The culmination of a social conflict in grief from the mind. Generation gap - as the main conflict in comedy A

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of comedy - the clash of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, and goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and respect for rank, the appearance of such people makes their clash with society inevitable. The problem of mutual understanding of the “current century” and the “past century” was relevant at the time of the creation of the comedy “I Burn from Wit” by Griboyedov, and it is still relevant today.

So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sane person” (according to Goncharov) and the “conservative majority”. It is on this that the internal development of the conflict between Chatsky and the Famus environment surrounding him is based.

The “age of the past” in comedy is represented by a number of vivid images-types. This is Famusova Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Liza. In a word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov stands out, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned a general location in metropolitan circles. He is affable, courteous, sharp-smart, cheerful - in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the outer side. The author, on the other hand, shows Famusov in an all-sided way. He also appears as a convinced, fierce opponent of enlightenment. “Take away all the books and burn them!” he exclaims. Chatsky, on the other hand, a representative of the “current century,” dreams of “putting a mind hungry for knowledge into science.” He is outraged by the order established in the Famus society. If Famusov dreams of more profitable marriage of his daughter Sofya (“Whoever is poor is not a match for you”), then Chatsky longs for "sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity."

Chatsky's desire is to serve the fatherland, "the cause, not the persons." Therefore, he despises Molchalin, who is accustomed to pleasing "all people without exception":

owner, where will happen live,

to the chief, With by whom will I serve,

Servant his, which the cleans dresses,

doorman janitor, for escape evil,

dog janitor to affectionate was.

Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of the immoral careerist. Chatsky bitterly speaks of such people: "The silent ones are blissful in the world!" It is Molchalin who suits his life best of all. He is talented in his own way. He earned the favor of Famusov, the love of Sophia, received awards. He values ​​the two qualities of his character most of all - moderation and accuracy.

In the relationship between Chatsky and the Famus society, the views of the "past century" on career, service, on what is most valued in people are revealed. Famusov takes only relatives and friends to his service. He respects flattery and servility. Famusov wants to convince Chatsky to serve, "looking at the elders," "put up a chair, pick up a handkerchief." To which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” Chatsky is very serious about the service. And if Famusov is a formalist and a bureaucrat (“it’s signed, so off his shoulders”), then Chatsky says: “When I’m in business, I hide from fun, when I’m fooling around, I’m fooling around, and mixing these two crafts is the darkness of artisans, I am not one of them. Famusov worries about the affairs of only one side: he is mortally afraid, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Skalozub is another representative of the “gone past century”. It was such a son-in-law that Famusov dreamed of having. After all, Skalozub is "and a golden bag, and aims for generals." This character combines the typical features of the reactionary shareholder of the Arakcheev time. “Wheezy, strangled, bassoon. A convocation of maneuvers and mazurkas, he is the same enemy of education and science, like Famusov. “You don’t fool me with learning,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of the Famus society makes the representatives of the younger generation show their negative qualities. So, Sophia fully corresponds to the morality of the "fathers". And although she is a smart girl, with a strong, independent character, a warm heart, a pure soul, they managed to bring up many negative qualities in her, which made her part of a conservative society. She does not understand Chatsky, does not appreciate his sharp mind, his logical, merciless criticism. She also does not understand Molchalin, who "loves her ex officio." The fact that Sophia has become a typical lady of the Famus society is her tragedy.

And the society in which she was born and lived is to blame: “She is ruined, in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated” (Goncharov. “Million of Torments”).

One more character of the comedy is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, an idler, but he was the only one who considered Chatsky a “high mind” and, not believing in his madness, called the pack of Famusov’s guests “chimeras” and “game”. Thus, he was at least one step above them all.

"So! I sobered up completely! exclaims Chatsky at the end of the comedy.

What is it - defeat or insight? Yes, the finale of this comedy is far from being cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said this: “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of the fresh force.” And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all the Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always “winning”.

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and feudal lords. He fights against noble villains and sycophants, swindlers, rogues and scammers. In his famous monologue “And who are the judges?” he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar Famus world, in which After that, the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where the landowners exchanged serfs who saved “both honor and life ... more than once” for “three greyhounds”. Chatsky defends real human qualities: humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He defends the Russian people, his Russia, from everything inert and backward. Chatsky wants to see Russia enlightened. He defends this in disputes, conversations with all the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit", directing all his mind, evil, ardor and determination to this. Therefore, the environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth, for trying to break the usual way of life. The "past century", that is, the Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the way of life, which is the basis of the well-being of the feudal lords. The past century, which Famusov so admires, Chatsky calls the century of "submission and fear." A strongly Famus society, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has like-minded people. These are episodic characters: a cousin of Skalozub (“The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service ...”), the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. Chatsky himself constantly says “we”, “one of us”, speaking, therefore, not only on his own behalf. So A. S. Griboedov wanted to hint to the reader that the time of the “past century” is passing, and it is being replaced by the “current century” - strong, intelligent, educated.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It sold thousands of handwritten copies even before it was printed. The advanced people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and the representatives of the reactionary nobility were outraged. What is this - the collision of the "age of the past" and the "age of the present"? Of course yes.

Griboyedov ardently believed in Russia, in his Motherland, and the words written on the writer's grave monument are absolutely true: "Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory."

Alexander Sergeevich was one
him from the smartest people of his time. He
received an excellent education, knew several
to Eastern languages, was a subtle politician
and a diplomat. died at the age of 34
chitelnoy death, torn to pieces by a fanatic -
mi, leaving to posterity two wonderful
waltz and the play "Woe from Wit". Its genre is defined
share as a socio-political comedy.
gave in it a true picture of Russian
life after the Patriotic War
1812. The reader can follow the
development of a conflict between two social
political camps: conservatives (fa-
Musov society) and liberals (Chatsky).
Famus society is traditional. Life
its foundations are such that “you need to study,
looking at the elders, "destroy the freethinker-
thoughts, to serve with obedience to superiors
wow, and most importantly - to be rich. Peculiar-
mi ideals of this society are in my
nologah Famusova Maxim Petrovich and uncle
Kuzma Petrovich.
…Here is an example:
The deceased was a respectable chamberlain,
With the key, and he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and was married to a rich woman;
Married children, grandchildren;
He passed away and everyone remembers him sadly.
Kuzma Petrovich! Peace be upon him! -
What aces live and die in Moscow...
Chatsky, on the contrary, is the bearer of new,
innovative ideas, herald of change. Chatsky
can be called a hero of his time. In his
monologues can be traced a whole political
what program: he exposes serfdom
in and his offspring, inhumanity, hypocrisy
rie, stupid military, ignorance, false patriot
tism; he gives a ruthless characterization
famous society.
The dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle
ba. At the beginning of the comedy, it does not appear yet.
in acute form. After all, Famusov is a teacher
Chatsky. At the beginning of the comedy, Famusov blessed
inclined towards Chatsky, he is even ready to give in to the
ku Sophia, but at the same time puts his own conditions:
I would say, firstly: do not be blissful,
Name, brother, do not manage by mistake,
And most importantly, go and serve.
To which Chatsky throws:
I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve.
But gradually another begins to tie
a struggle, important and serious, a whole battle. Both,
Famusov and Chatsky challenged each other.
Would you ask how the fathers did?
Would study, looking at the elders ... -
teaches Famusov.
And in response - Chatsky's monologue “And the judges
who?", in which the hero stigmatizes "the past
life's meanest traits.
Every new face that appears in the pro-
during the development of the plot, becomes a new
opponent of Chatsky. They slander him ano-
silent characters: Mr. N, Mr. D, 1st princess,
2nd princess and others. Gossip grows like "snowy
com. In collision with this world - social
ny conflict of the play.
But there is another conflict in comedy,
another intrigue - love. I. A.
wrote: “Every step of Chatsky, almost every one of his
the word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings
to Sophia. It is the incomprehensible Chatsky story
the girl's movement served as a motive, an occasion
to irritation, to that "million torments",
under whose influence he could only play
the role assigned to him. Hero
suffers, not understanding who his opponent is: whether
46
Skalozub, or Molchalin? Therefore, he became
seems irritable, unbearable,
kim. Sophia, outraged by Chatsky's remarks,
offending not only the guests, but also her
beloved, in a conversation with Mr. N says:
"He is not quite all there". And a rumor of insanity
Chatsky rushes through the halls, spreads
among the guests, acquiring fantastic,
grotesque forms. And the hero himself, nothing yet
knowing, “confirms” this rumor with a hot mono-
logo "Frenchman from Bordeaux", which is
wears in an empty room. In the fourth act,
media comes to a denouement. Chatsky learns that
Sophia's chosen one is Molchalin.
The secret is revealed, the heart is empty, tormented
there is no end. "Oh! How to comprehend the game of fate? Liu-
dey with the soul of the persecutor, scourge! - Molchalins
blessed in the world!” - says depressed -
grief-stricken Chatsky. His pride is hurt, he
Korblen and breaks with Sophia: “Enough! With wa-
I'm proud of my breakup."
And Chatsky in anger turns to everything
Famus Society:
... He will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend the day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And the mind will survive in it ...
Chatsky leaves. But who is he - the winner
or defeated? Most accurately on this
pros answered in the article “Million Ter-
knowledge”: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old
forces, inflicting on her in turn a fatal
hit by the quality of force fresh. He is the eternal
a reader of lies, hiding in a proverb:
"There is safety in numbers". No, warrior, if he is Chaz-
cue, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior,
the skirmisher and always the victim."

Conflict (from lat. - “collision”) - a clash of opposing interests, views; serious disagreement; sharp dispute. Undoubtedly, the key words in this explanation will be "collision", "disagreement" and "dispute". All three words are united by a common idea of ​​confrontation, some kind of confrontation, and usually moral.
The conflict in a literary work plays a huge role, it constitutes the so-called "electricity" of action. This is both a way to defend some thought, and the disclosure of the author's position, and the key to understanding the whole work. Composition depends on the conflict. Eternal opponents in Russian literature have always been good and evil, truth and untruth, will and bondage, life and death. And this struggle is shown in the early works of the people - fairy tales. Living life always struggles with the unnatural, artificial, which can be seen even in the names themselves (“Living and Dead Water”, “Truth and Falsehood”). A literary hero always faces a choice, and this is also a conflict, a clash of man in man. All Russian literature is very pedagogical. Therefore, the role of the conflict is also to correctly interpret both sides, to teach a person to choose between "good" and "evil".
Griboedov, the creator of the first realistic play, found it rather difficult to cope with this task. Indeed, unlike his predecessors (Fonvizin, Sumarokov), who wrote plays according to the laws of classicism, where good and evil were clearly separated from each other, Griboedov made each hero an individual, a living person who tends to make mistakes.
The title "Woe from Wit" is the thesis of the entire work, and every word is important. "Woe", according to Ozhegov's dictionary, is given in two meanings - grief, sadness and ironic mockery of something unsuccessful. So what is it? Tragedy? And then whose? Or a laugh? Then over whom? "Mind" in the time of Griboyedov had the meaning of progressiveness, activity. The question arises: who is smart in comedy? But the main semantic stress falls on the preposition "from". This is the predestination of the whole conflict. It is also listed on the flyer. “Talking surnames”, as noted by R. O. Vinokur, characterizing the characters, are associated with the “idea of ​​speech” (Tugoukhovsky, Molchalin, Repetilov), that is, they indicate the ability of the characters to “hear” and “speak” with each other, and therefore, understand others, oneself and the general environment. The conflict in the play is of an onion nature - the inner one is hidden behind the outer ones. All action is subject to this disclosure, and small conflicts, merging together and interacting, “give” an apotheosis to the main thing.
In the first act (appearances 1-6) the relationship between Sophia and Molchalin is shown before Chatsky's arrival. This is an exposition of a love conflict, but even now the author points to the insincerity of Molchalin's relationship with Sophia, shows this love ironically. This can be seen from the first remark (“Lizanka is sleeping, hanging from her chair,” while from the young lady’s room “you can hear the piano and flute”), and from Liza’s words about Aunt Sophia, and her caustic remarks (“Ah! Damned Cupid!”). Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky is also shown here:
Chatting, joking, it's funny to me;
You can share laughter with everyone -
she says, not believing in his love. “Pretend to be in love” - this is how Sophia defines his feelings.
And then ... he appears! "Sharp, smart, eloquent," he "attacks" Sophia, and then not very flatteringly "lists" her relatives. A social conflict is outlined, which Griboedov himself defined as follows - Chatsky "in contradiction with the society surrounding him." But it is not in vain that the author uses the common folk form “contradiction”, because Chatsky is in conflict not only with the “light”, but also with the people, and with the past, and with himself.
He is lonely and with such a character is doomed to loneliness. Chatsky is pleased with himself, with his speeches, with pleasure moves from one object of ridicule to another: “Ah! let's move on to education! He constantly exclaims:
"Well, what do you want, father?",
"And this one, how is it? ..",
“And three of the tabloid faces?”,
“And that consumptive one? ..” -
like it's terribly important, after three years. In general, throughout the play, Chatsky falls silent, takes a “minute” break, thinking about the words of the interlocutor, only twice - at his first appearance in the house and in the last monologue. And he immediately explains his own internal conflict: “The mind is out of tune with the heart,” that is, the advanced ideas that he speaks so beautifully about do not underlie his actions, which means that everything he says is a rational impulse , coming not from the heart, therefore, far-fetched.
The beginning of the social conflict takes place in the second act. The conversation between Famusov and Chatsky about Sophia turns into a duel between "fathers" and "children" arguing about Russia. Moreover, Griboedov constantly points to the contradictions of Chatsky, the master of words, and Chatsky, the master of deeds. So, in the second act, he speaks of a cruel attitude towards peasants and servants, while in the first he himself did not notice Lisa, just as they do not notice a wardrobe or a chair, and he manages his estate by mistake. A person's speech always reflects his spiritual world. Chatsky's speech is full of both vernacular and gallicisms. This once again points to the disharmony of Chatsky's inner world in Chatsky.
“Everything he says is very smart! But to whom is he saying this? - wrote Pushkin. Indeed, after all, the key remark in the third act reads: “Looks back, everyone is circling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men wandered off to the card tables." He remains alone - the culmination of a social conflict. To whom is he speaking? Maybe to yourself? Without knowing it, he is talking to himself, trying to settle the battle between "heart" and "mind". Having drawn up a scheme of life in his mind, he tries to “adjust” life to her, violate her laws, which is why she turns away from him, while the love conflict is not forgotten. Sophia also does not accept his rationalism. In general, both of these conflicts are interconnected, and if we agree with Blok that “Woe from Wit” is a work “... symbolic, in the true sense of the word,” then Sophia is the symbol of Russia, where Chatsky is a stranger, because “he is smart in otherwise ... smart not in Russian. In a different way. In an alien way ”(Weil, Geinis.“ Native speech ”).
So, both conflicts grow into the main one - the clash of living life and the scheme.
But all the heroes of the play drew up a scheme of life for themselves: Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub, Sophia ... So, Sophia, who "does not sleep from French books", tries to live her life like a novel. However, Sophia's novel is in a Russian way. As Bazhenov noted, the story of her love for Molchalin is not frivolous, like that of her "French compatriots", she is pure and spiritual, but still this is just a book fiction. In the soul of Sophia, too, there is no agreement. Maybe that's why in the poster she is listed as Sophia, that is, "wise", but Pavlovna is Famusov's daughter, which means she is somewhat similar to him. However, at the end of the comedy, she still begins to see clearly, her dream “breaks”, and not herself. Chatsky is also shown in evolution. But we can judge his inner change only from words about the past. So, when leaving, he spoke confidentially with Liza: “Not without reason, Liza, I’m crying ...”, while throughout the whole action he does not say a word to her.
“Great, friend, great, brother! ..” - out of old habit, Famusov meets him. Chatsky does not say a single kind word to him.
“What do you want?”, “No one invites you!” - only arrogantly remarks to him, immediately entering into an argument.
Chatsky's monologues are close in their ideological orientation to the slogans of the Decembrists. He denounces the servility, cruelty of the feudal lords, meanness - this is what Griboedov agrees with him and the Decembrists. But he cannot approve of their methods, the same schemes of life, only not one, but the whole society. Therefore, the culmination of all conflicts is Chatsky's accusation of insanity. Thus, he is denied the right to be a citizen, the highest good, according to the Decembrist theory, because one of the definitions of a citizen is “a sound mind” (Muravyov); the right to be respected and loved. It is precisely for the rationalistic approach to life, the desire to achieve the goal in "low" ways, that Griboedov calls all the heroes of the comedy "stupid".
The clash of nature and unnaturalness is shown not only on the stage. Off-stage characters also struggle with themselves. Skalozub's brother, for example, suddenly leaving the service, and therefore the intention to become a general, began to read books in the village, but his youth passed and "grab ...", and he "behaved properly, a colonel for a long time," although he serves " recently".
Griboyedov attributes all Chatsky's ardor only to the romantic impulses of youth, and perhaps Saltykov-Shchedrin is right when he described his subsequent fate as director of the department of insanity, who became friends with Molchalin.
So, the main conflict of the work, revealed through public (Chatsky and society), intimate (Chatsky and Sofya, Molchalin and Sofya, Molchalin and Lisa), personal (Chatsky and Chatsky, Sofya and Sofya ...) conflicts, is the confrontation between rationalism and reality, which Griboedov skillfully portrays with the help of remarks, off-stage characters, dialogues and monologues. Even in the very repulsion from the norms of classicism lies the denial of a subjective approach to life. “I write freely and freely,” says Griboyedov himself, that is, realistically. Using free iambic, different types of rhyme, distributing replicas of one verse to several characters, the author refuses canons, urging not only to write, but also to live “freely”. "Free" from prejudice.

There are several conflicts in the play “Woe from Wit”, whereas the presence of only one conflict was a necessary condition for the classic play.
“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and public (between Chatsky and Famusovsky society).
The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to his girlfriend. Gradually, a love conflict develops into a public one. Finding out if Sophia loves him, Chatsky is faced with the Famus society. In comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality at the beginning of the 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and how they live. The public conflict "Woe from Wit" is unresolvable. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.
The social conflict in the play by A. S. Griboedov is connected with another conflict - between the “current century” and the “past century”. Chatsky is a type of a new person, he is the spokesman for the new ideology of the new time, "the present century." And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century”. The old does not want to give up its positions and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict of the old and the new is one of the main ones in the Russian life of that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in the literature of the 19th century, for example, in such works as "Fathers and Sons", "Thunderstorm". But this conflict does not exhaust all the collisions of comedy.
Among the heroes of Griboyedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people, each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in Woe from Wit knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give rise to being condemned by powerful secular lionesses, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. Therefore, Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. The purpose of Molchalin's life is to quietly, even slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“to take rewards and live happily”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.
Sophia, as one of the representatives of the Famus society, having read sentimental novels, dreams of a timid, quiet, tender beloved, whom she will marry and make of him a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant”. It is Molchalin, and not Chatsky, who fits her future husband's standards.
So, Griboyedov in his comedy not only shows how immoral and conservative typical representatives of Moscow society are. It is also important for him to emphasize that they all understand life, its meaning and ideals differently.
If we turn to the final act of the comedy, we will see that each of the characters is unhappy at the end. Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia - all are left with their own grief. And they are unhappy because of their wrong ideas about life, wrong understanding of life. Famusov always tried to live according to the laws of the world, tried not to cause condemnation, disapproval of the world. And what did he get at the end? He was disgraced by his own daughter! "Oh! My God! what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say, ”he exclaims, considering himself the most unfortunate of all people.
Molchalin is no less unhappy. All his efforts were in vain: Sophia would no longer help him, and perhaps, even worse, complained to her father.
And Sophia has her own grief; her loved one betrayed her. She was disappointed in her ideal of a worthy husband.
But the most unfortunate of all is Chatsky, an ardent, freedom-loving educator, an advanced man of his time, an accuser of the rigidity and conservatism of Russian life. The smartest in comedy, he cannot, with all his intelligence, make Sophia fall in love with him. Chatsky, who believed only in his mind, in the fact that a smart girl cannot prefer a fool to a smart one, is so disappointed in the end. After all, everything that he believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that the Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy.
Thus, Griboyedov proves that the reason for the tragedy of Chatsky and the misfortunes of the other heroes of the comedy is in the discrepancy between their ideas about life and life itself. “The mind is out of tune with the heart” - this is the main conflict of “Woe from Wit”. But then the question arises, what ideas about life are true and whether happiness is possible at all. The image of Chatsky, in my opinion, gives a negative answer to these questions. Chatsky is deeply sympathetic to Griboyedov. It compares favorably with the Famus society. His image reflected the typical features of the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboyedov foresaw the tragedy of the Decembrists, who believed in their idealistic theory, divorced from life.
Thus, in Woe from Wit there are several conflicts: love, social, the conflict of the “current century” and the “past century”, but the main one, in my opinion, is the conflict of idealistic ideas about life and real life. Griboyedov was the first writer to raise this problem, which many writers of the 19th century will refer to in the future. century: I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy.