In the conflict of Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” two lines stand out: love (personal) and public (social). The love conflict is based on a classic love triangle. Purpose literary work classicism was the proclamation of an ideal that consisted in the fulfillment of civic duty, the subordination of individual interests to public interests and the awareness of reasonable laws of life. To implement these ideas, we chose main character as a bearer of a positive ideal, its antipode - bad guy And ideal heroine, who gave her love to the positive hero and thereby confirmed that he was right. This was the composition love triangle in a classic work. On stage, traditional roles have developed to play these roles: hero-lover (first lover), unworthy hero (fool, fop, rogue) and ingenue (young lady in love).

Griboyedov rethinks the content of the classic love triangle: Chatsky is a positive hero, but not flawless, as the main character should be; Molchalin is low and mean, he is a negative hero, but Sophia loves him; Sophia makes the wrong choice, preferring Molchalin to Chatsky. Sophia's mistake distorts the classicist perspective of the development of the play and determines the development of the plot.

It is interesting that the name Sophia means “wise” in Greek, which certainly conveys the author’s sad irony. The heroine speaks about Chatsky and Molchalin, belittling one and extolling the other. In scene 5 of act 1, Sophia's servant Lisa, fearing that Sophia and Molchalin's dates could lead to trouble, tries to draw her attention to others possible suitors- Colonel Skalozub and Chatsky.

The beginning of the love conflict occurs in scene 7 of act 1, which describes the first meeting of Chatsky and Sophia. The hero is shocked by the change in Sophia’s attitude towards him; he cannot realize it and understand its reason. At first, Chatsky reproaches Sophia. Having met such a reception, Chatsky seeks sympathy:

Are you happy? good morning.

However, who is sincerely happy like that?

I think this is the last thing

Chilling people and horses,

I was just amusing myself.

He tries to evoke in the girl the memory of the past, hoping that in three years she simply forgot the feelings that connected them. However, Sophia again cools Chatsky’s ardor, answering: “Childishness!”

Only then does Chatsky begin to understand the real reason changes in Sophia's attitude towards him. He asks her a direct question whether she is in love, and, having received an evasive answer, guesses the truth. And after the words: “For mercy, not you, why be surprised?” - showing a completely natural reaction to Sophia’s behavior, Chatsky suddenly starts talking about Moscow:

What new will Moscow show me?

T made a deal - he made it, but he missed.

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

This change in the topic of conversation is determined psychologically, since Chatsky, finally realizing that he has a rival, begins to look for him. Each phrase of the hero’s previous statement confirms this, that is, each phrase contains a psychological background: the rival is in Moscow, she met him at the ball, they all want to marry profitably, and they are all the same.

It has long been noted that a social conflict arises from a love conflict, and Chatsky attacks Moscow because he is disappointed in his position as a rejected lover. If the whole scene is the beginning of a love conflict, then Chatsky’s words about Moscow are the origin social conflict, the plot of which will be at the beginning of Act 2. It is Chatsky’s search for an opponent that will determine the nature of the development of the action, and the play will end when the scales fall from Chatsky’s eyes.

The social conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov lies in the clash between the progressive nobleman-intellectual Chatsky and the conservative Famus society. The conflict is found not only in the dispute between specific people representing certain circles of society, it is a conflict of time. Griboyedov the playwright accomplished what his hero wanted to do, saying:

How to compare and see

The present century and the past...

The expression “the present century and the past century” should be understood in two meanings: these are periods of Russian history, separated by the Patriotic War of 1812, as well as the conflict of the era, expressed in the struggle of new ideas and forms of life with old ones. The ideas of modern times were most clearly expressed, according to Pushkin’s poetic formulation, in the “high aspirations of thought” of the Decembrists. And in many ways Chatsky’s views reflect advanced ideas Decembrists.

The social conflict of the comedy is manifested in the disputes between Chatsky and Famusov, in the attitude of these heroes to this or that social problem. The peculiarity of the social conflict in the play is that it depends on the love conflict, that is, it is not represented in specific actions and events, and we can only judge it by the monologues and remarks of the characters.

One of the most pressing issues in the noble society of that time was the attitude to power and service. It is this that serves as the beginning of the social conflict in Act 2, Act 2:

Chatsky

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.

Famusov

That's it, you are all proud!

Would you ask what the fathers did?

Famusov tells Chatsky the story of his uncle Maxim Petrovich, sincerely believing that it is instructive for Chatsky and can bring him to his senses - after all, in the behavior of Maxim Petrovich, in his deep conviction, lies the highest wisdom. The formula for this is:

When you need to help yourself,

And he bent over...

The question of service appears in three aspects. First of all, it is a moral question, to be mean and “bend over” or to maintain dignity and honor. At the same time, the service exhibits civil position person: to serve the Fatherland, a cause, or to serve only for oneself, to care about personal gain. And finally, the political side of the issue, which is clearly expressed in Chatsky’s remark: “Who serves the cause, not the individuals.”

The next most important issue in comedy is the problem of serfdom and serfdom. Chatsky expresses his attitude towards serfdom in the monologue “Who are the judges?” in phenomenon 5 there are 2 actions:

Who are the judges? - In ancient times

TO free life their enmity is irreconcilable,

Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers.

Chatsky talks about two cases of inhuman behavior of serf owners. In the first of them, the serf owner exchanged “three greyhounds” for his faithful servants. Note that Griboyedov’s criticism is more moral than social character. Of course, a ruthless and depraved serf owner could do this because according to the law he had the right to do so, but Griboedov is struck by the blatant inhumanity here - a person is equated with an animal. The playwright, calling the serf owner “Nestor of noble scoundrels,” makes it clear that this man is not some exceptional villain; there are many “noble scoundrels” around. Treating serfs as inferior beings was the norm for a serf-owning society. So, old woman Khlestova tells Sophia about the blackamoor girl and the dog as equal, identical creatures (act 3, phenomenon 10):

Tell them to feed, already, my friend,

A handout came from dinner.

In the same monologue, Chatsky exposes the terrible consequence of serfdom - human trafficking. One serf owner brings a serf theater to Moscow, driving “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the ballet. Griboyedov shows how the right to control the lives and fate of serfs corrupts the nobles and they lose their human qualities. The real goal of the owner of the serf theater was to make all of Moscow “marvel at the beauty” of the ballet and small artists in order to persuade creditors to grant a deferment for the payment of debts. However, he did not achieve his goal and sold the children.

One of the most negative phenomena of Russian reality at that time was dependence on foreign morals, fashion, language, and rules of life. Chatsky treats the dominance of foreigners in the life of the country, “slavish, blind imitation” with particular intransigence; his indignation was most fully expressed in the monologue “There is an insignificant meeting in that room...” (act 3, phenomenon 22). The plot episode described in this monologue is not presented on stage. Chatsky was struck by a chance, “insignificant” meeting: he saw how his compatriots courted a Frenchman simply because he was a foreigner. Chatsky calls him “a Frenchman from Bordeaux” not out of disrespect for the person, but wanting to emphasize the offensive contrast between the mediocrity of the guest and the servility of the hosts. Chatsky believes that imitation of a foreign language is a terrible scourge for a nation. It seems to a Frenchman that he is in a French province, so selflessly everyone around him imitates French morals and outfits, speaking in a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod”. Chatsky mourns the loss of the Russian nobles national traditions, national clothes, appearance. With bitterness he throws out the phrase: “Ah! If we are born to adopt everything,” noting that such behavior is characteristic of a Russian person, but his negative side- “empty slavish, blind imitation” - must be eliminated. D.I. wrote about this. Fonvizin in the comedy “The Brigadier” (1769), I.S. complains about this. Turgenev in the story “Asya” (1858), A.P. laughs at this. Chekhov in the comedy " Cherry Orchard"(1903), this problem was repeatedly raised in the literature of the 20th century. Thus, Griboyedov raised a question that was relevant not only in his time, he tried to penetrate into the essence of the phenomenon.

The problem of the dominance of foreigners in Russian life is connected with the issue of patriotism. Chatsky’s position and his sympathies are expressed very clearly in the monologue:

So that our smart, cheerful people

Although, based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans.

The problem of patriotism is presented in the work widely and diversified. The author shows that patriotism should not be confused with imitation of foreign things or, on the contrary, stubborn arrogance and isolation from the experience of other cultures. This is precisely the position of Chatsky, for whom preserving the dignity of his nation means respect for other peoples. By calling the foreigner “a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” Chatsky does not belittle the guest—he laments the behavior of his compatriots. The rest of the characters are afraid and do not approve of everything foreign, as, for example, Khlestova is afraid of the arapka girl or “lankart mutual training,” or they are obsequious to everything foreign. Famusov, Chatsky’s main opponent, is arrogant in some cases, calling foreigners “tramps”; in others, on the contrary, he is touched that Prussian king marveled at the Moscow girls, since they are not inferior to the French and German women (act 2, scene 5):

They won’t say a word in simplicity, everything is done with a grimace;

French romances are sung to you

And the top ones bring out notes...

This means that the dignity of one’s nation for Famusov is a variable value, since it depends on whether foreigners are beneficial or ruinous for him in each specific case.

The lifestyle of the Moscow nobility is another problem raised by Griboyedov in the comedy. Famusov’s monologue in Act 1, Act 2 is indicative of this topic. What’s remarkable about this scene is that Famusov, a government manager, plans his week as if it consists of personal affairs and entertainment. He has three “important” things planned for the week: trout on Tuesday, burial on Thursday, and christening “on Friday, and maybe Saturday.” Famusov’s diary not only notes the schedule of the “business” week, but also reflects the philosophy and content of his life: it consists of eating, dying, being born, eating again and dying... This is the monotonous circle of life for Famusov and the Famusovites.

Discussing the lifestyle of the nobility, Griboedov touches on the problem of entertainment. At the ball, Chatsky says to Molchalin (act 3, phenomenon 3):

When I'm busy, I hide from fun,

When I'm fooling around, I'm fooling around

And to mix these two crafts

There are many masters, I am not one of them.

Chatsky is not against entertainment, but against mixing it with business and work. However, responsibility and work disappear from the lives of most nobles, giving way all the time to pleasure and entertainment. Such a life is empty and meaningless. Let us remember what Chatsky said about Moscow (act 1, scene 7):

Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.

Or the words of Countess Grandma Khryumina, which sounded comical, but filled with a tragic meaning for a person (act 4, scene 1):

Let's sing, mother, I can't sing,

Someday I fell into the grave.

It's not that balls or others social entertainment bad in themselves - this is part of the culture of the noble class of that time. But when the ball takes up the whole life, becomes its content, then for a person its brilliance passes into the darkness of the grave, as if life itself did not exist. Only work and rest are natural, alternating forms human life, they complement and enrich each other, making life meaningful and rich.

A special place in comedy is occupied by the theme of the mind - enlightenment, education and upbringing. The title of the work indicates this, and the author himself drew attention to this when he wrote: “In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person.” Griboyedov called the first sketch of the comedy “Woe to Wit.” The change in name shows a shift in emphasis from a general philosophical idea, which can be defined in such a way that every mind is woe, to a social one: the mind in society is the cause of grief. The theme of the mind in the play divides the characters in their attitude towards life. For Famus people, only practical benefits are of value, so for them, intelligence is the ability to get along in life. Chatsky has an exalted mind, everything is important to him: personal and general questions. His ideas about life are broad, they go beyond personal interests. We can say that Chatsky’s judgments are based on reason and a moral attitude towards life. The judgments of Famusites are limited by their narrow ideas, determined by personal interests and benefits. So, for Sophia, the one who is next to her is smart (action 1, phenomenon 5):

Oh! if someone loves someone,

Why search for the mind and travel so far?

For Molchalin, smart behavior is the ability to please anyone on whom he in any way depends (action 3, phenomenon 3):

At my age I shouldn't dare

Have your own judgment.

For Skalozub, the world order is a military system, and a “smart” position is to be in the ranks, and smart behavior is to strive to move to the front rank. Skalozub is even a “philosopher” in his own way. He judges like a philosopher (act 2, phenomenon 4):

I just wish I could become a general.

So, each character speaks about intelligence, about education. It seems that the ideas of the Enlightenment have finally penetrated into Moscow society. However, the perception of these ideas turns out to be false: Famusites are hostile to education and reading, their ideas about proper upbringing are distorted. Famusovites see that the threat comes from Chatsky’s mind, his enlightenment and education, and therefore they resort to the only effective way fighting him - they neutralize his mind so that nothing he says matters, because he is talking like a madman. In this struggle, general and personal interests coincide, so it is no coincidence that it is Sophia who starts the rumor about Chatsky’s madness. The plot lines representing the love and social conflict of the play develop together, but compositionally differently. The exposition is common to both lines and ends before the 7th phenomenon of the 1st act. The beginning of the love conflict took place in the 7th scene of the 1st act, the social conflict - in the 2nd scene of the 2nd act. The culmination of the social conflict occurs at the end of Act 3, when society turns away from Chatsky, and a dispute between them is no longer possible. The culmination of the love conflict occurs in scene 12 of act 4: Chatsky regains his sight, Sophia is close to fainting, Molchalin “hides into his room.” The denouement of both storylines coincides at the moment when Chatsky leaves Famusov’s house with the words (act 5, phenomenon 14):

Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.

Nevertheless, the ending of the comedy remains open: what follows is unknown—where Chatsky will go, what he will do, or what impact his arrival will have on Famusov society. However, Goncharov correctly noted that “Chatsky is broken by the number old power, dealing her, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh strength.” This is the realism of comedy.

Source (abbreviated): Moskvin G.V. Literature: 8th grade: in 2 hours. Part 2 / G.V. Moskvin, N.N. Puryaeva, E.L. Erokhin. - M.: Ventana-Graf, 2016

Problems of upbringing and education in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov became famous and famous not only in the writing circle, but also among common people precisely after the release of his scandalous comedy “Woe from Wit”. The popularity of comedy at that time and today is caused, in my opinion, by the successful choice of the problem of the work - the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century” in all spheres of human life. Created more than 180 years ago, it is still relevant and topical because it “brings to the stage eternal characters” who have not lost their brightness, truthfulness and strength.

Comedy A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” was written after Patriotic War 1812, during the period of the rise of the spiritual life of Russia. The comedy raised the topical social issues of that time: about public service, serfdom, education, education, about the slavish imitation of the nobles to everything foreign and contempt for everything national and popular.

The ideological meaning of comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, lifestyles, worldviews: old, serfdom, and new, progressive, in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. One of the components of the general conflict of comedy is the attitude of the opposing forces to education, upbringing, enlightenment. Of course, this confrontation appears in the conflict between Chatsky and “Famus” society, between the “present century” and the “past century.”

What are the warring parties? The comedy society was named “Famusovsky” after the name of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. He typical representative of his society, has all the advantages valued in it: wealth, connections; he is an example to follow.

Famusov is an official, but treats his service only as a source of income. He is not interested in the meaning and results of labor - only ranks. The ideal of this person is Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” “ate on gold,” “drove forever in a train.” Famusov, like the rest of society, admires his ability to “bend to the extreme,” “when it is necessary to serve oneself,” since it is this ability that helps in Moscow “to reach the famous levels.” Famusov and his society (Khlestovs, Tugoukhovskys, Molchalins, Skalozubs) represent “a bygone century.”

For Famusov, the opinion of the world is sacred and infallible; the worst thing is what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say!

Famusov and his entourage fill their week with visits to the “right” people: receptions, dinners, christenings. For him, an example of a person who has achieved everything in his life is Maxim Petrovich, who achieved promotion through “shyping” in front of the empress and sacrificing his own dignity.

As he was famous for, whose neck often bent

Chatsky talks about this. All moral ideals Famusov's ideas lie in the material sphere; he approaches everything from the point of view of practical benefit, even love. Famusov dreams of marrying off his daughter Sophia profitably and tells her:

Oh, mother, don’t finish the blow! Anyone who is poor is not a match for you.

For example, we have been doing this since ancient times,

that honor is given to father and son:

be bad

Yes, if there are two thousand tribal souls,

He and the groom

Famusov serves as a manager in a government place, service for him is an opportunity to have connections, ranks, and not to serve the fatherland or fulfill a civic duty, in a word, Famusov treats the service formally, bureaucratically (“signed, off your shoulders”). Famusov worries about affairs only on one hand, fearing to death “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.” This serves as proof of a formal attitude towards the service. He takes only relatives and friends into his service. He values ​​business people who can replace him, but a person is assessed not by his knowledge or outlook, but by his ability to flatter, grovel, and please. Famusov respects those who, having forgotten themselves, are ready to sacrifice their dignity, showing servility and servility. Depicting the life of the Moscow nobility, Griboedov emphasizes their idle pastime and ridicules the senseless and aimless wasting of life. They all live in their own world, not noticing anything around them and not wanting to know any innovations. Having fenced off from the outside world, they “spill themselves in feasts and extravagance,” “run the show” and set the tone of life. Moral values ​​in society have changed. It all comes down to wealth and personal well-being.

The author shows readers that in Moscow society the majority are greedy, greedy, unjust, corrupt people with inert views and a conservative worldview, and you rarely meet smart, honest, noble and fair people, like the main character of the work - Chatsky.

The comedy depicts the life of society in Russia in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Griboyedov clearly and fully showed the struggle of the old with the new, the struggle of the new generation with the old serf-dominated foundations of society. The main character who represents the new generation is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who almost single-handedly tries to resist the so-called “past century.”

Chatsky and Famusov can safely be called antagonists, that is, one is the complete opposite of the other. Chatsky’s parents were close friends of Famusov, so after their death Famusov took custody and raised Alexander Andreevich. However, while still a young man, Alexander Andreevich left his native land and went abroad. During this time, Famusov's family did not hear anything about him. Time passed, and Chatsky returned as if nothing had happened, but this is no longer the same Chatsky. Having absorbed the freedom-loving spirit of Europe, Alexander Andreevich appears before us as a man with progressive and advanced thoughts.

Chatsky is a bright representative of the generation that, after the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, created new political cells, secret societies, revolutionary circles. Society demanded change and demanded a new hero, which Chatsky became in the literature of that time. He differed in everything from the representatives of the “past century”: views, beliefs, character, soul, mind. With his character, Griboyedov created the image of a new positive hero. Chatsky is a representative of the “present century”. This is an exponent of the advanced ideas of his time. His monologues reveal a political program: he exposes serfdom and its products: inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid military, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives a merciless characterization of the “Famus” society, branding “the meanest traits of the past life.” Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?..” was born of his protest against the “Fatherland of the Fathers”, since he does not see in them a model that should be imitated. He condemns them for their conservatism:

Judgments are drawn

from forgotten newspapers

The times of the Ochakovskys

and the conquest of Crimea...

for a passion for wealth and luxury obtained through “robbery”, protecting oneself from responsibility mutual guarantee and bribery:

They found protection from court in friends, in kinship,

Magnificent building chambers,

Where do they indulge in feasting and extravagance?

And where foreign clients will not be resurrected

The meanest features of the past life!

And who in Moscow didn’t have their mouths clamped?

Lunches, dinners and dances?

He calls the serf-landowners “noble scoundrels” for their inhumane attitude towards the serfs. One of them, “that Nestor of noble scoundrels,” exchanged his faithful servants, who “save his life and honor more than once,” for three greyhounds; another scoundrel “brought to the serf ballet on many wagons from the mothers and fathers of rejected children,” who were then all “sold off one by one.” In the “Famus” society, external form as an indicator of career success is more important than education, selfless service to the cause, sciences and arts:

Uniform! one uniform! he is in their former life

Once covered, embroidered and beautiful,

Their weakness, their poverty of reason...

All the benefits and privileges enjoyed by the “Famus” society are not achieved through knowledge and manifestation moral qualities in relation to other people, but by servility, servility before superiors and boorish arrogance before inferiors. This causes enormous moral damage to society, depriving people of self-esteem.

And the conflict between a person like Chatsky and the “Famus” society, which is afraid and does not want change, is inevitable. Famusov is one of the brightest representatives"of the past century" when serfdom experienced its heyday in Russia.

Griboyedov in his work calls this time the age of “... humility and fear,” the age of “... flattery and arrogance.” Chatsky completely rejected servility and servility. He was a free person who wanted to honestly, faithfully and faithfully serve the Fatherland. Chatsky says: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This is what it consists of life position. His opponents, Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub, on the contrary, believe that service should bring only personal benefit, that is, one must serve not a cause, but a specific person.

Chatsky wants to serve science and education, and Famusov’s society benefits from illiterate people. Chatsky’s words very accurately reflect the attitude of the “past century” to education:

Now let one of us

Among the young people there will be an enemy of quest,

Without demanding either places or promotion,

He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;

Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul

To the creative, high and beautiful arts,

They immediately: robbery! fire! And he will be known among them as a dangerous dreamer...

In the comedy, Famusov and Chatsky are opposed to each other: on the one hand, gray, limited, mediocre, Famusov and the people of his circle, and on the other, the talented, educated, intellectual Chatsky. The air that Famusov’s Moscow breathes is the air of lies, deception, “submission and fear.” Famusov’s society is mired in ignorance, laziness, commitment to everything foreign, does not want and cannot develop, because otherwise the ideals of the “past life” will be destroyed, and therefore it is afraid of everything new, progressive, embodied in the personality of Chatsky, who carries fresh ideas.

Chatsky’s daring mind immediately alarms Moscow society, accustomed to calm. “Fathers” and “judges” are not used to objections and criticism; they do not want any changes. Therefore, the dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle, and it begins from the very first minutes of the meeting between Famusov and Chatsky. Chatsky sharply condemns the system of educating noble youth adopted in Moscow:

That now, just as in ancient times,

The regiments are busy recruiting teachers,

More in number, cheaper in price?

It’s not that they are far from science,

In Russia under a great fine,

We are told to recognize everyone

Historian and geographer.

And Famusov expresses the thought:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than then,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

Such thoughts are expressed by one of the most respected people in society, who in the age of enlightenment does not understand its significance and importance for society and Russia as a whole.

Brought up the same way, but educated differently, Famusov and Chatsky also have different attitudes towards service. Chatsky sees service to the cause as his main goal. He does not accept “serving elders” or pleasing his superiors:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.

For Famusov, service is an easy matter:

And what matters to me, what doesn’t matter,

My custom is this:

Signed, off your shoulders.

The comedy also touches on the development of national culture. Famusov and his circle try to imitate foreign culture in everything, while forgetting about the culture of their own country. Undoubtedly, we need to draw the best from abroad, but also develop our own. Chatsky thinks something like this, and “Famus” society mindlessly imitates everything foreign. The views of representatives of the “past century” and the new generation in assessing a person differ. If the former judge a person only based on his origin and the presence of serf souls, then Chatsky believes that the main thing in a person is education, intelligence, morality and spirituality.

The entire comedy is permeated by contradictions in views between the “present century” and the “past century.” And the more Chatsky communicates with Famusov and his entourage, the greater the gulf that separates them. Chatsky speaks harshly about this society, which, in turn, calls him “Voltairian”, “Jacobin”, “Carbonari”.

A.S. Griboyedov raised in his comedy important issues era: the question of serfdom, the fight against serfdom reaction, the activities of secret political societies, about enlightenment, about Russian national culture, about the role of reason and progressive ideas in public life, about the duty and dignity of man.

Problems of the mind in “Woe from Wit” are addressed first of all, as the title itself tells us. When writing this comedy, Griboedov set out to show the position of a sane, intelligent person who is not indifferent to home country and the destinies of people young man. Other problems are also raised in the work.

"Woe from Wit" is a comedy with a self-explanatory title. For the enlighteners who were convinced of the omnipotence of knowledge, the mind was synonymous with happiness. But society does not always accept advanced ideas, and their bearers are often considered crazy. Griboedov's comedy is a work about society's reaction to new ideas. At first it was called "Woe to Wit", and only then the name was replaced by the one familiar to us. This masterpiece was painted by Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov in 1823.

Is the main character mad?

The problems of the mind in “Woe from Wit” are revealed in the opposition of the main character to the entire Moscow noble society. The hero in the comedy who challenged traditions and social norms is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. He is the only sane person who opposes the “twenty-five fools.” But in the work, the attitude of other people towards this character is not at all the same. Chatsky’s mind is not visible to those around him; rather, on the contrary, they call the young man a madman.

Famusov's opinion about Chatsky ("Woe from Wit")

The problems of the work are revealed through the prism of perception different heroes, including Famusov, whose opinion is quite typical. This high-ranking official believed that Chatsky should not be considered a businesslike and intelligent person, since his actions often run counter to generally accepted norms. He cannot manage the estate profitably and receive large incomes from it, robbing peasants for the purpose of personal gain. Chatsky did not take advantage of the opportunities and connections in the public service to build a career, achieve awards and high ranks, but instead took up science and received education abroad, which was considered unreasonable among the nobles belonging to the older generation.

Famusov's arguments are based on Chatsky's opinion on various social problems and allow the official to consider him a dangerous person and identify the peculiarity of his thinking with madness and freethinking. And really, would a person who is smart from the point of view of the nobles provoke sharp criticism from those with whom he communicates in Famusov’s house? On this occasion, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin said rudely, but aptly, that Chatsky did not need to “shower pearls” in front of these people - “pigs.” In vain are his speeches about the immorality of nobles and landowners, about breaking laws and other vices. modern society, after all, Famusov’s guests will certainly unanimously declare the protagonist of the work “Woe from Wit” crazy for such behavior. The problem of generations is also emerging here, since children will always be ahead of their fathers, bringing new ideas into the world. People like Chatsky are advanced youth, looking for ways development of society.

Sofia Famusova

Problems of the mind in “Woe from Wit” are also considered through the prism of Sophia’s perception. This is Famusov’s daughter, with whom our hero is in love. The girl also believes that Chatsky’s mind is useless, even harmful to others. She does not like Alexander Andreevich’s criticism of everything that is dear to her. In his behavior and speeches, the girl sees anger, bile, dissatisfaction with everything. She understands that it is not easy to be around this irritated man, to constantly listen to him, although she considers Chatsky’s mind to be brilliant and brilliant. But for family life Molchalin’s “mind” is more suitable, that is, the ability to adapt to circumstances and find benefit in everything. Chatsky is forced to agree with this. Such people, in his words, “are blissful in the world.”

Majority opinion

Where can a hero find refuge?

Was there such a place in our country where heroes like Chatsky could find refuge to heal their wounds? Probably, Alexander Andreevich should have gone to where secret societies of Decembrists were already beginning to be created, in which such people were valued and their strength and knowledge were used for the transformations brewing in Russia. The mind, as the leading nobles imagined it, should be free, free. For the Decembrists, freethinking was not a definition of a dangerous illness, vice, or a dirty word, but, on the contrary, was highly valued.

"Woe from Wit" and closeness to future Decembrists

The courage of the protagonist would have been noted by his contemporaries with progressive beliefs, since Chatsky was very close in spirit to the future Decembrists, who asked the same questions. The problems of the comedy "Woe from Wit" were one way or another common to all future revolutionaries. Chatsky also felt the need to fight ignorance, inertia, injustice, cruelty and other numerous vices of his contemporary society. Griboyedov noted this in his work (“Woe from Wit”).

The hero's problems are not in himself, but precisely in the surrounding reality, which did not understand and did not accept him. Communicating with representatives of the old Moscow nobility, Chatsky realized hostility to yourself, misunderstanding. The hero's position was further complicated by loneliness and tragedy in love. Therefore, Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov defined Chatsky’s condition as “woe from mind,” with which one cannot but agree.

1. The comedy “Woe from Wit” was written by A.S. Griboyedov at the beginning of the 19th century, and the era of changing centuries, as a rule, is accompanied by profound changes in social environment and the rapid growth of contradictions between representatives of the two centuries, characteristic of this time. Griboedov grasped the main social conflict that emerged after the Patriotic War of 1812. The comedy poses the most burning questions of that time: the situation of the Russian people, serfdom, the relationship between landowners and peasants, autocratic power, the insane wastefulness of the nobles, the state of enlightenment, the principles of upbringing and education, independence and freedom of the individual, national identity. 2. The ideological meaning of comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, serfdom, and the new, progressive; in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. The struggle of the “present century” with the “past century” is the struggle of Chatsky, a leading man of his time, and the backward Famus society. Representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of any civic thoughts and interests. They see the meaning of life primarily in getting rich; they are careerists and envious people. They are in power and occupy a high social position. They view service only as a source of income, as a means to receive undeserved honors. Famusov’s confession is very indicative: And what is my business, what is not my business, My custom is this: Signed, then off my shoulders. In the society of Moscow nobles, such phenomena as nepotism and nepotism are common. Famusov says: Well, how can you not please your own little man, and he doesn’t hide the fact that he has... strangers’ employees are very rare: More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children. These are people devoid of a sense of humanity, enemies of freedom, stranglers of enlightenment, their deepest desire is to “take away all the books and burn them.” One of them exchanges a crowd of his servants for three greyhound dogs, who “saved his honor and life more than once.” Another, for the sake of empty amusement, drives “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the serf ballet, and then sells them off one by one. 3. Satirically denouncing the local and bureaucratic nobility, the entire feudal-serf system, A. S. Griboyedov clearly saw the positive social forces of his era, the emergence and growth of new, progressive aspirations and ideas. Thus, Skalozub complains to Famusov that his cousin, having acquired “some new rules,” neglected the rank that followed him, left the service and “began reading books in the village.” Princess Tugoukhovskaya says that her relative, who studied at the pedagogical institute, “doesn’t want to know the ranks! " Famusov, referring to the widespread prevalence of freethinking, calls his time a “terrible century.” But the awakening of national and social self-awareness is most fully embodied in the image of Chatsky. This is undoubtedly an ardent patriot, a fearless warrior against serfdom and despotic autocracy, a courageous knight of truth, a merciless judge of all lies and falsehood, of everything that is hostile to the new, that stands in the way of reason. He stigmatizes ignorance, denounces the nobility and acts as an ardent propagandist of science, education, and art. Griboedov wrote: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person is, of course, in conflict with the society around him.” Deeply believing in the correctness of his ideas, Chatsky is convinced that his dreams will come true, that the future belongs to new people, his brothers in spirit. 4. In the comedy, the conflict ends with the general recognition of Chatsky as crazy, and the love drama ends with the exposure of the love affair led by Molchalin. At the end of the play, Chatsky feels abandoned by everyone, and his feeling of alienation from the society to which he once belonged intensifies. The denouement of the love drama affects the main conflict: Chatsky leaves all contradictions unresolved and leaves Moscow. In a clash with Famusov’s society, Chatsky is defeated, but, losing, he remains undefeated, since he understands the need to fight the “past century,” its norms, ideals, and position in life. 5. Depicting in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the socio-political struggle between the conservative and progressive camps, social characters, morals and way of life in Moscow, Griboyedov reproduces the situation of the entire country. “Woe from Wit” is a mirror of feudal-serf Russia with its social contradictions, the struggle of the passing world and the new one, called to win. The comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” is an expression of the ideas of the first stage of the Russian liberation movement.

The problem of mind and madness has been relevant at all times. Smart, progressive people of their time often remained misunderstood by their contemporaries and were declared crazy. This is how society reacted to ideas that ran counter to generally accepted ones, ideas that were preached by progressive people of their time. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov touches on this problem in his work. His comedy “Woe from Wit,” written before the December uprising, tells the story of advanced intelligence and the reaction of society to it. The original title of the comedy was “Woe to Wit,” then the author replaced it with “Woe from Wit.” The main character Chatsky has not yet appeared in Famusov’s house, but the idea of ​​​​madness associated with a negative attitude towards education and enlightenment is already in the air there. So, Famusov says: “And reading is of little use.” Later, all the characters in the comedy will speak out on this matter, each will put forward their own version of Chatsky’s madness, but the whole society will unanimously come to the same opinion: “Learning is the plague, learning is the reason.” The Famus society will get rid of Chatsky, declaring him crazy, not accepting diatribes, stigmatizing their way of life, and will choose gossip as their weapon. Famusov, as a typical representative of his society, has his own opinion regarding the mind and smart person. For him, an intelligent person is a practical, worldly wise person. Although he does not deny Chatsky’s intelligence, he nevertheless considers Skalozub to be a more suitable match for Sophia: “A respectable man and has picked up many marks of distinction, beyond his years and an enviable rank, not today’s general.” In a conversation with Skalozub, the Moscow gentleman talks about the danger that comes from such wise men as Chatsky. In addition, Chatsky incorrectly uses the acquired knowledge. Everything should be aimed at achieving ranks, at maintaining traditions, we should live “as our fathers did.” Famusov puts forward his ideal of an intelligent person. In his opinion, this is Maxim Petrovich, who achieved high ranks and a high position in society thanks to his practical mind, the ability to “bend over” when it was necessary to “curry favor.” Famusov himself has not reached such heights, which is why he curries favor with the princes Tugoukhovsky and Skalozub. Molchalin, Famusov's secretary, also embodies a practical mind. This was noticed by Chatsky: Molchalin! - Who else will settle everything so peacefully! There he will pet the pug in time! It's time to rub the card in! By nature, Molchalin is a petty person, striving by any means to achieve his cherished goal in life, the meaning of which boils down to “winning awards and having fun.” In his practice, he follows his father’s precepts - “to please all people without exception,” but at the same time he believes that “at his age he should not dare to have his own judgment,” since “he is in small ranks.” He loves Sophia “out of position,” and calms the angry Khlestova with a game of cards. According to Chatsky, Molchalin “will reach the famous levels, because nowadays they love the dumb.” Chatsky is the complete opposite of Molchalin, despite the fact that they are both young. The hero has ardor, passionate nature. He is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his ideals, filled with civic meaning. He wants to serve “the cause, not the individuals.” For Chatsky, intelligence and truth, truth and honor are the main values ​​in life. The hero opposes the upbringing adopted in Famus society, when they strive to “recruit regiments of teachers, more in number, at a cheaper price.” He is not alien to patriotic feelings, which is why he is irritated by “blind imitation” of everything foreign. Chatsky expresses his thoughts in accusatory speeches directed against the foundations of Famus society. His monologues, oratorical in style, testify to the education and enlightenment of the protagonist, which is why they contain so many aphorisms. Chatsky’s mind is the mind of an advanced person, this is precisely the reason that the inert society does not accept his views and ideas, since they contradict the way of life of the old Moscow nobility. Chatsky’s love for Sophia is not accidental, because she also has intelligence. But Sophia's mind is practical. Sophia, as a typical girl of her time and class, draws her mind from French sentimental novels, which is why she chooses Molchalin as her lover in order to subsequently make him “a boy-husband, a servant-husband.” She is guided by worldly wisdom, because she is the daughter of her father. In comedy there is another type of mind that we can see in the maid in Famusov's house, Lisa. As the second reasoner in the comedy, she expresses the author’s position, therefore it is from her lips that we hear the characteristics of various characters: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, like Alexander Andreich Chatsky,” “Like all Moscow, your father is like this: I would like his son-in-law has stars and ranks” and so on. Undoubtedly, Lisa has the natural intelligence and worldly wisdom of a commoner; she is resourceful, cunning, but at the same time devoted to her mistress. Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” various types of minds are presented, ranging from the worldly wise to the advanced, progressive mind. But Famus society does not accept the progressive mind, rejects it, declaring Chatsky a social madman and forcing him to leave Moscow.

What new will Moscow show me?

A. S. Griboyedov

But there is no change in them,

Everything about them is the same as the old model...

A. S. Pushkin

If A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” was the only source from which one could learn about the socio-political life of Russia in the early 20s of the 19th century, then we, the readers, having mentally spent only one day in the house of the Moscow serf-owner, a major official and hospitable owner Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, they could well have felt the tense atmosphere in which they lived Russian society after the Patriotic War of 1812.

There was unrest in Russia. Noble society was divided. Some wanted to forget about what they had experienced and continue to live in the old way, others - these were advanced youth - brought with them from the West the spirit of freedom and love of freedom and would never agree to submit to outdated orders. So in Famus’s house, “the meanest traits of the past life” collided with the “present century”, they collided in irreconcilable confrontation. And how could it be otherwise if a young man burst into the musty atmosphere of an old mansion like a hurricane, categorically refusing to obey the old principles, to live like everyone else, to think like everyone else.

This is how two opposing camps are defined: on the one hand, the entire Famus society, on the other, Chatsky. And the confrontation is not age-based, but ideological. Molchalin, Skalozub, and even more so Sophia are closer in age to Chatsky than to Famusov, but they completely share the latter’s views.

In Famusov’s house, people gathered who strive to defend their positions at all costs, to prove that the old order is fair, and those who encroach on them are enemies, “Carbonari.” The argument goes on throughout the day, any remark incites the argument. What causes antagonism? What problems does noble Moscow solve? The range of these problems is very wide. This is serfdom and the relationship between masters and their serfs, education and family education, understanding of civic duty, honor and human dignity, attitude towards public service, admiration for foreign fashions and attitude towards national culture.

To issues relating to politics, morality, culture, that is, to everything that the country lives on, Famus society and Chatsky not only approach differently - their positions are sharply opposed, and this confirms the ideological stratification of the nobility: after all, Chatsky (from his child - child) was raised in Famusov’s house, he is also a Moscow nobleman, but his conflict with old Moscow cannot end in peace: he rejects all the old orders and declares war on them. That's all! He will not allow concessions. Famusov’s society will not yield to him in any way: Chatsky’s beliefs threaten to undermine the very foundations of the existence of this society.

And it doesn’t matter that the “past century” is represented by many people, and only Chatsky speaks on behalf of the “present century”. We learn that he has supporters, his views are shared by all progressive youth. It is on her behalf that he proclaims the progressive ideas of the time, ideas in the name of the triumph of which the Decembrists will soon come to Senate Square. Material from the site

Griboyedov, a Decembrist by conviction, in his comedy brought two centuries face to face, and the positions of the parties are revealed in lively, emotional, seemingly even random collisions. But is it really possible to convince the Famusovs, the Skalozubs, the Khlestovs, that serfdom is immoral, that the serfs Zephyrs and Cupids, the black “arapka-girl” are the same people as their masters?! Is it possible to explain to Molchalin what human dignity is? Will he be able to understand that “to please all people without exception” is humiliating for a free human personality? And who, besides Chatsky, cares that “French” education and “mixing of languages” are destroying Russian culture; Who will be able to convince that a “Frenchman from Bordeaux” should not feel in Russia as if he were in his own province, and that “our smart, kind people” deserve a better fate?! Which Famusov would believe that civil service- this is an opportunity to “serve the cause, not individuals,” that it is a shame to work according to the principle: “Sign it, get it off your shoulders”?!

Chatsky's fiery speeches evoke anger, hatred towards him, and impotent rage. Why powerless? It would seem that there are many guardians of the old order and in disputes with Chatsky they should feel confident: he is alone, according to at least alone in Famusov’s house, and will be forced to retreat.

This is true, but in the pre-storm atmosphere it is very uncomfortable for supporters of the outdated old order. Hence the weapons of the doomed - gossip, slander, lies. And Chatsky is offended, but not broken. He fights bravely, openly, and never gives up. Forced to retreat, he will leave the stage unbroken.

Yes, Chatsky’s fate is dramatic: “he is an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim” (I. A. Goncharov), but a victim destined for victory in the future. Life has confirmed this conclusion. All the problems posed in “Woe from Wit” were resolved by History in favor of Chatsky and his supporters.

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• Themes and problems of the comedy Woe from Wit
• woe from mind problems of the work
• Problems of the comedy "Woe from Wit"
• serfdom in woe
• problematic grief from mind