In the play "Woe from Wit" there are several conflicts, whereas a necessary condition for a classic play was the presence of only one conflict.

“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: a love one between Chatsky and Sophia and a social one between Chatsky and Famus’s society.

The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to see his beloved girl. Gradually, the love conflict develops into a social conflict. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky encounters Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality of the early 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and what they live with. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.

The social conflict in the play by A. S. Griboyedov is connected with another conflict - between the “present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is a type of new person, he is an exponent of the new ideology of the new time, the “present century.” And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century.” The old does not want to give up its position and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between old and new is one of the main ones in Russian life at that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in the literature of the 19th century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “The Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the conflicts of comedy.

Among the heroes of Griboyedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people; each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in "Woe from Wit" knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give reason to be condemned by powerful socialites, such as Ya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That is why Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. Molchalin’s goal in life is to quietly, even if slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power “and take awards, and live happily.” He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.

Sophia, as one of the representatives of Famus society, having read sentimental novels, dreams of a timid, quiet, gentle beloved, whom she will marry and make of him a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant”. It is Molchalin, and not Chatsky, who fits her standards of a future husband.

So, Griboyedov in his comedy not only shows how immoral and conservative typical representatives of Moscow society are. It is also important for him to emphasize that they all have different understandings of life, its meaning and ideals.

If we turn to the final act of the comedy, we will see that each of the heroes turns out to be unhappy in the end. Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia - everyone is left with their own grief. And they are unhappy because of their wrong ideas about life, their wrong understanding of life. Famusov always tried to live according to the laws of the world, tried not to cause condemnation or disapproval of the world. And what did he get in the end? He was disgraced by his own daughter! “Oh! My God! What will Princess Aleksevna say,” he exclaims, considering himself the most unfortunate of all people.

Molchalin is no less unhappy. All his efforts were in vain: Sophia will no longer help him, and maybe, even worse, she will complain to daddy.

And Sophia has her own grief; she was betrayed by her loved one. She became disillusioned with her ideal of a worthy husband.

But the most unfortunate of all turns out to be Chatsky, an ardent, freedom-loving educator, a leading man of his time, an exposer of the rigidity and conservatism of Russian life. The smartest in comedy, he cannot with all his intelligence make Sophia fall in love with him. Chatsky, who believed only in his own mind, in the fact that a smart girl cannot prefer a fool to a smart one, is so disappointed in the end. After all, everything he believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever.
In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy.

Thus, Griboedov proves that the reason for Chatsky’s tragedy and the misfortunes of the other heroes of the comedy is the discrepancy between their ideas about life and life itself. “The mind is not in harmony with the heart” - this is the main conflict of “Woe from Wit”. But then the question arises, which ideas about life are true and whether it is even possible. The image of Chatsky, in my opinion, gives a negative answer to these questions. Chatsky is deeply sympathetic to Griboyedov. It compares favorably with Famus society. His image reflected the typical features of an abrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, and freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboyedov foresaw the tragedy of the Abrists, who believed in their idealistic theory, divorced from life.

Thus, in “Woe from Wit” there are several conflicts: love, social, the conflict of the “present century” and the “past century”, but the main one, in my opinion, is the conflict of idealistic ideas about life and real life. Griboedov was the first writer to raise this problem, which many writers of the 19th century would later address. centuries: I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy.

In the play “Woe from Wit” there are several conflicts, whereas a necessary condition for a classic play was the presence of only one conflict.

“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and social (between Chatsky and Famus’s society).

The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to see his beloved girl. Gradually, the love conflict develops into a social conflict. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky encounters Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality of the early 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and what they live with. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.

The social conflict in A. S. Griboedov’s play is connected with another conflict - between the “present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is a type of new person, he is an exponent of the new ideology of the new time, the “present century.” And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century.” The old does not want to give up its position and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between old and new is one of the main ones in Russian life at that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in the literature of the 19th century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “The Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the conflicts of comedy.

Among the heroes of Griboyedov’s play, perhaps, there are no stupid people; each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in “Woe from Wit” knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give reason to be condemned by powerful socialites, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That is why Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. Molchalin’s goal in life is to quietly, even if slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“and win awards and have fun”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.

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. The purpose of a literary work of classicism was to proclaim an ideal, which consisted of fulfilling civic duty, subordinating the interests of the individual to public interests and understanding the reasonable laws of life. To implement these ideas, the main character was chosen as the bearer of a positive ideal, his antipode was a negative hero and an ideal heroine, who gave her love to the positive hero and thereby confirmed his rightness. This was the composition of the love triangle in the 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 other 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:

You are 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 true reason for the change 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 beginning of a social conflict, the beginning 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 the advanced ideas of the 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 do 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, service shows a person’s civic position: 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

Their enmity towards a free life 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 of a moral than a social nature. 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 customs and outfits, speaking in a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod”. Chatsky mourns the loss of national traditions, national clothing, and appearance by the Russian nobles. With bitterness he throws out the phrase: “Ah! If we are born to adopt everything,” noting that such behavior is characteristic of the Russian person, but its 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 “The Cherry Orchard” (1903), this problem was repeatedly raised in the literature of the 20th century. Thus, Griboedov 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 the Prussian king was amazed at the Moscow girls, since they are not inferior to French and German women (act 2, phenomenon 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 Griboedov 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.

The point is not that balls or other social entertainment are bad in themselves - they are 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 forms of human life that replace each other; 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 issues. 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 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. The Famusites see that the threat comes from Chatsky’s mind, his enlightenment and education, and therefore they resort to the only effective way to deal with him - they neutralize his mind so that everything he says does not matter, because he is speaking as 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, scene 14):

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

Nevertheless, the ending of the comedy remains open: what follows is unknown - neither where Chatsky will go, nor what he will do, nor how his arrival influenced Famus society. However, Goncharov correctly noted that “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.” 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

“Woe from Wit” lies in the fact that in the work there is an interaction between social and love plans. The conflict seems to acquire duality. I. A. Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments” wrote: “Two comedies seem to be embedded in one another: one, so to speak, private, home, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Liza - this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first one is interrupted, another unexpectedly appears in the interval, and the action begins again, the particular one plays out into a general battle and is tied into one knot.” In “Woe from Wit” A. S. Griboyedov rethinks the traditions associated with the eras of classicism and romanticism, which is expressed both at the level of creating images, characters, language, special issues, and at the level of the conflict itself.

Traditional for the comedy of classicism is the plot scheme, where two young men are competing for the hand of a noble maiden, whose images are contrasted, and one of them is confident in his superiority, talkative and mocking, and the second is modest and respectful; he is loved by a bride who has the same qualities, and at the end of the play he wins her hand. Having retained this scheme, Griboyedov changed the interpretation of the characters, leaving their characteristics. In his comedy, Chatsky and Molchalin are respectively contrasted, who enjoys success, and his main qualities remain “moderation and accuracy.” In the era of romanticism, there was a traditional conflict, which was certainly present in any romantic poem or drama. It consisted in the opposition of high and low; exceptional and light, society, the world as a whole.

This conflict was insoluble. Chatsky, with his behavior and tragedy, is similar to a romantic hero struggling with “cruel morals.” But A. S. Griboyedov’s conflict becomes historically specific. Thus, one can understand that the era depicted in “Woe from Wit” is the era of secret alliances, on the one hand, and Arakcheevism, on the other.

Chatsky has much in common with the Decembrists (love for the Russian people, the desire to “serve the cause, not individuals,” hatred of serfdom, true and enlightened spirit, “he is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, developed not by him, but already the century itself”), but behind him there is no power, the entire Decembrist society. He is alone against everyone. This unusual conflict in “Woe from Wit” is embedded in the plot of the comedy. The first act is an exposition of conflict development. The first 5 phenomena of this action paint a fairly detailed picture of the lives of Famusov and Sophia before Chatsky’s arrival, thereby preparing the background against which the future conflict will then develop with increasing force.

We learn about Sophia's love for Molchalin, which is hidden from Famusov, and about Molchalin's feigned attitude towards Sophia (Lisa about her aunt and the young Frenchman). 7-9th phenomena - the beginning of a love affair related WITH The arrival of Chatsky, who is in love with Sophia. Personal conflict simultaneously serves as a manifestation of social conflict, which is discernible in Chatsky’s satirical remarks about Moscow morals (already in the 7th episode, Sophia remarks: “Persecution of Moscow. What does it mean to see the light!”). The outbreak of a social conflict and the complication of a personal line refers to the 2nd phenomenon

Features of the conflict in A. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

In the twenties of the nineteenth century, Russia was engulfed in an acute political struggle between reactionary serf-owners and the progressive nobility, from among which the Decembrists would later emerge. These two camps opposing each other: “the present century” and “the past century”, the conflict between them is depicted by A. S. Griboyedov in his comedy “”.

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is the main character of the work, a representative of the progressive nobility, a supporter of everything new that could allow the country to move forward, his behavior and way of thinking sharply differs from the people around him. He spent his childhood in Moscow, was a frequent guest in the Famusovs’ house, and fell in love with their daughter Sophia. He first received his education from tutors, like many young people of his class, then went abroad. He is little interested in his property, manages it “by mistake”, so his fortune is small. Chatsky was involved in public service for some time, even got acquainted with ministers and managed to visit the army.

Chatsky's first appearance in the play is upon his return to Moscow after several years of absence. “At first light” he comes to the Famusovs’ house, to Sophia, to confess to her the fiery love that he has carried in his heart since his youth. This act tells us about Chatsky’s ardent and passionate nature. Neither parting with his beloved nor traveling could cool his feelings. His speech is distinguished by precision of expression, emotionality, and wit. This is how Sophia speaks of him: “Oster, smart, eloquent.” And Famusov himself recommends him as an intelligent person: “...he’s a smart guy, And he writes and translates nicely.”

Chatsky is a representative of that period in Russian history when the views of the future Decembrists began to take shape. In his epigrams he denounces the defenders of autocracy and serfdom. Careerism and sycophancy are unacceptable to him; he is a supporter of true enlightenment. He considers serfdom to be the source of all the ills of contemporary Russia. Chatsky speaks with great indignation about the feudal landowners: one traded his faithful servants for greyhounds, the other, a theatrical landowner,—

He drove to the serf ballet on many wagons

From mothers and fathers of rejected children?!

Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!

But the debtors did not agree to a deferment:

Cupids and Zephyrs all,

Sold out individually!!!

The theater went bankrupt, and amateur theatergoers sold out the little actors one by one. The landowners do not consider their serfs to be people; they are cruel and merciless to them.

The Moscow nobility is presented in the comedy as a crowd of soulless, idle and vulgar people:

In the love of traitors, in the tireless enmity,

Indomitable storytellers,

Clumsy smart people, crafty simpletons,

Sinister old women, old men,

Decrepit over inventions, nonsense...

For Famusov and his society, serfdom is a normal phenomenon; it corresponds to the interests of the nobility, contributes to their enrichment and profit. Famusov is even looking for a groom for his daughter according to the principle:

Be bad, but if you get enough

Two thousand ancestral souls,

He's the groom.

Representatives of the Moscow nobility treat service purely formally, as a source of enrichment. Colonel Skalozub, a rude man, does not hide at all that the purpose of his service is to obtain ranks: “I just wish I could become a general...”.

Famusov also serves not the cause, but the individuals, placing his people in profitable positions:

When I have employees, strangers are very rare;

More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children...

How will you begin to present yourself to the cross, to

town,

Well, how can you not please your loved one!

Adulation before your superiors - this is the right path to achieving all kinds of benefits. Having your own opinion is completely unnecessary and even harmful. A striking example of this is the person of Molchalin, he humbly declares:

At my age I shouldn't dare

Have your own judgment.

The main thing is to keep up and please everywhere:

There he will stroke Moska in time;

Here the card will fit just right.

And this behavior gives him real hope for building a successful career: “... he will reach the famous levels, Because nowadays they love the dumb.”

And, indeed, such people can rise to great career heights and even rule the state. Chatsky is sincerely outraged by this state of affairs, he exclaims indignantly:

Where, show us, are the fathers of the fatherland,

Which ones should we take as models?

Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?

Also, Chatsky and the Famus society have opposite points of view on the issue of education. Famusov sees in his daughter’s education only an opportunity for a successful marriage:

To teach our daughters everything, everything -

And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!

Chatsky is a supporter of the spread of true learning among the people. He advocates strengthening Russian culture in the state and eradicating blind imitation of everything foreign:

Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion?

So that our smart, cheerful people

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

In Russia, according to Chatsky, among the nobility:

A confusion of languages ​​still prevails:

French with Nizhny Novgorod.

This fact of ignorance causes a wave of indignation in Chatsky. But his noble protest as an enlightened man does not find support among lordly Moscow. Famusov sees education as a danger to the state, which must be fought as a disease:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than then,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

And it would be good to take the last step in the fight against learning: “Take all the books and burn them”.

Famus society spends all its time in empty and idle entertainment. Service for its representatives is only a means to personal enrichment; enlightenment is an enemy that poses a danger to their well-being.

For Chatsky, this society is alien, his views on life, education, and service are diametrically opposed. What keeps the hero in a society so alien to him in spirit? He stays here only because of his love for Sophia. But, as it turns out, the girl has already lost interest in Chatsky and even expresses her opinion about his madness.

Tragedy of Chatsky- this is the tragedy of an intelligent, educated person striving to move forward not only for himself, but also for the country, for the Russian people. He is an exponent of new ideas, views that are irreconcilable with the life principles of people of the “past century.” I. Goncharov most accurately described his role in society: “ Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another... The Chatskys live and are not transferred in society... where the struggle between the fresh and the outdated, the sick with the healthy continues... That’s why he hasn’t grown old yet and is unlikely to grow old ever... someday Griboyedov's Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy».