The role of public opinion in people’s lives (On the example of A. S.’s comedy
In the comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov's main element of the image is the morals of the Moscow conservative nobility. It is precisely the denunciation of outdated, outdated aristocratic views on pressing social issues that is the main task of this play. All the negative traits of the feudal landowners of the early 19th century were concentrated in numerous representatives of the “past century” in comedy - in Famus society.
The image of Famusov in the comedy “Woe from Wit”
The main defender of the ideas of the “past century” in the play is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. He occupies an influential position, is rich and noble. It is in his house that the comedy takes place. A society of conservative nobles is named after him in the play. The image of this character reflected the features of the entire Moscow aristocracy of the early 19th century.
In the work “Woe from Wit,” Famus society is depicted as a camp of people who value in a person only high rank, money and connections. Personal qualities have no weight in the world. Famusov strictly and categorically declares to his daughter: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you.”
He, “like all Moscow people,” wants to see a rich and noble person in his son-in-law. At the same time, money and ranks in landowner society are considered as highest value person: “Be poor, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.”
The image of Famusov also reflected the habit of the nobles to spend their lives “in feasts and extravagance.” In Famusov's calendar, which he reads with his servant in the second act, only dinner parties, funerals and christenings are planned. And he treats his work at work formally. Famusov signs the documents without looking: “And for me, whatever is the matter, what is not the matter, that’s my custom, it’s signed, off my shoulders.”
The comedy “Woe from Wit” also condemns the habit of the Moscow nobility to place people in profitable positions not based on their business qualities, but on the basis of family ties. Famusov admits: “With me, strangers’ employees are very rare: more and more sisters, sisters-in-law and children.”
In the person of Famusov, Griboyedov portrays Famusov’s society as a whole. It appears before the reader as a society of people who have contempt for the ignorant and the poor and bow down to rank and money.
Colonel Skalozub as an ideal nobleman in Famus society
Famusov sees Colonel Skalozub as his most desired son-in-law, who is presented in the comedy as an extremely stupid martinet. But he is worthy of the hand of Sophia, Famusov’s daughter, only because he is “both a golden bag and aims to be a general.” His title was obtained in the same way that any rank in Moscow is obtained - with the help of connections: “To get a rank, there are many channels...”
Skalozub, like Famusov, provides protection to his family and friends. For example, thanks to the efforts of Skalozub, his cousin “received tons of benefits in his career.” But, when a high rank followed him, he left the service and went to the village, where he began to lead a calm and measured life. Neither Famusov nor Skalozub are capable of understanding this act, because both of them have a passionate love for rank and position in society.
The role of Molchalin in the play “Woe from Wit”
Among the representatives of Famus society there must necessarily be nobles of not very high ranks, but those who aspire to them, who will express an obsequious attitude towards the older generation, try to curry favor with them. This is the role of Molchalin in the play “Woe from Wit”
At the beginning of the play, this hero appears before the reader as Sophia’s silent and modest lover. But as soon as the girl fails to contain her feelings for Molchalin in public, his true face begins to reveal itself. He, like Famusov, is very wary of people’s rumors: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” He has no feelings for Sophia, but pretends to be her lover in order to please the daughter of “such a person.” From childhood, Molchalin was taught to “please... the owner where he happens to live,” the “boss” for whom he will serve.
Molchalin is silent and helpful only because he does not yet have a high rank. He is forced to “depend on others.” Such people are “blessed in the world,” because aristocratic society is only waiting for admiration and helpfulness towards them.
Off-stage comedy characters
Famus Society in the comedy "Woe from Wit" there are quite a few. In addition, its boundaries are expanding due to the introduction of off-stage characters into the play.
Notable in this regard is the image of Maxim Petrovich, Uncle Famusov, who evokes admiration among the serf-owners for his ability to “curry favor.” Famusov does not consider his desire to amuse the imperial court by exposing himself to ridicule as humiliation. For him, this is a manifestation of intelligence. But Maxim Petrovich was “all decorated” and had “a hundred people at his service.”
Famusov also remembers the late Kuzma Petrovich. His main characteristic- “rich and was married to a rich person.”
The influential Tatyana Yuryevna is mentioned in the play. It’s very beneficial to be in a relationship with her. good relations, because “officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives.”
Off-stage characters helped Griboedov give a more vivid and memorable characterization of Famus society.
conclusions
Moscow aristocratic society in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is presented as a society that fears everything new, progressive, and advanced. Any changes in the views of the nobility threaten their personal well-being and usual comfort. At the time the play was written, the ideals of the “past century” were still very strong. But in the society of the nobles, contradictions have already matured, which will later lead to the replacement of old views and values with new ones.
A brief description of the Famus society and a description of the ideals of its representatives will help 9th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “Famus society in the comedy “Woe from Wit””
Work test
One wise man said: “Man is dependent on society and there is no great genius who is completely free from its influence.” We cannot but agree with this statement. Indeed, we are born, grow, develop - all these processes of human development do not take place without interaction with the people around us. Why have there been clashes between the interests of society and people over the years? People think, create, create something new, making their contribution to the development of the world around them.
However, quite often this contribution is not perceived as new stage development. Years pass, but life remains the same. Old generations are replaced by new ones, with the same habits and foundations. Over time, some people begin to realize the need for change. This is where the conflict begins.
The problem of relationships between people in society is at the center of the plots of many works by great writers of different eras. In the mid-19th century, M. Yu. Lermontov dedicated his work to this topic. lyric poems“Duma”, “I go out alone on the road”, “Beggar”, in the novel “Hero of Our Time”, in the poem “Mtsyri”. In the 20th century, S. A. Yesenin addressed the topic of man and society in the poems “Soviet Rus'”, “I meet everything, I accept everything”, “Now we are leaving little by little”.
In the 18th century, the problem of the collision of the new and old world was considered by A. S. Griboedov. This problem is revealed most deeply in the comedy "Woe from Wit."
"Woe from Wit" is a socio-political comedy. Griboyedov described in it a true picture of Russian life after the Patriotic War of 1812. What is the main conflict revealed? And why is the problem of the relationship between man and society still relevant today? The work shows the eternal struggle between the old and the new, which unfolded with particular force at that time not only in Moscow, but throughout Russia between two camps: the advanced, Decembrist-minded people of the “present century” and the ardent serf owners who do not want to change anything, the “century past."
Sometimes society does not represent the best creations of nature; on the contrary, it is a consequence of its complete distortion and damage. This is what Famus society is like in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. Why is it spoiled? We find the answer in the lifestyle and habits of its representatives. The people who create it are subject to the traditions of their ancestors. These people are stupid and selfish, afraid of enlightenment and progress, their thoughts are focused only on acquiring honors and titles, wealth and outfits. Everything new is alien to them; they strive to destroy freethinking; they see no point in teaching: “They would take all the books and burn them!” says one of its main representatives, Famusov. What does Famus society value most in people? Origin, number of serf souls. They treat service as a source of personal benefits, service to “persons” and not to “causes”; they respect flattery and sycophancy. Why does Sophia, educated, with a strong and independent character, a warm heart, a dreamy soul, use her sharp mind to lie, and give love to an unworthy person? Society made her a representative of generally accepted views in this circle. It forces representatives younger generation show your negative qualities, adapts to himself, changes, inspires his ideals. Famus society is accustomed to an idle existence; its interests are narrow, extending only to gossip and appearance. Such a life is firmly entrenched in society, its principles are firm. But who opposes traditional foundations?
In the fight against Famusov’s society, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a representative of the new thinking Russian nobility, a Decembrist fighter, a romantic. What constitutes the highest goal of his activities and aspirations? What does he stand for? What is it against? Chatsky fights against serfdom. He regards the dependence of people on serf owners as slavery, he is outraged by the inhumanity of those who control the destinies of others: “Or that one over there who, for the sake of undertakings / He drove to the serf ballet on many wagons / From the mothers, fathers of rejected children...” Chatsky is preparing responsibly to public life, he is educated, smart: “He writes and translates well.” He sees his purpose in serving the people, wants to see Russia literate and enlightened. But why doesn’t he find himself in this society? In an attempt to influence representatives of Famus society, Chatsky understands that he will not be able to disrupt the usual way of life of these people. Is he looking for benefits in service? No, he takes his service seriously. Chatsky loves the Motherland, but not “the state of kings, landowners and officials,” he is not used to curry favor and bow to a higher rank: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.” Did he manage to influence the old society, which slavishly copies the customs, habits and outfits of the French? We soon learn that the hero does not achieve the freedom he preaches, but he does not stop striving for it. Society, its old ways, terrible orders and customs horrified Chatsky, but did not break him. He does not give up his beliefs, does not stop believing in the best.
The author leads us to the idea that man is the master of his destiny and his purpose in society. Each of us is capable, like Chatsky, of taking a step towards change, making our contribution to the development of the state, and influencing its future. Can we change anything? Perhaps the most important thing is that before changing the world and society for the better, we need to start with our own development, which is impossible without the influence of society.
“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov Katenina. This statement by the author clearly identifies the main problem of “Woe from Wit” - the problem of intelligence and stupidity. It is included in the title of the play, which should also be paid close attention to. This problem is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, and therefore requires a detailed analysis.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" was cutting-edge for its time. It was accusatory in nature, like all classic comedies. But the problems of the work “Woe from Wit”, the problems of the noble society of that time are presented in a wider spectrum. This became possible due to the author’s use of several artistic methods: classicism, realism and romanticism.
It is known that Griboedov initially called his work “Woe to Wit,” but soon replaced this title with “Woe from Wit.” Why did this change occur? The fact is that the first title contained a moralizing note, emphasizing that in the noble society of the 19th century, every intelligent person would suffer persecution. This did not quite correspond to the playwright's artistic intent. Griboyedov wanted to show that an extraordinary mind and progressive ideas of a particular person can be untimely and harm its owner. The second name was able to fully realize this task.
The main conflict of the play is the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century,” old and new. In Chatsky’s disputes with representatives of the Old Moscow nobility, a system of views of one and the other side on education, culture, in particular on the problem of language (a mixture of “French with Nizhny Novgorod”) emerges. family values, issues of honor and conscience. It turns out that Famusov, as a representative of the “past century,” believes that the most valuable thing in a person is his money and position in society. Most of all, he admires the ability to “curry favor” for the sake of acquiring material benefits or respect for the world. Famusov and others like him have done a lot to create a good reputation among the nobles. Therefore, Famusov only cares about what they will say about him in the world.
Molchalin is like that, even though he is a representative of the younger generation. He blindly follows the outdated ideals of the feudal landowners. Having your own opinion and defending it is an unaffordable luxury. After all, you can lose respect in society. “You shouldn’t dare to have your own judgment in mine,” this is the life credo of this hero. He is a worthy student of Famusov. And with his daughter Sophia, he plays a love game only in order to curry favor with the girl’s influential father.
Absolutely all the heroes of “Woe from Wit,” with the exception of Chatsky, have the same ailments: dependence on other people’s opinions, passion for rank and money. And these ideals are alien and disgusting to the main character of the comedy. He prefers to serve “the cause, not the persons.” When Chatsky appears in Famusov’s house and begins to angrily denounce the foundations of noble society with his speeches, Famusov’s society declares the accuser crazy, thereby disarming him. Chatsky expresses progressive ideas, pointing out to aristocrats the need for a change of views. They see in Chatsky’s words a threat to their comfortable existence, their habits. A hero called mad ceases to be dangerous. Fortunately, he is alone, and therefore simply expelled from a society where he is not welcome. It turns out that Chatsky, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, throws the seeds of reason into the soil, which is not ready to accept and nurture them. The hero's mind, his thoughts and moral principles turn against him.
Here the question arises: did Chatsky lose in the fight for justice? One may believe that this is a lost battle, but not a lost war. Very soon Chatsky’s ideas will be supported by the progressive youth of that time, and “the meanest traits of the past” will be overthrown.
Reading Famusov’s monologues, watching the intrigues that Molchalin carefully weaves, one cannot say at all that these heroes are stupid. But their mind is qualitatively different from Chatsky’s mind. Representatives of Famus society are accustomed to dodging, adapting, and currying favor. This is a practical, worldly mind. And Chatsky has a completely new mindset, forcing him to defend his ideals, sacrifice his personal well-being, and certainly not allowing him to gain any benefit through useful connections, as the nobles of that time were used to doing.
Among the criticism that fell upon the comedy “Woe from Wit” after it was written, there were opinions that Chatsky could not be called an intelligent person. For example, Katenin believed that Chatsky “talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.” Pushkin, having read the list of the play brought to him at Mikhailovskoye, spoke about the main character like this: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...”
Indeed, Chatsky is presented as very hot-tempered and somewhat tactless. He appears in a society where he was not invited, and begins to denounce and teach everyone, without mincing words. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “his speech is seething with wit,” as I.A. wrote. Goncharov.
This diversity of opinions, even the presence of diametrically opposed ones, is explained by the complexity and diversity of the problems of Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”. It should also be noted that Chatsky is an exponent of the ideas of the Decembrists, he is a true citizen of his country, opposing serfdom, sycophancy, and the dominance of everything foreign. It is known that the Decembrists were faced with the task of directly expressing their ideas wherever they were. Therefore, Chatsky acts in accordance with the principles of the progressive man of his time.
It turns out that there are no outright fools in comedy. There are simply two opposing sides defending their understanding of the mind. However, intelligence can be opposed not only by stupidity. The opposite of intelligence can be madness. Why does society declare Chatsky crazy?
The assessment of critics and readers can be anything, but the author himself shares Chatsky’s position. This is important to consider when trying to understand artistic design plays. Chatsky’s worldview is the views of Griboyedov himself. Therefore, a society that rejects the ideas of enlightenment, personal freedom, service to a cause, and not servitude, is a society of fools. Having been afraid of an intelligent person, calling him crazy, the nobility characterizes itself, demonstrating its fear of the new.
The problem of the mind, brought out by Griboyedov in the title of the play, is key. All clashes that occur between the outdated foundations of life and Chatsky’s progressive ideas should be considered from the point of view of the opposition of intelligence and stupidity, intelligence and madness.
Thus, Chatsky is not mad at all, and the society in which he finds himself is not so stupid. It’s just that the time for people like Chatsky, exponents of new views on life, has not yet come. They are in the minority, so they are forced to suffer defeat.
Work test
The main problem of Russian literature is the problem of “Personality and Society”, as well as the search for ways to restructure society on more humane, democratic principles, “how can a person achieve happiness and prosperity” (L.N. Tolstoy) and why he does not achieve it.
For the first time this problem was posed as the main problem by the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, a novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” and the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Their heroes turn out to be unclaimed by society, “superfluous”. Why is this happening? Why are three different authors considering the same problem almost at the same time? Does this problem belong only to the 19th century? And finally, what is the main way to solve this problem?
1. Time: its hero and antihero.
To understand more deeply ideological content comedy "Woe from Wit", its socio-political issues, it is necessary to evaluate the characteristic features historical era reflected in the play.
The heroic war of 1812 is behind us. And the people who won it, who won freedom for the Fatherland with their blood, are still enslaved and oppressed in this Fatherland. Dissatisfaction with the injustice of state domestic policy is brewing in Russian society. In the minds of honest citizens, the idea of the need to protect not only their rights, but also the rights of the lower class, is growing stronger. And in 1816 (the estimated date for the start of work on the comedy), the first secret organization of future Decembrists, the Union of Salvation, was created in Russia. It included people who believed that the restoration of social justice was their historical and moral duty.
Thus, Russian society took that step that causes enormous force of inertial movement. But no real changes occurred in Russia, and the main obstacle to the transformation was the strong authoritarian government - the Russian absolute monarchy.
This form of government was perceived by Europe and enlightened Russians as an anachronism. It is no coincidence that the demand to limit autocracy, to introduce it into the framework of the law and the constitution, was voiced at the European Diet of 1818, where Emperor Alexander I was present. The Tsar gave solemn assurances. Europe expected changes in Russia. But Russian society, already tired of believing, was skeptical about the sovereign’s promises.
The Emperor was terrified of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the “French infection.” He could make promises in the European Diet, but at home he did not take real steps. Moreover, domestic policy took repressive forms. And the discontent of the progressive Russian public was gradually ripening, for Arakcheev’s firm hand brought external order to the country. And this order, this pre-war prosperity, of course, was joyfully welcomed by people like Famusov, Skalozub, Gorichy and Tugoukhovsky.
2. Chatsky and time.
The comedy is structured in such a way that only Chatsky speaks on stage about the “present century”, about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spiritual and political freedom. He is the one "new Human", which carries within itself the “spirit of the times”, the idea of life, the goal of which is freedom. His ideological convictions were born of the spirit of change, that “present century” that they tried to bring closer the best people Russia. “His ideal of a free life is definite: it is freedom from all ... the chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - to focus on science “a mind hungry for knowledge”, or to freely indulge in “creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom to serve or not serve, live in a village or travel…” - this is how I.A. explains. Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments”, what content Chatsky and people ideologically close to him put into the concept of “freedom”.
The image of Chatsky reflected the delight that Russian society experienced when it felt itself to be a historical figure, the winner of Napoleon himself. This is something new that has appeared in the social life of Russia, which has become the key to future transformations.
Chatsky not only connects all the lines of opposition in the play, he becomes the very reason for its movement and development. His personality and fate are fundamentally important for Griboyedov, because Chatsky's story is a story about the fate of truth, sincerity, authentic life in a world of substitutions and ghosts.
2.1. Alexander Andreich CHATSKY
The image of Chatsky reflects the features of the Decembrist era of 1816-18.
The son of Famusov's late friend, Chatsky grew up in his house; as a child, he was raised and studied together with Sophia under the guidance of Russian and foreign teachers and tutors. The framework of the comedy did not allow Griboyedov to tell in detail where Chatsky studied next, how he grew and developed. First of all, he wanted to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland, he wanted to serve it honestly. But the state, it turns out, does not need selfless service; it only requires servitude. Three years before the events described in the comedy, Chatsky, “shed with tears,” broke up with Sophia and went to St. Petersburg. But the brilliantly started career was cut short: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” And Chatsky leaves the capital. He tries to serve the Fatherland differently: “he writes and translates nicely.” But in a totalitarian state, the question of “to serve or not to serve, to live in a village or to travel” goes beyond the problem of personal freedom. The personal life of a citizen is inseparable from his political convictions, and the desire to live in his own way, contrary to the norm, is in itself a challenge. For three years Chatsky was abroad (apparently as part of the Russian army). Staying abroad enriched Chatsky with new impressions, expanded his mental horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign. Chatsky was protected from this groveling before Europe, so typical of Famus society, by his inherent qualities: love for the Motherland, for its people, a critical attitude towards the reality around him, independence of views, a developed sense of personal and national dignity.
Returning to Moscow, Chatsky found in the life of noble society the same vulgarity and emptiness that characterized him before. He found the same spirit of moral oppression, suppression of personality that reigned in this society before the War of 1812.
Chatsky’s position on the most pressing and significant problems of our time is not at all determined by the desire to destroy or destroy something - just as he did not come to Famusov’s house to denounce. The hero came to people who had always been family to him, returned with the desire to love and be loved - but as he is, cheerful and mocking, sharp and not always “convenient,” but he is no longer needed here.
2.2. Chatsky's first monologues
After a long absence, Chatsky is again at Famusov’s house and meets Sophia. He had been waiting for this date for a long time. The excitement is so great that he does not immediately find the right words to express his feelings, and the literary cliche comes to mind: “... I am at your feet.” Chatsky is so excited that he even admits some tactlessness. He says that Sophia did not meet him the way he expected. He tries to explain the coldness of the meeting by the suddenness of his appearance. Chatsky is in a hurry to find out if Sophia was waiting for him, if she was thinking about him.
The abundance of verbs, questions, and exclamations conveys the confusion of the hero’s feelings and the depth of his experiences. Thought runs into thought, speech is confused and intermittent. From the present, Chatsky turns to those joyful and not-so-distant days when he and Sophia were alone. Chatsky lived with these memories during his travels. However, the coldness of the meeting cannot temper Chatsky’s delight. Sophia is in front of him. She's beautiful. And he will tell her about how he was waiting for this meeting:
More than seven hundred versts flew by - wind, storm;
And I was completely confused, and fell how many times -
And here is the reward for your exploits!
This monologue shows the hero’s openness, his sincerity, youthful excitement, the strength of feelings, the high culture that we feel in his speech. Chatsky knows folk speech very well: hence the colloquial sayings and idioms in his language. At the same time, Chatsky’s speech is also rich in literary expressions. This organic fusion of folk and book speech gives special expressiveness and flexibility to his language.
2.3. Chatsky and Famusov society
While Chatsky traveled for three years, society did not stand still. It was not just a relief to return to the worries and joys of peaceful life. It developed in itself “resistance” to those ripening changes that threatened to crush this peaceful life.
Famus’s world stands as a thick wall on the path of real transformations, the inhabitants of which “take care” only of their own “little man” and see as the ultimate dream “a hundred people at their service”, “an enviable rank” and similar benefits. Yes, Chatsky, endowed with the temperament of a fighter, actively opposes Famus society. But does he see his real opponent when he denounces Famusov, Skalozub, and the ballroom crowd?
Chatsky understands well who he is dealing with, but he cannot help but speak: he is forced to such a conversation, he responds to the “blow.” Monologue “Who are the judges?”- this is one of those scenes that make the comedy closest to the ideology of the Decembrists. She takes the reader out of the narrow circle of Famusov’s world and points out what happened in Russian society during the “dead pause” of the reign of Alexander 1, between 1812 and 1825, she talks about the “transformations” that took place in Russian society during this time.
One of these transformations is crushing, vulgarization of the military person. For Chatsky, the army is the most important force called upon to defend the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Such an army makes a person who belongs to it truly strong and whole, proud of his consciousness of belonging to common cause. Such were once Chatsky recalls their army training, recalls the time “when from the guard, others from the court came here for a while...”, the time of his own “tenderness” for the military uniform - that is, directly following the victories of the Russian army over Napoleon. The current army of parades cannot evoke in the hero any other feelings than shame even for his then childhood hobby.
Another transformation is strengthening women's power. “The “dead pause” in the reign of Alexander 1 after the Patriotic War of 1812, when they expected a response to the victory of the heroic people, first of all, with the abolition of slavery, was filled in Moscow with the semblance of female power” (Yu. Tynyanov).
And one more transformation: the heroic war of 1812, in which Griboyedov took part, passed, its immediate tasks ended. Expectations that in response to the exploits of the people the fall of slavery did not come true. A transformation has begun: businesslike, insinuating, timid Molchalin has already appeared to replace the heroes of 1812.
Chatsky is unable to take him and his “talents” seriously. Meanwhile, this “most pitiful creature” is not so insignificant. During Chatsky's absence, Molchalin took his place in Sophia's heart; it was he who was the happy rival of the protagonist. And this is just the beginning. Chatsky's personal defeat does not exhaust his future drama. The words thrown at him: “Silent people are blissful in the world!” turn out to be prophetic.
Molchalin’s intelligence, cunning, resourcefulness, ability to find the “key” to every influential person, absolute unscrupulousness - these are the defining qualities of this hero. Qualities that make him the anti-hero of the play, Chatsky’s main opponent. His life attitudes, beliefs, the entire system of moral values is opposed to the moral code, ideas and ideals of Chatsky. And in this Molchalin is no different from the entire Famus society. What distinguishes him is something else: strength.
In his assessments of civic duty, service, the army, serfdom, education and upbringing, the authorities of the past, patriotism and imitation of foreign models, Chatsky speaks out, in essence, against only one thing: the substitution of the actual content of such concepts as Fatherland, duty, patriotism, heroism, moral the ideal, free thought and speech, art, love are their pathetic imitation. He is against all possible forms of depersonalization of a person: serfdom, “uniform”, foreign fashion, outdated concepts of “the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea”, “obedience and fear”.
2.4. Gossip about madness
The guests are just getting ready, and Chatsky is already suffocating among them. Finding himself next to Sophia, Chatsky reports on the new low qualities of her chosen one Molchalin and goes “to that room” because he no longer has the strength to restrain himself.
Sophia, once again offended by Molchalin, deals Chatsky the most terrible blow: “He is out of his mind.” These words instantly become not only the property of Famusov’s society, Famusov and his guests immediately believed the rumor because they were prepared for it. Sophia starts the rumor carefully, deliberately, with the goal of making Chatsky a laughing stock, to take revenge on him for his arrogance and barbs towards others (including Molchalin), because, in her opinion, he is “not a man, a snake!” By starting a rumor about Chatsky, she perfectly imagines society's reaction to him, given the public mood. Chatsky is rejected by society as something alien, incomprehensible, and does not merge with it. The schadenfreude with which the news is discussed is an indicator of the public mood; thanks to the rumor, the moral conflict of the play is revealed. Griboyedov masterfully depicts the process itself - fleeting, growing, avalanche-like, taking on specific forms: the first person to whom Sophia informs about Chatsky’s madness is a certain G.N.; he conveys the news to the equally faceless G.D.; the latter - to the famous chatterbox Zagoretsky. Unlike G.N. and G.D., who received the news with some doubt, Zagoretsky, without doubting for a second, immediately declares:
A! I know, I remember, I heard,
How could I not know, an example case has come out;
His uncle, the rogue, hid him in the insane...
They grabbed me, took me to the yellow house, and put me on a chain.
G.D. stunned by such an outright lie. Zagoretsky, in turn, reports the news to the Countess-granddaughter, who, it turns out, “she herself noticed” signs of madness in Chatsky, and then to the Countess’s grandmother, who pronounces the verdict: “Ah! damned Voltairean!” Khlestova is amazed by the hero’s irreverence, Molchalin’s opinions about the service are strange, for Natalya Dmitrievna madness seems like “advice ... to live in the village.”
An empty, absurd rumor spreads “nimbly”, as everyone finds their own justification for this “nonsense”.
And now everyone is talking about it. To the question of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich: “Who disclosed it first?” - his wife Natalya Dmitrievna replies: “Oh, my friend, that’s it!” (although Famusov attributes this “discovery” to himself). And if that’s all, that means it’s already the so-called. public opinion:
Fools believed it, they passed it on to others,
The old women instantly sound the alarm -
And here is public opinion!
It rules the show. At the end of the play, Famusov, having caught Sophia in the company of Chatsky and Lisa, pours out his anger on his daughter and the maid, and Chatsky is threatened with further consequences of the rumor:
...and this is your last feature,
That every door will be locked:
I will try, I will ring the alarm bell,
I'll cause trouble for everything around the city,
And I will announce to all the people:
I will submit it to the Senate, to the ministers, to the sovereign.
After all, the version of Chatsky’s madness should distract “Princess Marya Aleksevna” from another rumor - about his daughter Sophia. Famusov has well mastered the ancient custom of spreading rumors and fables in order to divert attention from another event (“ringing bells”). The phrase "lost my mind" varies in different meanings. Sophia said: “He is out of his mind” - in the sense in which Chatsky himself had said earlier that he was going crazy with love. Mr. N. gave it a direct meaning. Sophia picks up this idea and affirms it in order to take revenge on Chatsky. And Zagoretsky reinforces: “He’s crazy.” But when the signs of Chatsky’s madness are mentioned, another meaning of this phrase is revealed: crazy, that is, a freethinker.
And then the causes of madness are established. Zagoretsky plays a special role in spreading gossip - he moves the conversation about the reasons for Chatsky’s madness into the realm of fabulous assumptions. Gradually, gossip becomes more widespread and reaches the point of grotesquery.
Countess grandmother:
What? To the pharmazones in the club? Did he become a Pusurman?
The arguments in favor of Chatsky's madness that Famusov and his guests put forward make them themselves ridiculous, since facts are given that actually prove his normality.
About what? About Chatsky, or what?
What is doubtful? I'm the first, I opened it.
I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try the authorities, and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
So he will call you a scoundrel.
Thus, the main sign of Chatsky’s “madness,” in the understanding of Famusov and his guests, is his free-thinking.
While gossip about his madness was spreading, Chatsky ran into a Frenchman from Bordeaux and the princesses in the next room.
Inflamed by this fight, Chatsky appears in the living room at the moment when the development of gossip has reached its climax.
2.5. Monologue “There’s an insignificant meeting in that room...”
What is Chatsky talking about in this monologue? About the Frenchman from Bordeaux, about the Russians exclaiming: “Ah! France! There is no better region in the world!”, about “so that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit of empty, slavish, blind imitation”, about how “our north has become worse a hundred times since it gave everything in exchange for a new way - and morals, and language, and holy antiquity, and stately clothes for another according to the clownish model,” and just like at a meeting of a secret society, he asks - exclaims:
Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion?
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans...
These are again exactly the same thoughts for which he was just declared crazy...
While Chatsky is speaking, everyone gradually disperses. The last phrase of the monologue remains unsaid: Chatsky looks around and sees that everyone is spinning in the waltz with the greatest zeal...
The Famus world brought against Chatsky everything it had at its disposal: slander and complete ignorance of him as a person - an intelligent person was denied intelligence.
2.6. Denouement - monologue “I won’t come to my senses, it’s my fault...”
In the last monologue, as nowhere before, Chatsky’s public and personal dramas, his “Million Torments,” merged together. He will speak soulfully about the strength of his feelings for Sophia, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places” cooled in him. He “breathed”, “lived”, “was constantly busy” with these feelings. But everything is crossed out by Sophia...
Chatsky finds scathing words about Sophia’s environment, staying in which is destructive for an honest and thinking person: “He who will come out of the fire unharmed, whoever manages to spend a day with you, will breathe the same air, and his sanity will survive!”
Literary critic Fomichev sees the meaning of Chatsky’s last monologue in the fact that the hero “finally realized his opposite to Famus’s world and broke with it: “Enough!.. with you I’m proud of my break.”
3. A new type of person in Russian literature.
Chatsky is a new type of person active in the history of Russian society. His main idea is civil service. Such heroes are called upon to contribute to social life meaning, to lead to new goals.
For Russian critical thought, which has always represented literary work as an illustration of the history of the liberation movement, this is a socially significant person deprived of a field of activity.
Griboyedov was the first in Russian literature to show the “superfluous person” and the mechanism of his appearance in society. Chatsky is the first in this row. Behind him are Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Bazarov.
One can imagine the future fate of such a hero in society. The most likely paths for him are two: revolutionary and philistine.
Chatsky could have been among those who came out to Senate Square on December 14, 1825, and then his life would have been predetermined for 30 years in advance: those who took part in the conspiracy returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856.
But it could have been something else - an insurmountable disgust for the “abominations” of Russian life would have made him an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - melancholy, despair, bile and, what is most terrible for such a hero - a fighter and enthusiast - forced idleness and inactivity.
) was a work on which Griboyedov (see brief and biography) worked, one might say, all his life - in this comedy he expressed the tragedy of his own personal life and the lives of many outstanding Russian people of that era. That is why the hero of the comedy is close to his spirit, grew and developed along with him. That is why in this work he was able to capture and embody that moment in the life of Russian society when the struggle of the moribund 18th century with new life, - our first struggle between “fathers” and “children” was revealed.
Woe from the mind. Maly Theater performance, 1977
This moment was all the more interesting because in the era of Alexander I, when political and social groups were finally defined in our country and the ideals of these groups were clarified, the “personality” got the opportunity to speak out to an extent that we had never expressed before, - Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Chaadaev, N. Turgenev, Ryleev, Pestel, Pushkin, finally, Griboyedov - all these are images with sharply individual features, all of these are bright “personalities”, with a deep inner world, who stood out from the “crowd”. Such “personalities” in Russian society of that time could be numbered in dozens, perhaps even hundreds. But the “crowd” was still strong in our country, and any such defined “personality” had to make considerable efforts to defend his originality in the fight against the herd feelings of the masses.
“The struggle of the individual with society” is the axis on which the entire action of Griboyedov’s comedy revolves. This struggle is aggravated in Griboyedov’s work by irreconcilable hostility, slander, hatred on the one hand, and painful melancholy on the other. “A million torments” in the chest, “the soul is compressed by some kind of grief,” “lost in the crowd, not oneself!” - this is the state of mind of this “fighter” for “personality” after just one day of struggle with Moscow!
Who will win the fight? Of course, Moscow: in Griboyedov’s comedy she is the personification of the unenlightened crowds, which mercilessly crushed many bright minds and brave hearts. She has always been an implacable enemy of the “personality”!
“Personality” in history is a chronicle of human self-awareness, it is a “difficult story” about the separation of an individual from the crowd, about the liberation of a person from its mass beliefs, religious, moral, aesthetic. This is a story about “a million” of those “torments” that await every awakening personality, bringing with them protest and denunciation.
The main target in Griboyedov’s satire is the role of “ public opinion"; the basis of the comedy is the history of struggle personalities, clarified by the collision with this heavy force - “public opinion” of the unenlightened crowds. More than once in comedy the burning question of individual rights is raised; Peculiarities of the formation of public opinion have been outlined more than once. It is subtly and artistically depicted, for example, how from a spark thrown by Sophia (a slight hint about Chatsky’s madness), a whole fire flares up - and, as a result, a general belief in Chatsky’s madness develops. Sophia knows how “public opinion” is created in Moscow, and so, using her knowledge, she deliberately throws a grain of gossip to some “Mr. N.”, that one to “Mr. D.”, this one to Zagoretsky, and “went to write province"!
Exactly, all these small, inconspicuous gentlemen. N. and D., perhaps, and honest, but gray little people are the best environment for the development of gossip, the seeds of “public opinion”... The Zagoretskys and Nozdrevs will introduce the “buzz” of lies into gossip, respectable people will begin to modestly fantasize about heard and will believe themselves, and Princess Marya Aleksevna will pronounce her verdict:
And now, public opinion!
Spring of honor, our idol,
And this is what the world revolves on!
Thus, the struggle of the “individual” with society served as the basis for Griboedov’s comedy. This struggle marked the then moment in Russian history. When, after the difficult Pavlovian regime, the “beautiful beginning of the Alexandrov days” finally arrived in Russia, Russian society rushed forward, the “progressives” raised their heads again, the recently triumphant conservatism shrank, left the noisy, nervous St. Petersburg for Moscow, so that here, in exasperation, you can quietly indignate... The old men, “retired chancellors according to their minds,” the Famusovs, with their still living memories of the order of the court of Catherine II, are all representatives of the “old society,” vulgar and dark, but dangerous in their cohesion , with his bitterness. Meanwhile, young people, ideally tuned, carefreely created their own armchair utopias, gathering in a close friendly circle in the palace of the “young Jacobin,” as Alexander was called abroad.
What did these young utopians have in common with old Moscow? Absolutely nothing! Chatsky and Famusov are people from different planets who speak different languages. The old “Famus” society, depicted by Griboyedov in his comedy, has long been understood and appreciated by both Russian satire and realistic literature.
Griboyedov was the first to bring the “new man” face to face with this society - one of those eloquent champions of progress, of whom there were many in the first half of the reign of Alexander I. Why was Chatsky defeated, why did he shamefully flee after one day in the suffocating atmosphere of Moscow ?.. Because Griboyedov himself did not believe him, because he himself was a person outside of parties, was endowed to excess with the unfortunate gift of being skeptical about everything, and the ability not to submit to circles, to stand outside party affiliation... He had no faith in Decembrists, he felt contempt for old Moscow, speakers like Chatsky were, in his eyes, both helpless and ridiculous - and, as a result, melancholy and “a million torments”...
