Social conflict between Chatsky and Famusov. The main reasons for the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. Chatsky and Famusov society. Composition

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 Famus society collide - “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 large camp of conservative nobles is opposed by one main character of the 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, and 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 the best example for his daughter is the example of her 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 alone in the room with Molchalin, he flirts with his maid Liza and makes clear hints to her. It becomes clear to the reader that Famusov, reading 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 advantage, 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 one should not dare to have one’s own judgment.” 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, under the influence of historical events, penetrates 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

Jan 28 2011

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was completed by Griboyedov in one thousand eight hundred
twenty-fourth year. Immediately banned by censorship, she
The author has never appeared either in print or on stage. But the comedy manuscript
was copied by hand, and the lists were distributed throughout Russia. To the moment
of the first theatrical productions of “Woe from Wit” the audience knew the text of the comedy
by heart. “Woe from Wit” was immediately perceived as political
correctly and was highly appreciated by the Decembrists. The first pages were read... It became clear: everyone in Famusov’s house was waiting for the person who interested me so much. Who is he? Why is he the only one they talk about in this house? Why does Liza, the maid, remember him as a cheerful, witty person, but Sofya, Famusov’s daughter, does not want to hear about Chatsky? And later I am convinced that Famusov is irritated and alarmed. Why? I need to resolve all these questions. Comedy with
From the very first pages I was interested.

So, it turns out that Chatsky, who was left an orphan early, lived in the house
his guardian Famusov, a friend of his father, and was raised together with his daughter,
having received an excellent home education from foreign tutors. "Habit
to be together every day inseparably” connected them with childhood friendship. But soon
the young man Chatsky was already “bored” in Famusov’s house, where they were absent
serious mental interests, and he “moved out,” that is, began to live separately,
independently, made good friends, and became seriously involved in science. In these
Over the years, his friendly disposition towards Sophia becomes a serious feeling. But also
love for a girl did not distract him from the pursuit of knowledge, to study
life. He goes "to wander." Three years have passed...And here is our hero
again in Moscow, in Famusov’s house. He hurries to see Sophia, who is passionately
loves. And such sincerity, such love and joy from meeting your beloved
the girl can hear it in his voice! He is lively, cheerful, witty, handsome! Chatsky
all filled with the joy of life and does not know that trouble awaits him: after all,
Sophia loves not him, but her father’s secretary, the cunning liar Molchalin.

Chatsky does not even suspect how Sophia has changed during his
absence, he trusts her, as in the days of his early youth. And Sophia not only
loves him, but is even ready to hate him for his caustic words addressed to Molchalin.
She is capable of lies, pretense, gossip, just to hurt,
take revenge on Chatsky. In Chatsky’s playful, sarcastic remarks, she cannot
feel the pain of a person who truly loves his homeland. Chatsky and Famusov
meet as close people. But soon we are convinced that between
They constantly clash.

In Famusov's house, Chatsky meets Skalozub, a possible
a contender for Sophia's hand. It was here between Famusov, the defender
autocratic serfdom, and Chatsky, patriot, defender
"free life", an exponent of the ideas of the Decembrists, new ideas about
a person and his place in society, tension arises and flares up
ideological struggle. The dispute between them is about the dignity of man, his value,
about honor and honesty, about attitude to service, about a person’s place in society.
Chatsky sarcastically criticizes feudal tyranny, cynicism and
the soullessness of the “fathers of the fatherland”, their pathetic admiration for everything foreign,
their careerism, fierce resistance to moving forward to a better life.
Famusov is afraid of people like Chatsky, since they encroach on that
way of life, which is the basis of well-being for the Famusovs.
The self-satisfied serf owner teaches the “today’s proud people” how to live, puts
as an example of sycophants and careerists like Maxim Petrovich.

In such a case, say, Belinsky, Ryleev,
Griboyedov? Hardly! This is why we perceive so naturally
accusatory monologues and remarks by Chatsky. The hero is indignant, despises,
mocks, accuses, while thinking out loud, not paying attention to how
those around him will react to his thoughts.
Chatsky has the seething passion of a fighter for a fair society. He
wants to bring his enemies to “white heat” and express his truth.
A citizen's anger and resentment give him energy.

As I read the comedy, I admire more and more how
Griboyedov expressively compared Chatsky and his rivals. Chatsky calls
I have sympathy and respect, recognition of his noble deeds. To me
Near and dear are his statements addressed to the world of feudal owners.

The secular crowd, skillfully depicted by Griboyedov’s pen, -
personification, meanness, ignorance, inertia. This crowd includes
in my opinion, and Sophia, whom our hero loves so much. After all, she is the one who inflicts it
he receives a treacherous blow: writing gossip about Chatsky’s madness. I understand,
that she wanted to take revenge for his ridicule towards Molchalin. But
You can’t be so cruel and inhumane! After all, she is a representative
the fair sex and suddenly... such meanness! A fiction about madness
Chatsky spreads with lightning speed. Nobody believes, but everyone
repeat. Finally, this gossip reaches Famusov. When the guests start
to list the reason for Chatsky’s madness, another meaning of this
phrases: in their opinion, crazy means “freethinker.” Everybody's trying
determine the cause of madness. Khlestova says: “I drank tea inappropriately.”
years,” but Famusov is firmly convinced:

Learning is a plague
Scholarship is here

cause….
Various measures are then proposed to combat the “madness.” Colonel
Skalozub, narcissistic, stupid colonel of stick drill, enemy of freedom and
enlightenment, dreaming of the rank of general, says:

I will make you happy: universal rumor,
That there is a project for lyceums, schools, gymnasiums;
There they will only teach in our way: one, two;
And schools will be kept like this: for big occasions.

And Famusov, as if summarizing the opinions expressed about enlightenment, says
Once evil is stopped:
Take all the books and burn them.

Thus, Chatsky is declared crazy for his freethinking. He
hated by reactionary society as an ideological enemy, as a progressive
freedom-loving And society is taking measures to neutralize it, -
raises vile slander against him. Soon Chatsky heard gossip about his
madness. It hurts him, it’s bitter, but it doesn’t bother him as deeply as
then who does Sophia love, why is she so cold towards him.

And suddenly an unexpected resolution of these issues occurs. Chatsky
witnessed an accidentally overheard conversation between Molchalin and
maid Lisa. Molchalin confesses his love to the girl, but the maid boldly
hints to him about a wedding with the young lady, Sophia, shames Molchalin. And here
Molchalin “takes off his mask”: he admits to Liza that “in Sofya Pavlovna there is no
nothing enviable”, that he is in love with her “by position”, “who feeds and
gives him something to drink, and sometimes he gives him a gift.” Anger and shame torment Chatsky: “Here I am
donated to whom!” How he was deceived in Sophia! His lucky rival is
Molchalin, low hypocrite and deceiver, “fool”, “famous servant”,
convinced that “at his age,” in his rank, “one should not dare to
judgment to have ", but must, "pleasing everyone, and taking rewards and having fun
live."

And Sophia, on her way to a date with Molchalin, heard
accidentally his frank confession to Lisa. She is surprised, offended,
humiliated! After all, she loved him so much, idealized this insignificant person! What a pitiful role Sophia played in his life! But the girl finds in herself
strength to forever renounce delusions, to push away the crawling
Molchalin’s legs, but she cannot defend and justify herself before Chatsky.
Chatsky has suffered another wound: he learns that the ridiculous gossip about him
madness belongs to Sophia. No, he will never be able to forgive her for this, so
as he also considers her to be a representative of the Famusov society, which is hostile to him.
Chatsky decided to leave Moscow forever. Why? Leaving the "tormentors of the crowd, in
the love of traitors, in tireless enmity,” he intends to “search around the world,
where there is a corner for the offended feeling.”

And Sophia? After all, reconciliation with her was so possible! But Chatsky,
having ranked her among the world of his enemies, he is convinced that “there will be another
a well-behaved sycophant and businessman.” Maybe our hero is right. After all
Sophia, brought up in the spirit of hatred towards everything progressive, new,
would bring to a person who has a definite opinion about the serf
law, education, service. No wonder the Decembrists saw Chatsky as one of their own.
like-minded person.

I admit, I feel sorry for Sophia, because she is not a bad girl, not
immoral, but, unfortunately, turned out to be a victim of the lies that
characteristic of Famus society, which destroyed her.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" entered the treasury of our national
culture. Even now she has not lost her moral and artistic
strength. We, the people of the new generation, understand and are close to the angry, irreconcilable
Griboyedov's attitude towards injustice, meanness, hypocrisy, which are so
often occur in our lives.

The main character of the comedy teaches us to be irreconcilable towards everything low and
vulgar, teaches to be honest, kind and principled.

Russian diplomat, state councilor and Russian classic A. S. Griboyedov served in the East and was nicknamed Vazir-Mukhtar by the Persians. He was killed in the winter of 1826 in Tehran by Muslim conspirators. However, his murder was being prepared in Russia, which was frightened. Griboyedov was not among them, but he was feared no less than those nobles. His great work “Woe from Wit” was banned and was secretly passed from hand to hand. The death warrant was signed when an opposition diplomat was sent on a mission to Persia. So society got rid of a genius personality. However, his play survived.

The play “Woe from Wit” is based on the conflict between the young and progressive nobleman Chatsky and high society. The plot describes the events of one day in the house of the old aristocrat Famusov. Despite such a narrow time frame, the author painted a detailed picture of the events taking place. He showed everything new and young that was emerging in the deep depths of noble society.

Chatsky became a representative of modern youth of the “present century” with freedom-loving views. His opponent in the definition as “a bygone century” was a man of the old formation, Famusov, and his invited guests.

Now let’s try to speculate a little about what kind of conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

The atmosphere of Famusov's house

It may immediately seem that Chatsky is biased in his judgments about the present, he believes that the world is no longer the same, and his morals are too outdated. All this is due to his youth and to some extent naivety. Of course, Chatsky has already lived abroad for three years, and now it is difficult for him to understand the atmosphere that reigned in Famusov’s house. He was waiting for some changes. However, upon returning, he realized that secular morals, alas, remained the same, and people were still revered for their ranks, the number of serf souls and money, and not for their intelligence and nobility. Now, in some respects, it becomes clear what conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

Dispute between generations

From the very first pages of the work it already becomes clear that in this house they constantly lie. But the lie of the maid Liza has a certain noble character, since in this way she saves her mistress, Famusov’s daughter Sophia, who is in love with Molchalin, her father’s secretary. But, according to her father, he is not a match for her, since he is very poor.

Sophia's lies are also justified because of her love for Molchalin. But after a while we see the lies of Molchalin, who begins to flirt with the servant Lisa. It is clear that he is having an affair with Sophia for profit.

But Famusov is no better in this regard; he, too, is secretly after the maid Liza. And then in his dialogue with the guests he will say the following words about himself: “He is known for his monastic behavior.” Griboyedov specifically devotes so much time to describing this entire situation in order to more accurately reflect the moral atmosphere of life in that society.

And now Chatsky became the most serious opponent of old man Famusov; the conflict of their opposing views on simple things gradually develops into a socio-political one. And the further they go, the more difficult it is for them to find common ground.

Chatsky and Famusov society. Composition

Famusov is a wealthy landowner, accustomed to doing whatever he pleases, and therefore largely devoid of moral goals. All that interests him in a person is his position and condition. He doesn’t want to read, because he considers this activity very boring, so some statements characterize him as a narrow-minded and superficial person. He is conservative in his views.

Chatsky, on the contrary, is a revolutionary man. He does not accept all the ideals that Famusov talks about. In the question of what conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society, this is precisely what can serve as the answer. After all, the main character exposes the most unpleasant features of the entire Famus society, which includes many people. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a careerist and a smug martinet, whom Famusov fawns over, considering him a “gold bag.”

The next character is Molchalin, who pleases meek and obedient behavior and takes advantage of people's connections with position. Sophia fell in love with him for his imaginary modesty. Chatsky considers him a complete fool and an empty person, in principle, like all the other guests present.

Revenge

Chatsky denounces everyone left and right; his main criterion by which he evaluates everyone is intelligence and spirituality. Therefore, one can imagine what kind of conflict determines Chatsky’s clash with society.

The revenge of the cold-blooded fool was not long in coming. Chatsky opposed serfdom and was the bearer of advanced ideas - education and He wanted renewal and improvement of society, but this did not happen. And then comes a premonition of Chatsky’s break with society, and he is declared crazy. Humiliated and insulted, he leaves this damned house and Moscow in horror.

We got acquainted with the comedy by A. S. Griboedov "Woe from Wit." In this work, we are presented with a conflict that was insoluble for that time between Chatsky and Famusov society, which is a direct reflection of the social conflict of that era. These differences in views are indeed very sharp, since the confrontation is not just between individual people, it is intergenerational.

This means that older people, who lived in times of sycophancy, servility and self-interest, are in every possible way opposed to the younger generation, which, like no one else, understands the need for change.

The main personification of conservative society in this work is Famusov. He is an ardent supporter of the last century and cannot even hear talk about the need for change in Moscow. “I kindly plugged my ears,” answers Famusov in a conversation with Chatsky that is unpleasant for his conservative views. Famusov considers the past century an ideal for the development of Russia. Freedom of speech and action in some Western countries at that time was not for him. He believes that Russia should develop in its own way, where the use of its own citizens as de facto slaves still reigns. A clear contrast to the views of the Famus society is Chatsky. He supports the present age and its progressive development. He considers the past century to be a century of fear to express one’s point of view, as well as a century of servility and self-interest for one’s own benefit. “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths clamped,” says Chatsky. In his opinion, society should progress and long ago lose all old prejudices, which from the outside seem extremely unpleasant, but for conservatives themselves are the norm. Such an act is the special falls of Maxim Petrovich in front of Catherine, which caused her not only to smile and laugh, but also to the need for his promotion in rank. This act seems disgusting, but Famusov not only approves of it, he sets it as an example. Famus society does not accept modern trends of change and firmly believes that they will destroy Russia. Chatsky society, on the contrary, understands that if changes do not come now, then the country may soon face difficult times. Service to the fatherland, in Famusov’s view, is a service in which the main element is the ability to please your boss at the right time so that he will advance you up the career ladder. In Molchalin’s view, service is constant sycophancy and subservience, most likely done so that the right moment does not even have to be chosen. In Skalozub’s view, service is only military support for the state, where in order to receive a new rank, just like everywhere else, you need to please your boss. It turns out that the opinions of these three people are almost the same, since they all belong to the last century, some because of their age, and some because of the hope of getting benefits. Chatsky’s opinion is completely different. He believes that you need to serve not your bosses, not those who pat you on the head, you only need to serve your homeland. And if all people adhere to this opinion, then there will be much more sense than from fawning towards individual people. Chatsky is against serfdom, he is an opponent of slavery and considers it unacceptable. Every person is born equal in rights, and he understands this perfectly. Famusov’s society cannot imagine how landowners will exist without peasants; it is primarily interested not in the freedom of millions of people, but in the well-being of thousands. But in this matter they can be justified, since due to their worldview and conservative views on life, they believe that the peasants have been under the supervision of the landowners for too long and now will not be able to exist without them. The Famus society considers constant demonstration events, going to balls and visiting each other to be the ideal of life. All this is achieved by accepting the views of other people and constantly fawning over people more significant than yourself. Famusov treats this with irony, since he understands that constant holidays to maintain his weight in society cannot be liked even by the person who goes to them. He believes that people should work and rest in moderation for their own pleasure, without fear that someone will shame them or reject them for this. Chatsky promotes enlightenment and education among people in every possible way, but Famus society is almost all opposed to this. It believes that knowledge only clutters the head and confuses consciousness, although fortunately this applies only to the most ardent conservatives. Chatsky considers Russia’s admiration of French culture unacceptable; he believes that our heritage is no worse and it is better to first learn Russian sciences than to immediately study foreign ones. All these points of view of Chatsky, which run counter to the opinions of Famusov’s Moscow, led to the fact that Chatsky was considered crazy. But we understand that this only confirmed that he was right, since people simply could not respond to our hero’s correct remarks and immediately believed in this gossip.

I believe that Chatsky emerged from this story as the undisputed winner. Despite the fact that he was alone, and there were a lot of representatives of the Famus society, Chatsky confidently defended his point of view and caused a commotion in this house. Not only did he not break down in front of a large number of people, but he also instilled in their souls a small piece of doubt about the correctness of their lives.

1. The history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
2. The reason for the disagreements between representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”.
3. The immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy.

A. S. Griboedov created the comedy “Woe from Wit” at the beginning of the 19th century. In those years, new trends began to replace the orders of Catherine’s era; other people appeared in Russian society, with progressive views, who wanted to serve their country, without demanding titles or awards for this. This was, of course, connected with the patriotic upsurge that Russian society experienced after the Patriotic War of 1812. This led the leading part of the nobles in 1825 to Senate Square demanding the provision of civil liberties and the signing of the constitution.

At the center of Griboyedov’s comedy is such a person. In his appearance, behavior, even in his last name, contemporaries guessed the real person - P. Ya. Chaadaev. He was a Western philosopher, and Chaadaev was declared crazy for his progressive views and criticism of the contemporary order. So, the confrontation between Alexander Chatsky and Famus society constitutes the main socio-political conflict of the play.

Chatsky is a young man, he is educated and has his own opinion on many very serious problems of his time. Alexander Andreevich spent two years abroad, where he became acquainted with the advanced ideas of our time and saw how people live in other countries. And here he is in Moscow, among people of high society, in the house of his uncle, the Moscow “ace” Famusov. Chatsky is in love with Famusov's daughter, Sophia, with whom they grew up together. Childhood affection develops over time into a serious feeling. Chatsky is sincerely glad to meet Sophia and immediately begins to explain his feelings to her. He still doesn’t know that while he was away, Sophia became interested in Molchalin, her father’s secretary. Therefore, she is cold with Chatsky and is even dissatisfied with his ardor and passion. Chatsky is confused, he cannot understand the reason for this attitude towards himself. The further development of events is determined by Chatsky’s attempts to find out who the lucky rival is: Molchalin or Skalozub. But the love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia is only external, which subsequently reveals a deeper, socio-political conflict.

Seeing these people, communicating with them, Chatsky cannot understand why Sophia does not notice in them what is so clearly visible to him. The situation is heating up, and Chatsky pronounces his famous monologues. First of all, this is a monologue about old people, about the so-called “judges”, trendsetters who “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” The other is about the dominance of everything foreign, about “slavish, blind imitation,” about the “foreign power of fashion.” Chatsky angrily asks:

Where? Show us, fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?
We found protection from court in friends,
related,
Magnificent building chambers...

But Chatsky’s fiery speeches remain without support; moreover, his attacks are met with protest, hostility, and dull misunderstanding. In the end, he is left completely alone against the hostile Famus society. Moreover, Sophia started a rumor that Chatsky was not himself.

A. S. Griboyedov shows readers not only those who do not accept Chatsky’s position and enter into open struggle with him, but also those who are unable to fight injustice, whose will is paralyzed. Such heroes include Gorich, a former colleague and friend of Chatsky. But Gorich got married, fell “under his wife’s heel” and humbly bears his burden, although he understands that he has fallen: “Now, brother, I’m not the same.” When Chatsky was declared crazy, Gorich did not want to believe it, but he did not dare to openly contradict the general opinion. Chatsky found himself alone. His accusatory monologues hung in the air, no one sympathizes with him, and all his “millions of torments,” as I. A. Goncharov said, at first glance, seems futile to us. But that's not true. A. S. Griboedov, in the image of his main character, showed the changes emerging in Russian society, the emergence among the progressive people of the era of the desire to become useful to society, to care about the common good, and not just about personal well-being.

The comedy by A. S. Griboedov shows us the life of Russian society in the first third of the 19th century in all its complexity, inconsistency and heterogeneity. The author realistically depicts the types of that era despite some of the romantic traits of the main character. The writer raises eternal problems in the play - relationships between generations, the contradiction between personal and public well-being, the egoistic principle in a person and his unselfish readiness to help people. Therefore, this work is still relevant now, at the beginning of the 21st century, because it helps to understand modern problems, which are practically no different from the life conflicts of the era of A. S. Griboedov.