What are the moral lessons of the Griboyedov comedy. What are the moral lessons of the Griboyedov comedy "Woe from Wit" (Griboyedov A

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov shows the positive and negative qualities of each character.

Chatsky was a joker, sociable, loved to say everything directly and confidently, and demanded this from everyone, was very inquisitive and always tried to insert his word everywhere - this gave rise to a rumor that he was crazy. He, in general, says the right things:

"Ranks are given by people,

And people can be deceived ... "

But, alas, he does not have the flair of an orator, he cannot convey and present his thought in such a way that it sows confusion, finds an emotional response in the hearts of people.

"Pardon me, you and I are not guys, why are the opinions of others only holy?" - Chatsky is the only one in this comedy who does not spread gossip, does not lift someone else's opinion to space.

This is also his mistake - sometimes you should listen to an intelligent person. They also showed me that you need to have oratory, that curiosity is not a vice, but a disease.

Famusov is a manager in a state house. He always defends his point of view, angry, blames others for his mistakes. Famusov is an egoist.

"Take all the books and burn them"

These words show that Famusov is a conservative, because people who want to change something usually like to read and learn new things. People want to change something for two reasons: they don't like what is, or they know what is better. Famusov, on the other hand, does not know that there is something other than his modest little world with pieces of paper, and he does not want to find out - he does not read.

"Learning is the plague, learning is the reason that nowadays there are more insane people and deeds and opinions than before."

I also believe that Griboyedov tried to show: Famusov loves the same and constancy. Not as bad a trait as it is usually presented, but rather instinct. People do not like to leave their comfort zone, it is easier for them to understand the actions and motives of the same people. If each person is different, it is more difficult to predict others. Griboyedov was fond of psychology, was a versatile person and, it seems to me, could show Famusov as an ordinary person (like me and you, my dear reader), only showing the shortcomings in close-up, and hid the advantages.

So, in his story, Griboyedov showed me how important education (oratory in particular) is, how important it is to be able to present oneself in society. His comedy also showed me that people can be individual, they can show their “otherness”. What is it with you, reader? No, not your character, but some trait, a habit. What others do not have. For example, I only walk around the house on tiptoe. You may be able to wiggle your ears, or play the guitar with your toes. Maybe you never wear black, or maybe white. Griboyedov showed: be different.

"Woe from Wit" is the noblest human

Artwork ..., protest against the vile racial

Reality, against officials, bribe-takers,

Libertine bar ... against ignorance,

Voluntary servility.

V. G. Belinsky

The attitude towards the human person, towards its dignity, towards work, towards honor and dishonor, towards truth and lies, towards love and friendship - these are problems that are urgent at all times.

People today think about the questions: how to live? what does it mean to have human dignity? who deserves trust, love, friendship? how to educate worthy members of society?

The answers are given by life itself. They are also given by books in which wise people - writers share their life experience with us. "A poet in Russia is more than a poet," - a century and a half after Griboyedov, E. Yevtushenko said, but he seemed to say about him, a wise teacher, mentor and friend.

A. S. Griboyedov was a Decembrist by conviction. He considered the existing system not only unjust, but also deeply immoral, destroying the human personality. Hence the great attention he paid to moral problems in the comedy "Woe from Wit". We learn these lessons by analyzing the behavior and relationships of the heroes of comedy and coming to the conclusion that a person's morality is largely determined by the society in which he lives and whose interests he protects. We will enter the house of the bureaucratic master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, we will plunge into a life that is already far from us. Here the elderly owner of the house flirts with a young maid, here he recalls his only two well-known relations with the widow-doctor and immediately boasts that "he is known for his monastic behavior." We'll get to know his "code of honor" in more detail shortly. Famusov frankly admits that in the service he loves to "please a loved one", without thinking about the benefits of the case, he treats his duties formally ("Signed - off your shoulders!"). He is immoral in everything: he is indifferent to the upbringing of his daughter, he is afraid of enlightenment, he is sure that all evil is from him, and "in order to suppress evil, take all the books and burn them."

Serf Famusov does not consider people as people, takes anger at them. And at the same time, he considers himself sinless, sets him up as an example for his daughter: "There is no need for another model, when the father's example is in the eyes."

Famusov evaluates people by wealth, rank and how comfortable they are for him. Therefore, he keeps the hypocrite and sycophant Molchalin in the house, trying not to notice his falsehood, lies, servility (after all, Famusov is not at all stupid!). Therefore, he curses up with Skalozub (still: "And the golden bag, and marks the generals").

Skalozub is so primitive that he does not even understand what he is saying when he admits that he is “happy in his comrades” because they are “interrupted” and, therefore, the path to promotion is clear. Nevertheless, he is a guest of honor at Famusov's house! The swaggering, influential Khlestova is a match for him. The morality of the Tugoukhovskys is terrible, for whom only one thing is important in a person - wealth.

In this society, they do not even think about human dignity, friendship, love. To achieve selfish, base goals, it is not considered shameful to lie, hypocrite, pretend. The "way up" is beautifully illustrated by the example of Molchalin, who, living as "his father bequeathed", that is, pleasing "all people without exception," destroyed a person in himself. He is sure that in his years "one should not dare to have one's own judgment," that "one must depend on others," etc.

The question arises whether Sophia is not immoral, having fallen in love with such a person. Does she really like Molchalin's "morality"? How could she, who reads, loves music, not stupid, prefer this insignificance to Chatsky? I cannot blame Sophia: I feel sorry for her. The girl is very young and inexperienced. She received an ugly upbringing at her father's house. Having read sentimental French novels, I imagined myself to be a savior, patroness of a poor young man, so quiet, so humble ... She should know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But Sophia has not yet learned to understand people: Molchalin is good for everyone, sighs, is afraid to raise his eyes to her ... And Chatsky Kolok, harsh, sarcastic, jokes everyone and at the same time seeks understanding from her, Sophia. She is sure: Chatsky does not need her, and she doesn’t care about him. Sophia is not wicked. Her love, in contrast to Molchalin's "feelings", is real. Now, if she could see her chosen one through the eyes of an outside observer! Sophia's behavior is the result of the influence of the environment, of society, for which the taciturn "moderation and accuracy" is the key to success and career. Immorality does not interfere, but helps to advance up the career ladder, contributes to the location of the "powerful of this world."

Talking about the personal drama of Chatsky and Sophia, the writer convinces that in the problems of morality the Famus society is hopelessly lagging behind the demands of life. The political and moral failure of this society is interconnected. Defenders of serfdom cannot respect the human person. Numerous Famusovs, Khlestovs, Puffers despise Russian culture, folk customs, their native language, they are afraid of enlightenment like fire.

But what scares them most is their forward thinking. "He wants to preach liberty!" - "Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!" - such accusations in their mouths sound like a sentence. In the struggle against freethinking, the most immoral means are good for them. Gossip, lies, slander without a twinge of conscience are set in motion when the threat to their peace, which Chatsky brings with him, becomes obvious. Chatsky acts not only as a bearer of new ideas, but also as a man of new morality; his moral principles are just as opposed to the morals of old lordly Moscow, as are his convictions.

The idea of ​​the need for social change is very convincingly revealed in the comedy through the opposition of the morality of two opposing camps: in a backward, obsolete society there can be no high morality - this is the conclusion drawn by the reader of "Woe from Wit" on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. This conclusion is not getting old today: fair social morality is possible only in a just society.

"Woe from Wit" is the noblest human

work ..., protest against the vile racial

reality, against officials, bribe-takers,

libertine bar ... against ignorance,

voluntary servility.

V. G. Belinsky

The attitude towards the human person, towards its dignity, towards work, towards honor and dishonor, towards truth and lies, towards love and friendship - these are problems that are relevant at all times.

People today think about the questions: how to live? what does it mean to have human dignity? who deserves trust, love, friendship? how to educate worthy members of society?

The answers are given by life itself. They are also given by books in which wise people - writers share their life experience with us. “A poet in Russia is more than a poet,” - a century and a half after Griboyedov, E. Yevtushenko said, but he seemed to say about him, a wise teacher, mentor and friend.

A. S. Griboyedov was a Decembrist by conviction. He considered the existing system not only unjust, but also deeply immoral, destroying the human personality. Hence the great attention he paid to moral problems in the comedy Woe from Wit. We learn these lessons by analyzing the behavior and relationships of the heroes of comedy and coming to the conclusion that a person's morality is largely determined by the society in which he lives and whose interests he protects. We will enter the house of the bureaucratic master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, we will plunge into a life that is already far from us. Here is the elderly owner of the house flirting with a young servant, here he recalls his only two well-known relations with the widow-doctor and immediately boasts that "he is known for his monastic behavior." We will soon get to know his "code of honor" in more detail. Famusov frankly admits that in the service he loves to “please a loved one”, without thinking about the benefits of the case, he refers to his duties formally (“Signed - off your shoulders!”). He is immoral in everything: he is indifferent to the upbringing of his daughter, he is afraid of enlightenment, he is sure that all evil is from him, and "in order to suppress evil, take all the books and burn them."

Serf Famusov does not consider people as people, takes anger at them. And at the same time, he considers himself sinless, sets him up as an example for his daughter: "There is no need for another model, when the father's example is in the eyes."

Famusov assesses people by wealth, rank and how comfortable they are for him. Therefore, he keeps the hypocrite and sycophant Molchalin in the house, trying not to notice his falsehood, lies, servility (after all, Famusov is not at all stupid!). Therefore, he curses before Skalozub (still: "And the golden bag, and marks the generals").

Skalozub is so primitive that he does not even understand what he is saying when he admits that he is “happy in his comrades” because they are “killed” and, consequently, the path to promotion is clear. Nevertheless, he is a guest of honor at Famusov's house! The swaggering, influential Khlestova is a match for him. The morality of the Tugoukhovskys is terrible, for whom only one thing is important in a person - wealth.

In this society, they do not even think about human dignity, friendship, love. In order to achieve selfish, base goals, it is not considered shameful to lie, hypocrite, pretend. “The way up” is perfectly illustrated by the example of Molchalin, who, living as “his father bequeathed,” that is, pleasing “all people without exception,” destroyed a person in himself. He is sure that in his years "one should not dare to have one's own judgment," that "one must depend on others," etc.

The question arises whether Sophia is not immoral, having fallen in love with such a person. Didn't she like Molchalin's "morality"? How could she, who reads, loves music, not stupid, prefer this insignificance to Chatsky? I cannot blame Sophia: I feel sorry for her. The girl is very young and inexperienced. She received an ugly upbringing at her father's house. Having read sentimental French novels, I imagined myself to be a savior, patroness of a poor young man, so quiet, so humble ... She should know that this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But Sophia has not yet learned to understand people: Molchalin is good for everyone, sighs, is afraid to raise his eyes to her ... And Chatsky Kolok, harsh, sarcastic, jokes everyone and at the same time seeks understanding from her, Sophia. She is sure: Chatsky does not need her, and she doesn’t care about him. Sophia is not wicked. Her love, in contrast to Molchalin's "feelings", is real. Now, if she could see her chosen one through the eyes of an outside observer! Sophia's behavior is the result of the influence of the environment, of society, for which the taciturn "moderation and accuracy" is the key to success and career. Immorality does not interfere, but helps to move up the career ladder, contributes to the location of the "powerful of this world." Material from the site

Talking about the personal drama of Chatsky and Sophia, the writer convinces that even in the problems of morality, the Famus society is hopelessly lagging behind the demands of life. The political and moral failure of this society is interconnected. Defenders of serfdom cannot respect the human person. Numerous Famusovs, Khlestovs, Puffers despise Russian culture, folk customs, native language, as they are afraid of enlightenment like fire.

But what scares them most is their forward thinking. "He wants to preach liberty!" - "Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!" - such accusations in their mouths sound like a sentence. In the struggle against freethinking, the most immoral means are good for them. Gossip, lies, slander without a twinge of conscience are set in motion when the threat to their peace, which Chatsky brings with him, becomes obvious. Chatsky acts not only as a bearer of new ideas, but also as a man of new morality; his moral principles are just as opposed to the morals of old lordly Moscow, as are his convictions.

The idea of ​​the need for social change is very convincingly revealed in the media through the opposition of the morality of two opposing camps: in a backward, outdated society there can be no high morality - this is the conclusion the reader of Woe from Wit made for himself on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. This conclusion is not aging today: fair social morality is possible only in a just society.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use search

On this page material on topics:

• moral problems essay
• moral comedy lessons grief from wits
• moral lessons of the Griboyedov comedy woe from wits
• A.S. griboyedov "woe from wit" short essay
• problematic topics for writing on grief from wit

AS Griboyedov was one of those about whom M. Yu. Lermontov quite accurately said: “Laughing, he impudently despised the language and customs of a foreign country”. It is unlikely that the author of the comedy did this deliberately, knowingly foreseeing the consequences, but it so happened that his attitude to the customs of the country where he was sent as an ambassador predetermined not only his death, but also the death of the staff of the Russian Embassy in Persia, not guilty of A. S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit" - a play written before A. Griboyedov left for Persia, unexpectedly gained immense popularity in secular salons. And few of the young writer's contemporaries understood that this comedy played a fatal role in the tragic events that took place on Senate Square in December 1825, and continued to exert its influence on subsequent generations, forming nihilism among young people - the denial of everything done by past generations with their own inability to think well and to implement something soundly. After all, Chatsky is a hysterical barren flower, which the liberals took as a model throughout the 19th century, and which they set and set as an example for all schoolchildren after 1917. It is from this inept nihilism that the famous Zhvanetsko-Chernomyrdinskoe grows: “We wanted the best, but it turned out, as always ". But Russia is a civilization different from the West; what is developing there in accordance with biblical atheism runs into some kind of obstacle in Russia, about which even today Western intellectuals are endlessly debating. This obstacle is the cathedral intellect of the peoples of Russia, which always finds an adequate response to an invasion alien to the culture of God. The response to the invasion of Russia by biblical morality, peculiarly presented as “Woe from Wit” (the name of the comedy is a revised Old Testament saying “... there is much sorrow in much wisdom; and who multiplies knowledge, multiplies sorrow” - Ecclesiastes, 1:18) was the manifestation of creativity A.S. Pushkin. And if it were not for AS Pushkin, then the first performance of the “biblists” in December 1825 is possible. Even then it ended the historically formed statehood of the empire. Modern Pushkin scholars even today are not able to understand that all of Pushkin's work, ideologically and morally, has always been an alternative to biblical atheism, but this opposition can only be understood by mastering the keys to the associative connections of the symbolism of his works. And this requires the identification of the essence of the biblical real, and not the declared morality and the identification of ideals alternative to it. And it is no coincidence that A. S. Pushkin, the only one of Griboyedov's contemporaries, critically perceived the play "Woe from Wit", about which the majority of literature teachers in the classroom keep quiet, perhaps without knowing it.