Do you agree with Griboyedov’s statement that in the comedy “Woe from Wit” there are “25 fools for one sane person”? (Griboyedov A.S.). Essay on the topic: The problem of the mind in comedy Woe from Wit, Griboyedov The problem of the mind in comedy

The image of Chatsky. Griboyedov wrote: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is in conflict with the society around him...” In the judgment of the author of the comedy, the word “of course” is very important. The conflict is predetermined by the entire course of historical development of Russian society. The opposing forces have already been identified, their positions are clearly marked. That is why, of course, Chatsky simply cannot, is unable to remain silent, not to come into conflict with the formidable force that confronts him here, in Famusov’s house, as, indeed, in any other house where he could end up.

Chatsky in Griboedov's comedy is not a reasoner, not a simple exponent of the author's ideas, but a living personality - complex, even contradictory, and at the same time invariably attractive with his liveliness, spontaneity, wit and eloquence. In his brilliant monologues, Decembrist ideas are widely and consistently manifested. He is a fiery agitator, seeking to explain his position and promote his views. This is why Chatsky never pronounces his monologues “to himself,” alone. On the contrary, he constantly strives for communication, but this is precisely what he fails to do. The Famus society does not at all intend to listen to the speeches of its ideological opponent.

Love for the people, respect for their common sense and moral principles determine a lot in Chatsky’s worldview. That is why he is so painfully experiencing the separation of not only Famus society, but also the advanced noble intelligentsia from the people. This isolation is manifested in language and even in clothing. Hence Chatsky’s dream, “So that our people are smart, cheerful // Although by language they do not consider us to be Germans.” What significant epithets does Chatsky use here: cheerful and - more importantly - smart] Chatsky’s words give an additional shade not only to the problems of the comedy, but also to its name. The high appreciation of the people makes Chatsky’s Decembrist idea of ​​the need to defend the national independence of Russian culture understandable and justified. Chatsky’s thoughts about the unclean spirit of “empty, slavish, blind imitation” typical of noble society were exactly in line with Ryleev’s calls to “destroy the spirit of slavish imitation”, the convictions of Kuchelbecker, with whom Griboyedov became close friends while working on the comedy.

Chatsky, who fervently believes in the possibility of a bright life for the “vigorous and intelligent” people, does not resign himself to the existence of serfdom, which insults and humiliates the national pride of a true patriot. That is why Chatsky spoke with such indignation about peasants who were exchanged for greyhounds, about serfs who were sold individually, that is, in such a way that family relationships were broken.

One can guess that Chatsky has already experienced a lot of losses and disappointments in life: “The uniform... - now I can’t fall into this childishness...” He comes to Moscow in the hope that here he will “come to life,” perhaps will find his happiness “There are walls, air, everything is pleasant! They will warm you up, revive you..." Nothing like that happens. The romantic faith in love and friendship is collapsing (the hero’s meeting with Platon Mikhailovich is very important in this regard).

It is important that the image of Chatsky is presented in dynamics. The ideological development of the hero occurs before our eyes. Like many of his contemporaries (not excluding the Decembrists), even at the beginning of the comedy he was convinced that the origins of morality lie only in the mind. In his opinion, the true value and significance of a person are determined by his ability to engage in science and the desire for limitless knowledge. The hero's educational philosophy determines not only his strength, but also his weakness. It turns out that the most important criterion of intelligence for him cannot explain everything in life. So, Sophia, who despises Skalozub because he “has never uttered a smart word,” is nevertheless in love with Molchalin, attributing to him non-existent virtues. It is quite natural that Chatsky, from the standpoint of his worldview, cannot believe this. After all, according to all the laws of reason, Sophia should not love Molchalin, but she still loves him. (Here, too, her own grief from the mind: Sofya Molchalina invented according to the laws of sentimental literature: a poor, humble young man, endowed with a sensitive soul, Modest and shy...)

Chatsky’s educational principles were no longer able to explain the complexity of reality, the inconsistency of human psychology, the reasons why a fool suddenly turns out to be more cunning than a smart one, etc.

The comedy was originally called "Woe to Wit." In such a title there is an enlightening conviction that the mind itself is represented highest value; grief could only come to him from somewhere else. The final version of the title: “Woe from Wit” allows you to feel a new shade in the playwright’s plan. The hero himself begins to anxiously feel not only an acute conflict with the society around him, but also a contradiction in his own inner world. In him, “the mind and the heart are not in harmony.”

Chatsky comes to a sober understanding real life with its complexity, betrayals, even betrayals. He matures, matures, and begins to understand people and circumstances more clearly. At the end of the comedy, Chatsky is no longer the same as at the beginning: “So! he sobered up incompletely, // Dreams were out of sight, and the veil fell..." He himself speaks about this with all his characteristic frankness in the final monologue, calling himself a "blind man"... This was the playwright's intention: to show how things happen the gradual formation of a fighter, parting with his youthful good-will and preparing for the harsh trials of life.

“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” wrote A.S. Griboyedov Katenina. This statement by the author clearly identifies the main problem of “Woe from Wit” - the problem of intelligence and stupidity. It is included in the title of the play, which should also be paid close attention to. This problem is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, and therefore requires a detailed analysis.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was cutting-edge for its time. It was accusatory in nature, like all classic comedies. But the problems of the work “Woe from Wit”, the problems of the noble society of that time are presented in more wide range. This became possible due to the author’s use of several artistic methods: classicism, realism and romanticism.

It is known that Griboedov initially called his work “Woe to Wit,” but soon replaced this title with “Woe from Wit.” Why did this change occur? The fact is that the first title contained a moralizing note, emphasizing that in the noble society of the 19th century, every intelligent person would suffer persecution. This did not quite correspond to the playwright's artistic intent. Griboyedov wanted to show that an extraordinary mind and progressive ideas of a particular person can be untimely and harm its owner. The second name was able to fully realize this task.

The main conflict of the play is the confrontation between the “present century” and the “past century,” old and new. In Chatsky’s disputes with representatives of the Old Moscow nobility, a system of views of one and the other side emerges on education, culture, in particular on the problem of language (a mixture of “French with Nizhny Novgorod”), family values, issues of honor and conscience. It turns out that Famusov, as a representative of the “past century,” believes that the most valuable thing in a person is his money and position in society. Most of all, he admires the ability to “curry favor” for the sake of acquiring material benefits or respect for the world. Famusov and others like him have done a lot to create a good reputation among the nobles. Therefore, Famusov only cares about what they will say about him in the world.

Molchalin is like that, even though he is a representative of the younger generation. He blindly follows the outdated ideals of the feudal landowners. Having your own opinion and defending it is an unaffordable luxury. After all, you can lose respect in society. “You shouldn’t dare to have your own judgment in mine,” this is the life credo of this hero. He is a worthy student of Famusov. And with his daughter Sophia, he plays a love game only in order to curry favor with the girl’s influential father.

Absolutely all the heroes of “Woe from Wit,” with the exception of Chatsky, have the same ailments: dependence on other people’s opinions, passion for rank and money. And these ideals are alien and disgusting to the main character of the comedy. He prefers to serve “the cause, not the persons.” When Chatsky appears in Famusov’s house and begins to angrily denounce the foundations of noble society with his speeches, Famusov’s society declares the accuser crazy, thereby disarming him. Chatsky expresses progressive ideas, pointing out to aristocrats the need for a change of views. They see in Chatsky’s words a threat to their comfortable existence, their habits. A hero called mad ceases to be dangerous. Fortunately, he is alone, and therefore simply expelled from a society where he is not welcome. It turns out that Chatsky, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, throws the seeds of reason into the soil, which is not ready to accept and nurture them. The hero's mind, his thoughts and moral principles turn against him.

Here the question arises: did Chatsky lose in the fight for justice? One may believe that this is a lost battle, but not a lost war. Very soon Chatsky’s ideas will be supported by the progressive youth of that time, and “the meanest traits of the past” will be overthrown.

Reading Famusov’s monologues, watching the intrigues that Molchalin carefully weaves, one cannot say at all that these heroes are stupid. But their mind is qualitatively different from Chatsky’s mind. Representatives of Famus society are accustomed to dodging, adapting, and currying favor. This is a practical, worldly mind. And Chatsky has a completely new mindset, forcing him to defend his ideals, sacrifice his personal well-being, and certainly not allowing him to gain any benefit through useful connections, as the nobles of that time were used to doing.

Among the criticism that fell upon the comedy “Woe from Wit” after it was written, there were opinions that Chatsky could not be called an intelligent person. For example, Katenin believed that Chatsky “talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately.” Pushkin, having read the list of the play brought to him at Mikhailovskoye, spoke about the main character like this: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...”

Indeed, Chatsky is presented as very hot-tempered and somewhat tactless. He appears in a society where he was not invited, and begins to denounce and teach everyone, without mincing words. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “his speech is seething with wit,” as I.A. wrote. Goncharov.

This diversity of opinions, even the presence of diametrically opposed ones, is explained by the complexity and diversity of the problems of Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”. It should also be noted that Chatsky is an exponent of the ideas of the Decembrists, he is a true citizen of his country, opposing serfdom, sycophancy, and the dominance of everything foreign. It is known that the Decembrists were faced with the task of directly expressing their ideas wherever they were. Therefore, Chatsky acts in accordance with the principles of the progressive man of his time.

It turns out that there are no outright fools in comedy. There are simply two opposing sides defending their understanding of the mind. However, intelligence can be opposed not only by stupidity. The opposite of intelligence can be madness. Why does society declare Chatsky crazy?

The assessment of critics and readers can be anything, but the author himself shares Chatsky’s position. This is important to consider when trying to understand the artistic intent of the play. Chatsky’s worldview is the views of Griboyedov himself. Therefore, a society that rejects the ideas of enlightenment, personal freedom, service to a cause, and not servitude, is a society of fools. Having been afraid of an intelligent person, calling him crazy, the nobility characterizes itself, demonstrating its fear of the new.

The problem of the mind, brought out by Griboyedov in the title of the play, is key. All clashes that occur between the outdated foundations of life and Chatsky’s progressive ideas should be considered from the point of view of the opposition of intelligence and stupidity, intelligence and madness.

Thus, Chatsky is not mad at all, and the society in which he finds himself is not so stupid. It’s just that the time for people like Chatsky, exponents of new views on life, has not yet come. They are in the minority, so they are forced to suffer defeat.

Work test

Everyone who has read the work of A.S. Griboyedov should understand it and conduct a little analysis, because few people are able to answer the question posed unambiguously...

What is stupidity? Stupidity is an act, and an act is born from a goal, so in the work of A.S. Griboyedov. Each hero is driven by his own goal, his own dream and everyone has his own purpose, but these “25 fools” must be united by something, and what unites them is their love for money, the desire for rank and mutual responsibility. And how can I call these people stupid? No, they are corrupt, careerists, greedy people to the point of horror, but they are not stupid.

It is possible that there is no soul in them and there, in the soul, they are completely empty and uneducated than, as main character- Chatsky, who is smart and constantly “hungry for knowledge.” All of them, although they didn’t build this terrible system, where everything is based on yes-men and money, but they settled down there perfectly, and that means something.

The author's position is clearly clear. The author believes that a person should be guided by intangible benefits, and he should not strive for rank or honor, as did only the only character in the poetic comedy - Chatsky. He went against this society and that is why he became the first “superfluous man” in Russian literature. The author points out that everyone around him is stupid. I completely agree with the author’s position that true goals should not be material, but exactly “25 fools” does not think so, Famusov says: “God bless you with health and the rank of general,” each of the characters is so obsessed with money and ranks that perhaps they can be called fools, but stupidity is a multifaceted word. I’m not afraid to call Chatsky stupid; he could have guessed that retraining Famus society was completely pointless. He is only throwing pearls before swine, but he still tries, says Chatsky: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” He can be called naive or stupid, there are no more boundaries. Emotions, goals, dreams, money, love...everything is mixed in this work. Some are stupid in their souls, some in their heads, and some are simply naive, like Chatsky.

In that small world of Griboyedov. Everyone is up in arms against Chatsky and shames him for not being like everyone else. He doesn’t believe in all these riches and ranks, he believes in love. We are accustomed to judging people by their actions, by the result, even though he did not achieve his love - Sophia, he left with dignity, he left with a phrase that future generations remembered, Chatsky exclaimed: “A carriage for me, a carriage!” In conclusion I want to say that

Chatsky is the only character who was smart, but as a paradox, really did not understand what was happening and how to deal with all this.

A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit." 9th grade.

1. To what ideological and aesthetic direction, artistic method can the comedy of A.S. be attributed? Griboyedov "Woe from Wit":

1. educational realism 2. romanticism

3. critical realism 4. classicism

2. A.S. Griboyedov wrote: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person, and this person, of course, is in conflict with the society around him.” Who did the writer mean:

1. Skalozub 2. Molchalin 3. Chatsky 4. Sofia

3. Each image of comedy reflects the specific historical essence of real social types of its era. Match the existing ones Comedy faces and speech samples:

1. “Well, the ball!.. Some freaks from the other world. And there’s no one to talk to, and there’s no one to dance with,” “Signed, off my shoulders,” “No rest, I’m rushing around like crazy,” “On Tuesday I’m invited to go trout fishing.”

2. “Three fathoms is a daredevil”, “...To give ranks there are many channels”, “I am a prince - to Gregory and I will give you a sergeant-major as Voltaire...”, “He never uttered a smart word”

3. “What about our old people?? It’s not that new things were introduced - never, God save us! No. And they’ll find fault with this, that, or more often than not, they’ll argue, make noise, and... go their separate ways.”

4. “Huh? Hm? And - hmm?

5. “What do I hear?”, “You know that I don’t value myself”

6. “Tell me to the fire: I’ll go as if for dinner,” “I’ve sobered up... completely”

1. Chatsky 2. Repetilov 3. Skalozub

4. Sophia 5. Prince Tugoukhovsky 6. Famusov

4. An aphorism is:

1. Artistic justification of the characters’ actions.

2. A short saying containing a complete philosophical thought, worldly wisdom or moral teaching.

3. Part of the vocabulary, words and phrases used in the past to designate any objects, to create historical flavor.

5. Which of the characters owns the following expressions that have become aphorisms:

1. “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe,” “The houses are new, but the prejudices are old,” “Who are the judges?”

2. “I don’t dare advise you”, “I scared you, forgive me, for God’s sake”

3. “Happy people don’t watch the clock”, “Walked into a room, ended up in another”, “Not a man, a snake”, “The hero of not my novel”

1. Chatsky 2. Sofia 3. Molchalin

6. Determine which words and phrases correspond to the characters of the comedy:

1. “Slavery”, “prejudice”, “towards a free life”, “tea”, “colitis”, “smoke of the fatherland”

2. “Cracked”, “headlong”, “fainted”, “gave a blunder”, “femme”, “bruised”.

3. “Two, sir,” “still, sir,” “forgive me, for God’s sake,” “little face,” “angel.”

4. “It’s passed”, “as long as it’s been”, “they’re calling”, “I’ve been asleep”, “I’ll report”, “me, sir”.

5. “Trudge”, “the clock is ticking”, “it was torn by the ears”, “it’s time to get mad.”

1. Skalozub 2. Chatsky 3. Liza 4. Khlestova 5. Molchalin

7. Composition is:

1. An episode of a literary work.

2. Organization of individual elements, parts and images of a work of art.

3. The main question posed in the literary work.

4. Collision, confrontation of characters.

8. Genre originality of the work by A.S. Griboyedov is expressed in the definition of the genre:

1. Comedy 2. Tragedy 3. Tragicomedy

9. A critical article “A Million Torments” was written by:

1. D.I.Pisarev 2. V.G.Belinsky

3. I.A.Goncharov 4. N.A.Dobrolyubov

A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit.” Key.

1 – Famusov, 2 – Skalozub, 3 – Repetilov, 4 – Prince Tugoukhovsky, 5 – Sophia, 6 – Chatsky.

1 – Chatsky, 2 – Molchalin, 3 – Sophia.

1 – Chatsky, 2 – Skalozub, 3 – Molchalin, 4 – Liza, 5 – Khlestova.