Refutation of critics and comments on his own writings - A.S. Pushkin. Griboyedov, Woe from Wit

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit"? Do you think I. A. Goncharov was right when he believed that Griboyedov’s comedy would never become outdated?

I think I'm right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of life in Russia after the War of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in the minds of people during the change of historical eras. Griboyedov convincingly shows that the new is initially quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools for one smart person, as Griboyedov aptly put it), but “the quality of fresh power” (Goncharov) ultimately wins. It is impossible to break people like this. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to its own Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression “superfluous man” applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the off-stage heroes (professors at the St. Petersburg Institute, practicing “in... lack of faith,” Skalozub’s cousin, who “picked up some new rules... suddenly left his service in the village I started reading books." Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, and believes in the victory of progress. He actively invades public life, not only criticizes social orders, but also promotes his positive program. His work and his work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not an extra person, but a new person.

Could Chatsky have avoided a collision with Famus society? What is Chatsky’s belief system and why does Famus society consider these views dangerous? Is it possible for Chatsky to reconcile with Famus society? Why? Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow? Do you agree with the assessment of Chatsky given by I. A. Goncharov? What artistic technique underlies the composition of a comedy? What attitude does Sofya Famusova have towards herself? Why? In which comedy episodes do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed? How do you see the future of comedy heroes? What are the storylines of a comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: love affair and social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main one is the social conflict (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of the general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

“Social Comedy” begins with a love affair, because, firstly, this is a sure-fire way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear indication of the author’s psychological insight, since it is precisely at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, which implies is love, often the most severe disappointments occur with the imperfections of this world.

What role does the theme of intelligence play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin’s understanding, intelligence represents not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to this definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of characters. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do their last names “say” about the characters in the comedy?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and telling surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance tunes the audience to the perception of comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be valuable on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from English. famous - “fame”, “glory” or from Lat. fama - “rumour”, “rumor”. The name Sophia means "wisdom" in Greek. The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. Chatsky’s name and patronymic emphasize masculinity: Alexander (from the Greek, winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek, courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero’s surname, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is the list of characters often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical field, but in a play, as in a literary work, as a rule, it is designated as a “list of characters.” At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very laconic but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, and the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of characters in the poster.

The sequence of arrangement of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his household are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, the maid, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him come the guests, ranked by degree of nobility and importance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all kinds, and waiters.

The classic order of the poster is disrupted by the presentation of the Gorich couple: Natalya Dmitrievna, the young lady, is named first, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. The violation of dramatic tradition is due to Griboyedov’s desire to hint already in the poster about the nature of the relationship between the young spouses.

Try to verbally sketch the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you imagine the heroes when they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed wardrobe, a large clock on the wall. On the right is the door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Lizanka is sleeping, hanging from her chair. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and realizes in horror that it is already morning. He knocks on Sophia's room, trying to force her to break up with Molchalin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begins to chime and play.

Lisa looks worried. She is nimble, fast, resourceful, and strives to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, wearing a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if sneaking, approaches Lisa from behind and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, winds the clock and speaks loudly, on the other hand, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is cheerful and witty.

Find the beginning of the comedy. Determine what plot lines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky’s house is the beginning of the comedy. The hero connects two storylines together - a love-lyrical and a socio-political, satirical one. From the moment he appears on stage, these two plot lines, intricately intertwined, but without in any way violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky’s ridicule of the appearance and behavior of visitors and inhabitants of Famusov’s house, seemingly still benign, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into political and moral opposition to Famusov’s society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not yet notice, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, giving preference to Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Molchalin? Pay attention to the stage direction at the end of the fourth scene of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from the dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky’s review of him.

He is a man of few words, which justifies his name. Has he not yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who mistakes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and rejection of insolence. Only later do we learn that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love “to please the daughter of such a man” “on the job,” and can be very cheeky with Liza.

And one believes Chatsky’s prophecy, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that “he will reach the known degrees, Because nowadays they love the dumb.”

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa evaluates Chatsky’s sincerity, his emotionality, his devotion to Sophia, remembers with what sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he might lose Sophia’s love during the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. Her phrase characterizing Chatsky is easy to remember:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!

Sophia, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and the fact that Liza admires him irritates her. And here she strives to distance herself from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to make everyone laugh,” “witty, smart, eloquent,” “pretended to be in love, demanding and distressed,” “he thought highly of himself,” “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and draws a conclusion, mentally contrasting Molchalin to him: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why search for intelligence and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: “Not a man - a snake” and a caustic question, has it ever happened to him, even by mistake, to speak kindly about anyone. She does not share Chatsky’s critical attitude towards the guests of Famus’s house.

How is Sophia's character revealed in the first act? How does Sophia perceive ridicule of people in her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky’s ridicule of people in her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of independent character and judgment, acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in the company of her father she is comfortable, convenient, habitually. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize the poor young man. However, as a true daughter of Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow husbands”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov - “A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of a wife’s pages...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia values in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky’s ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky’s personality and his arrival.

Sophia is smart, resourceful, has independent judgments, but at the same time powerful, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa's help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but abruptly cuts off when she seems to forget her position as a servant ("Listen, don't take unnecessary liberties...").

What conflict arises in the second act? When and how does this happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, the “present century” and the “past century.” If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s ridicule of the visitors to Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that he “gloriously knows how to make everyone laugh,” then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict moves into a serious stage contrasting socio-political and moral positions on pressing issues of life in Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and reason for the disagreement between them?

The characters show different understandings of the key social and moral problems of their contemporary life. The attitude towards service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served” - the principle of the young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing individuals, not serving the cause, on promoting relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter” “Signed, off your shoulders.” Famusov uses as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important nobleman of Catherine’s (“All in orders, He rode forever in a train...” “Who promotes to ranks and gives pensions?”), who did not hesitate to “bend over” and fell three times on the stairs so that cheer up the empress. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as a carbonari, a dangerous person, “he wants to preach freedom,” “he does not recognize the authorities.”

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the destinies of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of the serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out individually…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if you have enough; Two thousand family souls, - He and the groom,” then Chatsky evaluates such norms as “the meanest traits of a past life,” with anger attacks careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, have you had no success in your service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “was the head of the department under three ministers.” ". His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, for all his talents, does not enjoy the support of Famus society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” in this scene it is decided - scary. Molchalin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master at pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.

Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by chance. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it’s here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further remarks are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters, Would you like to try it on yourself?

Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. These comedic scenes brilliantly reveal the characters that make up Famus’s circle. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed crazy to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “damned Voltairian”, “overstepped the law”, “he is in the Pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had separate conversations with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses sound, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently spin in a waltz , old people scatter around the card tables.

Critics note that not only Chatsky’s social impulse, but also Repetilov’s chatter can be understood as the author’s view of Decembrism. Why was Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of Repetilov’s image in comedy. It's unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is telling (Repetilov - from Latin repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and seems to openly express his thoughts. But we cannot catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and are there any... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched upon, but more about himself he speaks “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the substance of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings on Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, so to speak, of Repetilov is “We make noise, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky’s assessments of Repetilov’s words are interesting, which indicate the difference in the author’s views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author agrees with the main character in his assessment of the comic character who unexpectedly appeared when the guests were leaving: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union is meeting in an English club, and secondly, with the words “why are you freaking out?” and "Are you making noise? That's all?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it towards a denouement. According to the literary critic L.A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventual tension of the episode. But the tension that begins to subside... intensifies Repetilov. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the denouement of the events of the ball, carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue the conversations at the ball, the meeting with the belated guest excites the main impression in everyone’s mind, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an involuntary witness to the great slander, in its abbreviated, but already absolutely established version. Only now the largest, independently significant and dramatic version is completed a complete episode of comedy, deeply embedded in act 4 and equal in scope and meaning to the whole act.”

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “the eternally young old men of Russian history”? What is Molchalin's true face?

By calling Molchalin this way, the literary critic emphasizes the typicality of this kind of people in Russian history: careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, and ways out in every possible way to tempting positions and profitable family connections. Even in their youth, they do not have romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for improving public and state life; they serve individuals, not causes. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “You should learn from your elders,” Molchalin assimilates in Famusov’s society “the meanest traits of his past life” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: let us remember what he bequeathed Molchalin’s father), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one’s own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is Famusov’s moral character that Molchalin reproduces when seeking a love date with Liza. This is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D.I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and he walked along the road that leads to “known degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; his mother dies on the side of the road, his beloved woman calls him to the neighboring grove, spit the whole world in his eyes to stop this movement, he will continue to walk and get there...” Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become a household name and The word “molchalinschina” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the resolution of the play's social conflict? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?

With the appearance of the XIVth last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins; in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that were heard in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov’s society are summed up and the final break between the two worlds is affirmed - “the present century and the past century.” It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “a million torments”, endures a personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced his early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball. Famusov's world is alien to him, he did not accept its laws. And therefore we can assume that moral victory is on his side. Moreover, Famusov’s final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important master of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say? Griboyedov first called his play “Woe to Wit,” and then changed the title to “Woe from Wit.” What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original?

The original title of the comedy stated the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the causes of grief are indicated, and thus the title concentrates the philosophical orientation of the comedy; the reader and viewer are attuned to the perception of problems that always face a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal” moral ones. The theme of the mind underlies the conflict of the comedy and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - on the clash of intelligence and stupidity or on the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is based on the clash not of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other characters in the comedy are not stupid at all. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him such. But they have a practical, worldly, resourceful mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man of an open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical acumen.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the characters in the play.

About Famusov: “Grumpy, restless, quick...”, “Signed, off your shoulders!”, “... we have had it since ancient times, / That honor is given to father and son,” “How will you introduce yourself to the little cross, to the town, Well, how can you not please your loved one,” etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely,” “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us,” “May the unclean Lord destroy this spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation...", "Try about the authorities, and God knows what you'll say. / Bow a little low, bend over - like a ring, / Even in front of the monarch's face, / So he will call you a scoundrel!.."

About Molchalin: “Silent people are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and is not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “At my age one should not dare to have his own judgment”, “A famous servant... like a thunderbolt”, “Molchalin! Who else will settle everything so peacefully! / There he will pet a pug in time, / Here he will rub a card just right...”

Get acquainted with various assessments of Chatsky's image. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...” Goncharov: “Chatsky is positively smart. His speech is full of wit...” Katenin: “Chatsky is the main person... he talks a lot , scolds everything and preaches inappropriately." Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and versatility of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboyedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was his first acquaintance with the work; by that time, the aesthetic positions of both poets had diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he has recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy.” Subsequently, “Woe from Wit” will be included in Pushkin’s work through hidden and explicit quotations.

Reproaches to Chatsky for verbosity and inappropriate preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set for themselves: to express their positions in any audience. They were distinguished by the directness and sharpness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their verdicts, without taking into account secular norms, they called things by their proper names. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, a progressive person of the 20s of the 19th century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical sketch by I. A. Goncharov “A Million Torments.” Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society”?

The condition designated in the comedy as “the mind and heart are not in harmony” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to affirm progressive views, speak out against injustice, the rigidity of social foundations, and find answers to pressing spiritual and moral problems create the conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times.

B. Goller in the article “The Drama of a Comedy” writes: “Sofya Griboyedova is the main mystery of comedy.” What do you think is the reason for this assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the young ladies of her circle: independence, sharp mind, self-esteem, disdain for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like the Tugoukhovsky princesses, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, mistakes his visits for dates and tender silence for love and devotion, and becomes Chatsky’s persecutor. Her mystery also lies in the fact that her image evoked different interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V.A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia who loves Chatsky, but because of his departure she feels insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, and able to control herself well. Mockery and grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina discovered a strong character and deep feeling in Sophia. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of Famus society, but did not denounce it, but despised it. Love for Molchalin was generated by her power - he was an obedient shadow of her love, but she did not believe Chatsky’s love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious for the reader, viewer, and theater workers to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action), characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it observed in comedy?

In the comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place during the day), place (in Famusov’s house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: “I’m not talking about poetry: half should be included in the proverb.” What is the innovation of the language of Griboyedov’s comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become popular.

Griboyedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial character of the language is given by the free (different foot) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three styles and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in “Woe from Wit” and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed is he who believes.

Signed, off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many of them are weekly.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.

Oh! If someone loves someone, why bother searching and traveling so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called "Woe from Wit" a comedy in verse. Sometimes doubt arises whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be classified as comic; on the contrary, he suffers from deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov’s desire, while attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around Molchalin’s fall from the horse, Chatsky’s constant misunderstanding of Sophia’s transparent speeches, “little comedies” in the living room at the gathering of guests and when rumors about Chatsky's madness spread), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give every reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, since it raises significant social and moral problems.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “superfluous man” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, and indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not “serve his superiors.” And such people, despite their intelligence and abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the "present century"?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: cousin Skalozub, who “suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village”; Princess Fyodor’s nephew, who “doesn’t want to know the officials! He’s a chemist, he’s a botanist”; professors at the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who “practice in schisms and lack of faith.”

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the "past century"?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs of it they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky “changed the law”, the countess - “he is a damned Voltairian”, Famusov - “try about the authorities - and God knows what he will say,” that is, the main sign of madness, according to the views of Famusov’s society, is freethinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia choose Molchalin over Chatsky?

Sophia was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, it seems to her, is pure, shy, sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was raised by the Famus environment, in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and position in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy “Woe from Wit” that have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Pass us away from all sorrows and lordly anger and lordly love.

I walked into the room and ended up in another.

He never said a smart word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!

Questions and answers to A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy “Woe from Wit”?
Do you think I. A. Goncharov was right when he believed that Griboyedov’s comedy would never become outdated?

I think I'm right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of life in Russia after the War of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in the minds of people during the change of historical eras. Griboyedov convincingly shows that the new is initially quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools for one smart person, as Griboyedov aptly put it), but “the quality of fresh power” (Goncharov) ultimately wins. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to its own Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression “superfluous person” applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the off-stage heroes (professors of the St. Petersburg Institute, practicing “in... lack of faith,” Skalozub’s cousin, who “picked up some new rules... suddenly left his service in the village I started reading books." Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, and believes in the victory of progress. He actively invades public life, not only criticizes social orders, but also promotes his positive program. His work and his work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not an extra person, but a new person.

Could Chatsky have avoided a collision with Famus society?
What is Chatsky’s belief system and why does Famus society consider these views dangerous?
Is it possible for Chatsky to reconcile with Famus society? Why?
Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow?
Do you agree with the assessment of Chatsky given by I. A. Goncharov?
What artistic technique underlies the composition of a comedy?
What attitude does Sofya Famusova have towards herself? Why?
In which comedy episodes do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed?
How do you see the future of comedy heroes?
What are the storylines of a comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: love affair and social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

“Social Comedy” begins with a love affair, because, firstly, this is a sure-fire way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author’s psychological insight, since it is precisely at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, What love implies is often where the most severe disappointments with the imperfections of this world occur.

What role does the theme of intelligence play in comedy?

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Read the list of characters. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do their names “say” about the characters in the comedy?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and telling surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovskys, Khryumins, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance prepares the audience to perceive comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, and patronymic. It appears to be valuable on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from English. famous - “fame”, “glory” or from Lat. fama - “rumour”, “rumor”. The name Sophia means “wisdom” in Greek. The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. Chatsky’s name and patronymic emphasize masculinity: Alexander (from the Greek, winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek, courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero’s last name, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is the list of characters often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical sphere, but in a play as a literary work, as a rule, it is designated as a “list of characters.” At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very laconic but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, and the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of characters in the poster.

The classic order of the poster is disrupted by the presentation of the Gorich couple: first Natalya Dmitrievna, the young lady, is named, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. The violation of dramatic tradition is associated with Griboedov’s desire to hint already in the poster at the nature of the relationship between the young spouses.

Try to verbally sketch the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you imagine the heroes when they appear?

Lisa looks worried. She is nimble, fast, resourceful, and strives to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, wearing a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if sneaking, approaches Lisa from behind and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, winds the clock, speaks loudly, and on the other hand, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is cheerful and witty.

Find the beginning of the comedy. Determine what plot lines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky’s house is the beginning of the comedy. The hero connects two storylines together - a love-lyrical one and a socio-political, satirical one. From the moment he appears on stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without in any way violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky’s ridicule of the appearance and behavior of visitors and inhabitants of Famusov’s house, seemingly still benign, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into political and moral opposition to Famusov’s society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not yet notice, Sophia rejects both his love confessions and hopes, giving preference to Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Silent? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth scene of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky’s review of him.

He is a man of few words, which justifies his name. Have you not yet broken the silence of the seal?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who mistakes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and aversion to insolence. Only later do we learn that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love “to please the daughter of such a man” “on the job,” and can be very cheeky with Liza.

And one believes Chatsky’s prophecy, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that “he will reach the known levels, Because nowadays they love the dumb.”

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky’s sincerity, his emotionality, his devotion to Sophia, remembers with what sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he might lose Sophia’s love during the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his cheerfulness and wit. Her phrase characterizing Chatsky is easy to remember:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!

Sophia, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and the fact that Liza admires him irritates her. And here she strives to distance herself from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to make everyone laugh,” “witty, smart, eloquent,” “he pretended to be in love, demanding and distressed,” “he thought highly of himself,” “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and makes a bold statement. waters, mentally contrasting Molchalin with him: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why search for intelligence and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: “Not a man - a snake” and a caustic question whether he had ever, even by mistake, spoken kindly about anyone. She does not share Chatsky’s critical attitude towards the guests of Famus’s house.

How is Sophia's character revealed in the first act? How does Sophia perceive ridicule of people in her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky’s ridicule of people in her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in She feels comfortable, comfortable, and familiar with her father’s company. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize the poor young man. However, as a true daughter of Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow husbands”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov - “A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of a wife’s pages...”. Ridicule at this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia values in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky’s ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky’s personality and his arrival.

Sophia is smart, resourceful, independent in her judgment, but at the same time powerful, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa’s help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but abruptly breaks off when she seems to forget her position as a servant (“Listen, don’t take unnecessary liberties...”).

What conflict arises in the second act? When and how does this happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, the “present century” and the “past century.” If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s ridicule of the visitors to Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that “he knows how to make everyone laugh gloriously,” then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in In monologues, the conflict moves into the stage of serious opposition between socio-political and moral positions on pressing issues of life in Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and reason for the disagreement between them?

The characters show different understandings of the key social and moral problems of their contemporary life. The attitude towards service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening” is the principle of the young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing people, and not on serving the cause, on promoting relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter”: “It’s signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov uses as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important nobleman of Catherine’s (“All in orders, He always rode in a train...” “Who promotes to ranks and gives pensions?”), who did not hesitate to “bend over” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer up the lady. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as a Carbonari, a dangerous person, “he wants to preach freedom,” “he does not recognize the authorities.”

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the destinies of serfs - to sell, separate families, as the owner of the serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out individually...”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be poor, but if you get enough; Souls of a thousand and two clans, - He and the groom,” then Chatsky evaluates such norms as “the vile traits of the past life,” and angrily attacks careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his views on life. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, failure in service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “with three ministers was the head of the department.” His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, with all his talents, does not enjoy the support of the Famous society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” ? in this scene it is decided - scary. Molcha-lin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master of pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.

Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky’s madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by accident. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation that had just ended with the hero? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it is here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further replies are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters, Would you like to try it on yourself?

Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedic scenes, the characters of the characters who make up Famus’s circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that the rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The Countess granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed crazy to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the Countess and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “a damned Voltairean,” “he crossed the law,” “he’s in the Pusurmans,” etc. Then the comic miniatures give way to a crowd scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue “The Frenchman from Bordeaux” is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had conversations separately with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses healthy, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently twirling in a waltz, old people scatter around the card tables.

Critics note that not only Chatsky’s social impulse, but also Repetilov’s chatter can be understood as the author’s view of Decembrism. Why was Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of Repetilov’s image in comedy. It's unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is telling (Repetilov - from Latin repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and seems to openly express his thoughts. But we cannot catch any thoughts in the flow of his speeches, and are there any... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but more about himself he speaks “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the substance of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings on Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, so to speak, of Repetilov is “Mime, brother, make noise.”

Chatsky’s assessments of Repetilov’s words are interesting, which indicate the difference in the author’s views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author agrees with the main character in his assessment of the comic character who unexpectedly appeared during the departure of guests: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union is meeting in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “why are you freaking out? » and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it towards a denouement. According to literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “Departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventual tension of the episode. But the tension that is beginning to subside... Repetilov is inflated. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the outcome of the events of the ball, carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue the conversations at the ball, the meeting with the belated guest excites the main impression in everyone’s mind, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an involuntary witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already absolutely established version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramatically integral episode of the comedy, deeply embedded in Act 4 and equal in scope and meaning to the whole act, coming to an end.”

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “the forever young old men of Russian history”? What is Molchalin's true face?

By calling Molchalin this way, the literary scholar emphasizes the typicality of this kind of people in Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, and ways out in every possible way to tempting positions and profitable family connections. Even in their youth, they do not have romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for improving public and state life; they serve individuals, not causes. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “You should learn from your elders,” Molchalin assimilates in Famusov’s society “the meanest traits of past life” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile soil: let us remember what Molchalin’s father bequeathed), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one’s own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is Famusov’s moral character that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a love date with Liza. This is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D.I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and he walked along the road that leads to “famous degrees”; he has gone and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; his mother dies on the side of the road, his beloved woman calls him to the neighboring grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will continue to walk and get there...” Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, not By chance, his name became a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the resolution of the play's social conflict? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?

With the appearance of the XIVth last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins; in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov’s society are summed up and the final break between the two worlds is affirmed - “the present century and century of the past." It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “a million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced his early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball. Famusov's world is alien to him, he did not accept its laws. And therefore we can assume that moral victory is on his side. Moreover, Famusov’s final phrase, which ends the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important master of noble Moscow:

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

Griboyedov first called his play “Woe to Wit,” and then changed the title to “Woe from Wit.” What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original?

The original title of the comedy affirmed the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the reasons for the occurrence of grief are indicated, and thus the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated in the title; the reader and viewer are attuned to the perception of problems that always arise before a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal” moral ones. The theme of the mind underlies the comedy's conflict and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - the clash of intelligence and stupidity or the clash of different types of mind?

Find quotes in the text that characterize the characters in the play.

About Famusov: “Grumpy, restless, quick...”, “Signed, off your shoulders!”, “... we have been doing this since ancient times, / That there is honor for father and son,” “How will you begin to present to the cross?” , to the town, Well, how can you not please your loved one,” etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely,” “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us,” “May the Lord destroy this unclean spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation...", "Try about the authorities, and God knows what they'll tell you. / Bow a little low, bend like a ring, / Even in front of the royal face, / That’s what he’ll call you a scoundrel!..”

About Molchalin: “Silent people are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “At my age I should not dare to have my own judgment”, “Famous servant... like a thunderbolt", "Molchalin! Who else will settle everything so peacefully! / There he will stroke the pug in time, / Here he will rub the card just in time...”

Get acquainted with various assessments of Chatsky's image. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...” Goncharov: “Chatsky is positively smart. His speech is seething with wit...” Katenin: “Chatsky is the main person... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.” Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and versatility of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboyedov’s play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was his first acquaintance with the work; by that time, the aesthetic positions of both poets had diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he has recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy.” Subsequently, “Woe from Wit” will be included in Pushkin’s work through hidden and explicit quotations.

Reproaches to Chatsky for verbosity and preaching inappropriately can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set for themselves: to express their positions in any audience. They were distinguished by the directness and sharpness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their verdicts, without taking into account secular norms, they called things by their proper names. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, a progressive person of the 20s of the 19th century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical sketch by I. A. Goncharov “A Million Torments.” Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society”?

The condition designated in the comedy as “the mind and heart are not in harmony” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to affirm progressive views, to speak out against injustice, the inertia of social foundations, to find answers to current spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times. Material from the site

B. Goller in the article “The Drama of a Comedy” writes: “Sofya Griboyedova is the main mystery of comedy.” What do you think is the reason for this assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the young ladies of her circle: independence, sharp mind, sense of her own dignity, disdain for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like the Tugoukhovsky princesses, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, mistakes his visits for dates and tender silence for love and devotion, and becomes Chatsky’s persecutor. Her mystery also lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V.A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia, who loves Chatsky, but because of his departure she feels offended, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, and able to control herself well. Mockery and grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina revealed a strong character and deep feeling in Sophia. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of Famus society, but did not denounce it, but despised it. Love for Molchalin was generated by her power - he was an obedient shadow of her love, and she did not believe Chatsky’s love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious for the reader, viewer, and theater workers to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action), characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it followed in comedy?

In the comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place within a day), place (in Famusov’s house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: “I’m not talking about poetry: half should be included in the proverb.” What is the innovation of the language of Griboyedov’s comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become popular.

Examples of aphorisms that sound in “Woe from Wit” and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed is he who believes.

Signed, off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many of them are weekly.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.

Oh! If someone loves someone, why bother searching and traveling so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called “Woe from Wit” a comedy in verse. Sometimes doubt arises whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be classified as comic; on the contrary, he suffers from deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov’s desire, while attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around Molchalin’s fall from the horse, Chatsky’s constant misunderstanding of Sophia’s transparent speeches, “little comedy" in the living room during a gathering of guests and when rumors about Chatsky's madness are spreading), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give every reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, since it raises significant social and moral issues.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “superfluous man” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in his judgments, critical of high society, and indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not “serve his superiors.” And such people, despite their intelligence and abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit” belongs to the “present century”?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: Skalo-zub’s cousin, who “suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village”; Princess Fyodor’s nephew, who “doesn’t want to know the officials! He is a chemist, he is a botanist"; professors at the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who “practice in schisms and lack of faith.”

Which of the characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit” belongs to the “past century”?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of Famus society understand madness?

Why did Sophia choose Molchalin over Chatsky?

Sophia was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, it seems to her, is pure, shy, and sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was raised by the Famus environment, in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and position in society.