Analysis of the first act of Griboyedov's grief from wit. A.S

The comedy of the Russian classic Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is divided into four acts. The first takes place in the house of the big official Famusov, here the daughter Sophia, a spoiled girl and a smart girl, is caught by the priest having a secret meeting with a minor official Molchalin. Then Chatsky arrives, a man of progressive views, who has been in love with Sophia since childhood, without reciprocity.

Analysis of the second act of “Woe from Wit”: here the main problems of the work are raised: the conflict of freethinking, freethinking with the old despotic foundations. There is also a conflict of selfish interests and sincere, unconditional, ardent feelings. In a conversation with Colonel Skalozub, Famusov expresses his opinion: you have your own estate and service - a groom. No - go for a walk, Vasya!

Chatsky has a conversation with Famusov, where the second is horrified by his free views young man: “He doesn’t recognize the authorities!” “When it is necessary to serve, and he bent over” - around this sample successful person A dispute arises between the owner and Chatsky, the latter refuses the example offered to him.

At this time, Molchalin falls from his horse, the frightened lover Sophia faints when she sees this. Her feelings for Molchalin, which she carefully hid, become clear to the inhabitants of the house.

Analysis of the third act of “Woe from Wit”: here the theme of dependence on public opinion, idleness, herdism and stupidity in society is raised. The carefree crowd at the ball treats Chatsky as crazy thanks to Sophia’s cruel joke: no one wants to admit that they were not the first to learn about this news. Suddenly, rich and distinguished individuals resemble a flock of sheep. People trust authorities unconditionally: “if the princes know, then it’s true!” And they behave with herd cruelty, for the most part with indifference to Chatsky’s fate: everyone is afraid of him, afraid to speak: “Suddenly he’ll rush!”

Analysis fourth act"Woe from Mind". At the end of the comedy, the topic and problem of self-esteem is raised. Molchalin, caught, crawls on his knees in front of Sophia, but she is already disgusted by his indignity. Self-esteem rises in her at this moment. The same sense of self-esteem awakens in Chatsky and forces him to leave home and sleepy Moscow, where the girl who attracted him played stupid games with him, where he felt sick and stuffy being in society.

Famusov's image: Famusov is the owner of the house, a manager in a government place, Sophia’s father, a power-hungry and voluptuous man, as evidenced by his intention to flirt with the servants. "Oh! away from the gentlemen. They have troubles ready for you every hour,” says Lisa, the maid, about the owner. Famusov was used to commanding other people, he was used to wealth. He gives his daughter Sophia such a hard time on all occasions that hold on: Famusov knows how to pour a torrent of words on the head of another person perfectly. His veneration for rank exceeds all reasonable limits. He does not encourage his daughter’s teaching, since he did not find anything for himself in the books; he considers Sophia his property:

“Tell me that it’s not good to spoil her eyes,

And reading is of little use:

She can't sleep from French books,

And the Russians make it hard for me to sleep...

He reads tall tales all night,

And here are the fruits of these books!..."

Sophia's image: Sophia is Famusov's daughter, a lover of French novels; the girl is proud, freedom-loving and disobedient to her father: “What do I hear? Whoever wants, judges that way...” she says, showing courage in her choice. Sophia has her own opinion and is able to make choices. But this girl’s mind is focused on intrigue more than anything positive. He cruelly laughs at Chatsky, who is in love, spreads rumors about him, and plays dirty tricks like a child. The intimidated Molchalin, a hidden intriguer, and an external sheep, for her, is a suitable match.

The image of Chatsky. Alexander Chatsky is a man of rebellious character: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served....” It is necessary to serve the cause, not individuals - this is what Chatsky believes. He is a man with mature feelings, has pride and principles, and develops his mind. Unfortunately, Sophia is unable to appreciate this.

Image of Molchalin: Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is a man “on his own mind.” He does not experience passionate feelings for Sophia, and probably does not experience any, and this is how he conquers her. In his free time, he has an affair with Lisa. He is a reserved, obsequious, quiet man, zealous in his service, submissive to Famusov: “At my age I should not dare to have my own judgment,” laconic:

"Oh! Sophia! Was Molchalin really chosen for her?

Why not a husband? There is only little intelligence in him;

But to have children,

Who lacked intelligence?

Helpful, modest, with a blush in his face...”

The comedy was written alive and in easy language, excellent rhymes are selected, the text is full of colorful images and comparisons. The work is filled with vivid images, aphorisms, witty expressions and the author’s sayings, which later became widespread among the people: “Pass us more than all sorrows, and lordly anger, and lordly love...”.

He completed his work on the play Woe from Wit back in 1824, and to this day it does not lose its relevance and enjoys success among readers. This comedy ranked with the best works of Russian literature, and was perhaps the only creation of the author that became known throughout the world. IN school curriculum this work takes up last place, so you'll have to work on the analysis Griboedov's comedy Woe from mind by episodes.

Conflict and problems Woe from Wit

- this is a bright work related to Russian classical literature 19th century. It takes readers to Famusov’s house, where an atmosphere of lies and pretense reigns. And here, among all this deception, Chatsky appears, who three years ago ran away from boredom in search of intelligence abroad. What makes him come back is his love for Sophia and his love for his Motherland. Returning home, Chatsky did not notice any changes during his absence, the only thing is that he is now very different from Famus society and no longer fits into it. He is now superfluous, and Chatsky is crazy.

The comedy Woe from Wit is rich in content, where each monologue and remark has its own meaning, helping to reveal the conflicts raised and the problems of the work.

Speaking of conflict, the reader already sees a contradiction in the title of the comedy. After all, in essence, there can be no grief from the mind, but not in the 19th century, not in Famus’s society. If for the enlighteners the mind was the arbiter of destinies, then for the Famus society it is a plague. And here Chatsky understands that his mind will only cause grief.

In the play we see two conflicting camps, so the whole comedy is an eternal conflict, where the heroes even have different and universal different attitude to the people and country. So, if for Chatsky the meaning of life is to serve his Motherland, then for the opposite camp state ideas are not important, they would receive rank and titles.

In his play, Griboyedov raises the problems of cruelty, careerism, ignorance and veneration. Now let's make the comedy Woe from Wit based on actions.

Analysis of the comedy Woe from Wit based on actions

By considering the analysis of individual episodes of Woe from Wit, we will be able to study in more detail Griboedov’s play with its problems, current themes, ideas, where the imperfection of the state apparatus, the problem of education, and the injustice of serfdom are evident. The comedy consists of four acts, which we will consider.

Analysis of 1 action

In the first act of the comedy, all events take place in Famusov’s house and we go to the house of Pavel Afanasyevich. The maid Liza covers for Sophia, who has a date with Molchalin. The man was supposed to leave unnoticed, but he is still caught by the man, who is told that he was passing through the house. Lisa and Sophia discuss Molchalin, and the maid says that she has no future with this man, since the girl’s father will not approve of the marriage. Best choice Sophia will be Skalozub, who has both rank and money. And according to Famusov, this is enough for his daughter’s happiness. Talking about intelligence, Lisa remembered Chatsky and young love young ladies. At this moment, Chatsky appears, who was hurrying to Sophia, and whom Sophia greeted very coldly. Chatsky suspects that the girl is in love with someone else.

In general, here the reader’s first acquaintance with the characters takes place, from whose conversations we begin to understand what is important to whom and is a priority.

Analysis 2 actions

Moving on to the analysis of Act 2 of Griboedov's play, we observe the first conflicts that arise between the characters. Even at the beginning, when Chatsky asks Famusov about what answer he would receive if he asked for Sophia’s hand, we see that the rank and position of his future son-in-law is important to Famusov. Moreover, everything can be obtained without merit; it is enough to serve oneself, as his uncle did in his time, who achieved a high position for his ability to serve the empress. This attitude was alien to Chatsky, who accuses the past century, that is, Famusov’s generation, of judging people by the size of their wallet and being ready to be buffoons. Chatsky preferred to serve the cause rather than individuals. We see the rich Skalozub, who has set himself the goal of becoming a general, but he does not want to earn this title, but to get it. Skalozub would be a good match for Sophia. And here a conflict of freethinking appears, where Famusov begins to blame Chatsky for his bold thoughts and statements. And Chatsky does not accept the fact that in Famus society they shun people of science, those who are engaged in art and do not chase ranks.

Analyzing the second act, we see that for Famusov the groom is the one who has rank and property. In the second act it also becomes known true attitude Sophia to Molchalin. Chatsky now understands who the girl is not indifferent to.

Analysis 3 actions

Next we are transported to the room where the conversation between Sophia and Chatsky took place. The man wanted to understand who was dear to the girl’s heart, either Molchalin or Skalozub. But she avoided answering, while Chatsky admits to Sophia that he is crazy about her. The heroine will later use this phrase against Chatsky, calling him a madman at an evening party. News of the madness at the ball, where only influential people in the capital were invited, quickly spread. Chatsky himself was uncomfortable among this society; he was dissatisfied with the capital, where there was nothing Russian. At every step one could feel the spirit of the foreign. There was a lot of French. So much so that the Frenchman felt at home in Russia. This was terrible and unacceptable for Chatsky, but for Famus society it was familiar and they bowed to France with pleasure.

The analysis of Act 3 touches on the topic of society’s dependence on other opinions, where as soon as you throw out a phrase, everyone immediately accepts it, without bothering to search for truth and lies. We see the herd nature of the crowd, which, because of Sophia’s joke, made Chatsky mad. We see how much they trust authorities here. And the author himself writes that if the princes say this, then it is so. In fact, this was also one of the problems that Griboyedov raised.

Analysis 4 actions

Continuing the analysis of act 4 of the comedy, we see its final stage. It's the end of the ball, all the guests are leaving. In act 4 we see the true face of Molchalin, who does not love Sophia at all, but simply curries favor with Famusov. Sophia hears this and drives Molchalin away. The same one tries to earn forgiveness by throwing himself at Sophia’s feet. Chatsky also recalls self-esteem. He hoped to awaken the girl’s love, but she only laughed at him, calling Chatsky crazy. She betrayed their friendship, betrayed their feelings. Chatsky accuses the heroine of giving hope three years ago without telling the truth about her indifference to him. But all three years he thought only about her. Chatsky feels bad in this Famus society. He is stuffy and disgusted by the sleepy capital. Without losing his dignity, Chatsky expresses his opinion and now leaves Famusov’s strange house.

In act 4 of the comedy we see the problem of human dignity, which should be in everyone. But this is alien to Famus society.

Having finished analyzing the episodes of Griboyedov’s work, we were once again convinced of how relevant it is. Indeed, even in our time, many catchphrases are used in everyday life. The play is filled vivid images and comparisons. There are a lot of witty statements here, and the language is so clear, which rightfully makes the work great and popular. Its main value is that, unlike other writers of the 18th and 19th centuries, who exposed the vices individuals, Griboedov attacked with satire on the whole lifestyle who is completely mired in vices. This was the power of comedy, which became the property of Russian literature and is read with pleasure today.

“Woe from Wit” analysis of Griboyedov’s comedy

What rating will you give?

Essay on the topic: “Chatsky and Molchalin in the comedy Woe from Wit”

HISTORY OF THE CREATION AND PUBLICATION OF THE WORK.

Information about the history of the creation of Griboyedov’s main work of art is quite meager. According to the writer’s friend, S.N. Begichev, the idea for the comedy arose back in 1816. It was supposed to write 5 acts, in which an important role was assigned to Famusov’s wife, “a sentimental fashionista and aristocrat.” Subsequently, the number of actions was reduced, and from the important female image the playwright refused. Apparently, the discussion here was not actually about the work that we know, but about a sketch, plot-wise similar to the comedy, but still not its first edition. The date of the start of work on “Woe from Wit” is considered to be 1820. A letter from Griboedov from Persia dated November 17, 1820 to an unknown person has been preserved, which recounts in detail a dream in which the writer allegedly saw the main points of the future work.

The original version of the title of the play was “Woe to Wit.” The writer formulated the main intrigue of the future comedy in a letter to Katenin as follows: “The girl, not stupid herself, preferred a fool to an intelligent man.” However, social contradictions did not fit into the designated plot scheme. In addition, the name itself sounded like a condemnation of every mind for all times. Griboyedov sought to present such a paradoxical, but, alas, typical situation in which a positive personality trait - intelligence - brings misfortune. It is this situation that is reflected in the new name - “Woe from Wit”.

Direct study of the first and second acts was carried out in 1822 in the Caucasus. Important role Communication with Kuchelbecker, whose observations Griboedov took into account, played a role in the depiction of social confrontation. Work on the 3rd and 4th acts was carried out in 1823 on the estate of S.N. Begichev, and the first act was burned and rewritten. The completely original version of the comedy was completed in 1824 in Moscow and presented to the same Begichev (the so-called Museum Autograph). The writer goes to St. Petersburg for censorship permission, continuing to make changes to the text along the way. This is how the scene of Molchalin flirting with Lisa in the 4th act was completed and the entire ending was changed. Arriving in the capital, Griboedov reads the play by A.A. Gandru, who was in charge of the entire office. The latter instructs scribes to prepare copies of the work. The playwright gave the list, corrected in his own hand and signed, to his friend (Zhandrovskaya manuscript). Main role The future Decembrists played a role in disseminating the play during this period.

The second half of 1824 and the beginning of 1825 were spent in trouble: the writer met with the Minister of the Interior B.C. Lansky, Minister of Education A.S. Shishkov, Governor of St. Petersburg M.A. Miloradovich, was introduced to the Grand Duke (future emperor) Nikolai Pavlovich. All of them reacted favorably to the playwright, but they failed to achieve publication of the entire work. Only phenomena 7-10 of the first act and the third act were published with censorship abbreviations in F.V.’s almanac. Bulgarin “Russian Waist in 1825.” When he left for the East in 1828, Griboedov gave him the last authorized version of the work (Bulgarin list). After the death of the writer, permission was finally obtained for a theatrical production in a highly distorted form. In 1833, a theatrical “edition” of the comedy was published. The play was published completely without censorship cuts abroad in 1858, and in Russia only in 1862. By this time, there were several tens of thousands of handwritten copies in the country, which significantly exceeded all circulations of printed materials known at that time. At the same time, the handwritten versions contained serious discrepancies, caused both by simple mistakes of copyists and by their desire to make their own additions and changes to the text. The editors of the 1862 edition were not able to completely overcome these difficulties. Only in the 20th century, through the efforts of literary scholars who conducted textual studies, and above all N.K. Piksanov, based on a comparison of the Museum autograph, the Zhandrovsky manuscript and the Bulgarin copy, the version of the comedy text that we have today was established.

ARTISTIC METHOD, PRINCIPLES OF CREATION OF A WORK. Traditionally, “Woe from Wit” is considered the first Russian realistic comedy. This fact is indisputable. At the same time, the play retains the features of classicism (for example, the unity of time and place, “ speaking names”, traditional roles: “deceived father”, “close-minded military man”, “soubrette-confidante”) and elements of romanticism appeared, reflected in a number of exceptional personality traits of the protagonist, in his incomprehension by others and loneliness, in his maximalism, opposition to everything around him reality and putting forward, in contrast to this reality, one’s own ideal ideas, as well as in the pathos of his speech. Realism was expressed primarily in the typification of characters and circumstances, as well as in the author’s conscious refusal to follow numerous norms for constructing classicist plays. Griboyedov violated whole line genre and plot-compositional canons, which prevented him from reflecting new content, not typical for traditional comedies.

IDEATORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONTENT OF THE WORK. If at the beginning of the 19th century. The main task of a comedian was considered to be entertaining the public and ridiculing personal vices, but Griboyedov set himself completely different goals. To understand them, one should turn to the meaning of the title of the play. It certainly reflects the main idea, the idea of ​​the work. This is confirmed in the author’s famous letter to Katenin: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is contrary to the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than others.” Thus, central question posed by Griboyedov in his work can be formulated as follows: why clever man turns out to be rejected by both society and the girl he loves? What are the reasons for this misunderstanding? This is a deeply philosophical and psychological question, a question that arises at any time and at any time. social environment. In fact, the era of carriages and palaces has long sunk into oblivion, people seem to live in completely different conditions, but it is still difficult for an intelligent person to find understanding in society, it is still difficult for him to explain himself to loved ones, everyone still opposes each other personal and public psychological stereotypes. Of course, in such a “transtemporal” formulation of the problem lies one of the secrets of the longevity of comedy, its modernity and relevance.

The problem of the mind is the ideological and emotional core around which all other issues of a philosophical, socio-political, national-historical and moral nature are grouped. Due to the special significance of the problem of the mind, serious controversy has developed around it. So, M.A. Dmitriev believed that Chatsky was only being clever, despising others, and in his pretentiousness he looked more comical than anyone else. From a different perspective, but also critically assessed the mental abilities of the main character of the play A.S. Pushkin. Without denying the depth of thoughts expressed by Chatsky (“Everything he says is very smart”), the poet asserted: “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...” He was skeptical about P.A.’s formulation of the problem. Vyazemsky, who stated that “among fools of different qualities,” Griboyedov showed “one smart person, and even a mad one.” V.G. Belinsky, who at first agreed with the assessment given by Dmitriev (“This is just a loudmouth, a phrase-monger, an ideal buffoon, at every step profaning everything sacred he talks about. Is it really possible to enter society and start scolding everyone to their face as fools and brutes? deep person?”), subsequently reconsidered his point of view, seeing in Chatsky’s monologues and remarks an outpouring of “bilious, thunderous indignation at the sight of a rotten society worthless people”, whose sleepy life in fact “is the death ... of every rational thought.” Thus, there has been a radical turn in the assessment of the protagonist’s mind, which is reflected in the look of D.I. Pisarev, who classified Chatsky among the characters suffering “from the fact that questions long ago resolved in their minds cannot yet even be posed in real life.” This point of view found final expression in the article by I.A. Goncharov’s “A Million Torments”, where Chatsky is called the smartest person in comedy. According to the writer, main character“Woe from Wit” is a universal typological figure, inevitable “with every change of one century to another,” far ahead of its time and preparing for the coming of a new one. As for Chagky’s ability to recognize people, Goncharov believed that the hero had it. Not initially intending to express his views in the company of Famusov and his guests, having arrived only to see Sophia, Chatsky is wounded by her coldness, then hurt by her father’s demands and finally psychologically cannot withstand the tension and begins to respond blow to blow. The mind is out of harmony with the heart, and this circumstance leads to a dramatic clash.

Bearing in mind Pushkin’s principle of judging a writer “according to the laws he himself has recognized over himself,” we should turn to Griboyedov’s position, to what he himself puts into the concept of “mind.” By calling Chatsky smart and the other characters fools, the playwright expressed his point of view unambiguously. At the same time, the conflict is structured in such a way that each of the warring parties considers itself smart, and those who do not share its views are crazy. Two understandings of the mind are revealed. The mind of Famusov and the characters in his circle represents the ability to adapt to existing living conditions and extract maximum material benefit from them. Life success expressed in the number of souls of serfs, in receiving a title or rank, in profitable marriage or marriage, in money, in luxury goods. Anyone who manages to achieve this (regardless of the means of achieving it) is considered smart. An example of “smart” behavior is clearly demonstrated in the story about Famusov’s uncle Maxim Petrovich, who, it would seem, was an absolutely losing situation (“on the kurtag... fell, so much so that he almost hit the back of his head”), instantly finding his bearings, and managed to turn it into a winning one for him. himself, deliberately falling twice more and receiving compensation for this in the form of special favor from the cheerful empress.

Similar examples of “smart” behavior are shown by Sophia, Molchalin, and Skalozub. From their point of view, a person who does not want to keep the peasants in serfdom, who has renounced his position and career, who does not want to dissemble, who openly expresses views that go against the generally accepted, who has made so many enemies in one evening, cannot be considered smart - this can be done only a madman. At the same time, many representatives of Famus society are well aware that Chatsky’s views are not crazy, but are built on a completely different logic, different from their own and fraught with a threat to their usual state of complacency. The logic of an intelligent person, according to Chatsky, presupposes not just the ability to use existing living conditions and not even just education (which in itself is mandatory), but the ability to freely and impartially evaluate the conditions themselves from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they common sense do not correspond. It makes no sense to shout and demand an “oath so that no one knows or learns to read and write” while at the head of the academic committee. How long can you hold out in such a position with such views? It is not only dishonest, but also really stupid to exchange “three greyhounds” for the servants who “in hours of wine and fighting” repeatedly saved the life and honor of the master, because who will save his life next time? It is pointless and dangerous to use material and cultural benefits without providing any access to them to the people, those same smart, vigorous people who just saved the Russian monarchy from Napoleon. It is no longer possible to stay at court using the principles of Maxim Petrovich. Now it is not enough just personal devotion and the desire to please - now it is necessary to be able to get things done, since state tasks have become much more complicated. All these examples clearly demonstrate the author’s position: Griboyedov is inclined to consider a mind that only adapts to what is already known, thinking in standard stereotypes, to be stupid. But the essence of the problem is that the majority always thinks in a standard and stereotypical way. Conclusion, keeping in mind the situation early XIX c., may sound like this: the nobility, for the most part, as the force responsible for organizing life in the country, has ceased to meet the requirements of the time. But if we recognize the right to exist for such views, it will be necessary to react to them: either, realizing their correctness, change in accordance with them (which many do not want to do, and most are simply not able to do), or fight (which is what happens throughout 2nd, 3rd and almost the entire 4th act of the comedy), while declaring the hero crazy allows you to ignore his speech. It’s so convenient, and you can try to restore the atmosphere of complacency and comfort that reigned here before Chatsky appeared. However, it turns out to be impossible to do this, because Chatsky is not just an absolutely lonely figure, but a type who identified an entire phenomenon in society and revealed all its pain points.

To illuminate the problem of the mind comprehensively, the playwright turns to other philosophical, socio-political, moral-ethical, national-cultural and family-everyday aspects. Thus, the content of comedy represents a complex set of philosophical, socio-political, moral and national-historical problems. In addition to the problem of the mind, philosophical ones include the problem of the meaning of life, the problem of happiness, the problem of personal freedom, and the problem of fate. Socio-political problems are very widely represented. First of all, we should highlight the problem of deep divisions within the nobility. Most nobles are satisfied with the life they live and do not want to change in any way. The minority, on the contrary, strive to transform almost all social foundations. It should be noted that Griboyedov does not reduce this conflict only to a confrontation between generations. For example, Chatsky and Molchalin can be attributed to the same generation, but their views are diametrically opposed: the first represents the personality type of the “present century” and even most likely the future century, and the second, despite his youth, is the “past century”, since he is satisfied life principles of Famusov and people around him. The point, therefore, is not simply an attempt by some young people to assert themselves, but that the foundations of the life of the nobility that have developed over centuries have actually become obsolete and the most far-sighted people have already realized this, while others, feeling the general disadvantage, are striving with all their might to preserve these foundations or be content with only superficial changes. Thus, the severity of the contradictions that emerges in the attitude of Chatsky and his opponents to serfdom, to state structure, to service, to public education and education, to history, to the position and role of women in society, to the generally accepted family and everyday life. It is very important to remember which of the characters expresses what views on these issues, and should not be limited only to the main characters.

Griboyedov attached special meaning questions of truth and lies, as well as honor and dishonor, posed in “Woe from Wit” as a public issue (especially along the line of society - a notorious scoundrel, and also along the line of society - fair man), and at the interpersonal level (boss - subordinate, parents - children, lovers, friends, acquaintances). Should, say, a father who flirts with a maid and, moreover, left the upbringing of his daughter to a French woman, be surprised that his daughter behaves accordingly like his? by my own example, and courtly novels? Should a girl who deceives her father and slandered her childhood friend accuse her lover of treachery, who deceived her? Isn’t the reason for such things that people, both before and now, in a number of cases allow themselves to transgress the rules of conscience and honor, while others are required to strict compliance these rules? Double morality is generally accepted, so it is not the act itself that is important, but the opinion about it, which does not always develop spontaneously - it can be “organized.” In connection with this link that unites everything moral problems Comedy becomes the motive of rumors and gossip. Besides, moral issues directly related to the problem of the mind. Should an intelligent person also be honest, or is it enough for him to just create an appropriate image about himself? public opinion? This far from idle question is still relevant today.

The national historical issues raised in the comedy are also very significant: the War of 1812, national identity, culture, language. The correlation between Russian and Western European (mainly French, but not only) types of consciousness occurs through the comparison of books, clothing, everyday life, language, principles of upbringing and education. The writer reveals serious discrepancies between these types of consciousness. The problem of borrowing becomes urgent: feeling the alienness of the content of many Western European life principles, Russian nobility for the most part, however, they strive to follow their form. Thus, only the external side is borrowed - outfits, fashion, manners, speech patterns. Such a discrepancy between content and form sometimes leads to bizarre (a mixture of “French with Nizhny Novgorod”), and more often to dramatic consequences (the Russian people begin to perceive their own nobility as foreigners). In addition, two mutually repulsive poles of perception of other cultures arise: their complete and unconditional copying (remember the behavior of the guests at the ball) and their equally complete, but only verbal rejection (Famusov’s position). Griboedov, on the whole, opposes both extremes: he considers it necessary to see the world and perceive the best examples of world experience, but he sees that public consciousness is capable of accepting only second-rate surrogates through those foreigners who have not been able to prove themselves in any way at home. And in this matter, the writer also managed to grasp not only characteristic feature of its time, but also a national problem. Isn’t it true that even now we are being bombarded with a stream of people, ideas and things of dubious quality from abroad, and isn’t it just as before that public consciousness is unable to separate the wheat from the chaff? How relevant is the desperate Chatsky’s phrase about the need, if it is impossible to abandon “empty, slavish, blind imitation,” to borrow from the Chinese “the wise... ignorance of foreigners.” However, “there is no prophet in his own country” - society tends not only to dress up, but also smart people look abroad.

Completing analysis content “Fire from mind”, it is necessary to pay attention to the absolute nature of the confrontation between the opposing forces on all issues: neither side is not only incapable of compromise, but, on the contrary, is completely convinced that the truth belongs only to it. At turning points in Russian life, society splits into those who strive to change all the foundations at once, and those who try with all their might to preserve the old foundations. The peculiarity of national consciousness at such moments works in such a way that people are unable to put themselves in the opposite point of view. In this regard, the motif of deafness acquires special significance in comedy. Manifesting itself on both the social and interpersonal level (the father, for example, turns out to be deaf to his daughter’s views, the daughter does not listen to the maid’s warnings, the main character cannot believe that his beloved chose someone else over him) level, deafness is also played out with the help of satirical techniques, correlating reluctance to listen with deafness in the literal sense of the word. Passing through the entire play, the motif of deafness becomes the leitmotif of the work.

GENRE FEATURES. Analyzing the features of the “Woe from Wit” genre, you should pay attention to a number of points. Firstly, it is necessary to understand why the comedy genre was chosen by the author to pose such serious questions and what opportunities this genre provided the author. Secondly, it is necessary to answer the question: whether the playwright was satisfied with the possibilities provided by the forms of comedy developed before him, and if the answer is negative, to identify what innovations Griboyedov introduced, whether, for example, he used any elements of the drama genre. Thirdly, it is necessary to determine what type of comedy genre “Woe from Wit” represents: philosophical, socio-political, family, or it combines a number of varieties. The answer to this question can be obtained based on what, from the author’s point of view, the main idea works. Fourthly, the plot-compositional structure of the work should be analyzed to identify any innovations (for example, the number of actions, the absence of traditionally required ones, or the presence additional elements plot, etc.).

CONFLICT, PLOT AND COMPOSITION. When considering the conflict and plot organization of “Woe from Wit,” it is necessary to remember that Griboedov took an innovative approach to the classic theory of three unities. While observing the principles of unity of place and unity of time, the playwright did not consider it necessary to be guided by the principle of unity of action, which, according to existing rules, was supposed to be built on one conflict and, having begun at the beginning of the play, receive a denouement in the finale, and main feature The outcome was the triumph of virtue and the punishment of vice. The violation of the rules of suspense caused sharp differences in criticism. Thus, Dmitriev, Katenin, Vyazemsky spoke about the absence of a single action in “Woe from Wit”, emphasizing the dominant role not of events, but of conversations, seeing this as a stage flaw. The opposite point of view was expressed by Kuchelbecker, who argued that there is much more movement in comedy itself than in plays built on traditional intrigue. The essence of this movement lies precisely in the consistent disclosure of the points of view of Chatsky and his antipodes, “... in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness...” Griboyedov. The outcome of the controversy was later summed up by Goncharov, who identified two conflicts and, accordingly, two closely intertwined storylines that form the basis of the stage action: love and social. The writer showed that, having initially begun as a love conflict, the conflict is complicated by opposition to society, then both lines develop in parallel, reach a climax in the 4th act, and then the love affair receives a denouement, while the resolution of the social conflict is taken outside the scope of the work - Chatsky is expelled from Famusov society, but remains true to his convictions. Society does not intend to change its views - therefore, further conflict is inevitable. This kind of “openness” of the ending, as well as the refusal to show the obligatory triumph of virtue, reflected the realism of Griboedov, who sought to emphasize that in life, unfortunately, situations often occur when vice triumphs. The unusual plot decisions with a pattern led to an unusual compositional structure: instead of the three or five acts prescribed by the rules, the playwright creates a comedy of four. If the love affair were not complicated by social conflict, then probably three actions would be enough to resolve it; if we assume that the author set out to show the final outcome of the social conflict, then, obviously, he would need to write a fifth act.

CHARACTER SYSTEM. When considering the features of constructing a character system and revealing characters, it is necessary to keep in mind the following circumstances. Firstly, the author creates images of his heroes according to the principles of realism, while remaining faithful to some features of classicism and romanticism. Secondly, Griboyedov abandoned the traditional division of characters into positive and negative, which was reflected in the difference critical assessments, given to the images of Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin. Chatsky, for example, in addition to positive qualities - intelligence, honor, courage, versatile education - also has negative ones - excessive ardor, self-confidence and unceremoniousness. Famusov, in addition to numerous shortcomings, has an important advantage: he is a caring father. Sophia, who so mercilessly and dishonestly slandered Chatsky, is smart, freedom-loving and determined. The obsequious, secretive and two-minded Mol-chalin is also intelligent and stands out for his business qualities. Attempts by critics to absolutize the positive or, on the contrary, negative sides of the heroes led to a one-sided perception of them and, consequently, to distortion author's position. The writer fundamentally contrasted the traditional way of creating characters, based on classical roles and exaggeration of any one character trait (“caricatures”, according to Griboedov’s definition), with a method of depicting social types, drawn through individual detail as versatile and multidimensional characters (called “portraits” by the author) ).

The playwright did not set himself the task of absolutely accurately describing any of the familiar faces, while contemporaries recognized them by individual striking details. Of course, the characters had prototypes, but even there were several prototypes of one character. So, for example, Chaadaev (due to the similarity of the surname and an important life circumstance: Chaadaev, like Chatsky, was declared crazy), and Kuchelbecker (who returned from abroad and immediately fell into disgrace), and, finally, were named as prototypes of Chatsky. the author himself, who found himself at some evening in Chatsky’s situation and later declared: “I will prove to them that I am sane. I’ll throw comedy into them, I’ll bring the whole evening into it: they won’t be happy.” Gorich, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Skalozub, Molchalin and other characters have several prototypes. The situation with Khlestova’s prototype looks most definite: most researchers point to the famous N.D. Ofrosimov, who also became the prototype of MD. Akhrosimova in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”, although there are also references to other persons. They pay attention, for example, to the fact that Khlestova’s behavior and character resemble the traits of Griboyedov’s mother, Nastasya Fedorovna.

It is very important to remember that both generalizing and personality traits heroes are created thanks to a whole arsenal of artistic means and techniques. It is the mastery of dramatic technique, the ability to create bright, lively, memorable pictures and images that form the basis of the artist’s skill. The main personality trait, which the author considered central to the corresponding stage role, is indicated by the “speaking” surname. So, Famusov (from the Latin fama - rumor) is a person who depends on public opinion, on rumors (“Ah! My God! What will / Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”). Chatsky (the original version of the surname Chadsky) is in the grip of passion and struggle. Gorich is a derivative of “grief”. Apparently, his marriage and gradual transformation from an efficient officer into a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant” should be considered as grief. The surname Skalozub indicates both the habit of rude ridicule and aggressiveness. The surname Repetilov (from the Latin repeto - I repeat) indicates that its owner does not have own opinion, but tends to repeat someone else’s. Other surnames are quite transparent in semantically. Messrs. N. and D. are as nameless as they are faceless.

Important means of creating images are also the actions of the characters, their views on existing life problems, speech, characterization given by another character, self-characterization, comparison of characters with each other, irony, sarcasm. So, if one of the heroes goes to “look at how” Molchalin, who fell from his horse, was cracked, “in the chest or in the side,” then the other at the same time rushes to the aid of Sophia. The characters of both are revealed in their actions. If one assessment of a personality is given behind the scenes (for example: “...a dandy friend; declared a spendthrift, a tomboy...”), and in the eyes - another (“...he’s a smart guy; he writes and translates nicely”) , then the reader gets the opportunity to form an idea of ​​both what is being characterized and the characterizing. It is especially important to trace the sequence of changes in assessments (from, say, “Oster, smart, eloquent, especially happy with friends...” to “Not a man - a snake”; from “Carbonari”, “Jacobin”, “Voltairian” to “crazy” ”) and understand what causes such extremes.

In order to get an idea of ​​the system of characters as a whole, it is necessary to analyze the interaction of the levels of its organization - main, secondary, episodic and off-stage. Which characters can be considered main, which - secondary, which - episodic, depends on their role in the conflict, in posing problems, in stage action. Since public confrontation is built primarily along the Chatsky-Famusov line, and the love affair is based primarily on the relationship between Chatsky, Sophia and Molchalin, it becomes obvious that of the four main characters, it is the image of Chatsky that bears the main burden. In addition, Chatsky in comedy expresses a set of thoughts that are closest to the author, partly fulfilling the classicist function of a reasoner. This circumstance, however, in no way can serve as a basis for identifying the author with his hero - the creator is always more complex and multidimensional than his creation.

Famusov appears in the play both as the main ideological antipode of Chatsky, and as an important character in a love affair (“What a commission, Creator, / To be a father to an adult daughter!”), and as a certain social type - a major official, and as an individual character - sometimes domineering and straightforward with his subordinates, sometimes flirting with the maid, sometimes trying to “reason” and “set the right path” for the young man, sometimes discouraged by his answers and shouting at him, sometimes affectionate and gentle with his daughter, sometimes hurling thunder and thunder at her lightning, helpful and polite with an enviable groom, a kind host who can, however, argue with the guests, deceived, at the same time funny and suffering in the finale of the play.

The image of Sophia turns out to be even more complex. A witty and resourceful girl contrasts her right to love with the will of her father and social norms. At the same time, brought up on French novels, it is from there that she borrows the image of her beloved - an intelligent, modest, chivalrous, but poor man, the image that she strives to find in Molchalin and is cruelly deceived. She despises the rudeness and ignorance of Skalozub, she is disgusted by the bile, caustic language of Chatsky, who, however, speaks the truth, and then she responds no less bile, not disdaining a vengeful lie. Sophia, skeptical of society, although not seeking confrontation with it, turns out to be the force with which society deals Chatsky the most painful blow. Not loving falsehood, she is forced to fake and hide, and at the same time finds the strength to make Chatsky understand that Molchalin has been chosen by her, which, however, Chatsky refuses to believe. Frightened and forgetting all caution at the sight of her lover falling from a horse, proudly standing up in his defense, she comes to a severe shock when she witnesses the amorous advances of her chosen “knight” towards her own maid. Having courageously endured this blow, accepting the blame upon herself, she is also forced to withstand her father’s anger and Chatsky’s mocking offer to make peace with Molchalin. The latter is hardly possible, given the strength of Sophia's character.

The image of Molchalin in the play is also not completely unambiguous; Pushkin wrote about him: “Molchalin is not quite sharply mean; Shouldn’t it have been necessary to make him a coward too?” Of all the characters in Famus’s circle, Molchalin is perhaps better able to adapt to existing conditions than others. Possessing, among other things, outstanding business qualities, he is able to achieve a high position in society. Molchalin represents that type of people, poor and humble, who with their work, perseverance, and ability to find mutual language with people slowly and steadily making a career. At the same time, he finds himself in a rather difficult position. Respectful of Famusov, he deceives his boss to please his daughter, for whom, however, he has no feelings. Faced with a choice, he strives to please both. As a result, in order to save his career and not make dangerous enemies, he lies to both Famusov and Sophia. Forced to play so many roles - secretary, lover, polite interlocutor, card partner, and sometimes even servant - Molchalin shows only one living feeling (attraction to Liza), for which he pays: his career is under threat.

The secondary characters are correlated with the main characters, but at the same time they have important independent meaning and directly influence the course of events. Thus, Skalozub is a type of military man, narrow-minded, but self-confident and aggressive. His appearance complicates both love and social conflict. Lisa is a servant-confidante. Without this image, it is impossible to imagine both the emergence and the denouement of a love affair. At the same time, Lisa is witty, ironic, and gives accurate characterizations different heroes. She is compared with her mistress, and in a number of cases this comparison is resolved in her favor. At the same time, with the help of this image, Griboedov emphasizes the confrontation between the nobility and the serfs (“Pass us more than all sorrows / Both lordly anger and lordly love”).

The figure of Zagoretsky is noteworthy, representing the type of people without whom no society can do: they know how to be necessary. This character is the antithesis of the image of Chatsky. The latter is honest, but expelled from society, while Zagoretsky is dishonest, but accepted everywhere. It is he who first of all forms public opinion, picking up, coloring and spreading gossip about Chatsky’s madness to all corners.

Two other characters are also compared with the main character - Repetilov and Gorich. The first is a type of pseudo-oppositionist. For the author, obviously, it was important to distinguish a person who has his own deeply thought-out beliefs from someone who is inclined to repeat others. The fate of the second shows what could have happened to Chatsky if he had tried to fulfill Famusov’s conditions and become like everyone else.

Episodic characters- Khlestova, Khryumins, Tugoukhovskys, G. N., G. D. - take part in public confrontation, pick up and spread gossip about Chatsky’s madness. They represent additional social types, thanks to whose presence the picture becomes more satirical. In their depiction, the author widely used the techniques of hyperbole, irony, and sarcasm. It is also important to pay attention not only to what unites them, making them the so-called representatives of Famus society, but also to how they differ from each other, to their individual traits and to the contradictions that arise between them.

There are an unusually large number of off-stage characters in comedy, even more of them than on-stage characters. They also represent one or another of the warring parties, with their help the scope of the conflict expands: from local, occurring in one house, it becomes public; the narrow framework of the unity of place and time is overcome, the action is transferred from Moscow to St. Petersburg, from the 19th to the 18th centuries; The picture of the morals of those times becomes more complicated and even more specific. In addition, thanks to off-stage characters, the reader gets the opportunity to more accurately assess the views of the people acting on stage.

LANGUAGE AND FEATURES OF THE VERSE OF COMEDY. The language of “Woe from Wit” differed significantly from the language of the comedy of those years. Griboedov contrasted sentimentalist aestheticism and sensitivity, as well as the classicist “theory of three calms,” with the realistic principle of nationality. The speech of the characters in the play is, first of all, the speech that could actually be heard in salons and living rooms, “while driving around on the porch,” at inns, in clubs and in officer meetings. Such a rejection of the basic provisions belles lettres caused critical controversy. The already mentioned Dmitriev reproached Griboedov for a number of phrases and speech patterns that, in the critic’s opinion, could not be acceptable in literature. However, most critics praised the playwright's linguistic innovation. “I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb,” - this is how Pushkin assessed Griboedov’s skill. “As for the poems with which “Woe from Wit” is written, in this regard Griboedov for a long time killed any possibility of Russian comedy in verse. Needed genius talent“to continue with success the work started by Griboyedov...” - Belinsky wrote in one of his articles. Indeed, many lines from the comedy began to be perceived as aphorisms, catchphrases living their own independent lives. Saying: “Happy people don’t watch the clock”; “I walked into a room and ended up in another”; “sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”; “and grief awaits around the corner”; “and the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us”; “in more numbers, at a cheaper price”; “with feeling, with sense, with arrangement”; “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served”; “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe”; “ gossips scarier than a pistol”; “the hero is not my novel”; “lie, but know when to stop”; “bah! all familiar faces” - many people do not remember where these phrases came from.

c Those who are planning to write an essay on Griboyedov should know

which character in the comedy says them and in what connection.

Language in comedy is both a means of individualizing characters and a method of social typification. Skalozub, for example, as a social type of military man very often uses army vocabulary (“frunt”, “ranks”, “sergeant major”, “trench”), and individual characteristics his speeches reflect his self-confidence and rudeness (“you won’t faint me with learning,” “but make a uttered noise, it will instantly calm you down”), insufficient education, manifested in the inability to construct a phrase (“on the third of August, we sat in a trench: it was given to him with a bow, to me on the neck”) and in an inaccurate choice of words (“with this estimate” instead of “sharpness”). At the same time, he tries to make jokes (“she and I didn’t serve together”). Famusov’s speech is the so-called Moscow noble vernacular (“they don’t blow anyone’s mouth,” “you should smoke in Tver,” “I scared you,” “trouble in the service”), replete with diminutive forms (“to the little cross, to the town ", "Otdushnikhek"). This character appears in the play in different situations, which is why his speech is so varied: sometimes ironic (“After all, I’m somewhat akin to her,” he says about Sofya to Chatsky), sometimes angry (“To work for you! To settle you!”), then scared.

Especially the monologues and remarks of Chatsky, who appears as a new social type, close in speech characteristics to the Decembrist pathos, required a lot of author’s work. In his speech there are often rhetorical questions (“Oh! if someone penetrated into people: what is worse in them? soul or language?”), inversions (“Aren’t you the one to whom I was still from the shrouds, for some plans incomprehensible, did they take children to bow?”), antitheses (“He himself is fat, his artists are skinny”), exclamations and special vocabulary (“weakness”, “the meanest”, “hungry”, “slave”, “most holy”). At the same time, in Chatsky’s speech one can find Moscow vernacular (“okrome”, “I won’t remember”). The main character's language contains the most aphorisms, irony, and sarcasm. Moreover, this speech conveys a wide range of psychological characteristics character: love, anger, friendly sympathy, hope, wounded pride, etc. The language also reveals the negative sides of Chatsky’s character - harshness and willfulness. So, to Famusov’s question: “...would you like to get married?” - he replies: “What do you need?”, and Sophia declares: “Has your uncle jumped back his age?” The hero's monologues and remarks are always right on target, and it is always difficult to avoid or parry them. He does not miss a serious reason, not the slightest reason for a strike, and does not give the opportunity to retreat with honor, and then his opponents unite. Chatsky is truly a warrior, as Goncharov convincingly showed, but war always entails grief and suffering.

The lively speech of the characters could not fit into the traditional framework of iambic hexameter (characteristic of comedy of that time). To create the effect of a real conversation and give it intonation diversity, Griboedov uses free iambic.

Thus, both the content and all levels of form were resolved by the playwright in an innovative way, bringing, as far as possible, piece of art to reality, which served as one of the foundations for the longevity of comedy.

Griboyedov wrote the play for two years (1822-1824). Since Alexander Sergeevich served as a diplomat and was considered an influential person, he hoped that his creation would easily pass censorship and would soon become a full-fledged performance. However, he soon realized: there is no skipping comedy. It was possible to publish only fragments (in 1825 in the almanac “Russian Waist”). The entire text of the play was published much later, in 1862. First theatrical performance took place in 1831. However, in handwritten copies (samizdat of that time) the book spread rapidly and became very popular among the reading public.

Comedy feature

Theater is the most conservative form of art, therefore, while romanticism and realism were developing in literature, classicism still dominated on the stage. Griboyedov’s play combines features of all three directions: “Woe from Wit” in form classic work, but realistic dialogues and issues related to the realities of Russia in the 19th century bring it closer to realism, and romantic hero(Chatsky) and the conflict of this hero with society is a characteristic opposition for romanticism. How are the classicist canon, romantic motifs and a general realistic attitude towards vitality combined in “Woe from Wit”? The author managed to harmoniously weave contradictory components together due to the fact that he was brilliantly educated by the standards of his time, often traveled around the world and read in other languages, and therefore absorbed new literary trends before other playwrights. He did not move among writers, he served in a diplomatic mission, and therefore his mind was free from many stereotypes that prevented authors from experimenting.

Drama genre "Woe from Wit". Comedy or drama?

Griboedov believed that “Woe from Wit” is a comedy, but since tragic and dramatic elements are very developed in it, the play cannot be classified exclusively in the comedy genre. First of all, we need to pay attention to the ending of the work: it is tragic. Today it is customary to define “Woe from Wit” as a drama, but in the 19th century there was no such division, so it was called “high comedy” by analogy with Lomonosov’s high and low calms. This formulation contains a contradiction: only tragedy can be “high”, and comedy is by default “low” calm. The play was not unambiguous and typical, it broke out of existing theatrical and literary clichés, which is why it was so highly appreciated by both contemporaries and the current generation of readers.

Conflict. Composition. Issues

The play traditionally highlights two types of conflict: private (love drama) and public (contrasting old and new times, “Famus society” and Chatsky). Since this work partially relates to romanticism, we can argue that in the play there is a romantic conflict between the individual (Chatsky) and society (Famusovsky society).

One of the strict canons of classicism is the unity of action, which presupposes a cause-and-effect relationship between events and episodes. In “Woe from Wit” this connection is already significantly weakened; it seems to the viewer and reader that nothing significant is happening: the characters walk here and there, talk, that is, the external action is rather monotonous. However, the dynamics and drama are inherent precisely in the dialogues of the characters; you must first listen to the play in order to grasp the tension of what is happening and the meaning of the production.

The peculiarity of the composition is that it is built according to the canons of classicism, the number of acts does not coincide with it.

If the comedies of writers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries exposed individual vices, then Griboyedov’s satire attacked the entire conservative way of life, saturated with these vices. Ignorance, careerism, martinet, cruelty and bureaucratic inertia - all these are realities Russian Empire. The Moscow nobility with its ostentatious puritanical morality and unscrupulousness in business is represented by Famusov, stupid military careerism and blinkered consciousness is represented by Skalozub, servility and hypocrisy of the bureaucracy is represented by Molchalin. Thanks to episodic characters, the viewer and reader get acquainted with all the types of “Famus society” and see that their cohesion is the result of the solidarity of vicious people. The many-sided and motley clique has absorbed all the vulgarity, lies and stupidity that society is accustomed to worship and yield to. Characters not only on stage, but also behind the scenes, mentioned in the remarks of the characters (the moral lawmaker Princess Marya Aleksevna, the author of “exemplary nonsense” Foma Fomich, the influential and omnipotent Tatyana Yuryevna and others).

The significance and innovation of the play "Woe from Wit"

In the play, which the author himself considered a comedy, oddly enough, the most pressing problems of that period were highlighted: the injustice of serfdom, an imperfect state apparatus, ignorance, the problem of education, etc. Griboedov also included, it would seem, vital debates about boarding schools, jury trials, censorship and institutions in his entertaining work.

Moral aspects, which are no less important for the playwright, give rise to the humanistic pathos of the work. The author shows how people die under the pressure of the “Famus society” best qualities in man. For example, Molchalin is not devoid of positive qualities, but is forced to live by the laws of Famusov and others like him, otherwise he will never achieve success. That is why “Woe from Wit” occupies a special place in Russian drama: it reflects real conflicts and non-fictional life circumstances.

The composition of the drama is in a classic style: adherence to three unities, the presence of large monologues, telling names of the characters, etc. The content is realistic, which is why the performance is still sold out in many theaters in Russia. The heroes do not personify one vice or one virtue, as was customary in classicism; they are diversified by the author, their characters are not devoid of both negative and positive qualities. For example, critics often call Chatsky a fool or an overly impulsive hero. It is not Sophia’s fault that during his long absence she fell in love with someone who was nearby, but Chatsky immediately becomes offended, jealous and hysterically denounces everything around him only because his beloved has forgotten him. A hot-tempered and quarrelsome character does not suit the main character.

It is worth noting colloquial plays where each character has his own characteristic speech patterns. This idea was complicated by the fact that the work was written in verse (in iambic meter), but Griboyedov managed to recreate the effect of a casual conversation. Already in 1825, writer V.F. Odoevsky stated: “Almost all the verses of Griboedov’s comedy became proverbs, and I often happened to hear in society, entire conversations of which most composed poems from “Woe from Wit.”

It is worth noting speaking names in "Woe from Wit": for example, “Molchalin” means the hidden and hypocritical nature of the hero, “Skalozub” is an inverted word for “teething,” meaning boorish behavior in society.

Why is Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” readable now?

Nowadays, people often use Griboedov's quotes without knowing it. Phraseologisms “the legend is fresh, but hard to believe”, “happy people do not watch the clock”, “and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us” - all these catchphrases are familiar to everyone. The play is still relevant due to Griboedov’s light, aphoristic author’s style. He was one of the first to write a drama in real Russian, which people still speak and think in. The ponderous and pompous vocabulary of his time was not remembered by his contemporaries in any way, but Griboyedov’s innovative style found its place in the linguistic memory of the Russian people. Can the play “Woe from Wit” be called relevant in the 21st century? Yes, if only because we use quotes from him in everyday life.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

History of the comedy

The comedy “Woe from Wit” is the main and most valuable result of the work of A.S. Griboedova. When studying the comedy “Woe from Wit”, analysis should be made, first of all, of the conditions in which the play was written. It touches on the issue of the brewing confrontation between progressive and conservative nobility. Griboyedov ridicules the mores of secular society of the early 19th century. In this regard, the creation of such a work was a rather bold step in that period of development of Russian history.

There is a known case when Griboyedov, returning from abroad, found himself at one of the aristocratic receptions in St. Petersburg. There he was outraged by the obsequious attitude of society towards one foreign guest. Griboedov's progressive views prompted him to express his sharply negative opinion on this matter. The guests considered the young man crazy, and news of this quickly spread throughout society. It was this incident that prompted the writer to create a comedy.

Themes and issues of the play

It is advisable to begin the analysis of the comedy “Woe from Wit” by referring to its title. It reflects the idea of ​​the play. The main character of the comedy, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who is rejected by society only because he is smarter than the people around him, experiences grief from his sanity. This also leads to another problem: if society rejects a person of extraordinary intelligence, then how does this characterize society itself? Chatsky feels uncomfortable among people who consider him crazy. This gives rise to numerous verbal clashes between the protagonist and representatives of the society he hates. In these conversations, each party considers itself smarter than the other. Only the intelligence of the conservative nobility lies in the ability to adapt to existing circumstances in order to obtain maximum material gain. Anyone who does not pursue rank and money is considered a madman.

Accepting Chatsky's views for the conservative nobility means beginning to change their lives in accordance with the demands of the time. Nobody finds this comfortable. It’s easier to declare Chatsky crazy, because then you can simply ignore his accusatory speeches.

In Chatsky’s clash with representatives of aristocratic society, the author raises a number of philosophical, moral, national-cultural and everyday issues. Within the framework of these topics, the problems of serfdom, service to the state, education, and family life are discussed. All these problems are revealed in comedy through the prism of understanding the mind.

The conflict of a dramatic work and its originality

The uniqueness of the conflict in the play “Woe from Wit” lies in the fact that there are two of them: love and social. Social contradiction lies in the clash of interests and views of representatives of the “present century” represented by Chatsky and the “past century” represented by Famusov and his supporters. Both conflicts are closely related to each other.

Love experiences force Chatsky to come to Famusov’s house, where he has not been for three years. He finds his beloved Sophia in a confused state, she receives him very coldly. Chatsky does not realize that he arrived at the wrong time. Sophia is busy with worries love story with Molchalin, his father’s secretary, living in their house. Endless thoughts about the reasons for the cooling of Sophia's feelings force Chatsky to ask questions to his beloved, her father, Molchalin. During the dialogues, it turns out that Chatsky has different views with each of his interlocutors. They argue about service, about ideals, about the morals of secular society, about education, about family. Chatsky’s views frighten representatives of the “past century” because they threaten the usual way of life of Famus society. Conservative nobles are not ready for change, so rumors about Chatsky’s madness, accidentally started by Sophia, instantly spread through society. The protagonist's beloved is the source of unpleasant gossip because he interferes with her personal happiness. And here again we see the interweaving of love and social conflicts.

System of comedy characters

In his depiction of characters, Griboyedov does not adhere to a clear division into positive and negative, which was mandatory for classicism. All heroes have both positive and negative traits. For example, Chatsky is smart, honest, brave, independent, but he is also quick-tempered and unceremonious. Famusov is the son of his age, but at the same time he is a wonderful father. Sophia, ruthless towards Chatsky, is smart, courageous and decisive.

But the use of “speaking” surnames in the play is a direct legacy of classicism. Griboedov tries to put the leading feature of his personality into the hero’s surname. For example, the surname Famusov is derived from the Latin fama, which means “rumor.” Consequently, Famusov is the person who is most concerned about public opinion. It is enough to remember his final remark to be convinced of this: “...What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!” Chatsky was originally Chadsky. This surname hints that the hero is in the throes of his struggle with the mores of aristocratic society. The hero Repetilov is also interesting in this regard. His last name is related to the French word repeto - I repeat. This character is a caricature double of Chatsky. He does not have his own opinion, but only repeats the words of others, including the words of Chatsky.

It is important to pay attention to the placement of characters. The social conflict occurs mainly between Chatsky and Famusov. A love confrontation is being built between Chatsky, Sophia and Molchalin. These are the main ones characters. The figure of Chatsky unites love and social conflict.

The most difficult part in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is the image of Sophia. It is difficult to classify her as a person who adheres to the views of the “past century.” In her relationship with Molchalin, she despises the opinion of society. Sophia reads a lot and loves art. She is disgusted by the stupid Skalozub. But you can’t call her a supporter of Chatsky either, because in conversations with him she reproaches him for his causticity and mercilessness in his words. It was her word about Chatsky’s madness that became decisive in the fate of the main character.

Minor and episodic characters are also important in the play. For example, Lisa and Skalozub are directly involved in the development of a love conflict, complicating and deepening it. The episodic characters who appear as guests of Famusov (Tugoukhovskys, Khryumins, Zagoretsky) more fully reveal the morals of Famusov’s society.

Development of dramatic action

Analysis of the actions of “Woe from Wit” will reveal the compositional features of the work and the features of the development of dramatic action.

The exposition of the comedy can be considered all the phenomena of the first act before Chatsky’s arrival. Here the reader gets acquainted with the scene of action and learns not only about love affair Sophia and Molchalin, but also about what Sophia used to nourish tender feelings to Chatsky, who left to travel around the world. The appearance of Chatsky in the seventh scene of the first act is the beginning. What follows is the parallel development of social and love conflicts. Chatsky's conflict with Famusovsky society reaches its peak at the ball - this is the culmination of the action. The fourth act, 14th appearance of the comedy (Chatsky’s final monologue) represents the denouement of both social and love lines.

At the denouement, Chatsky is forced to retreat to Famus society because he is in the minority. But he can hardly be considered defeated. It’s just that Chatsky’s time has not yet come; a split among the nobility has only just begun.

The originality of the play

Research and analysis of the work “Woe from Wit” will reveal its striking originality. Traditionally, “Woe from Wit” is considered the first Russian realistic play. Despite this, it retained the features inherent in classicism: “speaking” surnames, unity of time (the events of the comedy take place within one day), unity of place (the action of the play takes place in Famusov’s house). However, Griboyedov refuses the unity of action: in the comedy two conflicts develop in parallel at once, which contradicts the traditions of classicism. In the image of the main character, the formula of romanticism is also clearly visible: an exceptional hero (Chatsky) in unusual circumstances.

Thus, the relevance of the play’s problems, its unconditional innovation, and the aphoristic language of the comedy are not only of great importance in the history of Russian literature and drama, but also contribute to the popularity of the comedy among modern readers.

Work test