The comedy "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboyedov was written in the first half of the 19th century and is a satire on the views noble society that time. In the play, two opposing camps collide: the conservative nobility and the younger generation of nobles who have new views on the structure of society. The protagonist of "Woe from Wit" Alexander Andreevich Chatsky aptly called the arguing parties "the current century" and "the past century." Also presented in the comedy "Woe from Wit" is a generational dispute. What each of the parties represents, what are their views and ideals, will make it possible to understand the analysis of "Woe from Wit".
The “age of the past” in comedy is much more numerous than the camp of its opponents. The main representative of the conservative nobility is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, in whose house all comedy phenomena take place. He is the manager of the state house. His daughter Sophia was brought up by him from childhood, because. her mother died. Their relationship reflects the conflict between fathers and children in Woe from Wit.
In the first act, Famusov finds Sophia in a room with Molchalin, his secretary, who lives in their house. He does not like the behavior of his daughter, and Famusov begins to read morality to her. His views on education reflect the position of the entire nobility: “These languages were given to us! We take vagabonds, both to the house and on tickets, so that our daughters can be taught everything. There are minimum requirements for foreign teachers, the main thing is that they should be “more in number, at a cheaper price”.
However, Famusov believes that the best educational impact on her daughter should be the example of her own father. In this regard, in the play "Woe from Wit" the problem of fathers and children becomes even more acute. Famusov says about himself that he is "known for his monastic behavior." But is he like that? good example for imitation, if a second before he began to moralize Sophia, the reader watched him openly flirt with the maid Liza? For Famusov, only what is said about him in the world matters. And if the noble society does not gossip about his love affairs It means that his conscience is clear. Even Liza, imbued with the morals prevailing in Famusov's house, warns her young mistress not from nightly meetings with Molchalin, but from public gossip: "Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good." This position characterizes Famusov as a morally decomposed person. Does an immoral person have the right to talk about morality in front of his daughter, and even be considered an example for her?
In this regard, the conclusion suggests itself that for Famusov (and in his person for the entire old Moscow noble society) it is more important to seem worthy person, but not to be. Moreover, the desire of representatives of the “past century” to make a good impression applies only to the rich and noble people because communication with them contributes to the acquisition of personal gain. People who do not have high ranks, awards and wealth are only honored with contempt from the noble society: “Whoever needs it: for those who are arrogant, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, flattery is woven like lace.”
Famusov transfers this principle of dealing with people to the attitude towards family life. “He who is poor is not a match for you,” he says to his daughter. The feeling of love has no power, it is despised by this society. Calculation and profit dominate the life of Famusov and his supporters: “Be poor, but if there are two thousand family souls, that is the groom.” This position gives rise to the lack of freedom of these people. They are hostages and slaves to their own comfort: “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths shut at lunches, dinners and dances?”
What for progressive people the new generation is a humiliation, for representatives of the conservative nobility the norm of life. And this is no longer just a dispute of generations in the work "Woe from Wit", but a much deeper divergence in the views of the two warring parties. With great admiration, Famusov recalls his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who "knew honor before everyone", had "a hundred people at his service" and was "all in orders." What did he do to deserve his high position in society? Once, at a reception at the Empress, he stumbled and fell, hitting the back of his head painfully. Seeing the smile on the face of the autocrat, Maxim Petrovich decided to repeat his fall several more times in order to amuse the empress and the court. Such an ability to “serve”, according to Famusov, is worthy of respect, and young generation should have taken an example from him.
Famusov will read Colonel Skalozub as a suitor to his daughter, who "will not utter a word of wisdom." He is good only because he "picked up a lot of marks of distinction", but Famusov, "like all Moscow ones", "would like a son-in-law ... with stars and ranks."
The younger generation in the society of the conservative nobility. The image of Molchalin.
The conflict between the “current century” and the “past century” is not defined and not limited in the comedy “Woe from Wit” to the theme of fathers and children. For example, Molchalin, belonging to the younger generation by age, adheres to the views of the “past century”. In the first appearances, he appears before the reader as Sophia's humble lover. But he, like Famusov, is very afraid that there will be a bad opinion about him in society: “ Gossips scarier than a gun. As the action of the play develops, the true face of Molchalin is revealed. It turns out that he is with Sophia "by position", that is, in order to please her father. In fact, he is more passionate about the maid Lisa, with whom he behaves much more relaxed than with Famusov's daughter. Under the reticence of Molchalin, his duplicity is hidden. He does not miss the opportunity at the party to show his helpfulness to influential guests, because "one must depend on others." This young man lives according to the rules of the "past century", and therefore "the Silent people are blissful in the world."
"Current Century" in the play "Woe from Wit". The image of Chatsky.
Chatsky is the only defender of other views on the problems touched upon in the work, a representative of the “present century”. He was brought up with Sophia, between them there was youthful love, which the hero keeps in his heart at the time of the events of the play. Chatsky was not in Famusov's house for three years, because. traveled the world. Now he's back with hopes mutual love Sophia. But here everything has changed. The beloved meets him coldly, and his views are fundamentally at odds with the views Famus Society.
To Famusov’s call “Go and serve!” Chatsky replies that he is ready to serve, but only “to the cause, not to persons”, but “to serve” him is generally “sickening”. In the "past century" Chatsky does not see freedom for human personality. He does not want to be a jester for a society where "he was famous for whose neck bent more often", where a person is judged not by personal qualities, but by those material wealth that he possesses. Indeed, how can one judge a person only by his ranks, if “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived”? Chatsky sees in the Famus society the enemies of a free life and does not find role models in it. The protagonist in his accusatory monologues against Famusov and his supporters opposes serfdom, against the slavish love of Russian people for everything foreign, against servility and careerism. Chatsky is a supporter of enlightenment, a creative and searching mind capable of acting in accordance with conscience.
The “current century” is inferior in the play to the “past century” in terms of numbers. That is the only reason why Chatsky is doomed to defeat in this battle. Just until the time of Chatsky came. The split in the noble environment has only begun to emerge, but in the future the progressive views of the protagonist of the comedy "Woe from Wit" will give lush shoots. Now Chatsky has been declared insane, because the accusatory speeches of the insane are not terrible. The conservative nobility, having supported the rumor about Chatsky's madness, only temporarily protected themselves from the changes that they are so afraid of, but which are inevitable.
conclusions
Thus, in the comedy Woe from Wit, the problem of generations is not the main one and by no means reveals the full depth of the conflict between the “current century” and the “past century”. The contradictions of the two camps lie in the difference in their perception of life and the structure of society, in different ways interaction with this community. This conflict cannot be resolved by verbal battles. Only time and sequence historical events will naturally replace the old with the new.
Held comparative analysis two generations will help 9th grade students describe the conflict between the “current century” and the “past century” in their essay on the topic “The current century” and “the past century” in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov”
Artwork test
What conflict determines Chatsky's collision with society? How is it reflected in comedy? historical conflict era? Which of the heroes belongs to the “past century”, and who belongs to the “present century”?
Answers:
Chatsky's clash with society initially determines love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia, which attracts Chatsky's wandering and condescending gaze to the surroundings. Trying to solve a love problem, he turns close attention, even simply recalls the existence of a number of persons whom he had previously ignored in his thoughts. Chatsky is unpleasantly surprised and intrigued, the “famus society” has already hooked him with its hooks, attracted his attention, and he, trying to figure out the people around him, as a person of high mental analytical culture, gives them precise, concise characteristics. As typical characters, such people, even in their small and private manifestations, will reflect some historical patterns. The historical conflict of the era between the disinterested emerging intelligentsia and the emerging extremely self-centered mediocrity (Chatsky, Molchalin and Repetilov) is reflected in their dialogues. Chatsky does not take them seriously, and in vain, because they take him seriously. The clash between the old straightforward sycophants of the mother's show and the new sycophants-rogues ends with the temporary retreat of Molchalin, but not Famusov is the reason for this. Famusov, just after what happened, can consider himself a cheated "young and early" assistant. The struggle between Chatsky and the old society will distract all of Chatsky's attention, and when he is ready to celebrate victory, it will turn out that silent people have come to power under the guise. Therefore, although the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusov is the most energetic and loud, it is in fact a false path for Chatsky, which he does not notice, but what was noticed by A. S. Pushkin, who, as you know, denied Chatsky's mind. Speaking about which of the heroes belongs to the “past century”, and who belongs to the “present century”, it is necessary to clearly state the following: A.C. Griboedov created immortal characters, a kind of archetypes, that is, the original types of human breed. In any society, including modern, we can find all the representatives of this comedy. Another thing is that over time, naturally, these characters change, and the current Famusov is unlikely to be so openly preaching servility to his superiors as an undoubted merit and indicator of intelligence. In the same way, the frank vile hypocrisy of Molchalin is now, as a rule, hidden and lurking in the depths of the soul, coming out only occasionally. People like Chatsky are the eternal tomorrow of society, its energy, indomitable will, pushing everyone to the manifestation of their true face. He undoubtedly belongs to the "current century", as, perhaps, the subtle cunning Molchalin, who, despite the lack of a high birth, knows how to ingratiate himself with strong of the world and use them for your petty little interests. Famusov himself, or Skalozub, or any other of the distinguished guests, of course, belong to the "past century." They do not have the minimum flexibility of behavior necessary for existence in changing conditions. The same talker Repetilov, ready to join any company in order to praise it later, is much more tenacious than the stupid Skalozub. The monolithic slow-witted and outright fools are being replaced by cunning, courteous rogues and verbose fools who are trying to pass themselves off as something attractive, that is, there is a gradual involuntary correlation of oneself with some emerging ideal, and the first, still inept attempts to play plausible roles begin.
What conflict determines Chatsky's collision with society? How was the historical conflict of the era reflected in the coma?? Which of the heroes belongs to the “past century”, and who belongs to the “present century”?
Answers:
The conflict of Chatsky's collision with society is initially in disappointment in love. The fact is that after a long absence (separation), returning to Moscow, he understands that his beloved is seriously passionate about someone else. Chatsky simply loses his head, because Sophia does not immediately indicate her chosen one to him. She avoids answering for a very long time, does not want to explain herself to a former admirer. Moreover, Chatsky is tormented by thoughts about who she exchanged him for, because in her environment, in his opinion, there are no worthy options. In his actions in relation to Sophia, Chatsky comes almost to madness, which Sophia successfully took advantage of, pursuing the goal of revenge. In addition to emotional experiences, Chatsky disappoints and that's it. Moscow society. Having seen the world and returning to his native land, he finds that during this time a lot of foreign things have been introduced (fashion, languages, etc.), but the foundations have remained the same. The ranks are still obtained by acquaintance, by relative. Girls are looking for profitable marriages. Bribery and arbitrariness flourishes. In his monologues, Chatsky "denounces" secular society. Naturally, no one likes it. The historical conflict of the era, in my opinion, in the comedy Woe from Wit is that, having read French novels, Sophia dared to invite a young man to her room for the night. This is, indeed, nonsense. This is the historical conflict. Because this, in principle, should not have been, the girls were brought up in a different spirit and could not afford it. And Sophia, for the sake of an insignificant creature, was ready to defend her opinion, to sacrifice herself. She can be justified by the fact that she was on the verge of "love insanity", "love blindness". The entire “famus society” belongs to the “past century”, because despite the introduction of a lot of foreign things into it, the foundations remain the same, there is no desire to change anything, Moscow society wants to conserve, freeze the old way of life. Chatsky himself can be attributed to the “current century”, because he is a smart, modern young man, with ambitions and striving for the best. But he challenges society, and one, as you know, is not a warrior in the field. The more sublime and tragic the image of Chatsky is depicted, the more ridiculous. The circumstances in which he finds himself seem vulgar and stupid.
Chatsky's clash with society initially determines the love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia, which attracts Chatsky's wandering and condescending gaze to the environment. Trying to solve a love problem, he pays close attention, even simply remembers the existence of a number of persons whom he had previously ignored in his thoughts.
Chatsky is unpleasantly surprised and intrigued, the “famus society” has already hooked him with its hooks, attracted his attention, and he, trying to figure out the people around him, as a person of high mental analytical culture, gives them precise, concise characteristics. As typical characters, such people, even in their small and private manifestations, will reflect some historical patterns.
The historical conflict of the era between the disinterested emerging intelligentsia and the emerging extremely self-centered mediocrity (Chatsky, Molchalin and Repetilov) is reflected in their dialogues. Chatsky does not take them seriously, and in vain, because they take him seriously. The clash between the old straightforward sycophants of the mother's show and the new sycophants-rogues ends with the temporary retreat of Molchalin, but not Famusov is the reason for this. Famusov, just after what happened, can consider himself a cheated "young and early" assistant. The struggle between Chatsky and the old society will distract all of Chatsky's attention, and when he is ready to celebrate victory, it will turn out that silent people have come to power under the guise. Therefore, although the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusov is the most energetic and loud, it is actually a false path for Chatsky, which he does not notice, but what was noticed by A.S. Pushkin, who, as you know, denied Chatsky in his mind.
Speaking about which of the heroes belongs to the “past century”, and who belongs to the “present century”, it is necessary to clearly state the following: A.C. Griboyedov created immortal characters, a kind of archetypes, that is, the original types of human breed. In any society, including modern, we can find all the representatives of this comedy. Another thing is that over time, naturally, these characters change, and the current Famusov is unlikely to be so openly preaching servility to his superiors as an undoubted merit and indicator of intelligence. In the same way, the frank vile hypocrisy of Molchalin is now, as a rule, hidden and lurking in the depths of the soul, coming out only occasionally.
People like Chatsky are the eternal tomorrow of society, its energy, indomitable will, pushing everyone to the manifestation of their true face. He undoubtedly belongs to the "current century", as, perhaps, the subtle cunning Molchalin, who, despite the lack of a high birth, knows how to ingratiate himself with the powers that be and use them in his petty little interests.
Famusov himself, or Skalozub, or any other of the distinguished guests, of course, belong to the "past century." They do not have the minimum flexibility of behavior necessary for existence in changing conditions. The same talker Repetilov, ready to join any company in order to praise it later, is much more tenacious than the stupid Skalozub. The monolithic slow-witted and outright fools are being replaced by cunning, courteous rogues and verbose fools who are trying to pass themselves off as something attractive, that is, there is a gradual involuntary correlation of oneself with some emerging ideal, and the first, still inept attempts to play plausible roles begin.
The Russian diplomat, State Councilor and Russian classic A. S. Griboyedov served in the East and was nicknamed Vazir-Mukhtar by the Persians. He was killed in the winter of 1826 in Tehran by Muslim conspirators. However, his murder was being prepared in Russia, which was frightened Griboyedov was not among them, but he was feared no less than those nobles. His great work "Woe from Wit" was banned and secretly passed from hand to hand. The death warrant was signed when the opposition diplomat was sent on a mission to Persia. So society got rid of a brilliant personality. However, his play survived.
The play "Woe from Wit" was based on the conflict between the young and progressive nobleman Chatsky and high society. The plot describes the events of one day in the house of the old aristocrat Famusov. Despite such a narrow time frame, the author drew detailed picture occurring events. He showed everything new and young that was born in the deep bowels of the noble society.
Chatsky became a representative of the modern youth of the "current century" with freedom-loving views. His opponent in the definition as "the past century" was a man of the old formation Famusov and his invited guests.
And now let's try to speculate a little about what kind of conflict determines Chatsky's collision with society.
The atmosphere of Famusov's house
It may immediately seem that Chatsky is biased in his judgments about the real ones, he believes that the world is no longer the same, and his morals are too outdated. All this is due to his youth and to some extent naivety. Of course, Chatsky had already lived abroad for three years, and now it is difficult for him to understand the atmosphere that reigned in Famusov's house. He was waiting for some change. However, when he returned, he realized that secular customs, alas, remained the same, and people are still revered for their ranks, the number of serf souls and money, and not for their intelligence and nobility. Now, in some aspect, it becomes clear what kind of conflict determines Chatsky's collision with society.
The dispute of generations
From the very first pages of the work, it already becomes clear that people are constantly lying in this house. That's just the lie of the maid Lisa wears a certain noble character, since in this way she saves her mistress, Famusov's daughter Sophia, in love with Molchalin, her father's secretary. But, according to her father, he is not a match for her, as he is very poor.
Sophia's lies are also justified because of her love for Molchalin. But after a while, we also see the lies of Molchalin, who begins to flirt with the servant Lisa. It is clear that he is having an affair with Sophia because of the benefits.
But Famusov is no better in this regard, he also secretly drags himself behind the maid Lisa. And then, in his dialogue with the guests, he will utter the following words about himself: “He is known for his monastic behavior.” Griboyedov deliberately devotes so much time to describing all this situation in order to more accurately reflect the moral atmosphere of the life of that society.
And now Chatsky became the most serious opponent of the old man Famusov, the conflict of their opposing views on simple things is gradually developing into a socio-political one. And the further, the more difficult it is for them to find common ground.
Chatsky and the Famus Society. Composition
Famusov is a wealthy landowner, accustomed to doing whatever he pleases, and therefore more deprived of moral goals. All that interests him in a person is his position and condition. He does not want to read, because he considers this occupation to be very boring, therefore some statements characterize him as a close-minded and superficial person. He is conservative in his views.
Chatsky, on the other hand, is a revolutionary man. He does not accept all those ideals that Famusov speaks of. In the question of what conflict defines Chatsky's collision with society, this is precisely what can serve as an answer. After all main character exposes the most impartial features of the entire Famus society, which includes many people. One of them is Colonel Skalozub, a careerist and self-satisfied martinet, before whom Famusov fawns, considering him a "gold bag".
The next character is Molchalin, who caters to meek and obedient behavior and enjoys the connections of people with position. Sophia fell in love with him for his imaginary modesty. Chatsky, on the other hand, considers him a complete fool and empty man, in principle, like all the other guests present.
Revenge
Chatsky denounces everyone left and right, his main criterion by which he evaluates everyone is intelligence and spirituality. Therefore, one can imagine what kind of conflict determines Chatsky's collision with society.
The revenge of the cold-blooded fool was not long in coming. Chatsky opposed serfdom and was the bearer of advanced ideas - education, and He wanted to update and improve society, but this did not happen. And then comes the premonition of Chatsky's break with society, and he is declared crazy. Humiliated and insulted, he leaves this accursed house and Moscow in horror.
