Woe from mind features of the conflict. Analysis of aspects of the conflict in the work of Griboedov's Woe from Wit. Public conflict in the play and its interaction with the love line

Pushing around Paskevich,
The disgraced Yermolov is slandering...
What is left for him?
Ambition, coldness and anger...
From official old women,
From caustic secular injections
He rolls in a wagon,
Rest your chin on the cane.
D. Kedrin

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov gained great literary fame and national fame by writing the comedy Woe from Wit. This work was innovative in Russian literature of the first quarter of the 19th century.
Classical comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory has always been goodies while the negative ones were ridiculed and defeated. In Griboedov's comedy, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of the characters into representatives of the “current century” and “past century”, and the former actually includes one Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a ridiculous position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main “opponent” Famusov is by no means some notorious bastard, on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.
It is interesting that Chatsky's childhood passed in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was like another. Balls, dinners, dinners, christenings...

He got married - he managed, but he gave a miss.
All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums.

Women were mainly occupied with outfits. They love everything foreign, French. The ladies of the Famus society have one goal - to marry or marry off their daughters to an influential and wealthy person. With all this, in the words of Famusov himself, women "are judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them." For patronage, everyone goes to a certain Tatyana Yuryevna, because "officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives." Princess Marya Alekseevna has such weight in high society that Famusov somehow exclaims in fear:
Oh! Oh my God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!
But what about men? They are all busy trying to move as high as possible on the social ladder. Here is the thoughtless martinet Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being a model of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - "to get to the generals." Here is a petty official Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and he, of course, wants to “reach the known degrees.”
The Moscow “ace” Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, did not show any business qualities or talents, but became famous only for the fact that his neck often “bent” in bows. But “had a hundred people at his service”, “all in orders”. This is the ideal of the Famus society.
Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But a special arrogance is heard in the remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “fomkas”, “chumps”, “lazy black grouse”. One conversation with them: “Get you to work! Settle you!”. In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new, advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire. How much hatred in Famusov's words:

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause
What is now more than ever,
Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.

Thus, Chatsky is well aware of the spirit of the "past century", marked by cringing, hatred for enlightenment, the emptiness of life. All this early aroused boredom and disgust in our hero. Despite his friendship with sweet Sophia, Chatsky leaves the house of his relatives and begins an independent life.
“The desire to travel attacked him...” His soul longed for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with the advanced people of the time. He leaves Moscow and travels to Petersburg. "High thoughts" for him above all. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky's views and aspirations were formed. He appears to have taken an interest in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky “writes and translates nicely.” At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated social activity. He has a "connection with the ministers." However, not for long. High concepts of honor did not allow him to serve, he wanted to serve the cause, not individuals.
After that, Chatsky probably visited the village, where, according to Famusov, he “blissed out”, blunderingly managing the estate. Then our hero goes abroad. At that time, “travelling” was viewed askance as a manifestation of the liberal spirit. But just the acquaintance of representatives of Russian noble youth with life, philosophy, history Western Europe was of great importance for their development.
And here we are already meeting with a mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the hated feudal system. He cannot calmly talk about “Nestor noble scoundrels”, who changes servants for dogs, or about the one who “drew ... from mothers, fathers of rejected children to a fortress ballet” and went bankrupt, sold everyone one by one.

Here are those who lived to gray hair!
That's who we should respect in the wilderness!
Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!

Chatsky hates “the meanest traits of the past life”, people who “draw their judgments from the forgotten newspapers of the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea”. A sharp protest is caused in him by the noble servility to everything foreign, the French upbringing, usual in the lordly environment. In his famous monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” he speaks of the ardent attachment of the common people to their homeland, national customs and language.
As a true enlightener, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In reason, in education, in public opinion, in the power of ideological and moral influence, he sees the main and powerful means of reshaping society, changing life. He defends the right to serve enlightenment and science:

Now let one of us
Of the young people, there is an enemy of quest, -
Not demanding either places or promotions,
In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge;
Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat
To creative arts, lofty and beautiful, -
They immediately: robbery! Fire!
And they will be known as a dreamer! Dangerous!!!

Among such young people in the play, in addition to Chatsky, one can perhaps also include Skalozub's cousin, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - "a chemist and botanist". But they are mentioned in passing in the play. Among the guests of Famusov, our hero is a loner.
- Of course, Chatsky makes enemies. Well, will Skalozub forgive him if he hears about himself: “Wheezy, strangled, bassoon, a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!” Or Natalya Dmitrievna, whom he advised to live in the countryside? Or Khlestov, whom Chatsky openly laughs at? But most of all goes, of course, to Molchalin. Chatsky considers him “the most miserable creature”, similar to all fools. Sophia, out of revenge for such words, declares Chatsky crazy. Everyone happily picks up this news, they sincerely believe in gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems crazy.
A. S. Pushkin, after reading “Woe from Wit”, noticed that Chatsky throws pearls in front of pigs, that he will never convince those to whom he addresses with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. Yes, he did not have the goal of starting disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, to whom from childhood he had a cordial attachment. Another thing is that during the time that has passed since their last meeting Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he struggles to understand how it could be that she no longer needs him. Maybe it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.
As a result, there is a complete break of Chatsky with the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this gap is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. We collided not only different people but different worldviews, different public positions. The external tie-in of the conflict was the arrival of Chatsky to Famusov's house, he received development in disputes and monologues of the main characters (“Who are the judges?”, “That's it, you are all proud!”). The growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a climax: at the ball, Chatsky is recognized as insane. And then he realizes for himself that all his words and spiritual movements were in vain:

Mad you glorified me all in unison.
You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend the day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And his mind will survive.

The outcome of the conflict is the departure of Chatsky from Moscow. The relationship between the Famus society and the protagonist is clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It's impossible to tell who's winning. After all, the conflict between the old and the new is eternal, like the world. And the theme of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is topical even today. And to this day, they suffer more from the mind than from its absence. In this sense, A.S. Griboedov created a comedy for all time.

Conflict (from lat. - “collision”) - a clash of opposing interests, views; serious disagreement; sharp dispute. Undoubtedly, the key words in this explanation will be "collision", "disagreement" and "dispute". All three words are united by the common idea of ​​confrontation, some kind of confrontation, and usually moral.
conflict in literary work plays a huge role, it constitutes the so-called "electricity" of action. This is both a way to defend some idea, and the disclosure of the author's position, and the key to understanding the whole work. Composition depends on the conflict. Eternal opponents in Russian literature have always been good and evil, truth and untruth, will and bondage, life and death. And this struggle is shown in early work people - fairy tales. Living life always struggles with the unnatural, artificial, which can be seen even in the names themselves (“Living and Dead Water”, “Truth and Falsehood”). Literary hero always faces a choice, and this is also a conflict, a clash of man in man. All Russian literature is very pedagogical. Therefore, the role of the conflict is also to correctly interpret both sides, to teach a person to choose between "good" and "evil".
Griboedov, the creator of the first realistic play, found it rather difficult to cope with this task. Indeed, unlike his predecessors (Fonvizin, Sumarokov), who wrote plays according to the laws of classicism, where good and evil were clearly separated from each other, Griboyedov made each hero an individual, a living person who tends to make mistakes.
The title "Woe from Wit" is the thesis of the entire work, and every word is important. "Woe", according to Ozhegov's dictionary, is given in two meanings - grief, sadness and ironic mockery of something unsuccessful. So what is it? Tragedy? And then whose? Or a laugh? Then over whom? "Mind" in the time of Griboyedov had the meaning of progressiveness, activity. The question arises: who is smart in comedy? But the main semantic stress falls on the preposition "from". This is the predestination of the whole conflict. It is also listed on the flyer. “Talking surnames”, as noted by R. O. Vinokur, characterizing the characters, are associated with the “idea of ​​speech” (Tugoukhovsky, Molchalin, Repetilov), that is, they indicate the ability of the characters to “hear” and “speak” with each other, and therefore, understand others, oneself and the general environment. The conflict in the play is of an onion nature - the inner one is hidden behind the outer ones. All action is subject to this disclosure, and small conflicts, merging together and interacting, “give” an apotheosis to the main thing.
In the first act (appearances 1-6) the relationship between Sophia and Molchalin is shown before Chatsky's arrival. This is an exposition of a love conflict, but even now the author points to the insincerity of Molchalin's relationship with Sophia, shows this love ironically. This can be seen from the first remark (“Lizanka is sleeping, hanging from her chair,” while from the young lady’s room “you can hear the piano and flute”), and from Liza’s words about Aunt Sophia, and her caustic remarks (“Ah! Damned Cupid!”). Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky is also shown here:
Chatting, joking, it's funny to me;
You can share laughter with everyone -
she says, not believing in his love. “Pretend to be in love” - this is how Sophia defines his feelings.
And then ... he appears! “Sharp, smart, eloquent,” he “attacks” Sophia, and then, not very flattering, “enumerates” her relatives. A social conflict is outlined, which Griboedov himself defined as follows - Chatsky "in contradiction with the society surrounding him." But it is not in vain that the author uses the common folk form “contradiction”, because Chatsky is in conflict not only with the “light”, but also with the people, and with the past, and with himself.
He is lonely and with such a character is doomed to loneliness. Chatsky is pleased with himself, with his speeches, with pleasure moves from one object of ridicule to another: “Ah! let's move on to education! He constantly exclaims:
"Well, what do you want, father?"
"And this one, how is it? ..",
“And three of the tabloid faces?”,
“And that consumptive one? ..” -
like it's terribly important, after three years. In general, throughout the play, Chatsky falls silent, takes a “minute” break, thinking about the words of the interlocutor, only twice - at his first appearance in the house and in the last monologue. And then he explains his own internal conflict: “The mind is out of tune with the heart,” that is, the advanced ideas that he speaks so beautifully about do not underlie his actions, which means that everything he says is a rational impulse that does not come from the heart, therefore, contrived.
The beginning of the social conflict takes place in the second act. The conversation between Famusov and Chatsky about Sophia turns into a duel between "fathers" and "children" arguing about Russia. Moreover, Griboedov constantly points to the contradictions of Chatsky, the master of words, and Chatsky, the master of deeds. So, in the second act, he speaks of a cruel attitude towards peasants and servants, while in the first he himself did not notice Lisa, just as they do not notice a wardrobe or a chair, and he manages his estate by mistake. A person's speech always reflects him. spiritual world. Chatsky's speech is full of both vernacular and gallicisms. This once again points to the disharmony of Chatsky's inner world in Chatsky.
“Everything he says is very smart! But to whom is he saying this? - wrote Pushkin. Indeed, after all, the key remark in the third act reads: “Looks back, everyone is circling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men wandered off to the card tables." He remains alone - the culmination of a social conflict. To whom is he speaking? Maybe to yourself? Without knowing it, he is talking to himself, trying to settle the battle between "heart" and "mind". Having drawn up a scheme of life in his mind, he tries to “adjust” life to her, violate her laws, which is why she turns away from him, while the love conflict is not forgotten. Sophia also does not accept his rationalism. In general, both of these conflicts are interconnected, and if we agree with Blok that “Woe from Wit” is a work “... symbolic, in the true sense of the word,” then Sophia is the symbol of Russia, where Chatsky is a stranger, because “he is smart in otherwise ... smart not in Russian. In a different way. In an alien way ”(Weil, Geinis.“ Native speech ”).
So, both conflicts grow into the main one - the clash of living life and the scheme.
But all the heroes of the play drew up a scheme of life for themselves: Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub, Sophia ... So, Sophia, who "does not sleep from French books", tries to live her life like a novel. However, Sophia's novel is in a Russian way. As Bazhenov noted, the story of her love for Molchalin is not frivolous, like that of her "French compatriots", she is pure and spiritual, but still this is just a book fiction. In the soul of Sophia, too, there is no agreement. Maybe that's why in the poster she is listed as Sophia, that is, "wise", but Pavlovna is Famusov's daughter, which means she is somewhat similar to him. However, at the end of the comedy, she still begins to see clearly, her dream “breaks”, and not herself. Chatsky is also shown in evolution. But we can judge his inner change only from words about the past. So, when leaving, he spoke confidentially with Liza: “Not without reason, Liza, I’m crying ...”, while throughout the entire action he does not say a word to her.
“Great, friend, great, brother! ..” - out of old habit, Famusov meets him. Chatsky does not say a single kind word to him.
“What do you want?”, “No one invites you!” - only arrogantly remarks to him, immediately entering into an argument.
Chatsky's monologues are close in their ideological orientation to the slogans of the Decembrists. He denounces the servility, cruelty of the feudal lords, meanness - this is what Griboyedov agrees with him and the Decembrists. But he cannot approve of their methods, the same schemes of life, only not one, but the whole society. Therefore, the culmination of all conflicts is Chatsky's accusation of insanity. Thus, he is denied the right to be a citizen, the highest good, according to the Decembrist theory, because one of the definitions of a citizen is “a sound mind” (Muravyov); the right to be respected and loved. It is precisely for the rationalistic approach to life, the desire to achieve the goal in "low" ways, that Griboedov calls all the heroes of the comedy "stupid".
The clash of nature and unnaturalness is shown not only on the stage. Off-stage characters also struggle with themselves. Skalozub's brother, for example, suddenly leaving the service, and therefore the intention to become a general, began to read books in the village, but his youth passed and "grab ...", and he "behaved properly, a colonel for a long time", even though he serves " recently".
Griboedov attributes all Chatsky's ardor only to the romantic impulses of youth, and perhaps Saltykov-Shchedrin is right when he described his subsequent fate as director of the department of insanity, who became friends with Molchalin.
So, the main conflict of the work, revealed through public (Chatsky and society), intimate (Chatsky and Sofya, Molchalin and Sofya, Molchalin and Lisa), personal (Chatsky and Chatsky, Sofya and Sofya ...) conflicts, is the confrontation between rationalism and reality, which Griboedov skillfully portrays with the help of remarks, off-stage characters, dialogues and monologues. Even in the very repulsion from the norms of classicism lies the denial of a subjective approach to life. “I write freely and freely,” says Griboyedov himself, that is, realistically. Using free iambic, different types rhymes, distributing replicas of one verse to several characters, the author abandons the canons, urging not only to write, but also to live “freely”. "Free" from prejudice.

CONFLICT OF THE COMEDY "Woe From Wit"

The comedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became innovative in Russian literature of the first quarter of the 19th century.

Classical comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. The victory was always for the good guys, while the bad ones were ridiculed and defeated. In Griboedov's comedy, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of the characters into representatives of the “current century” and the “past century”, and almost only Alexander Andreevich Chatsky belongs to the former, moreover, he often finds himself in a ridiculous position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main "opponent" Famusov is by no means some notorious bastard, on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.

It is interesting that Chatsky's childhood passed in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was like another. Balls, dinners, dinners, christenings...

“He got married - he managed, but he gave a miss.

All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums.

Women are mainly occupied with outfits. They love everything foreign, French. The ladies of the Famus society have one goal - to marry or marry off their daughters to an influential and wealthy person.

Men are all busy trying to move as high as possible on the social ladder. Here is the thoughtless martinet Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being a model of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - "to get to the generals." Here is a petty official Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and he, of course, wants to “reach the known degrees.”

Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, did not show any business qualities or talents, but became famous only for the fact that he often “bent neck” in bows. But "he had a hundred people at his service", "all in orders." This is the ideal of the Famus society.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But a special arrogance is heard in the remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “fomkas”, “chumps”, “lazy grouse”. There is only one conversation with them: “Get you to work! Settle you!”. In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new, advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire.

“Learning is the plague, learning is the cause,

What is now more than ever,

Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.

Thus, Chatsky is well aware of the spirit of the "past century", marked by cringing, hatred for enlightenment, the emptiness of life. All this early aroused boredom and disgust in our hero. Despite his friendship with sweet Sophia, Chatsky leaves the house of his relatives and begins an independent life.

His soul longed for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with the advanced people of the time. "High thoughts" for him above all. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky's views and aspirations were formed. He appears to have taken an interest in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky "writes and translates nicely." At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated by social activities. He has a "connection with the ministers." However, not for long. High concepts of honor do not allow him to serve, he wanted to serve the cause, not individuals.

And here we are already meeting with a mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of the Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the hated feudal system.

“Here are those who lived to gray hair!

That's who we should respect in the wilderness!

Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!”

Chatsky hates “the meanest traits of the past life”, people who “draw their judgments from the forgotten newspapers of the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” A sharp protest is caused in him by the noble servility to everything foreign, the French upbringing, usual in the lordly environment. In his famous monologue about the "Frenchman from Bordeaux", he speaks of the ardent affection of the common people for their homeland, national customs and language.

As a true enlightener, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In reason, in education, in public opinion, in the power of ideological and moral influence, he sees the main and powerful means of reshaping society, changing life. It defends the right to serve enlightenment and science.

Such young people in the play, in addition to Chatsky, may also include Skalozub's cousin, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - "a chemist and botanist." But they are mentioned in passing in the play. Among the guests of Famusov, our hero is a loner.

Of course, Chatsky is making enemies. But most of all goes, of course, to Molchalin. Chatsky considers him "the most miserable creature", similar to all fools. Sophia, out of revenge for such words, declares Chatsky crazy. Everyone happily picks up this news, they sincerely believe in gossip, because, indeed, in this society, he seems crazy.

A.S. Pushkin, after reading "Woe from Wit", noticed that Chatsky throws pearls in front of pigs, that he will never convince those to whom he addresses with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. Yes, he does not have the goal of starting disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, to whom from childhood he had a cordial attachment. Another thing is that in the time that has passed since their last meeting, Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he struggles to understand how it could be that she no longer needs him. Maybe it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.

As a result, there is a complete break of Chatsky with the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this gap is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. Not just different people clashed, but different worldviews, different social positions. The external tie-in of the conflict was the arrival of Chatsky to Famusov's house, he received development in disputes and monologues of the main characters ("Who are the judges?", "That's it, you are all proud! .."). The growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a climax: at the ball, Chatsky is recognized as insane. And then he realizes for himself that all his words and spiritual movements were in vain:

“Insane, you glorified me all in unison.

You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to spend the day with you,

Breathe the air alone

And his mind will survive in him.

The outcome of the conflict is the departure of Chatsky from Moscow. The relationship between the Famus society and the protagonist has been clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It's impossible to tell who's winning. After all, the conflict between the old and the new is eternal, like the world. And the theme of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is topical even today. And to this day, they suffer more from the mind than from its absence. In this sense, Griboyedov created a comedy for all time.

In the first scenes of the comedy, Chatsky is a dreamer who cherishes his dream - the thought of the possibility of changing a selfish, vicious society. And he comes to it, to this society, with an ardent word of conviction. He willingly enters into an argument with Famusov, Skalozub, reveals to Sophia the world of his feelings and experiences. The portraits that he draws in the first monologues are even funny. Label specifications, accurate. Here are “the old, faithful member of the“ English Club ”Famusov, and Uncle Sophia, who has already“ jumped off his age ”, and“ that black-haired one ”who is everywhere“ right there, in the dining rooms and in the living rooms, ”and the fat landowner-theatre with his skinny serf artists, and the "consumptive" relative of Sophia - "the enemy of books", demanding with a cry "an oath that no one knew and did not study to read", and the teacher of Chatsky and Sophia, "all signs of learning" which are a cap, a dressing gown and forefinger, and "Guiglione, a Frenchman blown by the breeze."

And only then, slandered, offended by this society, Chatsky is convinced of the hopelessness of his sermon, freed from his illusions: "Dreams out of sight, and the veil fell off." The clash between Chatsky and Famusov is based on the opposition of their attitudes towards service, freedom, authorities, foreigners, education, etc.

Famusov in the service surrounds himself with relatives: his man will not let you down and “how not to please your own little man.” Service for him is a source of ranks, awards and income. The surest way to achieve these benefits is servility to the superiors. It is not for nothing that Famusov's ideal is Maxim Petrovich, who, cursing himself, "bent into an inflection", "bravely sacrificed the back of his head." On the other hand, he was "kindly treated at court", "he knew honor before everyone." And Famusov convinces Chatsky to learn worldly wisdom from the example of Maxim Petrovich.

Famusov's revelations outrage Chatsky, and he utters a monologue saturated with hatred for "servility", buffoonery. Listening to Chatsky's seditious speeches, Famusov becomes more and more inflamed. He is already ready to take the strictest measures against such dissidents as Chatsky, he believes that they should be banned from entering the capital, that they should be brought to justice. Next to Famusov is a colonel, the same enemy of education and science. He hurries to please the guests with those

“What is the project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums;

There they will only teach in our way: one, two;

And the books will be kept like this: for big occasions.

For all those present, “learning is the plague,” their dream is “to take away all the books and burn them.” The ideal of the Famus society is "And take awards and live happily." Everyone knows how to achieve ranks better and faster. Puffer knows many channels. Molchalin received from his father a whole science "to please all people without exception." The Famus society strongly guards its noble interests. A person is valued here by origin, by wealth:

“We have been going on for a long time,

What an honor for a father and son."

The guests of Famusov are united by the defense of the autocratic feudal system, hatred for everything progressive. A fiery dreamer, with a reasonable thought and noble impulses, Chatsky is opposed to the close-knit and diverse world of famous, pufferfish with their petty goals and base aspirations. He is a stranger in this world. The “mind” of Chatsky puts him in the eyes of the Famusians outside their circle, outside the norms of social behavior familiar to them. The best human properties and inclinations of the heroes make him in the representation of others " a strange person”, “Carbonaria”, “eccentric”, “crazy”. Chatsky's clash with the Famus society is inevitable. In Chatsky's speeches, the opposite of his views to the views of Famus Moscow is clearly expressed.

He speaks indignantly about the feudal lords, about serfdom. In the central monologue "And who are the judges?" he angrily opposes the order of the Catherine's age, dear to Famusov's heart, "the age of humility and fear." For him, the ideal is an independent, free person.

He speaks indignantly about the inhuman feudal landowners, "noble scoundrels", one of whom "suddenly traded his faithful servants for three greyhounds!"; another sent them to "fortress ballet from mothers, fathers of rejected children", and then they were sold one by one. And there are not a few!

Chatsky also served, he writes and translates “gloriously”, managed to visit military service, has seen the light, has connections with ministers. But he breaks all ties, leaves the service because he wants to serve his homeland, and not his superiors. “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” he says. Being an active person, in the conditions of the prevailing political and social life, he is doomed to inaction and prefers to "scour the world." Staying abroad expanded Chatsky's horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign, unlike Famusov's like-minded people.

Chatsky resents the lack of patriotism among these people. His dignity of a Russian person is offended by the fact that among the nobility "a mixture of languages ​​​​still dominates: French with Nizhny Novgorod." Painfully loving his homeland, he would like to protect society from yearning for a foreign side, from “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of the West. According to him, the nobility should stand closer to the people and speak Russian, "so that our people are smart, vigorous, although they did not consider us Germans by language."

And how ugly is secular upbringing and education! Why are “they bothering to recruit teachers for regiments, more in number, at cheaper prices”?

Griboyedov - a patriot fights for the purity of the Russian language, art, education. Ridiculing the existing system of education, he introduces such characters as the Frenchman from Bordeaux, Madame Rosier, into the comedy.

The intelligent, educated Chatsky stands for genuine enlightenment, although he is well aware of how difficult it is in the conditions of an autocratic feudal system. After all, the one who, "without demanding either places or promotion to rank ...", "puts his mind into science, hungry for knowledge ...", "will be known to them as a dangerous dreamer!". And there are such people in Russia. Chatsky's brilliant speech is evidence of his extraordinary mind. Even Famusov notes this: “he is small with a head,” “he speaks as he writes.”

What keeps Chatsky in a society alien in spirit? Only love for Sophia. This feeling justifies and makes understandable his stay in Famusov's house. The mind and nobility of Chatsky, a sense of civic duty, indignation of human dignity come into sharp conflict with his "heart", with his love for Sophia. Socio-political and personal drama unfolds in a comedy in parallel. They are inseparably merged. Sophia belongs entirely to the Famus world. She cannot fall in love with Chatsky, who opposes this world with all his mind and soul. Chatsky's love conflict with Sophia grows to the extent of the rebellion he raised. As soon as it turned out that Sophia had betrayed her former feelings and turned everything past into laughter, he leaves her house, this society. Chatsky in the last monologue not only blames Famusov, but he himself is spiritually freed, courageously conquering his passionate and tender love and breaking the last threads that connected him with the Famusov world.

Chatsky still has few ideological followers. His protest, of course, does not find a response among "sinister old women, old men, decrepit over inventions, nonsense."

For such people as Chatsky, being in a Famus society brings only “a million torments”, “woe from wit”. But the new, progressive is irresistible. Despite the strong resistance of the dying old, it is impossible to stop the forward movement. The views of Chatsky deal a terrible blow with their denunciations of "famus" and "silent". The calm and carefree existence of the Famus society is over. His philosophy of life was condemned, it was rebelled against. If the "Chatskys" are still weak in their struggle, then the "Famusovs" are powerless to stop the development of enlightenment, advanced ideas. The fight against the Famusovs did not end in comedy. She was just beginning in Russian life. The Decembrists and the spokesman for their ideas, Chatsky, were representatives of the first early stage of the Russian liberation movement.

There are still disputes between different researchers about the conflict "Woe from Wit", even Griboedov's contemporaries understood it differently. If we take into account the time of writing Woe from Wit, then we can assume that Griboedov uses clashes of reason, public duty and feelings. But, of course, the conflict of Griboedov's comedy is much deeper and has a multi-layered structure.

Chatsky is an eternal type. He tries to harmonize feeling and reason. He himself says that "mind and heart are not in harmony," but he does not understand the seriousness of this threat. Chatsky is a hero whose actions are built on one impulse, everything he does, he does in one breath, practically not allowing pauses between declarations of love and monologues denouncing aristocratic Moscow. Griboyedov depicts him so alive, full of contradictions, that he begins to seem like a person who almost really existed.

Much has been said in literary criticism about the conflict between the “current century” and the “past century”. The "Current Age" represented the youth. But young people are Molchalin, Sophia, and Skalozub. It is Sophia who first speaks about Chatsky's madness, and Molchalin is not only alien to Chatsky's ideas, he is also afraid of them. His motto is to live by the rule: "My father bequeathed to me ...". Skalazub is generally a man of an established order, he is only concerned about his career. Where is the conflict of the ages? So far, we are only observing that both centuries not only coexist peacefully, but also that the "current century" is a complete reflection of the "past century", that is, there is no conflict of the ages. Griboedov does not push "fathers" and "children" together; he opposes them to Chatsky, who finds himself alone.

So, we see that the basis of comedy is not a socio-political conflict, not a conflict of the ages. Chatsky’s phrase “mind and heart are out of tune,” said by him at the moment of a moment of insight, is not a hint at the conflict of feelings and duty, but at a deeper, philosophical conflict of living life and the limited ideas about it of our mind.

It is impossible not to mention the love conflict of the play, which serves to develop the drama. The first lover, so smart, brave, is defeated, the ending of the comedy is not a wedding, but a bitter disappointment. From love triangle: Chatsky, Sofya, Molchalin - it is not the mind that comes out the winner, and not even narrowness and mediocrity, but disappointment. The play gets an unexpected end, the mind turns out to be untenable in love, that is, in what is inherent in living life. At the end of the play, everyone is confused. Not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, unshakable in his confidence, for whom suddenly everything that used to go smoothly is turned upside down. The peculiarity of the comedy conflict is that in life everything is not the same as in French novels, the rationality of the characters comes into conflict with life.

The value of "Woe from Wit" is difficult to overestimate. One can speak of the play as a thunderous blow to the society of "famus", "silent", puffers, a play-drama "about the collapse of the human mind in Russia". The comedy shows the process of the withdrawal of the advanced part of the nobility from the inert environment and the struggle with their class. The reader can trace the development of the conflict between the two socio-political camps: the serf-owners ( famous society) and anti-serfdom (Chatsky).

Famus society is traditional. His life foundations are such that “you need to learn by looking at your elders”, destroy free-thinking thoughts, serve with humility to persons who are a step higher, and most importantly, be rich. A peculiar ideal of this society is in the monologues of Famusov Maxim Petrovich and Uncle Kuzma Petrovich: ... Here is an example:

“The deceased was a respectable chamberlain,

With the key, he was able to deliver the key to his son;

Rich, and was married to a rich woman;

Married children, grandchildren;

He died, everyone sadly remembers him:

Kuzma Petrovich! Peace be upon him! -

What kind of aces in Moscow live and die! .. "

The image of Chatsky, on the contrary, is something new, fresh, bursting into life, bringing change. This is a realistic image, a spokesman for the advanced ideas of his time. Chatsky could be called a hero of his time. A whole political program can be traced in Chatsky's monologues. He exposes serfdom and its offspring, inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid militarism, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives a merciless characterization of the Famus society.

The dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle. At the beginning of the comedy, it does not yet appear in an acute form. After all, Famusov is Chatsky's tutor. At the beginning of the comedy, Famusov is favorable to Chatsky, he is even ready to give in to Sophia's hand, but at the same time he sets his own conditions:

“I would say, firstly: don’t be blissful,

Name, brother, do not manage by mistake,

And, most importantly, go and serve.

To which Chatsky throws: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” But gradually another struggle begins, an important and serious one, a whole battle. “Would have looked like the fathers did, Would have studied, looking at the elders!” Famusov's war cry rang out. And in response - Chatsky's monologue "Who are the judges?". In this monologue, Chatsky stigmatizes "the meanest traits of the past life."

Each new face that appears in the course of the development of the plot becomes in opposition to Chatsky. Anonymous characters slander him: Mr. N, Mr. D, the 1st princess, the 2nd princess, etc. Gossip grows like a "snowball". In a collision with this world, the social intrigue of the play is shown.

But in comedy there is another conflict, another intrigue - love. I.A. Goncharov wrote: "Every step of Chatsky, almost every word of his in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia." It was Sophia's behavior, incomprehensible to Chatsky, that served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that "million of torments", under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov. Chatsky is tormented, not understanding who his opponent is: either Skalozub, or Molchalin? Therefore, he becomes irritable, unbearable, caustic in relation to Famusov's guests.

Sofya, irritated by Chatsky's remarks, insulting not only the guests, but also her lover, in a conversation with Mr. N, mentions Chatsky's madness: "He is out of his mind." And the rumor about Chatsky's madness rushes through the halls, spreads among the guests, acquiring fantastic, grotesque forms. And he himself, still not knowing anything, confirms this rumor with a heated monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux", which he utters in an empty hall. The denouement of both conflicts is coming, Chatsky finds out who Sophia's chosen one is. - Silencers are blissful in the world! - says heartbroken Chatsky. His hurt pride, escaping resentment burns. He breaks with Sophia: Enough! With you I am proud of my break.

And before leaving forever, Chatsky in anger throws to the entire Famus society:

“He will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to spend the day with you.

Breathe the air alone

And in him the mind will survive ... "

Chatsky leaves. But who is he - the winner or the vanquished? Goncharov most accurately answered this question in the article “A Million Torments”: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength. He is an eternal debunker of lies, hiding in the proverb - "One man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim.

The bright, active mind of the hero requires a different environment, and Chatsky enters the struggle, begins a new century. He strives for a free life, for the pursuit of science and art, for the service of the cause, and not of persons. But his aspirations are not understood by the society in which he lives.

Comedy conflicts are deepened by off-stage characters. There are quite a few of them. They expand the canvas of life of the capital's nobility. Most of them adjoin the Famus society. But their time is already running out. No wonder Famusov regrets that the times are not the same.

So, off-stage characters can be divided into two groups and one can be attributed to the Famus society, the other to Chatsky.

The first deepen the comprehensive description of the noble society, show the times of Elizabeth. The latter are spiritually connected with the main character, close to him in thoughts, goals, spiritual quests, aspirations.

Love affair

and social conflict

in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit »

The plot of the play by A. S. Griboyedov “Woefrom the mind "according to the classic traditionlies a love affair. However, in terms of genreplay - public comedy, and the main conflict here is social. It is expressed inclash of "the present century" with the "age of our numb." Comedy conflict turns out to be widerlove plot. This feature is produced Goncharov noted in his critical study “A Million of Torments*: *Two comedies seem to nested one inside the other: one., private, small,home, between Chatsky, Sophia, Silent-nym and Lisa: this is an intrigue of love, an everyday moagainst all comedies. When first interrupted inin between is unexpectedly different, and deyaction starts again, private comedy raplays out in a common battle and ties into one node".

The plot of the comedy "Woe from Wit" » built at oncethe twist of the "love triangle", I correspondin the main classical systemRole. This triangle is formed by the heroine -Sofia Famusova, in their seventeen years of blossomingthe sea is charming, and two heroes - Chatsky and Silentlylin. One of them is endowed with positive traitscharacter, he is characterized by nobility,ardor of feelings, the ability to selflesslygood deeds for the sake of his beloved * Drugoy - "helpful modest, quiet", but behind these kaqualities hide careerism, the desire forown benefit, bordering on meanness,However, both heroes go beyond classicism.ical role. Silent, depicted from blissactive author's assessment, lucky in love,Sophia chooses him. Chatsky, whose image pathos is mostly positiveny, fails in love. Derogation from the principlethe principles of classicism are also found in the finalplays: vice is not punished, and virtue is not thorchews. Molchalin almost managed to escaperevelations, since he, before the appearance of Famusovhiding in his room "and Chatsky insteadthe award goes to "a million torments", he evenforced to leave Moscow*

A distinctive feature of the play is the presence oftwo "love triangles" that, hiding, reinforce the comedy of the situation" Absofiercely confident in her lover, Sophiadoes not suspect that Molchalin is not only not abit her, but is carried away by her maid Lisa and even tries to win her favor with gifts * Lisa, in turn, unrequitedly loves boo fetch Petrusha, in addition, with her trying flirting unsuccessfully with barium himself.

The comedy conflict is determined by the clash of the life principles of the conservative Famus society and Chatsky, imaginebody of the advanced noble intelligentsia. Xu even the conflict, connected in one node, develop in parallel. All the key moments in the development of the plot of the comedy are accompanied by a monologuemi Chatsky, expressing his dislike for lordly Moscow, to a stagnant stagnant life, fromlack of novelty in public life two ryanism.

In exposition, comedy scenes, precedeing the appearance of Chatsky in the house of Famusov, fromconversation between Sophia and Lisa becomes known "that Sophia once loved Chatsky, with whom she was brought up as a child. However, three yearsass he went to travel, and to the topthere is no action of his comedy in Moscow. Now she like the other person. Preferring Molcha-lin to Chatsky, Sophia bases her choice not just on feelings, but on the realization that lifethe tenets of the young free-spirited mancorrespond to her ideas about the family happiness. Whereas, in her opinion, she can rely on Molchalin. Sophia realizes that too restless and independent Chatzcue will not be a submissive husband over whomyou can reign supreme like Natalya Dmitrievna rules over Platon Mikhailovich. Already in the comedy exposition is planned conflict between the life principles of the heroev, essentially belonging to different societies ny camps. As the action progresses, this conflict will develop and deepen until will not be resolved by a complete rupture of relations between its members.

When meeting with Sophia in the monologue “Well, what is yourfather? .. * Chatsky slightly touches on them aboutcommon acquaintances, complains about the emptiness of interests, aboutlack of positive content in the light sky life of Moscow. Although Chatsky is setquite peacefully and ready to endure the shortcomings of those with whom he has to live, it becomes obvious that Sophia is cold to him.

In the development of a love affair associated with Chatsky's desire to find out if So loves himfya, and if not him, then whom, finally find outIt turns out that Sophia prefers Molchalin. Shealmost confesses to Chatsky her love for her father's humble secretary, who she finds attractive. The development of a love linein the second act is supplemented by publicdisagreements that arose between Chatsky andFamusov. One hint from Chatsky onhis possible matchmaking discovered that between him and the famous Moscow ace there areirresolvable contradictions associated withpersonal attitude to service, career, estate management, wealth, freedom of opinion.

In the monologue "And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid ... *Chatsky contrasts two centuries: “the century of usouter * and "past century * with their different livesvaluable values. At the same time, Famusov evenplugs his ears, not wanting to listen to the young man century, catching seditious moods in his speecheniya, In the monologue “And who are the judges?” * Chatsky aftercoherently outlines the life program of anydey of his circle, who were in active oppositionto the authorities and the existing order. As a resulttate these clashes, Chatsky turns out to be notdesired groom for the daughter of Pavel Afa Nasyevich not only because he is not rich and excelled in the service, but because he is "carbon-ri*, he *wants to preach liberty*. Famusoveven seriously fears that Chatsky might put him in trouble.

The climax in the development of the conflict and love affair comes in the third act, Sophia, angry with the attacks on Molchalin, deliberately declares Chatsky crazy in order to take revenge on him. All guests willingly believe this slander, picking up, spreading gossip and turning away from a person who expresses dangerous, from their point of view, beliefs. Gossip combines a love story and social conflict. At the moment when Chatsky utters his monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux, neither who of those present does not listen to him, all withdiligently swirling in vlse. The hero turns outall alone, society turned its back on him.

In the fourth act, the denouement comes: Sophia accidentally learns about the true feelings of Mol-chalin. She becomes ashamed because hebecame such a low man, unworthy of herlove that she was so blindly mistaken in appreciating his personal qualities. For Chatsky fisobering up, which he speaks of in the monologue “I won’t come to my senses ... I’m guilty *”, means not only the loss of hope for Sophia’s reciprocity, the loss of his beloved, but he understands that his wayswith the famusophic society finally broken went and their reconciliation is impossible.

Parallel development of public conflikta and love affair reflects the realopposition of social forces in the life of twoRyansk society and gives psychological authenticity to the experiences of the characters, involvednyh in this conflict. Love line completed is the exposure of Molchalin and Sophia's break with Chatsky.

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of comedy - the clash of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, and goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and respect for rank, the appearance of such people makes their clash with society inevitable. The problem of mutual understanding of the “current century” and the “past century” was relevant at the time of the creation of the comedy “I Burn from Wit” by Griboyedov, and it is still relevant today.

So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sane person” (according to Goncharov) and the “conservative majority”. It is on this that the internal development of the conflict between Chatsky and the Famus environment surrounding him is based.

The “age of the past” in comedy is represented by a number of vivid images-types. This is Famusova Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Lisa. In a word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov stands out, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned a general location in metropolitan circles. He is affable, courteous, sharp-smart, cheerful - in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the outer side. The author, on the other hand, shows Famusov in an all-sided way. He also appears as a convinced, fierce opponent of enlightenment. “Take away all the books and burn them!” he exclaims. Chatsky, on the other hand, a representative of the “current century,” dreams of “putting a mind hungry for knowledge into science.” He is outraged by the order established in the Famus society. If Famusov dreams of more profitable marriage of his daughter Sofya (“Whoever is poor is not a match for you”), then Chatsky longs for "sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity."

Chatsky's desire is to serve the fatherland, "the cause, not the persons." Therefore, he despises Molchalin, who is accustomed to pleasing "all people without exception":

owner, where will happen live,

to the chief, With by whom I will I am serve,

Servant his, which the cleans dresses,

doorman janitor, for escape evil,

dog janitor to affectionate was.

Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of the immoral careerist. Chatsky bitterly speaks of such people: "The silent ones are blissful in the world!" It is Molchalin who suits his life best of all. He is talented in his own way. He earned the favor of Famusov, the love of Sophia, received awards. He values ​​the two qualities of his character most of all - moderation and accuracy.

In the relationship between Chatsky and the Famus society, the views of the "past century" on career, service, on what is most valued in people are revealed. Famusov takes only relatives and friends to his service. He respects flattery and servility. Famusov wants to convince Chatsky to serve, "looking at the elders," "put up a chair, pick up a handkerchief." To which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” Chatsky is very serious about the service. And if Famusov is a formalist and a bureaucrat (“it’s signed, so off his shoulders”), then Chatsky says: “When I’m in business, I hide from fun, when I’m fooling around, I’m fooling around, and mixing these two crafts is the darkness of artisans, I am not one of them. Famusov worries about the affairs of only one side: he is mortally afraid, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Skalozub is another representative of the “gone past century”. It was such a son-in-law that Famusov dreamed of having. After all, Skalozub is “and a golden bag, and aims for generals.” This character combines the typical features of the reactionary shareholder of the Arakcheev time. “Wheezy, strangled, bassoon. A convocation of maneuvers and mazurkas, he is the same enemy of education and science, like Famusov. “You don’t fool me with learning,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of the Famus society makes the representatives of the younger generation show their negative qualities. So, Sophia fully corresponds to the morality of the "fathers". And although she is a smart girl, with a strong, independent character, a warm heart, pure soul, they managed to bring up many negative qualities in her, which made her part of a conservative society. She does not understand Chatsky, does not appreciate his sharp mind, his logical, merciless criticism. She also does not understand Molchalin, who "loves her ex officio." The fact that Sophia has become a typical lady of the Famus society is her tragedy.

And the society in which she was born and lived is to blame: “She is ruined, in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream fresh air"(Goncharov. "A million torments").

One more character of the comedy is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, an idler, but he was the only one who considered Chatsky a “high mind” and, not believing in his madness, called the pack of Famusov’s guests “chimeras” and “game”. Thus, he was at least one step above them all.

"So! I sobered up completely! exclaims Chatsky at the end of the comedy.

What is it - defeat or insight? Yes, the finale of this comedy is far from being cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said this: “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of the fresh force.” And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all the Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always “winning”.

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and feudal lords. He fights against noble villains and sycophants, swindlers, rogues and scammers. In his famous monologue “And who are the judges?” he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar Famus world, in which After that, the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where the landowners exchanged serfs who saved “both honor and life ... more than once” for “three greyhounds”. Chatsky defends real human qualities: humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He defends the Russian people, his Russia, from everything inert and backward. Chatsky wants to see Russia enlightened. He defends this in disputes, conversations with all the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit", directing all his mind, evil, ardor and determination to this. Therefore, the environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth, for trying to break the usual way of life. The "past century", that is, the Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the way of life, which is the basis of the well-being of the feudal lords. The last century, which Famusov admires so much, Chatsky calls the century of "submission and fear." A strongly Famus society, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has like-minded people. These are episodic characters: a cousin of Skalozub (“The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service ...”), the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. Chatsky himself constantly says “we”, “one of us”, speaking, therefore, not only on his own behalf. So A. S. Griboedov wanted to hint to the reader that the time of the “past century” is passing, and it is being replaced by the “current century” - strong, intelligent, educated.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It sold thousands of handwritten copies even before it was printed. The advanced people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and the representatives of the reactionary nobility were outraged. What is this - the collision of the "age of the past" and the "age of the present"? Of course yes.

Griboyedov ardently believed in Russia, in his Motherland, and the words written on the writer's grave monument are absolutely true: "Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory."