Famusov calls Chatsky a dangerous person. Essay on literature

Chatsky is close to people of the Decembrist mindset, Famusov is his main opponent, a defender of the autocratic serfdom. Already from the first act of the comedy it becomes clear how different these people are. In subsequent episodes, Famusov expresses his opinion about books and service. From Sophia’s conversation with Liza, it is clear that Famusov, “like all Moscow people,” values ​​only rank and wealth in people, and he himself tells Sophia: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you.” All this creates a certain idea of ​​Famusov.

Chatsky seems completely different. Sincere, enlivened by his meeting with Sophia, witty, he laughs at Famusov, sharply jokes about the Moscow nobles, their life and pastime.

This is how the ideological conflict between Famusov and Chatsky is outlined, which begins in the 2nd act. In their dispute, disagreement is evident in everything.

Famusov tries to teach:

Don’t mismanage your property, brother. And most importantly, go ahead and serve.

He colors his teachings with memories of the order of Catherine’s times, when his grandfather Maxim Petrovich won the empress’s favor with flattery and servility, and convinces Chatsky to serve, “looking at his elders.” “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,” Chatsky replies to this proposal. He despises people who are ready

Chatsky believes that it is necessary to serve “the cause” and not “persons,” and approves of those who “are in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.” Famusov announces it dangerous person, who does not recognize the authorities, and threatens him with court.

Famusov is a defender of the autocratic-serf system and admires the old orders and foundations of life. People like Chatsky are dangerous, they encroach on life, which is the basis of his well-being.

Famusov, a serf owner, considers the landowner’s right to dispose of people as he pleases to be legal. He does not see human dignity in serfs. Chatsky expresses respect for ordinary people, calling the Russian people “smart, kind.” It is against people like Famusov that Chatsky directs his blow in the monologue “Who are the judges?..” He is outraged that the cruel serf-owners are recognized as the “fathers of the fatherland” in society. These people “take their judgments from forgotten newspapers.”

When Famusov’s guests “in full chorus” declare Chatsky crazy, Famusov claims that he was the first to make this discovery:

Try talking about the authorities - and God knows what they'll tell you! Bow a little low, bend like a ring, even in front of the royal face, so he will call you a scoundrel!

Famusov sees the reason for Chatsky’s madness in science, in enlightenment: Material from the site

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason, That now there are more crazy people, and deeds, and opinions.

The difference in views and culture is clearly manifested in the speech of Chatsky and Famusov. Chatsky is an educated man, his speech is logical, figurative, and reflects the depth of thought. He is a master of aphorisms and caustic epigrams. His word is a striking weapon.

Famusov’s speech is the speech of a person who is not very educated, but not stupid, cunning, powerful, accustomed to considering himself infallible. He argues, defending his views, and even shows wit.

In a conversation with Skalozub, insinuatingness and servility are manifested, the words contain affectionate suffixes (“an order in his buttonhole”), he even adds “-s”: “Sergey Sergeich, come here to us, sir.” With the servants, he is always rude, grumpy, he calls them names, calling them nothing more than Parsley, Filka, Fomka, regardless of age.

So Griboyedov contrasts the “present century” with the “past century.”

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• Chatsky's opinion on servility quotes
• Famusov and Chatsky's conversation about education
• essay about Famusov
• Why do Famusov and Chatsky value a person?
• What are Famusov and Chatsky arguing about in Act 2?

The main conflict of the comedy - the contradiction between “the present century and the past century” - is reflected in the disputes between representatives of these “centuries” with their different views and opposing beliefs. That is why the main characters, Chatsky and Famusov, talk at length about the problems of our time, giving arguments, proving that they are right. This allows the reader to delve deeper into the essence of the disagreements that arose between the inert, conservative nobility and the progressive people of the era of the 10-20s of the 19th century.

Alexander Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is the image of a man who, in his beliefs and views, is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with the moral principles of the Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in the behavior of Chatsky, who expresses his opinion, coming into conflict with many representatives of the Moscow nobility.

First of all, Chatsky himself is noticeably different from all the other heroes. This is a very educated person with an analytical mind; he is eloquent, gifted with imaginative thinking, which elevates him above the inertia and ignorance of the Moscow nobility. He regrets the loss of Russian national identity and speaks about this in a monologue that begins with the words “In that room there is an insignificant meeting...” (Griboedov used exactly this form of the word, although now we write “insignificant”). Chatsky reminds us of the need to preserve the Russian language and culture:

So that our smart, cheerful people
Although, based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans.

The main character’s clash with Moscow society occurs on many issues: this is the attitude to serfdom, to public service, to national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that he “would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not flatter, please, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not the persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.

In the camp of his opponents, there are different opinions: Molchalin dreams of “winning awards and having a fun life,” Skalozub is eager to become a general, and Famusov “what’s the matter, what’s not the matter... is signed, off your shoulders.” About your own employment important official says in a monologue “Petrushka, you’re always wearing new clothes...” when he writes down upcoming things to do in the near future. It lists dinner parties, funerals, christenings, and the most important events for the coming week, but makes no mention of any capital or government tasks.

Famusov and his supporters unite in the fight against Chatsky, since they do not tolerate attacks on the foundations of the autocratic-serf system. They want to maintain the unlimited power of the landowners over the peasants, and Chatsky is outraged that “Nestor of the Noble Scoundrels” sold off the serf child actors in order to partially pay off his debts. Moscow nobles are irritated by the desire for knowledge, education, and the ability to think independently, so they consider people like Chatsky dangerous, and they see books as the main evil: “Take all the books and burn them!”

Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov - defender of the “past century”, Moscow gentleman, official. He is quite rich and noble, he is a manager government agency, therefore has weight in society. Famusov is an important figure, an authoritative, respectable person, with his own ideology and position in life. He is confident that high status and successful advancement up the career ladder should be achieved by any means: bowing before superiors or government officials, flattering, acting as a jester if necessary, as did his uncle, Maxim Petrovich, who achieved the favor of the queen by simply falling on a slippery slope. parquet Famusov discusses this at length in the second act:

That's it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
We would learn by looking at our elders:
We, for example, or the deceased uncle...

Famusov’s attitude to service is the same as that of his uncle, that is, a high rank should bring him personal benefit. The position of manager is needed in order to live well yourself and to patronize relatives:

When I have employees, strangers are very rare;
More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children.

Therefore, awards or monetary rewards will go to them:

How will you begin to introduce yourself to a little cross, to a small town,
Well, how can you not please your loved one!

In conversations with Chatsky, Famusov reveals his principles and judgments about life and people. He, like other Moscow gentlemen, values ​​a person for his wealth, nobility and rank. He would choose his daughter’s groom precisely based on these characteristics: either “a bag of gold and aspires to be a general,” or has “two thousand family members.”

A.S. Griboedov assigns Famusov a special role in the development of the comedy conflict. This is the “engine” of action in the work, because it constantly “throws wood into the firebox,” causing Chatsky to want to argue, since they have opposite opinions on everything, so the conflict between the “past century” and the “present century” is aggravated. Famusov not only teaches the young, but also judges Chatsky for his “missteps”: for his reluctance to find benefits in the service, for his inability to receive income from peasant farms, for his harmful passion for science (“learning is a plague ...”). And he classifies Chatsky as a dangerous person because of his freethinking. In this important gentleman, all representatives support secular society who came to visit him.

Famusov is one of those judges mentioned in Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?”, where the hero criticizes not only the ignorance of the majority of the nobility, but also the morals of the landowners and officials. Further, the author of the comedy provided readers with the opportunity to see that Famusov, confident in his own infallibility and strictly condemning Chatsky or other young people, himself violates the laws, like many of his supporters. The system of bureaucratic permissiveness, impunity, and mutual responsibility gave Famusov the opportunity to feel like a master in Moscow.

The image of the Moscow gentleman created by Griboyedov allows us to see the typicality of this character for noble society in modern Russia to the author. This is confirmed by Famusov’s instructive monologues, which he pronounces on behalf of all his like-minded people. Famusov is also the antipode of Chatsky and the driving force in the development of the comedy conflict.

Chatsky is a representative of a small group of advanced noble intelligentsia, but his monologues are much more convincing and meaningful. However, Famusov’s guests do not want to listen to the accusatory speeches of this hero, since Chatsky expresses his opinions to those people who did not want to think about any reforms. That is why people with progressive views, thinking about changes in the socio-political life of Russia, united in secret societies, the purpose of which was, for example, the creation of a Constitution, as well as the fight for the abolition of serfdom.

Reviews

Oh, Organ Grinder, thank you very much! Only there are some “great literary critics” here like N.A. who turn green with anger when reading my articles. They, you see, have the right view, but in their opinion, I don’t. However, there are already many opposing opinions from readers, from literature teachers who are ready to offer children my works to help. So let those who need their special ideology rage, but I have allies like you and other thinking people, for whose sake I am writing.
My deep gratitude to you. Today I will read your works.
All the best to you. Sincerely

Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" is a satire on the society of Moscow nobles of the early 19th century. It presents the split that had emerged by that time among the nobility, the essence of which lies in the historically natural contradiction between old and new views on many social issues. In the play, Chatsky and Famusov society- “the present century” and “the past century.”

Moscow aristocratic society is represented by Famusov, the manager of the state house, his secretary Molchalin, Colonel Skalozub, and minor and off-stage characters. This rather numerous camp of conservative nobles is opposed by one main character comedy - Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

The conflict between Chatsky and Famus society arises when the main character of the play returns to Moscow, where he had been absent for three years. Once upon a time, Chatsky was brought up together with Sophia, Famusov’s seventeen-year-old daughter. There was youthful love between them, which still burns in Chatsky’s heart. Then he went abroad to “search for his mind.”

His beloved now has tender feelings for Molchalin, who lives in their house. But Chatsky has no idea about this. The love conflict develops into a social one, forcing Chatsky to speak out against Famus society on the most pressing issues. Their disputes concern education, family relations, serfdom, public service, bribery, servility.

Returning to Moscow, Chatsky discovers that nothing has changed here, no social problems have been resolved, and the nobles continue to spend their time in fun and idleness: “What new will Moscow show me? Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.” Chatsky’s attacks on Moscow and on the way of life of landowners makes Famusov fear him. The conservative nobility is not ready to change their views on life, their habits, and are not ready to part with their comfort. Therefore, Chatsky is a “dangerous person” for Famus society, because “he wants to preach freedom.” Famusov even calls him a “carbonari” - a revolutionary - and believes that it is dangerous to let people like Chatsky even close to the capital.

What ideas does Famusov and his supporters defend? Most of all, in the society of Old Moscow nobles, the opinion of the world is valued. To gain a good reputation, they are ready to make any sacrifice. It doesn’t matter whether the person matches the impression he makes. Famusov believes that best example for his daughter - an example of a father. In society he is “known for his monastic behavior.”

But when no one is watching him, not a trace remains of Famusov’s morality. Before scolding his daughter for being in the room alone with Molchalin, he flirts with his maid Liza and makes clear hints to her. It becomes clear to the reader that Famusov, who reads his daughter’s morals, himself lives by immoral principles, the main one of which is “sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.”

This is the attitude of Famus society towards service. Here, too, external attributes prevail over internal content. Chatsky calls the Moscow nobility passionate about rank and believes that the uniform covers “their weakness, poverty of reason.”

When Chatsky turns to Famusov with a question about how Sophia’s father would respond to his possible matchmaking with his daughter, Famusov angrily replies: “Go ahead and serve.” Chatsky “would be glad to serve,” but he refuses to “serve.” This is unacceptable for the protagonist of a comedy. Chatsky considers this humiliation. He strives to serve “the cause, not the persons.”

But Famusov sincerely admires the ability to “curry favor.” Here the reader, from the words of Famusov, learns about Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” had “a hundred people at his service” and “ate on gold.” At one of the receptions with the Empress, Maxim Petrovich stumbled and fell. But, seeing the smile on Catherine’s face, he decided to turn this incident to his benefit, so he fell several more times on purpose to amuse the court. Famusov asks Chatsky: “...What do you think? In our opinion, he’s smart.” But Chatsky’s honor and dignity cannot allow him to “fit into the regiment of jesters.” He is not going to earn his position in society through servility and sycophancy.

If Famusov is outraged by Chatsky’s reluctance to serve, then the careerism of Colonel Skalozub, who is “beyond his years and has an enviable rank,” evokes obsequious awe in this hero. Skalozub, according to Sophia, is so stupid that “he will never utter a smart word.” But it is him who Famusov wants to see as his son-in-law. After all, all Moscow nobles want to acquire relatives “with stars and ranks.” Chatsky can only lament that this society persecutes “people with a soul”, that a person’s personal qualities do not matter here, and only money and rank are valued.

Even Molchalin, who is taciturn throughout the entire play, in a dialogue with Chatsky boasts of his successes in the service: “With my work and effort, since I am listed in the archives, I have received three awards.” Despite his young age, he was accustomed, like the old Moscow nobles, to making acquaintances based on personal gain, because “you have to depend on others” until you yourself have a high rank. Therefore, the life credo of this character is: “At my age I should not dare to have my own opinion.” It turns out that the silence of this hero is just a mask covering his meanness and duplicity.
Chatsky’s attitude towards Famus society and the principles by which this society exists is sharply negative. In it, only those “whose necks bend more often” reach heights. Chatsky values ​​his freedom.

The noble society, depicted in the comedy “Woe from Wit,” is afraid of change, of everything new that is influenced historical events penetrates into the consciousness of the Russian nobleman. He manages to defeat Chatsky only due to the fact that he is completely alone in this comedy. This is the uniqueness of Chatsky’s conflict with Famus society. However, the aristocrats experience genuine horror from Chatsky’s words, because he fearlessly exposes their vices, points out the need for change, and therefore threatens their comfort and well-being.

Light found a way out of this situation. At the ball, Sophia, in a conversation with one of the guests, throws out the phrase that Chatsky is “out of his mind.” Sophia cannot be classified as a representative of the “past century,” but her former lover Chatsky threatens her personal happiness. This gossip instantly spreads among Famusov’s guests, because only the crazy Chatsky does not pose a danger to them.
By the end of the day in which the action of the comedy “Woe from Wit” takes place, all Chatsky’s hopes are dispelled. He “sobered up... completely.” Only after experiencing all the cruelty of Famus society does he realize that his paths with him have completely diverged. He has no place among people who live their lives “in feasts and extravagance.”

Thus, Chatsky in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is forced to retreat in the face of Famus’s society only because alone he has no chance of winning. But time will put everything in its place, and Chatsky’s supporters will introduce among the nobles the spirit of freedom and the value of a person’s personal qualities.

The described originality of Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society will help 9th grade students recreate the confrontation between two worlds in their essay on the topic “Chatsky and Famusovsky Society”

Work test

Chatsky is close to people of the Decembrist mindset, Famusov is his main opponent, a defender of the autocratic serfdom. Already from the first act of the comedy it becomes clear how different these people are. In subsequent episodes, Famusov expresses his opinion about books and service. From Sophia’s conversation with Liza, it is clear that Famusov, “like all Moscow people,” values ​​only rank and wealth in people, and he himself tells Sophia: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you.” All this creates a certain idea of ​​Famusov.

Chatsky seems completely different. Sincere, enlivened by his meeting with Sophia, witty, he laughs at Famusov, sharply jokes about the Moscow nobles, their life and pastime.

This is how the ideological conflict between Famusov and Chatsky is outlined, which begins in the 2nd act. In their dispute, disagreement is evident in everything.

Famusov tries to teach:

Don’t mismanage your property, brother.

And most importantly, go ahead and serve.

He colors his teachings with memories of the order of Catherine’s times, when his grandfather Maxim Petrovich won the favor of the Empress with flattery and servility, and convinces Chatsky to serve, “looking at his elders.” “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served,” Chatsky replies to this proposal. He despises people who are ready

The patrons yawn at the ceiling,

Show up to be quiet, shuffle around, have lunch,

Pull up a chair, lift up a scarf...

Chatsky believes that it is necessary to serve “the cause” and not “persons,” and approves of those who “are in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.” Famusov declares him a dangerous person who does not recognize the authorities, and threatens him with trial.

Famusov is a defender of the autocratic-serf system and admires the old orders and foundations of life. People like Chatsky are dangerous, they encroach on life, which is

The basis of his well-being. Famusov, a serf owner, considers legitimate the right of the landowner to dispose of people as he pleases. He does not see human dignity in serfs. Chatsky expresses respect for ordinary people, calling the Russian people “smart, kind.” It is against people like Famusov that Chatsky directs his blow in the monologue “Who are the judges?..” He is outraged that the cruel serf-owners are recognized as the “fathers of the fatherland” in society. These people “take their judgments from forgotten newspapers.”

When Famusov’s guests “in full chorus” declare Chatsky crazy, Famusov claims that he was the first to make this discovery:

Try talking about the authorities - and God knows what they'll tell you!

Bow a little low, bend like a ring,

Even before the royal face,

That's what he'll call you a scoundrel!

Famusov sees the reason for Chatsky’s madness in science, in enlightenment:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than then,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

The difference in views and culture is clearly manifested in the speech of Chatsky and Famusov. Chatsky is an educated man, his speech is logical, figurative, and reflects the depth of thought. He is a master of aphorisms and caustic epigrams. His word is a striking weapon.

Famusov's speech is the speech of a person who is not very educated, but not stupid, cunning, powerful, accustomed to considering himself infallible. He argues, defending his views, and even shows wit.

In a conversation with Skalozub, insinuatingness and servility are manifested, the words contain affectionate suffixes (“an order in his buttonhole”), he even adds “-s”: “Sergey Sergeich, come here to us, sir.” With the servants, he is always rude, grumpy, he calls them names, calling them nothing more than Parsley, Filka, Fomka, regardless of age.

So Griboyedov contrasts the “present century” with the “past century.”

One of the features of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is the presence of large and meaningful monologues in it....

Famusov not only does not recognize enlightenment, but even considers it very harmful for people, calling it the cause of Chatsky’s madness: “Learning is the plague, Learning is the reason...”. Leaving Moscow, Chatsky in his hearts, in one of his longest monologues denouncing Famus society, wishes the “fathers” to “sleep in blissful ignorance,” which, in his opinion, is the worst punishment for a person.

The views of the heroes also differ greatly on the issue of service, on receiving ranks and awards. According to Famusov, who “cannot help but please his loved one,” ranks can and should be obtained through acquaintances, bribes, that is, dishonestly. “With me, strangers’ employees are very rare, more and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children...” In contrast to him, Chatsky exclaims: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” The young man believes that it is not necessary to be an official in order to benefit society (he himself left the service). And if you serve, then serve honestly. Moreover, Chatsky did not accept the same position in life that Molchalin had, for example (“to please all people without fault”). Famusov, on the contrary, encouraged such behavior, since everything in his circle was based on hypocrisy and servility. Thus, being representatives of two different poles in comedy, Chatsky and Famusov pronounce monologues that contain the views of the “century” that they represent.

Updated: 2017-09-08

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Useful material on the topic

• Why do Famusov and Chatsky pronounce the largest and most meaningful monologues in the play? Based on the comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”