The author of the comedy focuses on the obvious confrontation that existed at the beginning of the 19th century between adherents of the “old” way of life, reactionaries and younger, enlightened and progressive representatives of the noble class.

Landowners who adhered to the “former” views on life tried in every possible way to preserve the life of serf-owners that was familiar to them, while their opponents strenuously assured those around them that the “present century” had already arrived and it was high time to end the “past century” long ago. The hero of Griboyedov is one of these nobles, throughout the entire action of the play he tries to convince people who do not want not only to understand him, but at least to hear him, that he is right.

At the very beginning of the comedy, a naive and dream-prone young man comes to Famusov’s house, trying to change the vice-ridden society of his day. He talks about his ideas to the owner of the house and his guests, equally old-fashioned and reactionary people who are afraid of any new trends and consider them extremely harmful; for this reason, Chatsky’s words are not perceived at all by his opponents.

It is worth paying attention to how the author characterizes his heroes, in particular, the “member of the English Club” Famusov, and his relative, the man who demands that “no one knows how to read and write,” and other acquaintances of Sophia’s father, assessing with one single phrase the whole their narrow-mindedness, narrow-mindedness and hatred of everything unknown to them, which seems alien and dangerous to them.

As a result, Chatsky, having received a deep insult in this “chosen” society, gets rid of all his illusions and understands how pointless it was to try to change such people in any way. According to him at the end of the play, the scales finally fell from his eyes.

Famusov, Chatsky’s main antagonist, does not at all hide his indifferent attitude towards the service, which for him is only a formality, as he claims, “signed and out of sight.” In addition, this gentleman, confident in his infallibility, constantly patronizes exclusively relatives and acquaintances, saying that he will find relatives “at the bottom of the sea” and is ready to do anything for her. The main rule for him is open groveling before higher ranks, and only in this way, according to Famusov, is it possible to “get out into the public eye” and become a truly “worthy” person.

Such words infuriate Chatsky, and the young man pronounces a passionate, heated monologue, filled with the most sincere indignation and anger, denouncing the naked “servility” and “buffoonery” without which his interlocutor cannot imagine life. Famusov, in turn, is frankly horrified by such statements and begins to insist that such dissident individuals as Chatsky should not be allowed into the capital at all, moreover, they must be immediately brought to justice. The guests gathered in the house will be happy to learn from the owner that there is a “new project” regarding educational institutions, where they will teach “our way, once or twice,” while books will actually not be needed by the younger generation.

The people present in Famusov’s chambers consider the teaching a real “plague”; Colonel Skalozub without hesitation expresses the dream of “collecting all the books and burning them.” Molchalin, with whom Sophia is in love, also learned from childhood that everyone around him needs to “please” and behaves exactly like that, absolutely without thinking about self-esteem and pride, he tries to please not only his immediate boss, but also the janitor, and even “ the janitor's dog."

Chatsky turns out to be a complete stranger in this environment of “correct”, old-regime people, enemies of all progress and improvement of society. His reasoning only frightens those around him, he seems to them a very strange person, the assumption arises that he is simply “out of his mind”, Chatsky’s high intelligence and his ardent impulses only repel those gathered at Famusov’s from him.

The main monologue of a young nobleman, in which he asks who are the judges of innovations, and denounces the heartless landowners who do not hesitate to sell children and separate them from their parents or exchange servants for dogs. Chatsky has already had the opportunity to serve and travel, but he wants to be useful to his native country, and not to his superiors, so for now the man, having left his previous occupations, is trying to find his path in life.

He is also deeply outraged by the lack of any patriotism among members of the “high society society,” their obvious admiration for everything foreign and conversations among the nobility in such an absurd combination of languages ​​as “French and Nizhny Novgorod.” He believes that the aristocracy should be closer to the common people and at least be able to speak Russian correctly, while for most nobles it is easier to communicate in one of the European languages. At the same time, even Chatsky’s opponents notice his extraordinary mind and excellent speech. According to Famusov, his guest is “smart” and expresses his thoughts clearly and competently.

The young man is in an environment completely alien to him only for the sake of Sophia, whom he has loved since his youth. However, the girl is completely under the influence of the society around her, which shapes all her ideas about life, and she is unable to reciprocate Chatsky, who contradicts the world of values ​​and concepts familiar to her.

When it becomes clear to Famusov’s guest that Sophia easily betrayed their previous feelings and promises, and exposed Chatsky to everyone’s ridicule, talking about his loss of reason, he immediately leaves the empty space, devoid of any internal content, realizing that now he has absolutely no need to be here. In the final monologue, he emphasizes his complete disappointment in those gathered; from now on, all his ties with the “Famus” world are severed.

For people like this progressive nobleman, presence in such an environment brings only suffering, “woe from mind,” as the play is called. But Chatsky’s efforts are not in vain; his denunciations deal a serious blow to people such as Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, and other adherents of the “old order.”

True, the fight against reactionaries in comedy does not end with the victory of progress, since in the real life of Russia at that time it was just beginning. However, Famusov, like his supporters, feels powerless before enlightenment, the approaching new era and a different life; they cannot help but realize that their established world is gradually becoming a thing of the past and they are being replaced by completely different people who hold different views and aspirations .

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of comedy - the collision of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, and goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, and do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and veneration, the appearance of such people makes their collision with society inevitable. The problem of mutual understanding of the “present century” and the “past century” was relevant at the time Griboyedov created the comedy “I’m Burning from My Mind,” and it is still relevant today.

So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sensible person” (according to Goncharov) and the “conservative majority.” It is on this that the internal development of the conflict between Chatsky and the Famus environment surrounding him is based.

“The Past Century” in the comedy is represented by a number of bright images-types. This is Famusova Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Liza. In a word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned general favor in metropolitan circles, stands out. He is friendly, courteous, sharply intelligent, cheerful - in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the external side. The author shows Famusov in every aspect. He also appears as a convinced, fierce opponent of enlightenment. “Take all the books and burn them!” - he exclaims. Chatsky, a representative of the “present century,” dreams of “focusing a mind hungry for knowledge into science.” He is outraged by the order established in Famus society. If Famusov dreams of marrying off his daughter Sophia at a better price (“He who is poor is not a match for you”), then Chatsky longs for “sublime love, before which the whole world... is dust and vanity.”

Chatsky’s desire is to serve the fatherland, “the cause, not the persons.” Therefore, he despises Molchalin, who is accustomed to pleasing “all people without exception”:

To the owner, where will happen live,

To the boss, With by whom will I serve,

Servant his, which cleans dresses,

Doorman, janitor, For avoidance evil,

To the dog janitor, so affectionate was.

Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of the immoral careerist. Chatsky speaks bitterly about such people: “Silent people are blissful in the world!” It is Molchalin who arranges his life best of all. In his own way, he is even talented. He earned Famusov's favor, Sophia's love, and received awards. He values ​​two qualities of his character most of all: moderation and accuracy.

In the relationship between Chatsky and Famus society, the views of the “past century” on career, service, and what is most valued in people are revealed. Famusov takes only relatives and friends into his service. He respects flattery and sycophancy. Famusov wants to convince Chatsky to serve, “looking at his elders,” “putting up a chair, raising a handkerchief.” To which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, but serving is sickening.” Chatsky takes service very seriously. And if Famusov is a formalist and bureaucrat (“it’s written, off your shoulders”), then Chatsky says: “When in business, I hide from fun, when fooling around, I’m fooling around, but mixing these two crafts is there are tons of skilled people, I’m not one of them.” Famusov worries about affairs only on one side: mortally afraid, “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.”

Another representative of the “past century” is Skalozub. This is exactly the kind of son-in-law Famusov dreamed of having. After all, Skalozub is “both a golden bag and aims to be a general.” This character combines the typical features of a reactionary shareholder of Arakcheev’s time. “Wheezing, strangled, bassoon. Constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas,” he is the same an enemy of education and science, like Famusov. “You can’t faint with your learning,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of Famus society forces representatives of the younger generation to show their negative qualities. So, Sophia fully corresponds to the morality of the “fathers”. And although she is an intelligent girl, with a strong, independent character, a warm heart, a pure soul, they managed to cultivate many negative qualities in her, which made her part of a conservative society. She does not understand Chatsky, does not appreciate his sharp mind, his logical, merciless criticism. She also does not understand Molchalin, who “loves her because of his position.” The fact that Sophia became a typical young lady of Famus society is her tragedy.

And the society in which she was born and lived is to blame: “She was ruined, in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated” (Goncharov. “A Million Torments”).

Another comedy character is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, an idle talker, but he was the only one who considered Chatsky to be “highly intelligent” and, not believing in his madness, called Famus’s pack of guests “chimeras” and “game.” Thus, he was at least one step above them all.

"So! I have sobered up completely!” - Chatsky exclaims at the end of the comedy.

What is this - defeat or insight? Yes, the ending of this comedy is far from cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said this: “Chatsky was broken by the quantity of the old force, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of the fresh force.” And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always “victorious”.

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and serf owners. He fights against noble scoundrels and sycophants, swindlers, cheats and informers. In his famous monologue “Who are the judges?” he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar Famus world, in which Then the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where landowners exchanged human serfs, who saved “both honor and life... more than once,” for “three greyhounds.” Chatsky defends real human qualities: humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He protects the Russian people, his Russia from everything inert and backward. Chatsky wants to see Russia enlightened. He defends this in disputes and conversations with all the characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit,” directing all his intelligence, evil, ardor and determination to this. Therefore, the environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth, for trying to disrupt the usual way of life. The “past century,” that is, Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the system of life that is the basis for the well-being of the serf owners. Chatsky calls the past century, which Famusov admires so much, the century of “humility and fear.” The Famus community is strong, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has like-minded people. These are episodic characters: Skalozub’s cousin (“The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service ...”), the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. Chatsky himself constantly says “we,” “one of us,” speaking, therefore, not only on his own behalf. So A. S. Griboedov wanted to hint to the reader that the time of the “past century” is passing, and it is being replaced by the “present century” - strong, smart, educated.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It was sold in thousands of handwritten copies even before it was printed. Progressive people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and representatives of the reactionary nobility were outraged. What is this - the collision of the “past century” and the “present century”? Of course yes.

Griboyedov fervently believed in Russia, in his Motherland, and the words written on the writer’s gravestone are absolutely true: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory.”

In the play "Woe from Wit" there are several conflicts, whereas a necessary condition for a classic play was the presence of only one conflict.
“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that there are two conflicts in the play: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and social (between Chatsky and Famus’s society).
The play begins with the beginning of a love conflict - Chatsky comes to Moscow to see his beloved girl. Gradually, the love conflict develops into a social conflict. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky encounters Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality of the early 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the life, customs, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and what they live with. The social conflict “Woe from Wit” is insoluble. The old lordly society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.
The social conflict in A. S. Griboyedov’s play is connected with another conflict - between the “present century” and the “past century.” Chatsky is a type of new person, he is an exponent of the new ideology of the new time, the “present century.” And the old conservative society of the Famusovs belongs to the “past century.” The old does not want to give up its position and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between old and new is one of the main ones in Russian life at that time. This eternal conflict occupies a large place in the literature of the 19th century, for example, in such works as “Fathers and Sons”, “The Thunderstorm”. But this conflict does not exhaust all the conflicts of comedy.
Among the heroes of Griboyedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people; each of them has his own worldly mind, that is, an idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. Each of the characters in “Woe from Wit” knows what he needs from life and what he should strive for. For example, Famusov wants to live his life without going beyond secular laws, so as not to give reason to be condemned by powerful socialites, such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That is why Famusov is so concerned about finding a worthy husband for his daughter. Molchalin’s goal in life is to quietly, even if slowly, but surely move up the career ladder. He is not even ashamed of the fact that he will humiliate himself a lot in the struggle to achieve his goals: wealth and power (“and win awards and have fun”). He does not love Sophia, but looks at her as a means to achieve his goals.
Sophia, as one of the representatives of Famus society, having read sentimental novels, dreams of a timid, quiet, gentle beloved, whom she will marry and make of him a “husband-boy”, “husband-servant”. It is Molchalin, and not Chatsky, who fits her standards of a future husband.
So, Griboyedov in his comedy not only shows how immoral and conservative typical representatives of Moscow society are. It is also important for him to emphasize that they all have different understandings of life, its meaning and ideals.
If we turn to the final act of the comedy, we will see that each of the heroes turns out to be unhappy in the end. Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia - everyone is left with their own grief. And they are unhappy because of their wrong ideas about life, their wrong understanding of life. Famusov always tried to live according to the laws of the world, tried not to cause condemnation or disapproval of the world. And what did he get in the end? He was disgraced by his own daughter! "Oh! My God! “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say,” he exclaims, considering himself the most unfortunate of all people.
Molchalin is no less unhappy. All his efforts were in vain: Sophia won’t help him anymore, and maybe, even worse, she’ll complain to daddy.
And Sophia has her own grief; she was betrayed by her loved one. She became disillusioned with her ideal of a worthy husband.
But the most unfortunate of all turns out to be Chatsky, an ardent, freedom-loving educator, a leading man of his time, an exposer of the rigidity and conservatism of Russian life. The smartest in comedy, he cannot with all his intelligence make Sophia fall in love with him. Chatsky, who believed only in his own mind, in the fact that a smart girl cannot prefer a fool to a smart one, is so disappointed in the end. After all, everything he believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy.
Thus, Griboyedov proves that the reason for Chatsky’s tragedy and the misfortunes of the other heroes of the comedy is the discrepancy between their ideas about life and life itself. “The mind is not in harmony with the heart” - this is the main conflict of “Woe from Wit”. But then the question arises, what ideas about life are true and whether happiness is possible at all. The image of Chatsky, in my opinion, gives a negative answer to these questions. Chatsky is deeply sympathetic to Griboyedov. It compares favorably with Famus society. His image reflected the typical features of the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, and freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life and do not lead to happiness. Perhaps Griboyedov foresaw the tragedy of the Decembrists, who believed in their idealistic theory, divorced from life.
Thus, in “Woe from Wit” there are several conflicts: love, social, the conflict of the “present century” and the “past century”, but the main one, in my opinion, is the conflict of idealistic ideas about life and real life. Griboedov was the first writer to raise this problem, which many writers of the 19th century would later address. centuries: I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy.

Conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Conflict in Latin literally means clash, collision, struggle. Different writers, representatives of different directions, understood the conflict of a work in different ways, for example, among the classicists - the conflict of feelings and duty, among the romantics - the conflict between the individual and society.

Until now, many researchers and experts in Russian literature argue about the conflict in the work “Woe from Wit”; even Griboyedov’s contemporaries accepted it in completely different ways. If we take into account the time when the work was written, we can assume that Griboedov, still in many ways a successor to the traditions of classicism, also uses the traditional conflict of this direction, that is, the clash of reason, social feeling and duty, a lower level of the human psyche (from the point of view of the classicists, Certainly).

But, of course, it is much deeper and has a multi-layered, so to speak, “onion-shaped” structure. To understand its depth and philosophical meaning, it is necessary to consider in turn all levels of this multi-layered conflict.

So, Conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Deep, which allowed Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments” to say: “Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century... will survive many more eras, and everything will not lose its vitality." Chatsky is an eternal type. He tries to harmonize feeling and mind. He himself says that “the mind and heart are not in harmony,” but does not understand the seriousness of this threat. Chatsky is a hero whose actions are built on one impulse, everything he does, he does in one breath, practically not allowing pauses between declarations of love and monologues denouncing lordly Moscow. Chatsky is not at all an educator in the style of Voltaire and Rousseau, his “new” ones. He pronounces democratic ideas with such heat and ardor that no reasoner could allow himself. From the point of view of a classicist, for example Katenin, such behavior is unacceptable. For him, Chatsky turns into a caricature, and the whole comedy turns into a farce. It turns out that Chatsky’s ardor comes into conflict with the experience of Famusov, who demands from everyone that everything be done “with feeling, with sense, with order.” But if this happened, the comedy would turn into a farcical conflict - into a confrontation between stupid ardor and worldly wisdom, that is, into a purely psychological one.

Griboyedov wrote (in a letter to Katenin): “I hate caricatures, I can’t find one in my picture.” His Chatsky is not some kind of caricature, the Author portrays him as alive, in motion, full of contradictions, he has character. Conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit" the one that arises between him and Famusov is of a national-psotic nature. The Decembrist uprising declined. His Decembrist friends, contemporaries of Griboyedov, perceived the comedy as a call, as an approval and proclaiming them, and he himself Conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit"- as the resistance of progressive youth in the person of Chatsky, a representative of the “present century”, the old conservative ideas of the “past century”. In Chatsky, the Decembrists partly saw themselves, and they were probably right. These best people of their time, dark, with high goals and aspirations, wanted to change the situation in Russia one day, on one impulse of a sense of honor, duty and justice. Chatsky’s analogy with the Decembrists was drawn not only by Griboedov’s contemporaries, but also by many current researchers, for example, Academician Nechkina in the book “Griboedov and the Decembrists.” But, carried away by Chatsky’s vivid monologues, adherents of this point did not attach any attention to the ending. She, in fact, does not call for any action at all, Chatsky leaves Moscow disappointed, and the picture of the finale does not carry either joy or optimism. They also did not notice that there was no acute struggle between Chatsky and Famusov’s society. This is indicated by stage directions, such as the last remark of the third act: “He looks around, everyone is spinning in the waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables.” Direct remarks from the heroes indicate a complete absence of disputes; no one is going to conflict with Chatsky, he is only asked to remain silent:

Famusov:
I'm not listening, I'm on trial!
I asked you to be silent
Not a great service.

Chatsky, with his progressive ideas, begins to look simply stupid, “he denounces the guests at Famusov’s evening, not taking into account that people here just gathered to dance and have fun,” says Y. S. Bilinkis in the article “Woe from Wit.” By and large, Comedy conflict « Woe from mind“By and large, is not a conflict, a dispute cannot be a dispute if only one side is represented, only one person speaks. “Chatsky’s drama is a storm in a teacup,” says V. Belinsky about Chatsky’s conflict with those around him.

Many wrote and spoke about the conflict between the “past century” and the “present century.” The “past century” was accused of stifling everything new and progressive and preventing it from developing. In the minds of the Decembrists, the “present century” contained the best, because, as they believed, the new is certainly better, more progressive than what was. “The centuries are marching towards a glorious goal!” - Kuchelbecker wrote at that time, that is, in the words of the now popular song, Chatsky, and everyone as a result of this receives “a million torments.” They are all smart, but their mind comes into conflict with living life. Sophia, for example, having read French novels, has the same ghostly idea of ​​life as Chatsky. In life, everything is not as beautifully described in French novels; the rationality of the heroes comes into conflict with life. By the end of the play, everyone is completely confused. Chatsky says:

I won’t come to my senses, I’m guilty
And I listen, I don’t understand...

But Famusov, unshakable in his confidence, suddenly everything that was going smoothly before is turned upside down:

Isn't my fate still sad?
Oh! My God! What will he say?
Princess Marya Alekseevna!

Later, at the end of Gogol’s “The Inspector General,” the weight also seems to freeze in the same silent question, the answer to which lies in “the inconsistency of any kind of historical subjectivism, in the primacy of reality over “dreams” and romantic “fantasies,” as modern researcher A. Lebedev.

The main conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is an outstanding work of Russian literature. The main problem of the work is the problem of two worldviews: the “past century,” which defends the old foundations, and the “present century,” which advocates decisive changes. The difference in the worldview of the old Moscow nobility and the advanced nobility in the 10-20s of the 19th century constitutes the main conflict of the comedy.

The comedy ridicules the vices of society: serfdom, martinetism, careerism, sycophancy, bureaucracy, low level of education, admiration for everything foreign, servility, sycophancy, the fact that in society it is not the personal qualities of a person that are valued, but “the souls of two thousand families,” rank, money .

The past century represents a Moscow noble society consisting of the Famusovs, Khlestovs, Tugoukhovs, and Skalozubs. In society, people live according to the principle:

At my age I shouldn't dare

Have your own judgment

because

We are small in rank.

Famusov is a representative of the past century, a typical Moscow gentleman with all the views, manners and way of thinking characteristic of that time. The only thing he bows to is rank and wealth. “Like all Moscow people, your father is like this: He would like a son-in-law with stars, and with ranks,” the maid Lisa characterizes her master. Famusov lives the old fashioned way, considers his uncle, Maxim Petrovich, as his ideal, who “promotes him to rank” and “gives pensions.” He is “either on silver or gold; Ate on gold; one hundred people at your service; All in orders; I was always traveling in a train.” However, for all his arrogant disposition, “He bent over backwards” in front of his superiors when it was necessary to curry favor.

Famusov most fully absorbed the laws and foundations characteristic of this time. He considers careerism, respect for rank, and pleasing elders to be the main norms accepted in life. Famusov is afraid of the opinions of noble nobles, although he himself willingly spreads them. He is worried about “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say.”

Famusov is an official, but treats his service only as a source of Sitnov and income, a means of achieving prosperity. He is not interested in either the meaning or the results of work. When Molchalin reports that there are inaccuracies in the papers:

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

My custom is this:

Signed - off your shoulders

Nepotism is another of the ideals so dear to Famusov’s heart. Kuzma Petrovich, “the venerable chamberlain,” with “the key, and knew how to deliver the key to his son,” “is rich and was married to a rich woman,” and therefore earns deep respect from Famusov.

Famusov is not very educated, and he “sleeps well from Russian books,” unlike Sophia, who does not “sleep from French books.” But at the same time, Famusov developed a rather frisky attitude towards everything foreign. Valuing the patriarchal way of life, he stigmatizes Kuznetsky Most and the “eternal French,” calling them “destroyers of pockets and hearts.”

Poverty is considered a big vice in Famus society. So Famusov directly declares to Sophia, his daughter: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” or: “We have had it since ancient times, That according to father and son there is honor, Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, He is the groom.” At the same time, a caring father shows truly worldly wisdom, caring about the future of his daughter.

An even greater vice in society is learning and education: “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason, What is worse now than when people, deeds, and opinions were crazy.”

The world of interests of the Famus society is quite narrow. It is limited to balls, dinners, dances, name days.

A bright representative of the “present century” is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodies the features of the advanced noble youth of that time. He is the bearer of new views. This he proves by his behavior, way of life, but especially by his passionate speeches denouncing the foundations of the “past century,” which he clearly disdains:

And as if the world began to grow stupid,

You can say with a sigh;

How to compare and see

The present century and the past:

As he was famous,

Whose neck bent more often...

Chatsky considers that century “the century of humility and fear.” He is convinced that those morals are a thing of the past and today, “laughter frightens people and keeps shame in check.”

The traditions of days gone by are too strong. Chatsky himself turns out to be their victim. With his directness, wit, and audacity, he becomes a disturber of social rules and norms. And society takes revenge on him. At the first meeting with him, Famusov calls him “carbonari.” However, in a conversation with Skalozub, he speaks well of him, says that he is “a guy with a head”, “he writes well and translates”, while regretting that Chatsky does not serve. But Chatsky has his own opinion on this matter: he wants to serve the cause, not individuals. At first it may seem that the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov is a conflict of different generations, a “conflict between fathers and children,” but this is not so. After all, Sophia and Molchalin are almost the same age as Chatsky, but they fully belong to the “past century.” Sophia is not stupid. Chatsky’s love for her can also serve as proof of this. But she absorbed the philosophy of her father and his society. Her chosen one is Molchalin. He is also young, but also a child of that old environment. He fully supports the morals and customs of old lordly Moscow. Both Sofia and Famusov speak well of Molchalin. The latter keeps him in his service “because he’s businesslike,” and Sophia sharply rejects Chatsky’s attacks on her lover. She says:

Of course, he doesn’t have this mind

What a genius is to some, but a plague to others...

But for her, intelligence is not the main thing. The main thing is that Molchalin is quiet, modest, helpful, disarms the priest with silence, and will not offend anyone. In general, he is an ideal husband. You can say the quality is wonderful, but they are deceitful. This is just a mask behind which his essence is hidden. After all, his motto is “moderation and accuracy,” and he is ready to “please all people without exception,” as his father taught him, he persistently goes to his goal - a warm and financial place. He plays the lover only because it pleases Sophia herself, the daughter of his master:

And now I take the form of a lover

To please the daughter of such a man

And Sophia sees in him the ideal husband and boldly moves towards her goal, without fear of “what Princess Marya Alekseevna will say.” Chatsky, finding himself in this environment after a long absence, is initially very friendly. He strives here, because the “smoke of the Fatherland” is “sweet and pleasant” to him, but Chatsky encounters a wall of misunderstanding and rejection. His tragedy lies in the fact that he alone opposes Famus society. But the comedy mentions Skalozub’s cousin, who is also “strange” - “suddenly left his service,” “locked himself in the village and began to read books,” but he “followed the rank.” There is also Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, the “chemist and botanist” Prince Fyodor, but there is also Repetilov, who is proud of his involvement in a certain secret society, all of whose activities boil down to “making noise, brother, making noise.” But Chatsky cannot become a member of such a secret union.

Chatsky is not only a bearer of new views and ideas, but also advocates new standards of life.

In addition to the public tragedy, Chatsky is experiencing a personal tragedy. He is rejected by his beloved Sophia, to whom he “flew and trembled.” Moreover, with her light hand he is declared crazy.

Chatsky, who does not accept the ideas and morals of the “past century,” becomes a troublemaker in Famus society. And it rejects him. Chatsky is a mocker, a wit, a troublemaker and even an insulter. So Sophia tells him:

Has it ever happened that you laughed? or sad?

A mistake? Did they say good things about anyone?

Chatsky does not find friendly sympathy, he is not accepted, he is rejected, he is expelled, but the hero himself could not exist in such conditions.

“The present century” and the “past century” collide in comedy. The past time is still too strong and gives rise to its own kind. But the time for change in the person of Chatsky is already coming, although it is still too weak. “The present century” replaces the “past century,” for this is an immutable law of life. The appearance of the Chatsky Carbonari at the turn of historical eras is natural and natural.