1. The history of the creation of the comedy "Woe from Wit".
2. The reason for the disagreement between the representatives of the "present century" and the "past century".
3. The immortality of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov.

A. Griboyedov created the comedy "Woe from Wit" at the beginning of the 19th century. In those years, new trends began to replace the orders of Catherine's era, other people appeared in Russian society, with advanced views, who wanted to serve their country, without demanding titles or awards for this. This was, of course, connected with the patriotic upsurge that Russian society experienced after the Patriotic War of 1812. This led the leading part of the nobility in 1825 to Senate Square with demands for civil liberties and the signing of a constitution.

At the center of Griboyedov's comedy stands such a person. In his appearance, behavior, even in the surname, contemporaries guessed the real person - P. Ya. Chaadaev. He was a Western philosopher, for his progressive views and criticism of the order of the day, Chaadaev was declared insane. So, the confrontation between Alexander Chatsky and Famus society constitutes the main socio-political conflict of the play.

Chatsky is a young man, he is educated and has his own opinion on many very serious problems of his time. Alexander Andreevich spent two years abroad, where he got acquainted with the advanced ideas of our time, saw how people live in other countries. And here he is in Moscow, among the people of high society, in the house of his uncle, the Moscow "ace" Famusov. Chatsky is in love with Famusov's daughter, Sophia, with whom they grew up together. Childhood affection grows over time into a serious feeling. Chatsky is sincerely glad to meet Sophia and immediately begins to explain his feelings to her. He does not yet know that while he was away, Sophia was carried away by Molchalin, her father's secretary. Therefore, she is cold with Chatsky and even unhappy with his ardor and passion. Chatsky is confused, he cannot understand the reason for such an attitude towards himself. The further development of events is determined by Chatsky's attempts to find out who is the happy rival: Molchalin or Skalozub. But the love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia is only external, which subsequently reveals a deeper, socio-political conflict.

Seeing these people, communicating with them, Chatsky cannot understand why Sophia does not notice in them what is so clearly visible to him. The situation is heating up, and Chatsky delivers his famous monologues. First of all, this is a monologue about old people, about the so-called "judges", trendsetters who "draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea." The other is about the dominance of everything foreign, about "slavish, blind imitation", about the "foreign rule of fashions." Chatsky angrily asks:

Where? Show us, fatherland fathers,
Which ones should we take for samples?
Aren't they rich in robbery?
They found protection from the court in friends,
in kinship,
Magnificent chambers built ...

But Chatsky's fiery speeches remain without support, moreover, his attacks are met with protest, hostility, and a dull misunderstanding. In the end, he is left completely alone against the hostile Famusian society. Moreover, Sophia started a rumor that Chatsky was not himself.

A.S. Griboyedov shows the readers not only those who do not accept Chatsky's position and enter into an open struggle with him, but also those who are unable to fight injustice, whose will is paralyzed. These heroes include Gorich, a former colleague and friend of Chatsky. But Gorich got married, fell "under the heel of his wife" and humbly carries his burden, although he understands that he has dropped: "Now I, brother, are not the same." When Chatsky was declared insane, Gorich does not want to believe this, but he does not dare to openly contradict the general opinion. Chatsky found himself alone. His accusatory monologues are hanging in the air, no one sympathizes with him, and all his "a million torments", as I. A. Goncharov said, at first glance, seems futile to us. But this is not the case. A.S. Griboyedov, in the image of his protagonist, showed the outlined changes in Russian society, the emergence of a desire among progressive people of the era to become useful to society, to care for the common good, and not only for personal well-being.

The comedy of A.S. Griboyedov shows us the life of Russian society in the first third of the 19th century in all its complexity, contradictions and heterogeneity. The author realistically depicts the types of that era, despite some of the romantic features of the protagonist. The writer raises eternal problems in the play - the relationship between generations, the contradiction between personal and public welfare, the egoistic principle in a person and his disinterested willingness to help people. Therefore, this work is relevant now, at the beginning of the XXI century, because it helps to understand modern problems that practically do not differ from the life collisions of the era of A.S. Griboyedov.

Russian diplomat, state councilor and Russian classic A.S. Griboyedov served in the East and was nicknamed by the Persians Vazir-Mukhtar. He was killed in the winter of 1826 in Tehran by Muslim conspirators. However, his murder was being prepared in Russia, which was frightened Griboyedov was not among them, but he was feared no less than those nobles. His great work "Woe from Wit" was forbidden and passed secretly from hand to hand. The death warrant was signed when an opposition diplomat was sent on a mission to Persia. So the society got rid of the genius personality. However, his play survived.

The play "Woe from Wit" is based on the conflict between the young and progressive nobleman Chatsky and high society. The plot describes the events of one day in the house of the old aristocrat Famusov. Despite such a narrow time frame, the author painted a detailed picture of the events taking place. He showed everything that is new and young that was born in the deep bowels of the noble society.

Chatsky became a representative of modern youth of the "present century" with freedom-loving views. His opponent in the definition as "the past century" was a man of the old formation Famusov and his invited guests.

And now let's try to speculate a little about what kind of conflict determines the collision of Chatsky with society.

The atmosphere of the Famusov house

It may immediately seem that Chatsky is biased in his judgments about and real, he believes that the light is not the same, and his morals are too outdated. All this is due to his youth and, to some extent, naivety. Of course, Chatsky had already lived abroad for three years, and now it is difficult for him to understand the atmosphere that reigned in Famusov's house. He was expecting some kind of change. However, when he returned, he realized that secular customs, alas, remained the same, and people are still revered for ranks, the number of serfs and money, and not for their intelligence and nobility. Now, in some aspect, it becomes clear what kind of conflict determines Chatsky's clash with society.

Generational dispute

From the very first pages of the work, it is already clear that in this house they are constantly lying. But only the lie of the servant Liza bears a certain noble character, since in this way she saves her mistress, Famusov's daughter, Sophia, who is in love with Molchalin, her father's secretary. But, according to her father, he is not a match for her, as he is very poor.

Sophia's lies are also justified because of their love for Molchalin. But after a while we see the lies of Molchalin, who begins to flirt with the servant Lisa. It is clear that he is having an affair with Sophia for profit.

But Famusov is no better in this regard, he also secretly drags after the servant Liza. And then, in her dialogue with the guests, she will utter the following words about herself: "He is known for his monastic behavior." Griboyedov specifically devotes so much time to describing this whole situation in order to more accurately reflect the moral atmosphere of the life of that society.

And now Chatsky became the most serious opponent of the old man Famusov, the conflict of their opposing views on simple things gradually develops into a socio-political one. And the further, the more difficult it is for them to find common ground.

Chatsky and Famus Society. Composition

Famusov is a well-to-do landowner, accustomed to doing whatever he pleases, and therefore largely devoid of moral goals. All that interests him in a person is his position and condition. He does not want to read, because he considers this occupation very boring, therefore, some statements characterize him as a narrow-minded and superficial person. In his views, he is conservative.

Chatsky, on the other hand, is a revolutionary man. He does not accept all those ideals that Famusov speaks of. In the question of what kind of conflict determines the collision of Chatsky with society, this is precisely what can serve as an answer. After all, the main character denounces the most impartial features of the entire Famus society, which includes a lot of people. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a careerist and a self-righteous soldier, before whom Famusov curses, considering him a "golden bag".

The next character is Molchalin, who pleases meek and obedient behavior and takes advantage of people's connections with the situation. Sophia and fell in love with him for his imaginary modesty. Chatsky, on the other hand, considers him a complete fool and an empty person, in principle, like all the other guests present.

Revenge

Chatsky denounces everyone left and right, his main criterion, by which he evaluates everyone, is intelligence and spirituality. Therefore, one can imagine what kind of conflict determines the collision of Chatsky with society.

The revenge of the cold-blooded fool was not long in coming. Chatsky opposed serfdom and was the bearer of advanced ideas - education and He wanted renewal and improvement of society, but this did not happen. And now there comes a premonition of a break with society Chatsky, and he is declared insane. Humiliated and insulted, he leaves this accursed house and Moscow in horror.

The Russian envoy A.S. Griboyedov, nicknamed Vazir-Mukhtar by the Persians, was killed in Tehran in the winter of 1826 as a result of a conspiracy of Muslim fanatics. But the murder was being prepared in advance in distant snowy Russia, frightened by the December events on Senate Square. Among the Decembrists, Griboyedov was not, but he was feared no less than the rebels who came out with a protest to the tsar. The comedy "Woe from Wit", which passed from hand to hand, sowed sedition even in the manuscript, like Radishchev's "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow." Mortal

The verdict for the writer - a mission to Persia - was approved by the highest hand on the banks of the Neva. Griboyedov became Vazir-Mukhtar. Society has doomed a genius personality to death. But the play lived on in spite of everything ...

The ideological basis of the work is the conflict between the young nobleman Chatsky and the society he himself came from. The events of the comedy develop in a Moscow aristocratic house over the course of one day. But, despite the narrow spatial and temporal framework, the author vividly and in detail painted a picture of the life of the noble society of that time and showed everything new, living, advanced, which was timidly born

In his bowels.

Chatsky is a representative of the advanced part of the noble youth, who are already aware of the inertia and cruelty of the surrounding reality, the insignificance and emptiness of people who consider themselves creators and masters of life.

There are still few heroes like Chatsky, but they appear, and this is a sign of the times. Griboyedov reflected the main conflict of the era - the clash of the conservative forces of society with freedom-loving individuals, messengers of new trends and ideas. This conflict was not invented by the author, behind it are the best people of the era, the future Decembrists, full of anxiety for their homeland and people, embarking on the path of struggle for happiness, for bright ideals, for the future.

Griboyedov showed a man of a new type, active, not indifferent, capable of speaking out against serfdom and inertia of views in defense of freedom, intelligence and humanity. This is how Chatsky wants to see the features of the "present century", in which "... the Lord destroyed this unclean spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation." Passionate speeches, free thoughts, all the behavior of the hero reject outdated norms of life and glorify a new ideology, preach the views of the Decembrists.

Famus society, which preserves the privileges and traditions of the "past century", the age of obedience and fear, defends the ideology of servility, honor and hypocrisy. In the understanding of society, "mind is the ability to make a career", "take awards" and "have fun". People living by such principles are deeply indifferent to the fate of their homeland and people. Their cultural and moral level can be judged by the remarks of Famusov: “Take all the books and burn them”, “Scholarship is the reason that nowadays there are more insane people, and deeds and opinions”.

The main task of this society is to keep the way of life intact, to act like the fathers did. It is not for nothing that Chatsky often recalls exactly this: "they all sing the same song," "they draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers." And Famusov teaches everyone: "They would study, looking at the elders." The path to the cherished well-being is, for example, the career of Maxim Petrovich:

When do you need to curry favor,

And he bent over.

Here everyone, in the words of Chatsky, does not “serve”, but “serve”. This is most clearly manifested in Molchalin, whom his father taught "to please all people without exception", and even "the janitor's dog, so that it was affectionate."

In the musty world of Famus, Chatsky appears like a cleansing thunderstorm. He is in every way the opposite of the ugly representatives of this society. If Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub see the meaning of life in their well-being ("chinishki", "small towns"), then Chatsky dreams of selfless service to his homeland in order to benefit the people, which he considers "smart and cheerful." Chatsky sharply criticizes the society, mired in hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and debauchery. He appreciates people who are ready "to put a mind hungry for knowledge into science", or to engage in art that is "creative, high and beautiful." Famusov cannot calmly listen to Chatsky's speeches, he plugs his ears. Living deaf is the only way to protect yourself from Chatsky's accusations!

In his speeches, Chatsky constantly uses the pronoun "we". And this is no coincidence, since he is not alone in his desire for change. On the pages of the comedy, a number of off-stage characters are mentioned who can be attributed to the allies of the protagonist. This is Skalozub's cousin, who left the service, “began to read books in the village; they are professors of the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute; this is Prince Fyodor, a chemist and a botanist.

Chatsky as the hero of the work not only embodies the ethics and aesthetics of the Decembrists, but has much in common with real historical figures.

He left the service as Nikita Muraviev, Chaadaev. They would be glad to serve, but "it is sickening to be served." We know that Chatsky “writes and translates gloriously”, like most of the Decembrists: Kuchelbecker, Odoevsky, Ryleev ...

There were still several years left before the great and tragic events of the twenty-fifth year, but the final scene of Chatsky's defeat Griboyedov, perhaps, anticipated the outcome of these events.

With fervor and mockery, Chatsky utters his last words, in which he pours out “all the bile and all the vexation,” and leaves, leaving the “tormentors of the crowd” alone with slander, slyness, hostility to each other, inventions and nonsense - in a word, with the emptiness of decrepit light.

At the end of the action, a carriage appears. Maybe this is a symbol of goodbye, or maybe a long road that the hero is still destined to go through.

Half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the Chatskys, who miraculously survived in the Nerchinsk mines, returned to freedom, the words of the ending of the play sounded very convincing. After all, loyal sons of Russia returned as winners.

At all times there have been, are, and probably will have their own Chatskys, Griboyedovs, Vazir-Mukhtars, who, thanks to their brilliant and far-sighted mind, become prophets in their homeland. As a rule, this violates the established social order, the “natural” course of things, and society enters into conflict with the individual. But for true prophets there is no and there can be no other way than to go forward - "for the honor of the fatherland, for convictions, for love."

In the satirical comedy by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, a noble society of 10-20 years of the XIX century is described. The main character of the work, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, is a young, noble, honest and free-thinking person. In the comedy, he is opposed not only to individual characters, but to the entire Famus society, which lived according to the traditions of the "past century."

Famusov, in whose house the events unfolded, is a typical Moscow master, an official - a bureaucrat, a serf-owner, devoid of morality. He did not like service, he served only for the sake of money, ranks and awards. He didn’t even know the essence of his work: “It’s signed, so off your shoulders”, and he wasn’t interested in what he was signing. Chatsky, on the contrary: he served the Motherland, wanted to benefit the people, fought for the abolition of serfdom and freedom of the individual. He was very intelligent and educated.

Aleksey Stepanovich Molchalin lived and worked in Famusov's house. He courted Sophia, but did not love her, but simply hoped with her help to get better in life, to make a career. For this, he did not stop at anything: he deceived Famusov and fawned upon everyone. All his courtesy is feigned, he just wanted to appear as what others wanted to see him. His motto is to please everyone on whom he depends. In society, Molchalin was accepted, although he is just a minor nobleman. Chatsky spoke tartly about him, considered him stupid and ridiculous. He spoke of Molchalin with a contemptuous grin: "He will reach the degrees of the known, because nowadays they love the dumb."

Another representative of the Famus society was Sergei Sergeevich Skalozub. Colonel, spent all his life in the barracks, a smug careerist. He was promoted at the expense of deceased or dismissed colleagues. Skalozub also saw service as a source of personal gain. His dream is to rise to the rank of general, while not spending any energy. Famusov dreamed of such a son-in-law, because their worldviews are the same. Chatsky did not understand how it was possible to live next to such small people who were not interested in anything except money and power, who were so disdainful of everything national and valued a person only by origin and the number of serfs.

The Famus society also included: the prince and princess Tugoukhovsky, the spouses Gorichi, Zagoretsky, the imperious lady Khlestov. All of them were united by the same outlook on life. All of them supported respect for rank, ignorance, serfdom and idleness. Their main occupations were entertainment and gossip. Chatsky criticized this society, he could not find like-minded people in it. He did not understand why they did not want to change their lives for the better, and did not even listen to his judgments. Chatsky has completely different views on education and upbringing, on service, civic duty, public order, attitude towards people. He did not fit into the Famus society, and therefore left Moscow. It became clear to him that their loyalty to the ideals of the "past century" was still firmly held.

The play "Woe from Wit" is a well-known work by A. S. Griboyedov. In the process of its creation, the author departed from the classical canons of writing "high" comedy. The characters in Woe From Wit are ambiguous and multifaceted characters, not cartoon characters endowed with one characteristic feature. This technique allowed Aleksandr Sergeevich to achieve stunning verisimilitude in the depiction of the "moral picture" of the Moscow aristocracy. This article will be devoted to the characterization of representatives of such a society in the comedy "Woe from Wit".

Problems of the play

There are two plot-forming conflicts in Woe From Wit. One of them concerns the personal relationships of the characters. It involves Chatsky, Molchalin and Sofia. The other is a socio-ideological confrontation between the main character of the comedy and all the other characters in the play. Both storylines reinforce and complement each other. Without taking into account the love line, it is impossible to understand the characters, worldview, psychology and relationships of the heroes of the work. However, the main one, of course, is Chatsky and the Famus society are opposed to each other throughout the play.

"Portrayal" of the heroes of the comedy

The appearance of the comedy "Woe from Wit" caused a lively response in literary circles of the first half of the 19th century. Moreover, they were not always laudatory. For example, an old friend of Alexander Sergeevich - PA Katenin - reproached the author for the fact that the characters in the play are too "portrait", that is, complex and multifaceted. However, Griboyedov, on the contrary, considered the realism of his characters to be the main advantage of the work. In response to criticism, he replied that "... cartoons that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable ..." and argued that there is not a single such comedy in his comedy. Having managed to make his heroes alive and believable, Griboyedov achieved an amazing satirical effect. Many unwittingly recognized themselves in the characters of the comedy.

Famus society representatives

In response to comments about the imperfection of his "plan", he stated that in his play "25 fools for one sane person." Thus, he spoke out rather sharply against the capital's elite. It was obvious to everyone who the author portrayed under the guise of comedic characters. Alexander Sergeevich did not hide his negative attitude towards Famus society and opposed it with the only intelligent person - Chatsky. The rest of the characters in the comedy were typical images of that time: the well-known and influential Moscow "ace" (Famusov); loud and stupid careerist-soldier (Skalozub); quiet and wordless scoundrel (Molchalin); domineering, half-mad and very rich old woman (Khlestova); eloquent chatterbox (Repetilov) and many others. Famus society in comedy is motley, diverse and absolutely unanimous in its resistance to the voice of reason. Let's consider the character of its most prominent representatives in more detail.

Famusov: staunch conservative

This hero is one of the most influential people in Moscow society. He is a fierce opponent of everything new and believes that it is necessary to live as the fathers and grandfathers bequeathed. For him, Chatsky's statements are the height of free-thinking and debauchery. And in ordinary human vices (drunkenness, lies, servility, hypocrisy), he does not see anything reprehensible. For example, he declares himself that he is known for his monastic behavior, but before that he flirts with Lisa. For Famusov, a synonym for the word "vice" is "learning." For him, the condemnation of bureaucratic servility is a sign of insanity.

The question of service is the main one in the Famusov system. In his opinion, any person should strive to make a career and thereby ensure a high position in society. Chatsky for him is a lost person, since he ignores generally accepted norms. But Molchalin and Skalozub are business, reasonable people. Famusovskoe society is an environment in which Petr Afanasievich feels himself to be fulfilled. He is the embodiment of what Chatsky condemns in people.

Molchalin: the wordless careerist

If Famusov in the play is a representative of the "past century", then Aleksey Stepanovich belongs to the younger generation. However, his ideas about life completely coincide with the views of Peter Afanasyevich. Molchalin makes his way "into the people" with enviable persistence, in accordance with the laws dictated by the Famus society. He does not belong to the nobility. His trump cards are "moderation" and "accuracy", as well as servile servility and boundless hypocrisy. Alexey Stepanovich is very dependent on public opinion. The famous remark about evil tongues that are "worse than a gun" belongs to him. His insignificance and lack of principle are obvious, but this does not prevent him from making a career. In addition, thanks to his boundless pretense, Aleksey Stepanovich becomes the protagonist's happy rival in love. "The Molchalins dominate the world!" - Chatsky notes with bitterness. Against Famus society, he can only expose his own wit.

Khlestova: tyranny and ignorance

The moral deafness of the Famus society is brilliantly demonstrated in the play "Woe from Wit". Griboyedov Alexander Sergeevich went down in the history of Russian literature as the author of one of the most topical and realistic works of his time. Many aphorisms from this comedy are very relevant today.