Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is the main male and only positive character in the comedy Woe from Wit, Griboyedov. He was left an orphan quite early, and was brought up in the house of his father’s friend, Famusov. The patron gave him an excellent education, but could not instill in Chatsky his worldview. Having matured, Chatsky began to live separately. Subsequently, he quit military service, but did not serve as an official.
Famusov has a beautiful and intelligent daughter Sophia, over time her friendship with Chatsky grew into love, he also sincerely admired her and wanted to marry her. But being an emotional, active and inquisitive person, he becomes bored in Moscow, and he goes to travel to see the world. He left for 3 years without even warning Sophia about it and without ever writing to her. Upon his return, Chatsky realized that she no longer had love for him, and besides, she had another lover - Molchalin. He is very worried about disappointment in his beloved and her betrayal, in his opinion.
Chatsky is a proud, direct and noble person who always expresses his opinion. He lives in the future, has a negative attitude towards the cruelty of landowners and serfdom, he is a fighter for a fair society and dreams of benefiting the people. Therefore, it is difficult for him to live in Famus’s immoral society, and he understands that he has no place among people who live in lies and meanness. Society remains the same as it was 3 years ago. That same evening he quarreled with everyone, and besides, Sophia, wanting to take revenge on him, spread the rumor that he was crazy. At the end of the comedy, he witnesses a scene where Sophia finds out that Molchalin does not love her, but simply wants to stay in Famusov’s house. Laughing, Chatsky demands a carriage and leaves.
/A.A. Grigoriev. Regarding the new edition of an old thing. "Woe from Wit." St. Petersburg 1862/
So I now turn to my second position - to the fact that Chatsky is still the only heroic the face of our literature.<...>
Chatsky first of all - honest And active nature, and also the nature of a fighter, that is, an extremely passionate nature.
They usually say that a secular person in a secular society, firstly, will not allow himself to say what Chatsky says, and secondly, he will not fight windmills, preach to the Famusovs, the Silents and others.<...>
In Chatsky there is only a truthful nature, which will not allow any lies - that’s all; and he will allow himself everything that his truthful nature allows himself. And that there are and were truthful natures in life, here is the evidence: old man Grinev 1, old Bagrov 2, old Dubrovsky 3. Alexander Andreevich Chatsky must have inherited the same nature, if not from his father, then from his grandfather or great-grandfather.
Another question is whether Chatsky would talk to people he despises.
And you forget with this question that Famusov, on whom he pours out “all the bile and all the annoyance,” for him is not just such and such a person, but a living memory of childhood, when he was taken “to bow” to his master, which
He drove away on many trucks from the mothers and fathers of rejected children.<...>
<...>Chatsky believes in the benefit of his sermon less than you yourself, but bile has boiled in him, his sense of truth is offended. And besides, he's in love...
Do you know how such people love?
Not this one and not worthy of a man love, which absorbs all existence into the thought of a beloved object and sacrifices everything to this thought, even the idea of moral improvement: Chatsky loves passionately, madly and tells the truth to Sophia that
I breathed you, lived, was constantly busy...
But this only means that the thought of her merged for him with every noble thought or deed of honor and goodness. He speaks the truth when asking her about Molchalin:
But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor, so that, except for you, the whole world seems like dust and vanity to him?
But underneath this truth lies the dream of his Sophia, as capable of understanding that “the whole world” is “dust and vanity” before the idea of truth and goodness, or, at least, capable of appreciating this belief in the person she loves, capable of loving for it person. He loves only such an ideal Sophia; he does not need another: he will reject the other and broken hearted will do
Search the world, Where there is a corner for the offended feeling.
Look with what deep psychological fidelity the entire conversation between Chatsky and Sophia in Act III is visible. Chatsky keeps asking why he is silent higher And better; he even enters into conversation with him, trying to find in him
A quick mind, a mature genius, -
and yet she cannot, is unable to understand that Sophia loves Molchalin precisely for properties that are opposite to the properties of him, Chatsky, for petty and vulgar properties (she does not yet see Molchalin’s vile traits). Only after being convinced of this, he leaves his dream, but leaves as a husband - irrevocably, he already sees the truth clearly and fearlessly. Then he tells her:
You will make peace with him after mature reflection. Destroy yourself!.. and for what? You can scold him, and swaddle him, and send him to work.
Meanwhile, there is a reason why Chatsky passionately loved this apparently so insignificant and petty nature. What was it about him? Not just childhood memories, but more important reasons, at least physiological. Moreover, this fact is not at all the only one in that strange, ironic cycle that is called life. People like Chatsky often love such petty and insignificant women as Sophia. You could even say that for the most part they like it that way. This is not a paradox. They sometimes meet women who are completely honest, who are quite capable of understanding them, sharing their aspirations, and are not satisfied with them. Sophia is something fatal, inevitable in their life, so fatal and inevitable that for the sake of this they neglect honest and warm-hearted women...
<...>You, gentlemen, who consider Chatsky to be Don Quixote, are especially emphasizing the monologue that ends the third act. But, firstly, the poet himself put his hero here in a comic position and, remaining faithful to the high psychological task, showed what comic outcome untimely energy can take; and secondly, again, you probably haven’t thought about how people with the inclinations of even some kind of moral energy love. Everything he says in this monologue, he says for Sophia; he gathers all the strength of his soul, wants to reveal himself with all his nature, wants to convey everything to her at once.<...>This shows Chatsky’s last faith in Sophia’s nature...; here for Chatsky the question is about the life or death of an entire half of his moral existence. That this personal question merged with a public question is again true to the nature of the hero, who is the only type of moral and manly struggle in the sphere of life that the poet has chosen.<...>
Yes, Chatsky is - I repeat again - our only hero, that is, the only one who is positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion have thrown him.<...>
Chatsky, in addition to his general heroic significance, also has significance historical. He is a product of the first quarter Russian XIX centuries, direct son and heir of the Novikovs 7 and Radishchevs 8, comrade of people
Eternal memory of the twelfth year,
powerful, still deeply believing in itself and therefore a stubborn force, ready to die in a collision with the environment, to die if only because it would leave behind a “page in history”... He does not care that the environment with which he is struggling, positively unable not only to understand him, but even to take him seriously.
But Griboyedov, as a great poet, cares about this. No wonder he called his drama a comedy.
Read also other articles by critics about the comedy "Woe from Wit":
A.A. Grigoriev. Regarding the new edition of an old thing. "Woe from Wit"
- Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" - a representation of secular life
- Characteristics of Chatsky
I.A. Goncharov
V. Belinsky. "Woe from Wit." Comedy in 4 acts, in verse. Essay by A.S. Griboyedova
In the comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" depicts a society of nobles, embodying the features of a backward Russia clinging to past orders. This Famus society of the last century is contrasted with the young nobleman Alexander Andreich Chatsky. Chatsky is a bright representative of the younger generation of Russia, who won the Patriotic War 1812.
Our experts can check your essay using Unified State Exam criteria
Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
This post-war period became a turning point for the country: the unshakable canons of autocracy suddenly began to shake. I got a whiff of it fresh breeze changes and brought into the minds of the Russian people an understanding of the worthlessness of the government and everything social order Russia. Against this socio-political background, free-thinking citizens of the country unite in secret circles and societies. The Decembrists appear.
The young energetic Chatsky and the ossified Famus society personify the struggle of the old and new Russia, young and old generations, an obsolete socio-political system and new reform trends, freethinking. Chatsky is the personification of a man of new times, differing from representatives of the outgoing era in his sober mindset and Decembrist views.
Since Chatsky's late father was a friend of Famusov, Chatsky grew up and was raised in Famusov's family along with his daughter Sophia. Absent from the play detailed description growing up, studying and wanderings of Chatsky. From the monologues of Chatsky and other characters in the work, we can conclude that he received a good education, writes and translates famously, being engaged in literary activities, he visited abroad and served in the Russian army. A three-year stay abroad gave Chatsky the opportunity to expand his horizons, take a fresh look at the world, and acquire new knowledge. However, Chatsky does not at all boast that he has visited other countries, does not bow to everything foreign, like the majority of Famus society. The young nobleman remains a patriot of his homeland; he truly loves Russia and his people. Chatsky condemns and ridicules the stupid orders of the reality around him, he is noble and honest in his judgments.
Chatsky returns to Famusov's house with the hope of meeting Sophia and seeing a renewed Moscow. However, he will be disappointed. His beloved forgot about him, and Moscow appeared before him filled with vulgarity and lies, flattery and stupidity, immorality and limitations. Chatsky finds that Moscow has not changed at all; the same spirit of worthlessness, servility and suppression of the individual reigns here as before 1812.
Chatsky's deep disappointment leads him to inevitable collision with the Famusov society. Enthusiastic at the beginning of the play, Chatsky becomes increasingly bitter towards the end, unable to come to terms with the ossified and established orders of the Moscow nobility. The growing contradiction between Chatsky and Moscow noble society is further aggravated by the fact that Chatsky himself is of noble origin. And this already reveals a struggle within the nobility itself, a struggle of views and beliefs.
1. This struggle of beliefs of two generations is depicted between Famusov, a representative and champion of the old order, and Chatsky, a new man, a Decembrist revolutionary. Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?” exposes and debunks all the baseness and vulgarity of the society of Catherine's era, calling it an era of humility and fear, flattery and arrogance. Unlike Famusov, whose ideal is Maxim Petrovich, a flattering and vile nobleman, Chatsky considers his ideal to be a free-thinking, non-servile and intelligent person.
2. If Famusov and others like him serve for the sake of profit and the opportunity to please an important person, then Chatsky wants to serve for the good and prosperity of his homeland. It is precisely because of the need to serve and please his superiors that Chatsky leaves his service. He is happy to serve, but serving Chatsky is sickening. He strives to benefit his country by engaging in science, literature and art. However, a society clinging to antiquity does not understand the importance of this sphere of activity, and immediately persecutes everyone who is involved in science and culture and declares them to be dangerous dreamers. Such a dangerous dreamer is reputed in Famusov society Chatsky. The good news is that he also has like-minded people in the person of the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya and cousin Skalozub.
3. While Famus society, currying favor with the West, in particular with France, bows to everything foreign and prefers French Russian, Chatsky, like a true patriot, defends in every possible way national culture, despite the fact that he had to visit the West for a long time. He highly values the Russian people, their intelligence and ingenuity, believes in them and strives to improve their lives.
4. In contrast to Famus society, which evaluates a person by his wealth, kinship and number of serfs, Chatsky values a person’s personal qualities, his intelligence, dignity and talent.
5. Famusov and others like him are dependent on the judgments of others, they are afraid to openly express their opinion and act not as they would like, but in such a way as not to arouse the indignation of Princess Marya Aleksevna. The freedom-loving Chatsky, in a conversation with Molchalin, is surprised at the sanctity of someone else's opinion for Moscow inhabitants. He himself appreciates own opinion every person and recognizes the right to defend it.
6. Chatsky caustically ridicules and condemns arbitrariness and despotism, flattery and hypocrisy, the emptiness and worthlessness of the vital interests of the conservative strata of the nobility.
The image of Chatsky is more fully conveyed by his speech, intonation, and manner of communication. Chatsky is an intelligent, highly educated person. His grammatically correct speech characterized by rich vocabulary. He uses both folk expressions and foreign words. In his speech there are also ancient Russian words such as just now, indeed, more, tea. In foreign words he does not show off in vain, but uses them only as a last resort, if suitable Russian word absent. Chatsky reads a lot and uses quotes from literary works. For a more vivid perception of what he said, Chatsky uses many aphorisms.
Chatsky’s speech is quite emotional, it is filled with exclamatory and interrogative sentences, it fully conveys his feelings, be it anger, love, contempt, or ridicule. Chatsky can accurately describe any person.
The tone of his speech depends on Chatsky’s state of mind. When communicating with Sophia, he worries like any lover, so he is talkative and animated. The words addressed to the girl are covered with lyrical notes. When communicating with Famusov at the beginning of the play, he is open and good-natured. However, as he stays in Famus’ deceitful society, Chatsky becomes more and more irritated and his speech reaches the highest intensity of indignation and caustic ridicule at the very end of the work.
When writing a work, the author is faced with the question of how to convey to the reader his understanding of the character of the hero, how to most accurately portray him. First of all, the reader’s attitude towards the character (a speech defect: it would be better to write - the reader’s attitude) is influenced by his actions, his words. The writer can also show the hero’s inner world, his thoughts and feelings, and introspection. For drama distinctive feature The image of the character becomes his characterization by other characters.
An example would be Chatsky in A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit.” How do the characters in the play characterize him?
How does Famusov’s Moscow treat the hero? (Unmotivated repetition of the question.) First of all, Famusov himself, whose house Chatsky visited. “A dandy friend”, “a notorious spendthrift, a tomboy” - this is how Famusov sees his guest. What good can the owner expect?! And therefore he is apprehensive ( grammar mistake: in such an expression should not be used plural, and the only thing is with concern) refers to Chatsky. “I would say, first of all: don’t be a whim...”? - this is what Famusov advises the young man. The owner of the house, wise from experience, considers service necessary for his former pupil. The guest seems too inexperienced to Famusov, and therefore, perhaps, remembering the past, he is trying to help him, to teach him “wits.”
Famusov's guests are close to the owner of the house in relation to the young man. For example, for example, he sees the same “whim” that needs to be eradicated in Chatsky and Khlestov: “I pulled his ears, but not enough.” But, in addition to Famusov’s sister-in-law, he considers it necessary to teach the main character and Molchalin. He advises: “...You should go to Tatyana Yuryevna at least once.” And all because Chatsky seems to Molchalin to be inexperienced, unable to get a job here in Moscow. Thus, Famus society sees Chatsky as a person who does not understand life (an unfortunate turn of phrase; it is better to write “who do not know how to live” or “who do not understand how to live”), and therefore their first feeling is the desire to “teach” the hero, to make him like this, as everybody. But the young man does not “correct”, and the harsh and new speeches for this society do not stop. And Famusov’s Moscow now only has ill will and fear. Already at the beginning of the play, Famusov gets scared: “Ah! My God! He's a Carbonari! Therefore, it is quite understandable why everyone is so grasping at the idea of the hero’s madness: after all, this can explain all the words and actions of Chatsky. And in the eyes of this society, their acquaintance becomes, first of all, a sick person who is not responsible for his actions.
And one more feeling that the hero evokes among Famusov’s guests is even some pity. For example, Khlestova says about Chatsky: “In a Christian way, he is worthy of pity...” But even when he was about to feel sorry young man, they first of all pay attention to his condition (not entirely accurate - it would be better to say “almost immediately pay attention to his condition” or “almost immediately move on to talking about his condition”), completely forgetting the beginning of their conversation. Nevertheless, the feeling of fear (easier to say - fear), the desire to fence off (speech error: correctly - to protect) oneself from a dangerous person, from the point of view of Moscow society, wins. And therefore the princess (which one?) declares about Chatsky (the verb “to declare” does not require a controlled word, so if you write “about Chatsky”, it is better to use the verb “speaks”): “It’s dangerous to talk to him, it’s time to lock him up long ago...” This there was (why the past tense?) a sentence passed on a man with new ideas by Famusov’s Moscow. Only Repetilov denies the insanity of the hero (more precisely, the main character), speaking about him: “He is not stupid...” But they immediately interrupt him, trying to convince him of the opposite.
Sofia is also unkind towards Chatsky. And, most likely, this feeling was caused by his departure: “Ah! If someone loves someone, why bother searching and traveling so far?” And Sophia’s attitude towards all memories (which ones?) changed during the hero’s journey. Now the heroine speaks about Chatsky: “He chats, jokes, it’s funny to me, you can share laughter with everyone.” Sofia characterizes the young man primarily as ready to ridicule everyone. Thus, in her eyes, Chatsky appears as a harsh person, ridiculing everyone (repetition!), but without analyzing at all (grammatical error - use as homogeneous members involved and participial phrases; correctly - analyzing) their actions. In addition, the young man causes Sofia’s sharp rejection when he begins to criticize Molchalin. “Not a man, a snake!” - she says about him.
The only one who approves of Chatsky is the maid Lisa. Only she sees the positive in him: he is so “sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” But even she understands his inconsistency with this (grammatical error: there is no word that could replace the pronoun “this”, it should be written - to the surrounding) society: “And Chatsky, like a thorn in the eye...”
Indeed, the hero interferes with everyone. The main quality that other characters note in Chatsky is his ability to constantly argue and speak evilly about others (an inaccuracy either factual or verbal: Chatsky speaks not evilly, but critically). And in the eyes of Famus society, the main character is precisely a madman, since his mind here in Moscow is not needed, it is incomprehensible. It is difficult for a society with old views and orders to understand a person with completely new ideas.
Chatsky was not the last literary hero with new views, who caused a negative attitude in the surrounding society. Griboyedov was the first to portray such a hero, but a whole galaxy of writers would follow his example, including I. S. Turgenev, N. G. Chernyshevsky, A. P. Chekhov...
---
The author of the essay generally revealed the topic. Perhaps I should write a little more about the attitude of the secondary characters towards Chatsky. Speech errors and substantive shortcomings are few, but they, as well as the not always sufficient detail of the presentation, do not allow us to give an “excellent” rating. Therefore, the most likely grade for such an essay is “good”.
Characteristics of the hero
Chatsky Alexander Andreich is a young nobleman. Representative of the “present century”. A progressive person, well educated, with broad, free views; true patriot.
After a 3-year absence, Ch. comes to Moscow again and immediately appears at Famusov’s house. He wants to see Sophia, whom he loved before leaving and with whom he is still in love.
But Sophia greets Chatsky very coldly. He is perplexed and wants to find the reason for her coldness.
Remaining in Famusov's house, the hero is forced to enter into a fight with many representatives of "Famusov's" society (Famusov, Molchalin, guests at the ball). His passionate accusatory monologues are directed against the order of the century of “obedience and fear,” when “he was the one whose neck was most often bent.”
When Famusov offers Molchalin as an example of a worthy person, Ch. pronounces the famous monologue “Who are the judges?” In it, he denounces the moral examples of the “past century”, mired in hypocrisy, moral slavery, etc. Ch. examines many areas in the life of the country: civil service, serfdom, education of a citizen, education, patriotism. Everywhere the hero sees the prosperity of the principles of the “past century.” Realizing this, Ch. experiences moral suffering, experiences “woe from the mind.” But to no lesser extent the hero experiences “grief from love.” Ch. finds out the reason for Sophia’s coldness towards him - she is in love with the insignificant Molchalin. The hero is offended that Sophia chose him over this “most pitiful creature.” He exclaims: “The silent ones dominate the world!” Very upset, Ch. ends up at a ball in Famusov’s house, where the cream of Moscow society gathered. All these people are a burden to Ch. And they cannot stand the “stranger.” Sophia, offended by Molchalin, spreads a rumor about the hero’s madness. The whole society happily picks it up, putting forward the hero’s free-thinking as the main accusation against Ch. At the ball, Ch. pronounces a monologue about the “Frenchwoman from Bordeaux,” in which he exposes the slavish admiration for everything foreign and the contempt for Russian traditions. At the end of Ch.'s comedy, Sophia's true face is revealed. He is disappointed in her just as in the rest of “Famus” society. The hero has no choice but to leave Moscow.
