The comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” was written after the Fatherland War of 1812, during the period of the rise of the spiritual life of Russia. The comedy raised the topical social issues of that time: about public service, serfdom, education, education, about the slavish imitation of the nobles to everything foreign and contempt for everything national and popular.

The ideological meaning is in the opposition of two general forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, serfdom, and the new. The conflict of the comedy is the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, between “the present century and the past century.”

Famusov is an official, but treats his service only as a source of income. He is not interested in the meaning and results of labor - only ranks. The ideal of this person is Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” “ate on gold,” “drove forever in a train.” Famusov, like the rest of society, admires his ability to “bend to the extreme,” “when it is necessary to serve oneself,” since it is this ability that helps in Moscow “to reach the famous levels.” Famusov and his society (Khlestovs, Tugoukhovskys, Molchalins, Skalozubs) represent “a bygone century.”

Chatsky, on the contrary, is a representative of the “present century.” This is an exponent of the advanced ideas of his time. His monologues reveal a political program: he exposes serfdom and its products: dishonesty, hypocrisy, stupid military, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives mercilessly. Har-ku to Famus society, stigmatizes “the meanest traits of the past life.” Chatsky’s monologue “And who are the judges?..” was born of his protest against the “Fatherland of the Fathers”, since he does not see in them a model that should be imitated. He condemns them for their conservatism:

Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers

The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea...

for a passion for wealth and luxury obtained through “robbery,” protecting oneself from responsibility by mutual guarantee and bribery:

And who in Moscow didn’t have their mouths covered?

Lunches, dinners and dances?

He calls the serf-landowners “noble scoundrels” for their inhumane attitude towards the serfs. One of them, “that Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” exchanged his faithful servants, who “saved his life and honor more than once,” for three greyhounds; another scoundrel “brought to the serf ballet on many wagons from mothers and fathers rejected children,” who were then all “sold off one by one.” In Famus society, external form as an indicator of career success is more important than education, selfless service to the cause, sciences and arts:

Uniform! one uniform! he is in their former life

Once covered, embroidered and beautiful,

Their weakness, their poverty of reason...

In the comedy, Famusov and Chatsky are opposed to each other: on the one hand, gray, limited, mediocre, Famusov and the people of his circle, and on the other, the talented, educated, intellectual Chatsky. Chatsky’s daring mind immediately alarms Moscow society, accustomed to calm. The dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle, and it begins from the very first minutes of the meeting between Famusov and Chatsky. Chatsky sharply condemns the system of educating noble youth adopted in Moscow:

In Russia under a great fine,

We are told to recognize everyone

Historian and geographer.

And Famusov expresses the thought:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason...

The attitude of Famusov and Chatsky to service is also opposite. Chatsky sees service to the cause as his main goal. He does not accept “serving elders” or pleasing his superiors:

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

For Famusov, service is an easy matter:

And what matters to me, what doesn’t matter,

My custom is this:

Signed, off your shoulders.

The entire comedy is permeated with contradictions in the views of the “present century” and the “past century.” And the more Ch. communicates with F. and his entourage, the greater the gulf that separates them. Ch. speaks sharply about this society, which, in turn, calls him “Voltairian”, “Jacobin”, “Carbonari”.

Chatsky is forced to renounce even his love for Sophia, realizing that she does not love him and does not see him as an ideal, remaining a representative of the “past century.” Each new face in the comedy joins Famus’s society, which means it becomes in opposition to Chatsky. He scares them with his reasoning and ideals. It is fear that forces society to recognize him as crazy. And this was the best way to combat freethinking. But before leaving forever, Chatsky angrily says to Famus society:

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...

Who is Ch. - the winner or the loser? I. A. Goncharov in his article “A Million Torments” says:

“Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power. He is an eternal exposer of lies...” Chatsky’s drama is that he sees tragedy in the fate of society, but cannot influence anything.

A. S. Griboedov raised important issues of the era in his comedy: the question of serfdom, the fight against serfdom reaction, the activities of secret political societies, education, Russian national culture, the role of reason and progressive ideas in public life, duty and human dignity.

Problem in the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboedov was an innovative work in Russian literature in the first quarter of the 19th century. In classical comedy, heroes were divided into positive and negative, the number of both was approximately the same. The positive heroes were extolled and as a result won, the negative ones were ridiculed and in the end, accordingly, found themselves defeated. In Griboyedov we find a completely different structure of the character system: the heroes are divided into representatives of the “present century” and the “past century”, the former are disproportionately smaller. The main character often turns out to be ridiculous, and Famusov, one of the main representatives of the “past century,” appears before the reader as a caring father and, in principle, a good-natured person. The images created by Griboedov are bright and ambiguous, uncharacteristic of classic comedy; The conflict of the play is also unconventional. Heated debates flare up between Famusov and him about the acceptability of various methods for obtaining promotions and awards, about the importance of public opinion, about education. This is a confrontation not between two people, but between two worldviews and social positions; and Famusov are only their most prominent representatives.
addresses his indignant monologues to Sophia, Molchalin, and finally to all the guests at the ball. This conflict is social; on the one hand - and some off-stage characters, on the other - the Moscow noble society led by Famusov. The beginning of this external conflict can be considered the arrival at Famusov’s house, the development - disputes and monologues of the characters, growing misunderstanding and alienation. The climax is a ball, or rather a declaration of madness, this scene is the apogee of rejection and misunderstanding by one “camp” of the ideas and views of the other. Unable to think about and explain his behavior, Famus society finds the easiest way - to recognize him as insane. The denouement is departure from Moscow.
In general, the conflict in the comedy is resolved, but it remains unclear who won: with new ideas, which, obviously, are the future, or the noble society, its large numbers and dull conviction that it was right, forced him to flee. From a historical point of view, this version of the social conflict is insoluble: the confrontation between the old and the new cannot be resolved peacefully.

However, in the comedy, the relationship between specific characters and Famus society is clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and don’t want to have anything in common. The conflict in the literary sense is resolvable, but in the universal sense it is not. “Woe from Wit” is a comedy, brilliant in its typicality and brightness, in the images and relationships outlined in it, and in the vitality of the depicted social contradictions in Russian society of the 20s of the 19th century. I. A. Goncharov wrote that this is a collective image and appears every time a change in social formations is coming, when a conflict arises between the old and the new. Problems such as the relationship between fathers and children, men and women, new trends and outdated forms of life, are characteristic of any society, including modern ones, therefore the comedy of A. S. Griboedov and the conflicts discussed in it remain relevant, exciting the modern reader and the viewer.
Serfdom, conservatism of views, fear of everything new, indifference to the fate of Russia - these are the main subjects of disputes between fathers and sons, examples of which are given to us by Russian literature. The moral side of the conflict is more tragic in nature than the social side, because the person’s soul and his feelings are hurt. Very often, when children grow up and begin to live an independent life, they pay less and less attention to their parents and move away from them more and more. So, as we see, the problem of fathers and sons was most fully reflected in Russian classical literature; many writers turned to it, considering it one of the pressing problems of their contemporary era. But these works are popular and relevant in our time, which indicates that the problem of relationships between generations belongs to the eternal problems of existence. “Youth” in age terms means the younger generation, young people. Relatively recently, the concept of “modern youth” began to be actively used, although it, of course, has always existed. Already during the emergence and flourishing of ancient civilizations, there was a “youth” of its own, and even then, according to historical sources, young people experienced difficulties in relationships with adults and the outside world. “Modern youth” is a new generation that seeks to determine the social and partly the economic situation in the country. More recently, in the time of our grandparents, young people were raised by the older generation, but now the opposite trend is observed - young people “educate” society, trying to impose their views on it. It is not difficult to guess that this leads to conflicts between fathers and children, which currently surpass in scale all conflicts described in history, literature and art. In the modern world, the problem of fathers and children has not become less relevant than a hundred years ago, and it seems that now it has acquired new forms and become deeper. In any family, problems occur in the relationship between parents and children, and there is no escape from this, since the gap between generations is large. Parents do not understand their children because they were taught to live and think differently. Parents always strive to impose on their child a certain line of behavior that corresponds to their standards of behavior and ideals, but this method of education does not always lead to the desired result. A large place in modern literature is occupied by works about the complex moral quests of people, about the value of human life, about his interactions with others. Many authors are concerned with the topic of complex relationships between parents and children. Absolutely everyone faces this problem, and therefore people show interest in works that address this aspect.

(391 words) Griboyedov showed in his work that in the first third of the 19th century in Russia there was a split into two political camps. Progressive nobles appeared who advocated changes in society. Their views are expressed by Chatsky. On the other hand, the conservative nobility is depicted in the comedy in the person of Famusov and people like him. The main conflict is determined by the fact that the heroes have opposing views on the main issues of social development.

The conflict of generations makes itself felt in the attitude of the heroes to serfdom. Representatives of Famus society are accustomed to managing other people's lives. For example, the rich lady Khlestova treats her slave in exactly the same way as she treats a dog. She brings both of them to the party for her own entertainment, and then asks Sophia to send them a “tip” from the master’s table. Chatsky expresses his attitude to this in the monologue “Who are the judges?” He talks about one landowner who traded his faithful servants for dogs, although they were loyal and saved him many times. He is outraged by such actions. He is an opponent of serfdom. The characters also have different attitudes towards enlightenment. Representatives of the Famus society oppose education. In their opinion, excess knowledge is harmful. When rumors spread in society about Chatsky’s madness, everyone is sure that the reason is his desire to study. Alexander, on the contrary, is a supporter of education, as it develops a person. In addition, the attitude of the actors towards the service is noteworthy. Moscow society is convinced that it is worth serving only for the sake of profit. For example, Skalozub does not want to defend his homeland, but to become a general. Famusov is a “manager in a state-owned house.” Service for him is a boring duty, but he does not resign, since his position gives him a good position in society. Chatsky calls all these goals with one contemptuous word - “serve.” The main character believes that a decent person should, first of all, benefit the people, and not worry about personal gain. In the past he held a high position. He could have made a good career, but he left because the sovereign’s people did not appreciate his ideas. This suggests that their understanding of patriotism is different. Famusov praises Moscow because no one here wants change. Alexander condemns Moscow precisely for this, exposing “the meanest traits of his past life.” But she is still dear to him, since this is his hometown. Chatsky's patriotism lies in his desire to make his country more civilized.

Thus, A. S. Griboyedov managed to show that the social conflict between the progressive and conservative nobility was very acute. These people did not find a common language on any serious issue.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

An example of an essay in the direction of "Fathers and Sons".

The conflict between generations lies in the habit of older people to look down on the younger generation and in the desire of the younger ones for self-affirmation. The whole fault of our “fathers” is only that they remember us small and helpless. Christopher Morley says this: “We are unlucky with children - they always grow up to be adults.” To understand that children have grown up, you need to have internal flexibility, but not everyone can boast of this. The fault of the “children” in the conflict of generations lies in their desire to throw their “fathers” off the pedestal and take this place themselves, often without even realizing how difficult it is to be in it. There is an anecdote about this: “In kindergarten I wanted to become an adult, but now I have become an adult and want to go to kindergarten.” Many works of fiction have been written about the difficulties of the relationship between “fathers and children”.

In the comedy “Woe from Wit” A.S. Griboyedov reveals the conflict of generations. The main character of the work is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, a representative of the “children”. Through his lips, the author denies everything that is unshakable for the generation of “fathers”:

Where, show us, are the fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?

Everything that happens in Famusov’s house is subject to ridicule and criticism from Chatsky. This displeases the owner of the house, who “fatherly” instructs:

That's it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
You could learn by watching your elders...

Using the example of these two comedy heroes, we clearly see that the younger generation denies everything that is important for the old people, because life makes new demands, and only “advanced” people can bring this to life. The old generation tenaciously clings to their foundations, because they cannot imagine life when they will be forced to let go of the “reins of power.”

The same problem is posed in I.S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” The dispute between the representative of the “children,” Bazarov, and the representative of the “fathers,” Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, revolves around certain “principles,” which for old people are the basis of life and which are of absolutely no value to young nihilists. Evgeny Bazarov’s purpose lies in the need to “clear” life of old rubbish so that it becomes possible to build something new. This horrifies Kirsanov, as he understands - he is the very rubbish from which the young and daring nihilist intends to rid the world.

Using these examples, we are convinced that the conflict of generations is based on the basic law of dialectics - “the struggle and unity of opposites.” If there are opposites: young and old, then they should be in conflict, as long as they do not destroy each other, but come to unity.

One of the central themes in the play “Woe from Wit” is the clash of generations, the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century.”

This problem is relevant regardless of time. And Alexander Sergeevich demonstrated it from the point of view of a progressive person, with a completely different way of thinking than that of the ossified representatives of the old generation. Unfortunately, in such a society, Chatsky, who thinks differently, becomes superfluous...

Contemporaries about the play “Woe from Wit”, the image of Chatsky

Initially, the comedy was received very, very ambiguously by critics. Even the great A.S. Pushkin spoke negatively about her, as “a storm in a glass.”

However, not everyone was so categorical. I. A. Goncharov, for example, positively assessed the image of Chatsky, calling him the only sane hero of the play.

In general, Chatsky is the defining character of the play. He is against lies and opportunism, and is not dependent on other people's opinions. He defends his opinion and does not succumb to social pressure.

“The Past Century” and Alexander Chatsky’s opposition to it

Who is Chatsky opposing? Who represents that society he hates? We list its main representatives:

• Famusov. Of course, it’s worth starting with it. He does not have a lively mind and does not have an education, while holding a good position.
• Skalozub. The colonel who received this rank was not due to his outstanding abilities. At the same time, he is rich, rude and stupid.
• Repetilov. An empty talker whose wealth rests on a successful marriage.
• Zagoretsky. A cheat, a liar and a thief.

You can also note the Countess Khryumin, Gorich, Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova.

All of them clearly illustrate the picture of the capital's nobility of those years. They are stupid, limited, and strongly protest against everything new, labeling a person who is trying to change the established order as crazy.

This is how Chatsky is depicted as “crazy.” He openly criticizes arrogance, the nobles' distortion of their native language in the French manner, constant hypocrisy and sycophancy.

That is why this conflict arises. But, unfortunately, the main character has to confront society alone.

The only one who could help Chatsky is Sophia. She is educated and far from stupid, she has her own opinion.

However, she is held back by the feeling she has for Molchalin. It is this invented love that does not allow her to join Chatsky and share his views. Sophia even rejects his kind and sincere attitude towards her, preferring the scoundrel Molchalin.

Despite the fact that the main character is lonely, loses love, leaves Moscow, he remains a winner. He does not give up, does not compromise his principles, does not sink to the level of “Famus” society. And this is his victory and strength.