The cluster of Chatsky’s image is his worldview and principles. How does Chatsky characterize his story about a guest from Bordeaux? What role do the hero’s monologues play in revealing the image of Chatsky? (Ostrovsky) (Unified State Examination in Literature). Main character. Love conflict

Chatsky is the first image of a positive hero of his time in Russian literature, embodying the typical features of a generation of advanced noble youth. Images of freedom-loving heroes, fighters for the common good and personal independence were created earlier by the Decembrists, Pushkin in “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” but they were abstract, romantic symbols devoid of living flesh. The image of Chatsky, sad, lonely in his irony, dreamy, was created at the end of the reign of Alexander the First, on the eve of the uprising. This is a man who ends the era of Peter the Great “and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land.”

How did the author manage to combine the traits of an entire generation in one hero and create a unique personality? Chatsky is a mouthpiece for progressive ideas, and at the same time, his personality is conveyed psychologically accurately, in all its complexity. Even Griboedov's contemporaries were looking for a prototype of the main character of the comedy among real people. The most popular version was that the author embodied in the image of Chatsky the features of his friend Chaadaev, an outstanding Russian philosopher, a man of brilliant mind and strong character. Even the appearance of the hero resembles Chaadaev, and even Pushkin was interested in whether Griboedov actually copied the image from their mutual friend.

Of course, Chaadaev’s spiritual appearance was partially reflected in the image of the main character. But still, it cannot be said that it was he who was brought out in the comedy. This strong, extraordinary personality influenced the worldview of many contemporaries, including Pushkin. His biography is similar to Chatsky's drama. Chaadaev abandoned his brilliant government career and created an original philosophical and political work, in which he very deeply, historically and psychologically defined Russia’s place in the world process. His original judgments and emphasized opposition infuriated the tsar, and Nicholas the First himself declared Chaadaev crazy. The persecution of the thinker was widespread, and rumors were spread as easily and willingly as about Chatsky: the crowd does not like individuals who were ahead of their time and did not need its approval.

However, Chatsky also captures the features of another outstanding contemporary - poet, critic, literary critic, Decembrist Wilhelm Kuchelbecker. An infinitely honest, selfless servant of art, a passionate and ardent defender of freedom and democratic values, Kuchelbecker always defended his views, regardless of the unfavorability and rejection of the audience. His romantic love of freedom, enthusiasm, kind and trusting attitude towards people, maximalism in defending his views undoubtedly helped the author in creating the image of Chatsky.

An autobiographical element is also present in the appearance of the main character. Griboedov reflected his ideas and character traits in the comedy: absolute independence from public opinion and complete freedom of expression. Perhaps the author drew the conflict of the comedy from his life experience. One of the playwright’s acquaintances, university professor Foma Yakovlevich Evans, recalled that one day a rumor spread throughout Moscow that Griboyedov had gone crazy. He himself excitedly told the professor that “two days before he had been at an evening where he was greatly outraged by the wild antics of the society of that time, the servile imitation of everything foreign and, finally, the obsequious attention that surrounded some Frenchman, an empty talker.” The enraged writer launched into an angry tirade decrying the lack of national pride and undeserved respect for foreigners. The secular crowd immediately declared Griboyedov crazy, and he vowed to reflect this event in his comedy. “The Frenchman from Bordeaux” and the stupid worship of him by Famus society aroused Chatsky’s indignation: “Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion? So that our smart, cheerful people, even by language, do not consider us to be Germans.” The friendly recognition of Chatsky as insane, the most incredible reasons for his mental illness that easily arise - all this is very reminiscent of an incident from the life of Griboyedov.

And yet, despite the similarity of the hero with real persons, the image of Chatsky is artistic, collective. Chatsky's drama is typical of that period of Russian life, which began with the national-patriotic upsurge of 1812-1815 and ended with the complete collapse of democratic illusions and the strengthening of reaction in the early 1820s. The Decembrists perceived the image of Chatsky as a creative reflection of their own ideas and feelings, an indomitable desire for the renewal of society, searches, and hopes.

Chatsky's worldview was formed during the period of recovery. Brought up in Famusov's manor house, the boy grew up inquisitive, sociable, and impressionable. The monotony of established life, the spiritual limitations of the Moscow nobility, the spirit

“the past century” evoked boredom and disgust in him. National-patriotic inspiration after the great victory and freedom-loving sentiments intensified the sharp rejection of conservatism. High ideas and a desire for transformation captured the ardent hero, and “he seemed bored with us, he rarely visited our house,” Sophia recalled. Despite his sincere feelings for Sophia, young Chatsky leaves her and goes to travel to learn about life and enrich his mind. It would not be difficult for Chatsky to make a career and arrange his personal life. Sophia, obviously, was in love with him, but could not appreciate him; it did not fit into her value system how one could risk personal happiness for the sake of abstract general welfare. The limited worldview does not allow her to objectively perceive the image of Chatsky, which goes beyond the scope of romantic book heroes:

Sharp, smart, eloquent,

I'm especially happy with friends,

He thought highly of himself...

The desire to wander attacked him.

Oh! If someone loves someone,

Why bother searching and traveling so far?

Chatsky did not at all reject Sophia’s love, and the point is not that he preferred travel to her. It’s just that his spiritual needs are broader than personal well-being. Chatsky could not be happy without realizing himself as a citizen; he could not limit himself to a happy marriage. But he is a living person, ardent, trusting, passionate. Chatsky’s love for Sophia did not fade away in separation, its flame flared up even stronger. He returns to Moscow full of hopes and dreams and expects reciprocity. But time has changed the girl's feelings. Smart, sensitive, sophisticated, having read sentimental novels, she is as sincerely looking for true love as Chatsky. Sophia also objectively assesses Skalozub’s emptiness and limitations (“How sweet! And it’s fun for me to listen to fear about the front and the ranks. He hasn’t uttered a smart word for a long time.”). Molchalin, in her eyes, is the hero of her favorite sentimental novels. He seems timid, dreamy, modest and gentle, and for Sophia to love him means to express a passive protest to the world of vanity and sober calculation. Having found in her chosen one the traits characteristic of her ideal, having fallen in love with him, Sophia can no longer evaluate Molchalin objectively. And his exact description in the mouth of Chatsky sounds to her like evil satire.

And Chatsky is tormented by doubts, suffers from uncertainty, trying to find out Sophia’s true feelings: “The fate of love is to play blind man’s buff for her, but for me...”. The hero’s sharp mind and his brilliant critical characteristics of those around him are perceived by Sophia as “a hail of barbs and jokes,” “contempt for people.” Her assessment of Molchalin (“Of course, he doesn’t have this mind, which is a genius for others, but for others a plague, which is quick, brilliant and will soon become disgusting...”) initially reassures Chatsky: “She doesn’t put him in a penny... She’s being naughty , she doesn’t love him.” The hero is convinced that such a girl cannot fall in love with such a gray, faceless creature. The stronger his shock, the cause of which is not even the wounded pride of the rejected lover, but the offended pride of an exalted, noble personality. Sophia destroyed their reverent friendships, their sublime idea of ​​her, forgetting “both women’s fear and shame.” Chatsky is humiliated and trampled by Sophia’s choice: “Silent people are blissful in the world.” He cannot forgive that he, an extraordinary man, was put on the same level as Molchalin, a man with slavish morals and a low soul, and it was Sophia who did this:

Before whom I just now was so passionate and so low

He was a waster of tender words!

And you! Oh my God! Who did you choose?

When I think about who you preferred!

The hero's personal drama was aggravated by the social one: educational ideas, romantic inspiration and freedom-loving hopes faced the decisive resistance of lordly Moscow. Chatsky is a maximalist both in his personal life and in public. He mercilessly tears off the masks from the representatives of the “past century,” mired in greed, vulgar social entertainment, intrigue, and gossip:

As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;

How not in war, but in peace they took it head on;

They hit the floor without regret!

Who needs it: those are arrogant, they lie in the dust,

And for those who are higher, flattery was woven like lace.

Chatsky is convinced that the “age of obedience and fear” is over, that advanced, educated noble youth are not going to get ranks by deception, but will “serve the cause, not individuals.” He stigmatizes the secular crowd, mired “in feasts and extravagance.”

The complete lack of rights of the peasants and legalized slavery are all the more humiliating because “our smart, vigorous people” defended the independence of their fatherland and had the right to count on improving their situation. Chatsky, who “managed the estate carelessly,” that is, freed the peasants from corvée, sharply criticizes the feudal system he hated, sincerely hoping that the power of reason is capable of changing the psychology of people. He sees the power of ideological influence as the engine of progress. Chatsky is a humanist; he believes that people tend to strive for the best. The hero is convinced that there are many such enthusiasts who have set the goal of life as the democratic transformation of society, that this is all modern youth, that soon the outdated system of autocracy and serfdom will collapse. But the old world clings tightly to its privileges. By declaring Chatsky crazy, society protects the sphere of its vital interests. The hero suffers a defeat, but not a moral, qualitative one, but a quantitative, formal defeat: the traditions of Famus society turned out to be stronger than a brilliant but lonely mind.

And yet, the image of Chatsky, despite the drama, is perceived optimistically, “The Chatskys live and are not transferred in a society where the struggle between the fresh and the obsolete, the sick and the healthy continues.” He is a symbol of eternal renewal of life, a harbinger of change.

Chatsky, as a representative of a new generation of nobles, rejects the admiration for everything European inherent in Famus society and the “past century”; he is a patriot and has respect for national traditions. These qualities of his are manifested in the above passage.

Alexander Andreevich is indignant that Russia cannot be distinguished from France - “not the sound of a Russian, not a Russian face,” and that the Russians themselves bow to France. Chatsky calls this imitation of French “empty, slavish, blind,” because it leads to the oblivion of everything Russian, native - “mores, language, holy antiquity.” According to Chatsky, cultivated Western customs do not carry anything exceptionally good; on the contrary, he says that European clothing is “according to a clownish model” and ridicules Western fashion, putting Russian traditions at an advantage over European ones.

All of the above shows that Chatsky is a patriot of Russia and a supporter of the fact that Russia should follow its own path and refuse blind copying.

_______________________

Chatsky’s character belongs to the literary type of “superfluous person.” Since Chatsky cannot find someone who shares his views, the hero’s worldview can only be expressed in monologues.

Chatsky is the engine of both social-moral and love conflict in comedy, and his monologues reveal the essence of both conflicts.

The image of Alexander Andreevich as a nobleman of a new type, condemning veneration and servitude, is born, first of all, in a monologue about “the present century and the past century.” Chatsky calls Famusov’s age “the age of humility and fear,” in which only those “whose necks bent more often” were glorified. He condemns hypocrisy and pretense, which were valued in the “bygone century,” and says that now everything is different.

Actually, this monologue outlines the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society, and also allows the reader or viewer to understand the essence of this conflict.

Further development of the antithesis of Chatsky as a representative of the new generation of nobility and Famusov’s society as representatives of a bygone era occurs in Chatsky’s monologue, delivered under Famusov and Skalozub. "Who are the judges?" - asks Chatsky, pointing out that in the “past century” there are no people who would be worthy examples to follow. Here the reader or viewer understands even more what bold and progressive views Chatsky adheres to, who, among other things, indirectly condemned serfdom, remembering the landowner who bought small children separately from their parents for a peasant theater and thus separated serf families forever.

Many of Chatsky's monologues are addressed to Sofya Famusova. Such, for example, is the monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” where Chatsky appears as a patriot and an opponent of the fashion for everything foreign. Griboyedov's hero makes this speech in response to Sophia's question about what angers him so much, rejoicing at the opportunity to express to his beloved girl everything that worries him.

Despite the fact that this monologue is addressed to Sophia, it rather refers to a conflict of beliefs than a love conflict, however, Chatsky’s love drama is also revealed through the monologues of this character. For example, asking Sophia about Molchalin, Chatsky talks about the ardor of his feelings, that every moment his heart strives for Sophia.

From Chatsky's monologues we learn that Alexander Andreevich returned to Moscow for the sake of Sophia, that he was madly eager to meet her, and then about his disappointment and bitterness. Thanks to this, the reader or viewer gets the opportunity to understand Chatsky’s feelings and put himself in his place.

Thus, Chatsky’s monologues reveal his image and participation in two conflicts of the play, reflect his attitude towards Famus society and Sophia.

Updated: 2018-03-02

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

There are different statements about the genre of A.S. Griboyedov’s play “Woe from Wit”. It is called both comedy and drama.
First, let us present the arguments in favor of comedy. Indeed, in the play the main technique used by the author is comic incongruity. So, for example, Famusov, a manager in a government place, speaks about his attitude towards business: "My custom like this: / Signed, off your shoulders.” We encounter comic inconsistencies in the speech and behavior of the characters. Famusov preaches his modesty in front of Sophia: "Monastic known for behavior", and at the same time we see him flirting with Lisa: "Oh! potion, pampered girl..." The first remark of the play already bears traces of comic incongruity: to the sounds of the flute and piano, which are heard from Sophia’s bedroom, “Lisanka is sleeping in the middle of the room, hanging from the chair.” To create comic situations, the “conversation of the deaf” technique is used: Chatsky’s monologue in Act III, the conversation between the countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky. The language of the play is the language of comedy (colloquial, apt, light, witty, rich in aphorisms). In addition, the play retains traditional comic roles: Chatsky is an unlucky lover, Molchalin is a successful lover and cunning man, Famusov is a father whom everyone deceives, Liza is a shrewd, clever servant. All this allows us to rightfully classify the play “Woe from Wit” as a comedy.
But the basis of comedy is the dramatic conflict between the hero and society, and it is not resolved in a comedic way. The drama of the main character Chatsky lies in the fact that he suffers grief from his mind, which is deep in its critical attitude towards the world of famusovs and rock-toothed people. Chatsky condemns the inhumanity of serfdom, he is disgusted by the lack of freedom of thought in noble society, he is full of sincere patriotism: “Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion? / So that our smart, cheerful people / Although by language they do not consider us Germans" In a society “where he is famous, whose neck often bends,” Chatsky’s independence makes him a “dangerous person.”
The second argument in favor of the drama is Chatsky’s personal tragedy, the collapse of his hopes in his relationship with Sophia. Chatsky cannot understand how Sophia can love the insignificant Molchalin: “Here I am sacrificed to!” But the final blow for Chatsky is the news that Sophia “herself called him crazy.” A nonentity does not tolerate tall people in their midst, who confuse and tease low people. And it declares nobility to be madness. Chatsky is a tragic hero who finds himself in a comic situation.
The combination of comedy and drama in Griboedov's play is organic. Both sides of life - dramatic and comedic - are considered in the play in close connection with each other.

In his comedy “”, Griboyedov showed us how one innovator tried to change the representatives of the “past century”, but was crushed and was forced to flee outside of Moscow. This innovator is the main character of the comedy, Alexander Chatsky.

Chatsky was a very smart and progressive person, he lived in step with the times. The entire comedy of Griboyedov is built on the conflict of the protagonist with representatives of Moscow high society: Famusov, Skalozub. Chatsky does not understand and does not accept the philosophy of these people. He does not share the thoughts and impulses of his opponents. In the dispute, his famous monologues are born, in which he acts like a preacher of his ideas. Chatsky was not the kind of person who speaks only about what is needed; he did not know how to remain silent. He doesn't even seem to care whether anyone is listening to him or not. The main thing for him is to convey his idea, his vision.

In his first monologue, “And the world certainly began to grow stupid...” Chatsky draws parallels between the past and the present century. From there we learn that the main character does not accept the developed bureaucracy and servanthood. That is why he did not enter public service.

In the next monologue, “Who are the judges,” Chatsky condemns his passion for military affairs. After all, it kills in a person any desire for creativity, for knowledge of the world. Military drill kills a person’s personality and the ability to make independent decisions.

Chatsky firmly believes that his ideas will be joyfully accepted by Famus society. He believes in changing the consciousness of other comedy heroes, in the opportunity to look at the world with different eyes.

Unfortunately, Chatsky’s dreams were not destined to come true. Faced with the philosophy of his peers Molchalin and Skalozub, the main character understands that nothing can be changed. These people live by the rules of the last century. No one listens to his ideas and no one shares them. Chatsky’s entire philosophy failed, he was deceived in his dreams and aspirations.

At the end of the work, we no longer see that young man blinded by his ideas. Chatsky, having gotten rid of illusions, still retained his convictions. He remained a connoisseur of human freedom and the right to choose. He advocates the abolition of serfdom and the elevation of the individual as an independent unit of society.

In his last monologue, “I won’t come to my senses,” we see that Chatsky did not give up his convictions, having left Moscow, he began to look for a place where his ideas would be accepted: “... I’ll go look around the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling!”

In the image of Chatsky we see a strong and purposeful person who has not caved in to the “rotten” world. He firmly believed in the realization of his ideas and the advent of a better future.