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, what ideas about life are true and whether happiness is possible at all. 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 the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, and freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboedov foresaw the tragedy of the Decembrists, 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 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 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.
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 Marya 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, what ideas about life are true and whether happiness is possible at all. 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 the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, and freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboedov foresaw the tragedy of the Decembrists, 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.
/ / / The main conflict of Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”
In the work, the author shows several conflicts at once. This is a complex relationship between the characters, where there is deception, betrayal, betrayal and subsequent disappointment and repentance. But the most important conflict is the very attitude of society towards the main character Alexander Chatsky. After an evening event in the Famusovs’ house, where all the “high society” were invited, the young man began to be considered crazy.
These two conflicts are closely intertwined with each other. It was she who was responsible for giving Chatsky a “bad” reputation. His “militant” attitude and non-standard views on the situation in society confused the girl. She reproaches the man for his “inflexibility” and unrestrained comments, involuntarily comparing him to Molchalin about those around him.
Molchalin, trying to please everyone and everywhere, was also indirectly drawn into the main conflict between society and Chatsky. He acts as a reverse example of Alexander's behavior.
For the majority, Famusov's secretary evokes only tenderness. He seems to “smooth out” the rough edges with his complaisance and imaginary “good nature”. In fact, the man chose the tactics of always being useful in everything. Having set this goal, he fulfilled the “whims” of Pavel Famusov’s daughter, Sophia. The girl, due to her naivety, perceived the “suave” gentleman as a potential groom. In fact, Molchalin liked a completely different girl, who also lived in the Famusovs’ house. She turned out to be the maid Lisa.
In turn, due to his ingenuity, unlike Chatsky, he prevents conflict every time. The girl tries to “smooth out” the rough edges and avoids a direct answer. She often succeeds.
Nevertheless, the main conflict becomes the attitude of society to the new worldview and opinion of Chatsky. His condemning roars and aggressive attitude against the “prosperous” flattery and lies, in order to obtain any benefits, excite the entire Famus society. For those around him, this “approach” to life that the man advocates is not only unacceptable, but also truly crazy. The shocking truth sounds like an insult and is received with hostility by everyone.
A sense of heightened justice forces a man to condemn even the behavior of his long-time friend. In a conversation with him, Alexander learns that he got married and found himself “under the thumb” of his own wife. Seeing the picture of what was happening, the woman immediately rushed to participate in the conversation and free her chosen one from Chatsky’s “revolutionary” instructions.
Famusov's entourage delivered its verdict. People simply began to make fun of all Alexander’s phrases. Both conflicting parties were absolutely confident that they were right and that their opponent was weak-minded. Minor characters add to the picture of what is happening with their appearance and fill it with characteristic features.
Griboyedov shows with his work how the whole society will subsequently be divided, where everyone, regardless of the opinions of others, will see only their own truth. Where people will make friends and even get married not for love, but only for their own benefit. On the other side of the “barricade” there will always be those who are “mad” about what is happening and under no circumstances will go against their desires, honor and conscience.
(391 words) Griboyedov showed in his work that in the first third of the 19th century in Russia there was a split into two political camps. Progressive nobles appeared who advocated changes in society. Their views are expressed by Chatsky. On the other hand, the conservative nobility is depicted in the comedy in the person of Famusov and people like him. The main conflict is determined by the fact that the heroes have opposing views on the main issues of social development.
The conflict of generations makes itself felt in the attitude of the heroes to serfdom. Representatives of Famus society are accustomed to managing other people's lives. For example, the rich lady Khlestova treats her slave in the same way as she treats a dog. She brings both of them to the party for her own entertainment, and then asks Sophia to send them a “tip” from the master’s table. Chatsky expresses his attitude to this in the monologue “Who are the judges?” He talks about one landowner who traded his faithful servants for dogs, although they were loyal and saved him many times. Such actions cause him indignation. He is an opponent of serfdom. The characters also have different attitudes towards enlightenment. Representatives of the Famus society oppose education. In their opinion, excess knowledge is harmful. When rumors spread in society about Chatsky’s madness, everyone is sure that the reason is his desire to study. Alexander, on the contrary, is a supporter of education, as it develops a person. In addition, the attitude of the actors towards the service is noteworthy. Moscow society is convinced that it is worth serving only for the sake of profit. For example, Skalozub does not want to defend his homeland, but to become a general. Famusov is a “manager in a state-owned house.” Service for him is a boring duty, but he does not resign, since his position gives him a good position in society. Chatsky calls all these goals with one contemptuous word - “serve.” The main character believes that a decent person should, first of all, benefit the people, and not worry about personal gain. In the past he held a high position. He could have made a good career, but he left because the sovereign’s people did not appreciate his ideas. This suggests that their understanding of patriotism is different. Famusov praises Moscow because no one here wants change. Alexander condemns Moscow precisely for this, exposing “the meanest traits of his past life.” But she is still dear to him, since this is his hometown. Chatsky's patriotism lies in his desire to make his country more civilized.
Thus, A. S. Griboedov managed to show that the social conflict between the progressive and conservative nobility was very acute. These people did not find a common language on any serious issue.
Interesting? Save it on your wall! The first title of the comedy was: “Woe to Wit.” The comedy is exciting, but whether it is funny or critically tragic is not up to the author of the lines to decide. “Woe from Wit” can be understood in two ways, three ways, or... not at all. A.S. Pushkin spoke about himself in a letter to his dear wife: “The devil destined me to be born in Russia, endowed with intelligence and talent”... Russia does not need intelligence, it is pure grief.
But “Woe from Wit”, as a hidden psychological device - sarcasm, the scandal of collective extravagance and selfishness, fits perfectly with the scenes described in the comedy.
Living their lives without hesitation to let petty gossip and tales go over their heads, people who consider themselves the highest society eat each other, embellishing reality in order to ruin the reputation of their neighbor, leaving theirs seemingly crystal clear, which is not in reality.
If anyone fought against the “tent” of modern high society, it was Chatsky, who was immediately accused of losing his mind. Where is the logic and where is the intelligence, and are they needed in the race for fame and honor in the social stratum called the “nobility”? After all, the corresponding rank bestowed the holder with a lot of privileges, such as immunity, reliability of words and information transmitted, a deliberate invitation to all social evenings, dinners and conventions. Talking about a noble person in an impartial manner was not only bad form, but also an undesirable conversation. However, if the rumor was nevertheless picked up by two, three, four people, the mark on the person could deepen to indelible proportions and spread to the entire family. Does such secular behavior of those times differ from today's Russian politics in general? Perhaps nothing.
Famus Society - an island in an ocean of islands
A striking example of those who do not need either intelligence or grief are the representatives of Famusov’s society and Famusov himself at the head. Respect is only given to those who are rich themselves and are in relationships with rich people. Anyone who can boast of a dowry or overseas trophies, without understanding and not accepting the history and culture of foreign places, hiding their ignorance behind pretentiousness and lies - this is the personification of society. But only Famustovsky?
Naturally, a big role here is given to removing the masks from those who believe that they rule the world and people in Russia.
Misunderstood aspirations for self-improvement and the unwillingness to accept something that may be more valuable than rank - a stupid, useless, but relevant conflict in Griboedov’s tragicomedy.
