love to a coward and a loser.
Chatsky pretty soon realizes that Sophia does not share his feelings, and wants to know who her chosen one is - his rival. Much says that this lucky man is Molchalin, but Chatsky does not want to and cannot believe it, seeing the true essence of a low toaddy at a glance.
But is there that passion in him, that feeling,
ardor that
So that apart from you he has a whole world
Seemed ashes and vanity?
So that every heart beat
Has love accelerated towards you?
Taking Sophia's coldness, Chatsky does not require reciprocal feelings from her, because it is impossible to make the heart fall in love! However, he seeks to know the logic of her actions, choice, he wants to know the merits of Molchalin, which made the girl choose him, but does not find them in any way. To believe that Sophia and Molchalin are close, for Chatsky means the destruction of his faith and ideas, the recognition that Sophia not only did not grow spiritually during the time of separation, did not learn to critically interpret what was happening, but also turned into an ordinary representative of Famus society.
Sophia really passed good school in her father's house, she learned to pretend, lie, dodge, but she does this not out of selfish interests, but trying to protect her love. She has a deep dislike for people who speak impartially about her chosen one, so Chatsky, with his ardor, witticisms and attacks, turns into an enemy for the girl. Defending her love, Sophia is even ready to insidiously take revenge on an old close friend who madly loves her: she spreads a rumor about Chatsky's madness. We see that Sophia rejects Chatsky not only out of female pride, but also for the same reasons that Famus's Moscow does not accept him: his independent and mocking mind scares Sophia, he is “not his own”, from a different circle:
Will such a mind make a family happy?
And Chatsky, meanwhile, is looking for definitions of Sophia's feelings and is deceived, because everything that he despises is elevated to the rank of virtue in noble Moscow. Chatsky still hopes for the clarity of Sophia's mind and feelings, and therefore once again writes off Molchalin:
With such feelings, with such a soul
Love! .. The deceiver was laughing at me!
But here is the tragic moment of the solution! This moment is really cruel and tragic, because everyone suffered from it. What did our heroes learn from this lesson?
Chatsky is so shocked by the simplicity of the solution that he breaks not only the threads connecting him with the Famus society, he breaks off his relationship with Sophia, offended and humiliated by her choice to the core.
Here I am donated to whom!
I don't know how I tempered my fury!
He looked, and saw, and did not believe!
He cannot contain his emotions, his disappointment, resentment, resentment, and blames Sophia for everything. Losing his self-control, he reproaches the girl for deception, although it was in her relationship with Chatsky that Sophia was at least cruel, but honest. Now the girl is really in an unenviable position, but she has enough willpower and self-esteem to break off relations with Molchalin and admit to herself her illusions and mistakes:
I didn't seem to know you since then.
Reproaches, complaints, my tears
Do not dare to expect, you are not worth them.
But so that in the house here the dawn does not find you.
So that I never hear about you again.
For everything that happened, Sophia blames "herself around". Her position seems hopeless, because, having rejected Molchalin, having lost her devoted friend Chatsky and left with an angry father, she is again alone. There will be no one to help her survive grief and humiliation, to support her. But I want to believe that she will cope with everything, and that Chatsky, saying: "You will make peace with him, after thinking mature," is wrong.
Griboyedov's comedy once again reminded me that the origins of people's actions lie ambiguous, often contradictory motives, and in order to correctly unravel them, you need to have not only a clear mind, but also intuition, a wide heart, an open soul.
The role of Chatsky's Monlogs.
“Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is seething with intelligence, wit. He also has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest ”(IA Goncharov).
"Chatsky is not at all an intelligent person - but Griboyedov is very smart ... The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of Repetilov and the like ..." (A. Pushkin).
"Young Chatsky is similar to Starodum ... This is the author's main flaw, that among fools of various qualities he brought out one smart man, and even then a mad and boring one ..." (77. A. Vyazemsky).
"... In Chatsky, the comedian did not think to present the ideal of perfection, but a young, fiery man, in whom the stupidity of others arouses mockery, and finally a man to whom the poet's verse can be attributed: Heart does not tolerate dumbness" (V.F. Odoevsky).
"Woe from Wit" is a "public" comedy with a social conflict between the "present century" and the "past century". Chatsky is the ideologist of the “present century”. Like all ideologues in comedy, he speaks in monologue.
It is in the monologues that Chatsky's attitude to the main aspects of contemporary life is revealed: to upbringing ("They bother to recruit regiments of teachers ..."); to education ("... So that no one knows and does not learn to read and write"); to the service ("As he was famous, whose neck often bent ..."); to the ranks ("And for those who are higher, flattery, like lace weaved ..."); to foreigners ("Not a sound of a Russian, not a Russian face ..."); to serfdom ("That Nestor of the noble scoundrels ...").
Many of Chatsky's statements express the opinion of Griboyedov himself, that is, we can say that Chatsky acts as a reasoner.
Chatsky's monologues appear in comedy at turning points in the development of the plot and conflict.
The first monologue is an exposition ("What is your father? .."). The conflict is just beginning. Chatsky gives a vivid characterization of Moscow mores.
The second monologue ("And, for sure, the light began to grow stupid ...") - the outset of the conflict. It provides a sharp contrast between the "present century" and the "past century".
The third monologue ("Who are the judges?") - the development of the conflict. This is a programmatic monologue. It most fully and comprehensively set out the views of Chatsky.
The fourth monologue is important for the development of a love affair. It embodies Chatsky's attitude to love.
The fifth monologue ("In that room is an insignificant meeting ...") - the culmination and denouement of the conflict. Nobody hears Chatsky, everyone dances or plays cards with enthusiasm.
The sixth monologue ("You will make peace with him, thinking mature ...") - the denouement of the plot.
The monologues reveal not only the thoughts and feelings of Chatsky, but also his character: ardor, enthusiasm, some comic (the discrepancy between what and to whom he says).
Chatsky's monologues are characterized by features of a journalistic style. “He speaks as he writes,” Famusov describes him. Chatsky uses rhetorical questions, exclamations, forms of imperative mood.
In his speech there are many words and expressions related to the high style, archaisms ("mind hungry for knowledge").
It is impossible not to note the aphoristic statements of Chatsky ("Fresh tradition, but hard to believe ...")
Pushkin's love lyrics
Pushkin's creativity is as brilliant as it is inexhaustible. His poetry has brought light joy for many generations, awakens our feelings, thoughts, saddens and amuses, does not let us fall asleep at night. An amazing master of words, Alexander Sergeevich gave our life to drink with his life-giving poetry, and it became brighter, fresher, blossomed into a fragrant flower.
It is impossible to imagine Pushkin's work without love. This feeling helped him fight and hope, dream and grieve, admire and suffer. Not only poetry, the poet's whole life was imbued with love: for friends, homeland and, of course, a woman.
One love is the joy of a cold life, One love is the torment of hearts: It gives only one pleasant moment, And the end is not visible to sorrows.
Comprehending the science of life, the poet learned to love. He is still young, full of hopes and desires; memories of his beloved evoke contrasting, contradictory feelings in him:
I'm sad and easy; my sorrow is light; My sorrow is full of you, of you, of you alone ...
A small ray of attention, a smile, a kind look can dispel sadness and despondency, instill happiness and enthusiastic inspiration in the heart:
Empty you are heartfelt you She, saying a word, replaced And all the happy dreams In the soul of a lover excited.
The young man only discovers a bright world of feelings and experiences shining with novelty. His love is ardent, stormy, indomitable. The young poet cannot keep this vivid feeling in a hot heart, even if it is not shared by his chosen one:
I love you - even though I am furious, Even though this work and shame in vain, And in this unhappy stupidity At your feet, I confess.
A singer of harmony and beauty, Pushkin clearly understands that he is incurably ill. The name of his illness is Love, and all the signs of it are there:
I recognize by all the signs The disease of love in my soul: I'm bored without you, - I yawn; I am sad in front of you - I endure ...
In her essay "My Pushkin" M. Tsvetaeva wrote: "Pushkin infected me with love. In a word - Love. "
But the great poet seeks happiness not only in harmonious relations with a woman, because there is also a special charm in an unrequited feeling. Separation from his beloved, memories of her, hopes for a meeting fills Pushkin's heart with tender and touching dreaminess:
I remember a wonderful moment: You appeared before me, Like a fleeting vision, Like a genius of pure beauty ...
Realizing perfectly well that love also has a tragic side - jealousy, fading, separation, Pushkin does not cease to treat this feeling with trepidation. After all, only relations between people are finite, and the feeling itself is eternal. And no matter what happens, the great sage of the heart wishes the object of his adoration only happiness in the present and future: Material from the site http://iEssay.ru
I loved you so sincerely, so tenderly, As God grant you loved to be different.
Admiring us with nobility and dedication, the poet reveals the experiences of his heart, giving pure and bright love to the beautiful half of humanity. He brings his feeling to the altar of inspiration and is always ready:
Similar information.
) was a work on which Griboyedov (see brief and biographies) worked, one might say, all his life - in this comedy he expressed the tragedy of his own personal life and the lives of many outstanding Russian people of that era. That is why the hero of the comedy is close to his spirit, grew and developed along with him. That is why in this work he was able to capture and embody that moment in the life of Russian society when the struggle of the outdated 18th century with new life, - the first struggle between "fathers" and "children" was revealed.
Woe from wit. Maly Theater performance, 1977
This moment was all the more interesting because in the era of Alexander I, when political and social groups were finally defined in our country and the ideals of these groups were clarified, the “personality” got the opportunity to express himself to such an extent that he had never expressed himself before, - Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Chaadaev, N. Turgenev, Ryleev, Pestel, Pushkin, finally, Griboyedov - all these are images, with sharply individual traits, all of these are bright "personalities", with deep inner peacestanding out from the "crowd". Such "personalities" in the then Russian society could be counted in dozens, perhaps even hundreds. But the “crowd” was still strong in our country, and any such determined “personality” had to make considerable efforts to defend its originality in the struggle against the herd feelings of the masses.
"The struggle of the individual with society" is the axis on which the whole action of Griboyedov's comedy revolves. This struggle is exacerbated in the work of Griboyedov by irreconcilable hostility, slander, hatred on the one hand, and excruciating anguish, on the other. "A million torments" in the chest, "the soul is squeezed by some kind of grief", "lost in the crowd, not myself!" - behold, the state of mind of this "fighter" for "personality" after only one day of struggle with Moscow!
Who will win the fight? Of course, Moscow: in the comedy of Griboyedov she is the personification of the unenlightened crowds, which mercilessly crushed many bright minds and brave hearts. She has always been an implacable enemy of the "personality"!
“Personality” in history is a chronicle of human self-awareness, it is a “difficult story” about the separation of an individual from the crowd, about the liberation of a person from its mass beliefs, religious, moral, and aesthetic. This is a story about the “million” of those “torments” that await any awakening personality, carrying with it protest and reproof.
The main target in Griboyedov's satire is the role of "public opinion"; the basis of the content of the comedy is the history of the struggle personality,cleared from the collision with this heavy force - "public opinion" unenlightened crowds.More than once in the comedy the burning question of individual rights is raised; the peculiarities of the formation of public opinion have been outlined more than once. Subtly artistically depicts, for example, how from a spark thrown by Sophia (a slight hint of Chatsky's madness) a whole fire breaks out - and, as a result, a general belief in Chatsky's madness is formed. Sophia knows how "public opinion" is created in Moscow, and now, using her knowledge, she deliberately throws the grain of gossip to some "Mr. N.", the other - "Mr. D.", this - Zagoretsky, - and "went to write province"!
Namely, all these small, inconspicuous years. N. and D., perhaps, honest, but gray little people are the best environment for the development of gossip, - the seeds of "public opinion" ... The Zagoretskys and Nozdrevs will bring "hype" of lies to the gossip, respectable people will modestly fantasize about what they have heard and will believe themselves, and Princess Marya Aleksevna will pronounce her sentence:
And now, public opinion!
Spring of honor, our idol,
And that's what the world turns on!
Thus, the struggle of the "personality" with society served as the basis for Griboyedov's comedy. This struggle marked the then moment in Russian history. When, after the harsh Pavlovian regime, “the days of the Alexandrovs had a wonderful beginning,” finally, Russian society rushed forward, the “progressives” raised their heads again, “the recently triumphant conservatism shrank, left the noisy, nervous Petersburg for Moscow, so that here, in anger, indignation secretly ... The old men, "retired chancellors in mind", the Famusovs, with their still vivid memories of the order of the court of Catherine II, are all representatives of the "old society", vulgar and dark, but dangerous by their cohesion , with their bitterness. And at this time, ideally-minded young people carelessly created their armchair utopias, gathering in a close friendly circle in the palace of the “young Jacobin,” as Alexander was called abroad.
What did these young utopians have in common with old Moscow? Absolutely nothing! Chatsky and Famusov are people of different planets, who spoke different languages. The old "Famusian" society, depicted by Griboyedov in his comedy, has long been understood and appreciated by both Russian satire and realistic literature.
Griboyedov was the first to put a “new man” face to face with this society, one of those eloquent initiators of progress, who were quite a few in the first half of the reign of Alexander I. Why did Chatsky find himself defeated, why did he shamefully flee after one day in the suffocating atmosphere of Moscow ? .. Because Griboyedov himself did not believe him, because he himself was a person outside the parties, was endowed with an unfortunate gift of skepticism about everything, and the ability not to obey the circle, stand outside the party spirit ... He had no faith in decembrists, he felt contempt for old Moscow, orators like Chatsky were, in his eyes, both helpless and ridiculous - and, as a result, melancholy and "a million torments" ...
The main problem of Russian literature is the problem of "Personality and Society", as well as the search for ways to reorganize society on a more humane, democratic basis, "how a person can achieve happiness and prosperity" (LN Tolstoy) and why he does not achieve it.
For the first time, the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit", a novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" and the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time". Their heroes turn out to be unclaimed by society, “superfluous”. Why it happens? Why are three different authors addressing the same problem at almost the same time? Does this problem belong only to the 19th century? And finally, what is the main way to solve this problem?
1. Time: its hero and antihero.
To better understand the ideological content of the comedy "Woe from Wit", its socio-political problems, it is necessary to evaluate the characteristic features of the historical era, reflected in the play.
The heroic war of 1812 is over. And the people who won in it, who gained freedom for the Fatherland with their blood, are still enslaved and oppressed in this Fatherland. In Russian society, dissatisfaction with the injustice of state domestic policy is brewing. In the minds of honest citizens, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to defend not only their rights, but also the rights of the lower class is growing stronger. And in 1816 (the estimated date of the start of work on the comedy), the first secret organization of the future Decembrists, the Union of Salvation, was created in Russia. It included people who believed that the restoration of social justice was their historical and moral duty.
Thus, Russian society has taken the step that causes a tremendous force of inertial movement. But no real changes took place in Russia, and the main obstacle on the path of transformations was a strong authoritarian government - the Russian absolute monarchy.
This form of government was perceived by Europe and educated Russians as an anachronism. It is no coincidence that the demand to limit the autocracy, to introduce it into the framework of the law, the constitution was voiced at the European Diet of 1818, where Emperor Alexander I was present. The Tsar gave solemn assurances. Europe expected changes in Russia. But the Russian society, already tired of believing, was skeptical of the Tsar's promises.
The emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the "French contagion". He could make promises in the European Sejm, but at home he did not reach real steps. Moreover, domestic politics has taken on repressive forms. And dissatisfaction with the advanced Russian public was growing gradually, for the firm hand of Arakcheev brought external order to the country. And this order, this pre-war prosperity, of course, was joyfully greeted by people like Famusov, Skalozub, Goriches and Tugoukhovsky.
2. Chatsky and time.
The comedy is structured in such a way that only Chatsky speaks on the stage about the "present century", about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about a new morality and a desire for spiritual and political freedom. He is the one "new man", which carries in itself the "spirit of the time", the idea of \u200b\u200blife, the goal of which is freedom. His ideological convictions were born of the spirit of change, that “present century” that the best people of Russia tried to bring closer. “His ideal of a free life is definitive: it is freedom from all ... chains of slavery, which are bound to society, and then freedom - to put into science“ a mind hungry for knowledge ”, or to indulge freely in“ creative, high and beautiful arts ”- freedom to serve or not serve, live in the village or travel ... ”- this is how I.A. Goncharov in his article "A Million of Torments", what content Chatsky and people who were ideologically close to him put into the concept of "freedom".
The image of Chatsky reflected the delight that Russian society experienced when it felt itself a historical figure, the winner of Napoleon himself. This is something new that has appeared in the social life of Russia, which has become the key to future transformations.
Chatsky not only connects all the lines of opposition in the play, but becomes the very reason for its movement and development. His personality and destiny are fundamentally important for Griboyedov, because chatsky's story is a story about the fate of truth, sincerity, genuine life in the world of substitutions and ghosts.
2.1. Alexander A. CHATSKY
In the image of Chatsky, the features of the Decembrist of the era of 1816-18 are reflected.
The son of a late friend Famusov, Chatsky grew up in his house, in childhood he was brought up and studied with Sophia under the guidance of Russian and foreign teachers and governors. The framework of the comedy did not allow Griboyedov to tell in detail where Chatsky studied further, how he grew and developed. First of all, he wanted to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland, he wanted to serve him honestly. But the state, it turns out, does not need selfless service, it only requires service. Three years before the events described in the comedy, Chatsky, "shedding tears", parted with Sophia and went to St. Petersburg. But a brilliantly started career was cut short: "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve." And Chatsky leaves the capital. He tries to serve the Fatherland differently: "he writes gloriously, translates." But in a totalitarian state, the question "to serve or not to serve, to live in the village or to travel" goes beyond the problem of personal freedom. A citizen's personal life is inseparable from his political convictions, and the desire to live in his own way, contrary to the norm, is in itself a challenge. For three years Chatsky was abroad (obviously, as part of the Russian army). Staying abroad enriched Chatsky with new impressions, broadened his mental horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. Chatsky's inherent qualities were saved from this servility to Europe, so typical of Famus society: love for the Motherland, for its people, a critical attitude to the surrounding reality, independence of views, a developed sense of personal and national dignity.
Returning to Moscow, Chatsky found in the life of noble society the same vulgarity and emptiness that had characterized him before. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, suppression of the individual, which reigned in this society before the war of 1812.
Chatsky's position in relation to the most acute and significant problems of our time is determined not at all by the desire to destroy, destroy something - just as he did not come to Famusov's house to denounce. The hero came to people who have always been close to him, returned with a desire to love and be loved - but as he is, funny and mocking, sharp and not always “comfortable”, but he is no longer needed here.
2.2. Chatsky's first monologues
After a long absence, Chatsky again at Famusov's house, meets Sophia. He had been waiting for this date for a long time. The excitement is so great that he does not immediately find the right words to express his feelings, and the literary cliché comes to mind: "... I am at your feet." Chatsky is so agitated that he even admits some tactlessness. He says that Sophia did not meet him the way he expected. He tries to explain the coldness of the meeting by the suddenness of his appearance. Chatsky is in a hurry to find out whether Sophia was waiting for him, whether she thought about him.
The abundance of verbs, questions, exclamations conveyed the confusion of the hero's feelings, the depth of his feelings. Thought runs over thought, speech is inconsistent and intermittent. From the present Chatsky turns to those joyful and not far off days when he and Sophia were alone. Chatsky lived with these memories during his travels. However, the coldness of the meeting cannot temper Chatsky's delight. Sophia is in front of him. She is beautiful. And he will tell her how he was waiting for this meeting:
More than seven hundred versts swept by - wind, storm;
And he was completely confused, and fell how many times -
And here is the reward for the exploits!
In this monologue - the hero's openness, his sincerity, youthful emotion, the strength of feelings, the high culture that we feel in speech. Chatsky perfectly knows the folk speech: hence in his language colloquial speech, idioms. At the same time, Chatsky's speech is saturated with literary expressions. This organic fusion of folk and book speech imparts special expressiveness and flexibility to its language.
2.3. Chatsky and the Famus Society
While Chatsky traveled for three years, society did not stand still. It not only returned with relief to the cares and joys of a peaceful life. It developed in itself "resistance" to those ripening changes that threatened to overwhelm this peaceful life.
The Famusian world has become a solid wall on the way of real transformations, the inhabitants of which “please” only their own “little man” and see “a hundred people at service”, “an enviable rank” and other such benefits as the ultimate dream. Yes, 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?
Chatsky understands well who he is dealing with, but he cannot but speak: he is forced into such a conversation, he responds to the "blow". Monologue "Who are the judges?" - this is one of those scenes that make the comedy the closest to the ideology of the Decembrists. She takes the reader out of the narrow circle of the Famusian world and points out what happened in Russian society during the "dead pause" of the reign of Alexander 1, between 1812 and 1825, she talks about the "transformations" that took place in Russian society during this time.
One of these transformations is shredding, vulgarization of the military human... The army for Chatsky is the most important force designed to defend the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Such an army makes a person belonging to it truly strong and whole, proud of his consciousness of belonging to a common cause. These were once Chatsky recalls their military activities, recalls the time "when from the guards, others from the court came here for a while ...", the time of his own "tenderness" to the military uniform - that is, directly following the victories of the Russian army over Napoleon. The current army of parades cannot cause any other feelings in the hero, except for shame even for his then childhood hobby.
Another transformation is strengthening of female power... The “dead pause” in the reign of Alexander I after the Patriotic War of 1812, when they expected a response to the victory of the heroic people, first of all - the abolition of slavery, was filled in Moscow with a semblance of female power ”(Yu. Tynyanov).
And one more transformation: the heroic war of 1812, in which Griboyedov took part, passed, its immediate tasks ended. Expectations that in response to the exploits of the people, the fall of slavery did not come true. The transformation has come: business, insinuating, timid Molchalin has already replaced the heroes of 1812.
Chatsky is unable to take him and his "talents" seriously. Meanwhile, this "miserable creature" is not so insignificant. During the absence of Chatsky, Molchalin took his place in the heart of Sophia, it was he who was the happy rival of the protagonist. And this is just the beginning. Chatsky's personal defeat does not exhaust his future drama. The words thrown by him, "The silences are blissful in the world!" turn out to be prophetic.
Intelligence, cunning, resourcefulness of Molchalin, the ability to find the "key" to every influential person, absolute lack of principle - these are the defining qualities of this hero. The qualities that make him the anti-hero of the play, the main opponent of Chatsky. His life attitudes, convictions, the entire system of moral values \u200b\u200bare opposed to the moral code, ideas and ideals of Chatsky. And in this, Molchalin does not differ from the whole Famus society. It is different: strength.
In his assessments of civic duty, service, army, serfdom, education and upbringing, authorities of the past, patriotism and imitation of foreign models, Chatsky, in essence, opposes only one thing: substitution of the actual content of such concepts as Fatherland, duty, patriotism, heroism, moral ideal, free thought and word, art, love by their pitiful imitation. He is against all possible forms of depersonalization of man: serf slavery, "uniform", foreign fashion, outdated concepts of "the times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea", "obedience and fear."
2.4. Gossip about madness
The guests are just gathering, and Chatsky is already suffocating among them. Finding himself next to Sophia, Chatsky informs about the new low qualities of her chosen one, Molchalin, and leaves "to that room", because there is no more strength to restrain himself.
Sophia, once again offended for Molchalin, inflicts the most terrible blow on Chatsky: "He is out of his mind." These words instantly become not just the property of the Famus society, Famusov and his guests immediately believed the rumor, because they were prepared for this. Sophia spreads the rumor carefully, deliberately, in order to make Chatsky a laughingstock, to avenge his arrogance, barbs towards others (including Molchalin), because, in her opinion, he is "not a man, a snake!" By launching a rumor about Chatsky, she perfectly represents the reaction of society to him, given the public mood. Chatsky is rejected by society as something alien, incomprehensible, not merging with it. The gloating with which the news is discussed is an indicator of public mood, thanks to hearing the moral collision of the play is revealed. Griboyedov masterfully paints the process itself - a fleeting, growing, avalanche-like, taking concrete forms: the first to whom Sophia informs about Chatsky's madness is a certain G.N .; he delivers the news to the equally faceless GD; the latter to the famous chatterbox Zagoretsky. Unlike G.N. and G.D., who perceived the news with some doubt, Zagoretsky, without a moment's hesitation, immediately declares:
A! I know, I remember, I heard
How can I not know, an example case came out;
His uncle-rogue hid him in the mad ones ...
They grabbed me into the yellow house and put me on a chain.
G. D. dumbfounded by such a blatant lie. Zagoretsky, in turn, reports the news to the Countess-granddaughter, who, it turns out, “noticed herself” in Chatsky, the signs of madness, and then to the Countess to her grandmother, who is passing the sentence: “Ah! accursed Voltaire! " Khlestova is struck by the hero's irreverence, Molchalin's judgments about the service are strange, for Natalya Dmitrievna, madness seems to be "advice ... to live in the country."
An empty, ridiculous rumor spreads "nimbly", as everyone finds their own justification for this "nonsense".
And now everyone is talking about it. To the question of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich: "Who was the first to divulge?" - his wife Natalya Dmitrievna replies: "Oh, my friend, that's it!" (True, Famusov attributes this "discovery" to himself). And since everything - it means that this is already the so-called. public opinion:
The fools believed, they pass on to others,
The old women instantly sound the alarm -
And here is the public opinion!
It runs the show. At the end of the play, Famusov, finding Sophia in the company of Chatsky and Liza, pours out anger on his daughter with a servant, and Chatsky threatens with further hearing consequences:
... and this is your last feature,
That tea to everyone's door will be locked:
I will try, I, I will sound the alarm,
I'll make it all over the city
And I will announce to all the people:
I will submit to the Senate, to the ministers, to the sovereign.
After all, the version of Chatsky's insanity should distract "Princess Marya Aleksevna" from another rumor - about his daughter Sophia. Famusov has well learned the ancient custom of spreading rumors, fables in order to divert attention from another event ("pouring bells"). The phrase "crazy" has different meanings. Sophia said: "He's out of his mind" - in the sense in which Chatsky himself had said earlier that he was going crazy with love. Mr. N. gave it a direct meaning. Sophia picks up this idea and asserts it in order to take revenge on Chatsky. And Zagoretsky reinforces: "He's crazy." But when the signs of Chatsky's madness are named, another meaning of this phrase is revealed: crazy, that is, a free-thinker.
And then the reasons for the madness are established. A special role in spreading gossip belongs to Zagoretsky - he translates the conversation about the reasons for Chatsky's madness into the field of fabulous assumptions. Gradually, gossip becomes more and more widespread and reaches the grotesque.
Countess grandmother:
What? To the freemasons in the clob? Did he go to the pusurmans?
The arguments in favor of Chatsky's insanity, which Famusov and his guests put forward, make them themselves ridiculous, since facts are presented that actually prove his normality.
About what? About Chatsky, or what?
What is doubtful? I am the first, I opened.
I have long wondered how no one will bind him!
Try about the authorities, and the field will tell you what!
Bow down a little bit, bend over,
Although in front of the royal face,
So he will call a scoundrel.
Thus, the main sign of Chatsky's "madness", in the understanding of Famusov and his guests, is his free thinking.
While gossip about his madness was spreading, Chatsky ran into a Frenchman from Bordeaux and the princesses in the next room.
Inflamed by this fight, Chatsky appears in the living room at a moment when the development of gossip has reached its climax.
2.5. Monologue "In that room, an insignificant meeting ..."
What is Chatsky talking about in this monologue? About a Frenchie from Bordeaux, about Russians exclaiming: “Ah! France! There is no better edge in the world! ”, About“ that the unclean God should destroy this spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation ”, about the fact that“ our north has become a hundred times worse since the time that it gave everything in exchange for a new way - and manners, and language, and holy old times, and stately clothes for another on the clownish model ", and just like at a meeting of a secret society he asks - exclaims:
Shall we rise again from the foreign rule of fashion?
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although by language we were not considered Germans ...
Again, these are the very thoughts for which he was just declared insane ...
While Chatsky speaks, everyone gradually disperses. The last phrase of the monologue remains unspoken: Chatsky looks around and sees that everyone is circling in the waltz with the greatest zeal ...
The Famusian world put up everything it had at its disposal against Chatsky: slander and complete disregard of him as a person - an intelligent person was denied his mind.
2.6. Interchange - monologue "I will not come to my senses, I am to blame ..."
In the last monologue, as nowhere else, Chatsky's public and personal dramas, his "Million of Torments", merged together. He will tell about the strength of his feelings for Sophia, which in him "neither the distance cooled, nor entertainment, nor change of places." With these feelings he "breathed", "lived", "was busy incessantly." But everything is crossed out by Sophia ..
Chatsky finds scourging scathing words about Sophia's entourage, being in which is destructive for an honest and thinking person: "He will come out of the fire unharmed, whoever has time to stay with you, breathe the air alone, and the mind will survive in him!"
Literary critic Fomichev sees the meaning of Chatsky's last monologue in the fact that the hero "finally realized his opposite to the Famusian world and broke with it:" Enough! ... I am proud of my break with you. "
3. A new type of person in Russian literature.
Chatsky is a new type of person acting in the history of Russian society. Its main idea is civil service. Such heroes are called upon to bring meaning into social life, to lead to new goals.
For Russian critical thought, which has always represented literary work as an illustration to the history of the liberation movement - this is a socially significant person, devoid of a field of activity.
Griboyedov was the first in Russian literature to show the "superfluous person", the mechanism of his appearance in society. Chatsky is the first in this row. Behind him - Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Bazarov.
One can imagine the further fate of such a hero in society. Two paths are most likely for him: revolutionary and philistine.
Chatsky could have been among those who came out on December 14, 1825 to Senate Square, and then his life would have been predetermined 30 years ahead: those who took part in the conspiracy returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856.
But there could have been something else - an irresistible aversion to the "abominations" of Russian life would have made him an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - longing, despair, acrimony and, what is most terrible for such a hero - a fighter and an enthusiast - forced idleness and inactivity.