What are the moral lessons of Griboyedov's comedy. Moral lessons on the comedy Woe from Wit (Griboyedov A

A. S. Griboedov was one of those about whom M. Yu. Lermontov quite accurately said: “Laughing, he boldly despised the language and customs of a foreign country.” It is unlikely that the author of the comedy did this deliberately, consciously anticipating the consequences, but it so happened that his attitude towards the morals of the country where he was sent as ambassador predetermined not only his death, but also the death of the staff of the Russian Embassy in Persia, who were not guilty of A.’s arrogance. S. Griboedova. “Woe from Wit”, a play written before A. S. Griboyedov left for Persia, unexpectedly gained enormous popularity in secular salons. And few of the young writer’s contemporaries understood that this comedy played a fatal role in the tragic events that took place on Senate Square in December 1825, and continued to have an impact on subsequent generations, forming nihilism among young people - the denial of everything accomplished by past generations due to their own inability to conceive something well and carry it out well. After all, Chatsky is a hysterical barren flower, whom liberals took as a model throughout the 19th century, and who was and is set as an example for all schoolchildren after 1917. It is from this inept nihilism that the famous Zhvanets-Chernomyrdin line grows: “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” " But Russia is a civilization different from the West; what is developing there in accordance with biblical atheism runs into some kind of obstacle in Russia, about which even today Western intellectuals are engaged in endless debate. This obstacle is the conciliar intellect of the peoples of Russia, which always finds an adequate response to an invasion alien to the culture of the God State. The response to the invasion of Biblical morality into Russia, uniquely presented as “Woe from Wit” (the name of the comedy is a reinterpretation of the Old Testament saying “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge increases sorrow” - Ecclesiastes 1:18) was the phenomenon of creativity A. S. Pushkin. And if it were not for A.S. Pushkin, then perhaps the first speech of the “Biblicists” would have taken place in December 1825. Even then, the historically established statehood of the empire was put to an end. Modern Pushkinists even today are not able to understand that the entire work of A. S. Pushkin, ideologically and morally, has always been an alternative to biblical atheism, but this opposition can only be understood by mastering the keys to the associative connections of the symbolism of his works. And this requires identifying the essence of biblical real, and not declared, morality and identifying ideals that are alternative to it. And it is no coincidence that it was A. S. Pushkin, the only one of Griboyedov’s contemporaries, critically perceived the play “Woe from Wit,” which most literature teachers keep silent about in their lessons, perhaps without knowing it themselves.

In literature lessons, I became acquainted with the work of Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” and I want to talk about morality.

Morality is the rules of personal behavior that distinguish between good and evil. If you look at each character in the comedy, you can see every moral lesson of Griboyedov. It shows the positive and negative qualities of each character. For example, Chatsky is a colonel. He loves to joke, speaks directly and confidently, is sociable and always tries to get his word in.

Because of this, a rumor spread in Famus society that Chatsky was crazy. Thus, Alexander Sergeevich is trying to tell us that there is no need to be overly inquisitive.

Sophia is the daughter of Famusov. The author ridicules her promiscuity. The girl loves being surrounded by men and is ready to do anything for love. Famusov - manager. He always defends his point of view, always blames everyone for everything, of course, except himself.

Molchalin pretends to love. He shows his true face only when communicating with Lisa.

Lisa is a maid. A simple girl cannot find true love. My love.

All heroes except Chatsky are dependent on other people's opinions. They love gossip.

I think that morality is not an innate quality. Morality depends on a person’s upbringing and the society in which he lives.

Updated: 2017-06-09

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.

“Woe from Wit” is the noblest humane

work..., a protest against the vile racial

reality, against officials, bribe takers,

libertine bar... against ignorance,

voluntary servitude.

V. G. Belinsky

The attitude towards the human person, towards its dignity, towards work, towards honor and dishonor, towards truth and lies, towards love and friendship - these are problems that are relevant at all times.

People today still think about the questions: how to live? What does it mean to have human dignity? who deserves trust, love, friendship? how to raise worthy members of society?

Life itself gives the answers. They are also given by books in which wise people - writers - share their life experiences with us. “A poet in Russia is more than a poet,” E. Yevtushenko said a century and a half after Griboyedov, but it was as if he was also talking about him, a wise teacher, mentor and friend.

A. S. Griboyedov was a Decembrist by conviction. He considered the existing system not only unjust, but also deeply immoral, destroying the human personality. Hence the enormous attention he paid to moral problems in the comedy “Woe from Wit.” We learn these lessons by analyzing the behavior and relationships of comedy heroes and coming to the conclusion that a person’s morality is largely determined by the society in which he lives and whose interests he protects. Let's enter the house of the official master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, and plunge into a life that is already far from us. Here is the elderly owner of the house flirting with a young servant, here he recalls his only two known relationship with a widow doctor and immediately boasts that he is “known for his monastic behavior.” Soon we will get to know his “code of honor” in more detail. Famusov openly admits that in the service he likes to “please a loved one”, without thinking about the benefits of the matter, he treats his duties formally (“Signed - so off your shoulders!”). He is immoral in everything: he is indifferent to raising his daughter, he is afraid of enlightenment, he is sure that all evil comes from him, and “to stop evil, he would take away all the books and burn them.”

Famusov does not consider serfs to be people and takes his anger out on them. And at the same time, he considers himself sinless and sets an example for his daughter: “You don’t need another example when you have the example of your father in your eyes.”

Famusov evaluates people by wealth, rank and how convenient they are to him. Therefore, he keeps the hypocrite and sycophant Molchalin in the house, trying not to notice his falsehood, lies, servility (after all, Famusov is not stupid at all!). Therefore, he ingratiates himself with Skalozub (even: “And the golden bag, and aims to become a general”).

Skalozub is so primitive that he does not even understand what he is saying when he admits that he is “happy in his comrades”, because they have been “killed” and, therefore, the path to promotion has been cleared. Nevertheless, he is an honored guest in Famusov’s house! The swaggering, influential Khlestova matches him. The morality of the Tugoukhovskys is terrible, for whom only one thing is important in a person - wealth.

In this society they don’t even think about human dignity, friendship, love. To achieve selfish, base goals, it is not considered shameful to lie, be disingenuous, or pretend. “The path to the top” is beautifully illustrated by the example of Molchalin, who, living as his “father bequeathed,” that is, pleasing “all people without exception,” destroyed the man in himself. He is sure that at his age “one should not dare to have one’s own opinion,” that “one must depend on others,” etc.

The question arises whether Sophia is immoral, having fallen in love with such a person. Does she really like Molchalin’s “morality”? How could she, who reads, loves music, and is not stupid, prefer this nonentity to Chatsky? I cannot blame Sophia: I feel sorry for her. The girl is very young and inexperienced. She received an ugly upbringing in her father's house. Having read sentimental French novels, she imagined herself to be a savior, the patroness of a poor young man, so quiet, so modest... If only she had known that this was a wolf in sheep's clothing. But Sophia has not yet learned to understand people: Molchalin is good to everyone, sighs, is afraid to raise his eyes to her... And Chatsky is sharp, sarcastic, makes fun of everyone and at the same time seeks understanding from her, Sophia. She is sure: Chatsky doesn’t need her, and she doesn’t care about him. Sophia is not immoral. Her love, unlike Molchalin’s “feelings,” is real. Now, if only she could see her chosen one through the eyes of an outside observer! Sophia’s behavior is the result of the influence of the environment, of society, for which Molchalin’s “moderation and accuracy” are the key to success and career. Immorality does not hinder, but helps to move up the career ladder, and favors the “powers of this world.” Material from the site

Talking about the personal drama of Chatsky and Sophia, the writer convinces that in problems of morality, Famus society is hopelessly behind the demands of life. The political and moral failures of this society are interconnected. Defenders of serfdom cannot respect human personality. Numerous Famusovs, Khlestovs, and Skalozubs despise Russian culture, folk customs, and their native language, as they fear enlightenment like fire.

But what is most frightening is their progressive views. “He wants to preach freedom!” - “He doesn’t recognize the authorities!” - such accusations in their mouth sound like a sentence. In the fight against freethinking, the most immoral means are good for them. Gossip, lies, slander are used without a twinge of conscience when the threat to their peace that Chatsky brings with him becomes obvious. Chatsky appears not only as a bearer of new ideas, but also as a man of new morality; his moral principles are as opposed to the morality of the old lordly Moscow as his convictions.

The idea of the need for social change is very convincingly revealed in the comedy through the contrast of the morality of two opposing camps: in a backward, outdated society there cannot be high morality - this is the conclusion the reader of “Woe from Wit” made for himself on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. This conclusion does not age today: fair public morality is possible only in a fair society.

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

problems of morality essay
moral lessons of comedy woe from mind
moral lessons of Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit
a.s. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" short essay
problematic topics for an essay on grief from mind

"Woe from Wit" is the noblest humane

The work..., a protest against the vile racial

Reality, against officials, bribe takers,

Bar libertines... against ignorance,

Voluntary servitude.

V. G. Belinsky

People today still think about the questions: how to live? What does it mean to have human dignity? who deserves trust, love, friendship? How to raise worthy members of society?

A. S. Griboyedov was a Decembrist by conviction. He considered the existing system not only unjust, but also deeply immoral, destroying the human personality. Hence the enormous attention he paid to moral problems in the comedy "Woe from Wit." We learn these lessons by analyzing the behavior and relationships of comedy heroes and coming to the conclusion that a person’s morality is largely determined by the society in which he lives and whose interests he protects. Let's enter the house of the official master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, and plunge into a life that is already far from us. Here the elderly owner of the house flirts with a young servant, here he recalls his only two known relationships with a widow doctor and immediately boasts that he is “known for his monastic behavior.” Soon we will get to know his “code of honor” in more detail. Famusov openly admits that in the service he likes to “please a loved one”, without thinking about the benefits of the matter, he treats his duties formally (“Signed - so off your shoulders!”). He is immoral in everything: he is indifferent to raising his daughter, he is afraid of enlightenment, he is sure that everything evil comes from him, and “to stop evil, he would take away all the books and burn them.”

Famusov evaluates people by wealth, rank and how convenient they are for him. Therefore, he keeps the hypocrite and sycophant Molchalin in the house, trying not to notice his falsehood, lies, and servility (after all, Famusov is not stupid at all!). Therefore, he ingratiates himself with Skalozub (even: “And a golden bag, and aims to become a general”).

In this society they don’t even think about human dignity, friendship, love. To achieve selfish, base goals, it is not considered shameful to lie, be hypocritical, or pretend. “The path to the top” is perfectly illustrated by the example of Molchalin, who, living as “his father bequeathed,” that is, pleasing “all people without exception,” destroyed the person in himself. He is sure that at his age “one should not dare to have one’s own opinion,” that “one must depend on others,” etc.

The question arises whether Sophia is immoral, having fallen in love with such a person. Does she really like Molchalin’s “morality”? How could she, who reads, loves music, and is not stupid, prefer this nonentity to Chatsky? I cannot blame Sophia: I feel sorry for her. The girl is very young and inexperienced. She received an ugly upbringing in her father's house. Having read sentimental French novels, she imagined herself to be a savior, the patroness of a poor young man, so quiet, so modest... If only she had known that this was a wolf in sheep's clothing. But Sophia has not yet learned to understand people: Molchalin is good to everyone, sighs, is afraid to raise his eyes to her... And Chatsky is sharp, sarcastic, makes fun of everyone and at the same time seeks understanding from her, Sophia. She is sure: Chatsky doesn’t need her, and she doesn’t care about him. Sophia is not immoral. Her love, unlike Molchalin’s “feelings,” is real. Now, if only she could see her chosen one through the eyes of an outside observer! Sophia’s behavior is the result of the influence of the environment, society, for which Molchalin’s “moderation and accuracy” are the key to success and career. Immorality does not hinder, but helps to move up the career ladder, and favors the “powers of this world.”

Talking about the personal drama of Chatsky and Sophia, the writer convinces that in problems of morality, Famus society is hopelessly behind the demands of life. The political and moral failures of this society are interconnected. Defenders of serfdom cannot respect human personality. Numerous Famusovs, Khlestovs, and Skalozubs despise Russian culture, folk customs, and native language, as they fear enlightenment like fire.

The idea of the need for social change is very convincingly revealed in the comedy through the contrast of the morality of two opposing camps: in a backward, outdated society there cannot be high morality - this was the conclusion the reader of “Woe from Wit” made for himself on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. This conclusion remains true today: fair public morality is possible only in a just society.