What life ideals and values do Famusov and Chatsky defend? Chatsky and Famusov. Comparative characteristics of the heroes (based on the comedy by A.S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”) The problem of the mind in comedy
How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?
Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, have you had no success in your service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “was the head of the department under three ministers.” " His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, for all his talents, does not enjoy the support of Famus society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may seem only ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” in this scene it is decided - scary. Molchalin spoke and expressed his views.
What are the moral and life ideals of Famus society?
Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master at pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.
Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?
The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by chance. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it’s here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further remarks are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.
He is ready to believe!
Ah, Chatsky! you love to dress everyone up as jesters,
Would you like to try it on yourself?
Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. These comedic scenes brilliantly reveal the characters that make up Famus’s circle. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed crazy to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “damned Voltairian”, “overstepped the law”, “he is in the Pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.
Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.
The monologue “The Frenchman from Bordeaux” is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had separate conversations with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses sound, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently spin in a waltz , old people scatter around the card tables.
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.
What life ideals and values do Famusov and Chatsky defend?
- Famusov: He believes that his daughter’s fiance should be rich. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you..” “Be inferior, but if there are souls of 2 thousand family members, he is the groom.” Famusov does not accept everything new and advanced. Relatives predominate in F.'s service. Treat servants poorly “Donkeys, I’ll tell you a hundred times.” F. is afraid of public opinion, gossip, and gossip. The ideal for F. are the nobles of Catherine's time - Kuzma and Maxim Petrovich.
Chatsky is sincere in his feelings, cheerful, the life of the party, sharp (tongued, witty). Chatsky is dissatisfied with the laws of noble society. He criticizes Famusov and other nobles for belonging to the English, for the fact that society worships foreigners. Criticizes teachers and tutors who are hired as educators only because they need to be paid a little. He remembers a Frenchman from Bordeaux who saw nothing Russian in Russia. Chatsky believes that it is not ranks that are important, nor warm places in the service, but something else is needed - the desire to engage in science, art, when a person has intelligence, he always strives for the new and advanced.
In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” Griboyedov depicted the life of Russia after the Patriotic War of 1812. Close in his views to the Decembrists, Griboyedov showed the clash of two camps in Russian public life: the advanced Decembrist and the old serfdom, “the present century” and the “past century.” Depicting the “past century,” Griboyedov brought onto the stage a whole crowd of inhabitants of noble Moscow. These are rich and noble nobles - “aces”, as they proudly call themselves. They are famous not for their merits in the official field, not for excellent performance
Civic duty, not orders and wounds received on the battlefields, No! The main thing for them is wealth. “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand well-born souls, that’s the groom,” says Famusov in a conversation with Skalozub. And a certain Tatyana Yuryevna is respected here only because she “gives balls that couldn’t be richer.” With choking delight, Famusov tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, showed neither business qualities nor talents, but only “bravely sacrificed the back of his head” and became famous for the fact that he often “bent neck" in bows. And many visitors to Famusov’s house create honor and wealth for themselves in the same way as this old nobleman. The Moscow high nobility, depicted in Griboedov's comedy, lives a monotonous and uninteresting life. Let's go to the Famusovs' house. Guests gather here every day. What are they doing? Dinner, playing cards, talking about money, clothes, gossip. Here everyone knows about others, envy their successes, and maliciously celebrate their failures. Chatsky has not yet appeared, and here they are already slandering his failures in the service. They don't read either books or newspapers. Enlightenment for them is a “plague”. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:
“Learning is the plague, learning is the reason, That now there are more crazy people, and deeds, and opinions.” Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “cockerels”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “Get you to work! You’re welcome!” Moscow nobles boast of their patriotism, their love for their native country. Famusov enthusiastically tells Skalozub about the “special imprint on all Moscow people.” But there is very little Russian, simple and natural in them. On the contrary, everything about them, from the semi-Russian language and outfits with “taffeta, marigold and haze” to the attitude towards their people, is deeply alien to the Russian. The girls sing French romances, read French books, distort Russian names in a foreign way. In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire: “It’s not that they introduce new things - God never save us! No". And when Chatsky dared to “publicly announce five or six healthy thoughts,” how frightened the old master Famusov was! He called Chatsky a “dangerous man”, and his thoughts “delusional ideas.” Members of the Famus society are united in one camp by ideals (“And take rewards and live happily”), inertia, fear of the new, fear of progressive people. Unfortunately, many of our compatriots are almost no different from Famusovites. But it seems to me that ignorance and militant stupidity will be defeated by new generations, when not only rank and money, but intelligence and bright heads will be valued.
