Reasoning why Chatsky is doomed to loneliness. Is Chatsky's loneliness a modern phenomenon? Some interesting essays
“Woe from Wit” is a wonderful work that was called a comedy, although, if you look at the essence, then the comedy is more like a tragedy, because here a person of advanced views is waging an unequal struggle with established views, condemning morality, which formed the basis of the life of the Famus society. This life is rooted in the minds of everyone, but not in Chatsky, whom the author endowed with remarkable qualities.
The protagonist of the work "Woe from Wit" is a collective image, with the help of which the theme of loneliness is revealed. Using the image of the main character, the author wanted to show us how difficult it is to bring something new into the world, how difficult it is to live where you are not understood, not accepted, since rigid views are indestructible. Such people, with new ideas and views, like Chatsky, are doomed to loneliness, since there are few of those who will go hand in hand. That's just Chatsky does not give up.
The writer endowed his hero with the ideal features of the human soul. This is a man with self-respect, he is educated, smart, and most importantly, he does not want to live in an unjust world, among the social foundations in the world of the past century. He plucked up the courage to resist the old order, telling people about the new truths. He is an opponent of serfdom, which oppresses people. The hero of the comedy condemns morals, thus Chatsky becomes lonely in the “famus society”, because no one needs his new outlook on life, they are ready to continue to live in their swamp, which has sucked everyone in. But this is not about Chatsky, who is doomed to loneliness in this Famus society.
Why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness? And all because people do not want to change their lives, everything suits them, and Chatsky himself is for them like an outcast, a madman who needs to be expelled from their world. It is incompatible with the existing society, since their views are different, completely opposite.
Griboedov accurately conveyed to us a picture of how hard it is for people who have decided to overthrow the old system, it's like two worlds that want to live at the same time, but they can't do it. At the same time, Chatsky's loneliness is a modern phenomenon, because until now many people are afraid of change, they are afraid to take the right path, on the path that would be comfortable for them and exist according to established orders, even if they contradict their views, people are silent and move like a herd of rams," which is directed by the "shepherd." It shouldn't be like that, but it is. Perhaps in the future, everything will change, but today, “Woe from Wit” is a work that is relevant to this day.
The concept of "loneliness" has always gone along with such words as "special", "unique" or "new". Our life in society is to blame, or rather, the strength of this society. On the one hand, being part of a large organism is a protection that is so important for each of us. But, on the other hand, it is in society that we "freeze", stop developing. After all, it is very important to be like everyone else. If you start to stand out, you will question your reputation. It is these things that Griboyedov is trying to convey to us in his work “Woe from Wit”.
This "public" comedy shows us, using the example of Chatsky, how difficult it is to bring something new into the world.
The author presents us with the main character as an ideal person. He rewarded Chatsky with all those character traits that must certainly be present in every personality. This is his opinion on everything that happens in the world, and the desire to fight for a new order. The hero is imbued with a feeling of love for the people and a thirst to go against the feudal system that poisons people. Chatsky is a man with a big and generous soul, who is able to love as sincerely and purely as it happens in the most delightful stories.
Griboyedov created a "new man". And this already means that he is not the same as those people who are in society. Therefore, it is a “stranger” and there is no place for it.
The main idea of the work is to show the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusovsky world. The hero comes into this world not to become a part of it, but to denounce the old order, which is so deeply rooted in the hearts of people. Chatsky condemns the morals that have become the basis of life, serfdom. The author showed him as a strong man, courageous, ready to fight to the end for his ideals and principles.
Chatsky is lonely because millet is incompatible with the society that surrounds him. He is trying to change something, but sometimes there are things that are not so easy to overthrow and create in a new way. Chatsky and the Famus society... There can be no compromise here. For Chatsky to give up his beliefs is to give up himself and become a gray person in the same gray crowd. And for the Famus world, this is just a madman who is not given much importance.
Like any person who decides to go against the system, our hero is left completely alone. Nobody understands him. The outcast path is the only way out. After all, two such different worlds simply cannot exist side by side.
words.
27. Why M.Yu. Lermontov calls his love for the motherland strange?
Love for the motherland is a special feeling, it is inherent in every person, but at the same time it is very individual. Is it possible to consider it "weird"? It seems to me that here it is rather about how the poet, who spoke about the “unusualness” of his love for his homeland, perceives “ordinary” patriotism, that is, the desire to see the virtues, positive features inherent in his country and people.
Many works of M. Yu. Lermontov are also filled with love for the Motherland. His feeling for the Motherland is ambiguous and even painful, since there are things that contradict his human nature. Lermontov's love is sincere, but at the same time contradictory. So, in the poem "Motherland", written in 1841, he admits: "I love my homeland, but with a strange love!" What is this "strangeness"? The poet coldly speaks of royal glory, bought with the blood of the people. He loves in his homeland its nature, its breadth and boundlessness. He loves the village of his day, because it still has a patriarchal nature that is dear to his heart, which has been preserved, perhaps at the cost of poverty. And if there is prosperity (“full threshing floor”, “hut covered with straw”), then this causes a feeling of joy in the poet. Simple hard-working people live here, not indifferent to beauty (“windows with carved shutters”), who know how not only to work, but also to have fun. Ordinary people know how to give themselves entirely to work and the holiday. The poet loves the countryside, because in it people live in harmony with nature, with each other and with God. This way of life has almost disappeared from urban life, where there are so few real people who know how to work and enjoy life.
Lermontov conveys his love for the Motherland with epithets:
... But I love - for what, I don’t know myself -
Her steppes are cold silence,
Her boundless forests sway,
The floods of her rivers, like the seas,
On a country road I like to ride in a cart
And, with a slow gaze piercing the shadow of the night.
Meet around, sighing about an overnight stay,
The trembling lights of sad villages...
These epithets are discreet and simple, but how much deep feeling and meaning are in them, how much figurativeness. This landscape, given at the beginning of the poem, appears as if from a bird's eye view. Such is the power of Lermontov's creative imagination.
Of course, Lermontov creates his own image of the motherland. In his poems, she appears both in her heroic past, and in the grandeur of her boundless expanses, and in the poet's bitter thoughts about lawlessness and spiritual slavery.
Lermontov's love for the Motherland can be expressed in one line: "But I love - for what, I don't know myself." Yes, his love and deep affection for his homeland is "strange". Being a secular man and for the most part communicating with people from the highest circle, he, nevertheless, aspired with his soul to Russia of the people, he saw in it mighty forces, a moral basis.
words.
The fruits of "malice" in the comedy D.I. Fonvizin and in our days
When the playwright began writing The Undergrowth, the word in the title did not mean anything bad. Undergrowths were called teenagers under 15 years old, that is, the age determined by Peter1 for entering the service. In 1736, the period of stay in the "undergrowth" was extended to 20 years. The decree on the liberty of the nobility abolished the mandatory term of service and granted the nobles the right to serve or not to serve, but confirmed the compulsory education introduced under Peter1. What and how to teach, the question remained open.
The title character is Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka) - a minor, the son of the landowners Prostakov. He is 15 years old. Fonvizin's comedy is a play about an undergrowth, about his monstrous upbringing, which turns a teenager into a cruel and lazy creature. Prostakova follows the law, although she does not approve of it. She also knows that many, including those in her family, circumvent the law. Mitrofanushka has been studying for four years, but Prostakova wants to keep him with her for ten years.
The reason for "malice" is the moral consequence of Catherine's law "On the Liberty of the Nobles", published on February 18, 1762. Once Peter1 legalized the obligatory service of the nobles and this became a moral and legal justification for the landowners who had serfs. The nobleman served the state and the fatherland, the peasant nobleman; cruel landlords had to be guarded. Catherine's decree formally freed the nobleman from the obligation to serve the state; and, although the sovereign's service was still considered an honorable duty of the nobility, a matter of honor, nevertheless, the moral right of a nobleman to own peasants became doubtful, unlike nobles like Starodum, Pravdin and Milon and in contradiction with the formal meaning of the decree, most of the nobility understood it in the spirit Prostakova - as complete and fatherless power over the serfs without any moral, social, social and other restrictions.
Thus, the reason for Prostakova's "malice" is a misconception about the "liberty" of the nobility, not subject to moral standards. In the denouement of the comedy, Prostakova is defeated. Its collapse is the defeat of the entire previous "system" of education and the guarantee of the victory of new ideas proclaimed by positive characters. The last words of Prostakova "stand", as P.A. said. Vyazemsky, "On the boundary of comedy and tragedy." But with the personal tragedy of Prostakova, Fonvizin connected the coming triumph of a new morality, which excludes “malice” because of everyday life and is based on the benefit of the fatherland.
words.
29. “It’s a shame to me, since the word“ honor ”is forgotten ...” (V. Vysotsky)
The lines written by V. Vysotsky "It's a pity ... the word" honor "is forgotten ..." today, more than ever, relevant. The concept of "honor" has lost its meaning for modern man.
Starting from afar, people first came up with the exchange of goods, thus making up for the lack of what they needed to lead a normal life. The XVIII century was marked by the fact that the process of destruction of the walls between the estates began.
The amount of money began to increase, and gradually everything began to turn into a commodity, on which, as a result, the world closed.
In society, leading positions were assigned to merchants of all types and formats. As a result of the "innocent" replacement, the overwhelming majority of the members of the new society began to change their moral attitude. As an example, consider a certain Ivanov in the old days, who was publicly rude to Petrov, who, in turn, had to challenge the offender to a duel, or else pass for a coward, dressed in a stupid cap.
Today things are different. Nothing prevents the conditional Sidorov from insulting the conditional Petrov, since there will be no duel guaranteed. What is generally amazing is that tomorrow it is not necessary for Sidorov and Petrov to wake up as enemies! The same Sidorov in the morning will most likely be offered a mutually beneficial deal. So they turn from potential enemies into partners! Business interest today is put at the forefront. Such concepts as honor and dignity automatically turn into atavism, and they are replaced by a sense of economic expediency.
But, returning to the topic of duels, let's take Pushkin and Dantes as an example. It would look wildly like a situation in which Alexander Sergeyevich in court demands to compensate him for moral damage with money. This means that he evaluates his own honor and dignity in monetary terms. This is how modern citizens of a democratic society act.
The world has changed and this must be acknowledged. This happens regardless of human will. Human relationships today are built on the basis of criteria - goods and money. You need to live in this world, adhering to its laws, in order to become successful.
A “public” comedy with a social clash between the “past century” and the “present century” is called the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". And it is built in such a way that only Chatsky speaks about the progressive ideas of transforming society, striving for spirituality, about a new morality.
Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a person whom Griboyedov awarded with such traits as independence, love of freedom, generosity of soul. He has his own view of current events, the desire to fight injustice. The hero is literally imbued with love for the people and the desire to resist the brutal serf system that oppresses people. His feelings are sincere and direct. This also applies to the purity of his love in Sophia.
In his work, the playwright created the "new man" of the era. He is not like everyone else, "a stranger", "a renegade", which means he is doomed to misunderstanding and loneliness.
The hero comes into the world with new ideas, thoughts, views. He condemns the mores that have become the basis of the life of the "famus society", rooted in the minds and hearts. Chatsky is a strong and courageous person, ready to fight for his principles and ideals.
But it turns out that his new views are not just unnecessary to anyone, but even harmful. After all, they disturb the peace of what has already been established, turning into a cozy swamp. Chatsky is trying to change something, but it was not there. He is invited to become like everyone else, to abandon his views. But for him to become a gray person in the same crowd is tantamount to moral death.
The hero of the comedy, who has made an unconditional decision to go against the system, remains completely alone. Moreover, the Famus society does not forgive him for independence and love of freedom, spreading a stupid rumor about his madness. It rejects the "madman", expelling him from his world.
Chatsky's loneliness is explained by incompatibility with the society around him. After all, the goals, values, ideals for them are completely different. Representatives of the Famusovs' world cannot recognize Chatsky's views as correct, because then it will be necessary to abandon their cozy little world. And this is impossible for them.
So it turns out that, like for any person who decides to go against the system, the only way out is prepared for Chatsky - the path of an outcast. Two completely different worlds cannot be side by side.
- The very name of the comedy "Woe from Wit" is significant. For enlighteners who are convinced of the omnipotence of knowledge, the mind is a synonym for happiness. But the forces of reason in all epochs have faced serious tests. New advanced ideas are not always accepted by society, and the bearers of these ideas are often declared crazy. It is no coincidence that Griboyedov also addresses the topic of the mind. His comedy is a story about cutting-edge ideas and society's reaction to them. At first, the name of the play was "Woe to the Wit", which the writer would later change to "Woe from Wit". More […]
- Hero Brief description Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov The surname "Famusov" comes from the Latin word "fama", which means "rumour": by this Griboyedov wanted to emphasize that Famusov is afraid of rumors, public opinion, but on the other hand, there is a root in the root of the word "Famusov" the Latin word "famosus" - the famous, well-known wealthy landowner and major official. He is a famous person in the circle of the Moscow nobility. A well-born nobleman: related to the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, closely […]
- After reading AS Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" and the critics' articles about this play, I also thought about: "What is he like, Chatsky"? The first impression about the hero is that he is perfection: smart, kind, cheerful, vulnerable, passionately in love, faithful, sensitive, knowing the answers to all questions. He rushes seven hundred miles to Moscow to meet Sophia after a three-year separation. But such an opinion arose after the first reading. When, at the lessons of literature, we analyzed the comedy and read the opinions of various critics about […]
- The title of any work is the key to understanding it, since it almost always contains an indication, direct or indirect, of the main idea underlying the creation, of a number of problems comprehended by the author. The title of A. S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" introduces an unusually important category into the conflict of the play, namely the category of the mind. The source of such a title, such an unusual name, besides, it originally sounded like “Woe to the mind”, goes back to a Russian proverb in which the confrontation between smart and […]
- The image of Chatsky caused numerous controversies in criticism. I. A. Goncharov considered the hero Griboedov "a sincere and ardent figure", superior to Onegin and Pechorin. “... Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. He also has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest, ”wrote the critic. About the same way, Apollon Grigoriev spoke about this image, considering Chatsky a real fighter, an honest, passionate and truthful nature. Finally, a similar opinion was shared by […]
- Characteristics The current century The past century Attitude to wealth, to ranks “Protection from court in friends was found, in kinship, building magnificent chambers, where they overflow in feasts and extravagance, and where foreign clients of a past life will not resurrect the meanest traits”, “And for those, whoever is taller, flattery, wove like lace ... "" Be inferior, but if you have enough, two thousand generic souls, that is the groom" one uniform! He is in their former life [...]
- A. A. Chatsky A. S. Molchalin Character A straightforward, sincere young man. An ardent temperament often interferes with the hero, deprives him of impartiality of judgment. Secretive, cautious, helpful person. The main goal is a career, a position in society. Position in society Poor Moscow nobleman. Receives a warm welcome in the local community due to his lineage and old connections. Provincial tradesman by origin. The rank of collegiate assessor by law entitles him to the nobility. In the light […]
- A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" consists of a number of small episodes-phenomena. They are combined into larger ones, such as, for example, a description of a ball in Famusov's house. Analyzing this stage episode, we consider it as one of the important stages in resolving the main dramaturgical conflict, which consists in the confrontation between the “current century” and the “past century”. Based on the principles of the writer's attitude to the theater, it is worth noting that A. S. Griboyedov presented it in accordance with […]
- In the comedy "Woe from Wit" A. S. Griboyedov portrayed noble Moscow in the 10-20s of the 19th century. In the society of that time, they bowed to the uniform and rank, rejected books, enlightenment. A person was judged not by personal qualities, but by the number of serf souls. Everyone aspired to imitate Europe and worshiped someone else's fashion, language and culture. The “age of the past”, presented brightly and fully in the work, is characterized by the power of women, their great influence on the formation of the tastes and views of society. Moscow […]
- CHATSKIY - the hero of A.S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" (1824; in the first edition, the spelling of the surname is Chadsky). The likely prototypes of the image are PYa. Chaadaev (1796-1856) and V.K-Kyukhelbeker (1797-1846). The nature of the hero's actions, his statements and relationships with other persons of the comedy provide extensive material for revealing the theme stated in the title. Alexander Andreevich Ch. is one of the first romantic heroes of Russian drama, and as a romantic hero, on the one hand, he categorically does not accept the inert environment, […]
- Rarely, but it still happens in art that the creator of one "masterpiece" becomes a classic. This is exactly what happened to Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov. His only comedy "Woe from Wit" became the national treasure of Russia. Phrases from the work entered our daily life in the form of proverbs and sayings; we don’t even think about who they were put into the light, we say: “That’s something by chance, take note of you” or: “Friend. Is it possible for walks / Away to choose a nook? And such winged expressions in comedy […]
- The very name of the comedy is paradoxical: "Woe from Wit". Initially, the comedy was called "Woe to the Wit", which Griboyedov later abandoned. To some extent, the title of the play is a "changeling" of the Russian proverb: "fools are happy." But is Chatsky surrounded only by fools? Look, are there so many fools in the play? Here Famusov recalls his uncle Maxim Petrovich: A serious look, an arrogant disposition. When it is necessary to serve, And he bent over backwards... ...Huh? what do you think? in our opinion - smart. And myself […]
- The famous Russian writer Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov said wonderful words about the work "Woe from Wit" - "Without Chatsky there would be no comedy, there would be a picture of morals." And I think the writer is right about that. It is the image of the protagonist of Griboedov's comedy Alexander Sergeevich "Woe from Wit" that determines the conflict of the entire story. People like Chatsky always turned out to be misunderstood by society, they brought progressive ideas and views to society, but the conservative society did not […]
- The comedy "Woe from Wit" was created in the early 1920s. 19th century The main conflict on which the comedy is built is the confrontation between the “current century” and the “past century”. In the literature of that time, the classicism of the era of Catherine the Great still had power. But the outdated canons limited the freedom of the playwright in describing real life, so Griboedov, taking the classic comedy as a basis, neglected (as necessary) some of the laws of its construction. Any classic work (drama) had to […]
- The great Woland said that manuscripts do not burn. Proof of this is the fate of Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov's brilliant comedy "Woe from Wit" - one of the most controversial works in the history of Russian literature. A comedy with a political twist, continuing the tradition of such masters of satire as Krylov and Fonvizin, quickly became popular and served as a harbinger of the coming rise of Ostrovsky and Gorky. Although the comedy was written back in 1825, it came out only eight years later, having outlived its […]
- The famous comedy by AS Griboedov "Woe from Wit" was created in the first quarter of the 19th century. The literary life of this period was determined by clear signs of the crisis of the autocratic-feudal system and the maturation of the ideas of noble revolutionism. There was a process of gradual transition from the ideas of classicism, with its addiction to "high genres, to romanticism and realism. One of the brightest representatives and founders of critical realism was A.S. Griboedov. In his comedy "Woe from Wit", successfully combining [... ]
- In the comedy Woe from Wit, Sofya Pavlovna Famusova is the only character, conceived and executed, close to Chatsky. Griboyedov wrote about her: "The girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to a smart person ...". Griboyedov abandoned farce and satire in portraying Sophia's character. He presented the reader with a female character of great depth and strength. Sophia was "unlucky" in criticism for quite a long time. Even Pushkin considered the image of Famusova a failure of the author; "Sophia is not clearly inscribed." And only in 1878 Goncharov in his article […]
- Molchalin - characteristic features: the desire for a career, hypocrisy, the ability to serve, laconicism, poverty of the lexicon. This is due to his fear of expressing his judgment. He speaks mostly in short sentences and chooses words depending on who he is talking to. There are no foreign words and expressions in the language. Molchalin chooses delicate words, adding postively "-s". To Famusov - respectfully, to Khlestova - flatteringly, insinuatingly, with Sophia - with special modesty, with Lisa - he is not shy in expressions. Especially […]
- The gallery of human characters successfully noticed in the comedy "Woe from Wit" is still relevant today. At the beginning of the play, the author introduces the reader to two young people who are opposite to each other in everything: Chatsky and Molchalin. Both characters are presented to us in such a way that a misleading first impression is formed of them. About Molchalin, Famusov's secretary, we judge from Sonya's words as an "enemy of insolence" and a person who is "ready to forget himself for others." Molchalin first appears before the reader and Sonya, who is in love with him […]
- At the sight of a rich house, a hospitable host, elegant guests, one involuntarily admires them. I would like to know what these people are like, what they talk about, what they are fond of, what is close to them, what is alien. Then you feel how the first impression is replaced by bewilderment, then - contempt both for the owner of the house, one of the Moscow "aces" Famusov, and for his entourage. There are other noble families, heroes of the war of 1812, Decembrists, great masters of culture came out of them (and if great people came out of such houses, as we see in comedy, then […]
In human society, the majority plays a huge role, it is almost impossible to resist the crowd, so the image of Chatsky, who has taken on the role of a warrior, but is still lonely, is tragic.
In A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, out of 20 characters, only A.A. Chatsky is a positive hero. He opposes his views to the entire Famus society, not finding understanding, is forced to leave Moscow. What lies at the basis of the contradiction between Chatsky and Famusovsky society?
First, it is a different view of education. Famusov believes that all evil lurks in the sciences and education: "If evil is to be stopped: / Take away all the books, but burn them."
Skalozub claims: “I will make you happy: a general rumor, / That there is a project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums; / There they will only teach in our way: one, two; / And the books will be saved like this: for big occasions.". But Chatsky, on the contrary, sees a boon for Russia in education, perhaps that is why he spent several years in Europe, gaining "mind and reason". Secondly, the characters look differently at the way of life and its meaning. For Famusov, Skalozub and other representatives of the "old Moscow" service is above all. But by “service” they mean the ability to get the “golden key” (the title of chamberlain is the highest rank at court). For Famusov, an authoritative person is Maxim Petrovich, who was granted the highest smile for a quick fall in front of the empress, followed by a promotion. Skalozub, without taking part in any battle, practically rose to the rank of general. No wonder Lisa says about him: "And the golden bag, and aims for the generals." But Chatsky "would be glad to serve," but he was "sickening to serve." For he, just like Starodum from Fonvizin's predecessor comedy "Undergrowth", sees the meaning of his existence in serving the fatherland, and not individuals. But if they have some opinion of their own, then the rest, like Molchalin, generally believe that they have no right to judge such things: “In my years, you should not dare / have your own judgment.” In addition, the acuteness of the problem lies in the fact that the Famus society consists of people in whom even little human is left, they have few moral qualities. Chatsky himself sees who is preferred in this world, and says: "The silent ones are blissful in the world." And people like Chatsky, the Famus society is trying to expel, so that nothing interferes with a calm and familiar life. Yes, if a person lives, guided only by personal benefits, knows how to keep silent in time, “stroke a pug”, raise a handkerchief - he is “his own”!
Strengthens the tragedy of the image of Chatsky and the love line of the play. Sophia, being a smart girl, prefers Chatsky to Molchalin, the same Molchalin who managed to please everyone. And, of course, Alexander Andreevich cannot understand why she made such a choice: “Why am I more stupid than Mochalina?” His love for Sophia is so great that he cannot even believe her words, he needs to see for himself everything. And he is convinced that Sophia, having been in the Famus society for so long, has become the bearer of his traits. Sophia's coldness, her dislike for him, and even the slander that she launched, dealt a strong blow to Chatsky's heart.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to argue that Chatsky is absolutely alone in comedy. After all, Skalozub says about his brother: “... he has firmly gained some new rules. / Chin followed him; he suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books. And Mrs. Khlestova talks about her nephew: “Professors! - our relatives studied with them, / And he left! even now to the pharmacy, as an apprentice. / Runs away from women, and even from me! / Officials do not want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist, / Prince Fedor, my nephew. Despite the fact that these faces do not appear on stage, it still becomes clear that Chatsky is not alone in his aspirations.
Thus, we see that the rejection from society and the rejection of the beloved make the image of Chatsky tragically lonely, but able to resist in the war. The appearance of people of his type gives hope for an emerging change in the public consciousness of Russians in the 19th century.