Famus society and Chatsky. Famus society: characteristics

2024 Author: Leah Sherlock | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 05:25

The play "Woe from Wit" is a famous work by A. S. Griboyedov. In the process of its creation, the author departed from the classical canons of writing a "high" comedy. The characters in "Woe from Wit" are ambiguous and multifaceted images, and not caricatured characters endowed with one characteristic feature. This technique allowed Alexander Sergeevich to achieve amazing credibility in depicting the "picture of manners" of the Moscow aristocracy. This article will be devoted to the characterization of representatives of such a society in the comedy "Woe from Wit".

Problematics of the play

There are two plot-forming conflicts in "Woe from Wit". One of them concerns the personal relationships of the characters. Chatsky, Molchalin and Sofia participate in it. The other is a socio-ideological confrontation between the main character of the comedy and all the other characters in the play. Both storylines reinforce and complement each other. Without taking into account the love line, it is impossible to understand the characters,worldview, psychology and relationships between the heroes of the work. However, the main one, of course, is the social conflict. Chatsky and the Famus society confront each other throughout the play.

"Portrait" of comedy characters

The appearance of the comedy "Woe from Wit" caused a lively response in the literary circles of the first half of the 19th century. Moreover, they were not always laudatory. For example, Alexander Sergeevich's longtime friend, P. A. Katenin, reproached the author for the fact that the characters in the play are too "portrait", that is, they are complex and multifaceted. However, Griboedov, on the contrary, considered the realism of his characters the main advantage of the work. In response to criticisms, he replied that "… caricatures that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable …" and argued that there was not a single one in his comedy. Having managed to make his characters alive and believable, Griboyedov achieved a stunning satirical effect. Many unwittingly recognized themselves in the characters of the comedy.

Representatives of the Famus Society

In response to remarks about the imperfection of the "plan" of his work, Griboyedov stated that in his play "25 fools per sane person." Thus, he spoke rather sharply against the metropolitan elite. It was obvious to everyone who the author portrayed under the guise of comedic characters. Alexander Sergeevich did not hide his negative attitude towards the Famus society and opposed him with the only smartman - Chatsky. The rest of the characters in the comedy were typical images for that time: the well-known and influential Moscow "ace" (Famusov); loud and stupid careerist martinet (Skalozub); quiet and wordless scoundrel (Molchalin); domineering, half-mad and very rich old woman (Khlestova); eloquent talker (Repetilov) and many others. The Famus society in comedy is motley, diverse and absolutely unanimous in its resistance to the voice of reason. Consider the character of its brightest representatives in more detail.

Famusov: a staunch conservative

This hero is one of the most influential people in Moscow society. He is a fierce opponent of everything new and believes that it is necessary to live as the fathers and grandfathers bequeathed. Chatsky's statements for him are the height of freethinking and depravity. And in ordinary human vices (drunkenness, lies, servility, hypocrisy), he does not see anything reprehensible. For example, he declares himself that he is "known for his monastic behavior", but before that he flirts with Lisa. For Famusov, a synonym for the word "vice" is "scholarship". Condemnation of bureaucratic servility for him is a sign of insanity.

The question of service is the main one in Famusov's system of life values. In his opinion, any person should strive to make a career and thereby secure a high position in society. Chatsky for him is a lost man, as he ignores generally accepted norms. But Molchalin and Skalozub are businesslike, reasonablepeople. The Famus society is an environment in which Petr Afanasyevich feels fulfilled. He is the embodiment of what Chatsky condemns in people.

Molchalin: a dumb careerist

If Famusov in the play is a representative of the "past century", then Alexei Stepanovich belongs to the younger generation. However, his ideas about life completely coincide with the views of Peter Afanasyevich. Molchalin makes his way "to the people" with enviable persistence, in accordance with the laws dictated by the Famus society. He does not belong to the nobility. His trump cards are "moderation" and "accuracy", as well as lackey helpfulness and boundless hypocrisy. Alexei Stepanovich is very dependent on public opinion. The famous remark about evil tongues that are "more terrible than a gun" belongs to him. His insignificance and unscrupulousness are obvious, but this does not prevent him from making a career. In addition, thanks to his boundless pretense, Alexei Stepanovich becomes a happy rival of the protagonist in love. "The silent ones rule the world!" - Chatsky notes bitterly. Against the Famus society, he can only put up his own wit.

Khlestova: tyranny and ignorance

This is a colorful character from the Catherine era. An absurd and imperious lady-serf, who does not hide her disgust for enlightenment and education. With nothing to do, she carries with her to receptions"Arapka-girl and dog." Khlestova likes young Frenchmen and helpful people like Molchalin. Boundless tyranny is her life credo. Who is rich is right, she believes. Personal merit does not matter.

Puller: enviable groom

This hero is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity. A rude martinet who "had never uttered a word of wisdom." However, Famusov does not want another suitor for his daughter. Still would! With a relatively short service life, Skalozub is already "aiming for generals" and, moreover, a "golden bag". The Famus society defiantly does not want to notice the uncouthness and rudeness of the colonel. "Scholarship" of this character can not "fake" in any way. From his point of view, military drill is much more useful than any books there. Puffer is only interested in talking about "pounds and rows".

Zagoretsky: rogue and sharper

This man, despite his disgusting reputation, is quietly accepted into its ranks by the Famus society. Zagoretsky, despised by all, is a "master of service", therefore they look at his pranks through his fingers. The fact that he is a "liar", "thief" and "gambler" is openly spoken about. However, they cannot do without it here.

Repetilov: confidant of "noisy" secrets

This is a most interesting hero, which allows us to conclude that Griboyedov has a negative attitude towards the ideological "nonsense" that made the "conspiratorial"activity is a form of social pastime. In the words of Repetilov, an admirer of "scholarship". However, he himself admits that he would make a career with pleasure, but "he met failures." The Famus society sees no particular threat from the chatter of the "noisy" conspirator. Despite the fact that Repetilov publicly declares that he and Chatsky "have the same tastes", in fact he is also the same secular windbag as everyone else.

Off-stage characters

Famus society, the characteristics of which is the subject of this article, is not limited to the persons participating in the action. In comedy, a lot of people are mentioned in passing, whom the audience will never be introduced to. Off-stage characters are "invisible" participants in social conflict. They have a special function: with their help, the author was able to expand the scope of the work, so to speak, to bring the plot out of the scene. Playing no specific role in the plot, off-stage characters are inextricably linked with the defenders of the "past century" or, on the contrary, with representatives of the "present century". It is these invisible heroes that give an idea of the split of Russian society into two unequal halves. The majority includes ideologists who were warmed by the Famus society. "Woe from Wit" demonstrates the moral failure of their views. To a lesser extent - people like Chatsky. He is not alone at all. Skalozub's brother, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Prince Grigory, "Petersburg" professors, from whom the chiefhero, and so on. Famusov's guests consider them impractical madmen.

Author's remarks

In "Woe from Wit" A. S. Griboyedov actively uses remarks to convey the indifference with which the Famus society responds to Chatsky's words. Characteristics of the heroes of the comedy, their remarks are accompanied by dispassionate remarks of the author. For example, during a dialogue with Alexander Andreevich Famusov "does not see or hear anything." During the ball, when Chatsky utters an accusatory monologue condemning the "foreign power of fashion", the guests "circle in a w altz with the greatest zeal" or "scattered to the card tables." The situation of feigned "deafness" enhances the comic effect of the work, and also emphasizes the degree of mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.

Conclusion

Thus, the collective character and main ideological opponent of Chatsky is the Famus society. "Woe from Wit" shows readers the way of life and mores of the Moscow aristocracy, who lived in the second half of the 1810s. These people are united among themselves by conservative views and primitive practical morality. Their main goal is "to take awards and have fun." Chatsky and Famus society are at different poles of moral self-awareness. For Moscow aristocrats, "scholarship" is identified with free-thinking and madness. For Chatsky, the morality of "submission and fear" is a fragment of the past century,disgusting prejudice, alien to every normal person. In this confrontation, everyone has their own truth.

The moral deafness of the Famus society is brilliantly demonstrated in the play "Woe from Wit". Griboyedov Alexander Sergeevich entered the history of Russian literature as the author of one of the most topical and realistic works of his time. Many aphorisms from this comedy are very relevant today.