The main reasons for the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. Essay on the topic: Chatsky and the Famusov Griboyedov Society, Woe from Wit Who defeated Chatsky or the Famusov Society

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, 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.

- That's it, you are all proud,

If only we could see what our fathers did

We should learn by looking at our elders...

..........................................

According to the spirit of the times and taste

He hated the word "slave".

A. S. Griboyedov

People living at the same time are called contemporaries. Console "co-" means “together”. Employee, interlocutor, colleague, etc. It's in the grammar. And in life, contemporaries are not always together - in the comedy “Woe from Wit” it is convincingly shown that “the present century” and the “past century” can come together at the same time, in the same house and declare a merciless war on each other.

Let's imagine a Moscow manor house from the 20s of the 19th century. Like a fresh wind, a passionate young man, Alexander Andreich Chatsky, in love with the owner’s daughter, bursts into its musty atmosphere. His childhood memories are connected with this house (he was brought up here), his beloved and, as he believes, loving girl lives here. He anticipates happy moments of meeting, getting to know people dear to him again. But, alas, “a million torments” await him here, and these torments are connected not only with the collapse of love, but also with ideological confrontation: at one pole he, Chatsky, is a “clever girl”, a “Carbonari” who “does not recognize the authorities” , “he wants to preach freedom,” and on the other is the owner of the house, Famusov, the Moscow ace, the persecutor of everything new and progressive.

To understand what caused their conflict and what its essence is, let’s take a closer look at the owner of the house and his unexpected guest, who caused a commotion and destroyed the world of feigned calm and well-being.

Famusov is depicted in great detail in the comedy. This is a typical gentleman-serf owner, zealously defending the old way of life and the noble traditions of the past: he considers serfdom unshakable, does not see people in the servants (he calls them Petrushkas, Filkas, Grishkas; angry, he threatens: “To work for you, to settle you!"); the ideal person for him is a buffoon and a nonentity, Maxim Petrovich; work is a boring burden, and therefore his “custom,” as he himself admits, is: “signed, off your shoulders.” Famusov is an enemy of enlightenment, in which he sees “evil”; his dream is “to take all the books and burn them.” It seems fair to him that “there is honor according to father and son,” but a person in himself means nothing: “be inferior, but if there are two thousand souls in the family, he is the groom.” The most dangerous enemies for Famusov are progressive people, whose views he considers destructive, dangerous to his well-being and peace of mind. He hates and fears such people: after all, they strive to serve “the cause, not individuals,” and do not want to live “looking at their elders.” That is why Chatsky’s arrival is a disaster for him. If at first Pavel Afanasyevich, pretending to be a good-natured mentor, grumbles and lectures, then soon, infuriated by Chatsky’s free-thinking speeches, he indignantly attacks him. In his opinion, it is necessary to prohibit such gentlemen as his guest from “driving up to the capitals for a shot.”

The reasons for Famusov’s concern are clear: Chatsky is no longer the well-behaved young man who left this house three years ago. Now he is a mature man with strong convictions, his speeches are directed against the system and those orders that are the basis for the well-being of Famus society. First of all, he acts as an opponent of serfdom, angrily denounces the wrong court, he is outraged by service to persons rather than to the cause, veneration of rank and servility, and slave morality. He does not understand how one can not dare to “have one’s own opinion,” grovel before those in power, and treat the national culture and language with disdain.

Naturally, the beliefs of Famusov and Chatsky are irreconcilable. After all, the reason for their conflict is not personal antipathy, not mutual grievances or discontent - they are antagonists in their socio-political views, and each speaks on behalf of their like-minded people. Famusov’s camp is numerous and diverse, Chatsky is alone on stage, but people who share his views are mentioned, and Famusov’s society has no reason to triumph: his victory, like Chatsky’s defeat, is apparent. I. A. Goncharov said this very accurately in his article “A Million Torments”: “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old strength, having dealt it in turn a fatal blow with the quality of fresh strength.” Material from the site

Indeed, if Chatsky leaves Famusov’s house without changing one iota of his convictions, without retreating in anything and without conceding anything to his opponents, then Famusov and his supporters have lost their former self-confidence, the ground under their feet is shaking. “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?” — with this tragicomic exclamation from Famusov the comedy ends. Thus, the author emphasizes that the “past century” has no prospects, its time is irrevocably gone, having outlived its usefulness. “What will anyone say - is that really the point?! Another thing is important: the confrontation between Famusov and Chatsky is a sign of the times. Contemporary antipodes cannot and will never be able to agree: after all, progress cannot be stopped. “Chatsky begins a new century - and this is his whole meaning and his whole mind,” emphasizes I. A. Goncharov. Numerous Famusovs had to retreat: the laws of history are inexorable, and the brilliant author of “Woe from Wit” prophetically predicted how the conflict he showed would be resolved: the old world was dealt a blow from which it would never recover. The new will definitely win.

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• what is the essence of the conflict between Famusov and Chatsky society
• what makes Chatsky and Famusov irreconcilable enemies
• the main reasons for the conflict between Chatsky and
• what is the essence of the conflict between Famus society and Chatsky
• confrontation between Chatsky and Famusov

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 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.

The main conflict of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is the clash of the “present century” in the person of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky with the “past century” represented in the comedy by Famus society. But is the “past century” a century that is gone forever, making room for a new time with completely different life values? In my opinion, Chatsky is biased in his judgment about the “coming” and “past” times, believing that “the light today is not the same” as before. This bias in the hero’s beliefs is due to his youth and some naivety. Chatsky, who has just returned from a long journey, finds it difficult to understand the atmosphere in Famusov’s house and correctly assess the morals of his “past life.” It seems to the hero that the world has changed, but in reality everything remains the same. The words “past century” in comedy denote a certain way of life, a worldview, within the framework of which the main values ​​are rank and wealth.
Already from the first pages of the play, it becomes obvious to us that in Famusov’s house everyone lies to each other. And only the lies of Lisa and Sophia are of a noble nature. Lisa lies to the master, thereby helping Sofya and Molchalin. Sophia deceives her father so that he does not find out about his daughter’s love for his secretary, because Famusov will not be able to accept a poor person into the family (“Whoever is poor is not a match for you!”). Sophia’s lie can be justified, it is caused by a deep feeling for her lover, but Molchalin’s lie is a betrayal. He deceives both his benefactor and his “beloved” solely for his own benefit.
Forgetting that he had just flirted with Lisa, Famusov says about himself with importance: “He is known for his monastic behavior!” Griboyedov deliberately shows the reader in such detail the situation in Famusov’s house: it reflects the moral atmosphere of the whole society.
Famusov, in whose house the play takes place, can be called Chatsky’s most serious opponent. The conflict between these heroes is socio-political in nature. In the Chatsky-Famusov parallel, it is almost impossible to find points of contact. Famusov is a typical Moscow gentleman, devoid of moral goals. Rank and wealth are his main goals in life, justifying any means: “He would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks.” Famusov’s ideals are Kuzma Petrovich, a supporter of nepotism, a man “with a key” (the golden key was an indicator of the chamberlain’s status), who “knew how to deliver the key to his son,” and Maxim Petrovich, Famusov’s uncle, known for his servility and sycophancy. Famusov lives according to a weekly schedule, which is of an everyday, everyday nature: christenings, trouts, burials... This gentleman’s attitude towards business is superficial, he does not delve into the essence of the service: “It’s signed, so off your shoulders.” But Pavel Afanasyevich does not see any benefit in books: “And reading is of little use...” - which characterizes him as an ignoramus, an unenlightened person. And this attitude towards books is inherent in the entire Moscow noble society with conservative views on the world.
Chatsky, an ardent young man of the Decembrist worldview, does not accept such a way of life, such ideals: “And indeed, the world began to grow stupid...” Famus’s society is alien to him, so Chatsky exposes its “vilest traits.”
So, who represents society in comedy? This is the Moscow “ace” - Colonel Skalozub, a smug careerist, “a famous person, respectable.” His dream is “if only he could become a general.” Skalozub is promoted at the expense of dismissed and deceased comrades: “Some of the older ones will be turned off, others, you see, have been killed.” In a conversation with Skalozub, Famusov curries favor with him, because it is precisely such a son-in-law that is acceptable to Famusov, since Skalozub “is a gold bag and aims to be a general.”
The next character, whose life credo is “to win awards and have fun,” and the means to achieve this is “to please all people without exception,” is Molchalin, a petty nobleman who is the secretary in Famusov’s house. Molchalin has a good reputation in society, he knows how to appear to be who they want to see in him. Dependent on others is Molchalin’s basic principle. This character takes advantage of the opportunities, connections of the “powers that be,” and their position in society. With his obsequiousness, Molchalin endears himself. His ideals are Tatyana Yuryevna and Foma Fomich, whom he considers to be integral individuals and sets as an example to Chatsky. Chatsky speaks about Foma Fomich this way: “the most empty person, one of the most stupid!”
Sophia loves Molchalin because he is much more suitable for calm family happiness than the arrogant Chatsky, bold in his judgments. And Chatsky cannot understand the feelings for someone “who is like all fools!” Molchalin considers Chatsky a stupid, ridiculous boy and feels sorry for him.
It seems that the main criterion for Chatsky’s assessment of the people around him is intelligence. This determines both the positive and negative sides of the hero. A.S. Pushkin denied Chatsky intelligence, meaning the worldly, secular intelligence. Chatsky appears in the comedy as a bearer of a genuine, high mind.
The ball scene is of great importance in comedy: it is in it that a whole gallery of various “portraits” appears before the reader; it is at the ball that the conflict between society and Chatsky is brought to its utmost acuteness. The Gorichs are the first to appear in Famusov's house. Platon Mikhailovich is a vivid image of a boy-husband, a servant-husband, whose family life is monotonous and boring.
The next guests are Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky and their six daughters. The main concern of parents is to get their daughters married. For the princess, the spiritual qualities of a possible son-in-law are not important, what is important is his property status. Having learned that Chatsky is not rich, the princess, who sent Tugoukhovsky to meet Chatsky, shouts to her husband at the top of her lungs: “Prince, prince, go back!” - not at all embarrassed by Chatsky’s presence.
Countess-grandmother and Countess-granddaughter Khryumin show class arrogance in relation to other people present at the ball (“We are first!”), At the same time rejoicing at meeting Zagoretsky, a “notorious swindler”, useful to everyone.
An important role in the play is played by Repetilov, a kind of “double” of Chatsky, his distorted shadow. It seems strange to the reader that Repetilov is equally kind to both Chatsky and Skalozub. Repetilov talks as much as Chatsky, but they have different motives. Repetilov in some way parodies Chatsky. This comedy hero is a failed careerist, a waster of life, a member of a “secret society.” Repetilov’s monologue contains a description of the supposedly progressive part of the Moscow nobility, but this “smart youth juice” is nothing more than a tribute to the fashion for people with progressive views.
It is at the ball that rumors about Chatsky's madness are spread. Chatsky is a tragic hero who finds himself in a comedic situation. It may seem funny to Famusov's Moscow, but not to the reader. Chatsky's failures are a sign of his relentless desire to remain faithful to his ideals. The hero is intolerant of stupidity, vulgarity and servility, widespread in the society with which fate confronts him. But Chatsky is not alone in his desires for change. “Allies”, like-minded people of the main character in the comedy - Skalozub’s cousin, who left the service and “began reading books in the village”, professors at the Pedagogical Institute, as well as Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew Fyodor, a chemist and botanist who does not want to “know the ranks”. Progressive people of that time saw that society needed changes, they had new life values ​​- education, which representatives of the conservative Famus society were so afraid of, and personal freedom.
Insulted by the slander, Chatsky leaves Moscow, on which he had high hopes. The hero wanted a renewal of Russian life. But that did not happen. In the city - and throughout the country - loyalty to the ideals of the “past century” has been maintained. The noble Chatsky has no place in Famusov’s society, but he does not remain defeated in comedy, just as he is not a winner in it. “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a death blow on it, in turn, by the quality of the new force,” wrote I. A. Goncharov several decades later in the article “A Million Torments,” dedicated to the play “Woe from Wit.”
In contrasting Chatsky with Famusov’s society, Griboedov’s deep confidence was expressed that the “present century” will triumph in Russia over the “past century.” The tragedy of Chatsky’s fate indicates that the confrontation between the two worldviews will be long and painful.

“Woe from Wit” is a realistic comedy. Griboedov gave in it a true picture of Russian life. The comedy raised the topical social problems of those times: education, contempt for everything popular, worship of foreigners, education, service, ignorance of society.

The main character of the comedy is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Witty, eloquent, he angrily ridicules the vices of the society that surrounds him. He differs sharply from those around him in his intelligence, abilities, and independence of judgment. The image of Chatsky is something new, bringing change. This hero is an exponent of the progressive ideas of his time. Famus society is traditional. His life positions are such that “one must learn by looking at one’s elders,” one must destroy free-thinking thoughts, serve with obedience to those who are one step higher, one must be rich. Famusov's only passion is the passion for rank and money.

The beliefs of Chatsky and Famus society are different. Chatsky condemns serfdom, imitation of foreign goods, and people’s lack of desire for education and their own opinion. The dialogues between Chatsky and Famusov are a struggle. At the beginning of the comedy it is not so acute. Famusov is even ready to give up Sofia’s hand, but sets conditions:

I would say, firstly: don’t be a whim,

Brother, don’t mismanage your property,

And, most importantly, go ahead and serve.

To which Chatsky replies:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.

But gradually the struggle turns into a battle. Chatsky argues with Famusov about the way and path of life. But the main character is alone in the fight against the views of Moscow society, in which he has no place.

Molchalin and Skalozub are not the last representatives of Famus society. They are rivals and opponents of Chatsky. Molchalin is helpful and silent. He wants to please with his humility, accuracy, and flattery. Skalozub shows himself to be someone very important, businesslike, significant. But under his uniform he hides “weakness, poverty of mind.” His thoughts are connected only with obtaining a higher rank, money, power:

Yes, to get ranks, there are many channels;

I judge them as a true philosopher:

I just wish I could become a general.

Chatsky does not tolerate lies and falsehood. This man's tongue is as sharp as a knife. Each of his characteristics is sharp and caustic:

Molchalin was so stupid before!..

Most pathetic creature!

Has he really grown wiser?.. And he -

Khripun, strangled, bassoon,

A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!

Chatsky’s monologue “Who are the judges?..” mercilessly condemns Famus society. Each new face that appears during the development of the plot takes Famusov’s side. Gossip grows like a snowball. And Chatsky can’t stand it. He can no longer remain in the company of low, mean, arrogant and stupid people. They condemned him for his intelligence, for freedom of speech and thought, for honesty.

Before leaving, Chatsky throws out to the entire Famus society:

You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to spend a day with you,

Breathe the air alone

And his sanity will survive.

Chatsky is taller than them; the best and rarest qualities are manifested in him. Those who cannot see and appreciate this are, at the very least, simply fools. Chatsky is immortal, and now this hero is relevant.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” made a huge contribution to the development of Russian literature. Griboyedov's play was, is and will be a modern work until veneration for rank, thirst for profit, and gossip disappear from our lives.