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

Topic 8. “Chatsky's role is a passive one... Such is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious” (I.A. Goncharov).

(According to the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”.)

Methodological commentary on topics. Working on consultations on topics, we tried to build them on the principle of “additionality” and, as far as possible, introduce some material unknown to students, because there is nothing worse than repeating what has already been studied: at each stage of referring to the text, the student must discover something new in it unknown to itself. Only then will he be interested. Interest is the stimulus for creativity. Professional readers (critics, literary critics, writers) can help graduates along this path, which is why there are so many citations in our consultations.

It seems that this “traditional” school theme should not cause any particular difficulties: as a rule, this quote from Goncharov, as they say, is “by ear”, therefore, we will only indicate the key points that can be touched upon in the essay. At the same time, we will remember that there may be several pitfalls in the work. Firstly, there is a temptation to write an essay on the topic “Winner Chatsky or defeated?”; the topic is close, but not identical to ours: here we still need to talk about the “suffering” of the hero and its causes. Secondly, it is impossible to miss the almost inadvertently dropped remark: “This is the role of all the Chatskys”, that is, do not forget to mention Chatsky as a literary type. Thus, revealing the topic, we pay attention to the following.

The source of the quote is a critical study by I.A. Goncharov “Million torments”, we will start with this and try to connect the keyword in the topic - “passive” - with the title of the article and the “million torments” of the hero. At the same time, we will remember that the critic himself once remarked: “Chatsky exclaims, not me. I only cite his words in the title as a motive, as the main sound, the expression of his hero, which constitutes the content of the play. If the student remembers the text of the article well (and this, of course, applies only to students of philological classes), then a slightly different approach can be proposed: to state the system of Goncharov’s proofs, which he cites in “proof” of the thesis about the “passive” role of Chatsky, dividing them into major and minor and commenting accordingly.

The reasons for the “suffering” of the hero and their “source”: is it possible to say that there was only one reason? Or were there several? What or who gives Chatsky the greatest suffering?

Chatsky as a literary type. Here we can refer not only to the textbook definition of the “familiar stranger” type (Belinsky), but - first of all - to the most interesting article by Yu.M. Lotman “The Decembrist in Everyday Life”, which contains an extremely interesting observation: “The Decembrist publicly calls a spade a spade, “thunders” at the ball and in society, because it is in this naming that he sees the liberation of man and the beginning of transformations.” And in confirmation, he cites the words of F. Glinka, who, going to the ball, notes in his diary: “Reprove 1) Arakcheev and Dolgorukov, 2) military settlements, 3) slavery and sticks, 4) laziness of nobles, 5) blind power of attorney to the rulers of the offices ...” Let's compare the entries from the diary with Chatsky's monologues - the conclusion, as they say, is obvious. However, one “but” suggests itself: Goncharov’s article was published in 1872. Thinking about why in this period, when the era of Decembrism has passed, the writer turns to the image of Chatsky - a new turn in the development of the topic.

Chatsky's words are a challenge to society, and we must respond to it. How? Think about your life? Change? Or maybe just declare the hero crazy and abstract from what was said? It is probably possible to declare something, but it is unlikely to abstract. The voice of Chatsky is too heard, the hero touched too painful questions ...

In conclusion - again a textbook quote: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength” (Goncharov), a commentary on which will logically complete the essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To a free life their enmity is irreconcilable,

Judgments draw from forgotten newspapers

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

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

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

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

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause

What is now more than ever,

Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.

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

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

Who will have time to stay with you,

Breathe the air alone

And in whom the mind will survive ...

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

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

Where there is a corner for the offended feeling!

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

Order writing a unique work

Chatsky's role is passive

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

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

Who was he with? Where did fate take me?

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

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

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

The comedy "Woe from Wit" by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov is a bright and original work. She not only survived her creator, immortalized his name, but to this day remains sharply satirical and, unfortunately, relevant. The image of the protagonist, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, is still ambiguous, sometimes admiring his courage, sometimes sympathizing. After all, he furiously denounces lies and all those foundations that interfere with living honestly and freely. But why are such worthy people doomed to be rejected, not accepted, misunderstood and unhappy? ... Is this the fate of everyone who fights for bright ideals and is ahead of his time?

So, at the center of the comedy lies a clash between the supporters of lordly Moscow and a group of new people. These new people are represented in the comedy by Chatsky, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Skalozub's brother, Gorich, professors and students of the Pedagogical Institute, “who practice in splits and disbelief”, some people who study in boarding houses and lyceums. About these people, Chatsky constantly says “we”, each of them “breathes more freely ... and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.” It is easy to understand that such people in the society of pufferfish and silent people are known as "dangerous dreamers." They are afraid of them, having heard their speeches, they shout “Robbery! Fire!".

The tragedy of Chatsky unfolds on the core of love experiences. But this also emphasizes the socio-political intensity of the comedy, strengthens it, because this intensity arises as a result of real life circumstances. Chatsky fights for his bright feelings and for his ideals.

Each flash of personal resentment entails Chatsky's involuntary rebellion against the rigidity of Sophia's entourage. This characterizes the hero as a thinking, progressive and still youthfully hot person. He is doomed to misunderstanding in the Famus society, because this is the time of silent, soulless and ambitious sycophants. Knowing this, Molchalin grew bolder, adopted a patronizing tone in relations with Chatsky, whom he considers a loser. Meanwhile, the unexpected coldness of the girl whom he passionately and sincerely loves, her neglect so stuns Chatsky that in despair he challenges the Famus society, splashing out all his pain and contempt in accusatory monologues. And only self-respect saves him from useless humiliation before this world of servility and servility. Goncharov wrote about it this way: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of the old force, inflicting his blow on it with the force of the new. He is the personification of the proverb: "one in the field is not a warrior." But I still think that a warrior, and, moreover, a winner, is only an advanced warrior, a skirmisher, and therefore always a victim.

Of course, this hero did not reason with Famusov and did not correct him. But if Famusov hadn’t had witnesses at the departure, he would have easily coped with his grief, he would have only hurried with his daughter’s wedding. But this is no longer possible: “thanks” to Chatsky, the whole of Moscow will discuss this incident in the morning. And Famusov willy-nilly have to face the fact that he had never thought of before.

Molchalin, after the scene in the hallway, it will also be impossible to remain the same. The masks have been pulled off, he has been exposed, and he, like the last thief, will have to hide in a corner. Zagoretsky, Gorichi, princesses - all fell under the hail of his shots, and these shots do not remain without a trace.

And only Sofya Pavlovna is difficult to treat with the same indifference with which we part with other heroes of the play. She has a lot of sympathy, she has all the makings of a remarkable nature: a lively mind, courage and passion. She is ruined by the stuffiness of her father's house. Her ideals are erroneous, but where do other ideals come from in Famus's society? Of course, it’s hard for her, even harder than for Chatsky: she gets her “million torments”.

And the words of Chatsky will spread, will be repeated everywhere and will produce their own storm. The battle is just beginning. The authority of Chatsky was known before, he already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without waiting for the rank, and began to read books. One of the old women complains that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is engaged in chemistry and botany.

All that was needed was an explosion, and the battle began, stubborn and hot, on one day, in one house, but its consequences would be reflected in all of Moscow and Russia.

Chatsky, undoubtedly, boldly looked into the future and could not accept and understand the inertia and hypocrisy of the famous and silent ones. He is a representative not only of the present age, but also of the age to come. He suffered the same fate as many of his kind: those around him did not find anything sensible in his thoughts, they did not understand him and did not even try to understand. Unfortunately, it is difficult for many people to reject outdated stereotypes, principles, habits, because it is easier to consider those who think about development and strive forward as crazy. Chatsky gave rise to a split among the representatives of the past century, and although he himself was deceived in his personal expectations and did not find the “charm of meetings”, “live participation”, he “splashed himself on the dried soil with living water”, taking with him “a million torments”.