Composition on the topic: Why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness (based on the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboyedov)? Is Chatsky's loneliness a modern phenomenon? Loneliness of Chatsky in the comedy Woe from Wit

The concept of "loneliness" has always gone along with such words as "special", "unique" or "new". Our life in society is to blame, or rather, the strength of this society. On the one hand, being part of a large organism is a protection that is so important for each of us. But, on the other hand, it is in society that we "freeze", stop developing. After all, it is very important to be like everyone else. If you start to stand out, you will question your reputation. It is these things that Griboyedov is trying to convey to us in his work “Woe from Wit”.

This "public" comedy shows us, using the example of Chatsky, how difficult it is to bring something new into the world.

The author presents us with the main character as an ideal person. He rewarded Chatsky with all those character traits that must certainly be present in every personality. This is his opinion on everything that happens in the world, and the desire to fight for a new order. The hero is imbued with a feeling of love for the people and a thirst to go against the feudal system that poisons people. Chatsky is a man with a big and generous soul, who is able to love as sincerely and purely as it happens in the most delightful stories.

Griboyedov created a "new man". And this already means that he is not the same as those people who are in society. Therefore, it is a “stranger” and there is no place for it.

The main idea of ​​the work is to show the confrontation between Chatsky and Famusovsky world. The hero comes into this world not to become a part of it, but to denounce the old order, which is so deeply rooted in the hearts of people. Chatsky condemns the morals that have become the basis of life, serfdom. The author showed him as a strong man, courageous, ready to fight to the end for his ideals and principles.

Chatsky is lonely because millet is incompatible with the society that surrounds him. He is trying to change something, but sometimes there are things that are not so easy to overthrow and create in a new way. Chatsky and the Famus society... There can be no compromise here. For Chatsky to give up his beliefs is to give up himself and become a gray person in the same gray crowd. And for the Famus world, this is just a madman who is not given much importance.

Like any person who decides to go against the system, our hero is left completely alone. Nobody understands him. The outcast path is the only way out. After all, two such different worlds simply cannot exist side by side.

words.

27. Why M.Yu. Lermontov calls his love for the motherland strange?

Love for the motherland is a special feeling, it is inherent in every person, but at the same time it is very individual. Is it possible to consider it "weird"? It seems to me that here it is rather about how the poet, who spoke about the “unusualness” of his love for his homeland, perceives “ordinary” patriotism, that is, the desire to see the virtues, positive features inherent in his country and people.

Many works of M. Yu. Lermontov are also filled with love for the Motherland. His feeling for the Motherland is ambiguous and even painful, since there are things that contradict his human nature. Lermontov's love is sincere, but at the same time contradictory. So, in the poem "Motherland", written in 1841, he admits: "I love my homeland, but with a strange love!" What is this "strangeness"? The poet coldly speaks of royal glory, bought with the blood of the people. He loves in his homeland its nature, its breadth and boundlessness. He loves the village of his day, because it still has a patriarchal nature that is dear to his heart, which has been preserved, perhaps at the cost of poverty. And if there is prosperity (“full threshing floor”, “hut covered with straw”), then this causes a feeling of joy in the poet. Simple hard-working people live here, not indifferent to beauty (“windows with carved shutters”), who know how not only to work, but also to have fun. Ordinary people know how to give themselves entirely to work and the holiday. The poet loves the countryside, because in it people live in harmony with nature, with each other and with God. This way of life has almost disappeared from urban life, where there are so few real people who know how to work and enjoy life.

Lermontov conveys his love for the Motherland with epithets:

... But I love - for what, I don’t know myself -

Her steppes are cold silence,

Her boundless forests sway,

The floods of her rivers, like the seas,

On a country road I like to ride in a cart

And, with a slow gaze piercing the shadow of the night.

Meet around, sighing about an overnight stay,

The trembling lights of sad villages...

These epithets are discreet and simple, but how much deep feeling and meaning are in them, how much figurativeness. This landscape, given at the beginning of the poem, appears as if from a bird's eye view. Such is the power of Lermontov's creative imagination.

Of course, Lermontov creates his own image of the motherland. In his poems, she appears both in her heroic past, and in the grandeur of her boundless expanses, and in the poet's bitter thoughts about lawlessness and spiritual slavery.

Lermontov's love for the Motherland can be expressed in one line: "But I love - for what, I don't know myself." Yes, his love and deep affection for his homeland is "strange". Being a secular man and for the most part communicating with people from the highest circle, he, nevertheless, aspired with his soul to Russia of the people, he saw powerful forces, a moral basis in it.

words.

The fruits of "malice" in the comedy D.I. Fonvizin and in our days

When the playwright began writing The Undergrowth, the word in the title did not mean anything bad. Undergrowths were called teenagers under 15 years old, that is, the age determined by Peter1 for entering the service. In 1736, the period of stay in the "undergrowth" was extended to 20 years. The decree on the liberty of the nobility abolished the mandatory term of service and granted the nobles the right to serve or not to serve, but confirmed the compulsory education introduced under Peter1. What and how to teach, the question remained open.

The title character is Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka) - a minor, the son of the landowners Prostakov. He is 15 years old. Fonvizin's comedy is a play about an undergrowth, about his monstrous upbringing, which turns a teenager into a cruel and lazy creature. Prostakova follows the law, although she does not approve of it. She also knows that many, including those in her family, circumvent the law. Mitrofanushka has been studying for four years, but Prostakova wants to keep him with her for ten years.

The reason for "malice" is the moral consequence of Catherine's law "On the Liberty of the Nobles", published on February 18, 1762. Once Peter1 legalized the obligatory service of the nobles and this became a moral and legal justification for the landowners who had serfs. The nobleman served the state and the fatherland, the peasant nobleman; cruel landlords had to be guarded. Catherine's decree formally freed the nobleman from the obligation to serve the state; and, although the sovereign's service was still considered an honorable duty of the nobility, a matter of honor, nevertheless, the moral right of a nobleman to own peasants became doubtful, unlike nobles like Starodum, Pravdin and Milon and in contradiction with the formal meaning of the decree, most of the nobility understood it in the spirit Prostakova - as complete and fatherless power over the serfs without any moral, social, social and other restrictions.

Thus, the reason for Prostakova's "malice" is a misconception about the "liberty" of the nobility, not subject to moral standards. In the denouement of the comedy, Prostakova is defeated. Its collapse is the defeat of the entire previous "system" of education and the guarantee of the victory of new ideas proclaimed by positive characters. The last words of Prostakova "stand", as P.A. said. Vyazemsky, "On the boundary of comedy and tragedy." But with the personal tragedy of Prostakova, Fonvizin connected the coming triumph of a new morality, which excludes “malice” because of everyday life and is based on the benefit of the fatherland.

words.

29. “It’s a shame to me, since the word“ honor ”is forgotten ...” (V. Vysotsky)

The lines written by V. Vysotsky "It's a pity ... the word" honor "is forgotten ..." today, more than ever, relevant. The concept of "honor" has lost its meaning for modern man.

Starting from afar, people first came up with the exchange of goods, thus making up for the lack of what they needed to lead a normal life. The XVIII century was marked by the fact that the process of destruction of the walls between the estates began.

The amount of money began to increase, and gradually everything began to turn into a commodity, on which, as a result, the world closed.

In society, leading positions were assigned to merchants of all types and formats. As a result of the "innocent" replacement, the overwhelming majority of the members of the new society began to change their moral attitude. As an example, consider a certain Ivanov in the old days, who was publicly rude to Petrov, who, in turn, had to challenge the offender to a duel, or else pass for a coward, dressed in a stupid cap.

Today things are different. Nothing prevents the conditional Sidorov from insulting the conditional Petrov, since there will be no duel guaranteed. What is generally amazing is that tomorrow it is not necessary for Sidorov and Petrov to wake up as enemies! The same Sidorov in the morning will most likely be offered a mutually beneficial deal. So they turn from potential enemies into partners! Business interest today is put at the forefront. Such concepts as honor and dignity automatically turn into atavism, and they are replaced by a sense of economic expediency.

But, returning to the topic of duels, let's take Pushkin and Dantes as an example. It would look wildly like a situation in which Alexander Sergeyevich in court demands to compensate him for moral damage with money. This means that he evaluates his own honor and dignity in monetary terms. This is how modern citizens of a democratic society act.

The world has changed and this must be acknowledged. This happens regardless of human will. Human relationships today are built on the basis of criteria - goods and money. You need to live in this world, adhering to its laws, in order to become successful.

With the help of the image of the protagonist of the work "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboyedov wanted to show the reader how difficult it is to bring something new into the world, how difficult it is to live in a society where you cannot be understood and accepted because of your progressive thinking. People with new views on life are always alien to society, therefore they are doomed to loneliness. This also applies to Chatsky, because it is not easy to find people who will share his views.

Chatsky is endowed with the ideal features of the human soul. This person has self-esteem, he is educated and smart. Life in an unfair world is unacceptable for him. He tries in every possible way to resist the old orders, telling people about new truths. In the "famus society" Chatsky is considered abnormal, his new views on life are not ready to be accepted by the people of the Famus circle, it is much easier for them to continue to live in their swamp with old morals and views. But Chatsky is doomed to loneliness in this vile Famus society.

Faced with lies, deceit, hypocrisy and lack of education, Chatsky begins to directly express his opinion about the mess that is happening around. He opposes the “herd” opinion of the “famus society”. Instead of understanding something, understanding something new, these people cling to the old order. They are simply afraid to leave the herd, so they express their misunderstanding and disgust for Chatsky. People of the “famus society” are ready for anything for the sake of ranks and titles, hypocrisy and selfishness live in them, they don’t know another life and don’t want to know.

Alexander Andreevich has a sense of self-expression, freedom, he will never serve, all this characterizes him as a man of the new time. Chatsky is doomed to loneliness precisely because of this, he is very different from other people, he simply does not have an interlocutor in his mind.

Together with the article “An essay on the topic: Why is Chatsky doomed to loneliness? ("Woe from Wit")" read:

The majority is important in the life of society, it is extremely difficult to resist it, especially being alone.

This is the special tragedy of the image of Chatsky, opposing the crowd. Of the two dozen characters presented in Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov's play Woe from Wit, only Chatsky, no doubt, can be considered a partly heroic figure, challenging Famus society, but also endlessly lonely.

The protagonist's desire for independence

The protagonist is endowed with inner independence and a desire for freedom. He is trying to fight the injustice that is full of the reality surrounding him. He has his own opinion, and he fiercely defends it. He sincerely loves his country and his people, he wants to destroy the system based on serfdom and the humiliation of human dignity. The sincerity of his feelings and aspirations is beyond doubt.

Lonely Chatsky in the Famus society

Chatsky is rightfully considered an example of how difficult it is to convey new ideas to the masses. Of particular difficulty is the astounding inertness of the views of the Famus society. They are almost impossible to change, so the main character is doomed to exile and loneliness. In comedy, only one person speaks about morality, social transformation and spirituality. The rest don't care. They seek only their own well-being. Service to the cause - the principle that Chatsky proclaims, contradicts the way of thinking of Famusov and his entourage.

In the image of the protagonist, we see a new man of the era, different from the majority. This person does not adapt to the conventions of the world, therefore he is doomed to be rejected by the people around him. Chatsky is an ardent preacher of new, reformist ideas, he condemns the morality of the Moscow nobility, the morals that underlie their existence. His courage, no doubt, deserves respect.

His innovative views do not find a response among representatives of the Famus society. He's bad for conservatives. His ideas break the usual course of things, convenient for the majority. The protagonist strives for change, but faces difficulties.

Deciding to fight, Chatsky rises alone against everyone. The Moscow aristocracy cannot forgive his love of freedom, spreading the rumor about the madness of the protagonist, thus completely rejecting him.

What is the loneliness of the protagonist?

Chatsky's loneliness is explained by incompatibility with the conservative majority. Their values ​​and aspirations contradict each other. Aristocrats do not accept his ideas, since following them will require them to change the convenient arrangement of the world. This becomes the reason for Chatsky's loneliness.

In human society, the majority plays a huge role, it is almost impossible to resist the crowd, so the image of Chatsky, who has taken on the role of a warrior, but is still lonely, is tragic.

In A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, out of 20 characters, only A.A. Chatsky is a positive hero. He opposes his views to the entire Famus society, not finding understanding, is forced to leave Moscow. What lies at the basis of the contradiction between Chatsky and Famusovsky society?

First, it is a different view of education. Famusov believes that all evil lurks in the sciences and education: "If evil is to be stopped: / Take away all the books, but burn them."

Skalozub claims: “I will make you happy: a general rumor, / That there is a project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums; / There they will only teach in our way: one, two; / And the books will be saved like this: for big occasions.". But Chatsky, on the contrary, sees a boon for Russia in education, perhaps that is why he spent several years in Europe, gaining "mind and reason". Secondly, the characters look differently at the way of life and its meaning. For Famusov, Skalozub and other representatives of the "old Moscow" service is above all. But by “service” they mean the ability to get the “golden key” (the title of chamberlain is the highest rank at court). For Famusov, an authoritative person is Maxim Petrovich, who was granted the highest smile for a quick fall in front of the empress, followed by a promotion. Skalozub, without taking part in any battle, practically rose to the rank of general. No wonder Lisa says about him: "And the golden bag, and aims for the generals." But Chatsky "would be glad to serve," but he was "sickening to serve." For he, just like Starodum from Fonvizin's predecessor comedy "Undergrowth", sees the meaning of his existence in serving the fatherland, and not individuals. But if they have some opinion of their own, then the rest, like Molchalin, generally believe that they have no right to judge such things: “In my years, you should not dare / have your own judgment.” In addition, the acuteness of the problem lies in the fact that the Famus society consists of people in whom even little human is left, they have few moral qualities. Chatsky himself sees who is preferred in this world, and says: "The silent ones are blissful in the world." And people like Chatsky, the Famus society is trying to expel, so that nothing interferes with a calm and familiar life. Yes, if a person lives, guided only by personal benefits, knows how to keep silent in time, “stroke a pug”, raise a handkerchief - he is “his own”!

Strengthens the tragedy of the image of Chatsky and the love line of the play. Sophia, being a smart girl, prefers Chatsky to Molchalin, the same Molchalin who managed to please everyone. And, of course, Alexander Andreevich cannot understand why she made such a choice: “Why am I more stupid than Mochalina?” His love for Sophia is so great that he cannot even believe her words, he needs to see for himself everything. And he is convinced that Sophia, having been in the Famus society for so long, has become the bearer of his traits. Sophia's coldness, her dislike for him, and even the slander that she launched, dealt a strong blow to Chatsky's heart.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to argue that Chatsky is absolutely alone in comedy. After all, Skalozub says about his brother: “... he has firmly gained some new rules. / Chin followed him; he suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books. And Mrs. Khlestova talks about her nephew: “Professors! - our relatives studied with them, / And he left! even now to the pharmacy, as an apprentice. / Runs away from women, and even from me! / Officials do not want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist, / Prince Fedor, my nephew. Despite the fact that these faces do not appear on stage, it still becomes clear that Chatsky is not alone in his aspirations.

Thus, we see that the rejection from society and the rejection of the beloved make the image of Chatsky tragically lonely, but able to resist in the war. The appearance of people of his type gives hope for an emerging change in the public consciousness of Russians in the 19th century.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in those distant times, when people such as Chatsky A.A., the protagonist of the work of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit", brought new moods and ideas to society.

The person, in whose image Chatsky was, wanted to show a person inspired by lofty ideas, raising a revolt against society in defense of freedom, reason and art, cultivating a completely new morality, creating a new view of the world and human relationships.

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is a man in his prime, a nobleman. Chatsky's parents died quite early, and he was forced to be brought up in the house of Famusov, a friend of his late father. Chatsky was very smart. He defended the right of a person to freedom of choice of occupation: to travel, relax in the countryside, read smart books or devote himself to “creative art, which he considered high and beautiful,” so Famusov believes that Chatsky is a dangerous person who does not recognize any authorities.

Chatsky does not like everything vulgar, as well as slavish admiration for all foreigners, servility, servility and other nonsense. His desire is to serve the Fatherland, labor, and not selective individuals. Being a true patriot, Chatsky most of all wanted to pay his debt to the Fatherland, sought to honestly serve him. It was because of this that he left Sophia and went to the city of Petersburg. With this, a brilliantly started career ended: “I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve.” And the state, oddly enough, needs servitude. Chatsky thinks that there are only people around him who are looking only for high ranks, crosses, money, not love, but a profitable marriage. Their ideal is "moderation and accuracy", their goal is "to take all the books to burn."

One of the most important properties of Chatsky is the fullness of feelings. It manifested itself both in the way he loves, and, no less, in the way he is angry and hates. In everything he shows passion, is often a fiery soul. He is fiery, sharp, intelligent, eloquent, impatient and yet full of life. All these qualities make him open to mistakes and a vulnerable person.
Chatsky, without a doubt, is the only positive character in Griboyedov's comedy.

Chatsky finds himself in an environment where he cannot be understood. And his views are not only not appreciated, but rejected, and moreover, persecuted. He is lonely and suffers, "a million torments" falls to his lot in one day.

Chatsky bursts into the sleepy silence of the Famusovs' house like a whirlwind, but his stormy joy, ringing and uncontrollable laughter, sincere tenderness from the heart, and ardent indignation, which are completely out of place in a house where everything is built on deceit and pretense. Chatsky's behavior causes misunderstanding, which then develops into irritation. He is sincere in everything: both in joy and in indignation.

Seagull alone. He himself is to blame for his loneliness. He lacks the flexibility of mind and cunning to adapt to the society in which he lives. His not very beautiful behavior and manner of behaving and speaking out at the ball turned society against him. By his behavior, he was known not as an intelligent person, but as a madman. I would not call Chatsky an absolutely positive hero of A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”.