The main conflict of the comedy - the contradiction between “the present century and the past century” - is reflected in the disputes between representatives of these “centuries” with their different views and opposing beliefs. That is why the main characters, Chatsky and Famusov, discuss at length on the problems of our time, giving arguments, proving that they are right. This allows the reader to delve deeper into the essence of the disagreements that arose between the inert, conservative nobility and the progressive people of the era of the 10-20s of the 19th century.
Alexander Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is the image of a man who, in his beliefs and views, is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with the moral principles of the Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in the behavior of Chatsky, who expresses his opinion, coming into conflict with many representatives of the Moscow nobility.
First of all, Chatsky himself is noticeably different from all the other heroes. This is a very educated person with an analytical mind; he is eloquent, gifted with imaginative thinking, which elevates him above the inertia and ignorance of the Moscow nobility. He regrets the loss of Russian national identity and speaks about this in a monologue that begins with the words “There is an insignificant meeting in that room...” (Griboyedov used exactly this form of the word, although now we write “insignificant”). Chatsky reminds us of the need to preserve the Russian language and culture:
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although, based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans.
The main character’s clash with Moscow society occurs on many issues: this is the attitude to serfdom, to public service, to national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that he “would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not flatter, please, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.
In the camp of his opponents, there are different opinions: Molchalin dreams of “winning awards and having fun,” Skalozub is eager to become a general, and Famusov “what’s the matter, what’s not the matter... is signed, off your shoulders.” An important official talks about his own busyness in the monologue “Petrushka, you’re always wearing new clothes...” when he writes down upcoming tasks in the near future. It lists dinner parties, funerals, christenings, and the most important events for the coming week, but makes no mention of any capital or government tasks.
Famusov and his supporters unite in the fight against Chatsky, since they do not tolerate attacks on the foundations of the autocratic-serf system. They want to maintain the unlimited power of the landowners over the peasants, and Chatsky is outraged that “Nestor of the Noble Scoundrels” sold off the serf child actors in order to partially pay off his debts. Moscow nobles are irritated by the desire for knowledge, education, and the ability to think independently, so they consider people like Chatsky dangerous, and they see books as the main evil: “They would take all the books and burn them!”
Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov - defender of the “past century”, Moscow gentleman, official. He is quite rich and famous, he is the manager of a government agency, and therefore has weight in society. Famusov is an important figure, an authoritative, respectable person, with his own ideology and position in life. He is confident that high status and successful advancement up the career ladder should be achieved by any means: bowing before superiors or government officials, flattering, acting, if necessary, as a jester, as his uncle, Maxim Petrovich, did, who achieved the favor of the queen by simply falling on a slippery slope. parquet Famusov discusses this at length in the second act:
That's it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
We would learn by looking at our elders:
We, for example, or the deceased uncle...
Famusov’s attitude to service is the same as that of his uncle, that is, a high rank should bring him personal benefit. The position of manager is needed in order to live well yourself and to patronize relatives:
When I have employees, strangers are very rare;
More and more sisters, sisters-in-law and children.
Therefore, awards or monetary rewards will go to them:
How will you begin to introduce yourself to a little cross, to a small town,
Well, how can you not please your loved one!
In conversations with Chatsky, Famusov reveals his principles and judgments about life and people. He, like other Moscow gentlemen, values a person for his wealth, nobility and rank. He would choose his daughter’s groom precisely based on these characteristics: either “a bag of gold and aspires to be a general,” or has “two thousand family members.”
A.S. Griboyedov assigns Famusov a special role in the development of the comedy conflict. This is the “engine” of action in the work, because it constantly “throws wood into the firebox,” causing Chatsky to want to argue, since they have opposite opinions on everything, so the conflict between the “past century” and the “present century” is aggravated. Famusov not only teaches the young, but also judges Chatsky for his “missteps”: for his reluctance to find benefits in the service, for his inability to receive income from peasant farms, for his harmful passion for science (“learning is a plague ...”). And he classifies Chatsky as a dangerous person because of his freethinking. In this, the important gentleman is supported by all representatives of secular society who came to visit him.
Famusov is one of those judges mentioned in Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?”, where the hero criticizes not only the ignorance of the majority of the nobility, but also the morals of the landowners and officials. Further, the author of the comedy provided readers with the opportunity to see that Famusov, confident in his own infallibility and strictly condemning Chatsky or other young people, himself violates the laws, like many of his supporters. The system of bureaucratic permissiveness, impunity, mutual responsibility gave Famusov the opportunity to feel like a master in Moscow.
The image of the Moscow gentleman created by Griboyedov allows us to see the typicality of this character for noble society in the author’s contemporary Russia. This is confirmed by Famusov’s instructive monologues, which he pronounces on behalf of all his like-minded people. Famusov is also the antipode of Chatsky and the driving force in the development of the comedy conflict.
Chatsky is a representative of a small group of advanced noble intelligentsia, but his monologues are much more convincing and meaningful. However, Famusov’s guests do not want to listen to the accusatory speeches of this hero, since Chatsky expresses his opinions in front of those people who did not want to think about any reforms. That is why people with progressive views, thinking about changes in the socio-political life of Russia, united in secret societies, the purpose of which was, for example, the creation of a Constitution, as well as the fight for the abolition of serfdom.
Reviews
Oh, Organ Grinder, thank you very much! Only there are some “great literary critics” here like N.A. who turn green with anger when reading my articles. They, you see, have the right view, but in their opinion, I don’t. However, there are already many opposing opinions from readers, from literature teachers who are ready to offer children my works to help. So let those who need their special ideology rage, but I have allies like you and other thinking people, for whose sake I am writing.
My deep gratitude to you. Today I will read your works.
All the best to you. Sincerely
We are talking about the immortality of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". This is not a catchphrase. Comedy truly is immortal. For several generations now, we, readers and viewers, have been drawn into a caring dialogue with her characters, which sounds both excited and modern. In my opinion, a comparison of the two main characters is just as modern, since this allows not only a deeper understanding of the ideological and artistic features of the work, but also a better understanding of the significance of the images of the heroes for revealing the eternal value meanings of life.
Of course, we have a basis for comparing the two most striking characters of the comedy - Chatsky and Famusov. What is its essence? Yes, in that both live in the same turning point in the development of Russian society, both, by their social origin, belong to the aristocratic elite, that is, both images are typical and socially conditioned.
It would seem that what can unite such dissimilar characters! And yet Famusov and Chatsky have some similarities. Let's think about it: both of them are typical representatives of their environment, both have their own ideal of life, both have a sense of self-esteem.
However, the differences in these characters, of course, are much greater than the similarities. Where does it manifest itself most clearly? Let's take a closer look at the heroes.
Yes, Chatsky is smart. “He is not only smarter than all the other people,” Goncharov notes in the article “A Million Torments,” but he is also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.” Chatsky's mind sparkles in his passionate monologues, in his apt characterizations, in his every remark. True, we are mainly convinced of Chatsky’s freethinking, but we can only guess about other aspects of his mind. But this freethinking is the main thing that Griboedov values in him.
The smart man Chatsky is opposed to fools, fools and, first of all, Famusov, not because he is stupid in the literal, unambiguous sense of the word. No, he's smart enough. But his mind is the opposite of Chatsky’s. He is a reactionary, which means he is a fool from a socio-historical point of view, because he defends old, obsolete, anti-people views. He is a fool because he has not been touched by enlightenment with its lofty ideas of goodness, humanism, and the ennobling influence of knowledge on man. As for Famusov’s “free-thinking”, it is only enough to grumble at the “vagrant” teachers, as well as fashionistas - a natural detail of his entire lordly, patriarchal essence.
Chatsky and Famusov. How else do these personal computers differ? Yes, at least because both heroes have ideals, but how opposite they are!
Chatsky’s ideal is everything new, fresh, bringing change. This is an image that reliably embodies the personality traits of a civilian person.
What is Famusov’s ideal person? His ideal is Uncle Maxim Petrovich, a nobleman of Catherine’s time. In those days, as Chatsky put it, “not in war, but in peace, they took it head on, hit the floor, without regret.” Maxim Petrovich was an important gentleman, he ate on gold, “he rode forever in a train”; “When you need to help yourself, he bent over.” It was in this way that he gained weight, was “promoted to rank” and “gave pensions” at the court of Catherine II.
Famusov also admires Kuzma Petrovich:
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich...
Famusov strives to imitate such people; he considers their methods of obtaining ranks and money to be the most correct.
Distinguishes the main characters and their attitude to activity, to service, and slave morality.
Chatsky is undoubtedly from the breed of activists. He served. The scope of his recent activity causes envy in Molchalin, regret in Famusov, perhaps even some envy. After all, Chatsky ended up there, in St. Petersburg, closer to the “ministers”, where, it is possible, Famusov would like to go at one time. Chatsky’s credo in this matter is: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” Chatsky is outraged by serving persons rather than business, veneration of rank, and nepotism.
What is service for Famusov? Fulfilling civic duty? No, service for him is only a means of receiving awards, ranks and money. Famusov’s official affairs boil down to signing papers prepared by Molchalin. As a typical bureaucrat, Famusov is not interested in the contents of these papers; he is mortally afraid of only one thing: “So that a lot of them do not accumulate.”
Boasting of his “custom,” he says:
And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
Famusov is not at all embarrassed by the fact that he reduced all official duties to signing papers. On the contrary, he boasts about it smugly.
The heroes have different attitudes towards education. Chatsky is a humanist. As a patriot, he wants to see his people enlightened and free.
For Famusov, enlightenment is a danger that threatens the usual foundations of life. Famusov speaks with hatred:
“Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There have been crazy people, deeds, and opinions..."
Chatsky’s anti-serfdom ideology is also manifested in his high appreciation of the character and moral qualities of the enslaved people. In contrast to the slanderous statements of the help of the serf-owners about the serf peasantry, Chatsky speaks of a vigorous, intelligent, that is, in the phraseology of the Decembrists, a freedom-loving people.
Famusov is an avid serf owner. He scolds the servants, without mincing words, “donkeys”, “chumps”, calls them nothing more than Parsleys, Filkas, Fomkas, without regard to the age or dignity of the person.
Once again I think about the characters of the main characters in the comedy. What is the point of comparing Chatsky and Famusov? Why are they opposed to each other in the play?
It seems that comparison is an excellent technique with the help of which the ideological and artistic features of a work are revealed, the author’s intention and his attitude towards the characters becomes much clearer.
Of course, to some extent, the Famusovs are also necessary in life, because they bring healthy conservatism, stability, and traditions into society, which cannot be avoided. But the flower of society is always the intelligentsia, which excites society, appeals to its conscience, awakens public thought, and thirsts for something new. Such a noble intellectual, a man of the Decembrist circle, was Chatsky - a hero who bequeaths to us love for the Fatherland, a noble desire for truth, love of freedom and the desire to serve people.
Why do Famusov and Chatsky pronounce the largest and most meaningful monologues in the play?
(Based on the comedy by A.S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”)
Famusov and Chatsky deliver the largest and most meaningful monologues in the play, because these are antipodean heroes, whose conflict (Chatsky and Famusov as the main representative of the Moscow nobility) embodies the main idea of the work.
In this play, Griboyedov brings together not only “fathers and sons,” but also “the present century” and the “past century.” Thus, Chatsky embodies the “present century,” modernity. He expresses new, progressive ideas, criticizes the shortcomings of his contemporary society: bureaucracy, veneration of rank, bribery, patronage, nepotism, serfdom, empty imitation of the foreign.
Famusov is a typical representative of the old Moscow nobility. In the play, he defends the generation of “fathers”, the “past century”, its world order, traditions and ideals. The heroes are polar in their views on the social structure of the country, public service, and patriotism. This is exactly what they talk about in their monologues and in dialogues with other characters.
The speech of both heroes is very apt, aphoristic, and figurative. So, at the beginning of the comedy, Famusov remarks: “Everyone from Moscow has a special imprint.” Chatsky, criticizing servility and veneration of rank, also expresses himself very aptly: “The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe.” Elsewhere he skeptically asks: “Who are the judges?” And he answers it himself: “Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.”
The author's position here is quite definite. “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is in conflict with the society around him,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov P.A. Katenina. Acting as a hero-reasoner, Chatsky largely reveals the views of the author himself.
Thus, these monologues and dialogues help reveal the inner world of the main characters and serve to promote the main idea of the work.
Searched here:
- why do famusov and chatsky pronounce the greatest monologues in the play
- Chatsky and Famusov essay
The main positive hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit” Chatsky belongs to people of Decembrist nature. His opponent in the play is Famusov, a typical representative of the noble-serf camp. The radical contrast of their views becomes clear from the first act.
The scene with Lisa perfectly reveals the moral character of Famusov. As the action progresses, we learn about his attitude towards books and service. It becomes clear that for him the most significant indicators in a person are rank and wealth.
Chatsky in the first act appears as a witty and sincere young man who laughs and jokes about the life and pastime of Famus-like nobles.
This alignment of views could not but lead to an ideological conflict, which occurs in the second act. Famusov's teachings are alien to Chatsky. According to Famusov, in order to achieve something in life, you must be able to “set up a chair and lift a scarf.” As an example, he cites his uncle, who, solely through flattery and sycophancy, managed to achieve the favor of the empress. But Chatsky despises such people. His answer to Famusov became an aphorism:
“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”
He wants all young people to “serve the cause, not individuals” and be free to choose their activities, to which Famusov reacts very painfully. It comes to the point that he threatens Chatsky with court.
Famusov, faithful to noble traditions, is afraid of people like Chatsky who encroach on the basis of noble well-being. To send people to Siberia, to hard labor and exile, to sell and punish them - all this, according to Famusov, is the completely legal right of the landowner. In his view, human dignity is absent in serfs. Chatsky, on the contrary, respects the “smart, vigorous” Russian people. His indignation is caused by the fact that the “fathers of the fatherland” are called ruthless serf owners - those who are engaged in the enslavement of the people.
For such judgments, Famusov’s guests present Chatsky as insane, and Famusov announces that he was the first to notice his madness. In his opinion, the reason for Chatsky’s madness is solely in his studies, in science.
These images are strikingly different in their speech. The educated Chatsky speaks literary. His speech is logical and figurative. The poorly educated Famusov, depending on the situation, speaks either servilely, or insinuatingly, or even helpfully or imperiously. It all depends on who he's talking to.
Chatsky can also be described as the personification of modernity, looking at life with different eyes, and Famusov, accordingly, as the personification of conservatism.
Ideals and views of Chatsky (Griboyedov)
The action of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” takes place in those years when the split in the noble environment became more and more obvious. It was the beginning of the 20s of the XIX century. The influence of the ideas of French enlighteners, the growth of Russian national consciousness after the War of 1812 and foreign campaigns united many young nobles in their desire to change society. But most of the Russian nobility remained deaf or hostile to new trends. It was this situation, this conflict that Griboyedov captured in his work.
The main conflict of comedy is the conflict of two worldviews, the clash of the “present century” with the “past century.” There is also a second conflict in the comedy - love (there is even a classic love triangle: Chatsky - Sophia - Molcha-lin), but it is not the main one, although both conflicts are closely intertwined and complement each other, both of them find their resolution at the end of the play.
The bearer of new, progressive ideas is Alexander Chatsky, his ideological opponent in comedy is the entire Famus society. Why was their collision inevitable? Because Chatsky's ideals and views did not and could not coincide with the views and ideals of Famusov. First of all, they have different views on service. If for Famusov service is only a source of rank and wealth, then for Chatsky it is the civic duty of every young nobleman. Chatsky is ready to serve, but “to a cause, not to persons,” to the Fatherland, and not to a higher official. He tried to serve, he even knew the ministers, but then he retired and broke off his previous acquaintances, as he was convinced that it was impossible to serve honestly without being served at that time. Chatsky responds to Famusov’s advice to “go serve”: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.”
In the monologue “And indeed, the world has begun to grow stupid,” he speaks indignantly about those officials who “not in war, but in peace, took it head on, hit the floor without regret!” Chatsky calls the past century very precisely: “The century of obedience and fear was direct.” But for Famusov it was a “golden” age; It’s not for nothing that he sets Chatsky’s uncle Maxim Petrovich as an example, who, having stumbled at the reception, managed to make the queen laugh and win her favor. For Skalozub and Molchalin, career is the most important thing in life, and they are ready to achieve ranks by any means, even humiliation and flattery. Skalozub’s dream is “if only I could become a general.”
Alexander Andreevich appears in the comedy as a fierce opponent of serfdom. And this is understandable: he expresses the views on the social structure of Russia not only of the author himself, but also of many of his Decembrist friends, who believed that an educated, enlightened person should not rule over other people. Chatsky speaks with anger about a certain serf owner, “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who exchanged his faithful servants, who more than once saved his life and honor “in hours of wine and fights,” for “three greyhounds.” Chatsky in the monologue “Who are the judges?” denounces those “fatherland of fathers” who, “rich in robbery,” “found protection from court in friends, in kinship, built magnificent chambers where they indulge in feasts and extravagance,” exposes “the meanest traits of their past lives.” Myself
Chatsky treats the people with great respect, he calls them “our smart, cheerful people.” It is impossible to imagine Chatsky in the role of a serf owner; it is not for nothing that Famusov advises him not to manage the “estate by mistake.” Chatsky values a person by his intelligence, education, and not by the number of serf souls or rank. Therefore, for him, a certain Foma Fomich, a famous and important official, is just “the most empty person, the most stupid.” Chatsky stands up for personal freedom, for the right of a person to decide his own destiny: to serve or not to serve, to engage in science or art, to live in a village or in a city. Chatsky is a supporter of enlightenment, education, and all these Chatsky's views cause horror of rejection among his ideological opponents.
Chatsky's ideals and views- This Ideals and views true patriot; he speaks sarcastically about a certain Frenchman from Bordeaux, who, at an evening in Famusov’s house, told the assembled guests “how he prepared for the journey to Russia, to the barbarians, with fear and tears,” but when he arrived, “he found that there was no end to the caresses, no I didn’t meet a Russian sound or a Russian face...” This Frenchman felt like a “little king,” and Chatsky yearns with all his soul,
So that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit
Empty, slavish, blind imitation...
In the comedy, Chatsky is tragically alone, he has no supporters among the main characters, but there are two off-stage characters whom we can classify as supporters of the protagonist. This is, first of all, Skalozub’s cousin, who unexpectedly retired and “began reading books in the village,” and Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, about whom she indignantly says: “The official doesn’t want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist, Prince Fyodor, my nephew.”
In a clash with Famus society, Chatsky is defeated. This defeat was inevitable, since there were still too few Chatskys in society. As I. A. Goncharov wrote in the critical sketch “A Million Torments”: “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old strength, having dealt it in turn a fatal blow with the quality of fresh strength.” But Goncharov called people like Chatsky “advanced warriors, skirmishers” who are the first to enter battle and almost always die. But thoughts, ideas, Chatsky's ideals and views did not go to waste, such Chatskys will come out to Senate Square on December 14, 1825, where they will collide with the world of the Famusovs, silent-liners and rock-toothed people.
