Conflict in grief from the mind of Griboedov. The main conflict of the comedy ``Woe from Wit``

Using artistic means, Griboyedov expressed the protest of the advanced part of the Russian nobility against the inertia and backwardness of the society of that time, against class privileges and serfdom. The most educated, smartest man of his era, he caught the main social conflict that emerged after the Patriotic War of 1812, this is the realism of Griboyedov the writer. The comedy reflected the explosive, heated atmosphere of the noble society on the eve of 1825. The ideological disagreement between the main characters, the struggle of the present century with the past century, the struggle of two worldviews that developed in Russian society in the first half of the 19th century, is brought to the fore in the comedy. On the one hand, representatives of the feudal reaction, serf antiquity Famusov, Skalozub, Countess Khryumina, on the other hand, advanced noble youth, whose features are embodied by Griboyedov in the image of Chatsky. In Chatsky's accusatory speeches and Famusov's enthusiastic stories, the ideal of the past century rises. It was the age of Catherine with her nobles and court flatterers, the age of humility and fear, depraved morals, when insane extravagance and luxurious feasts in magnificent chambers flourished next to the humiliating poverty and lack of rights of serfs, who could easily be sold or exchanged for the dogs they liked. This century has become the ideal of the lordly, Famus society, which lives on the principle of taking awards and having fun.

Famusov himself, of course, is the spokesman for the obsolete feudal institutions. He is a convinced serf-owner, ready to exile his serf servants to Siberia in anger, a fierce opponent of education, enlightenment (If evil is to be stopped, collect all the books and burn them). This, finally, is a person deprived of true dignity and honor, who grovels before the highest ranks for the sake of promotion, for the sake of his own enrichment.

The defenders of feudal antiquity, the enemies of free thought and enlightenment, are opposed in the comedy by Chatsky. This is a Decembrist, this is a man who completes the era of Peter I and tries to see the promised land at least on the horizon, A. I. Herzen wrote about Chatsky. Between like-minded people Famusov and Chatsky is one of the main figures of the comedy Sophia, who also experienced her grief from her mind. It is she who is assigned a difficult, but very important role to repel Chatsky's attacks. However, the image of Sophia in comedy is controversial. Sophia is not clearly inscribed, A. S. Pushkin noted at one time. Indeed, she is endowed with both positive features that attracted such an outstanding person as Chatsky, aroused his love, and negative ones, which constantly increase his bewilderment and disappointment. In Sophia's behavior, her moods, there is always a contradiction between a subtle sober mind and sentimental empty experiences.

What attracted Chatsky to Sofia? What made her stand out in the world of the Famusovs, the Tugoukhovsky princesses and Countess Hryumina the granddaughter? First of all, independence of views, independence in decision-making, in relations with people. She fell in love with an unequal person and by this, as it were, she challenged the house-building rules. Deceived in her feelings, Sophia is not afraid of the judgment of others. She courageously says to Chatsky: I blame myself all around. And Molchalin contemptuously orders to get out of the house before dawn. The strong, proud character of the girl cannot but arouse sympathy, participation in her fate. Apparently, Chatsky always admired this independence, Sophia's determination, always hoped for her understanding, support, especially when he fell in love with no memory. His youthful feelings were not cooled by distance, entertainment, or a change of place. It is no coincidence that, having returned to his homeland and met with Sophia, he constantly appeals to the mind of his beloved, does not believe in her spiritual blindness.

Sophia is smart in her own way, she reads a lot. But the subject of her reading are sentimental novels, very far from reality. Under the influence of these books, Sophia develops an idea of ​​​​a certain ideal hero whom she would like to fall in love with. That is why, according to Chatsky, she idealizes Molchalin, a flatterer and low worshipper. But this is not the only reason for her inclination towards Molchalin.

Watching Sophia in various situations, Chatsky finally understands that during the years of their separation, Sophia did not grow spiritually, did not learn to critically comprehend what was happening. She succumbed to the influence of Famusism, which destroys all life, so much that she imperceptibly becomes an active defender of her interests.

Why wasn't Chatsky convinced by Sophia's confession of love for Molchalin? Yes, because Chatsky has a certain grading system, which he considers obligatory. In his assessment, Molcha-lin is the most miserable creature. He is not worthy of anyone's love, and even more so of Sophia. According to Chatsky, she, a smart, outstanding girl, simply cannot love such a person. Chatsky still hopes that Sophia is the same as she was in childhood, when they laughed together at people like Molchalin. However, he was wrong. Sophia takes Molchalin (the most miserable creature!) Quite seriously. As a result, Chatsky's fight for Sophia turns into a fight with Sophia for Molchalin.

Sophia rejects Chatsky not only out of female vanity (he hasn’t written for three years ...), but also for the same reasons that Famusov and the princess reject him: he is not his own, he is from a different circle. The independent and mocking mind of Chatsky scares Sophia, and this finally throws him into the camp of opponents. Will such a mind make a family happy? she says directly to Chatsky.

Sophia uses traditional methods that are very common in secular society: fiction about madness, slander, gossip could hurt a person very painfully, compromise the objectionable. Sophia forgets the feelings that connected her with Chatsky in the past, and, offended by Molchalin, inflicts an unexpected blow on Chatsky: she declares him crazy! Chatsky is avenged, avenged in the way that was the most effective in the world. Thus, the line of intimate relationships acquires a social character in the comedy.

The image of Sophia is one of the central ones, since it unites many storylines and affects the integrity of the composition of the entire work. The peculiarity of the comedy is also determined by the presence of a through action in it, the desire of Chatsky to find out whom Sophia preferred to him. Cross-cutting action develops in comedy as a conflict, based on the confrontation between representatives of two time systems of the present century and the past century. In the image of Sophia, A.S. Griboyedov showed how an outstanding girl was enslaved by the Famusism, how she gradually becomes an expression of the interests of the environment in which she is brought up.

The main conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit" is the conflict of education and serfdom

Other essays on the topic:

1. One of the characters in the comedy, which to this day causes controversy between writers and critics, of course, is Sofya Pavlovna Famusova. Nineteenth...
2. “Woe from Wit” is the only widely known work of A. S. Griboyedov. This comedy was written in the first quarter of the nineteenth...
3. The comedy is built on a very clear and simple plan. This is indicated by the author himself in a letter to Katenin, revealing the compositional plan of the comedy...
4. Even V. G. Belinsky felt in Sophia "some kind of energy of character" and was surprised that she, "not valuing anyone's opinion," leads ...
5. As the light comedy game of the first episodes of the play begins to acquire dramatic features, the appearance of the heroine changes. A. S. Pushkin...
6. I. "Woe from Wit." Review of the content To test knowledge of the content of the play, you can use the task to arrange the main events of the play in chronological order ...
7. The main philosophical question of A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is the problem of "mind". In itself, this problem has enlightening ...
8. Since 1823, Griboyedov's handwritten comedy "Woe from Wit" began to go around the hands of the public. She made a terrible noise, surprised everyone, ...
9. Griboedov also proved to be a brilliant innovator in the development of the language of Russian dramaturgy. He widely and abundantly used live colloquial speech in his comedy ...
10. An even more difficult drama for Chatsky was the collapse of his public hopes, the realization that he was rejected at his best ...
11. The lesson can be started with a teacher's report on the poetics of comedy, where the following provisions will be stated: 1. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" ...
12. The image of Sophia was rated ambiguously by critics. There are at least two opposing interpretations of the behavior of the main character in Griboedov's play, but the truth, as ...
13. The greatest achievement of realism by A. S. Griboyedov is the gallery of images he created: Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub, Sofya, etc. In the image ...
14. Griboedov wrote: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this man is, of course, at odds with society,...
15. A. S. Pushkin, expressing his opinion about Griboedov's play, doubted the artistic integrity of the image of Chatsky. The smartest character in comedy...
A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” was written after the Patriotic War of 1812, during the rise of spiritual life ...
16. The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit" "The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, ...
17. Griboyedov was the first in Russian literature who managed to create a realistic image of the positive hero of his time, who embodied in his worldview and character real ...

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 comedy.

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

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

In my summers must not dare

Have your own opinion

because

We are small in ranks.

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 before is rank and wealth. “Like all Moscow ones, your father is like this: He would like a son-in-law with stars, but with ranks,” Lisa, the maid, characterizes her master. Famusov lives the old fashioned way, he considers his uncle, Maxim Petrovich, who “produces to the ranks” and “gives pensions” as his ideal. He is “not on silver, on gold; I ate on gold; one hundred people at your service; All in orders; rode forever in a train." However, with all his arrogant disposition, “He bent over” in front of his superiors, when he had to serve.

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

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

And I have what's the matter, what's not the case,

My custom is this:

Signed - so off your shoulders

Nepotism is another of the ideals so dear to Famusov's heart. Kuzma Petrovich, a “venerable chamberlain”, with “a key, and he knew how to deliver a key to his son”, “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. Appreciating the patriarchal way of life, he stigmatizes the Kuznetsky Most and the "eternal French", calling them "destroyers of pockets and hearts."

Poverty is considered a great vice in Famus society. So Famusov directly declares to Sofya, his daughter: “He who is poor is not a couple for you,” or: “We have been doing it for a long time, That honor is due to father and son, Be poor, but if there are two thousand family souls, He and 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 scholarship and education: “Learning is the plague, learning is the reason, What is more today than when people and deeds and opinions were madly divorced.”

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

A bright representative of the “current century” is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodies the features of the advanced noble youth of that time. He is the bearer of new ideas. Which he proves with his behavior, way of life, but especially with his passionate speeches, exposing the foundations of the “past century”, to which he clearly treats with disdain:

And as if the world began to grow stupid,

You can say with a sigh;

How to compare and see

The current century and the past century:

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 now hunters to scoff "frightens laughter and keeps shame in check."

The traditions of bygone days are too strong. Chatsky himself turns out to be their victim. He, with his directness, wit, impudence, becomes a revolter 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 “small with a head”, “translates nicely”, 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 of 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 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 milieu. He fully supports the morals and customs of the old lordly Moscow. Both Sofia and Famusov speak well of Molchalin. The latter keeps him in the service, "because he is businesslike," and Sophia sharply rejects Chatsky's attacks on her lover. She says:

Of course, he does not have this mind

What a genius for others, and for others a plague ...

But for her, the mind is not the main thing. The main thing is that Molchalin is quiet, modest, helpful, disarms the priest with silence, will not offend anyone. In short, he is the perfect husband. You can say the quality is wonderful, but they are false. This is just a mask behind which hides its essence. 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 moneyed place. He also plays a lover only because it pleases Sophia herself, the daughter of his master:

And here's the lover I assume

To please the daughter of such a man

And Sofya sees in him the ideal of a husband and boldly moves towards her goal, not being afraid of "what Princess Marya Alekseevna will say." Chatsky, getting into 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 meets a wall of misunderstanding, rejection. His tragedy lies in the fact that he alone opposes the Famus society. But the comedy mentions the Skalozub's cousin, who also "stranges" - "suddenly left the service", "locked himself in the village and began to read books", but he "followed the rank." There is also the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya "chemist and botanist" Prince Fedor, but there is also Repetilov, who is proud of his involvement in some kind of secret society, all of whose activities boil down to "make noise, brother, make noise." But Chatsky cannot become a member of such a secret union.

Chatsky is not only the 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, trembled." Moreover, with her light hand, he is declared crazy.

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

Have you ever laughed? or in sadness?

Mistake? Did you say good things about someone?

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.

"Current age" and "past century" clash in comedy. The past time is still too strong and gives rise to its own kind. But the time for change in the face of Chatsky is already coming, although it is still too weak. The “current age” 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 logical.

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

The ideological meaning is in the opposition of two common forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, the feudal, and the new. The comedy conflict is a conflict between Chatsky and Famusovsky society, between "the current century and the past century."

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

Chatsky, on the contrary, is a representative of the "current century." This is a spokesman for the advanced ideas of his time. In his monologues, a political program can be traced: he exposes serfdom and its offspring: inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid militaryism, ignorance, false patriotism. He gives mercilessly. har-ku to Famus society, stigmatizes "the meanest traits of the past life." Chatsky's monologue "And who are the judges? .." was born of his protest against the "Fatherland of the Fathers", since he does not see in them a model that should be imitated. He condemns them for their conservatism:

Judgments draw from forgotten newspapers

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

for the passion for wealth and luxury obtained by "robbery", protecting himself from responsibility with mutual responsibility and bribery:

Yes, and who in Moscow did not clamp their mouths

Lunches, dinners and dances?

He calls the feudal landowners "noble scoundrels" for their inhuman treatment of the serfs. One of them, “that Nestor of noble scoundrels,” exchanged his faithful servants, who “saved his life and honor more than once,” for three greyhounds; another scoundrel "had driven many wagons from mothers, fathers of rejected children to the fortress ballet," which were then all "sold out one by one." In the Famus society, the external form as an indicator of career success is more important than enlightenment, selfless service to the cause, sciences and arts:

Uniform! one uniform! he is in their former life

Once sheltered, embroidered and beautiful,

Their weakness, reason poverty ...

In the comedy, Famusov and Chatsky are opposed to each other: on the one hand, gray, limited, ordinary, Famusov and people of his circle, and on the other, the talented, educated, intellectual Chatsky. The impudent mind of Chatsky immediately alarms the Moscow society accustomed to calmness. The dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky is a struggle, and it starts from the very first minutes of the meeting between Famusov and Chatsky. Chatsky sharply condemns the system of education of noble youth adopted in Moscow:

In Russia, under a great fine,

We are told to recognize each

Historian and geographer.

And Famusov expresses the idea:

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause...

The attitude of Famusov and Chatsky to the service is also opposite. Chatsky sees service to the cause as the main goal. He does not accept "serving the elders", pleasing the authorities:

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

For Famusov, service is an easy matter:

And I have what's the matter, what's not the case,

My custom is this:

Signed off your shoulders.

The entire comedy is permeated with contradictions in the views of m / y “the current century” and the “past century”. And the more common-Xia Ch. with F. and his entourage, the greater the gap between them. Ch. speaks sharply about this society, which, in turn, calls him "Voltairian", "Jacobin", "Carbonari".

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

He will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to spend the day with you,

Breathe the air alone

And his mind will survive...

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

“Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal debunker of lies ... "The drama of Chatsky is that he sees the tragedy in the fate of society, but he cannot influence anything.

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

Short description

The problem of "fathers and sons" is as old as the world. Who quarreled with their parents? Who told them again and again that they were wrong? Father and mother gave us life, raised us, fulfilled our whims and now listen to our selfish accusations! Instead of gratitude, they hear reproaches that they are a passing generation with outdated views and ideas. Yes, this problem has been around for a long time and remains relevant to this day.

I A.S.Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is a reflection of the morals of the 20s of the 19th century.
II Conflict of worldviews in the comedy "Woe from Wit".
1. Clash of views of fathers and children on topical issues of the time.
a) education;
b) public service;
c) serfdom;
d) true patriotism.
2. "Children" of comedy - representatives of progressive-minded youth.
3. Chatsky is a fighter against the Famus society.
III Contemporaneity of the conflict of "fathers" and "children".

Attached files: 1 file

The conflict of fathers and children in AS Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".

I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve ...

I A.S.Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is a reflection of the morals of the 20s of the 19th century.

II Conflict of worldviews in the comedy "Woe from Wit".

1. Clash of views of fathers and children on topical issues of the time.

a) education;

b) public service;

c) serfdom;

d) true patriotism.

2. "Children" of comedy - representatives of progressive-minded youth.

3. Chatsky is a fighter against the Famus society.

III Contemporaneity of the conflict of "fathers" and "children".

The problem of "fathers and sons" is as old as the world. Who quarreled with their parents? Who told them again and again that they were wrong? Father and mother gave us life, raised us, fulfilled our whims and now listen to our selfish accusations! Instead of gratitude, they hear reproaches that they are a passing generation with outdated views and ideas. Yes, this problem has been around for a long time and remains relevant to this day.

As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, A. S. Griboyedov touched on this topic in his work “Woe from Wit”. Here the conflict is revealed through the images of representatives of the old and new worlds, Famusov and Chatsky, from whose disputes we learn about the main problems of that time. Although Silent and Sophia belong to the younger generation, in their views they are part of the Famus society, to which Chatsky is opposed. So, the conflict of "fathers and sons" is reduced here to the conflict of society and man, old ideas with new ones.

The monologues of Chatsky and Famusov reveal the attitude of both generations to life, to its values, to service and to the homeland. "Fathers" are accustomed to curry favor, to humiliate themselves before their superiors, and in such ways to achieve a high rank and position in society. The new generation in the person of Chatsky is trying to achieve all this on their own, having received an education and honestly working. But Famus Moscow does not accept such methods and calls the revolutionary-minded young man crazy.

In this novel, the "fathers" are negative characters, the subject of ridicule by Griboyedov and readers. Chatsky, on the other hand, looks like a lonely and misunderstood representative of the new generation, who managed to raise only a storm in a teacup.

Griboyedov's novel ends with the victory of the "fathers", who remained with their views and were only a little worried and agitated by the violation of the usual course of life.

The problem of "fathers and sons", so fully and vividly revealed by Griboyedov, is still before us. This is an eternal problem, because someday we will be parents, and our children will not understand us, just as we do not understand our fathers and mothers now. But one should try to find the causes of conflicts in oneself, in one's actions and thoughts, and not in the difference in the views of "fathers and children."

To begin with, let's define what is meant by the problem of "fathers and children". For some, this is a problem at the everyday level: how parents and children can find mutual understanding with each other. For others, it is a broader issue: the problem of worldviews and generations that arises in people who are not necessarily related by blood ties. They clash because they have a different attitude to life, they look at the world differently.

The conflict of generations is presented differently in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”. At the heart of this conflict is a dispute between Chatsky and Famusov - representatives of different eras, different generations. Chatsky's position in relation to the Famusov society: "What is older is worse." But the line between generations in this work is quite developed, the main idea of ​​the comedy is a conflict of worldviews. After all, Molchalin, Sophia, and Chatsky belong to the same era, the “current century,” but in their views, Molchalin and Sofya are members of the Famus society, and Chatsky is a representative of new trends. In his opinion, only a new mind is "hungry for knowledge" and inclined "to the creative arts." As before, the “fathers” uphold the age-old foundations, are opponents of progress, and the “children” are thirsty for knowledge, striving to find new ways for the development of society. “Woe from Wit” is the main work of A.S. Griboyedov. he worked on the play for several years. The final version of the text was completed in the autumn of 1824. However, for the first time "Woe from Wit" was staged in 1831, and published with very serious censorship distortions only in 1833. The comedy was distributed in handwritten lists and was popular in Decembrist circles. The difficult fate of the play is explained by the fact that in it the author reflected a specific historical situation and posed topical problems: slavery and freedom, education and upbringing, individual independence, honor and dishonor, etc. From the point of view of problems, the central conflict in the play is the conflict between a civilly active person and a socially passive, reactionary majority, between Chatsky and Famusov's society. The group that opposes the main character is usually called the generation of "fathers". This definition points not so much to age as to the ideological principles that the Famusists adhere to.

The "fathers" in the play are high-ranking officials and at the same time rich landowners. This is a large group of actors and off-stage characters. They are united by a conservative worldview: they are interested in preserving the autocratic-feudal system, they oppose freedom of speech and everything progressive. The slightest dissent is regarded by them not only as a denial of the usual, consecrated "fathers", "senior" ideals and way of life, but also as a threat of a social upheaval: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, "does not recognize the authorities."

Opponents of Chatsky oppose education. For example, Famusov, like all "fathers", identifies "scholarship" with "free-thinking". He sees great danger in enlightenment:

If evil is to be stopped:

Take away all the books and burn them.

Colonel Skalozub shares Famusov's attitude towards education. Education is of no value to him: "You won't fool me with learning." Skalozub is not able to understand the “whim” of his cousin, who “acquired some new rules” and, instead of earning ranks and awards, retired and “began to read books in the village.” At a ball at Famusov's, he announces:

I will make you happy: the general rumor,

That there is a 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.

Repetilov, unlike other representatives of the Famus society, in words is an ardent admirer of "scholarship". But he caricatures and vulgarizes the enlightening ideas that Chatsky preaches, urging, for example, that everyone should study "with Prince Grigory", where "they will give you champagne to drink for slaughter." Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became a fan of "scholarship" only because he failed to make a career ("And I would climb into the ranks, but I met failures"). Enlightenment, from his point of view, is only a forced replacement for a career. Zagoretsky at the ball takes part in an exchange of views on the dangers of education, but here he takes a more liberal position compared to Famusov and Skalozub:

No, sir, there are different books to books. And if between us

I was appointed censor, I would have leaned on fables; oh! fables - my death!

Eternal mockery of lions! over the eagles!

Whoever say anything:

Although animals, but still kings.

Zagoretsky is mortally afraid of being branded as a freethinker. He perfectly understands that behind the allegories in the fables lies the condemnation of the powerful of the world. And the "fathers" are just those people who strive to move up.

Attitude towards service is the main issue for the Famus society. Everyone in this circle strives to reach "to certain degrees", they want to secure a comfortable existence for themselves, a high position in society. The path to prosperity is servility, obsequiousness. According to Famusov, a worthy role model is the “dead uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served Catherine under the empress”). He had an arrogant disposition, but, if the interests of his career required it, he knew how to deftly "serve" and easily "bent into excess." It was this science of career advancement that Molchalin perfectly mastered. He is also a staunch conservative and believes that high ranks cannot be achieved without patrons. He knows the formula for success:

My father bequeathed to me:

First, to please all people without exception -

The owner, where he happens to live,

The boss with whom I will serve ...

For a successful career in the Famus society, it is necessary not only to please, but also to use family ties. Famusov, for example, is always ready to "please his own little man." All members of the Famus society want to "take awards and have fun."

Chatsky exposes the mores of the Famus society in the monologue “And who are the judges? ..”, talking about the unworthy lifestyle of the “fatherland of sons” (“overflowing in feasts and extravagance”), about the wealth they have unjustly acquired (“they are rich in robbery”), about their immoral , inhuman acts that they commit with impunity (“protection from court found in friends, in kinship”). One of the off-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who saved him “during the hours of wine and fights” for three greyhounds. The other one “for undertakings / for a fortress ballet drove in many wagons / from mothers, fathers of rejected children”, which were then “sold out one by one”.

Guests in Famusov's house embody narrow-mindedness, inertia, hypocrisy, vulgarity, idleness. For Chatsky, they merge into a "mob of tormentors." In this society, they do not disdain the scammer, gossip and gambler Zagoretsky, they respect the absurd Khryumins, they are afraid of the despotic Khlestova, they are condescending to the obsequiousness of Molchalin, to the stupidity of Skalozub, to the talkativeness of Repetilov. And only one thing they cannot stand - the mind, the moral superiority of Chatsky. The author denounces and condemns the "fathers" and believes that an uncompromising struggle against their immoral philosophy of life is necessary. I believe that the comedy of A.S. Griboedov has not lost its relevance, because it is very difficult to get rid of social and moral vices.