Preparation for the final essay on literature Grade 11

in the direction of "Friendship and enmity"

For an introduction: Friendship and enmity ... What is it? These are the constant companions of man.

in life. Each of us, adult or child, needs friends.

True friendship is a rare and precious reward. Friendship is selfless

personal relationships between people based on complete trust,

sincerity, mutual sympathy, common interests and hobbies.

In the world fiction, including Russian, we

we can find many examples that reveal the theme of friendship and enmity.

I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" Oblomov and Stolz

Tolstoy "War and Peace" Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre

Conclusion:It is not worth living for someone who does not have a single true friend. Democritus

2. Is it possible to live life without having friends?

It is possible, but difficult: life without friends is empty and monotonous. Relatives are blood people, they are always there. Friends are relatives to the soul. The thought that we have friends warms us, makes us stronger and more self-confident.

Lermontov "a hero of our time" (Pechorin: "of two friends, one is always the slave of the other")

Onegin (there were no friends, but a friendship began to be struck up with Lensky, which ended so tragically.

Lyceum friends of Pushkin ("October 19", "I.I. Pushchin")

Conclusion:We do not so much need the help of friends as the confidence that we will receive it.

3. When can enmity turn into friendship?

If the enemies are both noble people, they simply stand on opposite sides of the barricades. It may happen that they see each other's strengths, or one goes over to the side of the enemy for ideological reasons, and then the enemies become friends.

Pushkin" Captain's daughter"(Grinev and Pugachev)

Tolstoy "War and Peace" Natasha and Princess Marya

Conclusion: :(Baurzhan Toyshibekov)

4. Noble behavior can even conquer the enemy.

If this enemy is able to understand your nobility.

Sholokhov "The Fate of Man"

Tolstoy "War and Peace" Prince Andrei at Austerlitz

Conclusion:It is easy to turn a friend into an enemy, it is difficult to turn an enemy into a friend.(Baurzhan Toyshibekov)

5. A friend is needed, an enemy required.

Enemies are ill-wishers and their intentions are clear. The person knows this and is therefore ready. Friends are kindred spirits, and they cannot be flatterers, because flattery is unfair praise with a selfish purpose.

A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" (Chatsky and Molchalin)

Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter"

Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" Pechorin and Grushnitsky

Conclusion:Don't be afraid of enemies attacking you. Beware of friends flattering you!

6. A cowardly friend is more terrible than an enemy, because you are afraid of the enemy, but you hope for a friend.

A cowardly friend is a traitor, you need to stay away from him. He knows everything about you and will hit you in the most painful place when you are waiting for help and support.

Vasil Bykov "Sotnikov" Sotnikov (about Rybak)

Tolstoy "War and Peace" Boris Drubetskoy (story with food convoy)

Conclusion:When those who called themselves your friends put a poisoned dagger in the back, when those whom you believed, under the guise of caring, inflict a mortal wound on your soul, look around - perhaps those whom you considered enemies are your real ones. and close friends.( )

Two must be feared: one is a strong enemy, and the other is an insidious friend.(Unsur Al-maali (Key Qaboos))

7. A real friend is with you when you're wrong. When you are right, everyone will be with you.
Mark Twain

Because the duty of friendship is to forgive wrong deeds, if they are not done out of evil.

Tolstoy "War and Peace" Nikolai Rostov and Denis Davydov.

Natasha and Pierre (about Andrey)

Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" Raskolnikov and Sophia

Conclusion:A wise friend will not abandon a friend, despite all the hardships.(Shota Rustaveli)

Friendship can unite only worthy people. Friendship penetrates the lives of all people, but in order to preserve it, it is sometimes necessary to endure grievances.(Mark Tullius Cicero)

8. Take care of a friend to save yourself.

If you offend a friend and do not recognize the mistake in time, then later it may be too late: a friend may have a misfortune, and you will forever remain a person who has ruined himself.

Pushkin "Dubrovsky"

Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

Conclusion:Leave three times more for your friends than for yourself. For yourself, keep at least a grain of the original purity of the heart.(Hong Zicheng)

For conclusion : In my opinion, friendship is the only feeling that pretense is not subject to: it does not tolerate lies and masks. With a true friend, a person does not need to hide his character traits, possible shortcomings and impersonate someone who you really are not.
It seems to me that our generation misunderstands the truth of true friendship. Many of my peers call friends of people whom they have known for a short time, whom they still cannot trust, but already call them almost brothers and sisters. Friendship is tested not only over the years, but also through trials that a person meets throughout his life.
The basic principle of friendship is loyalty. Trust only strengthens friendship, and the confidence that a person will not betray you will support you - proof of true friendship.
It is important to understand that a friend is not an ideal person: he can make mistakes and ridiculous actions. The main thing is that a friend should be able not only to forgive, but also not to harbor evil.

Bibliography:

1. Pushkin "Dubrovsky", "The Captain's Daughter", "Mozart and Salieri", "Eugene Onegin"

2. Lermontov "Hero of our time"

3. Chekhov "Thick and Thin"

4. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

5. Vasil Bykov "Sotnikov"

6. A.S. Griboedov "Woe from Wit"

7. M.A. Sholokhov "The fate of man"

8. I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov"

9. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

In the novel by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Dubrovsky" we see two

old friends - Kiril Petrovich Troekurov and Andrey Gavrilovich

Dubrovsky. Once they were comrades in the service. Dubrovsky

distinguished by pride and decisiveness of character, for this he was appreciated and

respected Troekurov. Andrey Gavrilovich was an interesting conversationalist, and

Kirila Petrovich missed when there was no colleague nearby. The author explained

their friendship by the fact that they were both the same age, had the same

upbringing, widowed early and raised one child each. All this

brought them closer. All the neighbors-landlords envied their harmony and friendship.

But once in their friendly relations came time of discord and

terrible fierce enmity. It happened when Paramoshka, a servant

landowner, while inspecting his favorite kennel Troekurov insulted

Dubrovsky, humiliated his dignity. “An accident upset everything and

changed." Leaving Pokrovskoye, Andrey Gavrilovich demanded that

the servant came to court. But the wayward rich man did not want to seriously understand

this, but began to mercilessly take revenge on Dubrovsky, humiliating him even more.

Why did this friendship turn out to be fragile? Why between the former

friends there was such an abyss? The wealth and nobility of Troekurov, his

arrogance and arrogance did not allow him to stop and reflect on

everything that happened. And the temper and ardor of the landowner added

oil on the fire. And the murderous revenge began... Satisfied with thirst

revenge, Troekurov understands what he has done. Coming to my senses, Troekurov

I wanted to correct this situation. But it was too late. He brought a friend to

madness and death. Reading the novel by A. S. Pushkin, we are once again convinced

that any enmity does no good.

In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" we also see

an example of friendship-enmity in relations between Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

They are peers, colleagues. Pechorin declares: “In friendship there is one slave

another." Slave relationship can't keep friendship, it's

humiliating. In the soul, the heroes do not have a warm relationship with each other.

friend. Pechorin is ruthless towards Grushnitsky, cannot

forgiving weaknesses, confident, judicious, selfish, caustic.

He sees through Grushnitsky and laughs at him. Is it

friendly relations? “I understood him, and he doesn’t love me for it, although

outwardly we are in friendly relations." And once again we are convinced that

friendship very needs in manifestation good human feelings sv and

qualities, in sincerity. And Grushnitsky? A completely different person:

enthusiastic, soft-bodied, does not have bright features, envious,

vain, spiteful, verbose. "He speaks quickly and pretentiously."

Grushnitsky Junker, he is twenty-one years old. How can we call

relationship between these characters?

Them resist e M.Yu. Lermontov shows in the chapter "Princess

Mary." The gap in the relationship of young people is widening, hostility

increases when Princess Mary became interested in Pechorin. The duel is

denouement in relationships. Pechorin kills his former friend. What

case? What is the reason for such a sad outcome? No slave

friendship cannot exist. We understand that a person

all by myself should be a friend. But Pechorin does not have this understanding, therefore

he had no real friends. Only warm human relations

strengthen friendship, not turn it into enmity.

So, reasoning on the topic led me to the conclusion that friendship,

certainly a precious gift. And a man who knows how to appreciate

friendship, not wanting to sow enmity, deserves it. And I would like to hope

that among our contemporaries there will be more such people among whom

the cult of holy friendship will flourish.

Essay on the topic: What is friendship?

What is friendship? Each person understands its significance in life in their own way: for some it is an understanding, for others it is an opportunity to spend their free time in an exciting and unforgettable way. For me, friendship is, first of all, a feeling of support for a loved one and a firm belief that he will come to the rescue in difficult times. A true friend does not know how to envy, offend or hurt: it is not important for him social status, he is close to you in spirit and understands perfectly.
It is not necessary for a real friend to agree with your every point of view: it is much more valuable that he supports you, even if he does not agree with your views on life. A true friend may criticize, but will never lie out of flattery or deliberately humiliate. The secrets that you share with a friend remain only between the two of you, and this appreciates and tests the sincerity of a person’s true attitude towards you.
Friendship is not subject to time, and emotions in communication with a friend do not change: even many years later, people have common topics for conversations, reverent memories and common values ​​in life. A friend is able to forgive you not only minor oversights, but also serious mistakes and will never reproach you for your mistakes. A true friend is the person with whom you will never get bored and who will not let you get bored.
And in joy and in sorrow, only a devoted and faithful friend should be next to us. But is it possible in modern world, where it is full of temptations and temptations, to sincerely experience true friendship?

Composition on the topic: Friendship

There are not many things in the world that are eternal. After all, gold, precious jewelry, exquisite clothes, expensive cars and houses - all these are false, temporary values. Over time, they depreciate, break, deteriorate, cease to be fashionable. But among the eternal, true values, three things can be named. It is faith, love and friendship. A true friend is the greatest treasure, a true friend is known in trouble - how often do we hear these proverbs, but how rarely do we think about their real meaning.
It is very difficult to find a true friend these days. Yes, each of us has many friends, whom I call one-day butterflies. They are ready to go to the movies or cafes with you, help you spend money in fashion boutiques, laugh at a joke. But these friends will never support you in difficult times. Why do they need a friend who needs to be helped, who needs to be comforted by wasting their time? They'd rather go with other, lucky friends to the movies. And they don't care about losers.
But a true friend will never leave you in trouble. No matter what happens, no matter what trouble knocks on your door, a friend will always be there, always ready to help, support, comfort. He is ready to sacrifice his time, money and even his life for you. This is true friendship, which is an eternal and precious thing in life. And therefore, as a very valuable thing, it must be protected and cherished.

Composition on the topic: The role of friendship in human life

It is difficult to imagine a person's life without close people, friends and like-minded people. Finding his place in society, each individual becomes a participant in communication with the team. In a kindergarten, at school, at an institute, in the army, at work, in a creative studio, on vacation - there are various people everywhere and all sorts of contacts and preferences are possible. Friendship between people can arise on a hike, in the courtyard of a house, on the Internet, it will happen under the most incredible circumstances of life.
Friendly relations open space for close people to work together, help overcome difficulties in learning, transform and fill a person with the joy of being. The loneliness and isolation of a person does not adorn either a guy or a girl at all. Only in friendship and communication the best qualities of people are revealed. Sometimes conflicts and quarrels arise between friends, then difficult times come. But only true friendship helps to overcome all sorts of divisions.
People united by positive, friendly relations will always help each other, help out one or the other, protect and defend their friend. At the present time, the concept of "friendship" is undergoing various transformations and modifications. On the Internet, on social sites, you can have a large number of random friends, but these people cannot be real friends. Holy, real friendship is mutual assistance, support, joint reflection of the enemy, intimate conversations and mutual understanding.
In a person's life, there should always be friends and good comrades. In a circle of friends, you can normally relax, listen to music, hang out and get a drive from high-quality communication. A good friend always escorts the girl to the house, monitors the safety of his girlfriend, meets her with a bouquet of flowers, and helps in difficult cases. Friendship should be cherished, try to protect human relations and enjoy pleasant communication in life.

Essay on the topic: The value of friendship

A favorite work that has not lost either freshness or relevance over the years, a storehouse of aphorisms, a living, real Russian language - all this is about "" A.S. Griboyedov. Alexander Sergeevich himself was an outstanding personality with tragic fate(read about him, he deserves it) and entered Russian literature as the author of one great work. “Woe from Wit” was written in 1824, but it appeared on the stage much later, at first it was staged by officers of one regiment, theater lovers, after the terrible death of the author, and even later in a real theater. What is the comedy "Woe from Wit" about? Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov and his daughter Sophia, his secretary Molchalin, and maid Lisa live in a rich Moscow house. Sophia is in love with Molchalin and hides it from her father. He seems to reciprocate her feelings. After a long absence, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky returns, brought up in the same house. He is in love with Sophia, glad to meet Famusov and wants to ask for the hand of his beloved, but daddy has a different opinion on this matter: in mind "and a golden bag, and aims for the generals" - Sergey Sergeevich Skalozub. Chatsky is dejected, surprised by the cold reception given by Sophia, enters into an argument with Famusov. The dispute, it would seem, is about nothing, but for Chatsky and Famusov this is an opportunity to express their positions, unfortunately, irreconcilable. In a conversation with Lisa, Sophia shows her dissatisfaction with Chatsky. Molchalin, meanwhile, is going to ride, but he is a bad rider and falls off his horse. Sophia vividly sympathizes with him, and Chatsky begins to understand that he is not the hero of her novel. A society gathers in Famusov's house for the evening. Khlestova, Gorichi, Tugoukhovskys are coming, here Zaretsky, Khryumins. Before us is a whole series of heroes adopted in the house of Famusov. At some point, Sophia, angry with Chatsky's behavior, starts a rumor about his madness, which everyone willingly supports, because it's easier to explain the behavior of Alexander Andreevich. Chatsky is about to leave and in the hallway he meets Repetilov, his acquaintance, who throws himself on his neck and immediately lays out a bunch of news, but Chatsky is not interested in them. He witnesses the flirting of Molchalin and Lisa, as does Sophia, who receives a blow to the very heart. Famusov appears, finds an unambiguous scene, he is angry, and Chatsky leaves Moscow forever.
Comedy issues The name of the comedy speaks of the main problem - the problem of the mind and an intelligent person. Who is smart - Chatsky or Famusov? It is revealed in the disputes of these heroes, in the relationship between the “present century” and the “past century”. "Current Age" and "Previous Age" This is what Chatsky says about Famusov and his society. I am always surprised how easily students "stigmatize" the old order. But let me ask what, philosophy Famus Society gone today? Careerism, unscrupulousness, "service" to persons, and not to the cause, have disappeared? Have the Molchalins ceased to flourish, whose talents - moderation and accuracy, and also disgusting servility - were horrified by Griboyedov? Therefore, the terms are very conditional. So says the protagonist when he enters into a fight with Famusov. The dispute of generations concerns some very important issues both then and now.

• The question of service and citizenship. Famusov believes that service is a way to enrich and move up the career ladder. He has landmarks: Kuzma Petrovich (“the venerable chamberlain with the key, and he managed to deliver the key to his son”) and Maxim Petrovich, who reached a high rank by clowning in front of the empress. But for Famusov, it doesn’t matter that the rank was achieved by humiliating a very elderly person, the main thing is that he was achieved. Chatsky cannot accept this, he wants to serve “the cause, not the persons,” and he despises Maxim Petrovich, and does not admire him (“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve”).

• The issue of education. Famusov and his company believe that "books should be preserved for great occasions," while Chatsky is a supporter of the "high and beautiful" sciences.

• The question of the influence of foreigners on Russians. Here Famusov, at first glance, converges with Chatsky. Both of them resent the excessive influence of foreign culture on Russian society. Only Famusov sees in this the need for existence in the world, and Chatsky understands how ridiculous and pitiful people look, admiring the insignificance, albeit of foreign origin.

• The question of the Russian people and serfdom. Famusov does not think about it at all, considering serfdom a natural phenomenon, and serfs - "subhuman". They exist to provide him with a comfortable existence. Chatsky speaks of the Russian people like this: "... our smart, kind people ...". He is outraged by the way the serfs are treated by the landlords, he sees in them, first of all, people worthy of respect. Nowhere directly in the comedy does Chatsky call for the abolition of serfdom, rather, he condemns the immorality of the treatment of the peasants.

• Family, marriage, love issues. For Famusov, marriage is a way to get settled in life, as he understands it. “He who is poor is not a match for you,” he says to Sofya. But the Skalozub is a worthy contender, even though “he didn’t utter a clever word ... forever.” Chatsky believes that marriage and family are the main values ​​in a person’s life, when a person loves, then the whole world for him is concentrated in his beloved. What is interesting is that Sophia thinks the same way, only the hero of her novel is not worthy of such love.

Now decide who is smarter? Actually, this is a very serious issue. Isn't Famusov clever? Molchalin, who has yet to become Famusov (he will certainly become)? The secret of the comedy, its genius, its relevance lies in the fact that Griboyedov does not give a direct answer. Chatsky is not a winner at all, he is declared insane, almost expelled. The author can only show that there are other people who are really worthy of respect, people who have principles and dignity, and laugh at the heroes who do not have them (famus society). This is the idea of ​​the piece. There is a mind that solves only its narrow problems (Famusov), but there are truly smart and moral people, such as Chatsky. A smart reader will understand, and I think you are all smart readers. Attention, USE! In the exam in the Russian language, in task 25, comedy materials can be used as an illustration of the problems that I listed above, remember the main problem is a problem of the mind. I hope you understand who is smarter after all. Comedy Mysteries Yes, there are some. For example, Sophia. Is she smart? Why did she prefer the wretched Molchalin to the unconditionally intelligent and sympathetic Chatsky? Did the entity not see him? Yes, that's the thing, I didn't see it! At the beginning, Famusov says: “She can’t sleep from French books, but it hurts me to sleep from Russians.” She reads a lot of French romance novels (do you watch melodramas now? I do), and just came up with a hero for herself, which Molchalin is not at all. He is silent, respectfully listens, and you will not understand whether he is smart or not. And Chatsky is talkative, caustic and mocking, he is the opposite of Molchalin. In the XVIII-XIX centuries. hero love story he was quiet, sad, modest, silent, and outwardly Alexei Stepanovich is just like that. If he talks about the tragedy of heroes, then believe me, Chatsky will recover, Molchalin - and even faster will crawl up over their heads, Famusov will be consoled, and Sophia will suffer for a long time, she was hit hardest by betrayal, because she also experienced disappointment in ideals. She is to be pitied. Another mystery is the image of Repetilov. Why would Griboyedov introduce another hero at the very end? And what is its essence? Remember what Repetilov is talking about. About the fact that a "most secret union" has been formed, that "we are making noise, brother, we are making noise" and so on and so forth. As soon as he rushes to Chatsky with hugs (however, as well as to Skalozub), you might think that he is his friend. But is it? What is the most secret union busy with, about which Repetilov immediately reports to the first person he meets? They make noise, they sing, they talk about nothing. There is a word, but a deed? There is no case. The hero's surname is derived from the French word, translated "to chat, repeat." Well, who does the hero look like? Yes, on Chatsky, only without the inner content of the latter, an empty shell repeating the original source. This is a parody of a hero. Why is this the author? I think that Griboyedov, as a talented person, felt the weakness of his hero's position. Indeed, Chatsky does not serve, does not study, is not busy with anything. He will give up his positions a little, step back from principles - he will turn into Repetilov. That's why Repetilov appears at the end so that the viewer can see " reverse side» Chatsky's behavior. Or maybe the ironic Griboedov showed a little “lowered” the hero, since he turned out to be “too” good? But this is just my version. In any case, "Woe from Wit" is one of the most beloved works and is still included in the repertoire of the best theaters. The material was prepared by Karelina Larisa Vladislavovna, teacher of the Russian language of the highest category, honorary worker of general education of the Russian Federation

“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov Katenina. In this statement of the author, the main problem of "Woe from Wit" is clearly indicated - the problem of mind and stupidity. It is also placed in the title of the play, which should also be paid close attention. This problem is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, and therefore it requires a detailed analysis.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was cutting edge for its time. It was accusatory, like all classic comedies. But the problems of the work "Woe from Wit", problems noble society of that time are presented in a wider range. This was made possible by the author's use of several artistic methods: classicism, realism and romanticism.

It is known that initially Griboedov called his work "Woe to the mind", but soon changed this title to "Woe from wit". Why did this change take place? The fact is that the first name contained a moralizing note, emphasizing that in the noble society of the 19th century, every intelligent person would endure persecution. This did not quite correspond to the artistic intent of the playwright. Griboyedov wanted to show that an extraordinary mind, progressive ideas of a particular person may be out of time and harm their owner. The second name was able to fully implement this task.

The main conflict of the play is the confrontation between the "current century" and the "past century", old and new. In the disputes between Chatsky and representatives of the old Moscow nobility, a system of views of one and the other side on education, culture, in particular on the problem of language (a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod”), family values, questions of honor and conscience emerges. It turns out that Famusov, as a representative of the "past century", believes that the most valuable thing in a person is his money and position in society. Most of all, he admires the ability to "serve" for the sake of acquiring material benefits or respect for the world. A lot has been done by Famusov and people like him to create a good reputation among the nobles. Therefore, Famusov is only concerned about what will be said about him in the world.

Such is Molchalin, even though he is a representative of the younger generation. He blindly follows the outdated ideals of the feudal landlords. Having an opinion and defending it is an unaffordable luxury. After all, you can lose respect in society. “You shouldn’t dare to have your own judgment in mine,” is the life credo of this hero. He is a worthy student of Famusov. And with his daughter Sophia, he plays a love game only to curry favor with the girl's influential father.

Absolutely all the heroes of "Woe from Wit", with the exception of Chatsky, have the same ailments: dependence on the opinions of others, passion for ranks and money. And these ideals are alien and disgusting to the protagonist of the comedy. He prefers to serve "the cause, not the persons." When Chatsky appears in Famusov's house and begins to angrily denounce the foundations of the noble society with his speeches, the Famusov society declares the accuser crazy, thereby disarming him. Chatsky expresses progressive ideas, pointing out to aristocrats the need to change their views. They see in the words of Chatsky a threat to their comfortable existence, their habits. A hero called insane ceases to be dangerous. Fortunately, he is alone, and therefore simply expelled from society, where he is not pleasing. It turns out that Chatsky, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, throws the seeds of reason into the soil, which is not ready to accept and nurture them. The mind of the hero, his thoughts and moral principles turn against him.

Here the question arises: did Chatsky lose in the fight for justice? It can be assumed that this is a lost battle, but not a lost war. Very soon, the ideas of Chatsky will be supported by the progressive youth of that time, and "the meanest traits of the past life" will be overthrown.

Reading Famusov's monologues, watching the intrigues carefully weaved by Molchalin, one cannot at all say that these heroes are stupid. But their mind is qualitatively different from the mind of Chatsky. Representatives of the Famus society are accustomed to dodge, adapt, curry favor. This is a practical, worldly mind. And Chatsky has a completely new mindset, forcing him to defend his ideals, sacrifice his personal well-being, and certainly not allowing him to gain any benefit through useful connections, as the nobles of that time used to do.

Among the criticism that fell upon the comedy "Woe from Wit" after it was written, there were opinions that Chatsky could not be called an intelligent person either. For example, Katenin believed that Chatsky "talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately." Pushkin, after reading the list of the play brought to him at Mikhailovskoye, spoke of the main character as follows: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...”

Indeed, Chatsky is presented as very quick-tempered and somewhat tactless. He appears in a society where he was not invited, and begins to denounce and teach everyone, not embarrassed in expressions. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “his speech boils with wit,” as I.A. wrote. Goncharov.

Such a variety of opinions, up to the presence of diametrically opposed ones, is explained by the complexity and diversity of the problems of Griboedov's Woe from Wit. It should also be noted that Chatsky is a spokesman for the ideas of the Decembrists, he is a true citizen of his country, opposing serfdom, cringing, the dominance of everything foreign. It is known that the Decembrists were faced with the task of expressing their ideas directly, wherever they were. Therefore, Chatsky acts in accordance with the principles of the advanced man of his time.

It turns out that there are no outright fools in comedy. It's just that two opposing sides are fighting for their understanding of the mind. However, the mind can be opposed not only to stupidity. The opposite of mind can be madness. Why does society declare Chatsky crazy?

The assessment of critics and readers can be anything, but the author himself shares the position of Chatsky. This is important to consider when trying to understand the artistic intent of the play. Chatsky's worldview is the views of Griboedov himself. Therefore, a society that rejects the ideas of enlightenment, individual freedom, service to the cause, and not subservience, is a society of fools. Being afraid of a smart person, calling him crazy, the nobility characterizes itself, demonstrating its fear of the new.

The problem of the mind, brought out by Griboedov in the title of the play, is the key one. All clashes that take place between the obsolete foundations of life and the progressive ideas of Chatsky should be considered from the point of view of opposing intelligence and stupidity, intelligence and madness.

Thus, Chatsky is not at all insane, and the society in which he finds himself is not so stupid. It's just that the time of people like Chatsky, spokesmen for new views on life, has not yet come. They are in the minority, so they are forced to suffer defeat.

Artwork test

There are cases in the history of art and literature when just one work makes its author immortal. A.S. Griboyedov forever entered the literature with his socio-political comedy "Woe from Wit", which shows the spiritual life of Russia after Patriotic War 1812, the contradictions of the "present century" and "past century".

Ethical and philosophical views of A.S. Griboyedov are already reflected in the title of the comedy. A person who thinks about the rational structure of society and does not accept reactionary views has a hard time among those who understand the mind as "the ability to live."

The main conflict of the work unfolds between Chatsky and Famusovsky society. It reflected the struggle of two social forces: progressive liberal nobles and reactionary feudal nobles.

A.S. Griboedov satirically portrays the nobility-bureaucratic Moscow and, more broadly, Russia. With the commonality of many features (selfish interests, lack of high morality, low level of education, fear of enlightenment), each image embodies some specific concrete historical type.

Famusov personifies the "gone century". He is a rich landowner and a major official, who, however, does not burden himself with service (“whatever it is, what is not the case, it’s signed, so from the shoulders to the loi”). Perceiving the service as his own fiefdom, Famusov surrounded himself with relatives and acquaintances:

In my presence, strangers who serve are very rare, More and more sisters, sister-in-laws, children ... How can you introduce yourself to the baptismal, to the town, well, how not to please your loved one!

Famusov is a hypocrite and a hypocrite. The ideal of Famusov's entire entourage is Maxim Petrovich, who, despite his gray hair, fell several times in front of the empress in order to amuse her, which earned her royal mercy. Famusov is ready to give his daughter in marriage to anyone, as long as he has money and power. He sees his son-in-law even in the rude and ignorant martinet Skalozub, whom Chatsky aptly described as "a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas." Puffer reveals his dreams:

... to get the ranks, there are many channels, ... I just wish I could get into the generals. And, not feeling cynicism, he rejoices that the vacancies are just open; Then the Elders will turn off others, Others, you see, are killed.

The entire Famus society is afraid of enlightenment, seeing it as a threat to its own foundations. Famusov is sure that “learning is the plague, learning is the cause” of all troubles; he is echoed by the princess, who scolds the pedagogical institute and professors; Skalozub would like to be taught in lyceums and gymnasiums “in our way: one, two”, “you won’t fool him with scholarship”, and he will give “sergeant major in Voltaire” to those who lead philosophical disputes. The views of this society were expressed by Famusov:

... To stop evil, Collect all the books and burn them.

The younger generation is represented in the play by the images of Chatsky, Molchalin, Sophia and Liza. These are completely different types of young people, differing in their moral concepts.

Molchalin embodies the lower part of bureaucratic Russia. His portrait is outlined in one phrase: "here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words." He has two talents that he is proud of - "moderation and accuracy." Molchalin is one of those who achieve a career by the ability to stroke the pug of an influential lady in time, to play (dying of boredom) with old people in cards. This is a sycophant, a hypocrite who follows the rule:

… At my age, one should not dare to have His judgments.

Such Molchalins support the foundations of the Famus society.

One of the most difficult in the play is the image of Sophia. As noted by A.S. Pushkin, "it is not clearly inscribed." Sufficiently educated and intelligent, she prefers Molchalin to Chatsky. Not being evil and cruel, she hurts a childhood friend and slanders him, declaring him crazy. Her actions are contradictory. This is probably because some traits in her character (independence, freedom of opinion) were formed in adolescence under the influence of Chatsky, but after his departure she found herself at the mercy of a conservative society that brought up her own moral code. It can be assumed that Sophia does not like Molchalin, but she created an ideal in her imagination. Chatsky is right when he says that by admiring him, you gave him the darkness of your qualities.

Objectively, Sofya also finds herself in the Famusovs' camp, defending its foundations.

Famusovsky society is opposed by Chatsky. A young educated man, after a three-year absence, returns to Moscow, driven by a romantic impulse to serve the Fatherland, "whose smoke is sweet and pleasant to us." This is an honest, noble man with sharp mind. It hurts him to see that hypocrisy and ignorance still reigns, that in Moscow "houses are new, but prejudices are old." His patriotic feeling offends the spirit of "blind, slavish, empty imitation" of everything foreign, admiration for the empty "Frenchman from Bordeaux."

Moral concepts of Chatsky - independence, self-esteem ("I would be glad to serve, it's sickening to serve"), adherence to principles - are in irreconcilable contradiction with the morality of the Famus society. His monologue "Who are the judges?" - denunciation of the conservatism of the "fathers of the fatherland", who live according to the laws of the 18th century, "they draw their judgments from the forgotten newspapers of the times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea." They are enemies of freedom, feudal lords, who value the life of the peasants in no way, exchanging their devoted servants for dogs.

Chatsky has an ardent character, which is manifested both in his romantic love for Sophia and in his harsh assessments of those around him. The image of Chatsky is given in development. He first overcomes socio-political illusions, and then his love hopes are destroyed. According to I.A. Goncharov, Chatsky experiences "a million torments" before he "sobers up in full." material from the site

Although the play was written a year before the uprising, the image of Chatsky embodied many features of the moral character and social views of the Decembrists. In the play itself, there are hints that Chatsky is not alone in his views on the existing society. These are off-stage characters - cousin Skalozuba: “the rank followed him, ... he suddenly left the service”, “he began to read books in the village”; nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya Prince Fyodor.

The realism of the comedy "Woe from Wit" was expressed in the fact that the Famus society defeats Chatsky, although, undoubtedly, the playwright's sympathies are on the side of the hero. But the real circumstances did not give the possibility of a positive outcome.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was an original, bright work that has not lost its relevance today. Chatsky's unusually lively language, specific and apt statements led to the fact that many lines of the play became aphorisms. Sometimes, using such expressions as “Happy hours are not observed”, “Fresh legend, but hard to believe”, “To have children, who lacked intelligence”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve”, “More than the number, at a cheaper price," the speaker does not even know the source catchphrase. These phrases organically entered into colloquial speech, becoming truly popular.

Comedy "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboedova reflected the mood of the progressive nobility of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page, material on the topics:

• fatal mistakes of heroes a. with. Griboedov "Woe from Wit"
• essays woe from mind heroes
• themes and problems woe from mind
• famusov as the personification of the "past century"