In the conflict "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov, two lines stand out: love (personal) and public (social). The love conflict is built on the classic love triangle. The purpose of the literary work of classicism was the proclamation of the ideal, which consisted in the fulfillment of civic duty, the subordination of the interests of the individual to public interests and the realization of the reasonable laws of life. To implement these ideas, the main character was chosen as the bearer of a positive ideal, his antipode is a negative hero and an ideal heroine, who gave her love to the positive hero and thereby confirmed his innocence. This was the composition of the love triangle in the classic work. On the stage for the performance of these roles, traditional roles have developed: a hero-lover (first lover), an unworthy hero (a fool, a phat, a rogue) and an ingenue (a young lady in love).

Griboyedov rethinks the content of the classic love triangle: Chatsky is a positive hero, but not impeccable, as the protagonist is supposed to be; Molchalin is low and mean, he is a negative hero, but Sophia loves him; Sophia makes the wrong choice, preferring Molchalin to Chatsky. Sophia's mistake distorts the classicist perspective of the play and determines the development of the plot.

It is interesting that the name Sophia, translated from Greek, means “wise,” which certainly reflects the sad irony of the author. The heroine speaks of Chatsky and Molchalin, belittling one and extolling the other. In the 5th phenomenon of 1 action, the servant Sophia Liza, fearing that the meetings of Sophia and Molchalin could lead to trouble, tries to draw her attention to other possible suitors - Colonel Skalozub and Chatsky.

The outbreak of a love conflict falls on the 7th phenomenon of 1 action, which describes the first meeting of Chatsky and Sophia. The hero is shocked by the change in Sophia's attitude towards him, he cannot understand it and understand its reason. At first, Chatsky reproaches Sophia. Having met such a reception, Chatsky seeks sympathy:

You are happy? good hour.

However, who is sincerely happy about that?

It seems to me, so in the end

People and horses shivering,

I only amused myself.

He tries to evoke the memory of the past in the girl, hoping that she simply forgot for three years the feelings that bound them. However, Sophia once again cools Chatsky's ardor by answering: "Childishness!"

Only then does Chatsky begin to understand the true reason for the change in Sophia's attitude towards him. He asks her a direct question if she is in love, and, having received an evasive answer, guesses the truth. And after the words: "Have mercy, not you, why be surprised?" - showing a completely natural reaction to Sophia's behavior, Chatsky suddenly starts talking about Moscow:

What new will Moscow show me?

T wooed - he was in time, and he made a mistake.

All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums.

This change in the topic of conversation is due psychologically, since Chatsky, finally realizing that he has a rival, begins to look for him. Each phrase of the previous statement of the hero confirms this, that is, there is a psychological background in each phrase: the opponent is in Moscow, she met him at the ball, they all want to marry profitably, and they are all the same.

It has long been noted that a social conflict arises from a love affair, and Chatsky attacks Moscow because he is disappointed with his position as a rejected lover. If the whole scene is the outset of a love conflict, then Chatsky's words about Moscow are the outbreak of a social conflict, the outset of which will be at the beginning of action 2. It is Chatsky's search for a rival that will determine the nature of the development of the action, and the play will end when the veil falls from Chatsky's eyes.

The social conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov consists in the clash of the progressive nobleman-intellectual Chatsky with the conservative Famusian society. The conflict is found not only in the dispute of specific people representing certain circles of society, it is a conflict of time. Griboyedov the playwright did what his hero wanted to do, saying:

How to compare, yes to see

The present century and the past century ...

The expression "present century and past century" should be understood in two meanings: these are periods of Russian history, separated by the Patriotic War of 1812, as well as the conflict of the era, expressed in the struggle of new ideas and forms of life with old ones. The ideas of modern times were most clearly expressed, according to Pushkin's poetic formulation, in the "thoughts of high aspiration" of the Decembrists. And in many ways, Chatsky's views reflect the advanced ideas of the Decembrists.

The social conflict of comedy is manifested in the disputes between Chatsky and Famusov, in the attitude of these heroes to a particular social problem. The peculiarity of the social conflict in the play is that it depends on the conflict of love, that is, it is not represented in specific actions and events, and we can only judge about it by the monologues and remarks of the characters.

One of the most pressing issues in the noble society of that time was the attitude to power and service. It is he who serves as the outset of social conflict in 2 phenomena of 2 actions:

Chatsky

I would be glad to serve, to serve is sickening.

Famusov

That's it, you are all proud!

Would you ask how the fathers did?

Famusov tells Chatsky the story of his uncle Maksim Petrovich, sincerely believing that she is instructive for Chatsky and can bring him to his senses - after all, in the behavior of Maksim Petrovich, in his deep conviction, lies the highest wisdom. The formula for this is:

When do you need to curry favor,

And he bent forward ...

The question of service appears in three aspects. First of all, it is a moral question, to imitate and "bend over," or to preserve dignity and honor. At the same time, the service demonstrates the civil position of a person: to serve the Fatherland, the cause, or serve only for itself, to take care of personal benefit. And finally - the political side of the issue, which is clearly expressed in Chatsky's remark: "Who serves the cause, not the people."

The next most important issue in comedy is the problem of serfdom and serfdom. Chatsky expresses his attitude to serfdom in the monologue "Who are the judges?" in the 5th phenomenon there are 2 actions:

Who are the judges? - For antiquity years

Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life,

Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers.

Chatsky speaks of two cases of inhuman behavior of serf-owners. In the first of them the serf-owner traded "three greyhounds" for his faithful servants. Note that Griboyedov's criticism is more of a moral than a social character. Of course, a ruthless and depraved serf-owner could do this, because according to the law he had the right to do so, but Griboyedov is struck here by the blatant inhumanity - a person is equated with an animal. The playwright, calling the serf owner "Nestor of the noble scoundrels", makes it clear that this person is not some exceptional villain, there are many "noble scoundrels" around. Treating serfs as inferior creatures was the norm for a serf society. So, the old woman Khlestova tells Sophia about the little girl arap and the dog, as about equal, identical creatures (act 3, phenomenon 10):

Tell them to feed, my dear friend,

Dinner got a handout.

In the same monologue, Chatsky denounces the terrible consequence of serfdom - human trafficking. One serf owner brings a serf theater to Moscow, driving them to the ballet "from mothers, fathers of rejected children." Griboyedov shows how the right to control the life and fate of serfs corrupts the nobles and they lose their human qualities. The real goal of the owner of the serf theater was to make the whole of Moscow “marvel at the beauty” of ballet and little dancers, in order to persuade creditors to give a deferral to pay debts. However, he did not achieve his goal and sold the children.

One of the most negative phenomena of Russian reality at that time was the dependence on foreign customs, fashion, language, and the rules of life. Chatsky treats the dominance of the foreign in the life of the country, "slavish, blind imitation" with particular intransigence, most fully his indignation was expressed in the monologue "In that room an insignificant meeting ..." (act 3, phenomenon 22). The plot of this monologue is not presented on stage. Chatsky was struck by an accidental, "insignificant" meeting: he saw how his compatriots courted a Frenchman just because he was a foreigner. Chatsky calls him a "Frenchman from Bordeaux" not out of disrespect for a person, but wanting to emphasize the offensive contrast between the ordinary guest and the servility of the hosts. Chatsky believes that imitation of a foreign language is a terrible scourge for the nation. It seems to the Frenchman that he is in the French province, so selflessly everyone around them imitates French customs and outfits, speaking in a mixture of "French and Nizhny Novgorod." Chatsky mourns the loss of national traditions, national dress, and appearance by the Russian nobles. With bitterness, he throws the phrase: “Ah! If we were born to adopt everything ”, noting that such behavior is characteristic of a Russian person, but its negative side -“ empty slavish, blind imitation ”- must be eliminated. D.I. wrote about this. Fonvizin in the comedy "Brigadier" (1769), I.S. Turgenev in the story "Asya" (1858), A.P. Chekhov in the comedy "The Cherry Orchard" (1903), this problem was repeatedly raised in the literature of the XX century. Thus, Griboyedov raised a question that was relevant not only in his time, he tried to penetrate into the essence of the phenomenon.

The problem of the dominance of the foreign in Russian life is connected with the issue of patriotism. Chatsky's position and his sympathies are expressed in the monologue very clearly:

So that our smart, cheerful people

Although by language he did not consider us Germans.

The problem of patriotism is presented in the work in a wide and versatile manner. The author shows that imitation of a foreign one should not be confused with patriotism, or, on the contrary, stubborn arrogance, isolation from the experience of other cultures. This is precisely the position of Chatsky, for whom the preservation of the dignity of his nation means respect for other peoples. Calling a foreigner "Frenchman from Bordeaux", Chatsky does not belittle the guest - he laments the behavior of his compatriots. The rest of the characters are afraid and do not approve of everything that is foreign, as, for example, Khlestova is afraid of the little arap girl or “Lancard mutual training”, or they are servile to everything foreign. Famusov, Chatsky's main opponent, in some cases is arrogant, calling foreigners "vagabonds", in others, on the contrary, he is moved by the fact that the Prussian king marveled at the Moscow girls, since they are not inferior to French and German women (act 2, phenomenon 5):

They will not say a word in simplicity, everything with a grimace;

French romances are sung to you

And the upper ones bring out the notes ...

This means that the dignity of his nation for Famusov is a variable value, since it depends on whether foreigners are profitable or ruinous for him in each particular case.

The lifestyle of the Moscow nobility is another problem raised by Griboyedov in the comedy. Indicative for this topic is Famusov's monologue in 1 phenomenon and 2 actions. What is remarkable about this scene is that Famusov, the manager in the official place, plans his week as if it consists of personal affairs and entertainment. He has three "important" things planned for the week: on Tuesday - trout, on Thursday - burial, "on Friday, and maybe on Saturday" - christening. Famusov's diary not only marks the schedule of the "business" week, but also reflects the philosophy and content of his life: it consists of eating, dying, being born, eating again and dying ... This is the monotonous circle of life of Famusov and Famusovites.

Talking about the lifestyle of the nobility, Griboyedov touches on the problem of entertainment. At the ball, Chatsky says to Molchalin (act 3, phenomenon 3):

When in business - I hide from fun,

When fooling around - fooling around

And to mix these two crafts

There are darkness of artisans, I am not one of them.

Chatsky is not against entertainment, but against mixing them with business and work. However, responsibility and work disappear from the life of most nobles, giving way all the time to pleasure and entertainment. Such a life is empty and meaningless. Let us recall what Chatsky said about Moscow (act 1, phenomenon 7):

Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.

Or the words of Countess Grandmother Khryumina, which sounded comic, but filled with a tragic meaning for a person (act 4, phenomenon 1):

Let's sing, mother, I can't really do it,

Someday I fell into the grave.

The point is not that balls or other social entertainment are bad in and of themselves - they are part of the culture of the nobility of that time. But when the ball takes up all life, becomes its content, then for a person its brilliance passes into the darkness of the grave, as if life itself did not exist. Only work and rest are natural forms of human life replacing each other, they complement and enrich each other, making life meaningful and fulfilling.

A special place in comedy is occupied by the theme of the mind - enlightenment, education and upbringing. This is indicated by the title of the work, and the author himself drew attention to this when he wrote: "In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person." Griboyedov called the first draft of the comedy "Woe to the Mind." The change in the name shows a shift in emphasis from a general philosophical idea, which can be defined in such a way that every mind gets grief, to a social one: the mind in society is the cause of grief. The theme of the mind in the play divides the characters in their relationship to life. For Famusians, only practical benefit is of value, therefore, for them, intelligence is the ability to settle in life. Chatsky has a sublime mind, everything is important to him: personal and general questions. His ideas about life are broad, they go beyond personal interests. We can say that reason and moral attitude to life are at the heart of Chatsky's judgments. The judgments of Famusians are limited by their narrow views, conditioned by personal interests and benefits. So, for Sophia, the one who is next to her is smart (action 1, phenomenon 5):

Oh! if someone loves whom,

Why should the mind seek and travel so far?

For Molchalin, smart behavior is the ability to please anyone on whom he somehow depends (act 3, phenomenon 3):

You shouldn't dare in my years

Have your own judgment.

For Skalozub, the world order is a military system, and a "smart" position is to be in the ranks, while smart behavior is to strive to move into the first rank. Skalozub is even a "philosopher" in his own way. He judges like a philosopher (act 2, phenomenon 4):

I just wanted to be a general.

So, each character speaks about the mind, about education. It seems that the ideas of the Enlightenment have finally penetrated Moscow society. However, the perception of these ideas turns out to be false: Famusians are hostile to education and reading, their ideas about correct upbringing are distorted. Famusians see that the threat comes from Chatsky's mind, his enlightenment and education, therefore they resort to the only effective way of dealing with him - they neutralize his mind so that everything he says does not matter, because the madman is talking. In this struggle, common and personal interests coincide, so it is no coincidence that it is Sophia who spreads the rumor about Chatsky's madness. The storylines, representing the love and social conflict of the play, develop together, but compositionally in different ways. The exposure is common for both lines and ends before the 7th event of 1 action. The outbreak of a love conflict took place in the 7th phenomenon of 1 action, public - in the 2nd phenomenon of 2 actions. The culmination of the social conflict falls on the end of 3 acts, when society turns away from Chatsky, and an argument between them is no longer possible. The culmination of a love conflict occurs in 12 phenomena of 4 acts: Chatsky regains his sight, Sophia is close to fainting, Molchalin "hides into his room." The denouement of both storylines coincides at the moment when Chatsky leaves Famusov's house with the words (act 5, phenomenon 14):

Get out of Moscow! here I am no longer a rider.

Nevertheless, the ending of the comedy remains open: the further is not known - neither where Chatsky will rush, nor what he will do, nor how his arrival influenced the Famus society. However, Goncharov correctly noted that "Chatsky is crushed by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh power." This is the realism of comedy.

Source (abridged): G.V. Moskvin Literature: Grade 8: 2 hours Part 2 / G.V. Moskvin, N.N. Puryaeva, E.L. Erokhin. - M .: Ventana-Graf, 2016

The main conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit

Pushed around by Paskevich,

The disgraced Ermolov is slandering ...

What is left for him?

Ambition, coldness and anger ...

From bureaucratic old women,

From the stinging secular injections

He rolls in a wagon,

Leaning your chin on the cane.

D. Kedrin

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov gained great literary fame and nationwide fame by writing the comedy "Woe from Wit". This work was innovative in Russian literature of the first quarter of the 19th century.

Classical comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory has always been with the goodies, while the bad ones were ridiculed and defeated. In the comedy of Griboyedov, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of heroes into representatives of the “century of the present” s “century of the past”, and the former includes actually only Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a ridiculous position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main “opponent” Famusov is by no means some notorious bastard, on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.

It is interesting that Chatsky's childhood passed in the house of Pavel Afanasevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was like another. Balls, lunches, dinners, christenings ...

He wooed - he was in time, and he made a mistake.

All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums.

Women were mainly concerned with outfits. They love everything foreign, French. The ladies of the Famus society have one goal - to marry or marry their daughters to an influential and wealthy person. With all this, in the words of Famusov himself, women are "judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them." For patronage, everyone goes to a certain Tatyana Yuryevna, because "officials and officials are all her friends and all relatives." Princess Marya Alekseevna has such weight in high society that Famusov somehow exclaims in fear:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!

And what about men? They are all busy moving up the social ladder as high as possible. Here is the thoughtless soldier Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being an example of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - "to get into the generals." Here is a minor official, Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he has received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and, of course, he wants to “reach the degrees of the known”.

The Moscow "ace" Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served even under Catherine and, seeking a place at the court, did not show any business qualities or talents, but became famous only for the fact that he often "bent his neck" in bows. But "he had a hundred people at his service," "all in orders." This is the ideal of Famus society.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But a special arrogance is heard in the remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsley”, “crowbar”, “block”, “lazy teterie”. One conversation with them: “To work you! To settle you! ”. In a closed formation, the Famusians oppose everything new and advanced. They can be poly-liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like plague. How much hatred is in the words of Famusov:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason

What's more important now than when,

Insane divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.

Thus, Chatsky is well aware of the spirit of the “past century”, marked by servility, hatred of enlightenment, and the emptiness of life. All this early aroused boredom and disgust in our hero. Despite his friendship with sweet Sophia, Chatsky leaves the house of his relatives and begins an independent life.

"The desire to wander attacked him ..." His soul longed for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with the progressive people of the time. He leaves Moscow and goes to Petersburg. “High thoughts” are above all for him. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky's views and aspirations took shape. He appears to have taken an interest in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky “writes and translates gloriously”. At the same time, Chatsky is carried away by social activities. He has a "connection with the ministers." However, not for long. High notions of honor did not allow him to serve, he wanted to serve the cause, not persons.

After that, Chatsky probably visited the village, where he, according to Famusov, "got it right", mistakenly managing the estate. Then our hero goes abroad. At that time, “travel” was viewed askance as a manifestation of the liberal spirit. But it was precisely the acquaintance of the representatives of the Russian noble youth with life, philosophy, and the history of Western Europe that was of great importance for their development.

And now we are meeting with a mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky opposes the slave morality of the Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the serf system that he hates. He cannot calmly talk about “Nestor of the noble scoundrels”, who exchanges servants for dogs, or about the one who “drove to the serf ballet ... from mothers, fathers of rejected children,” and having gone bankrupt, sold everyone one by one.

Here are those who have lived to see the gray hair!

That is who we must respect in the absence of people!

Here are our strict judges and judges!

Chatsky hates “the most vile features of the past life,” people who “draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea”. A sharp protest evokes in him the noble servility before everything foreign, the French upbringing, which is common among the aristocratic milieu. In his famous monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux,” he speaks of the ardent attachment of the common people to their homeland, national customs and language.

As a true enlightener, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In reason, in upbringing, in public opinion, in the power of ideological and moral influence, he sees the main and powerful means of remaking society, changing life. He defends the right to serve education and science:

Now let one of us

Of young people, there is an enemy of quest, -

Requiring neither places nor promotion,

In science he will stick a mind hungry for knowledge;

Or God himself will stir up a fever in his soul

To the creative arts, high and beautiful, -

They immediately: robbery! Fire!

And he will be known as a dreamer! Dangerous !!!

Among such young people in the play, in addition to Chatsky, can be attributed, perhaps, also Skalozub's cousin, the nephew of Princess Tugouhovskoy - “chemist and botanist”. But the play speaks of them in passing. Among the guests of Famusov, our hero is a loner.

Of course, Chatsky makes enemies for himself. Well, will Skalozub forgive him if he hears about himself: "Hripun, strangled, bassoon, constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!" Or Natalya Dmitrievna, whom he advised to live in the village? Or Khlestova, at whom Chatsky openly laughs? But most of all, of course, goes to Molchalin. Chatsky considers him a “pitiful creature,” like all fools. Sophia, out of revenge for such words, declares Chatsky to be crazy. Everyone happily picks up the news, they sincerely believe in gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems insane.

A. S. Pushkin, having read “Woe from Wit,” noticed that Chatsky was throwing pearls in front of pigs, that he would never convince those to whom he was addressing with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. And he had no intention of starting up disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, for whom he had a heartfelt affection from childhood. Another thing is that during the time that has passed since their last meeting, Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he is trying to understand how it could happen that she no longer needs him. Perhaps it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.

As a result, there is a complete rupture of Chatsky with the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this rupture is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. It was not just different people that collided, but different worldviews, different social positions. The external plot of the conflict was Chatsky's arrival at Famusov's house; it was developed in the arguments and monologues of the main characters (“Who are the judges?”, “That's it, you are all proud!”). The growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a culmination: at the ball, Chatsky is recognized as insane. And then he realizes himself that all his words and mental movements were in vain:

You all glorified me insane in unison.

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

Who will have time to stay with you for the day,

Breathe the air alone

And in him the reason will survive.

The denouement of the conflict - the departure of Chatsky from Moscow. The relationship between the Fa-Musa society and the protagonist has been fully clarified: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It is impossible to tell who is gaining the upper hand. After all, the conflict between the old and the new is eternal, like the world. And the theme of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is topical even today. To this day, they suffer more from the mind than from its absence. In this sense, A.S. Griboyedov created a comedy for all time.

There are several conflicts in the play "Woe from Wit", while the necessary condition for a classicist play was the presence of only one conflict.
Woe From Wit is a comedy with two storylines, and at first glance it seems that the play has two conflicts: love (between Chatsky and Sophia) and public (between Chatsky and Famus society).
The play begins with the outset of a love conflict - Chatsky arrives in Moscow to see his girlfriend. Gradually, a love conflict develops into a public one. Finding out whether Sophia loves him, Chatsky collides with Famus society. In the comedy, the image of Chatsky represents a new type of personality at the beginning of the 19th century. Chatsky is opposed to the entire conservative, ossified world of the Famusovs. In his monologues, ridiculing the way of life, manners, and ideology of the old Moscow society, Chatsky tries to open the eyes of Famusov and everyone else to how they live and how they live. The social conflict "Woe from Wit" is insoluble. The old aristocratic society does not listen to the freedom-loving, intelligent Chatsky, it does not understand him and declares him crazy.
The social conflict in the play by A. Griboyedov is associated with another conflict - between the "present century" and the "past century." Chatsky is a type of a new person, he is the spokesman for 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 positions and go into the historical past, while the new actively invades life, trying to establish its own laws. The conflict between the old and the new was 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 collisions of comedy.
Among the heroes of Griboyedov's play, perhaps, there are no stupid people, each of them has his own everyday mind, that is, an idea of ​​- life. 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 the secular laws, so as not to give a reason to be condemned by powerful secular lionesses such as Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yurievna. Therefore, Famusov is so concerned about the search for a worthy husband for his daughter. The purpose of Molchalin's life is to quietly, albeit 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 take 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, tender lover, whom she will marry and make out of him a “boy-husband”, a “servant-husband”. It is Molchalin, not Chatsky, who fits her future husband's standards.
So, in his comedy, Griboyedov not only shows how immoral and conservative typical representatives of Moscow society are. It is also important for him to emphasize that they all understand life differently, its meaning and ideals.
If we turn to the final act of the comedy, we will see that each of the characters is unhappy at the end. Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia - all remain with their own grief. And they are unhappy because of their misconceptions about life, misunderstanding of life. Famusov always tried to live according to the laws of light, tried not to cause condemnation, disapproval of the light. And what did he get in the end? His own daughter disgraced him! "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 will not help him anymore, and maybe, even worse, she will complain to papa.
And Sophia has her own grief; her loved one betrayed her. She was disappointed in her ideal of a worthy husband.
But the most unfortunate of all turns out to be Chatsky, an ardent, freedom-loving educator, an advanced man of his time, an exposer of the stubbornness and conservatism of Russian life. The smartest in comedy, he cannot, with all his mind, make Sophia fall in love with him. Chatsky, who believed only in his own mind, that an intelligent girl cannot prefer a fool to a clever one, is so much disappointed in the end. After all, everything that he believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help to 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 the 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 lies in the discrepancy between their ideas about the life of life itself. “Mind and heart are out of tune” 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 the Famus society. His image reflected the typical features of a Decembrist: Chatsky ardor, dreamy, 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, conflict between "present century" and "past century", but the main one, in my opinion, is the conflict of idealistic ideas about life and real life. Griboyedov was the first writer to raise this problem, which will be addressed in the future by many writers of the XIX. century: I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy.

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of comedy - the clash of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and respect, 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 of Griboyedov's creation of the comedy “I Burn From Wit”, and it is relevant in our days.

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

"The Past Century" in the comedy is represented by a number of vivid images-types. These are Famusova Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Liza. In one word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov stands out, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned a general location in metropolitan circles. He is friendly, courteous, witty, cheerful - in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the outer side. The author, however, shows Famusov all-sided. 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 "putting a mind hungry for knowledge into science." He is outraged by the order established in the Famus society. If Famusov wants to marry off his daughter Sophia ("Who is poor, he is not a match for you"), then Chatsky longs for "sublime love, before which the whole world ... - dust and vanity."

Chatsky's aspiration is to serve the fatherland, "the cause, not the people." Therefore, he despises Molchalin, who is used to pleasing "all people without exception":

To the owner, where will happen live,

To the chief, with by whom will I am serve,

Servant his, which the cleans dresses,

Swiss, janitor, for escape evil,

Dog janitor, so that affectionate was.

Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of an immoral careerist. Chatsky bitterly says about such people: "The taciturns are blissful in the world!" It is Molchalin who best suits his life. In his own way, he is even talented. He earned the favor of Famusov, the love of Sophia, and received awards. He cherishes the 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, on what is most valued in people are revealed. The Fa-mus takes only relatives and friends to his service. He respects flattery and adulation. Famusov wants to convince Chatsky to serve, "looking at the elders", "substitute a chair, raise a handkerchief." To which Chatsky objects: "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to listen." Chatsky takes the service very seriously. And if Fa-musov is a formalist and a bureaucrat (“signed, so off your shoulders”), then Chatsky says: “When in business, I hide from fun, when fooling around, I’m fooling, but mixing these two crafts is darkness of artisans, I am not one of them. " Famusov worries about affairs only from one side: fearing deathly, "so that the multitude does not accumulate them."

Another representative of the “past century” is Skalozub. Famusov dreamed of having such a son-in-law. After all, Skalozub is "both a golden bag and marks the generals." This character combines the typical features of a re-shareholder of the Arakcheev era. “Wheezing, strangled, bassoon. Constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas ", he is the same an enemy of education and science, like Fa-musov. “You don’t faze me with scholarship,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of Famus society makes the representatives of the young generation show their negative qualities. So, Sophia is fully consistent with the morality of the "fathers". And although she is an intelligent girl, with a strong, independent character, warm heart, pure soul, she was able to bring up 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 according to his position." The fact that Sophia has become a typical grandmother of Famus society is her tragedy.

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

Another comedy character is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, idiot, but he was the only one who considered Chatsky a "high mind" and, not believing in his madness, called the pack of Famusian guests "chimeras" and "game". Thus, he was at least one step higher than all of them.

"So! I sober up in full! " - exclaims Chatsky at the end of the comedy.

What is this - defeat or oversight? Yes, the finale of this comedy is far from funny, but Goncharov is right when he says: "Chatsky is broken by the amount of old force, inflicting a fatal blow on it with the quality of fresh force." And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all the Chatskys is "suffering", but at the same time always "winning."

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and serf-owners. He fights against noble villains and sycophants, swindlers, rogues and informers. In his famous monologue "Who are the judges?" he tore the mask off the vile and vulgar Famusian world, in which As a result, the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where landlords exchanged serf people, who had spas "both honor and life ... more than once," for "three greyhounds." Chatsky protects 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, conversations with all the actors of the comedy "Woe from Wit", directing his whole mind, evil, fervor and determination to this. Therefore, the entourage takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth, for an attempt to disrupt the usual way of life. The "past century", that is, the Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the order of life, which is the basis of the well-being of serf-owners. The past century, which Famusov admires so much, Chatsky calls the century of "obedience and fear." Strongly Famusian society, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has the same mentality. These are episodic characters: Skalozub's cousin ("The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service ..."), the nephew of Princess Tugouhovskoy. Chatsky himself constantly says “we”, “one of us,” speaking, therefore, not only on his own behalf. So A.S. Griboyedov 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, intelligent, educated.

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It was sold in thousands of manuscript copies even before it was printed. The progressive people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and the 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 grave monument of the writer are absolutely fair: "Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory."

CONFLICT COMEDY "WINE FROM MIND"

The comedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became innovative in Russian literature of the first quarter of the 19th century.

Classical comedy was characterized by the division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory has always been with the goodies, while the bad ones were ridiculed and defeated. In the comedy of Griboyedov, the characters are distributed in a completely different way. The main conflict of the play is connected with the division of the heroes into representatives of the "present century" and "the past century", and the former includes practically only Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a funny situation, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main "opponent" Famusov is by no means some notorious bastard, on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.

It is interesting that Chatsky's childhood passed in the house of Pavel Afanasevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was like another. Balls, lunches, dinners, christenings ...

“He wooed - he was in time, and he made a mistake.

All the same sense, and the same verses in the albums. "

Women are mainly occupied with outfits. They love everything foreign, French. The ladies of the Famus society have one goal - to marry or marry their daughters to an influential and wealthy person.

Men, on the other hand, are all busy trying to move up the social ladder as high as possible. Here is the thoughtless soldier Skalozub, who measures everything by military standards, jokes in a military way, being an example of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. But this just means a good growth prospect. He has one goal - "to get into the generals." Here is a minor official, Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he has received three awards, is listed in the Archives,” and, of course, he wants to “reach the known degrees.”

Famusov himself tells young people about the nobleman Maxim Petrovich, who served under Catherine and, seeking a place at court, did not show any business qualities or talents, but became famous only for the fact that his neck often bent in bows. But "he had a hundred people at his service," "all in orders." This is the ideal of Famus society.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But a special arrogance is heard in the remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsley”, “crowbar”, “block”, “lazy teterie”. One conversation with them: “To work you! To settle you! ". In a closed formation, the Famusians oppose everything new and advanced. They can be polyberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like plague.

"Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What's more important now than when,

Crazy people have divorced, and deeds, and opinions. "

Thus, Chatsky is well aware of the spirit of the "past century", marked by servility, hatred of enlightenment, emptiness of life. All this early aroused boredom and disgust in our hero. Despite his friendship with sweet Sophia, Chatsky leaves the house of his relatives and begins an independent life.

His soul longed for the novelty of modern ideas, communication with the advanced people of the time. "High thoughts" for him above all. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky's views and aspirations took shape. He appears to have taken an interest in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky "writes gloriously, translates." At the same time, Chatsky is carried away by social activities. He has a "connection with the ministers." However, not for long. High notions of honor do not allow him to serve, he wanted to serve the cause, not persons.

And now we are meeting with a mature Chatsky, a man with established ideas. Chatsky opposes the slave morality of the Famus society with a high understanding of honor and duty. He passionately denounces the serf system that he hates.

“These are the ones who have lived to see the gray hairs!

That is who we must respect in the absence of people!

Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges! "

Chatsky hates "the most vile features of the past life", people who "draw their judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea." A sharp protest evokes in him the noble servility before everything foreign, the French upbringing, which is common among the aristocratic milieu. In his famous monologue about the "Frenchman from Bordeaux," he speaks of the ardent attachment of the common people to their homeland, national customs and language.

As a true enlightener, Chatsky passionately defends the rights of reason and deeply believes in its power. In reason, in upbringing, in public opinion, in the power of ideological and moral influence, he sees the main and powerful means of remaking society, changing life. He defends the right to serve education and science.

In addition to Chatsky, such young people in the play, perhaps, include Skalozub's cousin, the nephew of Princess Tugouhovskoy, a “chemist and botanist”. But the play speaks of them in passing. Among the guests of Famusov, our hero is a loner.

Of course, Chatsky makes enemies for himself. But most of all, of course, goes to Molchalin. Chatsky considers him "a pitiful creature," like all fools. Sophia, out of revenge for such words, declares Chatsky to be crazy. Everyone happily picks up this news, they sincerely believe in gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems insane.

A.S. Pushkin, having read Woe from Wit, noticed that Chatsky was throwing pearls in front of pigs, that he would never convince those to whom he was addressing with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. And he has no intention of starting up disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, to whom he had a heartfelt affection from childhood. Another thing is that during the time that has passed since their last meeting, Sophia has changed. Chatsky is discouraged by her cold reception, he is trying to understand how it could happen that she no longer needs him. Perhaps it was this mental trauma that triggered the conflict mechanism.

As a result, there is a complete rupture of Chatsky with the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this rupture is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. It was not just different people that collided, but different worldviews, different social positions. The external plot of the conflict was the arrival of Chatsky to Famusov's house, it was developed in the disputes and monologues of the main characters ("Who are the judges?", "That's it, you are all proud! .."). The growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a culmination: at the ball, Chatsky is recognized as insane. And then he realizes himself that all his words and mental movements were in vain:

“You all glorified me insane in unison.

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

Who will have time to stay with you for the day,

Breathe the air alone

And in him the mind will survive. "

The denouement of the conflict - the departure of Chatsky from Moscow. The relationship between the Famus society and the protagonist has been fully clarified: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It is impossible to tell who is gaining the upper hand. After all, the conflict between the old and the new is eternal, like the world. And the theme of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is topical even today. To this day, they suffer more from the mind than from its absence. In this sense, Griboyedov created a comedy for all time.

In the first scenes of the comedy, Chatsky is a dreamer who cherishes his dream - the idea of ​​the possibility of changing an egoistic, vicious society. And he comes to him, to this society, with an ardent word of conviction. He willingly enters into an argument with Famusov, Skalozub, reveals to Sophia the world of his feelings and experiences. The portraits that he paints in the first monologues are even funny. The characteristics of the label are accurate. Тут и «старинный, верный член «Английского клуба» Фамусов, и дядюшка Софьи, который уж «отпрыгал свой век», и «тот черномазенький», который всюду «тут как тут, в столовых и в гостиных», и толстый помещик-театрал with his skinny serf artists, and the "consumptive" relative of Sophia - "the enemy of books", demanding with a cry "oaths so that no one knows and does not learn to read and write", and the teacher of Chatsky and Sophia, "all the signs of learning" which make up a cap, a robe and forefinger, and "Guillon, Frenchman blown by the breeze."

And only then, slandered, offended by this society, Chatsky becomes convinced of the hopelessness of his sermon, frees himself from his illusions: "Dreaming out of sight, and the veil fell asleep." The clash between Chatsky and Famusov is based on the opposition of their attitude to service, to liberty, to the authorities, to foreigners, to education, etc.

Famusov in the service surrounds himself with relatives: his man will not let down, and "how not to please a dear little man." Service for him is a source of ranks, awards and income. But the sure way to achieve these benefits is servility before the superiors. It is not without reason that the ideal of Famusov is Maxim Petrovich, who, currying favor, "bent into a bend", "bravely sacrificed the back of his head." But he was "treated kindly at court", "he knew honor before everyone." And Famusov convinces Chatsky to learn from the example of Maxim Petrovich of worldly wisdom.

Famusov's revelations angered Chatsky, and he delivers a monologue saturated with hatred of "servility" and buffoonery. Listening to Chatsky's seditious speeches, Famusov becomes more and more infuriated. He is already ready to take the strictest measures against such dissidents as Chatsky, believes that they need to be banned from entering the capital, that they need to be brought to justice. Next to Famusov is a colonel, the same enemy of education and science. He is in a hurry to please the guests with those

“What is the project about lyceums, schools, gymnasiums;

There they will only teach in our way: one, two;

And the books will be kept like this: for big occasions. "

For all those present, "learning is a plague," their dream is "to take all the books and burn them." The ideal of the Famus society is "Take awards and have fun." Everyone knows how to get ranks better and faster. Skalozub knows many channels. Molchalin received from his father the whole science of "pleasing all people without exception." The Famus society strongly protects its noble interests. A person is valued here by origin, by wealth:

“We have been doing it from time immemorial,

What honor is there for father and son. "

Famusov's guests are united by the defense of the autocratic-serf system, hatred of everything progressive. A fiery dreamer, with rational thought and noble impulses, Chatsky is opposed to the close-knit and many-sided world of the famus, rocktooths with their petty goals and base aspirations. He is a stranger in this world. Chatsky's "mind" places him in the eyes of the famusovs outside their circle, outside their usual norms of social behavior. The best human qualities and inclinations of the heroes make him, in the minds of those around him, a “strange man”, “carbonary”, “eccentric”, “insane”. A clash between Chatsky and Famus society is inevitable. In the speeches of Chatsky, the opposition of his views to the views of Famusov Moscow is clearly expressed.

With indignation he speaks of the serf-owners, of serfdom. In the central monologue "Who are the judges?" he angrily opposes the dear to the heart of Famusov the order of the Catherine's age, "the age of obedience and fear." For him, the ideal is an independent, free person.

With indignation he speaks of the inhuman landowners-serf-owners, “noble scoundrels”, one of whom “suddenly exchanged his faithful servants for three greyhounds!”; another drove to the "serf ballet from mothers, fathers of rejected children," and then they were sold out one by one. And there are not a few of them!

Chatsky also served, he writes and translates "gloriously", he managed to attend military service, saw the light, has connections with ministers. But he breaks all ties, leaves the service because he wants to serve his homeland, and not his bosses. “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” he says. Being an active person, in the conditions of the prevailing political and social life, he is doomed to inaction and prefers to “scour the world”. Staying abroad expanded Chatsky's horizons, but did not make him a fan of everything foreign, unlike Famusov's like-minded people.

Chatsky is outraged by the lack of patriotism among these people. His dignity as a Russian person is offended by the fact that among the nobility "a mixture of languages ​​still prevails: French and Nizhny Novgorod." Painfully loving his homeland, he would like to protect society from longing for someone else's side, from "empty, slavish, blind imitation" of the West. According to him, the nobility should stand closer to the people and speak Russian, "so that our people are smart, cheerful, although they do not consider us Germans by language."

And how ugly is secular upbringing and education! Why do they "bother to recruit regiments of teachers, in more numbers, at a cheaper price"?

Griboyedov is a patriot who fights for the purity of the Russian language, art and education. Making fun of the existing education system, he introduces such characters as the Frenchman from Bordeaux, Madame Rosier into the comedy.

The clever, educated Chatsky stands for genuine enlightenment, although he is well aware of how difficult it is under the conditions of the autocratic-serf system. After all, the one who, "not demanding either places or promotion ...", "will stick a mind thirsty for knowledge into science ...", "will be known as a dangerous dreamer!" And there are such people in Russia. Chatsky's brilliant speech is evidence of his extraordinary mind. Even Famusov notes this: "he is small with a head", "he speaks as he writes."

What keeps Chatsky in a society alien in spirit? Only love for Sophia. This feeling justifies and makes clear his stay in Famusov's house. Chatsky's intelligence and nobility, a sense of civic duty, indignation of human dignity come into sharp conflict with his "heart", with his love for Sophia. Socio-political and personal drama unfolds in a comedy in parallel. They are inseparably fused. Sophia belongs entirely to the Famusian world. She cannot fall in love with Chatsky, who with all his mind and soul opposes this world. The love conflict between Chatsky and Sophia grows to the scale of the rebellion he raised. As soon as it became clear that Sophia had betrayed her past feelings and turned everything past into laughter, he leaves her house, this society. In the last monologue Chatsky not only accuses Famusov, but he himself spiritually frees himself, courageously conquering his passionate and tender love and breaking the last threads that connected him with the Famusian world.

Chatsky still has few ideological followers. His protest, of course, does not find a response among "sinister old women, old people aging over inventions and nonsense."

For people like Chatsky, staying in Famusian society brings only "a million torments", "grief from the mind." But the new, the progressive is irresistible. Despite the strong resistance of the dying old man, it is impossible to stop the forward movement. Chatsky's views inflict a terrible blow with their accusations of "famus" and "taciturn". The calm and carefree existence of the Famus society ended. His philosophy of life was condemned, revolted against it. If the "Chatsk" are still weak in their struggle, then the "Famus" are powerless to stop the development of enlightenment, advanced ideas. The fight against the famusovs did not end in a comedy. It was just beginning in Russian life. The Decembrists and the spokesman for their ideas - Chatsky - were representatives of the first early stage of the Russian liberation movement.

The conflict "Woe from Wit" is still controversial among different researchers, even Griboyedov's contemporaries understood it differently. If we take into account the time of writing "Woe from Wit", then we can assume that Griboyedov uses the collision of reason, public duty and feelings. But, of course, the conflict of Griboyedov's comedy is much deeper and has a multi-layered structure.

Chatsky is an eternal type. He tries to harmonize feeling and reason. He himself says that "the mind and the heart are out of tune," but he does not understand the seriousness of this threat. Chatsky is a hero whose actions are based on one impulse, everything he does, he does in one breath, practically not allowing pauses between declarations of love and monologues denouncing the noble Moscow. Griboyedov portrays him so alive, full of contradictions that he begins to seem almost a real person.

Much has been said in literary criticism about the conflict between the "present century" and the "past century." "The present century" was represented by the youth. But young people are Molchalin, Sophia, and Skalozub. It is Sophia who first speaks of Chatsky's madness, and Molchalin is not only alien to Chatsky's ideas, he is also afraid of them. His motto is to live by the rule: "My father bequeathed to me ...". Skalazub, in general, is a man of an established order, he is concerned only with his career. Where is the conflict of the ages? So far, we observe only that both centuries not only coexist peacefully, but also the “present century” is a complete reflection of the “past century”, that is, there is no conflict of centuries. Griboyedov does not confront "fathers" and "children", he opposes them to Chatsky, who finds himself alone.

So, we see that the basis of comedy is not a socio-political conflict, not a conflict of centuries. Chatsky's phrase "mind and heart are out of tune", uttered by him at the moment of a moment's epiphany, is an allusion not to a conflict of feelings and duty, but to a deeper, philosophical conflict of living life and our mind's limited ideas about it.

It is impossible not to mention the love conflict of the play, which serves to develop the drama. The first lover, so smart, brave, is defeated, the comedy finale is not a wedding, but a bitter disappointment. From the love triangle: Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin, it is not the mind that comes out the winner, and not even narrow-mindedness and mediocrity, but disappointment. The play gets an unexpected end, the mind turns out to be inconsistent in love, that is, in that which is inherent in living life. At the end of the play, everyone is confused. Not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, unshakable in his confidence, who suddenly turns everything that went smoothly upside down. The peculiarity of the conflict of comedy is that in life everything is not the same as in French novels, the rationality of the heroes comes into conflict with life.

The meaning of "Woe from Wit" can hardly be overestimated. One can speak of the play as a thunderous blow to the society of the "famus", "silent", skalozubov, about the play-drama "about the collapse of the human mind in Russia." The comedy shows the process of the withdrawal of the advanced part of the nobility from the inert environment and the struggle with their class. The reader can trace the development of the conflict between two socio-political camps: serfdom (Famus society) and anti-serfdom (Chatsky).

Famus society is traditional. His life foundations are such that “you need to learn, looking at your elders,” to destroy free-thinking thoughts, to serve with obedience to those who stand a step higher, and most importantly, to be rich. A kind of ideal of this society are Maxim Petrovich and Uncle Kuzma Petrovich in Famusov's monologues: ... Here is an example:

“The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,

He knew how to deliver the key with the key to his son;

He is rich, and he was married to a rich man;

Survived children, grandchildren;

He died, everyone remembers him sadly:

Kuzma Petrovich! Peace be upon him! -

What aces live and die in Moscow! .. "

The image of Chatsky, on the contrary, is something new, fresh, bursting into life, bringing changes. This is a realistic image, the spokesman for the advanced ideas of his time. Chatsky could be called a hero of his time. An entire political program can be traced in Chatsky's monologues. He exposes serfdom and its offspring, inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid militarism, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives a merciless characterization of Famus society.

The dialogues between Famusov and Chatsky are a struggle. At the beginning of the comedy, it does not yet appear in an acute form. After all, Famusov is Chatsky's educator. At the beginning of the comedy, Famusov is supportive of Chatsky, he is even ready to concede Sophia's hand, but at the same time sets his own conditions:

“I would say, first of all: do not whims,

In name, brother, do not run wrongly,

And, most importantly, come and serve. "

To which Chatsky throws: "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve." But gradually another struggle begins, an important and serious one, a whole battle. "We would have watched as the fathers did, We would have studied, looking at the elders!" - came the war cry of Famusov. And in response - Chatsky's monologue "Who are the judges?" In this monologue, Chatsky condemns "the most vile features of the past life."

Each new face that appears in the development of the plot becomes in opposition to Chatsky. Anonymous characters speak against him: Mr. N, Mr. D, 1st princess, 2nd princess, etc. Gossip grows like a snowball. In a collision with this world, the social intrigue of the play is shown.

But in comedy there is another conflict, another intrigue - love. I.A. Goncharov wrote: "Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia." It was Sophia's behavior, incomprehensible to Chatsky, that served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “million torment”, under the influence of which he alone could play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov. Chatsky is tormented, not understanding who his rival is: whether Skalozub, or Molchalin? Therefore, he becomes irritable, unbearable, caustic in relation to Famusov's guests.

Sophia, irritated by Chatsky's remarks, insulting not only the guests, but also her lover, in a conversation with Mr. N mentions Chatsky's madness: "He is out of his mind." And the rumor about Chatsky's madness rushes through the halls, spreads among the guests, acquiring fantastic, grotesque forms. And he himself, still not knowing anything, confirms this rumor with a hot monologue "Frenchie from Bordeaux", which he pronounces in an empty hall. There comes a denouement of both conflicts, Chatsky finds out who Sophia's chosen one is. - The taciturns are blissful in the world! - says the heartbroken Chatsky. His hurt pride, the escaped resentment burns. He breaks up with Sophia: Enough! With you I am proud of my break.

And before leaving forever, Chatsky, in anger, throws the whole Famus society:

“He will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to stay with you.

Breathe the air alone

And in him the mind will survive ... "

Chatsky leaves. But who is he - the winner or the loser? Goncharov answered this question most accurately in his article “A Million Torments”: “Chatsky is crushed by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh power. He is an eternal denouncer of lies, hidden in the proverb - "One is not a warrior in the field." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and is always a victim. "

The bright, active mind of the hero requires a different environment, and Chatsky enters the struggle, begins a new century. He strives for a free life, for pursuing science and art, for serving the cause, not individuals. But his aspirations are not understood by the society in which he lives.

Comedy conflicts deepen off-stage characters. There are quite a few of them. They expand the canvas of the life of the capital's nobility. Most of them belong to the Famusian society. But their time is already passing. No wonder Famusov regrets that times are not the same.

So, non-stage characters can be divided into two groups and one can be attributed to Famus society, the other to Chatsky.

The first deepen a comprehensive description of the noble society, show the times of Elizabeth. The latter are spiritually connected with the main character, close to him in thoughts, goals, spiritual searches, aspirations.