How do they relate in the image of Chatsky. The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov: the character and life of the hero (Alexander Andreevich Chatsky). The background of the protagonist of the play "Woe from Wit"

Subject: Woe from Wit

Questions and answers to the comedy by A. S. Griboedov "Woe from Wit"

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit"?
What do you think, is I. A. Goncharov right, who believed that Griboyedov's comedy will never become obsolete?

I guess that's right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of the life of Russia after the war of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in people's minds when changing historical eras. Griboedov convincingly shows that at first the new is quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools per intelligent person, as Griboyedov aptly puts it), but "the quality of fresh strength" (Goncharov) wins in the end. It is impossible to break people like Chatsky. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to their Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression "an extra person" applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the non-stage heroes (professors of the St. started reading books. Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, he believes in the victory of progress. He actively interferes in public life, not only criticizes public order, but also promotes his positive program. His layer and work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not superfluous, but a new person.

Could Chatsky avoid a collision with the Famus society?
What is Chatsky's system of views and why does the Famus society consider these views dangerous?
Is Chatsky's reconciliation with the Famus society possible? Why?
Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow?
Do you agree with Chatsky's assessment given by I. A. Goncharov?
What artistic technique underlies the composition of comedy?
What attitude does Sofya Famusova evoke? Why?
In what episodes of the comedy do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed?
How do you see the future of comedy heroes?
What are the plot lines of the comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: a love affair and a social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main conflict is public (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of a general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

"Public Comedy" begins with a love affair, because, firstly, it is a reliable way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear evidence of the author's psychological insight, since it is at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, what love implies, often the most difficult disappointments with the imperfection of this world occur.

What role does the mind theme play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role, because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave and behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin's understanding, the mind is not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to such a definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of actors. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do they "say" about the characters of the comedy, their names?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and speaking surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumina, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance sets the audience up for the perception of the comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be of value on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from the English. famous - "fame", "glory" or from lat. fama- "rumor", "rumor". The name Sophia in Greek means "wisdom". The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French subrette Lisette. In the name and patronymic of Chatsky, masculinity is emphasized: Alexander (from the Greek. Winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek. Courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero's last name, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is a list of actors often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical sphere, in the play, as in a literary work, as a rule, it is denoted by the "list of characters." At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very concise but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of the characters in the poster.

The sequence of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his relatives are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, a servant, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him follow the guests, arranged according to the degree of nobility and significance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all sorts, waiters.

The classic order of the poster breaks the presentation of the Gorich couple: first, Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady, is named, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. Violation of the dramatic tradition is connected with Griboedov's desire to hint already in the poster at the nature of the relationship of the young spouses.

Try to verbally draw the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you envision the characters as they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed closet, a large clock on the wall. To the right is a door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Hanging from the armchair, Lizanka sleeps. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and is horrified to realize that it is already morning. Knocking on Sophia's room, trying to force her to part with Silent Lin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begin to beat and play.

Lisa looks flustered. She is nimble, quick, resourceful, seeking to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, in a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if stealthily, comes up behind Lisa and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, starts the clock, speaks loudly, on the other hand, warns that Sofya is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is funny, witty.

Find the plot of the comedy. Determine what storylines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky's house is the beginning of a comedy. The hero links together two storylines - love-lyrical and socio-political, satirical. From the moment he appears on the stage, these two storylines, intricately intertwined, but without violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky's mockery of the appearance and behavior of the visitors and inhabitants of the Famusov house, seemingly still harmless, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into a political and moral opposition to the Famusov society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not notice yet, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, preferring Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Silence-not? Pay attention to the remark at the end of the fourth phenomenon of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions about Molchalin are formed from a dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky's review of him.

He is laconic, which justifies his surname. Have you yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who takes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, rejection of insolence. Only later do we find out that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love "for the sake of the daughter of such a person" "by position", and can be very free with Liza.

And one believes in the prophecy of Chatsky, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that "he will reach the known degrees, After all, now they love the dumb."

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa appreciates Chatsky's sincerity, his emotionality, devotion to Sophia, recalls with what a sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he could lose Sophia's love over the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years ...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. It is easy to remember her phrase characterizing Chatsky:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!

Sofya, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and what Lisa admires in him irritates her. And here she seeks to move away from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to laugh at everyone”, “sharp, smart, eloquent”, “pretends to be in love, exacting and distressed”, “he thought highly of himself”, “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and makes you waters, mentally opposing Molchalin to him: “Ah, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: "Not a man - a snake" and a caustic question, it did not happen to him even by mistake to respond kindly about someone. She does not share Chatsky's critical attitude towards the guests of the Famusov's house.

How is Sophia's character manifested in the first act? How does Sophia perceive the ridicule of the people of her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky's mockery of the people of her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of an independent character and judgment, she acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in the company of her father, she is comfortable, convenient, familiar. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize a poor young man. However, as a true daughter of the Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow men”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov, “Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife’s pages ...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia appreciates in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky's ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky's personality, his arrival.

Sofya is smart, resourceful, of independent judgment, but at the same time, she is domineering, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa's help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but cuts off abruptly when she seems to forget her position as a maid ("Listen, don't take too many liberties...").

What conflict arises in the second action? When and how does it happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famus society, the “present century” and the “past century”. If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s mockery of the visitors of the Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that “gloriously knows how to make everyone laugh”, then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict passes into the stage of a serious opposition of socio-political and moral positions on topical issues in the life of Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and cause of the disagreement between them?

The characters show a different understanding of the key social and moral problems of contemporary life. The attitude to the service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve” - the principle of a young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing people, and not on serving the cause, on promotion of relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter” “Signed, so off your shoulders.” Famusov cites as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important Catherine’s grandee (“All in orders, He always rode in a train ...” “Who takes him to the ranks and gives pensions?”), Who did not disdain to “bend over backwards” and fell three times on the stairs to cheer the sovereign. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as carbonari, a dangerous person, "he wants to preach liberty", "does not recognize the authorities."

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the fate of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of a serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out one by one…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if you have enough; Souls of a thousand two generic ones, - He is the groom, ”Chatsky evaluates such norms as“ the meanest traits of the past life ”, with anger falls upon careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“You didn’t get ranks, did you fail at work?”), Gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised at Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “at three ministers was the head of the department. His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story of his father's will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, with all his talents, does not enjoy the support of the Famus society, because their views differ sharply. And, of course, a considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky gives Molchalin his success with Sophia. Molchalin's life principles can only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, one must depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Molchalin is funny or terrible ? in this scene it is decided - scary. Silently-lin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of the Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the characters in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of the Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And to take awards, and have fun”, “If only I got to be a general!”. The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the price of Zagoretsky (“He is a liar, a gambler, a thief / I was from him and the door was locked ...”), accepts him, because he is a “master of pleasing”, got her a black-haired girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin has good prospects to enter this category of husbands and make a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. The true evil of noble Moscow was gallomania.

Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness arise and spread? Why are Famusov's guests so willing to support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a series of phenomena that is very interesting from a dramatic point of view. Gossip arises at first glance by chance. G.N., catching Sophia's mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean, being under the impression of the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It is unlikely that she put a direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And here in the head of Sophia, insulted for Molchalin, an insidious plan arises. Of great importance for explaining this scene are the remarks to Sophia's further remarks: "after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side." Her further remarks are already aimed at the conscious introduction of this idea into the head of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor spread will be picked up and filled with details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! Do you like to dress up everyone in jesters, Would you like to try on yourself?

Rumors of madness are spreading with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news, tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes, because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. In these comedic scenes, the characters of the characters that make up the Famus circle are brilliantly revealed. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the go with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes, Chatsky's judgments seemed insane to her. Ridiculous is the dialogue about Chatsky of the Countess and Grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky, who, because of their deafness, add a lot to the rumor launched by Sophia: “the accursed Voltairian”, “crossed the law”, “he is in pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, appearance XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the meaning of Chatsky's monologue about a Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famusovsky society. After the hero had conversations separately with Molchalin, Sofya, Famusov, his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he delivers a monologue in front of the whole society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed in the rumor about his madness and therefore they expect from him obviously delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions. It is in this vein that the guests perceive Chatsky's speeches condemning the cosmopolitanism of the noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses healthy, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart cheerful people”; by the way, the condemnation of gallomania sometimes sounds in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently circling in a waltz, the old people disperse over the card tables.

Critics notice that not only Chatsky's public impulse, but also Repetilov's chatter can be understood as the author's view of Decembrism. Why is Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image?

The question presents only one point of view on the role of the image of Repetilov in comedy. She is unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is speaking (Repetilov - from lat. repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and, as it were, openly expresses his thoughts. But we can’t catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and whether there are any ... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched on, but speaks more about himself “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the essence of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings On Thursdays. Secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, if I may say so, of Repetilov is “Shu-mim, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky's assessments of Repetilov's words are interesting, which testify to the difference in the author's views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author is in solidarity with the main character in the assessments of the comic character, who suddenly appeared at the departure of the guests: firstly, he ironizes that the secret union meets in an English club, and, secondly, with the words “what are you raging about? » and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays an essential role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it to a denouement. According to the literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventful tension of the episode. But the tension that is starting to subside ... Repetilov inflates. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberately slowed down denouement of the events of the ball by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue conversations at the ball, a meeting with a belated guest arouses in the minds of everyone the main impression, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an unwitting witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already completely settled version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramaturgically integral episode of the comedy being completed, deeply rooted in the 4th act and equal in its volume and meaning to the whole act.

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins "forever young old men of Russian history"? What is the true face of Molchalin?

Calling Molchalin so, the literary scholar emphasizes the typicality of such people for Russian history, careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, exits in all sorts of ways to tempting positions, profitable family ties. Even in their youth, they are not characterized by romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for the improvement of public and state life, they serve individuals, not the cause. Implementing the famous advice of Famusov “Learning from the elders”, Molchalin learns in the Famus society of the “past life the meanest traits” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: remember what his father bequeathed to Molchalin), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one's own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is the moral image of Famusov that Molchalin reproduces, seeking a loving date with Lisa. Such is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D. I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “known degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; die his mother away from the road, call his beloved woman to a nearby grove, spit all the light in his eyes to stop this movement, he will keep going and reach-det ... ”Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, not by chance, his name became a household name and the word “silence” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the denouement of the social conflict of the play? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the vanquished?

From the appearance of the XIV last act, the play’s social conflict is resolved, in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that sounded in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusovsky society are summed up and the final rupture of the two worlds is affirmed - “the century of the present and past century." It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “A million torments”, endures personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced the early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely from those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, they are ready to preach even when no one is listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at the Famusov's ball. Famusovsky world is alien to him, he did not accept his laws. And therefore we can assume that the moral victory is on his side. Moreover, the final phrase of Famusov, completing the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important gentleman of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!

Griboyedov first called his play "Woe to the Wit", and then changed the title to "Woe from Wit". What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original one?

The original title of the comedy affirmed the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the reasons for the occurrence of grief are indicated, and thus the philosophical orientation of the comedy is concentrated in the title, while the reader and viewer are tuned in to the perception of problems that always confront a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal”, moral ones. The theme of the mind is at the heart of the comedy's conflict and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: "In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person." How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - on the clash of mind and stupidity, or on the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is not based on the clash of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other comedy characters are not at all stupid. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him to be such. But they have a practical, worldly, quirky mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man of an open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical ingenuity.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the heroes of the play.

About Famusov: "Obsessive, restless, quick...", "Signed, so off your shoulders!" , to the place, Well, how not to please your own little man, ”etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreyich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely”, “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant for us”, “So that the Lord destroys this unclean spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation…”, “Try about the authorities, and knows what they will say. / Bow a little low, bend down in a ring, / Even in front of the royal face, / So he will call a scoundrel! ..».

About Molchalin: “Molchalins are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “In my years you should not dare to have your own judgment”, “The famous servant ... like a thunderous tap”, “Molchalin! Who else will settle things so peacefully! / There he will stroke the pug in time, / Here he will rub the card just right ... ”.

Get acquainted with the various assessments of the image of Chatsky. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs ...” Gonchar-dov: “Chatsky is positively intelligent. His speech boils with wit ... "Katenin:" Chatsky is the main person ... he talks a lot, scolds everything and preaches inappropriately. Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and diversity of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was the first acquaintance with the work, by that time the aesthetic positions of both poets diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, or the plot, or the propriety of Griboyedov's comedy. Subsequently, "Woe from Wit" will enter Pushkin's work with hidden and explicit quotations.

Chatsky's accusations of verbosity and inopportune preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set themselves: to express your positions in any audience. They were distinguished by directness and sharpness of judgments, categoricalness of their sentences, not taking into account secular norms, they called a spade a spade. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, an advanced person of the 20s of the XIX century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical study by I. A. Goncharov “A Million of Torments”. Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not translated in society”?

The state, designated in the comedy as “the mind is out of tune with the heart,” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to approve progressive views, to oppose injustice, the inertia of social principles, to find answers to urgent spiritual and moral problems create conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times. material from the site

B. Goller in the article "The Drama of a Comedy" writes: "Sofya Griboedova is the main mystery of comedy." What, in your opinion, is connected with such an assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the ladies of her circle: independence, a sharp mind, a sense of her own dignity, disregard for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like Princess Tugoukhovskaya, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, accepts his comings on dates and gentle silence for love and devotion, becomes a persecutor of Chatsky. Her mystery lies in the fact that her image evoked various interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V. A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia loving Chatsky, but because of his departure, feeling insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, well able to control herself. Mockingness, grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina discovered in Sophia a strong character and a deep feeling. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of the Famus society, but did not denounce him, but despised him. Love for Molchalin was generated by her imperiousness - he was an obedient shadow of her love, and she did not believe Chatsky's love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious to the reader, viewer, theater figures to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action) characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it respected in comedy?

In comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place during the day), place (in Famusov's house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: "I'm not talking about poetry: half must be included in a proverb." What is the novelty of the language of Griboyedov's comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become winged.

Griboedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial nature of the language is given by the free (variegated) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three calms and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in "Woe from Wit" and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed are those who believe.

Signed, so off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many a week.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And the golden bag, and marks the generals.

Oh! If someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called "Woe from Wit" a comedy in verse. Sometimes there is a doubt whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be attributed to the category of comics, on the contrary, he endures a deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of a comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov's desire, attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around the fall of Silent-on from the horse, Chatsky's constant misunderstanding of Sophia's transparent speeches, "little comedies" in the living room during the congress of guests and during the spread of rumors about Chatsky's madness), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give full reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, as it raises significant social and moral problems.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “extra person” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not "serve the higher-standing". And such people, despite their intelligence, abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "current century"?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: the cousin of Rock-tooth, who “suddenly left the service, began to read books in the village”; nephew of Princess Fedor, who “does not want to know the officials! He is a chemist, he is a botanist”; professors of the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who "practice in schisms and disbelief."

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" refers to the "gone century"?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, the old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of the Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky "changed the law", the countess - "he is a cursed Voltairian", Famusov - "try about the authorities - and he knows what he will tell", that is, the main sign of insanity, according to the views of the Famus society, is free-thinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia prefer Molchalin to Chatsky?

Sofya was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, as she thinks, is pure, shy, sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-but-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was brought up by the Famusov environment in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and positions in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy "Woe from Wit", which have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Bypass us more than all sorrows and master's anger, and master's love.

Went to a room, got into another.

He never uttered a wise word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!

More in number, cheaper price.

A mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod.

Not a man, a snake!

What a commission, creator, to be a father to an adult daughter!

Read not like a sexton, but with feeling, with sense, with arrangement.

Fresh legend, but hard to believe.

I would be glad to serve, it would be sickening to serve, etc.

Why is the comedy Woe from Wit called the first realistic play?

The realism of the play lies in the choice of a vital social conflict, which is resolved not in an abstract form, but in the forms of “life itself”. In addition, the comedy conveys the real features of everyday life and social life in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. The play ends not with the victory of virtue over evil, as in the works of classicism, but realistically - Chatsky is defeated by the more numerous and close-knit Famus society. Realism is also manifested in the depth of the disclosure of characters, in the ambiguity of Sophia's character, in the individualization of the characters' speech.

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

On this page, material on the topics:

woe from your mind attitude to service quotes
name the life principles of silence
fatal mistakes of the heroes of the comedy Griboyedov Woe from Wit
expressions characterizing sophia
find in the text quotes characterizing the characters of the play

The comedy of Alexander Griboyedov brought huge success and celebrity to the author himself, and his main character, Chatsky, became a prominent representative of the revolutionary-minded youth of that time, who could no longer live the way the older generation lived, mired in bribes and servility. Many critics of that time noted that if there were no Chatsky in Griboedov's work, then it would be empty and meaningless, and few people could be interested in the content of such a work.

Alexander Andreevich does not appear in Griboyedov's story right away, but the author first introduces the reader to the Famusovs' house, where the rest of the important events of the comedy will unfold in the future. The first to remember him was a maid in the Famusovs' house, who only spoke well of him. She noted his qualities of character: smart, educated, cheerful, honest and sharp. When Chatsky, who spent a long time abroad, studying there and traveling, learning about the world, first appears in the Famusovs' house, a great commotion is caused. It turns out that they have a long acquaintance with Sofia Famusova, because they practically grew up together. While he traveled, he hoped that she was waiting for him and now he was even going to marry her.

But Chatsky is shown by the author as a brave and open person who has a negative attitude to any injustice, and, of course, to lies. He understands that with his mind and education, he can and should benefit his Fatherland, so prepare for a serious service, where all his knowledge will come in handy. But the Russian reality disappoints him, as secular society rejects him, and his knowledge turns out to be superfluous, and modern high society even frightens this.

The justification for this behavior of the society, which is ruled by Famusov and others like him, lies in the fact that Alexander Andreevich adheres to advanced ideas, he is against those traditions that have long been formed in the secular society of the nineteenth century. For example, he absolutely does not accept and speaks negatively about cringing, because, in his opinion, it is necessary to serve not individuals, but the common cause. Therefore, with great indignation, he speaks of the Famus society, which is simply mired in a multitude of vices. It is sickening for him to serve in front of people who do nothing for the development of their country, but only dream of moving up the career ladder and lining their pockets. Alexander Andreevich is not only young, but hot, and open, so he is ready to sacrifice everything to serve for the good of the country's development, and the Famus society, where he ends up after returning to his homeland and places familiar from childhood, he is called scoundrels, although noble .

Chatsky boldly and openly opposes the order that prevails in the country. For example, serfdom, which enslaves the people, makes you think that a person, even a poor one, can be mocked like that. The young hero Alexander Griboyedov is presented by the author as a true patriot of his Motherland, who is ready to fight for order and justice to finally reign in his country.

Therefore, he also comes into conflict with a society that does not want to accept his new advanced ideas, which frighten him. He also speaks against the tsar, who cannot in any way stop this lawlessness against the peasants. He has a conflict not only with high society, with Famusov, the father of his bride, Molchalin, who is slowly moving up the career ladder and is ready to humiliate himself and become vile for this. But it is striking that it is Sophia, Chatsky's bride, who also comes into conflict with him when she first starts a rumor about him that he is crazy.

Yes, Alexander Chatsky's speeches are too open, straightforward and bold. He is not afraid to tell the whole truth, and in this he is close to the Decembrists. Believe that he will not stumble from the work he has begun. He knows exactly the goal and will go to it. And he will definitely be the winner, because he is always a warrior, a righteous and angry denouncer of meanness and sycophancy.

Chatsky is not in Moscow for long, as he does not find support in anyone. Even Sofya, a young and educated girl, turned out to be weak and easily succumbed to the influence of a society in which the Famusovs and Molchalins thrive. But she also betrayed her friend and fiancé, chose Molchalin, who loves not her at all, but the state and position in society of her father.

Chatsky is depicted by the author as a real fighter, a warrior who has noble features, dignity and honor. All this was manifested not only in his passionate speeches, but also in actions in which he did not allow himself to become like Sophia's father and become one of them. It was people like the young and noble hero Alexander Griboyedov who made the life of the serfs change, and the common people finally became free.

Chatsky is the first image of a positive hero of his time in Russian literature, who embodied the typical features of the generation of advanced noble youth. The images of freedom-loving heroes, fighters for the common good and personal independence were created earlier by the Decembrists, Pushkin in The Prisoner of the Caucasus, but they were abstract, romantic symbols devoid of living flesh. The image of Chatsky, sad, lonely in his irony, dreamy, was created at the end of the reign of Alexander the First, on the eve of the uprising. This is a man who completes the era of Peter the Great "and tries to see, at least on the horizon, the promised land."

How did the author manage to combine the features of a whole generation in one hero and create a unique individuality? Chatsky is the mouthpiece of progressive ideas, and at the same time, his personality is conveyed psychologically accurately, in all its complexity. Even Griboedov's contemporaries were looking for a prototype of the main character of the comedy among real people. The most popular version was that the author embodied in the image of Chatsky the features of his friend Chaadaev, an outstanding Russian philosopher, a man of brilliant mind and strong character. Even the appearance of the hero resembles Chaadaev, and even Pushkin was interested in whether Griboedov actually wrote off the image from their mutual friend.

Of course, the spiritual image of Chaadaev was partially reflected in the image of the main character. But still, it cannot be said that it was he who was brought out in the comedy. This strong, extraordinary personality influenced the worldview of many contemporaries, including Pushkin. His biography is similar to Chatsky's drama. Chaadaev abandoned a brilliant state career, created an original philosophical and political work, where he very deeply, historically and psychologically argued, determined Russia's place in the world process. His original judgments and emphasized opposition infuriated the tsar, and Nicholas the First himself declared Chaadaev crazy. The persecution of the thinker was massive, and rumors spread as easily and willingly as about Chatsky: the crowd does not like individuals who are ahead of their time and do not need her approval.

However, Chatsky also captures the features of another outstanding contemporary - the poet, critic, literary critic, Decembrist Wilhelm Kuchelbecker. An infinitely honest, disinterested servant of art, a passionate and ardent defender of freedom, democratic values, Kuchelbecker always defended his views, not looking at the disfavor and rejection of the audience. His romantic love of freedom, enthusiasm, kind and trusting attitude towards people, maximalism in defending his views undoubtedly helped the author in creating the image of Chatsky.

The autobiographical element is also present in the appearance of the protagonist. Griboyedov reflected in the comedy both his ideas and character traits: absolute independence from public opinion and complete freedom of expression. Perhaps the author drew the conflict of the comedy from his own life experience. One of the playwright's acquaintances, university professor Foma Yakovlevich Evans, recalled that one day a rumor spread around Moscow that Griboyedov had gone mad. He himself excitedly told the professor that “two days earlier he had been at a party where he was greatly outraged by the wild antics of the then society, the servile imitation of everything foreign, and, finally, the obsequious attention that surrounded some Frenchman, an empty talker.” The enraged writer burst into an angry tirade denouncing the lack of national pride and undeserved respect for foreigners. The secular crowd immediately declared Griboedov crazy, and he vowed to reflect this event in his comedy. The “Frenchman from Bordeaux” and the stupid worship of him by the Famus society aroused Chatsky’s indignation: “Will we ever rise again from the foreign power of fashion? So that our smart, peppy people, even in language, do not consider us Germans. The unanimous recognition of Chatsky as insane, the most incredible reasons for his mental illness that easily arise - all this is very reminiscent of an incident from the life of Griboyedov.

And yet, despite the similarity of the hero with real faces, the image of Chatsky is artistic, collective. Chatsky's drama is typical of that period of Russian life, which began with the national-patriotic upsurge of 1812-1815 and ended with the complete collapse of democratic illusions and the intensification of reaction in the early 1820s. The Decembrists perceived the image of Chatsky as a creative reflection of their own ideas and feelings, an indomitable desire to renew society, searches, and hopes.

Chatsky's worldview was formed during the rise. Brought up in the manor house of Famusov, the boy grew up inquisitive, sociable, impressionable. The monotony of established life, the spiritual limitations of the Moscow nobility, the spirit

"the past century" evoked boredom and disgust in him. National-patriotic enthusiasm after the great victory, freedom-loving sentiments intensified the sharp rejection of conservatism. High ideas, the desire for transformation seized the ardent hero, and “he seemed bored with us, he rarely visited our house,” Sophia recalled. Despite a sincere feeling for Sophia, young Chatsky leaves her and leaves to travel in order to learn about life, to enrich his mind. It would not have been difficult for Chatsky to make a career and arrange a personal life. Sophia, obviously, was in love with him, but she could not appreciate it, her value system did not fit how one could risk personal happiness for the sake of an abstract general welfare. The limited worldview does not allow her to objectively perceive the image of Chatsky that goes beyond the scope of romantic book characters:

Sharp, smart, eloquent,

Especially happy in friends

That's what he thought about himself...

The desire to wander attacked him.

Oh! If someone loves someone

Why go crazy and go so far?

Chatsky did not at all reject Sophia's love, and the point is not that he preferred travel to her. It's just that his spiritual needs are wider than personal well-being. Chatsky could not be happy without realizing himself as a citizen, he could not confine himself to a happy marriage. But he is a living person, ardent, trusting, passionate. Chatsky's love for Sophia did not die out in separation, her flame flared up even more. He returns to Moscow full of hopes and dreams and counts on reciprocity. But time has changed the girl's feelings. Smart, sensitive, sophisticated, having read sentimental novels, she is just as sincerely looking for true love as Chatsky. Sophia also objectively assesses the emptiness and limitations of Skalozub (“Where how sweet! And it’s fun for me to listen to the fear of the front and the ranks. Molchalin, in her eyes, is the hero of her favorite sentimental novels. He seems timid, dreamy, modest and gentle, and to love him for Sophia means to express a passive protest to the world of vanity and sober calculation. Having found in the chosen one the features characteristic of her ideal, having fallen in love with him, Sophia can no longer evaluate Molchalin objectively. And the exact characterization of him in the mouth of Chatsky sounds to her like an evil satire.

And Chatsky is tormented by doubts, suffers from uncertainty, trying to find out Sophia's true feelings: "The fate of love is to play her blind man's blind man's blind man, but to me ...". The sharp mind of the hero, his brilliant critical characteristics of those around him are perceived by Sophia as "a hail of barbs and jokes", "contempt for people". Her assessment of Molchalin (“Of course, he doesn’t have this mind that a genius for others, but for others a plague that is quick, brilliant and soon opposes ...”) at first encourages Chatsky: “She doesn’t put a penny on him ... Shalit She doesn't love him." The hero is convinced that such a girl cannot fall in love with such a gray, faceless creature. The stronger his shock, the cause of which is not even the wounded pride of the rejected lover, but the offended pride of an exalted, noble personality. Sophia destroyed their quivering friendly relations, an exalted idea of her, forgetting "both female fear and shame." Chatsky is humiliated and trampled on by Sophia's choice: "The silent ones are blissful in the world." He cannot forgive that he, an outstanding person, was put on the same level with Molchalin, a man with slavish morality and a low soul, and it was Sophia who did this:

Before whom I just now so passionately and so low

There was a waster of tender words!

And you! Oh my God! Whom did they choose?

When I think about who you preferred!

The personal drama of the hero was aggravated by the public one: educational ideas, romantic enthusiasm and freedom-loving hopes collided with the resolute resistance of lordly Moscow. Chatsky is a maximalist both in his personal life and in public. He mercilessly unmasks the representatives of the "past century", mired in self-interest, vulgar secular entertainment, intrigue, gossip:

As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;

As not in the war, but in the world they took it with their foreheads;

Knocked on the floor without regret!

Who needs: those arrogance, they lie in the dust,

And for those who are higher, flattery, like lace, was woven.

Chatsky is convinced that the "age of humility and fear" is over, that the advanced, educated noble youth is not going to get ranks by deceit, but will "serve the cause, not individuals." He stigmatizes the secular crowd, mired "in feasts and extravagance."

The complete lack of rights of the peasants, legalized slavery are all the more humiliating because "our smart, vigorous people" defended the independence of the fatherland and had the right to count on an improvement in their situation. Chatsky, who “managed his estate blunderingly”, that is, he freed the peasants from corvée, sharply criticizes the feudal system he hates, sincerely hoping that the power of reason can change the psychology of people. In the power of ideological influence, he sees the engine of progress. Chatsky is a humanist, he believes that people tend to strive for the best. The hero is convinced that there are many such enthusiasts who have set the goal of life for the democratic transformation of society, that they are all modern youth, that the outdated system of autocracy and serfdom will soon collapse. But the old world holds fast to its privileges. By declaring Chatsky insane, society protects the sphere of its vital interests. The hero suffers a defeat, but not a moral, qualitative one, but a quantitative, formal one: the traditions of the Famus society turned out to be stronger than a brilliant, but lonely mind.

And yet, the image of Chatsky, despite the drama, is perceived optimistically, “The Chatskys live and are not translated in a society where the struggle of the fresh with the obsolete, the sick with the healthy continues.” He is a symbol of the eternal renewal of life, a herald of change.

<<здравомыслие>> main character? By what means does Griboyedov convey his attitude towards Chatsky?

Help me please!
Quarter grade will be

What are the features of classic comedy in the work? In Woe from Wit, the laws of the three unities (place, time, action) were formally observed, the morality of the title, traditional comic roles were preserved: Chatsky is an unlucky lover; Molchalin is a lucky lover and cunning; Sophia is a spoiled sentimental girl; Famusov is a father who is deceived by everyone, while he is preoccupied with a profitable marriage for his daughter; Lisa is a shrewd, dexterous maid. All this allows us to rightly attribute Griboedov's work to comedy.

But we must not forget that the tone in "Woe from Wit" is not set by a comedy at all. The work is based on a socio-political conflict: a clash of obscurantists with a spokesman for advanced ideas. And this conflict is resolved, of course, not in a comedic way.

Chatsky - young, sincere, bold to the point of insolence, with an unbalanced, nervous character; he has a huge reserve of strength, and he is unusually active, eager for action, ready to flare up at any moment and prove to anyone the justice of his opinion. He is wrong, he is ready to defend his ideas, not understanding or not wanting to understand that he will not be heard and supported. The main feature of Chatsky is a free mind, sanity, the “embittered mind” of a critically thinking person. He is “not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. Chatsky's mind sparkles in his ardent monologues, in his well-aimed characterizations, in each of his remarks. At first he is cheerful and jokes not at all evil, and only when Famusov, setting him an example of "seniors", offends his dearest convictions, only then does he start the battle.
Means - monologues, aphoristic judgments, the characterization of the hero by other actors, the speech of the hero.

), belongs to the best part of the then Russian young generation. Many literary critics have argued that Chatsky is a reasoner. This is completely false! You can call him a reasoner only insofar as the author expresses his thoughts and feelings through his mouth; but Chatsky is a living, real face; He, like every person, has his own qualities and shortcomings. (See also Image of Chatsky.)

We know that in his youth Chatsky often visited Famusov's house, together with Sophia studied with foreign teachers. But such an education could not satisfy him, and he went abroad to wander. His journey lasted 3 years, and now we see Chatsky again at home, in Moscow, where he spent his childhood. Like any person who has returned home after a long absence, everything here is sweet to him, everything arouses pleasant memories associated with childhood; he gladly goes over in his memory acquaintances, in whom, by the nature of his sharp mind, he certainly sees funny, caricature features, but at first he does this without any malice and bile, and so, for laughter, to embellish his memories: “a Frenchman knocked out by a breeze ... ", and" this ... black-haired, on the legs of cranes ... "

Woe from the mind. Performance by the Maly Theatre, 1977

Going through the typical, sometimes caricatured aspects of Moscow life, Chatsky says passionately that when

“... you wander, you return home,
And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!

In this, Chatsky is completely different from those young people who, returning from abroad to Russia, treated everything Russian with contempt and praised only everything that they saw in foreign countries. It was thanks to this external comparison of native Russian with a foreign one that developed in that era to a very strong degree gallomania, which so outrages Chatsky. His separation from his homeland, the comparison of Russian life with European life, only aroused an even stronger, deeper love for Russia, for the Russian people. That is why, having found himself again after a three-year absence in the environment of Moscow society, he sees under a fresh impression all the exaggeration, all the ridiculous aspects of this gallomania.

But the naturally hot Chatsky no longer laughs, he is deeply indignant at the sight of how the “Frenchman from Bordeaux” reigns among Moscow society only because he is a foreigner; resents the fact that everything Russian, national causes ridicule in society:

“How to put the European in parallel
With the national - something strange! -

someone says, arousing general laughter of approval. In turn, reaching the point of exaggeration, Chatsky, in contrast to the general opinion, says with indignation:

“If only we could borrow some money from the Chinese
Wise they have ignorance of foreigners.
………………………
“Will we ever rise from the foreign power of fashion,
So that our smart, kind people
Although by language he did not consider us Germans? -

meaning by "Germans" foreigners and alluding to the fact that in society in that era everyone spoke foreign languages among themselves; Chatsky suffers, realizing what an abyss separates millions of the Russian people from the ruling class of nobles.

From an early age, children were given a foreign upbringing, which gradually alienated secular youth from everything native, national. Chatsky casually sneers at these "shelves" of foreign teachers, "more in number, at a cheaper price," who were entrusted with the education of noble youth. Hence the ignorance of their people, hence the misunderstanding of the plight in which the Russian people found themselves, thanks to serfdom. Through the mouth of Chatsky, Griboedov expresses the thoughts and feelings of the best part of the then nobility, who were indignant at the injustices that serfdom entailed, and who fought against the arbitrariness of inveterate serf-owners. Chatsky (the monologue “And who are the judges? ..”) vividly depicts pictures of such arbitrariness, recalling one gentleman, “Nestor noble scoundrels,” who exchanged several of his faithful servants for three greyhounds; another, a theater lover, who

“I drove to the fortress ballet on many wagons
From mothers, fathers of rejected children”; -

he made "all of Moscow marvel at their beauty." But then, in order to pay off creditors, he sold these children one by one, who portrayed “cupids and marshmallows” on the stage, separating them forever from their parents ...

Chatsky cannot calmly talk about this, his soul is indignant, his heart aches for the Russian people, for Russia, which he dearly loves, which he would like to serve. But how to serve?

“I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve,”

he says, hinting that among the many government officials he sees only the Molchalins or such nobles as Famusov's uncle Maxim Petrovich.

Over here, I don't ride anymore.
I'm running, I won't look back, I'll go looking around the world,
Where there is a corner for the offended feeling!
Carriage for me, carriage!”

In this stormy outburst of despair, the entire ardent, unbalanced, noble soul of Chatsky is visible.