It seems that the writer had the gift of providence - so accurately he showed in his comedy everything that later became reality. Chatsky, having entered into a struggle with the whole old, conservative system, was doomed to defeat. He is a representative of the young progressive-minded generation of Russia of that era, and the Famus society is that conservative majority that does not want to accept anything new: neither in politics, nor in social relations, nor in the system of ideas, nor in the usual way of life. He is one against all and the final of the conflict,

In fact, it is a foregone conclusion: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of the old force,” as Goncharov wrote.

Although Chatsky despises the Famus society, expulsion from this society is still painful for him: he grew up here, Famusov once replaced his father and, whatever you say, he loves Sophia, and therefore he really suffers, receiving his “million of torments”, which gives the finale of the comedy even a tragic sound:

Who was he with? Where did fate take me?

Everyone is racing! Everyone curse! A crowd of tormentors!

And yet, if his collapse in love is absolutely obvious, then the question of whether Chatsky's expulsion from Famus society can be called a victory

Above the hero, remains open. “Get out of Moscow! I don’t come here anymore, ”Chatsky shouts in despair. But the world is wide, in it one can find not only a place “where there is a corner for an offended feeling,” but also one’s like-minded people, one’s work in life. No wonder the comedy mentions Prince Fyodor and Skalozub's brother, who, like Chatsky, are moving away from the old norms in their lives, trying to live in a new way. There will be more and more such people in Russia, and as a result they will win, because the new always wins over the old. That is why it should be recognized that the dispute of such heroes as Chatsky with the old foundations is just beginning. He is "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher", but that is why he is "always a victim." Opening a new century at a time when the “past century” is still strong, he is doomed to a “passive role” - this is the role of everyone who opens the “new century”. But there are also internal, psychological reasons that Chatsky is doomed to suffering. Chatsky's enthusiasm and ardor leads not only to the fact that he did not understand Sophia's attitude towards him, underestimated Molchalin, and therefore a natural collapse in love awaited him. More importantly, he underestimated the strength of the resistance of the conservative Famus society against the ideas that our hero tried to preach in it. Sometimes it just seems that he is not going to understand this: he preaches with inspiration and suddenly suddenly discovers that the guests are “circling in a waltz”, and not at all “listening” to him. Maybe that's why it was so easy to expel Chatsky, sticking the label of a madman on him.

But at the same time, as Goncharov rightly noted, in spite of everything, the hero dealt the conservatives "a mortal blow with the quality of fresh force." Although, perhaps, it is somewhat premature to talk about a "death blow", it is obvious that the once monolithic Famus society really made a gap - and Chatsky is to blame for this. Now there is no rest for the old Moscow "aces" and noble ladies, because there is no confidence in the inviolability of their positions, although they are still strong. Goncharov is absolutely right when he calls Chatsky "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher", behind whom there is a historic victory, but who is always a victim and such is the fate of those who go first.

It seems that the writer had the gift of providence - so accurately he showed in his comedy everything that later became reality. Chatsky, having entered into a struggle with the whole old, conservative system, was doomed to defeat. He is a representative of the young progressive-minded generation of Russia of that era, and the Famus society is that conservative majority that does not want to accept anything new: neither in politics, nor in social relations, nor in the system of ideas, nor in the usual way of life. He is one against all and the finale of the conflict is, in fact, a foregone conclusion: "Chatsky is broken by the amount of the old force," as Goncharov wrote.

Although Chatsky despises the Famus society, expulsion from this society is still painful for him: he grew up here, Famusov once replaced his father and, whatever you say, he loves Sophia, and therefore he really suffers, receiving his “million of torments”, which gives the finale of the comedy even a tragic sound:

Who was he with? Where did fate take me?

Everyone is racing! Everyone curse! A crowd of tormentors!

And yet, if his collapse in love is absolutely obvious, then the question of whether the expulsion of Chatsky from Famus society can be called a victory over the hero remains open. “Get out of Moscow! I don’t come here anymore, ”Chatsky shouts in despair. But the world is wide, in it one can find not only a place “where there is a corner for an offended feeling,” but also one’s like-minded people, one’s work in life. No wonder the comedy mentions Prince Fyodor and Skalozub's brother, who, like Chatsky, are moving away from the old norms in their lives, trying to live in a new way. There will be more and more such people in Russia, and as a result they will win, because the new always wins over the old. That is why it should be recognized that the dispute of such heroes as Chatsky with the old foundations is just beginning. He is "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher", but that is why he is "always a victim." Opening a new century at a time when the “past century” is still strong, he is doomed to a “passive role” - this is the role of everyone who opens the “new century”. But there are also internal, psychological reasons that Chatsky is doomed to suffering. Chatsky's enthusiasm and ardor leads not only to the fact that he did not understand Sophia's attitude towards him, underestimated Molchalin, and therefore a natural collapse in love awaited him. More importantly, he underestimated the strength of the resistance of the conservative Famus society against the ideas that our hero tried to preach in it. Sometimes it just seems that he is not going to understand this: he preaches with inspiration and suddenly suddenly discovers that the guests are “circling in a waltz”, and not at all “listening” to him. Maybe that's why it was so easy to expel Chatsky, sticking the label of a madman on him.

But at the same time, as Goncharov rightly noted, in spite of everything, the hero dealt the conservatives "a mortal blow with the quality of fresh force." Although, perhaps, it is somewhat premature to talk about a "death blow", it is obvious that the once monolithic Famus society really made a gap - and Chatsky is to blame for this. Now there is no rest for the old Moscow "aces" and noble ladies, because there is no confidence in the inviolability of their positions, although they are still strong. Goncharov is absolutely right when he calls Chatsky "an advanced warrior, a skirmisher", behind whom there is a historic victory, but who is always a victim and such is the fate of those who go first.

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. S. Griboedov, the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, as Goncharov aptly put it, got "a million torments." The “passive” role fell to the lot of a progressive person, according to the author of Oblomov, and at the same time, the writer emphasizes the typical fate of this “Jacobin”: “This is the role of all the Chatskys ...”

There is no doubt that Chatsky is the main character of the comedy.

This is indicated by the title of the play and the author's statement that in his comedy "twenty-five fools for one sane person."

The problem of the mind was relevant for the era of the Decembrist movement. A man of advanced views was called smart, who was critical of the social system. In Russia at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, two political forces opposed. On the one hand, the defenders of the "past century", the conservatives. They were opposed by supporters of the "current century", who opposed serfdom. The "new people" strove for reforms, defended the freedom and independence of the individual in choosing his life path.

Chatsky's trouble is that he found himself in a conservative society all alone. His like-minded people are represented only by off-stage characters: the cousin of Colonel Skalozub, who neglected his career and “began reading books in the village”; nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya Prince Fyodor, who "does not want to know the ranks", is engaged in chemistry and botany.

“Mind and heart are not in harmony” - this is how Chatsky characterizes his inner state in a conversation with Sophia, and this is one of the main reasons that the “passive role” fell to the lot of the freedom-loving hero. The grief of a young man comes from an excess of the mind, he lacks the wisdom of the heart, he is not able to understand and hear the other.

And I listen, I do not understand, -

says Chatsky at the end of the play, having witnessed the meeting of Sophia and Molchalin. The motive of misunderstanding and deafness, both physical and psychological, is not accidental through comedy. The actors are not able to hear and understand each other. A vivid, comically expressed example of such communication is the conversation of two deaf people: the countess grandmother Khryumina and Prince Tugoukhovsky. "Oh! deafness is a great vice, ”you can’t argue with this statement of the old countess.

Let's figure out why the smart Chatsky fails in love and he gets only a "passive role" in his personal life.

The plot of the action begins with the appearance of the hero on the stage, from the very moment the servant announces to Sophia:

To you Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

What do we learn about this character from the exposition, from the conversation between Sophia and her maid Lisa? The traditional role of a "soubrett", an assistant to a young lady in love, in the image of Lisa is combined with the role of a reasoner. A lively, mocking peasant woman, the young lady Liza, has a sober mind, sanity and gives Chatsky a well-aimed description: “spoken, but not painfully cunning”, “sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” The young man "were shedding tears" when he parted with Sophia. Sympathizing with the ardent lover, Liza at the same time ironically refers to the fact that "the desire to wander attacked him":

Where is it worn? in what areas?

He was treated, they say, on acidic waters,

Not from illness, tea, from boredom - more free.

Sophia is uncomfortable with the maid's reminder of her former love, for her it is just "childishness", childhood friendship. Why did the girl stop loving Chatsky?

The young man was brought up and grew up in Famusov's house. Obviously, before the girl liked that Chatsky was "nice"

can make everyone laugh...

But Sophia's pride is wounded when Chatsky leaves Famusov's house and rarely comes to visit. Then the young man reappears at Famusov and confesses his love to Sophia. The girl believed Chatsky. But he leaves Moscow for three whole years and does not write a word. Sophia is offended in the best of feelings, disappointed in love and no longer trusts Chatsky. There is a "revaluation of values". Everything that Sophia liked so much in a young man before: his mind, eloquence, sharpness of views and thinking, sociability - now the girl perceives negatively. Chatsky’s vice, according to Famusov’s daughter, is that “he thought highly of himself,” in his pride and arrogance.

The ideal of Sophia becomes the "enemy of insolence" Molchalin. The girl is driven by the "energy of delusion": she sees a righteous person in a vulgar careerist. Shyness, timidity, meekness, gentleness - all these qualities were seen by the lover of French sentimental novels in the “rootless” Tver provincial. she does not even suspect that the many-faced secretary of her father, like a chameleon, changes its color and appears before people the way they want to see him.

Chatsky's trouble lies in the fact that he does not even imagine how Sophia has changed over these three years, does not suspect that he could offend his beloved with a sudden departure. "Not on the hair of love!" - the impenetrable young man is surprised, able to speak "cleverly and efficiently", but not able to hear and understand another person.

In parallel with the love conflict in the play, a social conflict develops. Chatsky is not at all going to "preach liberty" in Famusov's house. He understands that this stagnant world is not able to change:

What new will Moscow show me?

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

he says to Sophia.

But he is not Molchalin and therefore will not be silent when they hurt him to the quick. Chatsky's openness, sincerity and ingenuity make him vulnerable in Famusov's house, where relationships between close people are built on lies and deceit. Pavel Afanasyevich immoderately praises his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who became famous for the fact that in front of the Empress Catherine herself "bravely sacrificed the back of her head", wanting to earn her favor. Famusov's speech, elevating frank, undisguised cringing, evokes Chatsky's response monologue, where he passionately defends the "current century."

But Chatsky's inspirationally intelligent monologues are uttered into the void, into nowhere, no one listens to him. Famusov plugs his ears so as not to hear the seditious speeches of his "boyfriend - tomboy". Chatsky's second monologue against the "judges", who "draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers", Pavel Afanasyevich also does not want to listen and goes away from sin into his office so that Chatsky does not "drew him into trouble." And the stupid martinet Skalozub from Chatsky’s speech understands only that he “skillfully touched”

Moscow Prejudices

To favorites, to the guards, to the guards,

In Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", the central place is occupied by a young nobleman Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. It is he who unites the two main conflicts of the work - socio-political and love.
It seems to me that for the hero himself, it is the love conflict that is of paramount importance. Chatsky perfectly understands what kind of society he fell into, he has no illusions about Famusov and "all Moscow". Then why does he throw pearls in front of people who will never understand him? In my opinion, the reason for his passionate monologues and caustic remarks is love feelings about Sophia.
Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sophia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. He is driven by love passion. The revival and "talkativeness" of Chatsky was initially caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sophia meets him very coldly. The former lover, whom Chatsky recalls with touching tenderness, has completely changed towards him. With the help of the usual jokes and epigrams, he tries to find a common language with the girl, "sorts out" Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only annoy Sofya - she answers him with barbs. The strange behavior of the beloved causes jealous suspicions of Chatsky: “Is there really a groom here?”
The actions and words of the intelligent and sensitive to people Chatsky seem inconsistent, illogical: he clearly has "mind and heart out of tune." Realizing that Sophia does not love him, he does not want to come to terms with this and undertakes a real "siege" of his beloved who has cooled off towards him. A feeling of love and a desire to find out who became the girl’s new chosen one keep the hero in Famusov’s house: “I’ll wait for her and force a confession: Who is finally dear to her - Molchalin! Skalozub!
Chatsky bothers Sofya, trying to call her to frankness, asking her tactless questions: “Can I find out ... Who do you love?”.
The night scene in Famusov's house revealed the whole truth to Chatsky, who "became clear." But now he goes to the other extreme: he cannot forgive Sofya for his love blindness, he reproaches her that she "lured him with hope."
The denouement of the love conflict did not cool Chatsky's ardor. Instead of love passion, the hero was seized by other strong feelings - rage and anger. In the heat of his rage, he shifts the responsibility for his "futile labors of love" to others. Chatsky was offended not only by "treason", but also by the fact that Sophia preferred him the insignificant Molchalin, whom he so despised ("When I think about who you preferred!").
The hero proudly declares his "break" with her and thinks that now he has "sobered up ... completely", intending at the same time "to pour out all the bile and all the annoyance on the whole world."
It is interesting to see how love experiences exacerbate Chatsky's ideological opposition to the Famus society. At first, Chatsky calmly relates to Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only the comic side in it: “I am in some other miracle in eccentrics Once I laugh, then I forget ...”.
But when Chatsky is convinced that Sophia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to annoy him. Replies and monologues become bold, caustic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed without malice.
In his monologues, Chatsky touches on the actual problems of the modern era: the question of what real service is, the problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, and national identity. But, being in an excited state, the hero, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, “falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech ... He also strikes into patriotic pathos, agrees to the point that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements” , angry that madame and mademoiselle ... have not been translated into Russian ... ".
I think that Chatsky's nervous monologues hide serious, hard-won convictions. Chatsky is a person with an established worldview, a system of life values ​​and morality. The highest criterion for evaluating a person for him is "a mind that is hungry for knowledge", the desire "for creative, high and beautiful arts."
Chatsky's idea of ​​service - Famusov, Skalozub and Molchalin literally force him to talk about it - is connected with his ideal of "free life". One of its most important aspects is freedom of choice: after all, according to the hero, every person should have the right to serve or refuse to serve. Chatsky himself, according to Famusov, “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in that,” but he has clear ideas about what the service should be like. According to Chatsky, one should serve “the cause, not the persons”, do not mix personal, selfish interest and “fun” with “deeds”. In addition, he connects the service with people's ideas of honor and dignity, therefore, in a conversation with Famusov, he deliberately emphasizes the difference between the words "serve" and "serve": "I would be glad to serve, it's sickening to serve."
Life philosophy puts this hero outside the society, gathered in Famusov's house. Chatsky is a person who does not recognize authorities, does not share generally accepted opinions. Above all, he values ​​​​his independence, causing horror in ideological opponents who see the ghost of a revolutionary, "carbonaria". “He wants to preach liberty!” Famusov exclaims.
Thus, against the background of an inert and unshakably conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave "madman" who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold. His fate is unenviable - the hero has to leave Moscow, slandered, with a broken heart. But, at the same time, the role of Chatsky is “victorious”, because he stirred up the entire Famus society, leaving them in a “broken” state. And most importantly, this hero showed that big changes are coming, which will inevitably affect the Famus society, no matter how it resists. Therefore, in my opinion, we can say with full confidence that "Chatsky's role is a suffering one ...", but "... it is at the same time always victorious."

The role of Chatsky as a representative of the future in AS Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".

One of the greatest works of the first half of the 19th century is the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". By this time, Russian society, as it were, had split in two. On the one hand, progressive, advanced people appeared who believed in the possibility of changing the state structure of Russia. On the other hand, people who belonged to the "golden age" of the Russian nobility still lived. Against the background of this conflict, the comedy "Woe from Wit" is born, and with it the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky appears.

The plot of the comedy begins with the return of the hero to Moscow. Chatsky comes "from distant wanderings" for the sake of his beloved. He comes to the house where he was brought up and which he left a few years ago to continue his education abroad. Educated, bright, intelligent, with new thoughts, Chatsky strives to see his love as soon as possible - Sofya Famusova. As children, they were very close. Sophia shared the hero's views on life, laughed at his jokes. But after the departure of Chatsky, the girl changed a lot, succumbing to the influence of the Famus society.

From the very first steps, Alexander Andreevich encounters a wall of misunderstanding on the part of his beloved. Everything in this house is alien to him, and Sophia already loves another.

Having changed himself, the hero seeks and does not find changes in his environment. Chatsky's personal drama develops into a social conflict with the whole society. In a conversation with Famusov, he openly criticizes the old order and outlook on life:

And who are the judges? - For the antiquity of years

To a free life their enmity is irreconcilable,

Judgments draw from forgotten newspapers

The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea ...

The entourage takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth that “stings his eyes”, for trying to disrupt their usual way of life, for his revolutionary views and desire for action.

The Famus society is unusually united by common views on life, service, and career. The ideal in achieving ranks and an example to follow is Maxim Petrovich for them. The behavior and the whole life of this hero is an example of servility and sycophancy: “Maxim Petrovich: he didn’t eat silver, he ate gold, a hundred people are at his service.” To which Chatsky replies: “Services to the cause, not to individuals”

The Famus society is unanimous in its struggle against enlightenment. It sees in him the root of evil:

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause

What is now more than ever,

Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.

In the monologue at the ball in the Famusovs' house, all the imbalance of the soul and mind of Chatsky is visible. All his speech, it seems to me, is a consequence of unhappy love and the society's rejection of the thoughts and beliefs that Chatsky defends throughout the comedy. He makes himself a laughing stock. Sophia spreads the rumor about his madness, but Chatsky not only does not refute the gossip, but with all his might, without knowing it, confirms them. He arranges a scandal at the ball, then an unpleasant scene of farewell to Sophia and the exposure of Molchalin:

You are right, he will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to stay with you,

Breathe the air alone

And in whom the mind will survive ...

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

I'm running, I won't look back, I'll go looking around the world,

Where there is a corner for the offended feeling!

Chatsky is not afraid to tell the whole truth in the eye. He rightly accuses the representatives of Famus Moscow of lies, hypocrisy, hypocrisy. I believe that, using the example of his main character, Griboedov shows us how the obsolete and sick blocks the way for the young and healthy. Of course, the writer leaves the future for people like Chatsky.