Larisa Petrieva, Ulyanovsk. Please help me compare Chatsky's monologues "Who are the judges?" and Famusov's monologue "Taste, father, excellent manner"
Analysis of Famusov's monologue ("Woe from Wit") "Taste, father, excellent manner:" According to the plan: What caused it, What topics are covered in it, What views of the hero are revealed, What is the mental state of the character in at the moment, with what purpose did the playwright introduce this monologue?
Answer:
F amus s o v Taste, father, excellent manner, Everything has its own laws: For example, we have been doing it from time immemorial, What honor is due to father and son; Be poor, but if there are two thousand family souls, - He and the groom. . . I will say decisively: there is hardly another capital like Moscow. Based on the erroneous thesis: “Woe from Wit is a satire, not a comedy”, V. G. Belinsky wrote, evaluating this monologue: “Famusov spreads about Moscow in a monologue of 54 verses, where, in places very originally expressing himself, in places does, for Chatsky, antics against society that only Chatsky could think of” (III, 476). In part, this assessment is due to the stage practice of that time, when monologues were “recited” with appropriate pressure in those places that could cause laughter from the audience. However, both the bizarre change of topics in Famusov's monologue, surveying all layers of the Moscow nobility, and the comic ambiguity of his praises - everything is in close connection with the dramatic situation in which this monologue is pronounced. the main objective at Famusov's - to make Skalozub think of marriage, but here Chatsky is present in the room (he is somewhat further away and therefore Famusov is in no hurry to introduce him to Skalozub); Chatsky hears everything, at any moment he can intervene in the conversation, and Skalozub noticed, of course, an unfamiliar young man. Famusov needs to be made clear in some way that this guest is random and the colonel is not a rival. However, Famusov begins his speech not quite well: true to himself, he praises the Moscow ancestral nobility. There is, of course, a point in this: in this way Skalozub is given to understand that the Famusovs in Moscow are not last people. However, having said: “honor by father and son”, Famusov catches himself, remembering that his interlocutor cannot boast of ancestors at all, and immediately stipulates that the main thing is not nobility, but wealth. He is annoyed that the word “bad” escaped from his tongue (it was not accidental, of course, that it escaped: no matter how fawning Famusov before Skalozub, he has a better opinion of himself!), - and Famusov changes the subject, attacks the “reasoners”, whom “ will not be included in the family, ”almost nodding at Chatsky. Here it is necessary to somehow explain why this young man enters the house where there is a bride, and Famusov refers to the well-known Moscow hospitality. Here, however, a new danger lies in wait for him: he touched the "reasons" and Chatsky can enter into a conversation and ruin the whole thing - this is how a compliment to the "young men" is born. But Famusov simply cannot leave this praise without a reminder of the “fathers of the fatherland”; True, he is now talking about them, too, with an eye on Chatsky - if only he was silent! - Chatsky’s “Carbonar speech” about Maxim Petrovich is still fresh in my memory, and Famusov gives Chatsky a compensation: “Sometimes they talk about the government in such a way that if someone overheard them ... trouble! "- but then he realizes that it's a disaster if Skalozub concludes something from his words, and reduces this topic to nothing: "they will argue, make noise and disperse", at the same time - for Chatsky, first of all - emphasizing their significance and necessity ("without they won't get by"). Meanwhile, Famusov - in his cunning allusions - has gone far from the main topic, and he forces it, remembering the ladies and uttering praise for them in Skalozubov's expressions (“Command before the front!”), And here it’s not far from the daughters, after all, Moscow ( to Moscow girls!) even the Prussian king “wondered not by” (that is, unusually), - this is a trump card under Skalozub, for whom the Prussian school is the best in military affairs
1A lesson in comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". (grade 9)
Lesson topic: 2 action comedy. Learning to analyze monologues.
The purpose of the lesson:
1. Encourage students to independently analyze the images of comedy
2. Raise love for the Motherland, for the place where you live.
3. Raise the desire to fight everything bad in Russia.
4. Reveal the vices of the noble life of Russia in the 19th century
5. Draw a parallel between the criminal actions of Famusovsky
Methods: research, reproductive.
Vocabulary work:reference vocabulary characterizing the moral and social positions of Chatsky Famusov (conservatism, progress, serfdom, bribery, servility.
During the classes.
1. Organizational moment. Teacher: Wishing students to be active, to express their point of view.
2. Repetition.
What is the role of the first act in the development of the plot? Perception question II actions.
How was this act read at home?
What seemed difficult?
3. Analysis of monologues.
For further discussion, it is proposed to analyze the monologue by answering next questions:
What prompted this monologue?
What topics are covered in it?
What views, beliefs of the hero are revealed in this monologue?
What is psychological condition character at the moment? How is it expressed?
What is the purpose of this monologue introduced by the playwright?
Expressive reading monologue "Petrushka, you are always with a new thing." questions for this monologue.
At what point is this monologue delivered?
What is Famusov “philosophizing” about? How do the events that he asks to write down testify to the content of the life of people in his circle?
What is the rate of speech? (Slow- Famusov talks about the established and for him eternal Moscow life)
Who is the witness of this monologue and what character will appear immediately after it ends? (Witness- wordless Petrushka, and Chatsky will appear, who will refuse to obey this established way of life).
-What characteristic does Chatsky give to the way of life in society? “As he was famous, whose neck often bent”, “As not in war, but in the world they took it with their foreheads, knocked on the floor without sparing!”, “And for those who are higher, flattery, like lace, weaved” The answer to this question with the help of selected quotations is recorded in a notebook).
-What is Chatsky's assessment of time? (“Direct was the age of humility and fear, all under the guise of zeal for the king”). The answer to this question with the help of selected quotations is recorded in a notebook).
Phenomena 2-5.
Expressive reading of Famusov's monologue "That's it, you are all proud!"
-How does Famusov feel about life? (“My custom is this: signed and off my shoulders”) The answer to this question with the help of selected quotations is recorded in a notebook).
What are his ideals? ( Famusov’s ideal is Maxim Petrovich, who “knew respect before everyone”, “ate on gold”, “eat forever in a train”, “who leads to the ranks and gives pensions?”)
What fascinates Famusov in Maxim Petrovich? ( Famusov, like the whole society, admires his ability to “bend into an inflection when it is necessary to serve”, since it is this ability that helps in Moscow “To reach the known degrees”) The answer to this question with the help of selected quotations is recorded in a notebook).
Expressive reading and analysis of Famusov's monologue “Taste, father. great style…”
- What laws of life does Famusov continue to talk about?
What life ideals and values does each hero stand for, what does he take up arms against? (Answer
this question is written in a notebook with the help of selected quotations).
Questions to the following phenomena:
Who is Skalozub? How does he look at life?
4. Summing up the lesson.
-The great critic V. G. Belinsky spoke about the comedy : «... here ... this stormy dithyrambic outpouring of bilious, thunderous indignation at the sight of a rotten society of insignificant people, into whose souls the ray of God's light did not penetrate, who live according to the dilapidated traditions of antiquity, according to a system of vulgar and immoral rules, whose petty goals and low aspirations are directed only to the ghosts of life - ranks, money, gossip, humiliation of human dignity, and whose apathetic sleepy life is the death of every living feeling, every rational thought, every noble impulse ... "
- Do you agree with the critic's opinion?
What is valued in Famus Moscow?
(People are valued not by their personal qualities, but by the size of the wallet and by the position they occupy on the career ladder. Bribery and servility flourish. It is for this reason that Famusov, who does not stand on ceremony with the rest, bows like that in front of the “golden bag”, aiming for generals, who “has never uttered a word of wisdom”.
5. Homework.
Everyone read III action.
Group task.
Analyze Chatsky's monologue about "The Frenchman from Bordeaux".
In relation to whom in the text 1 - II of the action, the words "mind, clever, philosopher" are used, which have the same root or are synonymous with them. Write out quotes.
Play the chain: how was the gossip about Chatsky's madness born and spread?
Describe Famusov's guests at the ball, highlighting their common and individual features.
Assessing Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", Belinsky wrote that she laid "a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature ... She, as a product of strong talent, a deep and independent mind, was the first Russian comedy in which there is no nothing imitative, no false motives and unnatural colors, but in which the whole, and the details, and the plot, and characters, and passions, and actions, and opinions, and language - everything is thoroughly imbued with the deep truth of Russian reality.
Continuing Belinsky's thought, we can say that any part of the comedy, even if it is somehow isolated, taken out of the scope of the work, will in itself be an "encyclopedia of Russian life" in miniature.
The second phenomenon from the second act, replacing previous events, introduces us to the essence of the emerging conflict between Famusov and Chatsky, representatives of the "past century" and "present century".
From the very beginning of the action, which develops in a leisurely rhythm, the conflict is already anticipated, figuratively speaking, it "hangs in the air" like an impending thunderstorm.
Famusov is already initially annoyed:
Ugh, God forgive me! five thousand times
Says the same thing!
Chatsky instantly catches this mood and, having heard the word “serve”, gives him the necessary interpretation - “serve”.
This was enough for Famusov to burst into a lengthy monologue about what he thinks about the younger generation. Yes, in the face of Chatsky he sees "proud", "smarts", ready to destroy the well-established, comfortable little world of "fathers".
Realizing that Chatsky is ready to marry, Famusov puts forward one condition: “serve”, as the elders served, and gives many examples to follow. In this monologue - the whole essence of the representative of the "past century". His ideals boil down to the glorification of everything old, established: a model of a person for Famusov is one who has made a profitable career, no matter what means. Subservience and meanness for him too good way if it leads to desired result. Here, for example, is the dead uncle, Maxim Petrovich:
Serious look, haughty disposition.
When do you need to serve?
And he leaned over...
Famusov's monologue is so offensive that Chatsky cannot help but defend himself.
The meaning of his behavior is not that "he wants to preach liberty." In the presence of Famusov, Chatsky admits: “It is not my desire to prolong quarrels.” Loving Sophia, Chatsky is forced to enter into communication with Famusov. Talking to him, he cannot help defending his position, not starting from the morality that is being imposed on him. This is how Chatsky's monologue appears. This is not an exercise in eloquence, not an attempt to “enlighten” Famusov, this is a forced and passionate defense of those beginnings of life that are dear to him and which he cannot refuse. Of course, Chatsky is young, hot and passionate about what he talks about. Perhaps, in some ways, he is still naive, he considers the "past century" to have departed. Chatsky believes that the "current age" has already made its conquests.
Although there are hunters to scoff everywhere,
Yes, now laughter scares and keeps shame in check.
Chatsky is not going to “challenge” at all yet, in fact there is no sedition in his monologue, and even Maxim Petrovich, in order not to annoy Famusov, he does not touch (“I’m not talking about your uncle”). He does not at all paint idyllic pictures of the "current century" in contrast to Famusov's emotion of the "past century". And this century is also far from ideal, but still time irreversibly moves forward. Chatsky does not expose yet, he just agrees. Why does Famusov react so violently to his speech, interrupting it at the end at almost every word?
Chatsky's monologue for a long time brought Famusov out of balance. Here is the conclusion:
Oh! My God! he's carbonari!
…A dangerous person!
So, we can say that the 2nd phenomenon from the 2nd act is built on contrast: the contrast of the characters, their monologues. This is not Griboedov's only artistic technique. Take, for example, Famusov's monologue. Hyperbole gives a special “scope” to his narrative: (“a hundred people at the service”, “all in orders”, “... everyone is important! Forty pounds”). idyllic
LESSON 26
FAMUSOV - CHATSKY - SOFIA.
ANALYSIS II ACTION COMEDY
A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit"
DURING THE CLASSES
I. Verification homework- analysis of the II action.
EXAMPLE ANSWER
Phenomenon 1. In Famusov's monologue, Moscow appears as Famusov sees and loves it:
"Moscow aces" cause Famusov delight, tenderness.
Phenomenon 2. Chatsky came to Famusov's house for the sake of Sophia and therefore was not going to "expose" anyone and "speak" with accusatory monologues. He just wants to understand the reason for Sophia's coldness. But the very fact that he looks differently at Moscow and its "pillars" puts him in the position of a political opponent of Famusov and his entourage.
Chatsky suggests a matchmaking, and Famusov immediately makes three demands to him:
First of all, don't be silly
Name, brother, do not manage by mistake,
And most importantly, go and serve.
Chatsky behaves with restraint. Ignoring the first two requirements, he answers only the third:
I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve, -
to which Famusov is annoyed with the longest moralizing monologue “That's it, you are all proud!”. How much conviction, a sense of superiority over the "current" in these words!
Chatsky's response monologue "And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid ..." is sustained in slightly mocking intonations and quite polite expressions. But Famusov is already annoyed: even in this calm irony of Chatsky, he saw the mockery of the “carbonaria”, dangerous person, which "does not recognize the authorities" and "freedom wants to preach!". Why such irritation? Famusov has in mind not one Chatsky, but many others - such as Chatsky. In other words, Chatsky talks to Famusov as Sophia's father, and Famusov answers as a guardian of public order.
Phenomena 3-6. The arrival of Rocktooth brings a temporary truce. At the beginning of the scene, Chatsky is silent, listening (his thoughts are occupied by Sophia). Famusov, on the other hand, violates the truce "and" beats "Chatsky both as a groom and as a freethinker:
Here, for example, we have been doing from time immemorial,
What is the honor of the father and son:
Be bad, yes if you get it
Souls of a thousand two tribal -
That and the groom.
Thus, Chatsky is set as an example and business people new type, and the old men - "retired chancellors." When Famusov starts talking about Chatsky as absent:
But if you want, it would be businesslike.
It's a pity, it's a pity, he's small with a head
And he writes and translates well.
It is impossible not to regret that with such a mind ...
the young man discards restraint and answers with a monologue "Who are the judges?". It is directed not so much against specific interlocutors - Famusov and Skalozub, but against everything Famus Society.
Phenomena 7-10. Chatsky sees how Sofia reacts to Molchalin's fall from the horse, listens with pain to the barbs uttered in response to his attention to her, realizes that Sofia does not love him. But then who?
Apparitions 11-12. The essence of Molchalin is revealed: he is not in love with Sofia, he takes care of her “by position”. He confesses his love for Lisa, but now his feelings are in doubt. The last line of Lisa gives the play a new comic shade: “How can you not fall in love with the barman Petrusha!”
teacher's word
So the second act is further development love conflict: Sofia hardly manages to hide the truth, Chatsky is at a loss: who is preferred - Skalozub or Molchalin? A third love triangle appears in the comedy, which enhances the comedy of the situation: Molchalin - Lisa - Petrusha.
II. Checking homework:
1. Reading Famusov's monologue by heart.
2. Reading by roles 2 phenomena.
III. Conversation on:
1. When does the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov begin? (From the question about the service: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” Chatsky answers the conditions that Famusov puts forward to him as a groom. This answer outrages Famusov, he begins to teach the interlocutor, Chatsky delivers his monologue (already the second in the comedy), which is an angry rebuke - and this is the beginning of the conflict.)
2. What is the role of the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky in the 2nd phenomenon? (They reveal life position each of the characters: ideals, attitude to service, career. And we understand that Famusov's ideals are the "past century", and Chatsky lives in the "current century"; they are opposed.)
3. At first glance, Chatsky's monologue gradually turns into a dialogue with Famusov. But is it really so? (Outwardly, the second part of Chatsky's monologue turns into a dialogue, since it seems that the characters' replicas alternate. But does Chatsky care about Famusov's reaction to his words? He talks about the "past century" and "the current century" and does not even notice Famusov's reaction. Replies of one hero superimposed on the monologue of another.This is a special kind of monologue - the so-called "replicated monologue" (write the term in a notebook).
But the most interesting thing is that Famusov has not listened to Chatsky for a long time: “OK, I plugged my ears,” he says, and his remarks to the side are not at all designed for Chatsky to hear them. There is a comic effect of "talk of the deaf". Famusov is beside himself, he does not even hear the report of the servant about the arrival of a new guest - Skalozub.)
4. Why does Famusov tell Chatsky about Skalozub? (This is a kind of lesson to Chatsky.)
5. What is the purpose of Famusov in a conversation with Skalozub? (He wants to find out Rocktooth's intentions regarding the marriage. For him, Rocktooth is Sophia's enviable groom.)
6. How does Famusov characterize his conversation with Skalozub? [As a man of the world, he knows how to carry on a casual conversation; subtle psychologist: selects an interesting topic for the interlocutor (the topic of the army, career), skillfully leads to a conversation about marriage (did not name Sophia).]
7. What is Famusov's monologue "Taste, father, excellent manner ..."? (This is a laudatory hymn to Moscow.)
8. Why does Famusov praise Moscow? How are his praises crossed out by him (such a technique is called the reduction technique)?
(Be bad, yes, if you have enough
Souls of a thousand two tribal -
That and the groom...
Who wants to welcome us, if you please,
The door is open to the invited and the uninvited,
Especially from foreign ones;
Though fair man, at least not ... etc.)
9. What is the theme of Chatsky's next monologue? What is the difference from the first? (The theme is the same - Moscow, but the pathos is different - satirical: Chatsky is indignant, exposes the mores of Moscow, "the meanest traits of the past life").
10. Which of the heroes can be called a true patriot? Or are they both patriots, each in their own way? Justify your answer.
11. What is your opinion about Skalozub? (Traditionally, Skalozub is considered a man of a narrow mind. Is this so? After all, the hero’s surname is Skalozub, not Dull-witted! He is not so much stupid as he really “grins his teeth”: he laughs at everything and everyone. But, most importantly, he is funny himself: limited person, catching in the speech of others only what is connected with the army.)
12. And what does Chatsky think of him? (Chatsky comes to the conclusion that Sofia cannot love such a person)
IV. Analysis of the episode "Molchalin's fall from the horse".
teacher's word 1
Why does Griboyedov need this episode? Firstly, Sofia's feelings for Molchalin are manifested here, Chatsky's suspicions are growing. But, in addition, this episode characterizes Molchalin, helps to realize author's attitude to this hero. Lisa tells how it all happened:
Molchalin sat on a horse, his foot in the stirrup,
And the horse on its hind legs
He is on the ground and right in the crown.
A dramatic situation!.. But Skalozub immediately translates it into a comic one:
The reins were tightened. Well, what a miserable rider.
Look at how he cracked - in the chest or in the side?
Who do we trust more in assessing the situation - Sophia, who has fainted, or Skalozub, a professional military man? Of course, Skalozub. We cannot imagine a Skalozub or Chatsky who fell from a horse. Why did Molchalin need to mount a horse? What is the need? Skalozub and Chatsky are born nobles, who were taught horseback riding and sword skills from childhood. But Molchalin is rootless. He only received the rank of assessor, which gives the right to personal nobility (therefore, he will be among the guests at Famusov’s evening), but he is just beginning to learn all the “noble wisdom”. This is Molchalin's attempt to assert himself. Did this self-affirmation work? No. He falls off the horse. Let's remember the expression: to feel on a horse. Molchalin is not on horseback. How does the author feel about this character? One more detail: "a rearing horse." Horses feel a person, his moral essence. The horse threw off Molchalin, she does not accept him. How serious is Molchalin's injury? Puffer says: "... And, however, all false alarm." But Molchalin appears with a bandaged hand. What does this detail say? He is ashamed, and he is trying to take advantage of this situation - to arouse pity for himself from Sophia.
V. Analysis of 11-12 phenomena. Conversation on:
1. What new things do we learn about the relationship between Sophia and Molchalin in the 11th phenomenon? (As far as Sofia is sincere in her feelings, Molchalin is so careful.
We have already said that Sofia in Molchalin is attracted most of all by his modesty, meekness, shyness. Now we see that in relation to Sophia for Molchalin one feels passionate love, even admiration, and not at all condescending affection, pity for the “rootless”. She passes all Lisa’s advice past her ears, but as soon as Molchalin uttered an evasive: “I don’t dare to advise you,” Sofia immediately expresses her readiness to go to the guests and pretend to be cheerful through force:
Do you want? .. I'll go to be nice through my tears;
I'm afraid I won't be able to stand the pretense.
Why did God bring Chatsky here!
An important remark: at the same time as his remark, Molchalin in a humble bow kisses Sophia's hand, as if saying goodbye to her. This author's hint contains another confirmation of Molchalin's power over Sofia, a kind of distribution of roles in their relationship.)
2. What is the significance of the 12th phenomenon in the development of the plot? (A third love triangle “Molchalin - Liza - Petrusha” appears, which complicates the plot of the comedy.
It may seem that Molchalin's swagger in relation to Liza stems from the fact that, being a plebeian, he feels himself on an equal footing with Liza, freeing himself from the constraint and tension caused by his relationship with the aristocrat Sophia. This seems to be confirmed by the reproachful remarks of Lisa, who evades Molchalin’s impudent harassment (he tries to hug her twice): “Tell me better, why are you modest with the young lady, but with the maid a rake?” But Lisa is wrong. Behind the ostentatious modesty of Molchalin in relation to Sophia (and to everyone else) lies not modesty, but an accurate and selfish calculation (courtesy "by position"). Yes, and with Lisa herself, Molchalin does not at all look like a carefree rake. He is clearly arrogant and cynical towards the girl: this is an outright bargain. There is probably a special meaning in the fact that in his longest monologue in the play, Molchalin lists those trinkets for which he is ready to buy Lisa's favor.
Behind the ostentatious modesty of Molchalin lies immense cynicism and hypocrisy.)
VI. The word of the teacher.
After analyzing act II, we saw that a very significant event comedies are the beginning of a social conflict, in which only the main characters are involved so far: Famusov and Chatsky. Therefore, the action is saturated with their monologues. Moreover, the monologues coincide in subject matter, but differ in their pathos. And we understand that a clash between Chatsky and the entire Famus society is inevitable. In addition, Act II gave us new observations of the characters of the heroes: Famusov, Sophia, Molchalin, Skalozub and Chatsky, and also expanded our understanding of the life of noble Moscow.
VII. Homework.
2. Task in groups - analysis of the episode:
1 group- dialogue between Sophia and Chatsky;
2 group- dialogue between Chatsky and Molchalin.
3. Learn Chatsky's monologue by heart.
LESSON 27
SOFIA - CHATSKY - MOLCHALIN.
ANALYSISIIIACTION COMEDY
The movement of the play is not interrupted. Knot, for-
knitted in exposition, in the first act
tightened even tighter - no external clutch
circumstances, but more and more deepening
into character. The gulf between Chatsky
and Sophia is becoming more and more striking and
IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko
DURING THE CLASSES
I. Reading 1-2 phenomena by roles.
II. Checking the homework of the 1st group "Analysis of the dialogue between Chatsky and Sofia."
III. Conversation on:
1. What is the goal of each of the participants in the dialogue? How is this expressed in their intonation? [Chatsky wants to find out who his opponent is (his speech is excited, sincere, sad, he immediately asks the main question for him: “Who do you love?”); Sophia tries to avoid the conversation (her answers are monosyllabic, her words are ironic, she often speaks to the side).]
2. Why does Sophia move from a sharp “repulsion” to frankness, albeit very cautious, but sincere? (She is probably forced to this by Chatsky's woeful impulse:
And what do I want when everything is decided?
I climb into the loop, but it's funny to her.)
3. What does the heroine call a flaw in Chatsky's character? (“The abyss of features”, his dissimilarity to others. Indeed, Chatsky is not the same as the representatives of the Famus society, but now this has become a disadvantage for Sofia, while three years ago she found advantages in it, - probably, it still affects here the fact that all this time Sophia lived in this society, “breathed the same air” with him. In essence, Sophia characterizes Chatsky here, denounces him, explaining what, in her opinion, ruined their first love: there is no kindness in Chatsky’s heart ", his formidable look, sharp tone and readiness to pour out bile on others are combined with a stubborn unwillingness to look at himself from the outside. Is this really so? Sophia is overwhelmed with a sense of resentment, and it prevents her from being completely objective. However, Sophia's answer surprises Chatsky, surprises so much that he forgets about caution:
I'm strange, but who's not strange?
The one who looks like all fools;
Molchalin, for example ...
But as soon as this name was sounded, Sofia closed up again, wanted to interrupt the conversation. Chatsky holds her, but in order to keep her, to find out the truth, he has to hide his attitude towards Molchalin, "once in a lifetime" to pretend. And he ascribes to Molchalin all non-existent virtues. But, like a true lover, Chatsky again speaks with Sofia not so much about Molchalin, but about himself, about his feelings for her.)
4. What does Chatsky put into the concept of "love"? (Sincerity and ardor of feelings, passion and dedication.)
5. Chatsky is sincere in his feelings, why does Sofia refuse his love? (Perhaps Sofia simply does not believe Chatsky: after all, in three years he has never written to her - is it really so loved? And what does three years mean for a seventeen-year-old girl! But the main thing is that Sofia understands that Chatsky was not created for family life, about which she dreams: “... will such a mind make the family happy?”)
6. Why did Sofia prefer Molchalin? (She found in him something that, in her opinion, is not in Chatsky - “the kindness of the soul.” It is he, Molchalin, in her opinion, who embodies the qualities of a real family man:
of the most wonderful property
He is finally: compliant, modest, quiet,
Not a shadow of worry on your face
And there are no misdeeds in my soul,
Strangers and at random does not cut ...)
IV. Teacher's word.
But Chatsky perceives her words exactly the opposite: it is impossible to love such a nonentity. What's behind all this? - tragedy, grief ... And not only because Sofia does not love Chatsky, but because they already have different views for life, but Chatsky still does not understand this. Let's simulate the situation: Sophia and Chatsky together, will they be happy? Probably not: they different views about love, they do not understand each other.
(If this topic arouses interest in the class, you can talk about how important harmony of feelings, attitudes, habits, mutual understanding is for happiness in family life ...)
Despite the internal tragedy, Chatsky's position in the scene with Sofia is comical. He talks about his love at the most inopportune moment: at the time when Sofia, having made an appointment with Molchalin, hurries to her place (just as before: during Sofia's fainting because of Molchalin).
V. Reading by roles 3 phenomena.
VI. Checking the homework of the 2nd group "Analysis of the dialogue between Chatsky and Molchalin."
VII. Class conversation:
1. Describe Chatsky from the point of view of Molchalin. What in the actions and behavior of Chatsky causes bewilderment in the interlocutor? (From the point of view of Molchalin, Chatsky is strange: he does not use what is given to him from birth - connections, position in society, does not make a career)
2. Describe Molchalin from the point of view of Chatsky. ("Helpful, "modest," not rich in words, miserable nonentity:
With such feelings, with such a soul,
Love!.. The deceiver laughed at me!)
3. Why is Chatsky's dialogue with Molchalin so important in Griboedov's comedy? (He reveals the characters of the main characters of Chatsky and Molchalin (the method of self-characterization is used).
This scene shows the depth of not only love, but also social conflict - “the present century” and “the past century. In the clash between Chatsky and Molchalin, one can already hear the foreshadowing of the main character’s divergence from all of Famus’ Moscow, with its “idols”: Tatyana Yuryevna, Foma Fomich ...)
VIII. teacher's word 1 .
The dialogue between rivals, the only one in comedy, is important not only for the meaning of the lines contained in it, but also for the way the conversation is built, its direction, so to speak.
The dialogue is built by Griboedov on the principle of a swing. At the very beginning of the conversation, Chatsky is upstairs. He is the initiator of the conversation, he is energetic, verbose, ironic to the point of causticity...
Silent is not only extremely laconic in his answers, but also emotionally colorless, dull: "Still, sir", "Day after day, today like yesterday" ...
In the future, Molchalin, as you know, mentions his “two talents” (“moderation and accuracy”), and after Chatsky’s ironic commentary on them - “Wonderful two! and are worthy of all of us” - the accents in the conversation imperceptibly begin to change. Molchalin asks an innocent, it would seem, question: “You weren’t given ranks, were you unsuccessful in your service?”
Behind the polite intonation of Molchalin is a barely concealed indulgence, a sharp vindictive joy of a plebeian who has risen above an aristocrat. Chatsky is forced to defend himself.
In Chatsky's answer, there is almost an excuse. In any case, he makes it clear that he would have been honored with ranks if the principle "worthy - worthy" was impeccably fulfilled. But for now - alas - “Ranks are given by people; And people can be deceived.
Such an answer by Chatsky, somewhat evasive in form and compromise in essence, is perceived by Molchalin as a tiny victory. This gives him the right to increase the psychological pressure on the interlocutor. The cautious politeness of the previous question is replaced by an uninhibited exclamation: “How surprised we were!”
These words, the meaning of which is not yet clear to Chatsky, are like a time bomb. Without carrying a specific content and addressee (what were you surprised? And what does Chatsky have to do with it?), Molchalin's words need to be clarified and provoke a counter question. Chatsky asks him: “What a miracle is here?”
Molchalin's answer, absorbing the hidden meaning of the two previous remarks and reinforced by them, is difficult to characterize unambiguously. He is feignedly simple-minded and impudent at the same time; arrogance is reinforced in him by a sense of belonging to a powerful clan (the pronoun "we"). In addition, Molchalin chooses such a "stinging", caustic word, the insulting meaning of which is unbearable for a strong and proud person - "Pity you."
This remark is the pinnacle of the dialogue, that point in which Molchalin was "above"...
True, only for a moment did the cautious Molchalin allow himself to open up, show true feelings, enjoy the misfortune of his opponent. After that, he, like a snail, hides in his reliable shell. He again becomes timid and obsequious, pronouncing the name of the powerful Tatyana Yurievna with almost mystical delight. The smartest Griboyedov calculates the servile pathos of his hero, adding one by one exclamation mark at the next mention of an influential lady. And he does this three times. So Molchalin seems to soar in his slavish delight.
Tatyana Yuryevna, about whom Chatsky "heard that she was absurd", is replaced by Foma Fomich - a "model" for Molchalin and "an empty person, one of the most stupid" for Chatsky. In the thick shadow cast by these figures, Molchalin is hiding, confusing Chatsky, who is surprised by the self-abasement of Sophia's chosen one. As Chatsky's surprise grows, Molchalin's answers consistently and prudently demonstrate servility, reinforcing Chatsky's sense of disappointment and, accordingly, distrust of Sophia's confessions ...
Chatsky is at a loss from such transformations, from such a strange and growing timidity of a person who claims - neither more nor less - for the role of Sophia's beloved. Chatsky tries to understand, explain and understand at the same time:
Forgive me, we are not guys,
Why are other people's opinions only holy?
Molchalin does not “straighten” with his answer, but “bends” even more, deliberately emphasizing in himself what, according to Chatsky, can only humiliate any decent person. Molchalin, it turns out, elevates his inner lack of freedom, spiritual enslavement to the rank of necessity, obligation: “After all, one must depend on others.”
Chatsky is at a loss: how can addiction become a voluntary necessity? Conscious slavery - what could be more disgusting! - "Why is it necessary?"
And Molchalin utters his final remark-answer: “We are in small ranks,” he utters with the same humility and meekness with which he began this conversation. Again, Chatsky is at the top, not realizing that none other than Molchalin raised him. Again, Chatsky is given to feel his undoubted superiority over a person to whom one cannot even feel hostile feelings - he seems so spiritually poor and morally helpless.
IX. Homework.
Individual tasks (at the choice of students) - prepare written answers to the questions:
1. Why is Chatsky an unwanted guest in Famusov's house?
2. How 1-3 phenomena are connected III actions with public comedy conflict?
3. Give verbal portrait sketches of Famusov's guests.
4. How does Chatsky behave with Famusov's guests?
5. How does gossip about Chatsky's madness develop in the comedy?
6. Who is trying to "save" Chatsky and why does he fail?
Staging sounds in children
Business idea: private speech therapy room
Synopsis of a speech therapy lesson in the senior group “Sounds (P - Pb), letter P