Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is a negative character in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” Positive and negative heroes of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

The events depicted in the play take place in post-war years(after the War of 1812), when two opposing camps begin to unfold. These are advanced nobles and conservatives. In the play, Chatsky represents the progressive nobles, and all the conservatives

Conflict

The private conflict reflected an epoch-making conflict. But the public would not have become so significant if it had not been associated with specific individuals, albeit fictitious ones. An intelligent, honest, open young man fights against the vicious age of the past.

There are two storylines: love and social. The comedy begins with a love affair. Chatsky, who had been absent for three years, arrives at Famusov’s house and is met by the owner’s daughter, Sophia. "Woe from Wit" presents a love story. Chatsky is in love and expects reciprocity from the girl. Further love line intertwined with the public.

Chatsky and Famusov embodied two opposing camps in society. Alexander Andreich's conflict with the past century becomes inevitable as soon as Chatsky crosses the threshold of Famusov's house. With his honest views and ideas, he encounters depravity, mustiness and servility.

Speech of heroes and speaking names

If we talk about the speech of comedy characters, it quite clearly characterizes their characteristics. For example, Skalozub often uses military vocabulary, which indicates his profession. Khlestova uses rich, rich vocabulary. Main character Chatsky is a master of Russian speech, which is worth only in his monologues, filled with such liveliness and beauty (“And who are the judges?”). Chatsky is not only a young man in love, he is, first of all, an ardent denouncer of vices Famusov society. Only with words and nothing else does the truth-seeking Chatsky stigmatize those around him. Many phrases put into the mouth of the main character became catchphrases. Chatsky’s speech, on the one hand, was close to Radishchev’s language, on the other, it was very original. A.S. Griboyedov fundamentally abandoned book speech and foreign words in comedy in the monologues of the main character.

The names of the characters can be safely called telling. Molchalin in the comedy “Woe from Wit” (from the word “to be silent”) is a taciturn, quiet young man. This list can be supplemented with such surnames as Tugoukhovsky, Repetilov, Skalozub.

Skalozub

The writer considered the main task of the comedy to depict the images of Famus society. Not in the work extra characters. All images are important for characterizing both the main characters and their entire environment.

Skalozub is a rude lout with characteristic manners and appearance. The speech reveals the ignorance, stupidity and spiritual impoverishment of this person. This typical representative of Famus society opposes science and education as such. Naturally, Sergei Sergeich Skalozub is a welcome guest of the Famusov family and others like him. In addition, it is in the image of Skalozub that Griboedov shows the type of careerist who does not disdain any means when moving up the career ladder.

Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova

The Tugoukhovskys are shown in a satirical manner. Prince Tugoukhovsky - typical henpecked his wife. He hears practically nothing and only obeys the princess unquestioningly. The prince represents Famusov in the future. His wife is an ordinary representative of the surrounding society: stupid, ignorant, and has a negative attitude towards education. In addition, both are gossips, since they are the first to spread rumors that Chatsky has gone crazy. No wonder critics divided everyone minor characters into three groups: Famusov, candidate for Famusov, Famusov-loser.

Khlestova is presented as a smart lady, however, she is also subject to the general opinion. In her opinion, a person’s honesty and intelligence directly depend on social status and wealth.

Repetilov and Zagoretsky

Repetilov is the type of Famusov the loser in the comedy “Woe from Wit.” A character who has absolutely no positive traits. He is quite stupid, careless, and loves to drink. He is a superficial philosopher, a kind of parody of Chatsky’s line. The author made Repetilov into a parody double of the main character. He also promotes social ideas, but this is just following fashion and nothing more.

Another Famusov loser is A.A. Zagoretsky. In the characteristics given to him by the other characters, one can see several times words synonymous with the term “fraudster.” For example, Gorich says: “A notorious swindler, rogue: Anton Antonich Zagoretsky.” However, all his fraud and lies remain within the confines of everyday life, otherwise he is a completely law-abiding citizen. In Zagoretsky there is even more from Molchalin than from Famusov. Everyone needs him, despite the fact that he is a gossip and a liar. He not only picks up the rumor about Chatsky’s madness, but also complements it with his own fantasies.

The character for whom Griboedov showed a little sympathy is Gorich. “Woe from Wit” brings onto the stage Chatsky’s friend, who arrived at Famusov’s ball with his wife. He a kind person, soberly assessing the surrounding reality. It is not included by the author in any group. Chatsky’s friend and ally earlier, now, having heard about his “illness,” does not believe it. But it is not without its shortcomings. Having a gentle character, after marriage Gorich became henpecked by his wife and forgot his beliefs. His image is that of a servant husband.

In other words, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” this character and a number of others personify the “past” century with its rules, ideals and habits. All of these are individuals limited in their development, who are categorically against everything new, and most importantly, against the open truth.

The difference between comedy and literature of the 18th century

The huge and fundamental difference between Griboedov’s comedy and the works of the 18th century is that almost all the characters in it are not just positive or negative types, they are shown in many ways. In “Woe from Wit,” the character of Famusov is depicted not only as a person who is in spiritual stagnation; Famusov - good father his family, a real gentleman. Chatsky is very passionate and sensitive, at the same time witty and intelligent.

Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit” leaves, disappointed in the object of his love. To the question of who he is - a winner or a loser, one can answer this way: Chatsky was broken by the number old power, but won last century the quality of new strength.

This is how the social typification of characters manifests itself. If here the author departs from classicism, then in love affair, on the contrary, tries to comply with the laws of this particular direction. There is a heroine and two lovers, an unsuspecting father and a maid covering for her mistress. But in other respects the similarities with classic comedy No. Neither Chatsky nor Molchalin are suitable for the role of the first lover. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" there are no heroes-lovers from classicism: the first one loses, the second one is not a positive hero in all respects.

Cannot be called ideal heroine and Sophia. “Woe from Wit” presents to our attention a girl who is not stupid, but is in love with the worthless Molchalin. He's convenient for her. He is someone who can be pushed around for the rest of his life. She does not want to listen to Chatsky and is the first to spread the rumor about his madness.

Lisa in to a greater extent a reasoner rather than a soubrette. Among other things, the comedy traces a second, comic love line and a third, related to the relationship between Liza, Molchalin, Petrusha and Famusov.

Off-stage characters

In addition to the main and minor characters, the writer’s skillful hand introduced into the work off-stage characters. They are needed in order to increase the scale of the conflict of two centuries. These characters embody both the past and the present century.

Just remember the chamberlain Kuzma Petrovich, who was rich himself and was married to a rich woman. These are Tatyana Yuryevna and Praskovya, narrow-minded foreigners who came to Russia to earn money. These images and a number of others lead the reader to the idea of ​​the large-scale conflict presented vividly in the play “Woe from Wit.” The character who shows the reader that Chatsky is not alone, behind him there are those who will promote ideas that support him, is also presented, and not in one way, but in several. For example, the comedy mentions Skalozub’s cousin from the village, a relative of Princess Tugoukhovskaya.

The main task that the writer performed when portraying the characters in the play was to show their views on society, and not to reveal them psychological characteristics. Griboyedov is first and foremost a writer-educator, therefore in each image he clearly outlines certain moral qualities or lack thereof. He typifies character traits and qualities and immediately individualizes them.

Chatsky has surpassed his age in everything. That is why he became a model of sincerity and nobility, and Famusov and Skalozub became a symbol of vulgarity and stagnation. Thus, using the example of 20 individuals, the writer reflected the fate of an entire generation. Chatsky's views are the views of the entire progressive movement of future Decembrists. Chatsky and Famusov are representatives of two generations, two centuries: the enlightened century and the obsolete century.

Positive - Chatsky, Prince Fyodor. Negative - the entire Famusov society (Famusov, Molchalin, Colonel Skalozub and others)

Chatsky is smart, noble, honest and brave man. he hates and despises Famus society, in which main theme in life there is ceremonial worship. He can be compared to a lone hero who fights an entire regiment. But his superiority was that he was unusually intelligent. Chatsky wanted to honestly serve his Motherland, but he did not want to serve higher ranks: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” These words of his indicate that before us is a proud, witty and eloquent man. In this work A.S. Griboyedov shows the conflict between two opposing sides - Chatsky and Famusov society.
The people with whom he was surrounded did not understand him and did not even strive to do so. They are accustomed to living in eternal “slavery”; the concept of freedom is alien to them. It seems to me that Chatsky is not the only positive hero in this comedy; there are characters that Griboyedov only mentions in his work. This is Skalozub’s cousin, who left the service and went to the village, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Prince Fyodor, a chemist and botanist. They can be considered Chatsky's allies. It is simply unbearable for the main character to be in the company of people like Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin. They considered themselves very smart, having earned their position by sycophancy. So Famusov confirms this in his own words: “Whether he’s honest or not, it’s all right for us, dinner is ready for everyone.” And also, talking about his late uncle, who knew when to help himself, he was proud that it was his relative who was so “smart.” People from Famus society did not notice how stupid their morals were. These people lived a fictitious life, without reflecting on the main thing - its meaning.

Sophia is a controversial character. On the one hand, she is smart, resourceful, critical, courageous, she has good qualities, but education, reading French novels and others external factors led to the fact that the heroine does not know how to think and build her life herself, but does everything according to the model. Sophia betrayed Chatsky, spread rumors about his madness, and he became disappointed in her.

Answer

Through the synthesis of love and social comedy Griboedov managed to humanize his positive hero, to give his words not only an oratorical sound, but also living flesh human passion. The very status of the positive hero has changed. If Fonvizin’s Starodum, Pravdin, Milon live in the word, then Chatsky turns the word into a “behavioral text”; he condenses the word through its relationship with “a million torments.” Chatsky is active. “He is the eternal denouncer of lies, hidden in the proverb “alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.” In this Goncharov's characterization The scale of Chatsky’s personality, his social temperament are accurately revealed, and the nature of his vitality is indicated. He is a “sufferer of Russian conscious life,” and his suffering connects the sphere of social existence, the philosophy of self-awareness and independence with deep human feeling, disappointment in love.

The image of the heroine, who in the pre-Griboedov comedy was deprived of living feelings and thoughts and acted as an uncomplaining victim, undergoes the same transformation. From this point of view, it is enough to compare Sophia in Fonvizin’s “The Minor” and her namesake from “Woe from Wit.” Fonvizin's Sophia is almost ethereal and wordless: her participation in the action is reduced to a minimum. Others decide everything for her. Griboyedov's Sofia has a bright personality. Having lost her mother early, she is not only the mistress of the house, but also the mistress of her destiny. Her conflict with Chatsky is not only a love rivalry, but also a clash of characters: as Goncharov aptly defined, “the scythe found a stone.”

For Griboedov, her role and place in the comedy was initially clear. He compared her to the queen and explained: “The queen is also dissatisfied with her Sugar Medovich,” referring to her relationship with Molchalin. If we remember that in a chess game the queen is the most maneuverable piece, and the outcome of the game largely depends on its position, then it is obvious that for King Chatsky, Sophia the queen took an unfavorable position on the other side. But the winner inthis party cannot exist.

By her independence she differs from the surrounding society, from her retinue. She chooses Molchalin herself, knowingly going for a misalliance. She, deceived in her feelings, blames herself first of all. At the same time, she cleverly deceives her father by spending the night with Molchalin; it is she who takes revenge on Chatsky by slandering his madness. We can say that she differs from those around her as an individual, but draws closer to them as a type, a product of Famus society. Griboedov through the interweaving in it personal history and social psychology managed to show the originality and independence of character, but at the same time reveal its dependence on social conventions and dogmas. And in this sense, she lost her life game to Chatsky. In the open ending of the comedy, Chatsky is directed to the future; she remained in the past, in a closed space and moral impasse. This determines the drama of her image.

Thanks to the organic interweaving of two comedies - personal and public - Griboyedov managed to create new type high comedy, social and philosophical comedy. Social section modern society, where each hero is a reflection of the spirit of the time (careerism, Arakcheevism, obscurantism, conservatism, hypocrisy, liberal chatter and at the same time love of freedom, independence, honor), is devoid of a satirical attitude, although elements of the satirical world image are important in the characterization of Famusov’s Moscow. The entry into this world image of a new hero, not only an ideologist, but also a philosopher, a bearer national identity, changes the nature of the comedy space.

Firstly, the space of thought itself expands. In the atmosphere of the formation of the poetry of thought, “Woe from Wit” is truly a comedy of thought. It has long been noted that the nomination of heroes, the meaning of their significant surnames: Molchalin, Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub, Famusov (from the Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov (from the French répéter - repeat) - are associated with the semantics of speaking and listening. But if their intelligent thought does not find a response, because they are deaf to reason: “And they hear, they do not want to understand,” then Chatsky is the embodiment of the Word, its world-creating power. He forces his interlocutors not only to listen, but also to respond. It is in his dialogues with Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, Gorich, Repetilov that their philosophy of existence is revealed. A textured, everyday hero turns into an ideological opponent. There is not only a clash of characters, but also a clash of views and positions.

Chatsky is a catalyst for the mental atmosphere in comedy, its philosophical basis. He is truly a “warrior of Light”. The epithet used by Gogol in relation to “ noble person"Russian comedy, is realized from the first words of Chatsky: "It’s barely light on your feet! and I’m at your feet” until his last remark: “I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world, // Where there is a corner for the offended feeling.” Chatsky's light is, first of all, the light of his words and thoughts.

Secondly, in the comedy space "Woe from Wit", where special role plays a dramatic beginning, significantly varying the world image, because from serious to funny there is only one step. Numerous doubles of the heroes, off-stage characters are mirrors that reflect the entire spectrum of moods and philosophies of life. Mirror refractions are parodic. Chatsky and Molchalin, Chatsky and Gorich, Chatsky and Repetilov - each of these relationships has its own reflection mirror reflection and refraction. They are all representatives younger generation, but how different their life philosophies are.

Molchalin is not only Chatsky’s rival in the love field. He is his ideological opponent and adversary. His philosophy of silence is not humility and asceticism at all, but a quiet, almost imperceptible, but cynical assertion of his ambitious claims. For the sake of his career, he is ready to step over everything and everyone. “Moderation and accuracy” - in words, in deeds - hypocrisy, deception, immorality, which will manifest itself in relations with Sophia, arrogance with Lisa, self-confidence - in a dialogue with Chatsky.

The third scene of the third act is not so much a duel for Sophia as an ideological duel. Its sharpness is manifested in the rapier attacks, hidden irony and “jabs”. It is here that Molchalin visibly exposes his insides: he, knowing Chatsky’s dramatic position in the love field, tries to humiliate him morally, to trample him morally. His position is that of the master of the situation, a potential winner.

Griboyedovsky's Molchalin, who belongs to the category of negative characters, is devoid of any special external texture or satirical sharpness. He is not just a bearer of conservatism and archaism. His philosophy is the philosophy of a new type of Russian public life, the philosophy of a careerist devoid of moral principles.

Platon Gorich - another variety modern type. He is not just a banal henpecked man. His grief also has a social connotation: the name seems to emphasize the connection between life and philosophy. But Gorich’s grief is not from his mind, but from the betrayal of the ideals of his youth. His “forgotten melody for the flute”: “On the flute I repeat the duet // A-molny...”, “Out of boredom you will whistle the same thing”, “Yes, brother, it’s not like that now...”, “ Now, brother, I’m not the same...” - a reminder that it is no longer possible to return: “Eh, brother! It was a glorious life back then.” Complete submission to his wife is a reflection of not only lack of will, but also reconciliation with reality, with the world of Famusov’s Moscow. Chatsky can only revive Gorich’s memories for a minute, but it is no longer possible to awaken him. And although ex-friend doubts Chatsky’s madness, he doesn’t even try to resist the slander.

The figure of Repetilov in the comedy clearly stands out for its special position. Without taking any visible part in the entire action of the comedy, this character, bursting like a meteor into its very finale, causes such a significant change in its outcome in terms of plot and action that it attracts Special attention to the appearance of Repetilov in Famusov’s house.

Traditionally, the scenes associated with him (d. IV, appearances 4-9) are called “Repetilov’s interlude.” This is really an interlude, but only one that has, as it were, moved from the intermission to the act and thanks to this has acquired some connection with the main dramatic action, which is generally not characteristic of an interlude. This is a socio-philosophical interlude within the comedy of thought.

Of course, Repetilov is a parody of Chatsky, but the functions of parody are important. After all, it’s strange that the final discrediting of the high hero is happening. Speaking about the analogies that arise between them, we can note the appearance of both heroes, their first remarks, their monologues; the escape from Chatsky at the end of the third act (“But everyone left me...”) is reminiscent of Repetilov’s situation at the end of his interlude (“Almost out of sight alone,Look, there are no friends...").

Repetilov quickly identifies himself with Chatsky: “He and I... we... have the same tastes.” He, like Chatsky, is not recognized as one of their own and is even almost considered crazy. So Khlestova, drawing a parallel with Chatsky, declares to his face: “That’s how God judged him, but by the way // They’ll treat, they’ll cure maybe; // And you, my father, are incurable<...>// Goodbye, father, it’s time to get mad.” In his final remark: “Go, put me in the carriage, // Take me somewhere,” Repetilov, in a reduced version, anticipates famous words Chatsky: “I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world, // Where there is a corner for an offended feeling! - // Carriage for me, carriage!

Comedy and tragedy are closely intertwined in the parody, but the meaning of Repetilov’s interlude is not to discredit the high hero, his ideology, although Repetilov’s principle “Let’s make noise, brothers, make noise!”, and the circle of his friends, “terrible liberals” from the English Club, provoke such thoughts. The main thing for Griboedov is different: Chatsky saw himself from the outside. Watching Repetilov from the Swiss, he for the first time realizes his own position in Famusov’s house. Repetilov, who identified himself with Chatsky with the full and unanimous consent of those around him, presents himself to the tall hero as his own reflection in the distorting mirror of public opinion. It is under the influence of his parody double, the false liberal, that Chatsky commits an act of self-awareness. This is evidenced by his words after Repetilov’s departure: “I looked, and saw, and did not believe!”, “Blind! In whom I sought the reward of all my labors!”, “So, I have become completely sober, // Dreams are out of sight and the veil has fallen.” If before the Repetilov interlude Chatsky was humiliated and insulted, then, listening and observing the Repetilov vanity and liberal speculation, he realized the need for active action and revival. He leaves Famusov's house as a winner, of his own free will, renouncing all ties with this world. Awareness of his alienness to this environment and the understanding that the true sphere of his stay and action is external to this environment makes his stay in this house impossible. He gains the energy of movement in space great life; The open ending of the comedy is an indication of the prospects for his spiritual and mental development.

Thus, the interlude of Repetilov, who does not have his own face: he is the only one in the comedy without a name, and his surname determines the ability only for repetition, imitation, marks a turning point in the spiritual evolution of the tall hero. She is a mirror in which tall hero saw myself in a reduced state, comic form- and received his sight. It became the capacitor of the entire action of the comedy: in the six events of the 4th act, the hero’s drama was played out at the level of farce, and at the same time the comedic action gained new momentum in the dramatic finale and its openness. From one journey, Chatsky rushes into another, still unknown and unpredictable. And this anticipates the fate of other heroes of his time - Onegin and Pechorin.

In the space of the comedic action of “Woe from Wit,” a special energetic background—aphorisms—is essential. And the point is not that Griboyedov here followed the tradition of Enlightenment thought. IN in a certain sense his hero is the enlightener, the “warrior of Light.” But the aphoristic layer is a reflection of national identity expressed in words. In this regard, Griboyedov's comedy stands on a par with the book folk wisdom- fables by I.A. Krylova. In the aphorisms of “Woe from Wit,” with which Pushkin predicted the fate of proverbs, there are clots of Russian thought of the era of civil exaltation of the 1820s. These are echoes of patriotic feelings Patriotic War 1812 (“And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us,” “Women shouted hurray! // And they threw caps into the air!”), and reflections on the people (“our smart, cheerful people”), and condemnation of servility before foreigners ( “So that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit // Empty, slavish, blind imitation”, “a mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod”).

The cultural space of comedy is a synthesis of new philosophy, new behavior, new thinking. Russian high comedy gained in “Woe from Wit” the scale of national self-awareness, becoming not only a landmark phenomenon of verbal culture, but also a fact of Russian public consciousness.

The main conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Paskevich is pushing around,

The disgraced Yermolov is slandering...

What is left for him?

Ambition, coldness and anger...

From bureaucratic old women,

From caustic social jabs

He's riding in a wagon,

Resting your chin on the cane.

D. Kedrin

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov acquired a large literary fame and national fame by writing the comedy “Woe from Wit.” This work was innovative in Russian literature, the first quarter of the XIX century.

Classic comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory always went to the positive heroes, while the negative ones were ridiculed and defeated. In Griboyedov's comedy, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of the heroes into representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”, and the first one actually includes Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a funny position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main “opponent” Famusov is by no means some notorious scoundrel; on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.

It is interesting that Chatsky spent his childhood in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was the same. Balls, lunches, dinners, christenings...

He made a match - he succeeded, but he missed.

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

Women were mainly concerned with their outfits. They love everything foreign and French. The ladies of Famus society have one goal - to marry or give their daughters to an influential and rich man. With all this, as Famusov himself puts it, women “are judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them.” Everyone goes to a certain Tatyana Yuryevna for patronage, because “officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives.” Princess Marya Alekseevna has such weight in high society that Famusov somehow exclaims in fear:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?

What about men? They are all busy trying to move up the social ladder as much as possible. Here is the thoughtless martinet Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being an example of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - “to become a general.” Here is the petty official Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and he, of course, wants to “reach the well-known levels.”

The Moscow “ace” Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, showed neither business qualities nor talents, but became famous only for the fact that his neck often “bent” in bows. But “he had a hundred people at his service,” “all wearing orders.” This is the ideal of Famus society.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “You’re welcome! You are welcome!” In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than before,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

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

“The desire to wander attacked him...” His soul thirsted for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with advanced people time. He leaves Moscow and goes to St. Petersburg. “High thoughts” are above all for him. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky’s views and aspirations took shape. He apparently became interested in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky “writes and translates well.” At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated by social activity. He develops a “connection with the ministers.” However, not for long. High concepts of honor did not allow him to serve; he wanted to serve the cause, not people.

After this, Chatsky probably visited the village, where, according to Famusov, he “made a mistake” by mishandling the estate. Then our hero goes abroad. At that time, “travel” was looked at askance, as a manifestation of the liberal spirit. But just the acquaintance of representatives of Russian noble youth with life, philosophy, history Western Europe had great importance for their development.

And now we meet the mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the one he hates serfdom. He cannot calmly talk about “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who exchanges servants for dogs, or about the one who “drove ... from their mothers, fathers, rejected children to the serf ballet” and, having gone bankrupt, sold them all one by one.

These are the ones who lived to see their gray hairs!

This is who we should respect in the wilderness!

Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!

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

As a true educator, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In the mind, in education, in public opinion, he sees the power of ideological and moral influence as the main and powerful means of remaking society and changing life. He defends the right to serve education and science:

Now let one of us

Of the young people, there is 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 dreamer! Dangerous!!!

Among such young people in the play, besides Chatsky, one can perhaps also include cousin Skalozub, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “chemist and botanist”. But the play talks about them in passing. Among Famusov's guests, our hero is a loner.

Of course, Chatsky makes enemies for himself. Well, will Skalozub forgive him if he hears about himself: “Wheezing, strangled, bassoon, constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!” Or Natalya Dmitrievna, whom he advised to live in the village? Or Khlestova, at whom Chatsky openly laughs? But, of course, Molchalin gets the most. Chatsky considers him “the most pitiful creature”, like all fools. Out of revenge for such words, Sophia declares Chatsky crazy. Everyone happily picks up the news, they sincerely believe in the gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems crazy.

A.S. Pushkin, having read “Woe from Wit,” noticed that Chatsky was throwing pearls before swine, that he would never convince those to whom he addressed with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. Yes, he had no intention of starting disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, for whom he had had a heartfelt affection since childhood. Another thing is that during the time that has passed since their last meeting, Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he is trying to understand how it could happen that she no longer needs him. Perhaps it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.

As a result, there is a complete break between Chatsky and the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this break is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. We didn't just collide different people, But different worldviews, various public positions. The external outbreak of the conflict was Chatsky’s arrival at Famusov’s house; it was developed in disputes and monologues of the main characters (“Who are the judges?”, “That’s it, you are all proud!”). Growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a climax: at the ball, Chatsky is declared insane. And then he himself understands that all his words and emotional movements were in vain:

You all glorified me as crazy.

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

Who will have time to spend a day with you,

Breathe the air alone

And his sanity will survive.

The outcome of the conflict is Chatsky’s departure from Moscow. The relationship between Famus society and the main character is clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It's impossible to tell who has the upper hand. After all, the conflict between old and new is as eternal as the world. And the theme of the suffering of the smart, educated person in Russia it is still topical today. To this day, people suffer more from their intelligence than from their absence. In this sense, A.S. Griboyedov created a comedy for all times.

Continuing to look at the site, I often wonder who is actually here goodies, and who are negative? And I can’t clearly answer this question. It would seem that the most negative heroes subsequently commit very good deeds, and the heroes, it would seem, are positive - quite the opposite.

Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is a collegiate assessor, secretary of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, a manager in a government office. A negative character introduced into the comedy to be the opposite of Chatsky and typical representative employee at the bottom rung of the career ladder.

Source: comedy "Woe from Wit"

View:>Characters of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Endowed a telling surname, laconic. Chatsky describes Molchalin as helpful, modest, not rich in words, quiet, not too smart. Molchalin himself credits himself with only two talents: moderation and accuracy. He regrets that he is endowed with a small rank and is dependent on others; he lives in the closet of his benefactor, Famusov. He flatters those around him, cares for both the master's daughter and her maid, giving preference to the maid. The owner's daughter, Sofya Pavlovna, is favorable to him, which bewilders Chatsky and horrifies Molchalin, because he is afraid of the owner's anger.

The affair with Sofya Pavlovna does not pursue career goals, but only obediently fulfills the imposed role of a silent admirer. By nature he is a people-pleaser, prefers to please everyone, is careful in communication, tries to be pleasant. In the scene of exposure, when the conversation between Molchalin and the maid Liza is overheard by both Chatsky and Sofya Pavlovna, she directly expresses her idea that she is caring for her master’s daughter only out of decency, although she feels disgust for her. Sofya Pavlovna breaks off the romance in her hearts. Chatsky recommends that she make peace with Molchalin, since “you can always / Take care of him and swaddle him, and send him on business. / A husband-boy, a husband-servant, one of his wife’s pages - / High ideal all Moscow husbands." Molchalin is having a hard time with the breakup, since there is a threat of losing the favor of master Famusov.

Quotes

At my age I shouldn't dare

Have your own opinions.

Oh! Gossips scarier than a pistol.

I don't dare advise you.

My father bequeathed to me:

First, please all people without exception -

The owner, where he will live,

The boss with whom I will serve,

To his servant who cleans dresses,

Doorman, janitor, to avoid evil,

To the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate.

William Bell - character from the series "Fringe"

Walter Bishop's longtime laboratory partner, now head of Massive Dai...

Dubrovsky Andrey Gavrilovich - minor character Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky"

Dubrovsky Andrei Gavrilovich is the father of the main character of the novel, Vladimir A...

Troekurov Kirila Petrovich - the hero of Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky"

Troyekurov Kirila Petrovich is one of the main characters of Pushkin's novel Du...

Evgeny Bazarov - the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons”

The novel takes place in the summer of 1859. Young...

Evgeny Onegin - characterization of the hero

Evgeny Onegin is the hero of the novel in verse by A. S. Pushka...

Capt. Jack Sparrow

Pirate Jack Sparrow is a colorful, mannered pirate...

Probably I like negative heroes because, firstly, they are beautiful, and secondly, they have everything sad story, thirdly, they must be smart, fourthly, he must be unhappy and lonely. But I think that the negative heroes are mysterious, brave, but it’s a pity that sometimes these heroes often die at the end of the film or at the end of the anime... But some heroes realize their guilt and begin to fight for the side of good.