Woe from wit Chatsky and Sophia briefly. Chatsky's attitude to Sophia

Comedy by A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" is one of the best works of Russian literature. The hero of the comedy - a young nobleman Alexander Andreevich Chatsky - in just a day experiences the collapse of all his plans and hopes. We can say that his life changes overnight. The hero returned home, to his beloved girl, to a happy life, and found there only coldness, disappointment and persecution.

Arriving at the house of his father's friend Famusov, Chatsky in the first seconds seeks to see his daughter, Sophia. The hero has been in love with her since childhood and expects a reciprocal feeling from the girl. But Sophia very coldly meets Alexander Andreevich. Throughout the play, Chatsky tries to find out the reason for Sophia's cooling, to find his own, happier, rival.

In the first phenomenon of the third action of the comedy, an explanation takes place between the characters. Chatsky wants to “get a confession” from Sophia: “Who, finally, is dear to her? Molchalin? Skalozub? " The hero does not believe that the girl could fall in love with one of these people - after all, one is more insignificant than the other. Chatsky gives capacious characteristics to both candidates:

Molchalin was so stupid before! ..

Miserable creature!

Has he really grown wiser? .. And he -

Wheeze, stranglehold, bassoon,

A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!

But Sophia, pouring coldness on the hero, claims that she loves many much more than Chatsky. Alexander Andreevich, in her words, is very "intemperate on the tongue" and cruel to people: "The slightest strangeness in whom is barely visible, Your gaiety is not modest, You are ready to wit immediately ..." It would be better if Chatsky turned his eyes to himself, to his shortcomings ... After all, scolding everyone and everything, he looks funny:

Yes! A menacing look, and a harsh tone,

And there are an abyss of these features in you;

And the thunderstorm above itself is far from useless.

Sophia does not want to talk to the hero anymore and tries to leave. Chatsky, in order to still recognize her "sweetheart", decides to pretend (for the only time in his life!) And admit that Molchalin could have changed. The hero agrees: well, maybe Alexey Stepanich is a worthy person, but does he love Sophia as Chatsky loves her?

Let the mind in Molchalin be brisk, a brave genius,

But is there that passion in him? That feeling?

is that ardor?

So that, besides you, he has a whole world

Seemed ashes and vanity?

Chatsky then tries to convince Sophia that she largely invented Molchalin for herself: “God knows what secret is hidden in him; God knows what you invented for him, Than his head has never been stuffed. Perhaps, your qualities are dark, Admiring them, you gave him ... ”That, fearing the girl's anger, recognizes the mind behind Molchalin. He begs Sophia to give him the opportunity to make sure for himself that his rival is a worthy person: "As a person you who is growing up with you, As your friend, as a brother, let me be convinced ..." Then Chatsky will be able to calm down ("I can beware ") and forget.

But Sophia is not at all moved by the ardent words of Alexander Andreevich. She was very offended by Chatsky's unflattering comments about Molchalin. Whether she loves her father's secretary or not, "why be ... so incontinent on the tongue?" Sophia accuses the hero of the fact that in life he can only joke: “Joke! And a century to joke! How can you do it! " However, if he got to know Molchalin better, he would appreciate him.

Chatsky is wounded by jealousy: how does Sophia know Alexei Stepanovich so well? And the girl continues to convince Chatsky of the undoubted "merits" of Molchalin: silence, communication with old people, a small but strong mind, compliance, modesty, calmness, etc.

Chatsky does not believe his ears:

He plays all day!

He is silent when he is scolded!

She doesn't respect him! ... She does not give him a penny.

As a result, the hero concludes: "Naughty, she does not love him." Having calmed down about Molchalin, he wants to find out the attitude of Sophia to Skalozub. Chatsky begins to praise him, but Sophia immediately interrupts Alexander Andreevich: Skalozub is not the hero of her novel. Chatsky is perplexed: a girl cannot love the insignificant Molchalin, she is indifferent to Skalozub. Who took possession of her heart? The scene ends with the hero's question: "Who will solve you?"

Thus, Chatsky's intentions were unsuccessful. He never found out who his rival was. The hero does not have the opportunity to calm down, he will be in tense excitement until the very end of the play.

This episode finally clarifies Sophia's attitude to Chatsky, the reasons for her dissatisfaction with the hero. Also, the reader is convinced that the girl loves Molchalin, does not see his shortcomings, which are so obvious for Chatsky. Sophia invented a romantic hero for herself, not seeing the true face of her chosen one. But Chatsky is convinced that the intelligent Sophia chose someone much more worthy. This thought haunts the hero, intensifies his doubts and torments.

Many modern researchers in comprehending the "last content" of Griboyedov's comedy remain within the boundaries of the semantic field, which was defined by I. Goncharov in his article "Million of Torments". But if the great philologist and thinker of the 20th century M. Bakhtin is right in his assertion that "classical works of art break the boundaries of their time", that "in the process of their subsequent life they are enriched with new meanings, new meanings," then what new facets and meanings in are significant images of comedy open to the modern reader today? How do we understand today the main characters of "Woe from Wit" - Chatsky and Sophia? What is their relationship to the Famus society in which they grew up?
Let's try to read Griboyedov's play not like L.S. Aizerman (see "Literature", No. 1, 1995), not on a concrete historical level as "the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century" (V. Klyuchevsky), but on a universal human level as a drama of a talented person who has a "mind with a heart out of tune. "
It is very important to see when and how, in what elements of the structure of the whole an artistic idea is born at the beginning of the play and how it develops further in its subsequent links. For the first time, the reader learns about Chatsky from the words of Lisa, who compares him to Skalozub:
Yes, sir, so to speak, he is spoken, but it hurts not to be cunning: But be a military man, be a civilian.
Who is so sensitive and cheerful and sharp. Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Let's pay attention to the rhyme "not cunning - sharp". "In a comedy in verse" rhyme is one of the most important forms of expressing the author's position. At first glance, Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other in Liza's statements, but the rhyme makes them equal. Chatsky and Skalozub are equal not only for Sophia, as the possible suitors rejected by her, but also in a certain sense for the author. It is still difficult to understand this meaning, but through the rhyme the author influences the reader's subconscious, his emotional attitude towards the hero. Already the very first remark about Chatsky evokes in the attentive, sensitive reader an as yet unconscious, ambivalent attitude towards the hero. It can be assumed that this is also the author's attitude, since it is the author who, when creating a text, choosing words and rhymes, conveys to the reader, infects him with his attitude. On one level - external, ideological - Chatsky and Skalozub are opposed to each other, on the other - deep - they are equal. The author's voice in the "comedy in verse", unlike in the "novel in verse", does not sound separately and independently. It is distinguishable (except for the remarks) only in the voices of different characters. We simply will not see much or misunderstand in Griboyedov's play, if we do not constantly take into account the dialogical nature of the artistic word (the presence of at least two voices) and not the subjective-monologue, but the objective-dialogical position of the author.

Now let's see how the main character first appears on stage. And again, the focus of our attention will be on the rhyme:

Lisa. Excuse me, really, how God is holy,
I wanted this foolish laugh
I helped to cheer you up a little.

Servant. Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is here for you.

This unexpected purely comedic rhyme "stupid - Chatsky" inevitably affects the reader's subconscious, evoking certain feelings and emotions (smile, good laugh, irony?). Yes, and the very first words of the clever Chatsky carry a shade of comic:

A little light - already on your feet! and I am at your feet. (She kisses her hand hotly.)

What is manifested in these words: self-irony or an ironic attitude of the author to his hero? Is Chatsky able to look at himself from the outside, laugh at himself? Does he himself notice how comical, for example, his words sound when he speaks of his passionate love for Sophia: “Tell me to go into the fire: I’ll go to dinner”? So could Skalozub or Famusov say, for whom "love" and "dinner" are words of the same row.
If our feelings caused by the influence of rhyme are correct, then the comic ("stupid - Chatsky") is embedded in the structure of the character, in its core. And at the same time, the next verse - "Excuse me, really, how God is holy" - evokes a semantic association with the high, ideal, which, undoubtedly, is in Chatsky. Liza's prosaic word ("like God is holy"), falling into a poetic context, is filled with new associative meanings and meanings.
It is also very important to note that in the text of the play, between the two noted comedy rhymes, there are Liza's words, expressing, undoubtedly, the author's attitude to the hero:

But only? as if? ~ I was drenched in tears,
I remember, poor man, how he parted with you.
…..
The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...
Thus, through the rhyme and "voice" of Liza, the author shows his attitude to Chatsky and infects the reader with his feeling. Laughing at others (as we see in the play further), but also funny and at the same time deeply and sincerely suffering, Chatsky evokes an ironic attitude and natural pity and compassion. The complexity and non-obviousness for many readers of this ambivalent attitude of the author to his hero is explained by the fact that pity is expressed in plain text, in the words of Liza, which inspires confidence among readers, and irony is “just” through rhyme.
The remark "kisses the hand with fervor" and the following twelve verses of Chatsky's first statement reveal essential features in the character of the hero: not only the passion of his nature, but also a high demand for others (almost demanding love for himself) with a complete absence of feelings of his own guilt. For three years he left his beloved without important, in her opinion, reasons and did not even write, and suddenly a passionate feeling for forty-five hours and the demand for an immediate reward for "exploits".
Let's note one more feature of Chatsky: the ability to immediately, instantly (the property of an intelligent person), to feel, see, understand the main thing ("Not in the hair of love") and then deceive oneself throughout the play, not believe the obvious (Sofia's sincere words about Molchalin: " That's why I love him ") and condemn Sophia for an imaginary deception (" Why did they lure me with hope? Why didn't they tell me directly ... ").
The hero who so often laughs at others, so wittily ridicules the shortcomings and vices of others, turns out to be completely unable to feel an ironic attitude towards himself, to hear a clear mockery of himself in Sophia's words: where is the post office in your carriage?
In the next monologue of Chatsky, "the persecution of Moscow" begins, in which we see more evil irony and "abuse" than good-natured and cheerful wit. His ridicule, attacks on "priest", "uncle" and "aunt", on all relatives ("Living with them will get bored, and in whom you won't find stains?"), Sophia perceives as secular gossip: Here you and aunt would know. To re-read all the acquaintances.
And here, naturally, a question arises, which is usually not posed by researchers due to the apparent obviousness of the answer: Chatsky is telling the truth about Moscow, about the noble society, or is it "gossip" and slander against the fatherland? What is the originality, the peculiarity of this view of Moscow? Is this also the author's view? Is G. Vinokur right in his statement: "... most of Chatsky's monologues are lyrical monologues, that is, Chatsky speaks in them mainly on behalf of the author"?
In the comedy "Woe from Wit" two main points of view, two views are distinguished: we look at Chatsky through the eyes of the author, at Famus society through the eyes of Chatsky. Therefore, we see mainly Famus' Moscow, that is, "spots", vices and shortcomings, and we do not see the Griboyedov Moscow about which M. Gershenzon and N. Antsiferov wrote, which was depicted in the novel "War and Peace" by L. Tolstoy.
But "bright Moscow" (P. Vyazemsky), reflecting the spiritual beginning and the life of the soul of the noble society, can be seen in the images of Sophia and Chatsky. Moreover, in Chatsky, the type of a noble revolutionary, a future Decembrist is expressed, which was convincingly shown by Yu. Lotman in his article "The Decembrist in Everyday Life", and another part of the advanced society that did not accept the path of the revolutionary reorganization of Russia is guessed behind Sophia.

Chatsky's view of Moscow is, perhaps, the view of Griboyedov himself, but in his youth, in his youth, in the previous era of his life. This is the view of an idealist and a romantic, a person who passionately desires the realization of his dream, his ideal in life; this is the view of a maximalist who does not want to make compromises, who does not forgive anyone's shortcomings and vices; and at the same time, it is the gaze of a person who has an almost Gogolian gift to see in each person, first of all, his funny, comic side; it is an unfortunate gift - to see mainly evil, vices and sins in other people, this is "spiritual crippling, spiritual dislocation" (N. Berdyaev). But if in Gogol we feel the deepest compassion and great pity for man, the painter's grief for man, then Chatsky "stings" everyone without the slightest pity. "Not a man, a snake!" - Sophia says when it’s the turn to make fun of Molchalin.

Sophia's attitude towards Chatsky changed dramatically over the course of three years, and there were several reasons for this. First of all, we note a strong and deep female resentment: he became bored with her, at first he went to his friends, and then left completely. The very passionate feeling of Chatsky ("kisses the hand with heat") causes Sophia to doubt, coldness, even hostility. It can quickly pass, burn out. It makes Chatsky too talkative, impudent, unceremonious. Sophia is different in temperament: more calm, contemplative - and in love she is looking not for "wind, storm" that threaten "falls" but for inner peace, spiritual harmony ("No worry, no doubt ..."). Chatsky, on the other hand, was not only "completely confused" on the road, but confused in himself ("mind and heart are out of tune"). And in Sophia that pure and poetic feeling of falling in love with Molchalin lives, when "the shyness, timidity of a loved one is so natural and pleasant, when a simple touch of the hand is enough, when the night passes so quickly and imperceptibly playing the" piano and flute ".
Sophia herself has changed over these three years, her attitude towards people, towards the world has changed. Gone is the age of cute fun, funny jokes, carefree laughter; the time has passed when she liked to laugh together with Chatsky at others, at those close to her, and the former laugh, apparently, was cheerful, not angry. Finally, she saw and understood in Chatsky his main vices - pride ("Here he was thinking highly of himself ...") and lack of kindness to people:

I want to ask you:
Has it ever happened that you laughing? or in sorrow?
A mistake? did you say good about someone?

Now let's return to the fourth phenomenon of the first act, to Sophia's story about her dream, which, according to the unanimous opinion of modern researchers, was invented in order to deceive her father. Usually they see the prophetic meaning of a dream, discovering its connection with the final scene of the play: "Knock! Noise! ​​Ah! My God! The whole house is running here!"
Let's try to read this dream in a different way. The heroine's happy state at the beginning of sleep ("sweet man", "flowery meadow", "meadows and heavens") is opposed by the "dark room" and the threat from others in the second half of the dream:

Then the doors opened with a thunder
Some are not people and not animals.
We were apart - and they tortured the one who was sitting with me.
He seems to me dearer than all the treasures.
I want to see him - you drag with you:
We were seen off by a groan, a roar. laughter, the whistle of monsters.

From whom does the real danger come, what does Sophia's intuitive, subconscious premonition of? The further text of the play shows us an undoubted, deep connection with Chatsky. Molchalin for Sophia is "dearer than all the treasures," and Chatsky, to whom she would later say:

Murderous by their coldness!
To look at you, I have no strength to listen to you, -

about the danger of which Liza warns ("Look, Chatsky will raise you for a laugh"), such Chatsky ("Not a man, a snake!" a * ho, poisonous attacks on Molchalin will sound for Sophia as "roar, laughter, whistle." And then Sophia's words to Famusov ("Ah, father, sleep in hand") acquire a second meaning, and not only express the desire of the resourceful daughter to let the suspicious father go on the wrong track.
In the second act of the play, let us single out only one semantic line, pay attention not to Chatsky's "merciless abuse" in a conversation with Famusov ("I scolded your century mercilessly"), not to his passionate monologue ("Who are the judges ..."), but to associative and explicit connections, the similarity of Chatsky with Skalozub, confirming the meaning of the comedy rhyme "cunning-sharp" ... friends especially happy, Here he conceived of himself highly ... "
They react in the same way to the fall from Molchalin's horse, not showing the slightest sympathy for him.
Skalozub. He tightened the reins. Well, a pitiful rider.
See how he cracked - chest or side?
Chatsky. Let him break his neck.
I almost killed you.
And Skalozub's story about the widow Princess Lasova is not inferior in wit to Chatsky's witticisms. And finally, Liza directly puts Chatsky and Skalozub on a par, as equally dangerous to Sophia's reputation:

On a laugh, look, Chatsky will raise you;
And Skalozub, as he twists his crest.
Tells a swoon, add a hundred embellishments;
He jokes too much, because nowadays who is not joking!

The third action is key to confirming our previous observations, to understand the main ideas of the comedy. Sophia really says the "truth" about Chatsky: he is "ridiculous" in his pride, in his "bile", in his desire to ruthlessly judge everyone, in his misunderstanding of his own vices, in his passion that "enrages", in the lack of understanding of the one he loves:

Do you want to know the truth of two words?
The slightest strangeness in someone is barely visible.
Your gaiety is not modest,
You immediately have the sharpness ready,
And you yourself ...
- I myself? isn't that ridiculous?
-Yes!..

Clever and passionate Chatsky, in his denunciations, in his rebellion against society, crosses a certain line and himself becomes funny, just as a good in itself trait of a person in Gogol's characters from Dead Souls, if a person violates the sense of proportion, crosses a certain line, turns into its opposite: gentleness, politeness, tactfulness of Manilov turn into endless lisp and "something ingratiating"; the economic and cautious Korobochka becomes "tough" and "cudgel-headed"; active and restless, with a rich imagination, Nozdryov turns into a "versatile" and "historical" person, into an inspired liar, like Khlestakov; "thrifty owner" Plyushkin is reborn in a "hole in humanity", with an unbridled passion for accumulation.
Chatsky loves Sophia without memory, of course, not only for her external beauty ("At seventeen, you blossomed beautifully"). He sees in her, sees the lofty, ideal, holy ("The face of the most holy praying mantis!"), Something that, according to Goncharov, "strongly resembles Tatiana Pushkin." Chatsky feels a spiritual kinship with Sophia, which is manifested in their attitude to love as the highest value of being.

Sophia. He seems to me dearer than all the treasures.
……
Which one do I value?
I want - I love, I want - I will say.
……
What do I care about whom? before them? to the whole universe?
Funny? - let them joke; annoying? -
let them scold.
Chatsky. Let the mind in Molchalin be brisk, a brave genius,

But is there in him that passion, that feeling,
is that ardor?
So that, besides you, he has a whole world
Seemed ashes and vanity?
So that every heart beat
Has love accelerated towards you?
To thoughts of everything and all his deeds
Soul - are you, are you pleasing?

But why in this sincere passionate monologue there appears an inaccurate, false word "pleasing", a word from Mol-chalin's lexicon? The words "worship", "serve" the beloved and "please" her have completely different meanings. Is this inaccuracy in the choice of the word accidental, or does it speak of some flaw in Chatsky's feeling, is it connected with his state of "confusion", "madness" and "child"?
If Sophia's love for Molchalin is calm, deep, contemplative ("Forgotten by the music, and time passed so smoothly"), spreads to "the whole world" and evokes good feelings for everyone ("you can be kind to everyone and indiscriminately"), then passion Chatsky "seethes, worries, enrages" and intensifies the evil laugh at people. Khlestov rightly reproaches him:

Well, what did you find funny?
he's glad? What's the laugh?

It's a sin to laugh at old age.

Chatsky does not understand the truth, obvious for Sophia, that the main thing in a person is "the kindness of the soul" (this is what she mistakenly saw in Molchalin), that the mind, combined with pride, with contempt for people, is worse than the "plague" and "will soon oppose". Chatsky does not understand that for Sophia all his virtues are crossed out by his main vice. And Sophia's dislike is for him a terrible blow and the most severe punishment.
Both Chatsky and Sophia are mistaken in their understanding and assessment of Molchaliv, "not vile enough," according to Pushkin. They express two polar points of view, and both are "blind". For Chatsky, Molchalin is "stupid, a pitiful creature," for Sophia - kind and clever. Sophia "draws to Chatsky a portrait of a righteous man with whom" God brought her together, "and thus formulates her moral ideal - an ideal, in fact, a Christian one."
But why did the wise Sophia invent Molchalin for herself and deceived herself in love? For what is she punished, for what sins? Despite the fact that "the female character in those years (first half of the 19th century), more than ever, was formed by literature (Yu. Lotman), hardly everything can be explained only by the influence of books. This is only an external factor that cannot be decisive. Apparently , the main reason is in Sophia herself, in her proud, decisive and independent character, in her, perhaps, an unconscious desire for power in the family, and then, perhaps, in society, which
corresponds to the general atmosphere of the noble society of that time, and in the play by Griboyedov it is expressed by such characters as Natalya Dmitrievna. Tatiana Yurievna, Marya Alekseevna. In the understanding of Chatsky, we see the wisdom of Sophia; in self-deception about "pusheennyu to Molchalin, Sophia's blindness is explained by the manifestation of a" deep and dark instinct of power "(SN Bulgakov).
In the third act, Chatsky's parody double appears - Countess Khryumina, who herself laughs at him in his own spirit ("Monsieur Chatsky, are you in Moscow! How were you, are all such? :
Well ball! Well Famusov! knew how to name the guests! Some kind of freaks from the other world,
And there is no one to talk to, and no one to dance with.
D
Chatsky's frame is the drama of an intelligent person with a high, noble soul, but darkened by a dangerous vice - pride, which is born in a person, as L. Tolstoy showed, in adolescence. And if a person does not realize this defect in himself, does not strive to overcome it in himself, then, "set free", he threatens the death of the soul, despite all its "beautiful impulses." The mind, directed only at criticism, exposure and destruction, itself becomes "spiritless and heartless" and represents the greatest danger to man himself, is "a terrible and empty force" (I. Ilyin).
In this sense, Chatsky is the first among such heroes of Russian literature as the "moral cripple" Pechorin, the "self-styled" Bazarov, the "terribly proud" Raskolnikov, for whom man is a "louse", "trembling creature", or a lyrical hero in early lyrics Mayakovsky with his "holy malice" "towards everything", for whom "there are no people", but there are "little images" and "a crowd ... a hundred-headed louse." The world perception of these heroes is based on the idea of ​​godlessness, unbelief, reflecting the "world-historical crisis of the religious world outlook" (I. Vinogradov). Mind combined with pride leads them to an internal split, to a tragic conflict between the mind, consciousness, idea and heart, soul, moral nature of man.
Will Chatsky die like Pechorin and Bazarov, or will he be able to change, see the light, be reborn to life, like Raskolnikov with his "great sadness" and "grief", thanks to which he was able to make a painful path from "evil contempt" to "endless love" for people? The finale of Griboyedov's play remains open, but Chatsky's "million torments", his sufferings, often so gracious and necessary for the human soul, give hope for this. The very surname "Chatsky" (which has opposite meanings: both "child" and "hope", that is, hope) leaves the reader with this hope ...

Vyacheslav VLASHCHENKO

The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. From the moment he appeared in the play, he participates in almost all scenes and is everywhere opposed to other characters.
Chatsky's love for Sophia is a sincere, ardent feeling. He declares his love to her at the first appearance. In Chatsky there is no secrecy, no falsehood. The strength and nature of his feelings can be judged by his words about Molchalin, addressed to Sophia:
But is there that passion in him? that feeling? is that ardor?
So that, besides you, he has a whole world
Seemed ashes and vanity?
Chatsky is experiencing hard disappointment in his girlfriend. He reproaches her for her impetuosity even for what she is not at all to blame in front of him:
Why did they lure me with hope?
Why didn't they tell me directly
That all the past have you turned into laughter?
“Every word here is not true,” says Goncharov. - She did not lure him with any hope. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed to him in indifference ... Here not only his mind, but also common sense, even simple decency, betrayed him. He did such trifles! ” But the point is that Chatsky is distinguished by "sincerity and simplicity ... He is not a dandy, not a lion ...". In his feelings for Sophia, he is spontaneous, sincere, honest. At the same time, blinded by grief, he can be hot-tempered and unfair. But this makes the image of Chatsky closer and more truthful to us. This is a living person, and he can be wrong. Who is Sophia, whom Chatsky loves so passionately?
Goncharov said very well about her: “This is a mixture of good instincts with the lies of a living mind, with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs - confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as common features her circle ”.
Sophia is young and inexperienced, and her upbringing and environment have already left an imprint on her views and actions. And Chatsky has to admit that he was bitterly deceived in her. However, people are loved by all sorts, and vile and unfaithful as well. It cannot make you stop loving. Here human merits and demerits are poorly taken into account, and if taken into account, it is very biased. Love, as they say, is evil ...
So, Chatsky's personal drama complicates the public one, hardens him against the noble Moscow.

Essay on literature on the topic: Chatsky and Sophia

Other compositions:

1. The main motive of A. Griboyedov's work "Woe from Wit" is a reflection of the tragedy of Chatsky, a typical representative of the young generation of the 1810s-1820s, who in one way or another participated in social activities. This tragedy includes many moments, but one of the most important Read More ......
2. A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is a sad story of a man whose grief lies in the fact that he is not like the others. Intelligence, honor, nobility, unwillingness to curry favor - these are the qualities due to which the doors to the society of the famus, taciturn ones are closed before Chatsky, Read More ......
3. The comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov is undoubtedly a product of great social resonance. It reflected the rebellious times, when freedom-loving ideas spread throughout Russia. In the center of the play is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodied the best features of the progressive noble youth of the beginning of the century. Read More ......
4. Chatsky is close to the people of the Decembrist style, Famusov is his main opponent, the defender of the autocratic-serf system. Already from the first act of the comedy, it becomes clear how different people are. In subsequent episodes, Famusov expresses his opinion about the books, about the service. From Sophia's conversation with Lisa Read More ......
5. Sofia Pavlovna Famusova is the 17-year-old daughter of Famusov. After the death of her mother, she was brought up by “Madame,” an old Frenchwoman, Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. changed a lot, as did her love. Read More ......
6. “Woe from Wit” is a “public” comedy with the social conflict of the “present century” and “the past century”. The work is constructed in such a way that only Chatsky speaks about the ideas of socio-political transformations, about new morality and the desire for spirituality on stage. The image of Chatsky is least of all a portrait Read More ......
7. Sophia Characteristics of the literary hero Sophia Pavlovna Famusova - 17-year-old daughter of Famusov. After the death of her mother, she was brought up by “Madame,” an old Frenchwoman, Rosier. S.'s childhood friend was Chatsky, who also became her first love. But over the 3 years of Chatsky's absence, S. has changed a lot, like Read More ......
8. The comedy by AS Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a truly realistic work, because the author has reproduced the typical circumstances of life. The main character of the comedy is Chatsky. This is a really witty, honest and positive character of the work. But Griboyedov contrasts Chatsky with another hero - Molchalin. This person Read More ......

In his unfading comedy Woe from Wit, Griboyedov managed to create a whole gallery of truthful and typical characters that are still recognizable today. The images of Chatsky and Sophia are the most interesting to me, because their relationship is far from being as simple as it might seem at first glance.

Both Sophia and Chatsky carry those qualities that most representatives of the Famus society do not possess. They are distinguished by willpower, the ability to experience "living passions", dedication, the ability to draw their own conclusions.

Sophia and Chatsky grew up and were brought up together in Famusov's house:

The habit of being together every day is inseparable

Tied us with childhood friendship ...

During the time spent together, Chatsky managed to recognize in Sophia an intelligent, outstanding, decisive girl and fell in love with her for these qualities. When he, who has matured, gained intelligence, who has seen a lot, returns to his homeland, we understand that his feelings "have not cooled down, neither amusement, nor change of places." He is happy to see Sophia, surprisingly prettier during the time of separation, and is sincerely happy to meet.

Chatsky cannot understand in any way that in the three years that he was gone, the Famus society left its ugly imprint on the girl. Having read French sentimental novels, Sophia longs for love and wants to be loved, but Chatsky is far away, so she chooses to express her feelings a person who is certainly not worthy of her love. A flatterer and a hypocrite, "the miserable creature" Molchalin only uses his relationship with Sophia for selfish purposes, hoping for further promotion up the career ladder. But Sophia, overwhelmed by feelings, is unable to discern the true face under the mask, and therefore directs sincere, tender, ready for sacrifice love to a coward and a low-worshiper.

Chatsky pretty soon realizes that Sophia does not share his feelings, and wants to know who her chosen one is - his rival. Much says that this lucky man is Molchalin, but Chatsky does not want and cannot believe it, seeing at a glance the true essence of a low sycophant.

But is there in him that passion, that feeling, that ardor,

So that apart from you he has a whole world

Seemed ashes and vanity?

So that every heart beat

Has love accelerated towards you?

Accepting Sophia's coldness, Chatsky does not require reciprocal feelings from her, because it is impossible to make the heart fall in love! However, he seeks to know the logic of her actions, choice, he wants to know the merits of Molchalin, which made the girl choose him, but does not find them in any way. To believe that Sophia and Molchalin are close, for Chatsky, means the destruction of his faith and ideas, the recognition that Sophia not only did not grow spiritually during the time of separation, did not learn to critically interpret what was happening, but also turned into an ordinary representative of Famus society.

Sophia really went through a good school in her father's house, she learned to pretend, lie, dodge, but she does this not out of selfish interests, but trying to protect her love. She has a deep dislike for people who speak impartially about her chosen one, so Chatsky, with his ardor, witticisms and attacks, turns into an enemy for the girl. Defending her love, Sophia is even ready to insidiously take revenge on an old close friend who is madly in love with her: she spreads a rumor about Chatsky's madness. We see that Sophia rejects Chatsky only out of female pride, but also for the same reasons that Famus's Moscow does not accept him: his independent and mocking mind scares Sophia, he is "not his own", from a different circle:

But will such a mind make the family happy?

And Chatsky, meanwhile, is looking for definitions of Sophia's feelings and is deceived, because everything that he despises is elevated to the rank of virtue in noble Moscow. Chatsky still hopes for the clarity of Sophia's mind and feelings, and therefore once again writes off Molchalin:

With such feelings, with such a soul

Love! .. The deceiver laughed at me!

But here is the tragic moment of the solution! This moment is really cruel and tragic, because everyone suffered from it. What did our heroes learn from this lesson?

Chatsky is so shocked by the simplicity of the solution that he tears not only the threads connecting him with the Famus society, he breaks off his relationship with Sophia, offended and humiliated by her choice to the core:

Here I am donated to whom!

I don’t know how I tempered my fury!

He looked, and saw, and did not believe!

He cannot contain his emotions, his disappointment, resentment, resentment, and blames Sophia for everything. Losing his composure, he reproaches the girl for deception, although it was in her relationship with Chatsky that Sophia was at least cruel, but honest. Now the girl is really in an unenviable position, but she has enough willpower and self-esteem to break off relations with Molchalin and admit to herself her illusions and mistakes:

I didn't seem to know you since then.

Reproaches, complaints, my tears

Don't you dare to expect, you are not worth them,

So that I never hear about you again.

For everything that happened, Sophia blames "herself around". Her situation seems hopeless, because, having rejected Molchalin, having lost her devoted friend Chatsky and left with an angry father, she is alone again. There will be no one to help her survive grief and humiliation, to support her. But I want to believe that she will cope with everything, and that Chatsky, saying: "You will make peace with him, after thinking mature," is wrong.

Griboyedov's comedy once again reminded me that at the origins of people's actions lie ambiguous, often contradictory motives, and in order to correctly unravel them, you need to have not only a clear mind, but also intuition, a wide heart, an open soul.

Woe from Wit is a multifaceted work. In it one can see social parody, criticism of the regime, and a historical sketch of mores. Not the last place in the book is occupied by a love affair. Chatsky's attitude to Sophia, their feelings - the core that serves as the basis of the plot, fills it with life and emotions.

Characters through the eyes of schoolchildren

You can endlessly analyze "Woe from Wit". Consider individual storylines

moves with a magnifying glass, to compare quotes with the memoirs of contemporaries and biographies of alleged prototypes. But this is the approach of a professional analyst, literary critic. In school lessons, the work is read in a completely different way. And analyzed in accordance with the recommendations of the methodological publications.

There is a certain type of topics that the Ministry of Education regularly offers to students for reflection and subsequent writing of essays: "Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love?", "Was Karenina right when deciding on a divorce?" It is not entirely clear what the education system wants to achieve by this. This analysis has nothing to do with literature proper. Rather, it is a monologue of the grandmother at the entrance, arguing whether Klava was right from the third apartment when she kicked Vaska the alcoholic out, or was she wrong.

And the life experience of a 9th grade student hardly allows you to judge how the character should have acted. It is unlikely that he will be able to understand what annoys Sophia in Chatsky and why. Except, of course, the obvious things - those about which the heroine herself speaks.

Features of the perception of the play

Traditional

The interpretation of the play "Woe from Wit" is as follows - principled, noble and uncompromising. The people around them are low, narrow-minded and conservative people who do not understand and do not accept the advanced, innovative ideology of the protagonist. Chatsky broadcasts, denounces and mocks, stinks at the vices of society, and society writhes from well-aimed hits, is angry and indignant.

It is difficult to say whether Griboyedov was trying to achieve this effect. There is a directly opposite version, explaining the construction of the play with endless monologues-appeals of the protagonist precisely by the fact that the author parodied the image of a liberal who talks a lot and does nothing. And the characteristics of Sophia and Chatsky are largely determined by how the reader perceives the work. In the first case, he sees an idealistic hero and a bourgeois woman who did not appreciate his impulses, in the second - a chatterbox demagogue and ... all the same, a bourgeois woman who did not appreciate his impulses. Is it so?

Details of plot collisions

Who are Chatsky and Sophia? He is twenty-one, she is seventeen. Separated for three years

back. Chatsky left as soon as he came of age, left the guardian's house and returned to the family estate. Didn't come, didn't write. He just took it and disappeared. For what reasons is not so important. But what should a fourteen-year-old girl in love feel when a man whom she considers her lover, her future fiancé, just picks up and leaves like that? Not for a week, not for a month. For three years. Even at thirty this is a long time. And already at fourteen - eternity. What was he doing all this time? Whom did you think about? Can she be sure that love is still alive?

At fourteen years old, with adolescent maximalism, with adolescent emotionality. Critics make demands on the girl that not every adult woman meets. But Chatsky's attitude to Sophia is far from an obvious point. It is enough to imagine the situation through the eyes of a girl, and not an omniscient reader, to whom Griboyedov told everything. Isn't it more logical to ask: should Sophia keep at least some feelings for Chatsky? And if so, why? He is not her husband, not her fiancé. He is a romantic admirer, who at one point flew away like a moth from a clearing for three whole years. He had a rush of soul. The senses. An offended dignity. And her? She should not have felt hurt, bewilderment, anger in such a situation? Disappointment finally? Penelope, of course, waited for Odysseus much longer - but the situation was completely different. Chatsky is far from Odysseus.

Sophia close up

But all this remains behind the scenes. Yes, an attentive reader will understand everything himself if

will think, but the situation is still served by hints, snatches of conversations, memories. Therefore, it may well elude a person accustomed to seeing only the main storyline of the work. And what is there?

Chatsky suddenly returns to the guardian's house, where he has not been for three years. He's excited, he's excited, he's happy. Chatsky's attitude to Sophia remained the same. But she already loves another. The first is still forgotten. She is fascinated by Molchalin. Alas, the chosen one is very bad. Objectively, he is poor, of the lower class, this is an obvious misalliance. And subjectively, he is a weak-minded sycophant, flatterer and insignificant. Although, it should be noted, the prospects for him are quite good. Molchalin has already begun to make a career and is doing a good job with the task. It can be assumed that Sophia's new chosen one will go far

At the same time, the young man himself is not at all in love, he is simply afraid to admit it. And the prospect of a profitable marriage is also, for sure, very sympathetic to him. Often it is this unfortunate choice that is blamed on the girl, answering the question, is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love? Traded an eagle for a plucked sparrow, stupid.

And who is Sophia? A girl who grew up without a mother, locked up, practically without leaving the threshold of the house. Her social circle is a father who has no idea about raising children in general and daughters in particular, and a maid. What can Sophia know about men? Where does she get at least some experience? The only source of information is books. Ladies' French novels, which papa allows her to read. How could such a girl discern the insincerity of a person who had come into the trust of much older and more experienced people? It's just unrealistic.

Sophia is very young, she is naive, romantic and inexperienced. Molchalin is the only young man she sees almost every day. He is poor, honest, unhappy, timid and charming. Everything is the same as in the novels that Sophia reads every day. Of course, she just couldn't help falling in love.

And what about Chatsky?

The personality of Chatsky deserves the same close attention. Is it such a mistake

does Sophia commit? If you look at the situation objectively - is this marriage a big loss in her life?

Chatsky is twenty-one. He could not find a place for himself. Tried it there, tried it here. But ... "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve." And the position that would correspond to his requests still does not come across. What means does Chatsky live on? He has an estate. And, of course, the serfs. This is the main source of income for the young liberal. The one who ardently and sincerely condemns calls him barbarism and savagery. Such is the funny problem.

Does Chatsky have any prospects? He will not make a career, it is obvious. Not a military man - he's not a stupid soldier. Not financial - he is not a huckster. Neither political - he will not betray ideals. He will not become another Demidov either - the grip is not the same. Chatsky is one of those who speaks, not those who do.

His reputation has already been ruined, society is fleeing from him like the plague. It is very likely that Chatsky will spend his entire life in the family name, occasionally leaving for resorts and the capital. What annoys Sophia in Chatsky now will only progress, with age he will become even more caustic and cynical, embittered by constant failures and disappointments. Can a marriage with such a person be considered a good match? And will Sophia be happy with him - just humanly happy? Even if Chatsky really loves her and will keep this love? Unlikely. Perhaps the play's denouement is tragic only for the main character. Sophia was just lucky. I got off cheaply.

And about posing the question

Although, when Chatsky's attitude to Sophia is discussed in the key: is she worthy of such great love or still not - this in itself is strange. Unethical. How can you be worthy of love? Is this a bonus? Promotion? Suitability for the position held? Love not for something, love just like that. Because this person is needed, and no one else. This is life. And no love obliges her object to experience reciprocal feelings. Alas. The very statement of the question is incorrect. You can not do it this way. Love is not a potato in the bazaar to tell if it is worth what is asked for. And even schoolchildren should be clearly aware of this, not to mention older people.