Which is the premise of the comedy Woe from Wit. Key scenes in Comedy A

Answers to school textbooks

According to the testimony of Griboedov's friend S. Begichev, the plan for the comedy began to take shape back in 1816 in St. Petersburg, and individual scenes were written at the same time. More often, the origin of the idea is attributed to 1820: according to this version, while in Persia, in 1820, Griboedov had a dream in which he, among his Moscow friends, talked about a comedy that he allegedly wrote, and even read some passages. Waking up, he took a pencil, wrote a plan for the comedy and several scenes of the first act.
The work was conceived by the author as a stage poem with broad socio-philosophical issues, big amount heroes and the author's direct appeal to readers. But the final version did not retain the form of a stage poem, turning into satirical comedy morals “in the spirit” of Fonvizin. Already the first two acts, brought by Griboyedov from the Caucasus in 1823, were thoroughly reworked: the author abandoned some characters, “overloaded” the play, threw out some written scenes. By the fall of 1824, on Begichev’s estate, he finished the play, but later, having left for St. Petersburg, he continued to rework what he had written: he clarified the characteristics of the characters, polished their speech, changed the ending of the work, including the scene of Molchalin’s exposure, and replaced the original title “Woe to Wit” with “Woe from Wit” softened some phrases containing political allusions. Passionately wanting to see the comedy in print and on stage, the playwright compromised, but the work was still banned by censorship. Only after the death of the author, the comedy appeared on the professional stage and was published (with cuts) as a separate publication in 1833. Without censorship distortions, the comedy was published in Russia only in 1862.

2. Analyze the development of conflict in comedy. What does A. S. Griboyedov change in the composition of the play in comparison with the traditional five-act classic comedy? What is the significance of these changes?

The conflict of the comedy “Woe from Wit” represents two lines that develop in parallel and are in constant interconnection, as if pushing each other’s development. One conflict is a love one, in which “the girl herself, who is not stupid, prefers a fool to an intelligent man.” Another conflict is a social one, in which this “smart person” comes into conflict “with the society around him,” where “no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him,” where “25 fools for one sane person” (from a letter from A. Griboyedov P. Katenina). In creating his comedy, Griboedov took an innovative approach to the classicist rule of “three unities” that was dominant in contemporary dramaturgy. The unity of time and place required by classicism (the action takes place during the day and only in Famusov’s house) does not develop artificially, but is motivated by the development of the plot and conflict of the comedy. In the dramaturgy of classicism, the action was “moved” by external causes. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" the author focused all his attention on the inner life of the characters. It is the spiritual world of the characters, their thoughts and feelings that create the system of relationships between the heroes of the comedy and determine the course of the action.
Griboyedov shifted the framework for the development of the conflict that was usual for classic drama. According to the canons, the first act of the play was an exposition, in the second the conflict began, in the third the contradictions grew, the fourth was the climax, and in the fifth the denouement came. Griboyedov leaves only four acts, combining exposition and plot in the first. Chatsky, a childhood friend and admirer of Sofia, who came to Famusov’s house, hopes to explain his feelings to her and make sure of her love. Instead, at the beginning of the day he will find only a cold and indifferent attitude, then hatred, and by the end of the day he will be declared crazy, in which Sophia will play an important role. One day was enough for not only Chatsky’s personal, but also social drama to play out; the incompatibility of a free-thinking personality and a conservative one was revealed. Famusov society, which tries to fit everyone to its own standards. The plot of the work is full of dialogues, which express the whole essence of the confrontation between Chatsky and the society of serf-owners that he hated. In the ball scene, where Griboedov introduces a large number of characters, a real battle will break out with forces far superior to the lonely rebel Chatsky, and he will be forced to flee from Famusov’s house, from Moscow, which he hates, “to search the world // where there is a corner for the offended feeling.” In the play there is no triumph of virtue and punishment of vice, which is obligatory for classicism. If the love conflict receives a resolution (Chatsky learned that Sophia does not love him), then the resolution of the social conflict seems to be taken beyond the scope of the work - into life, where many battles still lie ahead between the Chatskys and the Famusovites. Such an open ending to the work - distinguishing feature realism.

3. What is Chatsky’s role in the development of the love and socio-philosophical lines of conflict in the play? What in the hero’s personality and views predetermined his collision with Famus’s world?

Two lines of conflict in the play - both love and social-philosophical - develop with the active participation in them of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, the main character of the work, who “ smart person“, who is denied intelligence by both Sophia and the representatives of old Moscow, the “past century.” This century is personified by Famusov, his guests and all stage and off-stage characters who live according to laws hated by Chatsky. It is in Chatsky that “another, bright, educated Moscow” (P. Vyazemsky) is embodied; it is this hero who helps Griboyedov show the degree of deep division within the Russian nobility after 1812. So who is he, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, why did he “manage” to turn against himself not only his beloved girl, but also her father, and everyone who knows him well (after all, he grew up and was brought up here, in Moscow, in Famusov’s house)? The fact that Chatsky is smart is recognized by everyone: Sofia, Famusov, and many other representatives of the Moscow society depicted in the play (just look at Famusov’s words: “But if you wanted to, he would be businesslike.” // ...He’s a small-headed guy. // And he writes and translates nicely. // You can’t help but regret that with such a mind..."). What does Famusov regret? About the fact that Chatsky’s mind is not directed where, in Famusov’s opinion, it should be directed: to achieve ranks and titles, awards and honors, promotions, to have a village (and more than one!) with serfs, to imitate such people in everything examples, like Famusov’s uncle Maxim Petrovich. Instead, Famusov becomes convinced with horror that Chatsky is a “Carbonari”, a “Voltairian”, a “Jacobin”: he indignantly attacks those “judges” who are the pillars of noble society, speaks out sharply against the order of the Catherine’s century, which is dear to Famusov - the “century of obedience” and fear,” in which “hunters of indecent behavior” like Maxim Petrovich were especially valued. If Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others view service as a source of personal gain (and at any cost), then Chatsky breaks ties with ministers and leaves service precisely because he would like to serve the Fatherland, and not serve his superiors. He defends the right smart people serve the enlightenment of your country by scientific activity, literature, art, although he perfectly understands that among the Famusovs this is only an opportunity to be known as a “dreamer!” dangerous! He, unlike his persecutors, is against “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of foreigners; he values ​​people for their personal merits, and not for the origin and number of serf souls. It doesn’t matter to him “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say!” Chatsky defends freedom of thoughts and opinions, recognizes the right of every person to have their own beliefs and express them openly. He asks Molchalin: “Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?” Chatsky sharply opposes arbitrariness and despotism, against flattery and hypocrisy, against the emptiness of those vital interests by which Famus society lives. All this, by the standards of Moscow society, is not a sign of “intelligence.” At first they call him strange (“Why look for intelligence and travel so far?” says Sophia), an eccentric, then they declare him crazy. Chatsky himself thinks that he has gone crazy in this “crowd of tormentors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women, old men,” where the best human qualities are declared “nonsense”: “You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed, // Who He’ll have time to spend a day with you, // Breathe the same air // And his sanity will survive.”

4. What in Famusov’s depiction allows us to talk about the ambiguity of this image? Why did Famusov turn out to be the most cruel persecutor of the hero?

Each of the comedy images is a truthfully drawn living face with its own character traits, behavior, speech, which typifies the most common traits of representatives of Griboyedov’s contemporary society. The Moscow nobility is embodied in the image of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, whose image is revealed most fully and vividly. Already on the first pages the viewer sees the duality of this man. Here he reproaches Sophia for “almost jumping out of bed, // With a man!” with the young man! and offers her himself as a model for behavior, because he is “known for his monastic behavior!” This is obvious hypocrisy, because a few minutes ago he was flirting with Lisa and was not at all averse to having an affair with a young maid - not uncommon for rich and noble gentlemen, which Famusov certainly is. His opinion is taken into account in the circle of the Moscow nobility, he is related to many of the Moscow aces, he himself is an ace, but there are such “persons” in Moscow, the mere mention of which brings Famusov into sacred awe (“old men”, “straightforward” retired chancellors - according to the mind." “Irina Vlasevna! Tatyana Yuryevna!”). Such ambiguity of Famusov’s status makes him the focus of the features of the old Moscow nobility. Here he speaks with undisguised pride about Moscow and Muscovites (D. II, Rev. 5). But a word of praise for the Moscow way of life becomes its exposure. Stating that “only here they value the nobility,” Famusov does not mean a sense of dignity, not personal honor, but a person’s pedigree, his nobility, title, rank. For Famusov and his circle, the nobility is a clan, a family, into which even the smartest will not be “included,” but the “badest” will be gladly accepted if he has “two thousand family souls.” Therefore, in response to Sophia’s attempt to at least allegorically, with a hint, inform her father about her feelings for the one “who was born in poverty,” Famusov answers very unequivocally: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you!” He is not against his daughter’s marriage, he would like to see her happy, but he understands happiness in his own way. Lisa says this very correctly: “He would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks, // And money to live on, so that he could give balls...” Famusov and his society have their own ideology, their own views on everything in this society : for books, for learning, for the people, for foreigners, for service, for the purpose and meaning of life. The confidence that a “smart” person simply cannot have any other way of life, other life aspirations other than wealth, a high position in society, power and influence, makes Famusov Chatsky’s main persecutor. How can a person of “their circle”, a noble one, “completely” give up a career, a title, honors and awards, go to the village, sit down to read books, not take into account the opinion of “Pulcheria Andrevna”, have his own views and even dare to express them is something Famusov does not understand, and most importantly, does not accept. He might have endured all the speeches of this “Carbonari”, but... What will “Princess Marya Aleksevna” say about his pupil? This is what Famusov fears most. He cannot help but persecute Chatsky, not take up arms against him, so the gossip about Chatsky’s madness came in handy. Who else is he if not a madman? And Famusov, to please all his noble guests, will add that Chatsky “followed his mother, Anna Aleksevna; // The deceased woman went crazy eight times,” and will name the main reason for madness: “Learning is the plague, learning is the reason...” Famusov is far from stupid, he understands that the time comes when everything that is valuable to him, will collapse that the Chatskys, the enemies of his century, will be to blame. And while his power, his strength, he drives Chatsky away, announcing a “terrible” sentence to him: “... the door will be locked to everyone: // I will try, I will sound the alarm, // I will cause trouble for everyone around the city. .. // I will submit it to the Senate, to the ministers, to the sovereign.” But if the Chatskys are still weak in their struggle, then the Famusovs are powerless to stop the age of enlightenment and advanced ideas. The fight between them is just beginning.

5. Is Chatsky right in concluding that “Silent people are blissful in the world”?

Having concluded that “Silent people are blissful in the world,” Chatsky is absolutely right. From life experience, from what is happening in Famusov’s house between him and Sophia, from the attitude of Famusov’s society towards him, Chatsky, and the “rootless” Molchalin, he draws this conclusion. Do you love Molchalin by Sophia? Chatsky cannot imagine this in any way. For him, Molchalin embodied the most hated traits: sycophancy and servility, extreme careerism, in which they do not disdain anything - from ordinary flattery to masterly techniques of pleasing - lack of his own opinion, cunning, resourcefulness, hypocrisy... “But by the way, he will get there.” known to degrees, // After all, nowadays they love the dumb,” Chatsky will say about Molchalin already at the first meeting with Sophia. And indeed, Sophia gives preference to this “enemy of insolence,” who, in her opinion, “... is ready to forget himself for others.” The opportunist and hypocrite Molchalin, subtly sensitive to this preference of the master’s daughter, allows himself to lecture Chatsky: “Well, really, why would you serve with us in Moscow? // And take awards and have fun?” In a conversation with Chatsky, he will even somewhat condescendingly outline his life principles, which allow him to “receive awards,” including Sophia’s love: “helpful, modest,” “moderation and accuracy,” “we find patronage...”, “ at my age one should not dare // to have one’s own judgment...”, “after all, one must depend on others...” And if at first, having heard about these life principles of Molchalin, Chatsky does not believe in Sophia’s love for this person (“With with such feelings, with such a soul // We love!?”), then the ending will make him understand: “Here I am sacrificed to whom!” Having exclaimed with bitterness: “The silent ones are blissful in the world!”, Chatsky means not only his personal love tragedy. Chatsky denounces all of contemporary Russia for “preferring the Silent Ones,” who live at the request of Tsar Nicholas I to “obey, not reason, and keep their opinions to themselves.” Unfortunately, the Molchalins are very often “blissful” even today...

6. What are the problems in the life of the army in the second half of the 1810-1820s? touched upon by Griboyedov in connection with the image of Skalozub?

The deep division of the Russian nobility after the Patriotic War of 1812 affected, first of all, the army. It was the Russian officers who visited abroad and absorbed the ideas french revolution, and were mainly those “smart”, progressive people who did not want to put up with the orders of feudal Russia. But there were others - defenders of the “past century”, living according to the principles of Famusov and his society. Colonel Skalozub is exactly like that. Mentally slow-witted (“He hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life,” notes Sophia), he is very successful in career advancement, and he absolutely doesn’t care how to “get a rank.” He rejoices that “vacancies are just open; // Then the elders will turn off others, // Others, you see, are killed.” A serviceman who was raised in the barracks, Skalozub talks a lot about what is familiar to him: shoulder straps, piping, buttonholes, huge distances, in a line, sergeant major. He is unable to talk about anything else, as he is completely uneducated. That’s why the fire of Moscow “contributed a lot to her decoration,” Sophia’s excitement, in his opinion, can be explained by “hasn’t our old man made a blunder?” Molchalin’s fall from his horse makes him want to see “how he cracked - his chest or to the side? This pitiful “constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas” is nevertheless very dangerous, because Skalozub is a complete defender of serfdom, an enemy of everything progressive, first of all, education. He hurries to please the Famus society with the news that all will soon be closed educational establishments, and in those that remain, “they will teach in our own way: one, two, //And the books will be kept like this: for greater occasions.” This is Skalozub’s dream: to destroy education and the “clever people” who excite society with their speeches, like his cousin, whose actions he cannot understand: “The rank followed him: he suddenly left the service, // In the village he began to read books...” Skalozub has measures against such “clever men”: “I will give Prince Gregory and you // a sergeant-major to Voltaire, // He will line you up in three ranks, // And if you utter a word, he will instantly calm you down.” Skalozub cannot even imagine that in the near future these “smart guys” will come out to Senate Square, and then go to hard labor and the gallows for their ideas.

7. What personality traits and behavior of Repetilov allow us to consider him a “parody double” of Chatsky?

In his book, Griboedov makes extensive use of the parallelism of characters. There is a double of Chatsky, and this is a parody double, pretending to be a rebel, an oppositionist, a member of some secret society, but is not one. In a letter to the Decembrist A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky (Decembrist writer), Pushkin wrote: “By the way, what is Repetilov? It has 2, 3, 10 characters.” His surname, which comes from French word“repete”, meaning “to repeat”, indicates its distinctive feature - the need to repeat what he heard from others, the absence of his own views and opinions. By his own definition, Repetilov is a “cracker.” He strives to be known as an advanced person, but unlike Chatsky, he is not one. Repetilov's monologues, spoken by him from the moment he appeared in Famusov's house, are quite voluminous, like Chatsky's monologues, but everything he talks about is not his conviction; he understands nothing about the issues that worried him then advanced people. To Chatsky’s question what they are going to do and why they are “raging,” Repetilov will answer: “We’re making noise, brother, we’re making noise.” After listening to him, Chatsky will summarize: “Are you making noise? But only?" Empty verbal chatter, transitions from one topic to another, exclamations - all this testifies to the insignificance of this person. Boasting after Chatsky’s departure of his “friendship” with him, Repetilov explains to Zagoretsky: “He and I... we... have the same tastes.” Why then are they received differently in Famusov’s house? Yes, because Repetilov is not Chatsky, he is not dangerous to Famusov’s society, because he lives by the same principles as all his representatives: “And I would climb into the ranks, but I met failures...”, “... Baron von Klotz was aiming to be a minister, and I was aiming to be his son-in-law,” “what sums of money I spent, God forbid!” He, like everyone else, believes in Chatsky’s madness and leaves Famusov’s house, ordering him to be taken “somewhere”: Repetilov doesn’t care where, about what, or in front of whom to make noise.

8. Why does the image of Sophia suggest the possibility of different interpretations of her image?

The image of Sophia in the comedy is the most ambiguous and therefore allows for different interpretations. How to treat her, how to perceive her? IN different time this heroine was rated differently. In his critical article“A Million Torments” writer I.A. Goncharov says about Sophia: “It’s hard not to sympathize with Sophia Pavlovna: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. She was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light penetrated... After Chatsky... she alone in this crowd begs for some kind of sad feeling...” Actress A. Yablochkina, one of the best performers of the role of Sophia, said: “...the mistress of the house, accustomed to general submission. She has been without a mother for a long time, so she feels like a mistress, hence her imperious tone, her independence... She is on her own mind, mocking, vindictive: undoubtedly, she is a girl with great character.” It's hard to disagree with these characteristics. In Sophia, as, by the way, in any person, the most different, even opposite qualities coexist. She is tender and affectionate towards Molchalin, sarcastic and cruel towards Chatsky. She is ready to do anything for the sake of Molchalin and his love, but with no less readiness she mercilessly and evilly organizes the persecution of Chatsky, becoming the “author” of gossip about his madness. What guides her in these and other actions? We must remember where Sophia grew up and was brought up. She received her education under the guidance of French governesses; She received her ideas about life from observations of the life of people in her circle and from French sentimental novels, which were then very popular among the nobility. Life shaped her independent and proud character, literature - dreaminess and sensitivity. From novels she drew the ideal of her love - a humble, modest, courteous man. Molchalin, in her opinion, possessed precisely such qualities. This is her tragedy: she could not (or did not want?) to see his true essence in this person and was punished for this with bitter disappointment. But why does Chatsky in the finale address mocking and caustic words to Sophia: “You will make peace with him, after mature reflection”? He finally understood why Sophia chose Molchalin: “You can always take care of him, and swaddle him, and send him to work. // A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of the wife’s pages - // The high ideal of all Moscow husbands.” Goncharov expresses the same thought in his article: “... the desire... to elevate him to herself, to her circle... Without a doubt, she smiled at the role of ruling over a submissive creature... and having an eternal slave in him.”
There is a very large grain of truth in this, given that Sophia is smart and one had to really “want to be mistaken” regarding Molchalin’s “merits.” Maybe that’s why she hates Chatsky so much that in the depths of her heart she understands what kind of person she loves, and it’s unpleasant for her that Chatsky also understands this? Then it becomes clear why she treated him so cruelly, inventing gossip about his madness: she was pleased to take revenge on Chatsky for his harsh words about Molchalin, and for his departure abroad three years earlier, and for the collapse of her dream of a husband. a servant, a husband-page, whom she would have made from Molchalin (he wouldn’t have turned out from Chatsky!). She does not refute her father’s speculations that she ran to a secret meeting with Chatsky - this plays into her hands: the truth about Molchalin would become a disaster for the family in the eyes of Moscow. The “new” Sophia, acting in the spirit of a society that Chatsky hates, became for him the most painful “discovery” in Famusov’s Moscow.

9. Prepare a description of the Moscow nobility. What is the relationship of these people (Gorichi, Zagoretsky, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Khlestova, G.N. and G.Y.) with each other, with the owner of the house, Sophia? How do each of the guests meet with Chatsky? What role did each of the cameo characters play in spreading gossip about the hero’s madness?

The Moscow nobility, in addition to Famusov and Skalozub, are represented in the comedy by characters who appear only in the ball scenes, as well as off-stage characters whom we do not see on stage, but about whom we learn from the stories of the characters. Thanks to them, the play intensifies the feeling of the ubiquity of those phenomena that Griboyedov satirically depicts, the spatial and temporal boundaries of the play are expanded: all of Moscow, all of Russia are involved in the action.
Especially vividly characterize Moscow and its noble nobility are the scenes of the ball, the participants of which are the Gorichs, Tukhoukhovskys, Khryumins, Khlestova, Zagoretsky, gentlemen N and B. They seem to be playing out their own mini-play with their own “plot”, which vividly reveals not only them individual qualities, but also traits typical of the whole
Moscow nobility. Firstly, they are all staunch supporters of the autocratic-serf system, avid serf owners who do not see people either in their servants or in the peasants on whose labor they live. Khlestova, who came to Famusov’s ball, accompanied by a “blackamoor girl” and a dog, asks Sophia: “Tell them to feed, already, my friend, // Get a handout from dinner.” Angry at his servants, Famusov shouts: “To work you, to settling you!”
Secondly, they are all united by the main goal in life - career, honors, wealth. Famusov courtes Skalozub in the hope of marrying Sophia to him only because he “is a gold bag and aims to be a general.” The Tugoukhovsky family, having heard about Chatsky, immediately tries to get him as a groom for their many daughters, however, having learned that he is not a “chamber cadet”, is not rich, they don’t even want to hear about him.
Patronage and nepotism are a common occurrence in their world. Each of them cares not about the interests of the state, but only about personal benefit and benefit. That’s why they place their relatives in warm places: what if they come in handy later?
The Moscow nobility tightly guards its interests. A person is valued only by his origin and wealth, and not by his personal qualities: ... we have had it since ancient times that // there is honor according to father and son; // Be bad, but if you get // Two thousand family showers, // That’s the groom.” This is what Famusov says, but the entire Moscow nobility is of the same opinion. Khlestova, arguing with Famusov about the number of serf souls Chatsky has, declares with offense: “I don’t know other people’s estates!” They really know everything about each other, and when it comes to protecting clan interests from persons encroaching on them, these people will stand at nothing. That’s why they slander Chatsky so unanimously: not only did he insult them in one way or another during a personal meeting (he advised Gorich to go to the village, dared to laugh at Khlestova’s words, called “milliners” the ladies who, like the Countess’s granddaughter, adopted everything foreign and etc.), he encroached on the most sacred things: their way of life, the age-old order, their rules, their principles. Therefore, each of them took one or another part in his persecution: G.N G.D. they tried to spread what Sophia said about Chatsky’s madness “all over the world,” the others happily told each other this news, convincing each other that all of Chatsky’s actions were explained only by his madness.

10. What features of classicism, romanticism and realism can be found in the play “Woe from Wit”?

Traditionally, “Woe from Wit” is considered the first Russian realistic comedy. At the same time, the play retains the features of classicism: the principle of “three unities” - place, time and action, a system of traditional roles; Elements of romanticism also appeared (the exclusivity of the main character, his opposition to the crowd, the persecution of the hero by the crowd, the sublime, pathetic nature of his speeches). Realism was expressed primarily in the author’s focus on the reliable recreation of socio-psychological types and the uniqueness of the era. Great importance The comedy also has the everyday realism: in it, as in a mirror, the whole of Moscow is depicted, the images of Muscovites are taken from real life. The principle of meaningful names has been expanded: the characters’ characters are not limited to their surname. The author abandoned the traditional classicism division of characters into positive and negative, thereby bringing them closer to life, in which, as we know, there are only heroes or only villains. By innovatively rethinking the role of the second and third characters in the play, introducing off-stage characters and parallel heroes, Griboyedov was able to significantly expand the temporal and spatial framework of his work, more fully reveal the positions and characters of the characters, and bring, as far as possible, closer piece of art to reality.

11. Find phrases in comedy that have become catchphrases. In what meaning are they used today?

After reading the comedy “Woe from Wit”, A.S. Pushkin said: “I’m not talking about poetry - half of it should be included in proverbs.” The poet's words came true very quickly. Already in May 1825, writer V.F. Odoevsky stated: “Almost all the poems of Griboedov’s comedy have become proverbs...” These phrases have also entered our speech. Let’s open the text of the play and re-read these verses, unusually capacious in meaning and vivid in their artistic form:
- Pass us away more than all sorrows // And lordly anger, And lordly love. (Lisa)
- Happy hours are not observed. (Sofia)
- Is it possible to choose a nook further away for walks? (Famusov)
- Anyone who is poor is not a match for you. (Famusov)
- And for me, whatever matters, what doesn’t matter, // My custom is this: // It’s signed, so off your shoulders. (Famusov)
- And a golden bag, and aims to become a general. (Lisa)
- Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world! (Chatsky)
- When you wander, you return home, // And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us! (Chatsky)
- Mixing languages: // French with Nizhny Novgorod. (Chatsky)
- However, he will reach the known degrees, // After all, nowadays they love the dumb. (Chatsky)
- Not a man, a snake! (Sofia)
- I wanted to travel around the whole world, // And I didn’t travel a hundredth part. (Chatsky)
- What a commission, creator, to be the father of an adult daughter! (Famusov)
Let's stop. We only read the first act of the play. Pearl aphorisms are generously scattered on every page. Almost two centuries have passed since the creation of Griboyedov’s comedy, but it lives on: on the stages of theaters, on the pages of school literature textbooks, in the memory of grateful readers, it continues to answer topical questions and surprise us with its artistic richness.

Lesson objectives:

Educational:

• expand knowledge about A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”;
• learn to analyze the list of actors;
• analyze the key actions of the comedy;
• identify the features of the conflict, reveal the main stages of the comedy plot.

Educational:

• develop the ability to substantiate your point of view with evidence;
• develop the ability to interact in a team.

Equipment: text of the play by A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit” is on every student’s desk.

Hello guys! In the last lesson we talked about the personality of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov, his extraordinary talents and outstanding abilities, about the fate of this man. Apogee literary activity Griboedov’s play in verse “Woe from Wit”, which will be discussed today.

So, first, let's remember the definition of drama.

Drama is one of the main types of literature, along with epic and lyric poetry, intended for production on stage.

Griboedov became the creator of one of the greatest dramas of all time.

Let's touch this greatness, let's try to form our own opinion about the play and its characters.

We need to understand in what historical period the comedy takes place. This is easy to determine by analyzing historical events discussed by the characters in the play. So, the war with Napoleon is already over, but still fresh in the memory of the heroes. The Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm visited Moscow. It is known that this visit took place in 1816. The characters discuss the accusation of three professors Pedagogical Institute in a “call for an attempt on legitimate power,” their expulsion from the university occurred in 1821. The comedy was completed in 1824. Consequently, the time of action is the first half of the 20s of the 19th century.

We open the poster. What do we pay attention to first? ? (Title, list of characters and location)

Read the comedy poster. Think about what in its content resembles elements of classicism? (Unity of place, “speaking” names)

We talked about speaking names. What are they telling us? Let's comment.

Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, manager in a government place - lat. fama - “rumor” or English. Famous - “famous”. A civil servant occupying a fairly high position.

Sofya Pavlovna, his daughter– Sophias are often called positive heroines, wisdom (remember “The Minor” by Fonvizin)

Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin, Famusov’s secretary, who lives in his house, is silent, “the enemy of insolence,” “on tiptoe and not rich in words,” “will reach the famous levels - after all, nowadays they love the dumb.”

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky– originally Chadian (in Chad, Chaadaev); an ambiguous, multifaceted personality whose character cannot be expressed in one word; There is an opinion that the author gave the name Alexander to emphasize some similarity with himself. Griboedov himself said that in his play there were “twenty-five fools for one sane person,” which he considered Chatsky to be.

The surname “Chatsky” carries an encrypted hint to the name of one of the most interesting people of that era: Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. The fact is that in the draft versions of “Woe from Wit” Griboedov wrote the hero’s name differently than in the final version: “Chadsky”. Chaadaev’s surname was also often pronounced and written with one “a”: “Chadaev.” This is exactly how, for example, Pushkin addressed him in the poem “From the Sea Shore of Taurida”: “Chadaev, do you remember the past?..”

Chaadaev participated in Patriotic War 1812, in the anti-Napoleonic campaign abroad. In 1814, he joined the Masonic lodge, and in 1821 he suddenly interrupted his brilliant military career and agreed to join a secret society. From 1823 to 1826, Chaadaev traveled around Europe, comprehended the latest philosophical teachings, met Schelling and other thinkers. After returning to Russia in 1828-30, he wrote and published a historical and philosophical treatise: “Philosophical Letters.”

The views, ideas, judgments - in a word, the very system of worldview of the thirty-six-year-old philosopher turned out to be so unacceptable for Nicholas Russia that the author “ Philosophical letters“suffered an unprecedented and terrible punishment: by the highest (that is, personally imperial) decree, he was declared crazy.

Colonel Skalozub, Sergei Sergeevich– often reacts inadequately to the words of the heroes, “cliffs”.

Natalya Dmitrievna, young lady, Platon Mikhailovich, her husband, - Gorichi- a woman is not in the first place (!), Platon Mikhailovich is a friend and like-minded person of Chatsky, but a slave, is under pressure from his wife and society - “grief”.

Prince Tugoukhovsky And Princess, his wife, with six daughters - again there are many women who actually have difficulty hearing, the motive is deafness.

Khryumins– the name speaks for itself – a parallel with pigs.

Repetilov– (from the French Repeter – “to repeat”) – carries the image of a pseudo-oppositionist. Having no opinion of his own, Repetilov repeats other people's thoughts and expressions. The author contrasts him with Chatsky as an internally empty person who tries on “other people’s views and thoughts.”

§ Try to determine its key themes by the title of the comedy and the poster.

While reading dramatic work It is very important to be able to highlight individual scenes and follow the overall development of the action.

How many key scenes can be roughly identified in the comedy “Woe from Wit”? What scenes are these?

15 key scenes:

1 – events in Famusov’s house on the morning of Chatsky’s arrival through the eyes of Lisa;

2 – Chatsky’s arrival at Famusov’s house;

3 – morning events and their development through the eyes of Famusov;

4 – the first clash between Chatsky and Famusov;

5 – scene with Skalozub;

6 – Chatsky’s reflections on Sophia’s coldness;

7 – Sophia fainting, Molchalin’s declaration of love to Liza;

8 – explanation of Sophia and Chatsky;

9 – verbal duel between Chatsky and Molchalin;

10 – guests in Famusov’s house, the emergence of gossip about Chatsky’s madness;

11 – spreading gossip;

12 – Chatsky’s “fight” with his opponents;

13 – departure of guests from the ball;

14 – clash between Chatsky and Repetilov;

15 – Chatsky’s departure from Famusov’s house.

Now remember the main components of the plot of a dramatic work. Commencement – ​​development of action – climax – denouement.

Which scene in the comedy “Woe from Wit” can be considered the beginning? The arrival of Chatsky, as the main conflicts arise - love and social. The climax? The last scene (immediately before the denouement - the final monologue and Chatsky’s departure), in which Molchalin’s pretense towards Sophia is revealed and Chatsky learns that he owes the rumors about his madness to Sophia. The denouement? Chatsky's departure, his greatest disappointment.

Even a brief summary of the highlighted scenes allows us to say that the work is based on at least 2 intrigues. Which? (Love - Chatsky loves Sophia, she loves Molchalin, and social - the clash between Chatsky and Famus society).

The first such scene is the arrival of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky at the Famusovs’ house. “It’s barely light and you’re already on your feet! And I’m at your feet!” - this is how he greets Sofya Pavlovna, Famusov’s daughter, with whom he was in love as a child.

Actually, it is for the sake of meeting this girl that he returns from abroad, in such a hurry to get a visit. Chatsky does not yet know that during the three years of separation, Sophia’s feelings for him have cooled, and now she is passionate about Molchalin, her father’s secretary.

However, Chatsky, having arrived at the Famusovs, does not limit himself to attempts at amorous explanations with Sophia. During the years spent abroad, he adopted many liberal ideas that seemed rebellious in Russia early XIX century, especially for people whose most of their lives passed back in Catherine’s era, when favoritism flourished. Chatsky begins to criticize the way of thinking of the older generation.

Therefore, the next key scenes of this comedy are Chatsky’s dispute with Famusov about “the present century and the past century,” when both of them pronounce their famous monologues: Chatsky asks, “Who are the judges?..”, wondering whose authority Famusov is referring to in this way. He believes that the heroes of the 18th century are not at all worthy of such admiration.

Famusov, in turn, points out that “We should have watched what our fathers did!” - in his opinion, the behavior of the favorites of Catherine’s era was the only correct one; serving the authorities was commendable.

The next key scene of the comedy is the scene of the ball in the Famusovs’ house, at which many people close to the owner of the house come. This society, living according to the rules of Catherine’s era, is shown very satirically - it is emphasized that Gorich is under the thumb of his wife, the old woman Khlestova does not even consider her little black maid a person, and the ridiculous Repetilov actually does not represent anything.

Chatsky, being a liberal, does not understand such people. He is especially offended by the Gallomania accepted in society - the imitation of everything French. He takes on the character of a “preacher at a ball” and pronounces a whole monologue (“There is an insignificant meeting in that room...”), the essence of which boils down to the fact that many peasants in Russia consider their masters almost foreigners, because there are no almost nothing natively Russian.

However, the public gathered at the ball is not at all interested in listening to his reasoning; everyone prefers to dance.

The last key episode is the denouement of the comedy. When Chatsky and Famusov catch Sophia on a secret date with Molchalin, something happens in the lives of all the characters. sharp turn: The father is going to send Sophia from Moscow “to the village, to her aunt, to the wilderness, to Saratov,” and her maid Liza also wants to send her to the village “to fetch chickens.”

And Chatsky is shocked by this turn of events - he could not imagine that his beloved Sophia could be carried away by the poor, helpful secretary Molchalin, could prefer him to Chatsky himself.

After such a discovery, he has nothing to do in this house. In the final monologue (“I won’t come to my senses, it’s my fault...”), he admits that his arrival and behavior may have been a mistake from the very beginning. And he leaves the Famusovs’ house - “A carriage for me, a carriage!”

In his comedy, Griboyedov reflected a remarkable time in Russian history - the era of the Decembrists, the era of noble revolutionaries who, despite their small numbers, were not afraid to speak out against autocracy and the injustice of serfdom. The socio-political struggle of progressive-minded young nobles against the noble guardians of the old order forms the theme of the play. The idea of ​​the work (who won in this struggle - “the present century” or the “past century”?) is solved in a very interesting way. Chatsky leaves “out of Moscow” (IV, 14), where he lost his love and where he was called crazy. At first glance, it was Chatsky who was defeated in the fight against Famus’s society, that is, with the “past century.” However, the first impression here is superficial: the author shows that the criticism of the social, moral, ideological foundations of modern noble society, which is contained in Chatsky’s monologues and remarks, is fair. No one from Famus society can object to this comprehensive criticism. That’s why Famusov and his guests were so happy about the gossip about the madness of the young whistleblower. According to I.A. Goncharov, Chatsky is a winner, but also a victim, since Famus society suppressed its one and only enemy quantitatively, but not ideologically.

"Woe from Wit" is a realistic comedy. The conflict of the play is resolved not at the level of abstract ideas, as in classicism, but in a specific historical and everyday situation. The play contains many allusions to Griboyedov’s contemporary life circumstances: a scientific committee opposing enlightenment, Lancastrian mutual education, the Carbonari struggle for the freedom of Italy, etc. The playwright's friends definitely pointed to the prototypes of the comedy heroes. Griboedov deliberately achieved such a resemblance, because he depicted not the bearers of abstract ideas, like the classicists, but representatives of the Moscow nobility of the 20s of the 19th century. The author, unlike the classicists and sentimentalists, does not consider it unworthy to depict the everyday details of an ordinary noble house: Famusov fusses around the stove, reprimands his secretary Petrushka for his torn sleeve, Liza moves the hands of the clock, the hairdresser curls Sophia’s hair before the ball, in the finale Famusov scolds all the household . Thus, Griboyedov combines serious social content and everyday details of real life, social and love plots in the play.

The exhibition “Woe from Wit” is the first phenomena of the first act before Chatsky’s arrival. The reader gets acquainted with the scene of action - the house of Famusov, a Moscow gentleman and official mediocre, sees him himself when he flirts with Liza, finds out that his daughter Sophia is in love with Molchalin, Famusov’s secretary, and was previously in love with Chatsky.

The plot takes place in the seventh scene of the first act, when Chatsky himself appears. Two storylines immediately begin - love and social. The love story is built on a banal triangle, where there are two rivals, Chatsky and Molchalin, and one heroine, Sophia. The second storyline - social - is determined by the ideological confrontation between Chatsky and the inert social environment. Main character in his monologues he denounces the views and beliefs of the “past century”.

First, the love storyline comes to the fore: Chatsky was previously in love with Sophia, and the “distance of separation” did not cool his feelings. However, during Chatsky’s absence in Famusov’s house, a lot has changed: the “lady of his heart” greets him coldly, Famusov speaks of Skalozub as a prospective groom, Molchalin falls from his horse, and Sophia, seeing this, cannot hide her anxiety. Her behavior alarms Chatsky:

Confusion! fainting! haste! anger! scared!
So you can only feel it
When you lose your only friend. (11.8)

The climax of the love storyline is the final explanation between Sophia and Chatsky before the ball, when the heroine declares that there are people whom she loves more than Chatsky and praises Molchalin. The unfortunate Chatsky exclaims to himself:

And what do I want when everything is decided?
It’s a noose for me, but it’s funny for her. (III, 1)

Social conflict develops in parallel with love conflict. In the very first conversation with Famusov, Chatsky begins to speak out on social and ideological issues, and his opinion turns out to be sharply opposed to Famusov’s views. Famusov advises serving and cites the example of his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who knew how to fall at the right time and profitably make Empress Catherine laugh. Chatsky declares that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening” (II, 2). Famusov praises Moscow and the Moscow nobility, which, as has been the custom for centuries, continues to value a person solely by his noble family and wealth. Chatsky sees in Moscow life “the meanest traits of life” (II, 5). But still, at first, social disputes recede into the background, allowing the love storyline to fully unfold.

After the explanation of Chatsky and Sophia before the ball, the love story is apparently exhausted, but the playwright is in no hurry with its denouement: it is important for him to unfold social conflict, which now comes to the fore and begins to actively develop. Therefore, Griboyedov comes up with a witty twist in the love storyline, which Pushkin really liked. Chatsky did not believe Sophia: such a girl cannot love the insignificant Molchalin. The conversation between Chatsky and Molchalin, which immediately follows the culmination of the love storyline, strengthens the protagonist in the idea that Sophia joked: “He’s being naughty, she doesn’t love him” (III, 1). At the ball, the confrontation between Chatsky and Famus society reaches its highest intensity - the culmination of the social storyline occurs. All the guests joyfully pick up the gossip about Chatsky's madness and defiantly turn away from him at the end of the third act.

The denouement comes in the fourth act, and the same scene (IV, 14) unleashes both the love and social storylines. In the final monologue, Chatsky proudly breaks with Sophia and last time mercilessly denounces Famus society. In a letter to P.A. Katenin (January 1825), Griboyedov wrote: “If I guess the tenth scene from the first scene, then I gape and run out of the theater. The more unexpectedly the action develops or the more abruptly it ends, the more exciting the play.” Having made the finale the departure of the disappointed Chatsky, who seemed to have lost everything, Griboyedov completely achieved the effect he wanted: Chatsky is expelled from Famus’s society and at the same time turns out to be a winner, since he disrupted the serene and idle life of the “past century” and showed his ideological inconsistency.

The composition “Woe from Wit” has several features. Firstly, the play has two storylines that are closely intertwined. The beginnings (Chatsky's arrival) and the ending (Chatsky's last monologue) of these storylines coincide, but still the comedy is based on two storylines, because each of them has its own climax. Secondly, the main plot line is social, since it runs through the entire play, while love relationship are clear from the exposition (Sofya loves Molchalin, and Chatsky is a childhood hobby for her). The explanation of Sophia and Chatsky occurs at the beginning of the third act, which means that the third and fourth acts serve to reveal the social content of the work. IN social conflict Chatsky, guests Famusova, Repetilov, Sofya, Skalozub, Molchalin participate, that is, almost all the characters, and in the love story there are only four: Sofya, Chatsky, Molchalin and Lisa.

To summarize, it should be noted that “Woe from Wit” is a comedy of two storylines, with the social one taking up much more space in the play and framing the love one. That's why genre originality“Woe from mind” can be defined as follows: social, not domestic comedy. The love storyline plays a secondary role and gives the play life-like verisimilitude.

Griboedov's skill as a playwright is manifested in the fact that he skillfully interweaves two storylines, using a common beginning and ending, thus maintaining the integrity of the play. Griboyedov’s skill was also expressed in the fact that he came up with original plot twists (Chatsky’s reluctance to believe in Sophia’s love for Molchalin, the gradual unfolding of gossip about Chatsky’s madness).

Lesson topic: “Acquaintance with the heroes of the comedy “Woe from Wit.”

Analysis of the first action."

Lesson objectives: comment on the 1st act of A.S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, during the analysis, identify the plot of the comedy, form initial ideas about the conflict, continue to develop the skill of analyzing a dramatic work, taking into account its genre specifics.

During the classes:

1. introduction teachers. A conversation about the perception of comedy.

Today we are starting a conversation about the immortal comedy of Griboyedov. However, when it appeared, not everyone was delighted with the playwright’s work; some critics could not even imagine that this play would outlive its creator by at least two hundred years.

What impression did Griboyedov’s play make on you?

Is the story told in Griboyedov's play sad or funny for you?

The work had a difficult road to the stage. A book could also be written about this path.

! History of the comedy. (Student message.)

Griboyedov’s best friend S.N. Begichev wrote: “I know that the plan for this comedy was made by him in St. Petersburg in 1816 and several scenes were even written, but I don’t know whether it was in Persia or Georgia that Griboyedov changed them in many ways and destroyed some of the characters...”

V.V. Shneider, Griboyedov’s classmate at Moscow University, said that Griboyedov began writing comedy back in 1812. This point of view exists, although its author was over 70 years old at that time, and perhaps he forgot something or confused something. True, given Griboyedov’s extraordinary abilities, it can be assumed that the 17-year-old boy was capable of creating such a work.

There is also a version that Griboyedov dreamed about the plot of the comedy. Moreover, the author himself, in a letter from Tehran dated November 17, 1820 (the addressee of the letter is unknown), confirms it: “...When should it be ready? - In a year, take an oath... And I gave it with trepidation... I woke up... the cold of the night dispelled my unconsciousness, lit the candle in my temple, I sat down to write, and vividly remember my promise; GIVEN IN A DREAM, WILL BE FULFILLED IN REALITY!»

Comedy was completed by the fall of 1824 . The 1st (draft) edition of the play has also been preserved, which is now in the Moscow State historical museum. Griboyedov really wanted to see the comedy in print and on stage, but a censorship ban was imposed on it. The only thing we managed to do after much trouble was to print the excerpts with censored edits. However, the comedy reached reading Russia in the form of “lists”. The success was amazing: “Thunder, noise, admiration, curiosity has no end” (from a letter to Begichev, June 1824). In another letter he writes: “Listening to his comedy, I did not criticize, but enjoyed.”

Only after the death of the author, comedy appeared on the professional stage. First separate edition"Woe from Wit" was released in Moscow in 1833 year(with censored notes). The comedy's original title was "Woe to my mind." Then the author changes it to "Woe from Wit."

It is impossible to cause grief to a real mind, but grief can very well come from the mind.

The plot basis of the work is dramatic conflict, a stormy clash between an intelligent, noble and freedom-loving hero and the noble environment around him. As a result, the hero himself drank the full measure of “Woe from Your Own Wit.” “Woe from Wit” closes the first period of literary activity

A. S. Griboedova.

In the future, the time of intense creative quest comes for him. To the questions and wishes of his friends, he answered: “...I won’t write any more comedy, my gaiety has disappeared, and without gaiety there is no good comedy.”

Which of the characters in the play do you find most attractive and who the most repulsive?

What comedy scene do you most vividly imagine?

II Repetition of the concept of “comedy of classicism”.

What are genre features works by Griboyedov?

(Comedy- one of the dramatic works.

Features of such a work: lack of author's narration (but there is a list of characters and stage directions); limiting the action to spatial and temporal frameworks, hence revealing the character’s character through moments of confrontation (the role of conflict); organization of speech in the form of dialogues and monologues that are addressed not only to other characters, but also to the viewer; stages of conflict development (exposition, beginning, development of action with culmination, denouement).

What style did the classicists classify comedy as?

(In the system of genres of classicism, comedy belongs to the lowest style.)

What are the features of classic comedy?

(The principle of unity of place, time and action; role system, the play, as a rule, has 4 acts - the third is the climax, the fourth is the denouement. Features of the exposition: the play opens minor characters, which introduce the viewer to the main characters and tell the backstory. The action is slowed down by long monologues. Vice is punished - virtue triumphs.)

What are the features of the plot in a classic comedy?

(One of the main plot schemes of the comedy of classicism is the struggle of two contenders for the hand of one girl, the positive one is poor, but endowed with high moral qualities; it all ends in a happy dialogue.)

Can we say that this is a classic comedy?

(Of course not, although we see elements of classic comedy: unity of time, places, telling names.)

The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a work in which momentary ideological and political disputes are accurately reproduced and at the same time problems of a national and universal nature are identified. These problems in the play are born of the collision of a bright personality with an inert social structure, according to the author himself, "sensible person" With "twenty-five fools."

Such a collision "the contradiction between characters, or characters and circumstances, or within character, underlying an action" is called conflict. Conflict is the mainspring» , a source of dynamic tension in a literary work, ensuring the development of the plot.

Plot- This “the chain of events depicted in a literary work, that is, the life of the characters in its spatio-temporal changes, in successive positions and circumstances.” The plot not only embodies the conflict, but also reveals the characters' characters, explains their evolution, etc.

What plot elements do you know?

Which ones are major and which are secondary?

What are distinctive features each (exposition, plot, development of action, climax, denouement)?

Is it possible to rearrange them?

What artistic effect is achieved?

III. Analysis of the list of actors.

Reading the poster.

Speaking names.

FAMUSOV(from the Latin Fama - “rumour”) - embodied the ability to hide, to advantageously explain the meaning of one’s own and others’ actions. His dependence on public opinion, rumors and is emphasized by his “speaking” surname.

REPETILOV(from the French Repeter - “to repeat”) - carries the image of a pseudo-oppositionist. Having no opinion of his own, Repetilov repeats other people's thoughts and expressions. The author contrasts him with Chatsky as an internally empty person who tries on “other people’s views and thoughts.”

MOLCHALIN- he is timid and silent with Sophia and Famusov, but with Liza and Chatsky he turns into a “talker” and a rake. Obviously, his surname carries a hint of hidden and important properties nature.

Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub, Khryumina, Khlestova, Zagoretsky.

Heroes are characterized based on the following criteria: the principle of birth and place on the career ladder.

Chatsky and Repetilov are deprived of these characteristics.

Why?!

The surname Chatsky is “rhymed” ( Chadsky - Chaadaev).

With his comedy, Griboyedov foresaw the fate of P.Ya. Chaadaeva.

The surname “Chatsky” carries an encrypted hint to the name of one of the most interesting people of that era: Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. The fact is that in the draft versions of “Woe from Wit” Griboedov wrote the hero’s name differently than in the final version: “Chadsky”. Chaadaev’s surname was also often pronounced and written with one “a”: “Chadaev.” This is exactly how, for example, Pushkin addressed him in the poem “From the Sea Shore of Taurida”: “Chadaev, do you remember the past?..”

Chaadaev took part in the Patriotic War of 1812, in the anti-Napoleonic campaign abroad. In 1814, he joined the Masonic lodge, and in 1821 he suddenly interrupted his brilliant military career and agreed to join a secret society. From 1823 to 1826, Chaadaev traveled around Europe, comprehended the latest philosophical teachings, and met Schelling and other thinkers. After returning to Russia in 1828-30, he wrote and published a historical and philosophical treatise: “Philosophical Letters.”

The views, ideas, judgments - in a word, the very system of worldview of the thirty-six-year-old philosopher turned out to be so unacceptable for Nicholas Russia that the author of the Philosophical Letters suffered an unprecedented and terrible punishment: by the highest (that is, personally imperial) decree, he was declared crazy.

It so happened that the literary character did not repeat the fate of his prototype, but predicted it. And here we come to the most important issue: what is Chatsky’s madness?

1. Analysis of the first act of the comedy.

What are phenomena 1–5 in terms of plot development?

(Phenomena 1–5 in terms of plot development are exposition).

What intrigue starts at the very beginning?

(The secret love of a master's daughter and a rootless secretary. Chatsky's unexpected arrival is the beginning of a comedic action, a love conflict: Chatsky is in love with Sophia, she is in love with Molchalin.)

What is the atmosphere of life in Famusov’s house and its inhabitants themselves? Let's try to imagine what Famusov's house looks like.

(In the morning, together with Famusov, we walk around it. The house is rich, spacious, and boring. Everything is as it should be - and there are no traces of the personality of the owners. They have no hobbies, passions, or even activities. The house is boring because life here is motionless. Sophia, probably , not only because of love impatience says to Molchalin: “Go; We'll be bored all day long.")

What information do we get about characters who have not yet appeared on the scene?

(From Lisa’s words we learn about Chatsky and Colonel Skalozub.)

Why did Famusov allow himself to be deceived? After all, the situation was very frank, Sophia’s story about the dream is transparent: she cannot immediately renounce the oblivion of music and love; (Molchalin is almost clearly the “hero of the dream” told by her (and this is evidence of the sincerity of her love). And the monosyllabic nature of Molchalin’s answers and Sophia’s intervention are suspicious for Famusov. But Famusov never learned anything. Why?

(First of all, despite all his rudeness, Famusov is simple-minded. So, praising his concerns for his daughter, he talks about Madame Rosier, whom "knew how to hire" How "second mother" ; but it immediately turns out that his insight was not too sharp: "rare rules" this "old ladies of gold" didn't stop her from running away to others “for an extra five hundred rubles a year.” When asking questions, Famusov almost does not allow others to speak; he is so talkative that, jumping from one subject to another, he almost forgets about his intentions. But this alone is difficult to explain his agreement to close his eyes to everything he saw.

Perhaps, main reason his blindness is that he doesn’t want to see anything, he’s just lazy, he’s afraid of “trouble”. After all, if you take all this seriously, you have to start a scandal with Sophia, drive out Molchalin... Famusov does not like change; it is convenient for him to live the way he lives. And the precautions boil down to the fact that he scolds everyone and “Leaves with Molchalin, lets him in first at the door” so as not to leave his secretary with his daughter.

In what phenomenon does Chatsky appear? How does Chatsky enter?

(1d., 7th Jan. He is energetic, happy, excited, anticipating the meeting that he has been waiting for so long. This first scene is very important. Here is the beginning of that tragic delusion that will ultimately make Chatsky the hero of a comedy.)

What made Chatsky leave Moscow?

(Boredom, which even falling in love with Sophia could not overcome. His exacting criticism inevitably led to “sadness”; it overshadowed the joy of love. And Chatsky leaves "search your mind" , to look for the positive foundations of life, its enlightenment. Love for the homeland (it’s not for nothing that he talks about "smoke of the fatherland") and falling in love with Sophia return him to Moscow.

Chatsky is a hero of action, an enthusiast by nature. But in Famusov’s Moscow, energy and enthusiasm are not only illegal” - they have nothing to feed on. And Chatsky “throws himself” into love, as into a living, immediate and deep element of life.)

How does Sophia greet him? (Her behavior is very accurately given by Griboyedov in the mirror of Chatsky’s remarks.)

Why does Sophia's secular courtesy give way to coldness, irony and hostility? What irritates Sophia about Chatsky?

How does Chatsky try to restore the tone of his previous relationship with Sophia? What struck Chatsky most about Sophia and why didn’t he immediately understand that love was lost?

What changed for Chatsky in Famusov’s house and how did he himself change?

What is Chatsky’s irony directed against?

(Dialogue between Chatsky and Sophia - Chatsky’s satirical denunciation of Moscow morals)

What in the lifestyle and behavior of the Moscow nobility causes Chatsky’s condemnation? How is the nature of the hero himself revealed in his accusatory speeches?

Did the conflict appear in events 8-10, between whom, what is its nature?

1. Summarizing.

Expositionintroduces the reader to the house of the Moscow master Famusov. His 17-year-old daughter Sophia is in love with her father's poor secretary, Molchalin. They meet secretly from their father. Sophia's maid Lisa helps with this. From a conversation between Lisa and Sophia we learn that three years ago Chatsky, who was brought up in the Famusovs’ house, went to “search for his mind” in St. Petersburg, then abroad.

The beginning of a comedy is the unexpected arrival of Chatsky, who passionately confesses his love to Sophia. This is how it arises external conflict : fight for the bride, love triangle - Sophia loves Molchalin, Chatsky loves Sophia. The dialogue between Sophia and Chatsky reveals Sophia’s complete indifference to her childhood friend. The conflict is complicated by the fact that Sofia Famusov’s father would not be happy with either one or the other applicant: Molchalin is poor and rootless, Chatsky is also not rich, in addition he is freethinking and daring.

2 Individual task: prepare for expressive reading

Chatsky's monologues “And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid...”, “Who are the judges?” and Famusov “That’s it, you are all proud!”, “Taste, father, excellent manner.”

1. Answer the questions: “Why does Chatsky enter into an argument with Famusov. Why is a clash between Chatsky and Famusov’s Moscow inevitable?”

Plot and exposition

You know that I am not flattered by interests;
Better tell me why
You and the young lady are modest, but what about the maid?

Oh! Move away from the gentlemen;
They have troubles prepared for themselves at every hour,
Pass us away more than all sorrows
And lordly anger, and lordly love.

Here's how she sums up the created qui pro quo:

Well! people around here!
She comes to him, and he comes to me,
And I...... I am the only one who crushes love to death. –
How can you not love the bartender Petrusha!

Lisa amazingly formulates the “moral law”:

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Taking advantage of her privileged position in the house, she often talks to Famusov, the young lady, and Molchalin in a commanding, demanding, even capricious manner.

Famusov:

You are a spoiler, these faces suit you!

Let me in, you little windbags,

Come to your senses, you are old...

Please go.

Sofya and Molchalin:

Yes, disperse. Morning.

Molchalin:

Please let me in, there are two of you without me.

Liza’s speech is rich in popular expressions:

You need an eye and an eye.

And fear does not take them!

Well, why would they take away the shutters?

These faces suit you!

I'll bet it's nonsense...

She often has incomplete sentences without predicates:

Where are we going?

Foot in the stirrup
And the horse rears up,
He hits the ground and straight to the crown of his head.

In general, you can copy aphorisms from a comedy without missing anything, but Lizin’s language is somehow especially good for its Moscow flavor and complete lack of bookishness.
It is impossible not to give another example of Lisa’s sharp tongue:

Push, know that there is no urine from the outside,
Your father came here, I froze;
I spun around in front of him, I don’t remember that I was lying...

Lizanka wonderfully defined the nature of her actions with a verblie.This word and all those close to it in meaning -not true, you're all lying, to be deceived - will turn out to be not just important in the first four phenomena, but key. Because all the characters lie here:

Lisa - because she must protect Sophia from her father’s wrath.

The young lady herself - to protect herself and her lover from troubles. « He just came in now", she says to her father. And for greater plausibility he will then add: “ You deigned to run in so quickly, // I was confused..." At the end of this scene, Sophia, having recovered “from fright,” composes a dream where, as Famusov says, “ everything is there if there is no deception" But, as we understand, there is deception here too. And just towards the end, at the end of the first act, Sophia, in our opinion, is not only lying, but intriguing, transferring Famusov’s suspicions from Molchalin to Chatsky: “ Ah, father, sleep in hand».

Of course, Molchalin also lies in this scene, he does it easily and naturally - in order to avoid personal troubles: “ Now from a walk».

All of them - Lisa, Sophia, and Molchalin - in other words, the youth of the Famusov house, “children”, or, if you like, representatives of the “present century” - they all deceive the old father, master, owner, patron. They consider him an old man, “a century gone by,” although he himself, if you remember his scene with Lisa, is not always ready to come to terms with this.

Lisa:Come to your senses, you are old...
Famusov: Almost.

It is clear that when flirting with Lisa, Famusov is in no hurry to admit that he is an old man, but in a conversation with his daughter he refers to his advanced age: “he lived to see his gray hair.” And with Chatsky too: “In my years...”.

Perhaps from the first minute, before the clock has even been changed, some kind of conflict ensues, quite clearly. This conflict, as Lisa asserts in her very first short monologue, will certainly end in disaster, because “father,” aka “uninvited guest,” can enter at any moment, and young lovers - we don’t yet know that Molchalin loves Sophia “ position" - they show a strange deafness: " And they hear, they don’t want to understand».

Lisa, as we remember, performs some manipulations with the arrows, and in response to the noise, of course, Famusov appears - the one whose arrival everyone should be afraid of. So it looks like the conflict begins to develop. Lisa "spins" to avoid at this hour and in this meeting place of all persons involved in the “domestic” conflict. It seems impossible to avoid a scandal. After all intelligent and observant Famusov will immediately draw attention to the strangeness of what is happening. Lisa, demanding silence from him, because Sophia " I’ve been sleeping now,” and “I spent the whole night reading // Everything in French, out loud", and as Famusov should know, since he " not a child”, “for girls, the morning sleep is so thin, // The slightest creak of the door, the slightest whisper – Everyone hears“He won’t believe it. How he doesn’t believe her from the very beginning. The presence of intent is obvious to Famusov(« Just by chance, keep an eye on you; // Yes, that's right, with intent"), but I don't want to figure it out. He himself is a “pampered man” and flirts with the maid.

It should be noted that Liza will not let the master down either and will not tell Sophia about his advances. Only when Famusov boasts that he is “known for his monastic behavior!” will Lizanka immediately respond: “I dare, sir...”.

It is unlikely that the maid wanted to expose the master and catch him in a lie, although, of course, one could suspect her of this. Famusov is exposed and incriminated by none other than the viewer, the reader, to whom Liza’s remark is made precisely at the moment when Pavel Afanasyevich says: “ There is no need for another example, // When the example of the father is in the eyes“, - should remind you of how he flirted with the maid some time ago, and now he lies as easily and naturally as his secretary, maid and daughter.

Just like Sophia and Molchalin, Famusov hears everything in the scene with Lisa, but does not want to understand and does everything possible to avoid a scandal.

The motive of the mind is madness

Have mercy, how you scream!
Crazy are you going?

Lisa calmly answers:

I'm afraid it won't work out...

It does not occur to Lisa, nor to the reader-viewer, nor to Pavel Afanasyevich himself that the master really considers the maid insane. Idiom you're going crazy works the way an idiom should work: it does not carry a specific semantic load and is, as it were, a metaphor. So in the second act, Famusov will tell Chatsky: “Don’t be a whim.” And in the third he calls Famusov Khlestov himself “crazy”:

After all, your father is crazy:
He was given three fathoms of daring, -
He introduces us without asking, is it pleasant for us, isn’t it?

When in the first scene of the third act Sophia throws aside: “ I reluctantly drove you crazy!” – the intrigue has not yet been conceived by her, but already in the fourteenth scene of the same action the innocent idiom will work. " He has a screw loose“, - Sophia will say about Chatsky to a certain Mr. N, and he will ask: “Are you crazy?” And Sophia, after a pause, will add: “Not really...” She already understood how she would take revenge on Chatsky: her “keeping silent” was worth a lot. But we'll talk about this later. Now it is important for us that in a neutral, ordinary situation without additional intrigue, words about madness do not carry a threat, a diagnosis, or slander, and the characters in the play understand and use them the same way as you and I do.

The motive of moralizing. Sample

But the line of moral teaching opens as soon as Sophia’s passion for reading is reported. Famusov immediately remembers that he is not just a gentleman who is not averse to having an affair with a maid on occasion, but also “the father of an adult daughter.” “Tell me,” he says to Lisa, “that it’s not good to spoil her eyes, // And reading is of little use: // French books keep her from sleeping, // But Russian books make it painful for me to sleep" Lisa will answer Famusova’s proposal very wittily: “Whatever happens, I’ll report.” Liza’s remark emphasizes the comedy of the situation: the moral teachings are delivered somehow at the wrong time. But in itself this Famus remark is remarkable: it is structured in the same way as all his main speeches, no matter who he addresses - the footman Petrushka, his daughter, Molchalin, Chatsky or Skalozub. Famusov always starts with a very specific imperative: “tell me”, “don’t cry”, “read this wrong”, “be silent”, “you should ask”, “admit”. This is, let's say, the first part of the statement. The second part contains a generalization - Famusov loves to reason and philosophize(« Philosophize - your mind will spin"). Here is a deep thought about the “benefits of reading.” And in the third part - to confirm that you are right! - he always points to authority, cites as an example someone who, in Famusov’s opinion, cannot be disrespected. In this tiny monologue, the main authority is the speaker himself: if Sophia “can’t sleep because of French books,” then her father “has trouble sleeping because of Russians.” Famusov is absolutely sure that he is a completely suitable role model.

Word sample we note because it will appear many times in the text and will turn out to be very important for understanding the main conflict. For now, let us pay attention to Famusov’s penchant for demagoguery, rhetoric, and oratory. One must think that Lisa will not tell Sophia in the morning that there is no point in “spoiling her eyes”, and there is no sense in reading, she will not remind her that literature only contributes to her father’s sleep. Doesn’t Famusov understand this? Hardly. But him pedagogical principles correspond to official ones: " Signed, off your shoulders" Famusov sees the absurdity of the situation, but, as we have already noticed, he does not want to expose anyone, and upon hearing Sophia’s voice, he says: “Shh!” - And sneaks out of the room on tiptoe. It turns out that he, an exemplary Moscow gentleman (he, according to Lisa, “ like everyone else from Moscow..."), there is something to hide from prying eyes and ears.

What, Lisa, attacked you?
You’re making noise... –

the young lady who appeared on stage with her lover will say after his disappearance. This “make noise” is a neutral word, and it absolutely accurately defines Lisa’s actions. But let’s not forget that in the future, for some reason, Famusov himself and other characters will pronounce it very often. In Act II, Famusov will tell Skalozub about the Moscow old men: “They’ll bet make some noise " And Chatsky will say to Gorich: “Forgotten noise camp". But Repetilov boasts: “ We make noise , brother, we make noise " Remember how contemptuously Chatsky responds to this: “ Make some noise You? and that’s all?”... So Lisa at the beginning of the play is really just making noise, trying to prevent the brewing conflict between the old man and the youth from taking place and from getting out of control. And in the third phenomenon, we, in fact, only get to know Sophia and understand that Sophia really reads in French, because Sophia’s speech, her vocabulary, a little later, a dream she composed (however, who knows, maybe not on this night, but on another night she saw him - “dreams are strange”), - all this characterizes Sofya Famusova, Chatsky’s beloved, as a bookish young lady.

Conflict, it seems to us in the third phenomenon develops, the climax is near: here he is, "uninvited guest", from whom troubles await, has now entered at the very moment when they are especially afraid of him. Sophia, Lisa, Molchalin - they're all here. Famusov indignantly asks his daughter and secretary: “ And how did God bring you together at the wrong time?" No matter how cleverly the lovers caught by surprise lie, he does not believe them. " Why are you together? // It can't happen by accident" It would seem that he exposed. But Famusov, as we have already noted, cannot limit himself to just a remark; the second part of the monologue delivered before this, of course, carries a generalization. Famusov is pronouncing the famous monologue denouncing the Kuznetsky Most and the “eternal French” right now. As soon as Famusov verbally moves from the door of Sophia’s bedroom to the Kuznetsky Bridge and turns not to his daughter and her friend, but to the Creator, so that he saves Muscovites from all these French misfortunes, the guilty daughter will have the opportunity to recover “from her fright.” And Famusov will not forget to move on to the third obligatory part: he will also talk about himself, about his “trouble in his position, in his service.” The examples he gives to Sophia are not only his father, known for his “monastic behavior,” but also smart Madame Rosier (“She was smart, had a quiet disposition, rarely had rules”) - that same “second mother” who “allowed herself to be lured by others for an extra five hundred rubles a year.”

Griboedov introduced exposition into this moralizing monologue by Famusov. After all, it is from Famusov’s story that we learn about Sophia’s upbringing, about her wonderful mentors, role models, who, it turns out, taught her a very important science - the science of lies, betrayal and hypocrisy. We will see later that Sophia has learned these lessons.

Then he pretended to be in love again...
Oh! if someone loves someone,
Why bother searching and traveling so far?

It seems that “models” play an important role in Sophia’s life. Let us also recall Liza’s story about Sophia’s aunt, whose “young Frenchman ran away” from home, and she “wanted to bury // Her annoyance, // failed: // She forgot to blacken her hair // And after three days she turned gray.” Lisa tells Sophia about this to “cheer her up a little,” but smart Sophia will immediately notice the similarity: “That’s how they’ll talk about me later.” If it was not Liza’s intention to compare Auntie’s and Sophia’s situations, then Famusov, at the evil moment of the final revelation (last act), remembering Sophia’s mother, directly speaks of the similarity in the behavior of mother and daughter (phenomenon 14):

She neither give nor take,
Like her mother, the deceased wife.
It happened that I was with my better half
A little apart - somewhere with a man!

But let's return to the 3rd scene of Act I. ... Famusov’s words “Terrible century! ", seems to confirm our assumption that the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is starting right now. The action, which began with Liza’s failed attempt to prevent a clash between father and daughter, reaches its climax “here and at this hour” and, it seems, is already rapidly moving towards a denouement, but, starting from the “terrible century”, having talked about education:

We take tramps, both into the house and with tickets,
To teach our daughters everything, everything -
And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!
It’s as if we are preparing them as wives for buffoons. - Famusov will also remember how he benefited Molchalin, and Sophia will immediately stand up for her, as Griboedov will say, “Sahar Medovich.” She caught her breath while Famusov was ranting, and her lies will be completely thought out and couched in beautiful and literate phrases worthy of a well-read young lady. The scandal, which should have broken out here, and not in the fourth act, begins to get bogged down in words: time, upbringing, plot are already being discussed strange dream, and then Molchalin answered the question« He hurried to my voice, for what? - speak”replies: “With papers, sir,” and thereby completely changes the whole situation. Famusov, throwing out his ironic: “that this suddenly became zealous for written matters,” will let Sophia go, explaining to her goodbye that “ where there are miracles, there is little storage“, and will go with his secretary to “sort out the papers.” Finally, he declares his credo relating to official matters:

And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.

Credo, of course, too exemplary. There will be no resolution, just as, apparently, there was no conflict: so, minor domestic squabble, of which, apparently, there were already quite a few: « It could be worse, you can get away with it“, - Sophia will remind her maid-friend. In this conflict-scandal-squabble, Famusov will utter another important word in the context of the play. He will say: " Now they will reproach me, // That it’s always useless I'm judging " Chide, scold – we will come across these words more than once. Chatsky in the second act will remember the “sinister” old women and old men who are always ready To ordeal. And Famusov himself pronounces the verb scold in his famous monologue about Moscow precisely when he talks about education younger generation: « Please look at our youth, // At the young men - sons and grandchildren. // Jury we understand them, and if you understand them, // At the age of fifteen they will teach teachers!».

Please note, we do not reprove, we do not condemn, we do not expel from our circle, but... we “reprimand”. “Scold” – that is, “lightly reprimand someone; express censure by instructing"(Dictionary of the Russian language in 4 volumes; the example given in the dictionary from Chekhov’s “Duel” is also interesting: “As a friend, I scolded him why he drinks a lot, why he lives beyond his means and gets into debt”). So, the resolution of the conflict is replaced by fate. Famusov, expressing censure, instructs. He, " like everyone else from Moscow", is raising her daughter, who is also like " on all Moscow ones”, there is a “special imprint». A quarrel occurs between people. They don't expel their own people. They reproach their own people .

In the first act there is a plot, but until the fifth event we still do not hear the name of the main character, the main participant in the conflict that is real, and not what we imagined at first. Actually, none of the rivals of Molchalin, who was born in poverty, has yet been named, whom we, perhaps, took for the main character, that is, for a character different from the rest, a kind of defenseless provincial, in love with his master's daughter. « Love will be of no use // Not forever and ever“, prophesies the far-sighted Lisa. Maybe “Woe from Wit” is the tragedy of a little man?

Motive of grief, misfortune

Sin is not a problem...
And grief awaits around the corner.
But here's the problem.

It is in this conversation that all the rivals of Molchalin will be presented, about whom we do not yet know that he will not be able to lay claim to the role of a sensitive hero. Molchalin is still a mystery to us, and in the first act there is not a single hint of his hypocrisy. So far, he differs from the other “suitors”, about whom we will now hear for the first time, only in his modesty and poverty - very positive qualities. And everything we learn about Skalozub and Chatsky does not make them happy. Skalozub greets Famusov, who “would like a son-in-law<...>with stars and ranks,” the “golden bag” is suitable for Famusov, but not for Sophia:

what's in it, what's in the water...

We have already noted that Sophia is not satisfied with Skalozub’s intelligence; She seems to have no doubt in Chatsky’s mind: “sharp, smart, eloquent,” but she denies him sensitivity. Let us remember that her words are a response to Lizino “who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” Sophia is ready to confirm both the sharpness of his mind and his penchant for fun ( “He nicely // knows how to make everyone laugh; // He chats, jokes, it’s funny to me”), but in sensitivity - no! - does not believe:

if someone loves someone...

But Lisa doesn’t just talk about his spiritual qualities, she remembers how Chatsky “shed himself in tears.” But Sophia has her own reasons: she remembers her childhood friendship and love, her resentment that he “he moved out, he seemed bored with us, // And rarely visited our house”, doesn't believe in his feeling, which flared up “later,” and believes that he was only “pretending to be in love, // Demanding and distressed,” and Chatsky’s tears, which Liza remembers, are like tears if the fear of loss (“who knows what I will find, returning? // And how much, perhaps, will I lose!”) did not become an obstacle to leaving: after all, “ if someone loves someone, // Why search for the mind and travel so far?».

So, Chatsky - this is how Sophia sees him - is a proud man who is “happy where people are funnier”, in other words, a frivolous young man, perhaps a talker, whose words and feelings do not inspire confidence. And Molchalin, in Sophia’s understanding, is his positive antipode: he is “not like that.” It was in his shy, timid love, in his sighs “from the depths of the soul”, silence - “not a free word” - that Sophia believed: a reader of sentimental novels.

And auntie? all girl, Minerva?

In a word, “quick questions and a curious look” seem to further highlight Molchalin’s modesty.

Chatsky, during this first meeting with Sophia, managed to offend many past acquaintances, express his impartial opinions about various aspects of Moscow life: if he talks about theatrical life, then does not forget to say that the one who “has Theater and Masquerade written on his forehead” - “ he is fat, his artists are skinny"; if he talks “about education,” and he moves on to this topic without any reason, only remembering that Sophia’s aunt “ the house is full of pupils and moseks”, then again he is dissatisfied with teachers and Muscovites, who “are trying to recruit a regiment of teachers, // More in number, at a cheaper price.” How can one not recall Famusov’s dissatisfaction with the Kuznetsk Bridge and the “eternal French,” “destroyers of pockets and hearts,” and these “tramps,” as he calls teachers who are taken “both into the house and on tickets, // To teach our daughters everything , everything – //And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!”

The reader has reason to assume that it is Chatsky, and not Skalozub, who will even turn out to be Famusov’s desired contender for Sophia’s hand: he was raised in Famusov’s house, and is ready to count many “acquaintances,” and does not favor the French, and - finally! – not rootless – “ Andrei Ilyich's late son“, - it’s true that Andrei Ilyich is famous for something, and a friend of Famusov, and from Moscow, but in Moscow, after all, “ From time immemorial it has been said that according to father and son there is honor».

But the reader (like Pushkin!) has a question: is he smart? Griboyedov’s contemporaries still remember very well the comedy “The Minor” and the hero-reasoner Starodum. Let us remember how he appeared at the Prostakovs’ house. Firstly, it was very timely - if he had come a day earlier, there would have been no conflict related to marriage, and a day later - the fate of his niece Sophia would have been decided, she would have been married off - no matter, to Mitrofanushka or Skotinin, but Starodum would I couldn't help her. Secondly, it is impossible to imagine Starodum uttering a word without thinking. What does Starodum say when Pravdin calls him to immediately “free” Sophia?

And tend to harm someone?
But if so: the mind and heart are not in harmony.

However, in Act I we still do not know about Molchalin’s treachery. But we see that the daughter’s coldness is compensated by the warm embrace of her father: “Great, friend, great, brother, great!” - Famusov will say, hugging Chatsky. Note that Famusov, of course, does not hug either Molchalin or Skalozub. And the first “news” that Chatsky tells him immediately after the first hug is that “ Sofya Pavlovna...prettier" And, saying goodbye, once again: “How good!”

Well, that’s how Famusov will see him, one of the young people who “ there is nothing else to do but notice girlish beauties" Famusov himself was once young, he probably remembers this, and so he speaks with sympathy and understanding:

She said something casually, and you,
I am filled with hopes, enchanted.

Until Famusov’s last remark in this action, when it suddenly turns out that For him, Chatsky is no better than Molchalin(“halfway out of the fire”), “dandy friend”, “spendthrift”, “tomboy” - these are the words Famusov uses about him - until this last remark we do not realize that Chatsky - main participant conflict. We do not yet know that it is he, who is not suitable for either the daughter, or the father, or, as we will see later, for the parents of six princesses as a groom, who appeared, as Pushkin will say, “from the ship to the ball”, who will bring all this fuss, will stir up, alarm, make reality Liza’s assumption that she, “Molchalin and everyone out of the yard”... And he himself, expelled, will again go “to search the world,” but not for the mind, but for that quiet place “where there is a corner for the offended feeling.”