In the play " The Cherry Orchard"there are many supporting characters who participate in the action on a par with the main characters, but at the same time do not outwardly influence the development of events. It is interesting that in addition to the main and secondary characters, persons who do not appear on the stage take part in the action on equal terms: Yaroslavl aunt , Parisian lover, Pischik's daughter Dasha Even these ephemeral characters set the tone for the play.
The minor characters often repeat, and thereby imprint the thoughts of the main characters in the memory or say what has remained unspoken, phrases that are important for understanding the play are sometimes put into their mouths.
The minor characters remember their place, at the same time, without disappearing anywhere, revolving around Gaev, Ranevskaya, Lopakhin, Trofimov, Vary, Ani, involuntarily caricatures the behavior of the main characters, especially after the first two. Despite the fact that little or almost nothing is said about not very significant personalities, their characters clearly show through in the few remarks that the author gives them.
Here is Simeonov-Pischik - a hectic brisk person who never deviates from his role. Every time he appears on the stage, he is unchanged, - asks for money and talks about Dasha. Pischik is a comic figure without any reservations, his abbreviated surname is also ridiculous. He is like a clown who, going on stage, must show a new number. In the first act, Pischik for some reason swallows Lyubov Andreevna's pills, seriously stating: "He took all the pills," in the third - he admires Charlotte, while not bothering himself with exquisite phrases, all his praises come down to the words "Think about it!" But he is both delicate (takes Lopakhin away from Ranevskaya after the news of the sale of the cherry orchard), and honest (pays debts to Lopakhin and Ranevskaya), and sensitive (cries when he learns about the family's departure). The clown is a clown, but after all, a sincere, kind person, on the whole, so similar to Gaev, who laughs at Pischik.
A rather interesting role in the play is played by the arrogant Charlotte Ivanovna, an expert in turning everything serious in a comic way. But even her sorrowful streams break through: "I really want to talk!", And not with anyone ... "It seems that something from Ranevskaya here. Charlotte, by the way, should have a phrase that could be put into any hero's uela: "Who am I, why I am, it is unknown ..." And it is Sharit that with her tricks, ventriloquism, circus performances that emphasizes the comedic situation. In fact, all the actions of the heroes are just comedies, but the main characters take themselves seriously, and the secondary ones prevent the reader from taking them the same way.
Another comical face of Epikhodov, a muddler, "twenty-two misfortunes". He owns a brilliant phrase: "I just can't understand,.., What I actually want, live or shoot me,., But nevertheless I always carry a revolver with me." And this is said by the person who is assigned the most comic role in the play! Such speeches are reminiscent of the pathetic sayings of Gaev. By the way, "twenty-two misfortunes" took from the previous owners of Lopakhip a noteworthy, if you think about it, stroke.
Finally, there are also servants. Firs can hardly be called a secondary character. He, appearing relatively rarely, plays a significant role in the play; Chekhov trusts him in the final monologue. So, for all the poverty of his lines, Firs is almost the most significant character. Much smaller roles are assigned to Dunyasha and Yasha, two servants who try to imitate their masters and thus unconsciously mimic them, exaggerating the characteristic features of Ranevskaya and Gayev. Servant speech is often a clumsy imitation of small talk. Doesn't it remind Dunyasha Ranevskaya when in excitement he says: "I'm going to fall ... Oh, I'm going to fall!" or when she shows Yasha how little she was when he was leaving (Lyubov Andreevna also loves to remember her childhood), or when she tells everyone and everyone about Epikhodov's proposal: "He loves me, loves me so much!" And the eternally yawning Yasha, casually lighting a cigarette is a recognizable parody of Gaev. "You are educated, you can talk about everything" - a sign of the highest praise from Dunyasha, although Yasha, in general, is not smart. But he is impudent and free-spirited, allows himself to laugh at every suitable and inappropriate occasion, even in the face of Gaev.
Both of them, Dunyasha and Yasha, are extremely ridiculous in their desire to be like masters in everything. Dunyasha, always powdering herself, with her statements that she is a "delicate girl" and with ridiculous declarations of love for Yasha, Yasha, drinking champagne and applying only one definition to everyone - "ignorance" - in fact, only turned out images of masters, brought to the grotesque inside out.
All the minor characters in their clown absurdity represent a rather sad pantomime. They cannot argue against the pattern, they cannot postpone the inevitable, but they do not humiliate themselves with despondency. They have to leave the stage, however, this is not a cause for sadness. Their departure is framed like a carnival show. The main characters do not know how to deal with their grief, but the secondary ones (and they feel the same feelings) scare away grief with laughter. It is not without reason that Chekhov presented us The Cherry Orchard precisely as a comedy, moreover, in some places it turns into an outright farce, which, however, only aggravates the drama of the play.
Minor characters in the drama "The Thunderstorm"
AN Ostrovsky, the author of numerous plays about merchants, is rightfully considered the "singer of merchant life" and the father of the Russian national theater. He created about 60 plays, the most famous of which are "Dowry", "Forest", "We will count our people", "Thunderstorm" and many others.
The most striking and decisive, according to A. N. Dobrolyubov, was the play "The Thunderstorm". In it, "the mutual relations of petty tyranny and publicity are brought to tragic consequences ... There is something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This is something, in our opinion, the background of the play." The background or background of the play is made up of minor characters.
The most striking of them is the daughter of the mistress of the Kabanovs' house - “Varvara. She is a confidant and constant companion of Katerina, the main heroine of the play. Barbara is an intelligent, cunning, and mischievous girl. She is young and aspires to be in time everywhere before marriage, to try everything, because she knows that "girls walk for themselves as they want, father and mother do not care. Only women are locked up." Adapting to the "Dark Kingdom", Barbara learned its laws and rules. She became the embodiment of the morality of this kingdom: "Do what you want, as long as everything is sewn and covered." Lying for her is the norm of life: "Our whole house is based on this", it is impossible without deception. Seeing nothing seditious in her way of life, Varvara seeks to teach Katerina to cheat and deceive. But honest, sincere Katerina cannot live in this oppressive atmosphere of lies and violence.
But Barbara's friend, Kudryash, fully shares her views, because he is a typical inhabitant of the "dark kingdom". Already now, the features of the future Wild are visible in it. He is impudent, bold and free-spirited in conversation, boasting of his prowess, red tape, knowledge of a "merchant institution". He is no stranger to ambition and the desire for power over people: "I am considered rude; why am I being held for? So he needs me. Well, then I am not afraid of him, let him be afraid of me ..." Varvara and Kudryash, seemingly leaving the "dark kingdom", but not in order to generate new and honest laws of life, but, most likely, to live in the same "dark kingdom", but already as masters in it.
The true victim of the morals reigning in the city of Kalinovo is the husband of Katerina Tikhon Kabanov. This is a weak-willed, characterless creature. He obeys his mother in everything and obeys her. He does not have a clear position in life, courage, courage. His image fully corresponds to the name given to him - Tikhon (quiet). Young Kabanov not only does not respect himself, but also allows his mother to shamelessly treat his wife. This is especially evident in the farewell scene before leaving for the fair. Tikhon word for word repeats all the instructions and moral teachings of his mother. Tikhon could not resist his mother in anything, slowly drank himself and, thereby, became even more weak-willed and quiet.
Of course, Katerina cannot love and respect such a husband, and her soul longs for love. She falls in love with Dikiy's nephew, Boris. But Katkrina fell in love with him, according to Dobrolyubov's apt expression "out of people", because in essence Boris is not much different from Tikhon. Is that a little more uneducated than him. Boris's subservience to his uncle, the desire to get his part of the inheritance turned out to be stronger than love.
Minor characters of the pilgrims and praying mantis also help create the right background for the play. With their fantastic fables, they emphasize the ignorance and dimness of the inhabitants of the "dark kingdom". Feklushi's stories about the lands where people with dogs' heads live are perceived by them as indisputable facts about the universe. ...
The only living and thinking soul in the city of Kalinov is the self-taught mechanic Kuligin, who is looking for a perpetual motion machine. He is kind and active, obsessed with a constant desire to help people, to create something necessary and useful. But all his good intentions run up against a thick wall of misunderstanding and indifference. So on an attempt to put lightning rods on houses, he receives a fierce rebuff from the Wild: "A thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel, and you want to use poles, but some kind of rubbish, God forgive me, to defend." Kuligin gives a vivid and faithful description of the "dark kingdom": "Cruel, sir, manners in our city, cruel ... Whoever has money, sir, he tries to enslave the poor, so that he can earn even more money for his free labors ..."
Condemning and disagreeing with the laws of Kalinov's life, Kuligin does not fight them. He reconciled and adjusted to her.
All the minor characters in the play created the background against which Katerina's tragedy unfolds. Each face, each image in the play was a step in the staircase that led the heroine to her own death.
To complete the task, select only ONE of the four proposed essay topics (17.1-17.4). Write an essay on this topic in the volume of at least 200 words (if the volume is less than 150 words, the essay is evaluated 0 points).
Explanation.
Comments on the essays.
17.1. What is the role of the secondary characters in the comedy of D. I. Fonvizin "The Minor"?
The minor characters in the play "The Minor" are Skotinin, Prostakova's brother, Yeremeyevna, Mitrofanushka's nanny, Mitrofan's home teachers: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman. Despite the fact that these characters play secondary roles in the comedy, the disclosure of the characters of the main characters depends on them. With their help, both Prostakova and Mitrofanushka appear before the reader in all their unattractive guises.
17.2. What are the reasons for the author's rejection of Napoleon? (Based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace".)
Tolstoy's diary entries during the period of his work on War and Peace show that he followed a conscious intention - to rip off Napoleon's aura of false greatness. The idol of Napoleon is fame, greatness, that is, the opinion of other people about him. For Tolstoy, Napoleon is not a great person, but an inferior, flawed person. Napoleon is the "executioner of peoples". According to Tolstoy, evil is brought to people by an unhappy person who does not know the joys of true life. The writer wants to inspire his readers with the idea that only a person who has lost the true idea of \u200b\u200bhimself and the world can justify all the cruelties and crimes of war.
17.3. What themes and images of contemporary poetry are closest to you? (Based on the works of one or two poets.)
Here we can say about the poets who earned a name for themselves in the 60s. These are Oleg Chukhontsev, Evgeny Rein, Dmitry Sukharev, Inna Lisnyanskaya, Alexander Kushner. Of these, only to a greater extent Alexander Kushner and to a lesser extent Inna Lisnyanskaya were published in Soviet times, for the rest the last decade was marked not only by new publications, but, above all, by a full-fledged publication of all creativity. All of them are characterized by an interest in the details of life more than in new phenomena.
Inna Lisnyanskaya's poems often repeat the themes of freedom, betrayal, fear and loneliness. In her faith and her poetic existence, Lisnyanskaya seems to be filled with an amazing power that helps her to cope with a difficult fate: “they will go away, we will not leave, they will kill, we will not die”. In her poems, a reflection on life, short, rich in impressions:
Open your eyes and close your eyes
Forever, but in this interval
The sun, moon and vine will fit,
And waves, and a swarm of forget-me-nots,
A special theme of I. Lisnyanskaya's work is love. "Take me, Lord, instead of him ..." - a real declaration of love, unusually strong, heartfelt and passionate:
I pray You, Lord, I pray with tears!
Stop my blood
At least for the fact that I love him
Stronger than your love.
17.4. Satirical images in Russian prose of the 1920s and 1930s.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Zoshchenko has fallen to the share of fame, rare for a person of the literary profession. It took him only three or four years of work to one day suddenly feel famous not only in literary circles, but also in a completely uncountable mass of readers. The story "Bath" in every person brings a smile. Isn't it funny that people have to tie a number to their leg in the bathhouse. “The numbers are now slapping on the feet,” the hero of the story complains. No less comical is the story of a hospital, where a poster hangs in front of the patients: "Handing over corpses from three to four."
The heroes of Ilf and Petrov remain favorite images. “Twelve Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” combined both the humor of the characters, and the comic positions in which the heroes fall, and the witty manner of presenting the material.
The satire here is directed to the outgoing world, represented by Ippolit Matveyevich, to the fact that people have no spiritual values \u200b\u200bleft (remember, at least Ellochka the Cannibal).
Among the satirical works of this era, one can name the works of Mayakovsky and Bulgakov.
In today's article, I'm going to talk about one extremely delicate problem, which, unfortunately, not all beginning authors think about. Today we will talk about the roles of minor characters in a literary work. The fact is that novice authors sometimes either completely forget about the so-called supporting roles, or pay too much attention to a particularly successful secondary image to the detriment of the general design of the story. Therefore, in order for such problems to arise as rarely as possible, we will discuss the place of minor characters in the general structure of a literary text.
For you, I think it's no secret that within the blog “ Literary workshop»I pay the most serious attention to the issues of working on the characters, as I am completely sure that it is in the high-quality portrayal of characters that a large part of the success of the entire work lies. Of course, everyone's business is to share these judgments or abandon them, but if you are interested in the issues of competent study of the characters in your work, this article will certainly be useful to you.
Minor characters.
So, at the very beginning, in order to better understand and structure the material, I will have to voice a couple of common truths. It is clear that these are well-known axioms, but without them, the subsequent investigation of the issue is simply impossible. The first platitude goes something like this: not all characters in a literary work are created equal... Indeed, they can be conditionally divided into major and minor. And if the authors almost always pay increased attention to the main characters (they try to reveal the character, show the depth of inner experiences), then on the secondary ones it is often simply not enough. But in vain. Sometimes the supporting roles are no less important than the main ones ... But first things first.
In general, the main characters are the characters that the story tells about. Minorities are all the rest.
The second commonplace for today: the author himself and the readers in the course of the work must clearly understand which characters are the main and which are insignificant... If the public has any confusion or doubt, the fault lies entirely with the author. He must clearly separate one from the other, and also fully realize what role the main characters play in his opus, and why he uses the minor ones. And if everything is generally clear with the former (the main characters are the conductors of the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe work, the object of audience interest and empathy), then the place and tasks of the latter are not always very clear and transparent. It is about these difficulties that we will talk about in the future.
Live background.
So, if our story does not take place on a desert island, the main characters are usually surrounded by many people who do not have much influence on the course of the story. In fact, they are only part of the background of our work. They can perform some minor functions (inform the hero of the news, bring him to the scene, step on his foot in the tram, steal a wallet in the crush, etc.), but after that they invariably disappear from sight. The main character cannot be in an absolute vacuum, there are always people around him who create a moving background, a dynamic atmosphere of the work, otherwise what is happening simply will not be realistic. It is very important that these minor characters do not attract undue attention to themselves, do not interfere with the perception of events and the hero himself.
However, it is not always possible to maintain the right balance between the main and secondary characters. Sometimes the image of some insignificant person turns out to be so vivid that he begins to "pull the blanket over himself", distracting the reader from the main direction of the story. In this case, the writer should think carefully why this happens? Perhaps the influence of this character should be reduced, to the point of excluding him altogether from the text, or maybe it would be wiser to change the plot somewhat, allocating more free space to a successful vivid image, making him one of the main characters? The author must decide this question independently, based on the general concept, idea of \u200b\u200bthe work.
But in general, of course, the main role of the secondary characters is to create a living background of the work.
Stereotype.
Than, by and large, main character literary work different from an ordinary person? In the overwhelming majority of cases, the fact that the hero is capable of those actions that the average man would never have dared to do. That is why he is a hero. But on the other hand, a hero can be a hero only against the background of ordinary people, only in comparison with their stereotypes, he can demonstrate his heroism (the ability to move away from the usual rules and norms, break prohibitions, show courage, etc.). Accordingly, the role of minor characters in the story is also demonstration of stereotypes of society... That is, minor characters in any work are typical representatives of society, carriers of its stereotypes. And as soon as one of the heroes violates these very stereotypes, he involuntarily attracts the attention of the reader. The author should use this subtle point as when working on the main characters.
However, these judgments in no way mean that the minor characters should be faceless and similar to each other. Not at all. It is also quite permissible for them to violate stereotypes, only they must do this one by one, and not all at once.
Eccentricity and humor.
Characters who do not pretend to be the main roles should also have individuality - small but bright details will make the story more interesting and complete, set the mood, and sometimes add humor. I think it's no secret that often the main fun-lovers in works of art are not the main characters, but the secondary characters. Serious heroic deeds, the salvation of the world and beautiful virgins are traditionally expected from the main characters, but nothing special is required from the minor ones, therefore they can be humorous to their heart's content. Therefore, the eccentric behavior of episodic roles is precisely the resource with which a writer can make his own text brighter and more interesting. This should not be forgotten.
Here you can also mention "obsession" - an extreme version of eccentricity, in which the secondary character behaves too intrusively or reacts too emotionally to any events.
Hence, the third function of the secondary characters follows - this is work on short-term entertainment of the audience... The author has the opportunity to make the secondary character as eccentric as he likes, because he, in fact, does not affect the development of the plot, but at the same time, such vivid images make the text more interesting and memorable.
Exaggeration.
The moment of exaggeration when working on episodic roles has as its goal the same entertainment of the reader in the course of the story, creating vivid emotions in him that are not directly related to the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe work. In general, the entire spectrum of sensations that has already been discussed a little above, in the previous paragraph on humor and eccentricity.
The main method here is a deliberate exaggeration of certain character traits of a secondary character: cruelty or kindness, spontaneity or prudence.
But why, one wonders, is precisely exaggeration used for these purposes? Why not just draw an ordinary character endowed with this very prudence? The thing is that hypertrophiedness makes it possible to focus attention on the desired line, it is easy to highlight it against the general background of mediocrity.
How can this work? For example, in the form of a simple trick, when a minor character first radiates hypertrophied innocence and gentleness, and then at the right moment stands out with exaggerated prudence. As you can imagine, the play on contrasts is understandable always and everywhere. And the greater the amount of contrast, the stronger the effect it usually produces.
That's all for today. We've covered the three main functions of minor characters: background creation, outlining stereotypes, entertaining the reader through eccentricity and humor... Hopefully this will help you get a more thoughtful approach to drawing your characters. I look forward to your comments and opinions! See you soon!
The role of secondary and non-stage characters in the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
Secondary and off-stage characters, of which there are not so many in the play, play a very significant role in revealing the ideological content of the comedy. These characters are often associated with the main ones, and with their help we learn some important details: they reveal the essence of a particular scene, the meaning of events, both on stage and behind the scene, clarify the characters of the characters, show their relationship. With the help of these secondary and non-stage characters, Griboyedov creates in the comedy a special atmosphere of the rich house of the Moscow master Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov at the beginning of the last century.
I remember such a character as the maid in Famusov's house, Liza. At first glance, she is a simple and lively girl. But after we hear her remarks and remarks, we can say that she is described by Griboyedov as a very real serf girl, full of cunning and insight. Her words, addressed to Famusov, amaze us and remain in our memory for life:
Pass us more than all sorrows
And lordly anger and lordly love ...
In the comedy, she is an expression of common sense, a critic of almost all the characters in the play. She thinks cleverly, it is Liza who kind of introduces us to the main character, Chatsky:
Who is so sensitive and cheerful and sharp,
Like Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Griboyedov, describing Liza, put into her mouth some of his thoughts and feelings in relation to the characters and events of the play.
For a more complete understanding of Famus society, the author introduces Sergei Sergeevich Skalozub into the play. According to Liza's clear definition, he is "both a golden bag and marks the generals." And according to Sophia, “he never uttered a smart word”.
The Famus society does not see anything bright in education, they believe that they go crazy with books. Skalozub speaks of enlightenment with its characteristic stupidity and limitation:
And the books will be kept like this: for big occasions ...
Chatsky, finding out why Sophia met him so coldly, tries to speak frankly and sincerely with Skalozub, but immediately realizes that the future general is frankly stupid. After all, the words uttered by him after Chatsky's monologue “Who are the judges?” Testify that the puffer did not understand anything from his accusations. And Chatsky calms down when he hears how, with the frankness characteristic of Skalozub, he directly speaks about the reasons for his success:
I'm quite happy in my comrades,
The vacancies are just open,
Then the elders will turn off others,
Others, you see, are killed.
These cynical words, testifying to an uncontrollable desire for wealth, a career, characterize not only Skalozub, but also the entire society who gathered at the ball in Famusov's house.
The prince and princess Tugoukhovsky with six daughters also add their characteristic feature into our understanding of Famus society. Their presence at the ball is explained by only one single purpose - to find a decent and rich party for their daughters.
The Famusov Ball is a “living” museum of wax figures representing the high society of the Moscow noble nobility. There are many anecdotal figures here, such as, for example, Zagoretsky, a famous adventurer, rogue and ladies' pleaser. Imagining this person, one can appreciate the entire Famus society, where there is nothing but pompous hypocrisy, selfish stupidity, “noble” rudeness and lack of spirituality.
Maksim Petrovich, the maid of honor of Catherine the First, Princess Pulcheria Andreevna, “Nestor of the noble scoundrels” and many others from secular society, unite against Chatsky. With their help, Griboyedov creates an idea of \u200b\u200bthis force, against which Chatsky is unsuccessfully trying to stand alone. These characters perform two main substantive functions: they serve as the object of Chatsky's ridicule, helping us to clearly see the flaws of secular society, and secondly, they form and unite a camp hostile to the protagonist. Among them are three figures, similar in function to the rest of the characters, but the most important for revealing the essence of the main conflict of the play. These are those who are set as an example in Famus society: Kuzma Kuzmich, Maxim Petrovich and Foma Fomich. For Chatsky, the story of Maxim Petrovich's promotion is funny, and the verbal works of Foma Fomich are an example of absolute stupidity. And for Famusov and those like him, it is these people who serve as a model of service well-being.
Complement our idea of \u200b\u200bthese nobles and their attitude towards their serfs, for example, the old woman Khlestova, who asks to feed her "arapka - girl" on a par with the dog. Such ladies with obvious feudal manners, like any of Famusov's society, do not need to humiliate the dignity of a servant or threaten to exile their serfs for some unknown reason to the settlement. All of them, defending serfdom, consider the main dignity of a person to be his wealth, unlimited power over their own kind, unlimited cruelty in the treatment of their servants.
Griboyedov shows us that in Famus society, if a person wants to have completely different interests, to live in his own way, and not in the way of Famus, then he is already “out of his mind”, “robber”, “Carbonari”, for example, the princess tells condemning his nephew:
Chinov doesn't want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist.
Prince Fyodor, my nephew.
Griboyedov in Prince Fyodor is trying to show us another pure mind, similar to the mind of Chatsky, to show that the main character is not one future Decembrist in the Famus society, who can go to Senate Square on December 14, 1825.
From Chatsky's monologue, we learn about a Frenchman from Bordeaux, about whom everyone is enthusiastically talking, who feels like a little king here, because the Famusian society bows to France and all Frenchmen, forgetting national pride and dignity. And this “Frenchie”, when he arrived in Moscow, thought he was at home:
Not the sound of a Russian, not a Russian face ...
One of the minor characters is Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, a former friend and associate of Chatsky. Platon Mikhailovich appears at Griboyedov's only in one scene of a meeting with Chatsky at a ball at Famusov's. Famusov's society made him an exemplary husband of his wife Natalya Dmitrievna, who takes care of him like a child. Such a life forced him to abandon his youthful hobbies. Chatsky mockingly asks him:
Forgotten the noise of the camp, comrades and brothers?
Calm and lazy?
To which Gorich replies:
No, there is still something to do
On the flute I repeat a duet
A - molar ...
Very important, in my opinion, in a comedy is such a character as Repetilov, who can be considered Chatsky's double in comedy. Only he, unlike Chatsky, is simply playing at free-thinking, and his reasoning is empty phrase-mongering. It is no coincidence that his remark: "We make noise, brother, we make noise!" became winged and denotes idle talk, the appearance of a deed. In the scene when Repetilov tells Chatsky about Baron von Klotz, who is “aiming for ministers” and he “for his son-in-law”, he shows his desire for cheap careerism, his undoubted duplicity. And this baron with his "friends" helps us to see the true face of Chatsky's imaginary friend.
In a conversation with Chatsky, Molchalin admirably mentions a certain Tatyana Yurievna:
Tatyana Yurievna told something,
Returning from Petersburg ...
And we understand that she is a gossip, like, in general, almost all ladies of high society. For them, there is nothing more interesting than gossiping; they find nothing interesting either in books or in art.
G.N and G.D - these mysterious characters appear in the comedy in order to dispel the rumor about Chatsky's madness. At first Sophia jokingly talk about this, but after a while it becomes public opinion. Famusovskoe society cannot forgive Chatsky for his intelligence and education, so they are happy to believe this slander.
At the end of the play, Famusov exclaims:
Oh! Oh my God! What will say
Princess Marya Alekseevna!
And you can immediately understand that the opinion of this unknown to us Maria Alekseevna is more important for Famusov than the happiness of her own daughter.
Thanks to secondary and non-stage characters, the comedy “Woe from Wit” is not closed in time and the spatial circle where the action takes place. We begin to understand what moral values \u200b\u200bare in the world that Chatsky outrages. The contradictions between the hero and society become natural. With the help of these characters, Griboyedov introduces us to the past and future. different people, and above all, we learn the back story of the life of the protagonist. We understand that the future Chatsky is most likely with the Decembrists, because he expressed a lot in the comedy that could be heard from the Decembrists.
