Try to verbally draw the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you envision the characters as they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed closet, a large clock on the wall. To the right is a door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Hanging from the armchair, Lizanka sleeps. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and is horrified to realize that it is already morning. Knocking on Sophia's room, trying to force her to part with Molchalin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begin to beat and play.

Lisa looks flustered. She is nimble, quick, resourceful, seeking to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, in a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if stealthily, comes up behind Lisa and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, starts the clock, speaks loudly, and on the other, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is funny, witty.

Find the plot of the comedy. Determine what storylines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky's house is the beginning of a comedy. The hero links together two storylines - love-lyrical and socio-political, satirical. From the moment he appears on the stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky's mockery of the appearance and behavior of the visitors and inhabitants of the Famusov house, seemingly still harmless, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into political and moral opposition to the Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not notice yet, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, preferring Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Molchalin? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth phenomenon of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky's review of him.

He is laconic, which justifies his surname.

Have you yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who takes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and aversion to insolence. Only later do we find out that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love "for the sake of the daughter of such a person" "by position", and can be very cheeky with Lisa.

And one believes in the prophecy of Chatsky, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that "he will reach the known degrees, After all, now they love the dumb."

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky's sincerity, his emotionality, devotion to Sophia, recalls with what a sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he could lose Sophia's love over the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. It is easy to remember her phrase characterizing Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp,

Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky!

Sofya, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and what Lisa admires in him annoys her. And here she seeks to move away from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to laugh at everyone”, “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “pretended to be in love, exacting and distressed”, “he thought highly of himself”, “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and draws a conclusion, mentally contrasting to him Molchalin: “Oh, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: "Not a man - a snake" and a caustic question, it did not happen to him even by mistake to respond kindly about someone. She does not share Chatsky's critical attitude towards the guests of the Famusov's house.

How is Sophia's character manifested in the first act? How does Sophia perceive the ridicule of the people of her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky's mockery of the people of her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of an independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules adopted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, she is comfortable, convenient in the company of her father, habitually. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize a poor young man. However, as a true daughter of the Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow men”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov, “Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife’s pages ...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia appreciates in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky's ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky's personality, his arrival.

Subject: Woe from Wit

Questions and answers to the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit"?
What do you think, is I. A. Goncharov right, who believed that Griboyedov's comedy will never become obsolete?

I guess that's right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of the life of Russia after the war of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in people's minds when changing historical eras. Griboedov convincingly shows that at first the new is quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools per intelligent person, as Griboyedov aptly puts it), but "the quality of fresh strength" (Goncharov) wins in the end. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to their Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression "an extra person" applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the non-stage heroes (professors of the St. started reading books. Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, he believes in the victory of progress. He actively interferes in public life, not only criticizes public order, but also promotes his positive program. His layer and work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not superfluous, but a new person.

Could Chatsky avoid a collision with the Famus society?
What is Chatsky's system of views and why does the Famus society consider these views dangerous?
Is Chatsky's reconciliation with the Famus society possible? Why?
Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow?
Do you agree with Chatsky's assessment given by I. A. Goncharov?
What artistic technique underlies the composition of comedy?
What attitude does Sofya Famusova evoke? Why?
In what episodes of the comedy do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed?
How do you see the future of comedy heroes?
What are the plot lines of the comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: a love affair and a social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main conflict is public (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of a general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

"Public Comedy" begins with a love affair, because, firstly, it is a reliable way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author's psychological insight, since it is at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, what love implies, often the most difficult disappointments with the imperfection of this world occur.

What role does the mind theme play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role, because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave and behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin's understanding, the mind is not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to such a definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of actors. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do they "say" about the characters of the comedy, their names?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and speaking surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumina, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance sets the audience up for the perception of the comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be of value on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from the English. famous - "fame", "glory" or from lat. fama- "rumor", "rumor". The name Sophia in Greek means "wisdom". The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French subrette Lisette. In the name and patronymic of Chatsky, masculinity is emphasized: Alexander (from the Greek. Winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek. Courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero's last name, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is a list of actors often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical sphere, in the play, as in a literary work, as a rule, it is denoted by the "list of characters." At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very concise but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of the characters in the poster.

The sequence of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his relatives are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, a servant, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him follow the guests, arranged according to the degree of nobility and significance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all sorts, waiters.

The classic order of the poster breaks the presentation of the Gorich couple: first, Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady, is named, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. Violation of the dramatic tradition is connected with Griboedov's desire to hint already in the poster at the nature of the relationship of the young spouses.

Try to verbally draw the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you envision the characters as they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed closet, a large clock on the wall. To the right is a door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Hanging from the armchair, Lizanka sleeps. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and is horrified to realize that it is already morning. Knocking on Sophia's room, trying to force her to part with Silent Lin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begin to beat and play.

Lisa looks flustered. She is nimble, quick, resourceful, seeking to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, in a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if stealthily, comes up behind Lisa and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, starts the clock, speaks loudly, on the other hand, warns that Sofya is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is funny, witty.

Find the plot of the comedy. Determine what storylines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky's house is the beginning of a comedy. The hero links together two storylines - love-lyrical and socio-political, satirical. From the moment he appears on the stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky's mockery of the appearance and behavior of the visitors and inhabitants of the Famusov house, seemingly still harmless, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into a political and moral opposition to the Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not notice yet, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, preferring Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Silence-not? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth phenomenon of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions about Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky's review of him.

He is laconic, which justifies his surname. Have you yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who takes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, rejection of insolence. Only later do we find out that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love "for the sake of the daughter of such a person" "by position", and can be very free with Liza.

And one believes in the prophecy of Chatsky, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that "he will reach the known degrees, After all, now they love the dumb."

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. It is easy to remember her phrase characterizing Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!

Sofya, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and what Lisa admires in him irritates her. And here she seeks to move away from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to laugh at everyone”, “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “pretends to be in love, exacting and distressed”, “he thought highly of himself”, “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and makes you waters, mentally opposing Molchalin to him: “Ah, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: "Not a man - a snake" and a caustic question, it did not happen to him even by mistake to respond kindly about someone. She does not share Chatsky's critical attitude towards the guests of the Famusov's house.

How is Sophia's character manifested in the first act? How does Sophia perceive the ridicule of the people of her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky's mockery of the people of her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of an independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in the company of her father, she is comfortable, convenient, familiar. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize a poor young man. However, as a true daughter of the Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow men”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov, “Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife’s pages ...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia appreciates in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky's ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky's personality, his arrival.

Sofya is smart, resourceful, of independent judgment, but at the same time, she is domineering, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa's help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but cuts off abruptly when she seems to forget her position as a maid ("Listen, don't take too many liberties...").

What conflict arises in the second action? When and how does it happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famus society, the “present century” and the “past century”. If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s mockery of the visitors of the Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that “gloriously knows how to make everyone laugh”, then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict passes into the stage of a serious opposition of socio-political and moral positions on topical issues in the life of Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and cause of the disagreement between them?

The characters show a different understanding of the key social and moral problems of contemporary life. The attitude to the service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve” - the principle of a young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing people, and not on serving the cause, on promotion of relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter” “Signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov cites as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important Catherine’s grandee (“All in orders, He always rode in a train ...” “Who takes him to the ranks and gives pensions?”), Who did not disdain to “bend over backwards” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer the sovereign. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as carbonari, a dangerous person, "he wants to preach liberty", "does not recognize the authorities."

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the fate of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of a serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out one by one…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if it is typed; Souls of a thousand two generic ones, - He is the groom, ”Chatsky evaluates such norms as“ the meanest traits of the past life ”, with anger falls upon careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“You didn’t get ranks, did you fail at work?”), Gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised at Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “at three ministers was the head of the department. His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story of his father's will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, with all his talents, does not enjoy the support of the Famus society, because their views differ sharply. And, of course, a considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky gives Molchalin his success with Sophia. Molchalin's life principles can only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, one must depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Molchalin is funny or terrible ? in this scene it is decided - scary. Silently-lin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of the Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the characters in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of the Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And to take awards, and have fun”, “If only I got to be a general!”. The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the price of Zagoretsky (“He is a liar, a gambler, a thief / I was from him and the door was locked ...”), accepts him, because he is a “master of pleasing”, got her a black-haired girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin has good prospects to enter this category of husbands and make a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. The true evil of noble Moscow was gallomania.

Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness arise and spread? Why are Famusov's guests so willing to support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a series of phenomena that is very interesting from a dramatic point of view. Gossip arises at first glance by accident. G.N., catching Sophia's mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean, being under the impression of the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It is unlikely that she put a direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And here in the head of Sophia, insulted for Molchalin, an insidious plan arises. Of great importance for explaining this scene are the remarks to Sophia's further remarks: "after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side." Her further remarks are already aimed at the conscious introduction of this idea into the head of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor spread will be picked up and filled with details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! Do you like to dress up everyone in jesters, Would you like to try on yourself?

Rumors of madness are spreading with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news, tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes, because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedic scenes, the characters of the characters that make up the Famus circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the go with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes, Chatsky's judgments seemed insane to her. Ridiculous is the dialogue about Chatsky of the Countess and Grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky, who, because of their deafness, add a lot to the rumor launched by Sophia: “the accursed Voltairian”, “crossed the law”, “he is in pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, appearance XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the meaning of Chatsky's monologue about a Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famusovsky society. After the hero had conversations separately with Molchalin, Sofya, Famusov, his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he delivers a monologue in front of the whole society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed in the rumor about his madness and therefore they expect from him obviously delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions. It is in this vein that the guests perceive Chatsky's speeches condemning the cosmopolitanism of the noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses healthy, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart cheerful people”; by the way, the condemnation of gallomania sometimes sounds in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently circling in a waltz, the old people disperse over the card tables.

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's public impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism. Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of the image of Repetilov in comedy. She is unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is speaking (Repetilov - from lat. repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and, as it were, openly expresses his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and whether there are any ... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but speaks more about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the essence of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, of Repetilov is “Shu-mim, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky's assessments of Repetilov's words are interesting, which testify to the difference in the author's views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author is in solidarity with the main character in the assessments of the comic character, who suddenly appeared at the departure of the guests: firstly, he ironizes that the secret union meets in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “what are you raging about? » and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays an essential role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it to a denouement. According to the literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventful tension of the episode. But the tension that is starting to subside ... Repetilov inflates. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberately slowed down denouement of the events of the ball by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue conversations at the ball, a meeting with a belated guest arouses in the minds of everyone the main impression, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an unwitting witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already completely settled version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramaturgically integral episode of the comedy being completed, deeply rooted in the 4th act and equal in its volume and meaning to the whole act.

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins "forever young old men of Russian history"? What is the true face of Molchalin?

Calling Molchalin so, the literary scholar emphasizes the typicality of such people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family ties. Even in their youth, they are not characterized by romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for the improvement of public and state life, they serve individuals, not the cause. Implementing the famous advice of Famusov “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin learns in the Famus society of the “past life the meanest traits” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: remember what his father bequeathed to Molchalin), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one's own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is the moral image of Famusov that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a loving date with Lisa. Such is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D. I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “known degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother away from the road, call his beloved woman to a nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will keep going and reach-det ... ”Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, not by chance, his name became a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the denouement of the social conflict of the play? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the vanquished?

From the appearance of the XIV last act, the play’s social conflict is resolved, in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusovsky society are summed up and the final rupture of the two worlds is affirmed - “the century of the present and past century." It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “A million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced the early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely from those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, they are ready to preach even when no one is listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at the Famusov's ball. Famusovsky world is alien to him, he did not accept his laws. And therefore we can assume that the moral victory is on his side. Moreover, the final phrase of Famusov, completing the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!

Griboyedov first called his play "Woe to the Wit", and then changed the title to "Woe from Wit". What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original one?

The original title of the comedy affirmed the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the reasons for the occurrence of grief are indicated, and thus the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated in the title, while the reader and viewer are tuned in to the perception of problems that always confront a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal”, moral ones. The theme of the mind is at the heart of the comedy's conflict and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: "In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person." How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - on the clash of mind and stupidity, or on the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is not based on the clash of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other comedy characters are not at all stupid. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him to be such. But they have a practical, worldly, quirky mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man of an open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical ingenuity.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the heroes of the play.

About Famusov: "Obsessive, restless, quick...", "Signed, so off your shoulders!" , to the place, Well, how not to please your own little man, ”etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely”, “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant for us”, “So that the Lord destroys this unclean spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation…”, “Try about the authorities, and knows what they will say. / Bow a little low, bend down in a ring, / Even in front of the royal face, / So he will call a scoundrel! ..».

About Molchalin: “Molchalins are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “In my years you should not dare to have your own judgment”, “The famous servant ... like a thunderous tap”, “Molchalin! Who else will settle things so peacefully! / There he will stroke the pug in time, / Here he will rub the card just right ... ”.

Get acquainted with the various assessments of the image of Chatsky. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...” Gonchar-dov: “Chatsky is positively intelligent. His speech boils with wit ... "Katenin:" Chatsky is the main person ... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately. Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and diversity of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was the first acquaintance with the work, by that time the aesthetic positions of both poets diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboyedov's comedy. Subsequently, "Woe from Wit" will enter Pushkin's work with hidden and explicit quotations.

Chatsky's accusations of verbosity and inopportune preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set themselves: to express your positions in any audience. They were distinguished by directness and sharpness of judgments, categoricalness of their sentences, not taking into account secular norms, they called a spade a spade. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, an advanced person of the 20s of the XIX century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical study by I. A. Goncharov “A Million of Torments”. Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not translated in society”?

The state, designated in the comedy as “the mind is out of tune with the heart,” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to approve progressive views, to oppose injustice, the inertia of social principles, to find answers to urgent spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times. material from the site

B. Goller in the article "The Drama of a Comedy" writes: "Sofya Griboedova is the main mystery of comedy." What, in your opinion, is connected with such an assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the ladies of her circle: independence, a sharp mind, a sense of her own dignity, disregard for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like Princess Tugoukhovskaya, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, accepts his comings on dates and gentle silence for love and devotion, becomes a persecutor of Chatsky. Her mystery lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V. A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia loving Chatsky, but because of his departure, feeling insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, well able to control herself. Mockingness, grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina discovered in Sophia a strong character and a deep feeling. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of the Famus society, but did not denounce him, but despised him. Love for Molchalin was generated by her imperiousness - he was an obedient shadow of her love, and she did not believe Chatsky's love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious to the reader, viewer, theater figures to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action) characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it respected in comedy?

In comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place during the day), place (in Famusov's house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: "I'm not talking about poetry: half must be included in a proverb." What is the novelty of the language of Griboyedov's comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become winged.

Griboedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial nature of the language is given by the free (variegated) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three calms and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in "Woe from Wit" and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed are those who believe.

Signed, so off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many a week.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And the golden bag, and marks the generals.

Oh! If someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called "Woe from Wit" a comedy in verse. Sometimes there is a doubt whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be attributed to the category of comics, on the contrary, he endures a deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of a comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov's desire, attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around the fall of Silent-on from the horse, Chatsky's constant misunderstanding of Sophia's transparent speeches, "little comedies" in the living room during the congress of guests and during the spread of rumors about Chatsky's madness), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give full reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, as it raises significant social and moral problems.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “extra person” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not "serve the higher-standing". And such people, despite their intelligence, abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "current century"?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: the cousin of Rock-tooth, who “suddenly left the service, began to read books in the village”; nephew of Princess Fedor, who “does not want to know the officials! He is a chemist, he is a botanist”; professors of the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who "practice in schisms and disbelief."

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "gone century"?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, the old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of the Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky "changed the law", the countess - "he is a cursed Voltairian", Famusov - "try about the authorities - and he knows what he will tell", that is, the main sign of insanity, according to the views of the Famus society, is free-thinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia prefer Molchalin to Chatsky?

Sofya was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, as she thinks, is pure, shy, sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-but-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was brought up by the Famusov environment in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and positions in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy "Woe from Wit", which have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Bypass us more than all sorrows and master's anger, and master's love.

Went to a room, got into another.

He never uttered a wise word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!

Griboedov Alexander Sergeevich

Alexander Sergeevich GRIBOEDOV(1795-1829. According to other sources, the year of birth is 1790 or 1794)

We used to consider A.S. Griboedov, the creator of the only masterpiece - the poetic comedy "Woe from Wit", and, indeed, although the history of dramaturgy speaks of Griboedov as the author of several wonderful, witty and funny comedies and vaudevilles in his own way, written in collaboration with the leading playwrights of the tenth years N. AND. Khmelnitsky and A.A. Shakhovsky and with the poet P.A. Vyazemsky, but it was “Woe from Wit” that turned out to be a one-of-a-kind work. This comedy for the first time broadly and freely depicted modern life and thus opened a new, realistic era of the Russian theater; not a single major Russian writer escaped its influence. The creator of our national theater, A.N. Ostrovsky, whose comedies more than once make you remember Woe from Wit: “On a high mountain above Tiflis, the great grave of Griboyedov flaunts, and his genius soars just as high above all of us.”

"Woe from Wit"

The idea of the comedy dates back to 1818, apparently. It was completed in the autumn of 1824; censorship did not allow it to be printed or staged. The comedy diverged in the lists and soon became known to the entire reading public. “Which of the literate Russians does not know it by heart!” - asked the famous magazine "Moscow Telegraph". It was allowed for publication (and with censorship exceptions) in 1831, after Griboyedov's death, and then staged on the professional stage. But completely, without cuts, "Woe from Wit" was published almost forty years later - in the era of reforms, in 1862.

The enthusiastic attitude of the Decembrist-minded part of society was expressed by the Decembrist writer A. Bestuzhev: "The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and put it among the first creations of the people." "... A lot of intelligence and funny in verses ...", "... a striking picture of morals ..."(Pushkin), "... mind and salt darkness ..."(Katenin) - these statements show what contemporaries saw in Griboyedov's comedy. Close and understandable was the conflict - the clash of an independent, ardent, honest and noble man, a man of new thoughts, with the environment, with its inertness, lack of spirituality and fierce hostility to all manifestations of independence, with hatred for any attempts to renew life. But there was something else. For today's reader or viewer, in "Woe from Wit" everything is perfect, it never occurs to us to look for any flaws or oddities in this classic work; Griboyedov's contemporaries saw first of all his new and unusual form, and it raised many questions. The questions concerned (primarily) the construction of the plot and the character of the protagonist. P.A. Katenin, a poet and playwright, a close friend of Griboyedov, says: "... the plan is insufficient and the main character is inconsistent", Pushkin also writes about the lack of a plan and calls Chatsky a “not at all smart” person, P.A. Vyazemsky also writes about the “oddities” of the comedy, although he considers them the artistic merit of the playwright.

What is the "ill-conceived plan"?

The structure of the plot in a dramatic work consists of several elements: exposition (acquaintance of the viewer with the place of action and its participants), plot (establishment, “setting up” of the conflict), development of the action (the action continuously moves forward, and each next round of development depends on the previous one), climax (the moment of the highest tension, when further development of the conflict is impossible), denouement (resolution of the conflict: either leading to well-being - then we are talking about a comedy denouement, or causing the death or suffering of the hero - in this case, the denouement is tragic or dramatic).

The exposition in "Woe from Wit" is not very long (five events of the first act), but amazingly intense: we learn about the character of Famusov with his ingenuous hypocrisy (he flirts with Liza, and his daughter talks about himself - “... known as a monastic for his behavior”), stinginess (his memories of Madame Rosier, the "eternal French", "destroyers of pockets and hearts" - it is not known what hurts him more), contempt for education (words about teachers - "tramps"); Sophia, her character, her ability to get out of difficult situations (a dream made up), love for Molchalin, resentment towards Chatsky, attitude towards Skalozub - all this also becomes known from the exposition; and Chatsky himself, who has not yet appeared on the stage, is illuminated by the opposite characteristics of Lisa ( "... sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp") and Sophia (pretender and mocker). The exposition prepares the plot - the arrival of Chatsky. In the plot, a conflict is defined - a clash of interests between Chatsky, who is in love and seeking an answer, and Sophia, for whom Chatsky is a threat to her love for Molchalin. And the subsequent action is connected with the activity of Chatsky, who is looking for an answer to the question of who could be Sophia's chosen one. Here are the main dramatic moments in the development of the action: Sophia’s provocation by praising Skalozub (“... with the straightness of the camp, the face and voice of the hero”) and the indifferent answer ( "Not my novel"), convincing that Skalozub is not her chosen one; Sophia's fainting due to the fall of Molchalin, causing Chatsky to suspect for the first time her interest in "who looks like all the fools", and the test of Sophia following this (the result is a threefold repetition: "She doesn't respect him"

"She does not put a penny on him",

"Naughty, she doesn't love him") and Molchalin's test, again with the same result:

With such feelings, with such a soul Do we love?

The liar laughed at me!

And the climax is Sophia's response, organizing a rumor about Chatsky's madness: "He's out of his mind," and a little later, a remark that leaves no doubt about her intentions:

Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress up everyone in jesters,

Feel free to try on yourself!

But why did Griboyedov, in his letter to Katenin, describing the plot of the comedy, say a strange phrase: “Someone out of anger made up about him that he was crazy ...”? She is strange (how is it “someone”? Why an indefinite pronoun? The whole logic of the action says that it cannot be anyone but Sophia!) Only at first glance. Essentially, it doesn't matter who started the snowball of slander, it is important that everyone participates in it - both enemies and friends. People who are unlike each other - Famusov and Zagoretsky, Molchalin and Skalozub, Gorich and Khlestova - turn out to be united in their opposition to Chatsky. At the climax, the conflict, which was given as a love one, reveals its active social force. It seemed to us that all the words of Chatsky about freedom and slavery, about dignity and humility, about service and service, and about many other things, were only words that characterize him, nothing more. But it turned out that these were actions that put him alone against everyone. “The only truly heroic face of our literature,” said Apollon Grigoriev about Chatsky. And in the denouement of the comedy, Griboyedov connects two previously separated plans: Chatsky learns about who his rival is, and that he is insane for everyone. The reproaches addressed to Sophia are side by side with the denunciations of the "torturers of the crowd." “You slandered me insane with the whole chorus,” in the words addressed to Sophia, he unites her, previously beloved, with the whole hostile circle. His anger is poured out not only "on the daughter and on the father and on the foolish lover", but also on "the whole world." Love, private conflict merges with civil, social.

Chatsky's denunciations are confirmed by the entire deployment of the action. But there is no complete coincidence between the views of the author and the hero: the objective picture of life shown in the play turns out to be wider than the view of the hero. At the beginning of the comedy, Chatsky is convinced that the main vices - all types of slavery from serfdom to disrespect for one's own personality - are the vices of the last century, and "today the world is no longer like that." He is sure that the successes of reason are enough for the victory of the new, that the old age is doomed to destruction. The development of the action and the whole system of images in comedy shows how naive such a view is: the old evil skillfully adapts to the present. The conflict is determined not by the antagonism of two centuries, but by the ability to survive and adapt evil: Maxim Petrovich is repeated in Famusov, Famusov - in Molchalin (i.e., in the generation of Chatsky), Moscow "old men", praised by Famusov, who "argue, make noise and - disperse ”, are duplicated in the young participants of the “secret meetings”, about which Repetilov tells Chatsky: "We make noise, brother, we make noise..." Everyday life becomes a formidable force capable of defeating any ideal aspirations.

The system of characters is based on Chatsky's opposition to the entire Moscow, "Famus" circle - young and old, men and women, the main characters and numerous secondary ones - Famusov's guests at the ball. The main semantic image that creates this confrontation is the image of "mind". The general concept of “mind” becomes, as it were, a conditional character in the play; people think about it, they understand it in different ways, they fear it, they persecute it. In two camps, there are two opposite ideas about the mind: the mind that liberates, associated with enlightenment, learning, knowledge (“mind hungry for knowledge”), and base common sense, good manners, the ability to live. The Moscow circle seeks to oppose the mind with other values: for Famusov, these are patriarchal family ties ( “Let yourself be known as a reasonable person /And they will not include in the family, /Don't look at us. /After all, only here they still value the nobility. ”), for Sophia - sentimental sensitivity (“Oh, if someone loves whom, /Why go crazy and drive so far?”), for Molchalin - the precepts of the service hierarchy (“In my summers should not dare /Have your own opinions”), for Skalozub - the poetry of frunt (“You won’t fool me with learning ... I am Prince Gregory and you /Feldwebel in Voltaire Ladies").

An important place in the system is occupied by off-stage characters (those who are mentioned but who do not appear on stage). They seem to expand the space of the theater stage, introducing into it the life that has remained outside the theater hall. It is they who make it possible to see in Chatsky not a renegade and a strange eccentric, but also a person who feels himself in his generation. A circle of like-minded people is guessed behind him: mind you, he rarely says “I”, much more often “we”, “one of us”. And Skalozub’s disapproving reviews about his cousin, who “took a firm grip on some new rules” and, having left the service while “the rank followed him”, “began to read books in the village”, or Princess Tugoukhovskaya about her nephew Prince Fyodor - "a chemist and botanist", who studied at the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, where "professors practice schism and disbelief."

Where did contemporaries get the feeling of violating dramatic canons? Let us briefly note the main aspects of artistic innovation in comedy from the point of view of the genre, the construction of characters' images, and the peculiarities of speech.

Genre. In contrast to the aesthetics of classicism with its strict isolation and certainty of genre forms (its own system of norms in comedy, satire, tragedy), Griboyedov offers a free and wide combination of possibilities inherent in different genres ( "I live and write freely and freely"- letter to Katenin). Comedy, built according to the rules of classicism, is combined with genre features of satire and a realistic picture of morals. (It was this side that Pushkin especially liked - "a striking picture of morals!"). In addition, in Woe from Wit, the comic side by side with the dramatic (the term comedy-drama was suggested by Belinsky). The seriousness and pathos of Chatsky's speech do not exclude the comical situations in which he finds himself - see his conversation with the one who plugged his ears, i.e. deaf, Famusov. But the dialogue of the deaf is an image that extends to the whole situation of the play: deafness is a misunderstanding. Both Skalozub, who decided that Chatsky was standing up for the army against the guards, and the princess, who only understood that he “deigned to call her a milliner”, and Repetilov, who did not feel Chatsky’s irony at all and was ready to consider him his colleague, are deaf. But Chatsky himself is also deaf, not hearing Sophia, not understanding how serious the power embodied in the funny and pathetic for him Molchalin is. The comic creates a complexity of meaning: Chatsky is a tragic figure standing in conflict against everyone, but the denouement, moreover, cannot be considered tragic, for she is introduced into a comic situation of misunderstanding. So, Famusov, confident that he caught Chatsky's date with his daughter, remained deaf. And in a more general sense - the whole society remained deaf, unable to understand, i.e. "hear" the hero. This was astutely noted by the remarkable Russian critic Apollon Grigoriev, who remarked that Chatsky “does not care that the environment with which he is struggling is positively incapable not only of understanding him, but even of taking him seriously. But Griboyedov, as a great poet, cares about this. No wonder he called his drama a comedy.

The classic rules of the three unities (action, time and place) are respected but given a different meaning, helping to enlarge the generalizations expressed in the conflict. Famusov's house becomes a model of the entire Moscow society, one day - a means of expressing the maximum confrontation between the hero and everyone else ("... he will come out of the fire unharmed, / Who will have time to stay with you for a day, / Breathe the same air, / And his mind will survive" ).

The comedy contains the traditional outline of a love affair, but the more noticeable is the inversion of the usual plot situations: love and success should go to a positive hero, but here an insignificant one wins in a love duel; the heroine, who traditionally deceives her father, deceives herself, contrary to tradition; there is no active struggle between rivals provided for by the canon.

Character images. One of the requirements of traditional comedy at the time of Griboyedov was a limited number of actors. Nothing superfluous - not a single character, without which a comedy intrigue can do. Katenin reproaches Griboyedov for introducing "secondary faces that appear only for a moment." Although they are, according to the critic, "masterfully outlined", but this is a violation of the dramatic canons. The crowd, not provided for by tradition (“the people of actors,” according to Vyazemsky), was necessary for Griboedov to create an acute social conflict - the confrontation of one hero against the whole society.

But the main novelty was that in place of the usual comedy roles of an eccentric, blinded by love, his successful rival, boastful warrior, comic old father, original characters appeared, in which there was no schematism or one-dimensionality, characters with a new quality - complexity. Although the characters are endowed with "talking" names, their characters are by no means limited to this. The complexity is manifested primarily in the combination of opposite properties in the characters. So, in Chatsky, anger, causticity, biliousness are combined with tenderness, gentleness, good nature; he has a sharp, penetrating mind, but at the same time - innocence, naivety; irony goes hand in hand with sensibility. Sophia is sentimental - and vengeful, dreamy - and insidious, bold and capable of desperate deeds - and cowardly. It is the non-differentiation of qualities that makes it possible to naturally connect two plot lines: love and ideological. Conflict affects life in its entirety. One of the most interesting finds of Griboyedov is Repetilov. He has the maximum concentration of the property of repetition, he is a person who does not have his own character and his own ideology, and therefore borrows as many strangers as he likes (Pushkin: "he has 2, 3, 10 characters"). He is a frivolous playboy, a careerist-loser, and a noisy freethinker. How socially significant this image is can be seen from the way it is continued in Russian literature (for example, Sitnikov and Kukshina in Turgenev's novel, Lebezyatnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment).

Language and verse. Comedy in verse was not new in Russian dramaturgy before Griboyedov; the verse form was the norm for classic high comedy. The surprising novelty of "Woe from Wit" in this area was that in it the Alexandrian verse, obligatory in comedy and tragedy (a system of couplets: six-meter iambs with adjacent rhymes), which, due to its monotony, doomed plays to the monotony of verse intonation, was replaced by free , i.e. multi-foot iambs (such iambs you can see in Krylov's fables). The use of poetic lines of different lengths (from six-foot to one-foot) gave, on the one hand, a natural intonation of lively colloquial speech, on the other hand, the sharpness of the contrast of long and short verses helped to express the sharpness of the clash of ideas, the change of thoughts and moods.

The most characteristic side of comedy is the saturation of the text with verses-aphorisms. Any of the characters can say aphorism, witticism, maxim - Molchalin ( "Oh! evil tongues are worse than a gun!), Repetilov ( "Yes, a smart person cannot but be a rogue"), Lisa ( "Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good"). Especially many aphorisms belong to Famusov - the main spokesman for the truths of his circle: “Signed, so off your shoulders”, “Who is poor, he is not a couple for you”, “Well, how not to please your dear little man”, “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”. But the true storehouse of wit is Chatsky. Notice the brilliant irony in Chatsky's aphorisms: “Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve”, “Houses are new, but prejudices are old”, “Why are other people’s opinions only holy?”

In Woe from Wit, Russian noble life appears in its concreteness, and the language of comedy is of great importance in this. Colloquial speech, everyday vocabulary, vernacular gentry, an abundance of phraseological units (“dream in the hand”, “gave a blunder”, “mortal hunting”, etc.), and next to it is Chatsky’s speech, the brilliant bookish speech of an educated person, an intellectual and a scribe, full of common concepts ( "Speaks like he writes", - Famusov will say about him). The main conflict of Woe from Wit is supported by the emphasis and opposition of Chatsky's speech to other characters.

In his comedy, Griboedov reflected a remarkable time in Russian history - the era of the Decembrists, the era of noble revolutionaries who, despite their small numbers, were not afraid to oppose autocracy and the injustice of serfdom. The socio-political struggle of progressive young nobles against the noble guards of the old order is the theme of the play. The idea of the work (who won in this struggle - "the current century" or "the past century"?) is solved in a very interesting way. Chatsky leaves "out of Moscow" (IV, 14), where he lost his love and where he was accused of being crazy. At first glance, it was Chatsky who turned out to be defeated in the fight against the Famus society, that is, with the “gone century”. However, the first impression here is superficial: the author shows that the criticism of the social, moral, ideological foundations of modern noble society, which is contained in Chatsky's monologues and remarks, is fair. No one from the Famus society can object to this comprehensive criticism. Therefore, Famusov and his guests were so happy about the gossip about the madness of the young whistleblower. According to I.A. Goncharov, Chatsky is a winner, but also a victim, since the Famus society suppressed its one and only opponent quantitatively, but not ideologically.

Woe from Wit is a realistic comedy. The conflict of the play is resolved not at the level of abstract ideas, as in classicism, but in a concrete historical and everyday setting. The play contains many allusions to Griboyedov's contemporary life circumstances: a scientific committee opposed to enlightenment, Lancastrian mutual education, the struggle of the Carbonari for the freedom of Italy, etc. The playwright's friends definitely pointed to the prototypes of comedy heroes. Griboedov deliberately sought such a resemblance, for he portrayed not the bearers of abstract ideas, like the classicists, but representatives of the Moscow nobility of the 20s of the 19th century. The author does not consider, unlike the classicists and sentimentalists, unworthy to portray the everyday details of an ordinary noble house: Famusov fusses near the stove, reprimands his secretary Petrushka for his torn sleeve, Lisa brings the hands of the clock, the hairdresser curls Sophia's hair before the ball, in the finale Famusov scolds all the household . Thus, Griboedov combines serious social content and everyday details of real life, social and love stories in the play.

The exposition “Woe from Wit” is the first appearance of the first act before the arrival of Chatsky. The reader gets acquainted with the scene of action - the house of Famusov, a Moscow gentleman and middle-class official, sees him himself when he flirts with Lisa, learns that his daughter Sofya is in love with Molchalin, Famusov's secretary, and was previously in love with Chatsky.

The plot takes place in the seventh scene of the first act, when Chatsky himself appears. Immediately tied two storylines - love and social. The love story is built on a banal triangle, where there are two rivals, Chatsky and Molchalin, and one heroine, Sophia. The second storyline - social - is due to the ideological confrontation between Chatsky and the inert social environment. The protagonist in his monologues denounces the views and beliefs of the "gone century".

First, a love storyline comes to the fore: Chatsky had been in love with Sophia before, and the “distance of separation” did not cool his feelings. However, during the absence of Chatsky in Famusov’s house, much has changed: the “lady of the heart” meets him coldly, Famusov speaks of Skalozub as a prospective groom, Molchalin falls from his horse, and Sophia, seeing this, cannot hide her anxiety. Her behavior alarms Chatsky:

Confusion! fainting! haste! anger! fright!
So you can only feel
When you lose your only friend. (11.8)

The culmination of the love storyline is the final explanation of Sophia and Chatsky before the ball, when the heroine declares that there are people she loves more than Chatsky, and praises Molchalin. The unfortunate Chatsky exclaims to himself:

And what do I want when everything is decided?
I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her. (III, 1)

Social conflict develops in parallel with love. In the very first conversation with Famusov, Chatsky begins to speak out on social and ideological issues, and his opinion turns out to be sharply opposed to the views of Famusov. Famusov advises to serve and cites as an example his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who knew how to fall in time and profitably make Empress Catherine laugh. Chatsky declares that “I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve” (II, 2). Famusov praises Moscow and the Moscow nobility, which, as has been customary for centuries, continues to appreciate a person solely on the basis of a noble family and wealth. Chatsky sees in the life of Moscow "the meanest living traits" (II, 5). But still, at first, social disputes recede into the background, allowing the love storyline to fully unfold.

After the explanation of Chatsky and Sophia before the ball, the love story is apparently exhausted, but the playwright is in no hurry with its denouement: it is important for him to unfold the social conflict, which is now coming to the fore and is beginning to develop actively. Therefore, Griboedov comes up with a witty twist in the love storyline, which Pushkin really liked. Chatsky did not believe Sofya: such a girl cannot love the insignificant Molchalin. The conversation between Chatsky and Molchalin, which immediately follows the climax of the love storyline, reinforces the protagonist in the idea that Sophia joked: “Naughty, she doesn’t love him” (III, 1). At the ball, the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusovsky society reaches its highest intensity - the culmination of the social storyline comes. All the guests happily pick up the gossip about Chatsky's madness and defiantly turn away from him at the end of the third act.

The denouement comes in the fourth act, and the same scene (IV, 14) unleashes both the love and social storylines. In the final monologue, Chatsky proudly breaks with Sophia and mercilessly denounces the Famus society for the last time. In a letter to P.A. Katenin (January 1825), Griboedov wrote: “If I guess the tenth from the first scene, then I gape and run out of the theater. The more unexpectedly the action develops or ends abruptly, the more exciting the play is. Having made the final departure of Chatsky, disappointed and, it seems, lost everything, Griboyedov quite achieved the effect he wanted: Chatsky is expelled from Famus society and turns out to be the winner, as he violated the serenely idle life of the “past century” and showed its ideological failure.

The composition "Woe from Wit" has several features. First, the play has two storylines that are closely intertwined. The beginnings (Chatsky's arrival) and the denouement (Chatsky's last monologue) of these storylines coincide, but still the comedy is built on two storylines, because each of them has its own climax. Secondly, the main storyline is social, as it runs through the entire play, while love relationships are clear from the exposition (Sofya loves Molchalin, and Chatsky is a childhood hobby for her). The explanation of Sophia and Chatsky takes place at the beginning of the third act, which means that the third and fourth acts serve to reveal the social content of the work. Chatsky, guests of Famusov, Repetilov, Sophia, Skalozub, Molchalin, that is, almost all the characters, participate in the public conflict, and only four in the love story: Sophia, Chatsky, Molchalin and Lisa.

Summing up, it should be noted that Woe from Wit is a comedy of two storylines, and the social one takes up much more space in the play and frames the love one. Therefore, the genre originality of "Woe from Wit" can be defined as follows: social, not everyday comedy. The love storyline plays a secondary role and gives the play a lifelike credibility.

The skill of Griboyedov as a playwright was manifested in the fact that he skillfully intertwines two storylines, using a common plot and denouement, thus maintaining the integrity of the play. Griboyedov's skill was also expressed in the fact that he came up with original plot twists (Chatsky's unwillingness to believe in Sophia's love for Molchalin, the gradual deployment of gossip about Chatsky's madness).

The game “Who needs what for work?

Contest of crafts from vegetables and fruits “Miracle vegetables!