The work of Griboedov A. Famusov, his ardent defender, believes that everything should remain... How Chatsky in A.S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is contrasted with Famusov’s society

• The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” reflected with amazing accuracy the main conflict of the era - the clash of conservative forces of society with new people and new trends. For the first time in the history of Russian literature, not one vice of society was ridiculed, but all at once: serfdom, emerging bureaucracy, careerism, sycophancy, martinet, low level of education, admiration for everything foreign, servility, the fact that in society it is not the personal qualities of a person that are valued, but “two thousand tribal souls,” rank, money.
• The main representative of the “present century” in comedy is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky - a young man, well educated, who realized that although the “smoke of the Fatherland” is “sweet and pleasant,” much in the life of Russia needs to be changed, and, first of all, the consciousness of people.
• The hero is opposed by the so-called “Famus society”, which is dominated by fear of progressive ideas and free-thinking thoughts. Its main representative, Famusov, is an official, a smart person in everyday life, but an ardent opponent of everything new and progressive.

They say about many things: “Here is something new,” but this has already happened in worlds that existed before us.

Bible

What is customary to say about Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”?

That “the present century and the past century” are opposed to each other. That Chatsky was crushed by the mass of “sinister old women, old men,” but he himself dealt them a mortal blow with “the quality of the new force.” That all this was the beginning of the 19th century was long ago and untrue. There are all sorts of nobles and Famus society.

In fact, there is no more topical comedy and no more complete picture of human morals than this miracle of rhymed speech, distinguished from prose only by the purity of intonation and the incomparable richness of poetry.

Chatsky is opposed by the best of his best ideological opponents, no less than he, endowed with a living and truly Russian speech - the very one in whose defense the main character so ardently advocates. “Signed, off your shoulders”, “Taste, father, excellent manner”, “That’s right, you’re all proud,” - you just bathe in this euphony of the Moscow dialect, but this is Famusov. What an abyss of humor there is in Skalozub’s remarks “So he’s looking for a husband for support” or “I’ll give Voltaire a sergeant-major.” They want to convince us that Sergei Sergeich is an idiot, but the irritated Chatsky’s remarks addressed to him, like Sophia’s ridicule of a possible suitor for her hand, are hardly fair. Martyr - perhaps. But idiot - no!

The old woman Khlestova is based on the famous maid of honor Ofrosimova, depicted in Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” who feared neither God, nor the devil, nor the sovereign, who reprimanded the crowned prankster in the same style as Chatsky. She displays her truly Russian autocratic and strangely democratic character in her remarks about Chatsky (“I pulled his ears, but only a little”) or in her abuse about her acquaintance with Skalozub.

No, Chatsky is opposed by a front of people who are far from stupid, and the Tugoukhovsky princesses are not an indicator: they are too young and still too carried away by the world that is new to them.

These people are united by common morality and common interests. This is not a monolith at all; having parted ways, they will slander not only the crazy Chatsky, but also each other (“Evil, girls have been around for a whole century”). But as soon as their well-being is encroached upon, all differences are forgotten, as well as pity, sympathy or anything like that. This is exactly what happened in the story with the stray Groom, “his” in everything: “Here is Chatsky, my friend, the late son of Andrei Ilyich,” - this is how Famusov recommends his guest. And he would have looked after him as before, but: “Oh, my God, he’s a Carbonari!” - The terrible days of the Pugachev era are still too memorable. Therefore, there will be no mercy for anyone - especially our own, if one senses in their words the “French infection”, that is, revolution, rebellion, human rights for the peasants.

Moreover, a whole crowd of these “eccentrics” were divorced: cousins, nephews of regulars at Moscow noble salons. It is known that, having learned about the arrest of her Decembrist nephews, Countess Buturlina presented the sovereign with one hundred pounds of cast iron - for shackles. So in the comedy they treated the rebel even more humanely: they gave him the opportunity to remain free, because what a demand for a crazy person.

So, the defenders of the “past century” are not some kind of monsters, but completely respectable people, not devoid of positive qualities. They stand guard over their established life, in which they are comfortable and everything is clear, in which they have taken or claim to take a well-known place in family and wealth, they will forgive you for any strangeness and eccentricity, as long as it does not affect the foundations of their world. They are, in general, kind, as and how accepted in their world.

So what do we want from them? That's how they were, and that's how we are. Our fathers did not object to prisons and psychiatric hospitals for the newly-minted Chatskys, and we do not contradict the current order of things. We feel comfortable in it, and we will always find lofty words to justify ourselves - not as Russian and euphonious as in a comedy, but God bless them!

The comedy “Woe from Wit” gives a general picture of the entire Russian life of the 10-20s of the 19th century, reproduces the eternal struggle between old and new, which unfolded with great force at that time throughout Russia, and not just in Moscow, between two camps: advanced, Decembrist-minded people and serf owners, a stronghold of antiquity.

The Famusov society in comedy, which firmly preserved the traditions of the “past century,” is contrasted by Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. This is a leading man of the “present century,” more precisely, of the time when, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened the self-awareness of all layers of Russian society at that time, secret revolutionary circles and political societies began to emerge and develop. Chatsky in the literature of the 20s of the 19th century is a typical image of a “new” person, a positive hero, a Decembrist in his views, social behavior, moral beliefs, and in his entire mentality and soul. The collision of Chatsky - a man with a strong-willed character, integral in his feelings, a fighter for an idea - with Famus society was inevitable. This clash gradually takes on an increasingly fierce character; it is complicated by Chatsky’s personal drama - the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness. His views against the existing foundations of society are becoming more and more harsh.

If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky speaks with the indignation of a Decembrist revolutionary about serf owners and serfdom. In the monologue “And who are the judges”, he angrily speaks out against those people who are the pillars of noble society. He speaks out sharply against the order of the golden age of Catherine, dear to Famusov’s heart, “the age of humility and fear - the age of flattery and arrogance.”

Chatsky’s ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and “hunter of indecency,” but an independent, free person, alien to slavish humiliation.

If Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub view service as a source of personal benefits, service to individuals and not to the cause, then Chatsky breaks ties with ministers and leaves service precisely because he would like to serve the cause and not servile before his superiors. “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,” he says. He defends the right to serve education, science, literature, but it is difficult in these conditions of the autocratic-serf system:

Now let one of us, one of the young people, find an enemy of quest, without demanding either a place or promotion to rank, he will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge; Or in his soul God himself will arouse a fervor for creative, lofty and beautiful arts, They immediately: - robbery! fire! And he will be known among them as a dangerous dreamer...

By these young people we mean people like Chatsky, Skalozub’s cousin, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “a chemist and a botanist.”

If Famus society treats everything folk, national with disdain, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, especially France, even neglecting its native language, then Chatsky stands for the development of a national culture that masters the best, advanced achievements of European civilization. He himself “searched for intelligence” during his stay in the West, but he is against “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of foreigners. Chatsky stands for the unity of the intelligentsia with the people.

If Famus society evaluates a person by his origin and the number of serf souls he has, then Chatsky values ​​a person for his intelligence, education, his spiritual and moral qualities.

For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of the world is sacred and infallible; the most terrible thing is “what will Princess Marya Alekseevna say!” Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts and opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own beliefs and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?” Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, against flattery, hypocrisy, against the emptiness of those vital interests that live the conservative circles of the nobility. His spiritual qualities are revealed in the choice of words, in the construction of phrases, intonations, and manner of speaking. The speech of this literary hero is the speech of an orator with excellent command of words, a highly educated person. As his struggle with Famus society intensifies, Chatsky’s speech is increasingly colored with indignation and caustic irony.

“Woe from Wit” is a political comedy because it poses the pressing social issues of that time: about public service, about serfdom, about enlightenment, about upbringing, about slavish imitation of everything foreign. The realism of “Woe from Wit” is also revealed in the principles of depicting the characters. All of Griboyedov's characters are true to the truth of life, bright, and multi-dimensional. The characters in Woe from Wit are not caricatures, but exact likenesses of living people.

Griboedov, with bitter irony, reveals in the dialogues and monologues of the characters the plight of the people and the country, where the servility of Molchalin, the careerism and stupidity of Skalozub, the bureaucracy and arrogance of Famusov, the idle talk of Repetilov is preferable to the wisdom of Chatsky's sanity.

Most of all, Famusov characterizes the society that opposes Chatsky. It’s not for nothing that we call this society “Famusovsky”. Famusov is a typical Moscow gentleman of the early 19th century with a characteristic mixture of tyranny and patriarchy. In the image of Famusov, the highest bureaucrats, their inactivity in the service, arrogance, and bribery are ridiculed. A striking example of idleness is Famusov’s drawing up of a schedule for the week, where all days are occupied by lunch and dinner parties. The ideal person for Famusov is one who has made a profitable career; at the same time, it does not matter to him by what means this was achieved. His political ideals boil down to the glorification of everything old, established, he lives well, and he does not want any changes. He is afraid of Chatsky and does not like him, because he sees in him a subverter of foundations, a rebel.

What is striking about Famusov is his outright immorality; it is especially dangerous because Famusov, as a noble gentleman, has great power over people. The immorality of power cannot but be terrible and dangerous. Famusov, as Griboedov created him, is not an abstract evil, but a concrete, living one. You believe in its reality and that is why it is especially frightening.

This is also true for Skalozub. Colonel Skalozub reflects the crushing, vulgarization of a military man. His rude soldiery, contempt for culture, and ignorance repel the reader. This is a successful careerist, who is characterized by the surname itself. But his careerism is criminal. It is based on military losses in the army: “Some, look, were killed.” The author ridicules Skalozub as a stupid and thoughtless officer of the Arakcheev era, an opponent of freedom and enlightenment.

Pseudo-liberalism is revealed in the image of Repetilov. “Young” liberal ideas give this part of the nobility the opportunity to “make some noise” in the club. They cover up their activities with idle talk. With exceptional satirical force, the comedy exposes the empty and vulgar fuss, noise and shouting that discredits and slows down the liberal movement.

In terms of all his character traits, Molchalin also belongs to Famus society. To the reader he seems like a nonentity: he is afraid to say an extra word, he is a servitor, he has no opinion of his own, but these are precisely the qualities that are the key to his future success in Famus’s world. Famus society is represented in the comedy widely and diversely. These are not only many main characters, but also secondary, episodic ones. For example, Khlestova is an important Moscow lady, rude, domineering, accustomed to not holding back her words. Zagoretsky is a necessary companion of all Famusovs and Khlestovs. “He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief... / I even locked the doors from him; / Yes, a master to serve...” Khlestova says about him.

Chatsky is an exposer of all the vices of society. His monologue “Who are the judges” sounds like a verdict on the political system and moral principles of Famus society. Most of all, he hates despotism and slavery, stupidity and dishonor, mental and moral deafness. He castigates the meanness of the serf owners. He cannot remain silent because it is painful and painful for him to see evil and injustice around him; he hates everything bad, because he loves goodness and truth.

Chatsky is also a problem. The problem of misunderstood and ridiculed intelligentsia, the problem of trampled patriotism and oppressed culture. This is not even a problem, but a whole aspect of problems that were not seen by an indifferent society and, as a result, resulted in the Decembrist uprising of 1825. Chatsky is a prototype of the Decembrists, the overthrowers of the old era. The comedy “Woe from Wit” made a great impression on his contemporaries and had an equally strong impact later until our time. She was admired by N.V. Gogol and F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and many other Russian writers and readers. The comedy has not lost its relevance today. The image of Chatsky will live as long as one era is replaced by others, and he will always “begin a new century.”

How is Chatsky in A.S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” contrasted with Famusov’s society?

The comedy “Woe from Wit” gives a general picture of the entire Russian life of the 10-20s of the 19th century, reproduces the eternal struggle between old and new, which unfolded with great force at that time not only in Moscow, but throughout Russia, between the two camps : advanced, Decembrist-minded people and serf owners, a stronghold of antiquity.

The Famusov society, which firmly preserved the traditions of the “past century,” is contrasted in the comedy by Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. This is a leading man of the “present century,” more precisely, of the time when, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened the self-awareness of all layers of Russian society at that time, secret revolutionary circles and political societies began to emerge and develop. Chatsky in the literature of the 20s of the 19th century is a typical image of a “new” person, a positive hero, a Decembrist in his views, social behavior, moral beliefs, and in his entire mentality and soul.

The collision of Chatsky - a man with a strong-willed character, integral in his feelings, a fighter for an idea - with Famus society was inevitable. This clash gradually takes on an increasingly fierce character; it is complicated by Chatsky’s personal drama - the collapse of his hopes for personal happiness. His attacks against the existing foundations of society are becoming more and more harsh.

If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky speaks with the indignation of a Decembrist revolutionary about serf owners and serfdom. In the monologue “Who are the judges?” he angrily opposes those people who are the pillars of noble society. He speaks sharply against the order of the golden age of Catherine, dear to Famusov’s heart, the age of “obedience and fear,” the age of “flattery and arrogance.”

Chatsky’s ideal is not Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and “hunter of indecency,” but an independent, free person, alien to slavish humiliation.

If Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub view service as a source of personal benefits, service to individuals and not to the cause, then Chatsky breaks ties with ministers and leaves service precisely because he would like to serve the cause and not servile before his superiors. “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,” he says. He defends the right to serve education, science, literature, but this is difficult under the conditions of an autocratic-serf system:

Now let one of us

Among the young people there will be 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!!.

By these young people we mean people like Chatsky, Skalozub’s cousin, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “a chemist and a botanist.”

If Famus society treats everything folk, national with disdain, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, especially France, even neglecting its native language, then Chatsky stands for the development of a national culture that masters the best, advanced achievements of European civilization. He himself was “searching for intelligence” during his stay in the West, but he is against the “empty, slavish, blind imitation" of foreigners. Chatsky stands for the unity of the intelligentsia with the people. If Famus society evaluates a person by his origin and the number of serf souls he has, then Chatsky values ​​a person for his intelligence, education, his spiritual and moral qualities.

For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of the world is sacred and infallible; the most terrible thing is “what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!” Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts and opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own beliefs and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?” Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, against flattery, hypocrisy, against the emptiness of those vital interests that live the conservative circles of the nobility. His spiritual qualities are revealed in the choice of words, in the construction of phrases, intonations, and manner of speaking. The speech of this literary hero is the speech of an orator with excellent command of words, a highly educated person. As his struggle with Famus society intensifies, Chatsky’s speech is increasingly colored with indignation and caustic irony.

Chatsky's clash with Famus society was inevitable. It takes on an increasingly fierce character and is complicated by Chatsky’s personal drama - the collapse of hopes for personal happiness. His attacks become more and more harsh. He enters into the struggle, and in his speeches the opposition of his views to the views of Famusov’s Moscow clearly appears:

If Famusov is a defender of the old century, the heyday of serfdom, then Chatsky speaks with indignation about serf owners and serfdom. If Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub view service as a source of personal benefits, service to individuals and not to a cause, then Chatsky breaks ties and leaves service precisely because he would like to serve his homeland and not be served by his superiors. If Famus society treats everything folk, national with disdain, slavishly imitates the external culture of the West, neglecting its native language, then Chatsky stands for the development of national culture. If Famus society evaluates a person by his origin and the number of serf souls, then Chatsky sees the value of a person in his personal merits. For Famusov and his circle, the opinion of aristocratic society is sacred and infallible; Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts and opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own beliefs and express them openly. Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness, despotism, against flattery, hypocrisy, against the emptiness of those vital interests that live in the circles of the nobility.