Woe from Wit social conflict. The main conflict of Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

In the conflict of Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” two lines stand out: love (personal) and public (social). The love conflict is based on a classic love triangle. The purpose of a literary work of classicism was to proclaim an ideal, which consisted of fulfilling civic duty, subordinating the interests of the individual to public interests and understanding the reasonable laws of life. To implement these ideas, the main character was chosen as the bearer of a positive ideal, his antipode was a negative hero and an ideal heroine, who gave her love to the positive hero and thereby confirmed his rightness. This was the composition of the love triangle in the classic work. On stage, traditional roles have developed to play these roles: hero-lover (first lover), unworthy hero (fool, fop, rogue) and ingenue (young lady in love).

Griboyedov rethinks the content of the classic love triangle: Chatsky is a positive hero, but not flawless, as the main character should be; Molchalin is low and mean, he is a negative hero, but Sophia loves him; Sophia makes the wrong choice, preferring Molchalin to Chatsky. Sophia's mistake distorts the classicist perspective of the development of the play and determines the development of the plot.

It’s interesting that the name Sophia means “wise” in Greek, which certainly conveys the sad irony of the author. The heroine speaks about Chatsky and Molchalin, belittling one and extolling the other. In scene 5 of act 1, Sophia's servant Lisa, fearing that Sophia and Molchalin's dates could lead to trouble, tries to draw her attention to other possible suitors - Colonel Skalozub and Chatsky.

The beginning of the love conflict occurs in scene 7 of act 1, which describes the first meeting of Chatsky and Sophia. The hero is shocked by the change in Sophia's attitude towards him; he cannot realize it and understand its reason. At first, Chatsky reproaches Sophia. Having met such a reception, Chatsky seeks sympathy:

You are happy? good morning.

However, who is sincerely happy like that?

I think this is the last thing

Chilling people and horses,

I was just amusing myself.

He tries to evoke in the girl the memory of the past, hoping that in three years she simply forgot the feelings that connected them. However, Sophia again cools Chatsky’s ardor, answering: “Childishness!”

Only then does Chatsky begin to understand the true reason for the change in Sophia’s attitude towards him. He asks her a direct question whether she is in love, and, having received an evasive answer, guesses the truth. And after the words: “For mercy, not you, why be surprised?” - showing a completely natural reaction to Sophia’s behavior, Chatsky suddenly starts talking about Moscow:

What new will Moscow show me?

T made a deal - he made it, but he missed.

All the same sense, and the same poems in the albums.

This change in the topic of conversation is determined psychologically, since Chatsky, finally realizing that he has a rival, begins to look for him. Each phrase of the hero’s previous statement confirms this, that is, each phrase contains a psychological background: the rival is in Moscow, she met him at the ball, they all want to marry profitably, and they are all the same.

It has long been noted that a social conflict arises from a love conflict, and Chatsky attacks Moscow because he is disappointed in his position as a rejected lover. If the whole scene is the beginning of a love conflict, then Chatsky’s words about Moscow are the beginning of a social conflict, the beginning of which will be at the beginning of Act 2. It is Chatsky’s search for an opponent that will determine the nature of the development of the action, and the play will end when the scales fall from Chatsky’s eyes.

The social conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov lies in the clash between the progressive nobleman-intellectual Chatsky and the conservative Famus society. The conflict is found not only in the dispute between specific people representing certain circles of society, it is a conflict of time. Griboyedov the playwright accomplished what his hero wanted to do, saying:

How to compare and see

The present century and the past...

The expression “the present century and the past century” should be understood in two meanings: these are periods of Russian history, separated by the Patriotic War of 1812, as well as the conflict of the era, expressed in the struggle of new ideas and forms of life with old ones. The ideas of modern times were most clearly expressed, according to Pushkin’s poetic formulation, in the “high aspirations of thought” of the Decembrists. And in many ways, Chatsky’s views reflect the advanced ideas of the Decembrists.

The social conflict of the comedy is manifested in the disputes between Chatsky and Famusov, in the attitude of these heroes to this or that social problem. The peculiarity of the social conflict in the play is that it depends on the love conflict, that is, it is not represented in specific actions and events, and we can only judge it by the monologues and remarks of the characters.

One of the most pressing issues in the noble society of that time was the attitude to power and service. It is this that serves as the beginning of the social conflict in Act 2, Act 2:

Chatsky

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.

Famusov

That's it, you are all proud!

Would you ask what the fathers did?

Famusov tells Chatsky the story of his uncle Maxim Petrovich, sincerely believing that it is instructive for Chatsky and can bring him to his senses - after all, in the behavior of Maxim Petrovich, in his deep conviction, lies the highest wisdom. The formula for this is:

When do you need to help yourself?

And he bent over...

The question of service appears in three aspects. First of all, it is a moral question, to be mean and “bend over” or to maintain dignity and honor. At the same time, service shows a person’s civic position: to serve the Fatherland, a cause, or to serve only for oneself, to care about personal gain. And finally, the political side of the issue, which is clearly expressed in Chatsky’s remark: “Who serves the cause, not the individuals.”

The next most important issue in comedy is the problem of serfdom and serfdom. Chatsky expresses his attitude towards serfdom in the monologue “Who are the judges?” in phenomenon 5 there are 2 actions:

Who are the judges? - In ancient times

Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,

Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers.

Chatsky talks about two cases of inhuman behavior of serf owners. In the first of them, the serf owner exchanged “three greyhounds” for his faithful servants. Note that Griboyedov’s criticism is more of a moral than a social nature. Of course, a ruthless and depraved serf owner could do this because according to the law he had the right to do so, but Griboedov is struck by the blatant inhumanity here - a person is equated with an animal. The playwright, calling the serf owner “Nestor of noble scoundrels,” makes it clear that this man is not some exceptional villain; there are many “noble scoundrels” around. Treating serfs as inferior beings was the norm for a serf-owning society. So, old woman Khlestova tells Sophia about the blackamoor girl and the dog as equal, identical creatures (act 3, phenomenon 10):

Tell them to feed, already, my friend,

A handout came from dinner.

In the same monologue, Chatsky exposes the terrible consequence of serfdom - human trafficking. One serf owner brings a serf theater to Moscow, driving “rejected children from their mothers and fathers” to the ballet. Griboyedov shows how the right to control the lives and fate of serfs corrupts the nobles and they lose their human qualities. The real goal of the owner of the serf theater was to make all of Moscow “marvel at the beauty” of the ballet and small artists in order to persuade creditors to grant a deferment for the payment of debts. However, he did not achieve his goal and sold the children.

One of the most negative phenomena of Russian reality at that time was dependence on foreign morals, fashion, language, and rules of life. Chatsky treats the dominance of foreigners in the life of the country, “slavish, blind imitation” with particular intransigence; his indignation was most fully expressed in the monologue “There is an insignificant meeting in that room...” (act 3, phenomenon 22). The plot episode described in this monologue is not presented on stage. Chatsky was struck by a chance, “insignificant” meeting: he saw how his compatriots courted a Frenchman simply because he was a foreigner. Chatsky calls him “a Frenchman from Bordeaux” not out of disrespect for the person, but wanting to emphasize the offensive contrast between the mediocrity of the guest and the servility of the hosts. Chatsky believes that imitation of a foreign language is a terrible scourge for a nation. It seems to a Frenchman that he is in a French province, so selflessly everyone around him imitates French customs and outfits, speaking in a mixture of “French and Nizhny Novgorod”. Chatsky mourns the loss of national traditions, national clothing, and appearance by the Russian nobles. With bitterness he throws out the phrase: “Ah! If we are born to adopt everything,” noting that such behavior is characteristic of the Russian person, but its negative side - “empty slavish, blind imitation” - must be eliminated. D.I. wrote about this. Fonvizin in the comedy “The Brigadier” (1769), I.S. complains about this. Turgenev in the story “Asya” (1858), A.P. laughs at this. Chekhov in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard” (1903), this problem was repeatedly raised in the literature of the 20th century. Thus, Griboedov raised a question that was relevant not only in his time, he tried to penetrate into the essence of the phenomenon.

The problem of the dominance of foreigners in Russian life is connected with the issue of patriotism. Chatsky’s position and his sympathies are expressed very clearly in the monologue:

So that our smart, cheerful people

Although, based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans.

The problem of patriotism is presented in the work widely and diversified. The author shows that patriotism should not be confused with imitation of foreign things or, on the contrary, stubborn arrogance and isolation from the experience of other cultures. This is precisely the position of Chatsky, for whom preserving the dignity of his nation means respect for other peoples. By calling the foreigner “a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” Chatsky does not belittle the guest—he laments the behavior of his compatriots. The rest of the characters are afraid and do not approve of everything foreign, as, for example, Khlestova is afraid of the arapka girl or “lankart mutual training,” or they are obsequious to everything foreign. Famusov, Chatsky’s main opponent, is arrogant in some cases, calling foreigners “tramps”; in others, on the contrary, he is touched that the Prussian king was amazed at the Moscow girls, since they are not inferior to French and German women (act 2, phenomenon 5):

They won’t say a word in simplicity, everything is done with a grimace;

French romances are sung to you

And the top ones bring out notes...

This means that the dignity of one’s nation for Famusov is a variable value, since it depends on whether foreigners are beneficial or ruinous for him in each specific case.

The lifestyle of the Moscow nobility is another problem raised by Griboyedov in the comedy. Famusov’s monologue in Act 1, Act 2 is indicative of this topic. What’s remarkable about this scene is that Famusov, a government manager, plans his week as if it consists of personal affairs and entertainment. He has three “important” things planned for the week: trout on Tuesday, burial on Thursday, and christening “on Friday, and maybe Saturday.” Famusov’s diary not only notes the schedule of the “business” week, but also reflects the philosophy and content of his life: it consists of eating, dying, being born, eating again and dying... This is the monotonous circle of life for Famusov and the Famusovites.

Discussing the lifestyle of the nobility, Griboedov touches on the problem of entertainment. At the ball, Chatsky says to Molchalin (act 3, phenomenon 3):

When I'm busy, I hide from fun,

When I'm fooling around, I'm fooling around

And to mix these two crafts

There are many masters, I am not one of them.

Chatsky is not against entertainment, but against mixing it with business and work. However, responsibility and work disappear from the lives of most nobles, giving way all the time to pleasure and entertainment. Such a life is empty and meaningless. Let us remember what Chatsky said about Moscow (act 1, scene 7):

Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.

Or the words of Countess Grandma Khryumina, which sounded comical, but filled with a tragic meaning for a person (act 4, scene 1):

Let's sing, mother, I can't sing,

Someday I fell into the grave.

The point is not that balls or other social entertainment are bad in themselves - they are part of the culture of the noble class of that time. But when the ball takes up the whole life, becomes its content, then for a person its brilliance passes into the darkness of the grave, as if life itself did not exist. Only work and rest are natural forms of human life that replace each other; they complement and enrich each other, making life meaningful and rich.

A special place in comedy is occupied by the theme of the mind - enlightenment, education and upbringing. The title of the work indicates this, and the author himself drew attention to this when he wrote: “In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person.” Griboyedov called the first sketch of the comedy “Woe to Wit.” The change in name shows a shift in emphasis from a general philosophical idea, which can be defined in such a way that every mind is woe, to a social one: the mind in society is the cause of grief. The theme of the mind in the play divides the characters in their attitude towards life. For Famus people, only practical benefits are of value, so for them, intelligence is the ability to get along in life. Chatsky has an exalted mind, everything is important to him: personal and general issues. His ideas about life are broad, they go beyond personal interests. We can say that Chatsky’s judgments are based on reason and a moral attitude towards life. The judgments of Famusites are limited by their narrow ideas, determined by personal interests and benefits. So, for Sophia, the one who is next to her is smart (action 1, phenomenon 5):

Oh! if someone loves someone,

Why search for the mind and travel so far?

For Molchalin, smart behavior is the ability to please anyone on whom he in any way depends (action 3, phenomenon 3):

At my age I shouldn't dare

Have your own judgment.

For Skalozub, the world order is a military system, and a “smart” position is to be in the ranks, and smart behavior is to strive to move to the front rank. Skalozub is even a “philosopher” in his own way. He judges like a philosopher (act 2, phenomenon 4):

I just wish I could become a general.

So, each character speaks about intelligence, about education. It seems that the ideas of the Enlightenment have finally penetrated Moscow society. However, the perception of these ideas turns out to be false: Famusites are hostile to education and reading, their ideas about proper upbringing are distorted. The Famusites see that the threat comes from Chatsky’s mind, his enlightenment and education, and therefore they resort to the only effective way to deal with him - they neutralize his mind so that everything he says does not matter, because he is speaking as a madman. In this struggle, general and personal interests coincide, so it is no coincidence that it is Sophia who starts the rumor about Chatsky’s madness. The plot lines representing the love and social conflict of the play develop together, but compositionally differently. The exposition is common to both lines and ends before the 7th phenomenon of the 1st act. The beginning of the love conflict took place in the 7th scene of the 1st act, the social conflict - in the 2nd scene of the 2nd act. The culmination of the social conflict occurs at the end of Act 3, when society turns away from Chatsky, and a dispute between them is no longer possible. The culmination of the love conflict occurs in scene 12 of act 4: Chatsky regains his sight, Sophia is close to fainting, Molchalin “hides into his room.” The denouement of both storylines coincides at the moment when Chatsky leaves Famusov’s house with the words (act 5, scene 14):

Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.

Nevertheless, the ending of the comedy remains open: what follows is unknown - neither where Chatsky will go, nor what he will do, nor how his arrival influenced Famus society. However, Goncharov correctly noted that “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.” This is the realism of comedy.

Source (abbreviated): Moskvin G.V. Literature: 8th grade: in 2 hours. Part 2 / G.V. Moskvin, N.N. Puryaeva, E.L. Erokhin. - M.: Ventana-Graf, 2016

Innovation of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" is innovative. This is due to the artistic method of comedy. Traditionally, “Woe from Wit” is considered the first Russian realistic play. The main departure from classicist traditions lies in the author’s rejection of the unity of action: there is more than one conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. In the play, two conflicts coexist and flow from one another: love and social. It is advisable to turn to the genre of the play to identify the main conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit”.

The role of love conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit"

As in a traditional classic play, the comedy “Woe from Wit” is based on a love affair. However, the genre of this dramatic work is social comedy. Therefore, social conflict prevails over love conflict.

Nevertheless, the play opens with a love conflict. Already in the exposition of the comedy, a love triangle is outlined. Sophia's night date with Molchalin in the very first scene of the first act shows the girl's sensual preferences. Also in the first appearance, the maid Liza remembers Chatsky, who was once connected with Sophia by youthful love. Thus, a classic love triangle unfolds before the reader: Sophia - Molchalin - Chatsky. But as soon as Chatsky appears in Famusov’s house, a social line begins to develop in parallel with the love one. The plot lines closely interact with each other, and this is the uniqueness of the conflict in the play “Woe from Wit.”

To enhance the comic effect of the play, the author introduces two more love triangles into it (Sofya - Molchalin - maid Liza; Liza - Molchalin - bartender Petrusha). Sophia, in love with Molchalin, does not even suspect that the maid Liza is much nicer to him, which he clearly hints to Liza. The maid is in love with the bartender Petrusha, but is afraid to confess her feelings to him.

Social conflict in the play and its interaction with the love story

The social conflict of the comedy was based on the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century” - the progressive and conservative nobility. The only representative of the “present century,” with the exception of off-stage characters, in the comedy is Chatsky. In his monologues, he passionately adheres to the idea of ​​serving “the cause, not persons.” The moral ideals of Famus society are alien to him, namely the desire to adapt to circumstances, to “serve the favor” if this will help him get another rank or other material benefits. He appreciates the ideas of the Enlightenment, and in conversations with Famusov and other characters he defends science and art. This is a person free from prejudice.

The main representative of the “past century” is Famusov. All the vices of the aristocratic society of that time were concentrated in it. Most of all, he is concerned with the opinion of the world about himself. After Chatsky leaves the ball, his only concern is “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say.”

He admires Colonel Skalozub, a stupid and shallow man who only dreams of “getting” the rank of general. It is his Famusov who would like to see him as his son-in-law, because Skalozub has the main advantage recognized by the world - money. With rapture, Famusov talks about his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who, after an awkward fall at a reception with the Empress, was “bestowed with the highest smile.” In Famusov’s opinion, the uncle’s ability to “curry favor” is worthy of admiration: to amuse those present and the monarch, he fell two more times, but this time on purpose. Famusov is sincerely afraid of Chatsky’s progressive views, because they threaten the usual way of life of the conservative nobility.

It should be noted that the clash between the “present century” and the “past century” is not at all a conflict between the fathers and children of “Woe from Wit”. For example, Molchalin, being a representative of the “children” generation, shares the views of the Famus society on the need to make useful contacts and skillfully use them to achieve their goals. He has the same reverent love for awards and ranks. In the end, he communicates with Sophia and supports her passion for him only out of a desire to please her influential father.

Sophia, Famusov’s daughter, cannot be attributed either to the “present century” or to the “past century.” Her opposition to her father is connected only with her love for Molchalin, but not with her views on the structure of society. Famusov, who openly flirts with the maid, is a caring father, but is not a good example for Sophia. The young girl is quite progressive in her views, smart, and not worried about the opinions of society. All this is the reason for the disagreement between father and daughter. “What a commission, creator, to be a father to an adult daughter!” - Famusov laments. However, she is not on Chatsky’s side. With her hands, or rather with a word spoken out of revenge, Chatsky is expelled from the society he hates. It is Sophia who is the author of the rumors about Chatsky’s madness. And the world easily picks up these rumors, because in Chatsky’s accusatory speeches everyone sees a direct threat to their well-being. Thus, in spreading the rumor about the protagonist’s madness in the world, a love conflict played a decisive role. Chatsky and Sophia do not clash on ideological grounds. Sophia is simply concerned that her ex-lover could ruin her personal happiness.

conclusions

Thus, the main feature of the conflict in the play “Woe from Wit” is the presence of two conflicts and their close relationship. A love affair opens the play and serves as the reason for Chatsky’s clash with the “past century.” The love line also helps the Famus society to declare its enemy insane and disarm him. However, the social conflict is the main one, because “Woe from Wit” is a social comedy, the purpose of which is to expose the mores of the noble society of the early 19th century.

Work test

Paskevich is pushing around,
The disgraced Yermolov is slandering...
What is left for him?
Ambition, coldness and anger...
From bureaucratic old women,
From caustic social jabs
He's riding in a wagon,
Resting your chin on the cane.
D. Kedrin

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov gained great literary fame and national fame by writing the comedy “Woe from Wit.” This work was innovative in Russian literature of the first quarter of the 19th century.
Classic comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory always went to the positive heroes, while the negative ones were ridiculed and defeated. In Griboyedov's comedy, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of the heroes into representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”, and the first one actually includes Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a funny position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main “opponent” Famusov is by no means some notorious scoundrel; on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.
It is interesting that Chatsky spent his childhood in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was the same. Balls, lunches, dinners, christenings...

He made a match - he succeeded, but he missed.
All the same sense, and the same poems in the albums.

Women were mainly concerned with their outfits. They love everything foreign and French. The ladies of Famus society have one goal - to marry or give their daughters to an influential and rich man. With all this, as Famusov himself puts it, women “are judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them.” Everyone goes to a certain Tatyana Yuryevna for patronage, because “officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives.” Princess Marya Alekseevna has such weight in high society that Famusov somehow exclaims in fear:
Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?
What about men? They are all busy trying to move up the social ladder as much as possible. Here is the thoughtless martinet Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being an example of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - “to become a general.” Here is the petty official Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and he, of course, wants to “reach the well-known levels.”
The Moscow “ace” Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, showed neither business qualities nor talents, but became famous only for the fact that his neck often “bent” in bows. But “he had a hundred people at his service,” “all wearing orders.” This is the ideal of Famus society.
Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “You’re welcome! You are welcome!” In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

Thus, Chatsky is well acquainted with the spirit of the “past century,” marked by servility, hatred of enlightenment, and the emptiness of life. All this early aroused boredom and disgust in our hero. Despite his friendship with sweet Sophia, Chatsky leaves the house of his relatives and begins an independent life.
“The desire to wander attacked him...” His soul thirsted for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with the progressive people of the time. He leaves Moscow and goes to St. Petersburg. “High thoughts” are above all for him. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky’s views and aspirations took shape. He apparently became interested in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky “writes and translates well.” At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated by social activities. He develops a “connection with the ministers.” However, not for long. High concepts of honor did not allow him to serve; he wanted to serve the cause, not individuals.
After this, Chatsky probably visited the village, where, according to Famusov, he “made a mistake” by mishandling the estate. Then our hero goes abroad. At that time, “travel” was looked at askance, as a manifestation of the liberal spirit. But it was precisely the acquaintance of representatives of Russian noble youth with the life, philosophy, and history of Western Europe that was of great importance for their development.
And now we meet the mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky contrasts the slave morality of Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the feudal system he hates. He cannot calmly talk about “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who exchanges servants for dogs, or about the one who “drove ... from their mothers, fathers, rejected children to the serf ballet” and, having gone bankrupt, sold them all one by one.

These are the ones who lived to see their gray hairs!
This is who we should respect in the wilderness!
Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!

Chatsky hates “the meanest traits of the past,” people who “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” His sharp protest is caused by his noble servility to everything foreign, his French upbringing, common in the lordly environment. In his famous monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” he talks about the ardent attachment of the common people to their homeland, national customs and language.
As a true educator, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In reason, in education, in public opinion, in the power of ideological and moral influence, he sees the main and powerful means of remaking society and changing life. He defends the right to serve education and science:

Now let one of us
Of the young people, there is an enemy of quest, -
Without demanding either places or promotion,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;
Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul
To the creative, high and beautiful arts, -
They immediately: robbery! Fire!
And he will be known among them as a dreamer! Dangerous!!!

Among such young people in the play, in addition to Chatsky, one can also include, perhaps, Skalozub’s cousin, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “a chemist and a botanist.” But the play talks about them in passing. Among Famusov's guests, our hero is a loner.
- Of course, Chatsky is making enemies for himself. Well, will Skalozub forgive him if he hears about himself: “Wheezing, strangled, bassoon, constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!” Or Natalya Dmitrievna, whom he advised to live in the village? Or Khlestova, at whom Chatsky openly laughs? But, of course, Molchalin gets the most. Chatsky considers him “the most pitiful creature”, like all fools. Out of revenge for such words, Sophia declares Chatsky crazy. Everyone happily picks up the news, they sincerely believe in the gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems crazy.
A.S. Pushkin, having read “Woe from Wit,” noticed that Chatsky was throwing pearls before swine, that he would never convince those to whom he addressed with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. Yes, he had no intention of starting disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, for whom he had had a heartfelt affection since childhood. Another thing is that in the time that has passed since their last meeting, Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he is trying to understand how it could happen that she no longer needs him. Perhaps it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.
As a result, there is a complete break between Chatsky and the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this break is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. Not just different people collided, but different worldviews, different social positions. The external outbreak of the conflict was Chatsky’s arrival at Famusov’s house; it was developed in disputes and monologues of the main characters (“Who are the judges?”, “That’s it, you are all proud!”). Growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a climax: at the ball, Chatsky is declared insane. And then he himself understands that all his words and emotional movements were in vain:

You all glorified me as crazy.
You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend a day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And his sanity will survive.

The outcome of the conflict is Chatsky’s departure from Moscow. The relationship between Famus society and the main character is clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It's impossible to tell who has the upper hand. After all, the conflict between old and new is as eternal as the world. And the topic of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is topical today. To this day, people suffer more from their intelligence than from their absence. In this sense, A.S. Griboedov created a comedy for all times.

Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is an outstanding work of Russian literature. The main problem of the work is the problem of two worldviews: the “past century,” which defends the old foundations, and the “present century,” which advocates decisive changes. The difference in the worldview of the old Moscow nobility and the advanced nobility in the 10-20s of the 19th century constitutes the main conflict of the comedy.
The comedy ridicules the vices of society: serfdom, martinetism, careerism, sycophancy, bureaucracy, low level of education, admiration for everything foreign, servility, sycophancy, the fact that in society it is not the personal qualities of a person that are valued, but “the souls of two thousand clans,” rank, money .
The past century represents a Moscow noble society consisting of the Famusovs, Khlestovs, Tugoukhovs, and Skalozubs. In society, people live according to the principle:
At my age I shouldn't dare
Have your own judgment
because
We are small in rank.
Famusov is a representative of the past century, a typical Moscow gentleman with all the views, manners and way of thinking characteristic of that time. The only thing he bows to is rank and wealth. “Like all Moscow people, your father is like this: He would like a son-in-law with stars, and with ranks,” the maid Lisa characterizes her master. Famusov lives the old fashioned way, considers his uncle, Maxim Petrovich, as his ideal, who “promotes him to rank” and “gives pensions.” He is “either in silver or in gold; Ate on gold; one hundred people at your service; All in orders; I was always traveling in a train.” However, for all his arrogant disposition, “He bent over backwards” in front of his superiors when it was necessary to curry favor.
Famusov most fully absorbed the laws and foundations characteristic of this time. He considers careerism, respect for rank, and pleasing elders to be the main norms accepted in life. Famusov is afraid of the opinions of noble nobles, although he himself willingly spreads them. He is worried about “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say.”
Famusov is an official, but treats his service only as a source of Sitnov and income, a means of achieving well-being. He is not interested in either the meaning or the results of work. When Molchalin reports that there are inaccuracies in the papers:
And what matters to me, what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed - off your shoulders
Nepotism is another of the ideals so dear to Famusov’s heart. Kuzma Petrovich, “the venerable chamberlain,” with “the key, and knew how to deliver the key to his son,” “is rich and was married to a rich woman,” and therefore earns deep respect from Famusov.
Famusov is not very educated, and he “sleeps well from Russian books,” unlike Sophia, who does not “sleep from French books.” But at the same time, Famusov developed a rather frisky attitude towards everything foreign. Valuing the patriarchal way of life, he stigmatizes Kuznetsky Most and the “eternal French,” calling them “destroyers of pockets and hearts.”
Poverty is considered a big vice in Famus society. So Famusov directly declares to Sophia, his daughter: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” or: “We have had it since ancient times, That according to father and son, honor, Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, He is the groom.” At the same time, a caring father shows truly worldly wisdom, caring about the future of his daughter.
An even greater vice in society is learning and education: “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason, What is worse now than when people, deeds, and opinions were crazy.”
The world of interests of the Famus society is quite narrow. It is limited to balls, dinners, dances, name days.
A bright representative of the “present century” is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodies the features of the advanced noble youth of that time. He is the bearer of new views. This he proves by his behavior, way of life, but especially by his passionate speeches denouncing the foundations of the “past century,” which he clearly disdains:
And as if the world began to grow stupid,
You can say with a sigh;
How to compare and see
The present century and the past:
As he was famous,
Whose neck bent more often...
Chatsky considers that century “the century of humility and fear.” He is convinced that those morals are a thing of the past and today, “laughter frightens and keeps shame in check.”
The traditions of days gone by are too strong. Chatsky himself turns out to be their victim. With his directness, wit, and audacity, he becomes a disturber of social rules and norms. And society takes revenge on him. At the first meeting with him, Famusov calls him “carbonari.” However, in a conversation with Skalozub, he speaks well of him, says that he is “a guy with a head”, “he writes well and translates”, while regretting that Chatsky does not serve. But Chatsky has his own opinion on this matter: he wants to serve the cause, not individuals. At first it may seem that the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov is a conflict of different generations, a “conflict between fathers and children,” but this is not so. After all, Sophia and Molchalin are almost the same age as Chatsky, but they fully belong to the “past century.” Sophia is not stupid. Chatsky’s love for her can also serve as proof of this. But she absorbed the philosophy of her father and his society. Her chosen one is Molchalin. He is also young, but also a child of that old environment. He fully supports the morals and customs of old lordly Moscow. Both Sofia and Famusov speak well of Molchalin. The latter keeps him in his service “because he’s businesslike,” and Sophia sharply rejects Chatsky’s attacks on her lover. She says:
Of course, he doesn’t have this mind
What a genius is to some, but a plague to others...
But for her, intelligence is not the main thing. The main thing is that Molchalin is quiet, modest, helpful, disarms the priest with silence, and will not offend anyone. In general, he is an ideal husband. You can say the quality is wonderful, but they are deceitful. This is just a mask behind which his essence is hidden. After all, his motto is “moderation and accuracy,” and he is ready to “please all people without exception,” as his father taught him, he persistently goes to his goal - a warm and financial place. He plays the lover only because it pleases Sophia herself, the daughter of his master:
And now I take the form of a lover
To please the daughter of such a man
And Sophia sees in him the ideal husband and boldly moves towards her goal, without fear of “what Princess Marya Alekseevna will say.” Chatsky, finding himself in this environment after a long absence, is initially very friendly. He strives here, because the “smoke of the Fatherland” is “sweet and pleasant” to him, but Chatsky encounters a wall of misunderstanding and rejection. His tragedy lies in the fact that he alone opposes Famus society. But the comedy mentions Skalozub’s cousin, who is also “strange” - “suddenly left his service,” “locked himself in the village and began to read books,” but he “followed the rank.” There is also Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, the “chemist and botanist” Prince Fyodor, but there is also Repetilov, who is proud of his involvement in a certain secret society, all of whose activities boil down to “making noise, brother, making noise.” But Chatsky cannot become a member of such a secret union.
Chatsky is not only a bearer of new views and ideas, but also advocates new standards of life.
In addition to the public tragedy, Chatsky is experiencing a personal tragedy. He is rejected by his beloved Sophia, to whom he “flew and trembled.” Moreover, with her light hand he is declared crazy.
Chatsky, who does not accept the ideas and morals of the “past century,” becomes a troublemaker in Famus society. And it rejects him. Chatsky is a mocker, a wit, a troublemaker and even an insulter. So Sophia tells him:
Has it ever happened that you laughed? or sad?
A mistake? Did they say good things about anyone?
Chatsky does not find friendly sympathy, he is not accepted, he is rejected, he is expelled, but the hero himself could not exist in such conditions.
“The present century” and the “past century” collide in comedy. The past time is still too strong and gives rise to its own kind. But the time for change in the person of Chatsky is already coming, although it is still too weak. “The present century” replaces the “past century,” for this is an immutable law of life. The appearance of the Chatsky Carbonari at the turn of historical eras is natural and natural.

(No ratings yet)

Other writings:

1. Paskevich is pushing around, the disgraced Ermolov is slandering... What is left for him? Ambition, coldness and anger... From bureaucratic old women, From caustic social jabs He rolls in a wagon, resting his chin on a cane. D. Kedrin Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov gained great literary fame and national fame, Read More ......
2. In the comedy “Woe from Wit” Griboyedov tells the story of the life of noble Moscow in the 19th century. This is the time when the orders of the old, Catherine’s era are changing to a new one, in which a person does not want to put up with the backwardness of the country, wants to serve his homeland without demanding ranks and Read More......
3. The image of Chatsky embodies the features of a “new” person who feels lonely in Famus society. After a three-year trip abroad, without stopping at his home, straight from the carriage, he appears at Famusov’s house and meets with a very cool reception from Read More ......
4. 1. The history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit”. 2. The reason for the disagreements between representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”. 3. The immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy. A. S. Griboedov created the comedy “Woe from Wit” at the beginning of the 19th century. In those years, Read More ......
5. Russia's victory in the War of 1812 showed the strength and power of the Russian people, who selflessly rose to defend the fatherland. But, having defeated the hordes of Napoleon, the victorious Russian people again found themselves under the stick of the feudal landowner. Outraged by this situation, the advanced Russian officers are rising up to fight for relief of their fate Read More ......
6. One of the greatest works of the first half of the 19th century is Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” In it, the writer posed a number of the most important problems of his time - the collision of two eras, two worlds - the old “ossified” and the new “progressive”. The main character of the comedy Chatsky is considered Read More......
7. The ball in Famusov's house plays a big role in understanding the comedy. Chatsky arrives first, looking for a new meeting with Sophia, and he already manages to give everyone “unnecessary” advice, send another barb at someone, and inadvertently offend someone. When meeting with Platon Mikhailovich Read More ......

/ / / The main conflict of Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

In the work, the author shows several conflicts at once. This is a complex relationship between the characters, where there is deception, betrayal, betrayal and subsequent disappointment and repentance. But the most important conflict is the very attitude of society towards the main character Alexander Chatsky. After an evening event in the Famusovs’ house, where all the “high society” were invited, the young man began to be considered crazy.

These two conflicts are closely intertwined with each other. It was she who was responsible for giving Chatsky a “bad” reputation. His “militant” attitude and non-standard views on the situation in society confused the girl. She reproaches the man for his “inflexibility” and unrestrained comments, involuntarily comparing him to Molchalin about those around him.

Molchalin, trying to please everyone and everywhere, was also indirectly drawn into the main conflict between society and Chatsky. He acts as a reverse example of Alexander's behavior.

For the majority, Famusov's secretary evokes only tenderness. He seems to “smooth out” the rough edges with his complaisance and imaginary “good nature”. In fact, the man chose the tactics of always being useful in everything. Having set this goal, he fulfilled the “whims” of Pavel Famusov’s daughter, Sophia. The girl, due to her naivety, perceived the “suave” gentleman as a potential groom. In fact, Molchalin liked a completely different girl, who also lived in the Famusovs’ house. She turned out to be the maid Lisa.

In turn, due to his ingenuity, unlike Chatsky, he prevents conflict every time. The girl tries to “smooth out” the rough edges and avoids a direct answer. She often succeeds.

Nevertheless, the main conflict becomes the attitude of society to the new worldview and opinion of Chatsky. His condemning roars and aggressive attitude against the “prosperous” flattery and lies, in order to obtain any benefits, excite the entire Famus society. For those around him, this “approach” to life that the man advocates is not only unacceptable, but also truly crazy. The shocking truth sounds like an insult and is received with hostility by everyone.

A sense of heightened justice forces a man to condemn even the behavior of his long-time friend. In a conversation with him, Alexander learns that he got married and found himself “under the thumb” of his own wife. Seeing the picture of what was happening, the woman immediately rushed to participate in the conversation and free her chosen one from Chatsky’s “revolutionary” instructions.

Famusov's entourage delivered its verdict. People simply began to make fun of all Alexander’s phrases. Both conflicting parties were absolutely confident that they were right and that their opponent was weak-minded. Minor characters add to the picture of what is happening with their appearance and fill it with characteristic features.

Griboyedov shows with his work how the whole society will subsequently be divided, where everyone, regardless of the opinions of others, will see only their own truth. Where people will make friends and even get married not for love, but only for their own benefit. On the other side of the “barricade” there will always be those who are “mad” about what is happening and under no circumstances will go against their desires, honor and conscience.