The purpose of the lesson: to understand how the author portrays the protest of the progressive people of the first half of the 19th century against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of the autocratic-feudal system; to cultivate an irreconcilable attitude towards inertia, injustice, hypocrisy, meanness. This lesson uses technologies of differentiated, problem-based learning.
Download:
Preview:
Literature lesson in grade 9
Subject: Chatsky and Famusov - two worlds or two views? (According to the comedy by A.S.
Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
Target: Analyzing the text of the second act of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
Against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of the landlord
Society; use anger for educational purposes,
The irreconcilable attitude of the writer to inertia, injustice,
Hypocrisy, meanness.
During the classes:
I. Organizational moment. Psychological mood of students.
II. Introduction by the teacher. Message about the topic and purpose of the lesson.
(Music sounds. Waltz by R. Barshai.)
“Worlds fly, years fly,” said the famous Russian poet of the early 20th century A.A. Block. Some social formations are being replaced by others, people and living conditions are changing. But there are values to which the power of time does not apply. They are eternal, immortal. An example is the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".
The topic of our today's lesson: “Chatsky and Famusov - two worlds or two views? (According to the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit.”)”. The purpose of the lesson: to understand why Chatsky enters into an argument with Famusov; find out what the progressive person has to fight in the Famus society.
III. Student's individual message.
Historical reference.
Let's see what is the historical content of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".
IV. Work on new material.
1. Let's see how the features of this era were reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit". Let us turn to the second phenomenon of the second act.
What was the reason for the verbal duel between Chatsky and Famusov?
(Chatsky's question about Sophia, that is, a question of a personal character.)
2. I offer you questions of varying degrees of difficulty, and you choose for yourself those that you can answer. (A differentiated task is suggested.)
"4" What are Chatsky and Famusov arguing about?
"5" What is the social and moral position of both in this dispute?
(The dispute between Chatsky and Famusov, which turned into a real duel between the "current century" and the "past century", began because of Sophia: Chatsky asks about her health - Famusov is annoyed, since Chatsky, in his opinion, cannot be a suitable groom for Sophia With great skill, Griboedov translates the conversation to public issues. To the words of Chatsky: “Let me woo, what would you tell me?” - Famusov replies with the proposal “do not bliss”, do not manage the estate by mistake, and most importantly - go to the service, for which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve.” Chatsky is outraged by Famusov's demands, he is not able to give up his convictions for the sake of love.
Motives of civic duty, services are widely deployed further in two monologues: Famusov and Chatsky, who express sharply opposite opinions. Famusov is a fan of the old ways of service, receiving places and ranks, Chatsky is an exponent of the view of service as the fulfillment of a person's civic duty. He opposes hypocrisy, buffoonery, toadying, servility.)
3. We draw a conclusion. Why does Chatsky enter into an argument with Famusov?
(Chatsky does not share Famusov's views on service; he contrasts the "past century" with the "current century." Chatsky looks at society and the role of man in it differently.)
4. How do Famusov and his ilk treat Chatsky?
(For Famusov, Chatsky is “carbonari”, “a dangerous person”; everyone condemns Chatsky.)
5. Work on Chatsky's monologue "And who are the judges?"
Let's see, who are these judges? To find out, let's listen to Chatsky's monologue "Who are the judges?" But first, pay attention to the words and expressions that you will meet in the text and may not be clear to you.
vocabulary work
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea -that is from ancient times. The capture of the Turkish fortress Ochakov by Russian troops and the annexation of the Crimea to Russia dates back to 1783 (≈ 40 years before the comedy was written).
Nestor - the name of a Greek commander (from Homer's Iliad). In a common sense, the name Nestor began to denote a leader, a leader.
Debtor. - In Griboedov's time, this word meant not only the one who owes money, but also the one who lent it (creditor).
After listening to the monologue, you will need to answer the questions:
"4" What did you learn about the representatives of the Famus society from this monologue?
"5" What is the nature of the monologue?(Accusatory.)
A monologue is listened to in the recording performed by the actor Tsarev M. Then the students' answers to the questions posed are listened to. The following are questions for everyone.
1) Do these people have the moral right to condemn Chatsky?
2) What kind of person does Chatsky oppose to this society?
3) How will Famus society react to such a person? Why?
4) With what feeling does Chatsky utter the monologue? Which lines show this the most?
5) Can these people live in peace and harmony?
(Chatsky, in his monologue, is indignant at the fact that those who hate freedom, draw judgments “from forgotten newspapers”, who cover their weakness and poverty of reason with an embroidered uniform, are recognized as judges in society, role models.
Chatsky condemns the lack of movement, development, and progress in Moscow society. He speaks of those who criticize the new orders, new thoughts.
He angrily denounces Chatsky's wrong court, which protects rich people with influential friends and relatives by "robbing".
Chatsky indignantly tells how the nobles, "overflowing in feasts and prodigality" (idleness), manage the lives of their serfs. They trade honest and loyal servants for greyhounds or sell them at auction.
The monologue is incriminating. Chatsky refuses to everyone whom Famusov considers an ideal, in decency, honesty, speaks of their inertia (backwardness), insignificance, immorality. In this ionologist, Chatsky denounces serfdom, the inhuman treatment of serfs by the nobles, the wrong court and the court, which protect the "robbery of the rich".)
V. Vocabulary work.
Conflict - collision, serious disagreement, dispute. (From the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegov.)
VI. Consolidation.
Considering what you already know about Chatsky and Famusov, compare their life positions. Support your thoughts with text.
The following plan is written on the board.
1. Attitude towards serfdom.
2. Views on service, education.
3. Lifestyle.
4. The ideal of a person.
VII. Generalization.
1. Let's return to the question: "Chatsky and Famusov - two different worlds or two views"?
2. As A.S. Griboyedov portrays the protest of the progressive people of the 19th century against the reactionary political and spiritual foundations of the landlord society?
3. What character traits and views would you like to borrow from Chatsky?
VIII. Homework.
Today you observed the beginning of the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov, ahead of the hero there will be more than one serious clash with Famuov and his ilk. And who will be the winner in this situation, you will find out by reading the III and IV actions.
"3" Prepare an answer to the question: "How do you imagine Famusov's guests?". Describe (verbally) the appearance of one of them.
"4" Pick up Molchalin's quotation characteristics, draw a conclusion.
"5" Analyze Chatsky's monologue "There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...".
IX. Summary of the lesson.
1. The history of the comedy "Woe from Wit".
2. The reason for the disagreement between the representatives of the "current century" and the "past century".
3. The immortality of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov.
A. S. Griboedov created the comedy "Woe from Wit" at the beginning of the 19th century. In those years, new trends began to replace the orders of the Catherine's era, other people appeared in Russian society, with advanced views, who wanted to serve their country, without requiring either titles or awards for this. This was connected, of course, with the patriotic upsurge that Russian society experienced after the Patriotic War of 1812. This led an advanced section of the nobles in 1825 to Senate Square demanding civil liberties and the signing of the constitution.
At the center of Griboyedov's comedy is such a person. In his appearance, behavior, even in his surname, contemporaries guessed the real person - P. Ya. Chaadaev. He was a Western philosopher, for progressive views and criticism of contemporary orders, Chaadaev was declared insane. So, the confrontation between Alexander Chatsky and the Famus society constitutes the main socio-political conflict of the play.
Chatsky is a young man, he is educated and has his own opinion on many very serious problems of his time. Alexander Andreevich spent two years abroad, where he got acquainted with the advanced ideas of our time, saw how people live in other countries. And here he is in Moscow, among people of high society, in the house of his uncle, the Moscow "ace" Famusov. Chatsky is in love with Famusov's daughter, Sophia, with whom they grew up together. Children's attachment develops over time into a serious feeling. Chatsky is sincerely glad to meet Sophia and immediately begins to explain his feelings to her. He still does not know that while he was gone, Sophia was carried away by Molchalin, her father's secretary. Therefore, she is cold with Chatsky and is even dissatisfied with his ardor and passion. Chatsky is confused, he cannot understand the reason for such an attitude towards himself. The further development of events is determined by Chatsky's attempts to find out who is the happy rival: Molchalin or Skalozub. But the love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia is only external, which subsequently reveals a deeper, socio-political conflict.
Seeing these people, communicating with them, Chatsky cannot understand why Sophia does not notice in them what is so clearly visible to him. The situation is heating up, and Chatsky delivers his famous monologues. First of all, this is a monologue about old people, about the so-called "judges", trendsetters who "draw their judgments from the forgotten newspapers of the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea." The other is about the dominance of everything foreign, about "slavish, blind imitation", about the "foreign power of fashion." Chatsky angrily asks:
Where? Show us, fathers of the fatherland,
Which should we take as samples?
Are not these rich in robbery?
Found protection from court in friends,
in a relationship
Magnificent building chambers...
But Chatsky's fiery speeches remain without support, moreover, his attacks are met with protest, hostility, and dull misunderstanding. In the end, he remains completely alone against the hostile Famus society. Moreover, Sophia started a rumor that Chatsky was not himself.
AS Griboedov shows readers not only those who do not accept Chatsky's position and enter into an open struggle with him, but also those who are not able to fight injustice, whose will is paralyzed. These heroes include Gorich, a former colleague and friend of Chatsky. But Gorich got married, fell "under the heel of his wife" and dutifully bears his burden, although he understands that he has fallen: "Now I, brother, am not the same." When Chatsky was declared insane, Gorich does not want to believe this, but he does not dare to openly contradict the general opinion. Chatsky was alone. His accusatory monologues hung in the air, no one sympathizes with him, and all his "million torments", as I. A. Goncharov said, at first glance, seem to us futile. But it's not. A. S. Griboyedov, in the image of his main character, showed the changes emerging in Russian society, the emergence of a desire among progressive people of the era to become useful to society, to take care of the common good, and not just personal well-being.
A. S. Griboyedov's comedy shows us the life of Russian society in the first third of the 19th century in all its complexity, inconsistency and heterogeneity. The author realistically depicts the types of that era, despite some of the romantic features of the protagonist. The writer raises the age-old problems in the play - the relationship between generations, the contradiction between personal and social welfare, the selfish beginning in a person and his disinterested willingness to help people. Therefore, this work is relevant even now, at the beginning of the 21st century, because it helps to understand modern problems, which practically do not differ from the life collisions of the era of A. S. Griboyedov.
The Russian envoy A. S. Griboyedov, nicknamed by the Persians Vazir-Mukhtar, was killed in Tehran in the winter of 1826 as a result of a conspiracy of Muslim fanatics. But the murder was prepared in advance in distant snowy Russia, frightened by the December events on Senate Square. Griboyedov was not among the Decembrists, but he was feared no less than the rebels who went out to protest against the tsar. The comedy "Woe from Wit", passing from hand to hand, sowed sedition even in the manuscript, like Radishchev's "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow." Mortal
The sentence to the writer - a mission to Persia - was approved by the highest hand on the banks of the Neva. Griboyedov became Vazir-Mukhtar. Society doomed the brilliant personality to death. But the play lived on despite everything ...
The ideological basis of the work is the conflict of the young nobleman Chatsky with the society from which he himself came. The events of the comedy develop in a Moscow aristocratic house in one day. But, despite the narrow spatial and temporal framework, the author vividly and in detail painted a picture of the life of the noble society of that time and showed everything new, alive, advanced that timidly originated in its depths.
Chatsky is a representative of the advanced part of the noble youth, who is already aware of the inertia and cruelty of the surrounding reality, the insignificance and emptiness of people who consider themselves creators and masters of life.
There are still few heroes like Chatsky, but they appear, and this is a sign of the times. Griboyedov reflected the main conflict of the era - the clash of the conservative forces of society with freedom-loving individuals, heralds of new trends and ideas. This conflict was not invented by the author, behind it are the best people of the era, the future Decembrists, full of anxiety for their homeland and people, embarking on the path of struggle for happiness, for bright ideals, for the future.
Griboyedov showed a man of a new type, active, not indifferent, capable of speaking out against serfdom and inertia of views in defense of freedom, intelligence and humanity. This is exactly how Chatsky wants to see the features of the “current century”, in which “... the Lord destroyed this unclean spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation.” Passionate speeches, free thoughts, all the behavior of the hero reject the outdated norms of life and glorify a new ideology, the views of the Decembrists are preached.
The Famus society, which preserves the privileges and traditions of the “past century”, the century of humility and fear, defends the ideology of servility, servility and hypocrisy. In the understanding of society, “the mind is the ability to make a career”, “to take awards” and “to have fun”. People who live by such principles are deeply indifferent to the fate of their homeland and people. Their cultural and moral level can be judged by Famusov’s remarks: “Take away all the books and burn them”, “Scholarship is the reason that now more than ever, crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.”
The main task of this society is to keep the way of life intact, to act “as the fathers did”. It is not for nothing that Chatsky often reminds of this: “they all sing the same song”, “judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers”. And Famusov instructs everyone: “We would study by looking at the elders.” The path to the cherished well-being is, for example, the career of Maxim Petrovich:
When do you need to serve?
And he bent over backwards.
Here, according to Chatsky, everyone does not “serve”, but “serve”. This is most clearly manifested in Molchalin, whom his father taught "to please all people without exception", and even "to be a janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate."
In the musty Famus world, Chatsky appears like a cleansing thunderstorm. He is in every way the opposite of the ugly representatives of this society. If Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub see the meaning of life in their well-being (“officials”, “towns”), then Chatsky dreams of selfless service to the fatherland in order to benefit the people, whom he considers “smart and vigorous”. Chatsky sharply criticizes society, mired in hypocrisy, hypocrisy, debauchery. He appreciates people who are ready "to put a mind hungry for knowledge into science", or to engage in art "creative, lofty and beautiful." Famusov cannot calmly listen to Chatsky's speeches, he plugs his ears. Living deaf is the only way to protect yourself from Chatsky's denunciations!
In his speeches, Chatsky constantly uses the pronoun "we". And this is no coincidence, as he is not alone in his desire for change. On the pages of the comedy, a number of off-stage characters are mentioned, which can be attributed to the protagonist's allies. This is Skalozub's cousin, who left the service, “began to read books in the village; these are professors of the Petersburg Pedagogical Institute; This is Prince Fyodor, a chemist and botanist.
Chatsky, as the hero of the work, not only embodies the ethics and aesthetics of the Decembrists, but has much in common with real historical figures.
He left the service, like Nikita Muravyov, Chaadaev. They would be glad to serve, but "it's sickening to serve." We know that Chatsky “writes and translates well”, like most of the Decembrists: Kuchelbeker, Odoevsky, Ryleev ...
Before the great and tragic events of the twenty-fifth year, there were still a few years left, but with the final scene of the defeat of Chatsky, Griboyedov, perhaps, anticipated the outcome of these events.
With fervor and mockery, Chatsky utters the last words in which he pours out “all the bile and all the annoyance”, and leaves, leaving the “torturers of the crowd” alone with slander, slyness, enmity towards each other, fictions and nonsense - in a word, with the emptiness of decrepit light.
At the end of the action, a carriage appears. Maybe this is a symbol of farewell, or maybe a long road that the hero is still destined to go through.
Half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the Chatskys, who had miraculously survived in the Nerchinsk mines, returned to freedom, the words of the play's finale sounded very convincing. After all, the faithful sons of Russia returned as winners.
At all times there were, are and probably will be their Chatskys, Griboedovs, Vazir-Mukhtars, who, thanks to their brilliant and far-sighted mind, become prophets in the fatherland. As a rule, this violates the established social order, the “natural” course of things, and society comes into conflict with the individual. But for true prophets there is and cannot be any other way than to go forward - "for the honor of the fatherland, for convictions, for love."
The comedy "Woe from Wit" reflects the brewing split in the society of the nobility. The change of one century by another, the ended war of 1812, required the landowners to reassess their values and change their outlook on social life. In this regard, nobles appear who want to improve the position of Russia by increasing the value of the human personality and civic consciousness. The struggle between the two groups of nobles is designated in the play as a clash between the "current century" and the "past century". In the comedy Woe from Wit, Chatsky and Famusov are the main opponents.
The problem of the mind in comedy
A.S. Griboyedov wrote about his work: "In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person." Under the "sane person" Griboyedov means the main character of the comedy - Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. But in the process of analyzing the work, it becomes clear that Famusov cannot be called a fool either. Since Griboyedov put his own thoughts and ideals into the image of Chatsky, the author is completely on the side of the protagonist. However, both Chatsky and Famusov have their own truth, which each of the heroes defends. And each of them has his own mind, just the mind of Chatsky and the mind of Famusov differ in quality.
The mind of a nobleman who adheres to conservative views and ideals is aimed at protecting his comfort, his warm place from everything new. The new is hostile to the old way of life of the feudal landlords, because it threatens its existence. Famusov adheres to such views.
Chatsky, on the other hand, is the owner of an efficient, flexible mind, aimed at building a new world, in which the main values will be the honor and dignity of a person, his personality, and not money and position in society.
Values and ideals of Chatsky and Famusov
The views of Chatsky and Famusov sharply diverge on all issues related to the way of life of a nobleman. Chatsky is a supporter of education, enlightenment, he himself is “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “writes and translates nicely”. Famusov and his society, on the contrary, consider excessive "scholarship" harmful to society and are very afraid of the appearance in their midst of people like Chatsky. The Chatskys threaten Famusov's Moscow with the loss of her usual comfort and the opportunity to spend her life "in feasts and in extravagance."
The dispute between Chatsky and Famusov also flares up around the attitude of the nobles to the service. Chatsky "does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in that." The protagonist of the comedy explains it this way: "I would be glad to serve - it's sickening to serve." But the conservative noble society is arranged in such a way that without “serving” it is impossible to achieve anything here. Chatsky wants to serve “the cause, not the individuals.”
But Famusov and his supporters have a completely different view on the issue of service.
Famusov's ideal is his late uncle Maxim Petrovich. He earned the respect of the Empress herself by the fact that once at a reception he behaved like a jester. Having stumbled and fallen, he decided to turn this awkward situation in his favor: he fell a few more times on purpose to make the audience and Empress Catherine laugh. This ability to "serve" brought Maxim Petrovich great wealth and weight in society.
Chatsky does not accept such ideals, for him this is a humiliation. He calls this time the age of "submissiveness and fear", which clamps down on human freedom. The hero's comparison of the "current century" and the "past century" does not turn out in favor of the latter, because now "everyone breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters."
Family values of Chatsky and Famusov
The clash between Famusov and Chatsky also occurs over the divergence of their views on family values. Famusov believes that when creating a family, the presence of love is completely unimportant. “He who is poor is not a match for you,” he says to his daughter. Both in society and in the family, money is at the forefront. Wealth for the Famus society is the same as happiness. Personal qualities do not matter either in society or in the family: “Be poor, but if there are two thousand family souls, that is the groom.”
Chatsky, on the other hand, is a supporter of a living feeling, which is why he is terrible for Famus' Moscow. This hero puts love above money, education above position in society. Therefore, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov flares up.
conclusions
A comparative description of Chatsky and Famusov reveals all the meanness and immorality of Famusov and his supporters. But Chatsky's time in the society described in the comedy "Woe from Wit" has not yet come. The protagonist is expelled from this environment, declaring him insane. Chatsky is forced to retreat due to the numerical superiority of the "past century." But he leaves Moscow not as a loser, but as a winner. Secular Moscow was frightened by his speeches. His truth is terrible for them, it threatens their personal comfort. His truth will triumph, so the replacement of the old by the new is historically natural.
The clash between Famusov and Chatsky is a dispute between two generations, two different worlds. The arguments and causes of the conflict described in this article can be used by students in grade 9 while writing an essay on the topic “Characteristics of Chatsky and Famusov in the comedy “Woe from Wit””
Artwork test
The Russian diplomat, State Councilor and Russian classic A. S. Griboedov served in the East and was nicknamed by the Persians Vazir-Mukhtar. 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 painted a detailed picture of the events taking place. 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 is of a noble nature, since in this way she saves her mistress, Famusov's daughter Sophia, who is 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, the main character denounces 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 an empty person, 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.
