Table of mushroom eaters woe from the mind of the present century. “The present century” and “the past century” in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov was written in the first half of the 19th century and is a satire on the views of the noble society of that time. In the play, two opposing camps collide: the conservative nobility and the younger generation of nobles who have new views on the structure of society. The main character of “Woe from Wit,” Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, aptly called the disputing parties “the present century” and “the past century.” The generational dispute is also presented in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What each side represents, what their views and ideals are, will help you understand the analysis of “Woe from Wit.”

The “past century” in comedy is much more numerous than the camp of its opponents. The main representative of the conservative nobility is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, in whose house all the phenomena of comedy take place. He is a manager in a government house. His daughter Sophia was raised by him from childhood, because... her mother died. Their relationship reflects the conflict between fathers and sons in Woe from Wit.

However, Famusov believes that the best educational influence on a daughter should be the example of her own father. In this regard, in the play “Woe from Wit” the problem of fathers and children becomes even more acute. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior.” But is he such a good example to follow if, a second before he began to lecture Sophia, the reader watched him openly flirt with the maid Lisa? For Famusov, the only thing that matters is what people say about him in the world. And if noble society does not gossip about his love affairs, it means his conscience is clear. Even Liza, imbued with the morals reigning in Famusov’s house, warns her young mistress not against nightly meetings with Molchalin, but against public gossip: “Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.” This position characterizes Famusov as a morally corrupt person. Does an immoral person have the right to talk about morality in front of his daughter, and even be considered an example for her?

In this regard, the conclusion suggests itself that for Famusov (and in his person for the entire Old Moscow noble society) it is more important to seem like a worthy person, and not to be one. Moreover, the desire of representatives of the “past century” to make a good impression extends only to rich and noble people, because communication with them contributes to the acquisition of personal gain. People who do not have high titles, awards and wealth receive only contempt from the noble society: “Whoever needs it: those who are in need, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, flattery is woven like lace.”
Famusov transfers this principle of dealing with people to his attitude towards family life. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” he tells his daughter. The feeling of love has no power; it is despised by this society. Calculation and profit dominate the life of Famusov and his supporters: “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.” This position creates a lack of freedom for these people. They are hostages and slaves of their own comfort: “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths gagged at lunches, dinners and dances?”

What is humiliation for progressive people of the new generation is the norm of life for representatives of the conservative nobility. And this is no longer just a generational dispute in the work “Woe from Wit,” but a much deeper divergence in the views of the two opposing sides. With great admiration, Famusov recalls his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” had “a hundred people at his service,” and was “all decorated.” What did he do to deserve his high position in society? Once, at a reception with the Empress, he stumbled and fell, painfully hitting the back of his head. Seeing the smile on the face of the autocrat, Maxim Petrovich decided to repeat his fall several more times in order to amuse the empress and the court. Such an ability to “help oneself,” according to Famusov, is worthy of respect, and the younger generation should take an example from him.

Famusov envisions Colonel Skalozub as his daughter’s groom, who “will never utter a smart word.” He is good only because “he has picked up a ton of marks of distinction,” but Famusov, “like all Moscow people,” “would like a son-in-law... with stars and ranks.”

The younger generation in a society of conservative nobility. Image of Molchalin.

The conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is not defined or limited in the comedy “Woe from Wit” to the theme of fathers and children. For example, Molchalin, belonging to the younger generation by age, adheres to the views of the “past century.” In the first appearances, he appears before the reader as Sophia’s modest lover. But he, like Famusov, is very afraid that society might have a bad opinion about him: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” As the action of the play develops, Molchalin's true face is revealed. It turns out that he is with Sophia “out of position,” that is, in order to please her father. In fact, he is more passionate about the maid Liza, with whom he behaves much more relaxed than with Famusov’s daughter. Beneath Molchalin's taciturnity lies his duplicity. He does not miss the opportunity at a party to show his helpfulness in front of influential guests, because “you have to depend on others.” This young man lives according to the rules of the “past century”, and therefore “Silent people are blissful in the world.”

“The Present Century” in the play “Woe from Wit.” The image of Chatsky.

The only defender of other views on the problems raised in the work, a representative of the “present century,” is Chatsky. He was brought up together with Sophia, there was youthful love between them, which the hero keeps in his heart even at the time of the events of the play. Chatsky has not been to Famusov’s house for three years, because... traveled around the world. Now he has returned with hopes of Sophia's mutual love. But here everything has changed. His beloved greets him coldly, and his views are fundamentally at odds with the views of Famus society.

In response to Famusov’s call “go and serve!” Chatsky replies that he is ready to serve, but only “to the cause, not to individuals,” but he is generally “sickened” to “serve.” In the “past century” Chatsky does not see freedom for the human person. He does not want to be a buffoon for a society where “he was famous whose neck was more often bent,” where a person is judged not by his personal qualities, but by the material wealth he possesses. Indeed, how can one judge a person only by his ranks, if “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived”? Chatsky sees enemies of free life in Famus society and does not find role models in it. The main character, in his accusatory monologues addressed to Famusov and his supporters, speaks out against serfdom, against the slavish love of the Russian people for everything foreign, against servility and careerism. Chatsky is a supporter of enlightenment, a creative and seeking mind, capable of acting in accordance with conscience.

The “present century” is inferior in number to the “past century” in the play. This is the only reason why Chatsky is doomed to defeat in this battle. It’s just that the Chatskys’ time hasn’t come yet. A split among the nobility has only just begun, but in the future the progressive views of the protagonist of the comedy “Woe from Wit” will bear fruit. Now Chatsky has been declared crazy, because the accusatory speeches of a madman are not scary. The conservative nobility, by supporting the rumor of Chatsky's madness, only temporarily protected themselves from the changes that they are so afraid of, but which are inevitable.

conclusions

Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the problem of generations is not the main one and does not reveal the full depth of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”. The contradictions between the two camps lie in the difference in their perception of life and the structure of society, in different ways of interacting with this society. This conflict cannot be resolved by verbal battles. Only time and a series of historical events will naturally replace the old with the new.

The conducted comparative analysis of two generations will help 9th grade students describe the conflict of the “present century” with the “past century” in their essay on the topic ““The present century” and the “past century” in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov”

Work test

The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov was written in the first half of the 19th century and is a satire on the views of the noble society of that time. In the play, two opposing camps collide: the conservative nobility and the younger generation of nobles who have new views on the structure of society. The main character of “Woe from Wit,” Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, aptly called the disputing parties “the present century” and “the past century.” The generational dispute is also presented in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What each side represents, what their views and ideals are, will help you understand the analysis of “Woe from Wit.”

The “past century” in comedy is much more numerous than the camp of its opponents. The main representative of the conservative nobility is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, in whose house all the phenomena of comedy take place. He is a manager in a government house. His daughter Sophia was raised by him from childhood, because... her mother died. Their relationship reflects the conflict between fathers and sons in Woe from Wit.

However, Famusov believes that the best educational influence on a daughter should be the example of her own father. In this regard, in the play “Woe from Wit” the problem of fathers and children becomes even more acute. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior.” But is he such a good example to follow if, a second before he began to lecture Sophia, the reader watched him openly flirt with the maid Lisa? For Famusov, the only thing that matters is what people say about him in the world. And if noble society does not gossip about his love affairs, it means his conscience is clear. Even Liza, imbued with the morals reigning in Famusov’s house, warns her young mistress not against nightly meetings with Molchalin, but against public gossip: “Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.” This position characterizes Famusov as a morally corrupt person. Does an immoral person have the right to talk about morality in front of his daughter, and even be considered an example for her?

In this regard, the conclusion suggests itself that for Famusov (and in his person for the entire Old Moscow noble society) it is more important to seem like a worthy person, and not to be one. Moreover, the desire of representatives of the “past century” to make a good impression extends only to rich and noble people, because communication with them contributes to the acquisition of personal gain. People who do not have high titles, awards and wealth receive only contempt from the noble society: “Whoever needs it: those who are in need, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, flattery is woven like lace.”
Famusov transfers this principle of dealing with people to his attitude towards family life. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” he tells his daughter. The feeling of love has no power; it is despised by this society. Calculation and profit dominate the life of Famusov and his supporters: “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.” This position creates a lack of freedom for these people. They are hostages and slaves of their own comfort: “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths gagged at lunches, dinners and dances?”

What is humiliation for progressive people of the new generation is the norm of life for representatives of the conservative nobility. And this is no longer just a generational dispute in the work “Woe from Wit,” but a much deeper divergence in the views of the two opposing sides. With great admiration, Famusov recalls his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” had “a hundred people at his service,” and was “all decorated.” What did he do to deserve his high position in society? Once, at a reception with the Empress, he stumbled and fell, painfully hitting the back of his head. Seeing the smile on the face of the autocrat, Maxim Petrovich decided to repeat his fall several more times in order to amuse the empress and the court. Such an ability to “help oneself,” according to Famusov, is worthy of respect, and the younger generation should take an example from him.

Famusov envisions Colonel Skalozub as his daughter’s groom, who “will never utter a smart word.” He is good only because “he has picked up a ton of marks of distinction,” but Famusov, “like all Moscow people,” “would like a son-in-law... with stars and ranks.”

The younger generation in a society of conservative nobility. Image of Molchalin.

The conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is not defined or limited in the comedy “Woe from Wit” to the theme of fathers and children. For example, Molchalin, belonging to the younger generation by age, adheres to the views of the “past century.” In the first appearances, he appears before the reader as Sophia’s modest lover. But he, like Famusov, is very afraid that society might have a bad opinion about him: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” As the action of the play develops, Molchalin's true face is revealed. It turns out that he is with Sophia “out of position,” that is, in order to please her father. In fact, he is more passionate about the maid Liza, with whom he behaves much more relaxed than with Famusov’s daughter. Beneath Molchalin's taciturnity lies his duplicity. He does not miss the opportunity at a party to show his helpfulness in front of influential guests, because “you have to depend on others.” This young man lives according to the rules of the “past century”, and therefore “Silent people are blissful in the world.”

“The Present Century” in the play “Woe from Wit.” The image of Chatsky.

The only defender of other views on the problems raised in the work, a representative of the “present century,” is Chatsky. He was brought up together with Sophia, there was youthful love between them, which the hero keeps in his heart even at the time of the events of the play. Chatsky has not been to Famusov’s house for three years, because... traveled around the world. Now he has returned with hopes of Sophia's mutual love. But here everything has changed. His beloved greets him coldly, and his views are fundamentally at odds with the views of Famus society.

In response to Famusov’s call “go and serve!” Chatsky replies that he is ready to serve, but only “to the cause, not to individuals,” but he is generally “sickened” to “serve.” In the “past century” Chatsky does not see freedom for the human person. He does not want to be a buffoon for a society where “he was famous whose neck was more often bent,” where a person is judged not by his personal qualities, but by the material wealth he possesses. Indeed, how can one judge a person only by his ranks, if “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived”? Chatsky sees enemies of free life in Famus society and does not find role models in it. The main character, in his accusatory monologues addressed to Famusov and his supporters, speaks out against serfdom, against the slavish love of the Russian people for everything foreign, against servility and careerism. Chatsky is a supporter of enlightenment, a creative and seeking mind, capable of acting in accordance with conscience.

The “present century” is inferior in number to the “past century” in the play. This is the only reason why Chatsky is doomed to defeat in this battle. It’s just that the Chatskys’ time hasn’t come yet. A split among the nobility has only just begun, but in the future the progressive views of the protagonist of the comedy “Woe from Wit” will bear fruit. Now Chatsky has been declared crazy, because the accusatory speeches of a madman are not scary. The conservative nobility, by supporting the rumor of Chatsky's madness, only temporarily protected themselves from the changes that they are so afraid of, but which are inevitable.

conclusions

Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the problem of generations is not the main one and does not reveal the full depth of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”. The contradictions between the two camps lie in the difference in their perception of life and the structure of society, in different ways of interacting with this society. This conflict cannot be resolved by verbal battles. Only time and a series of historical events will naturally replace the old with the new.

The conducted comparative analysis of two generations will help 9th grade students describe the conflict of the “present century” with the “past century” in their essay on the topic ““The present century” and the “past century” in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov”

Work test

“The main role, of course, is the role of Chesty, without whom there would be no comedy,

and perhaps there would be a picture of morals." I.A. Goncharov

One cannot but agree with Goncharov that the figure. Chatsky defines the conflict of comedy - the conflict of two eras. It arises because people with new views, beliefs, and goals begin to appear in society. Such people do not lie, do not adapt, and do not depend on public opinion. Therefore, in an atmosphere of servility and veneration, the appearance of such people makes their clash with society inevitable. The problem of mutual understanding between the “present century” and the “past century” was relevant at the time Griboyedov created the comedy “Woe from Wit”, and it is still relevant today. So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sensible person” (according to Goncharov) and the “conservative majority.” Griboedov's comedy tells about a man's grief, and this grief comes from his mind. For the reactionaries considered smart people to be freethinkers. It is on this that the internal development of the conflict between Chatsky and the Famus environment surrounding him, the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is based.

"The Past Century" in comedy is represented by a number of bright types. These are Famusov, and Skalozub, and Repetilov, and Molchalin, and Liza, and Sofia. In a word, there are many of them. First of all, the figure of Famusov, an old Moscow nobleman who has earned general favor in capital circles, stands out. He is friendly, courteous, witty, cheerful, in general, a hospitable host. But this is only the external side. The author reveals the image of Famusov comprehensively. This is a convinced serf owner, a fierce opponent of enlightenment. “Collect all the books and burn them!” - he exclaims. Chatsky, a representative of the “present century,” dreams of “focusing a mind hungry for knowledge into science.” He is outraged by the order established in Famus society. If Famusov dreams of marrying off his daughter Sophia at a better price, telling her directly (“Whoever is poor is not a match for you”), then Chatsky longs for “sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity.” Chatsky’s desire is to serve the fatherland, “the cause, not the persons.” He despises Molchalin, who is accustomed to please “all people without exception”: The owner, where I happen to live, The boss, with whom I will serve, His servant, who cleans the dress, The doorman, the janitor, to avoid evil, The janitor’s dog, so that he is affectionate!

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

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

Another representative of the “past century” is Skalozub. This is exactly the kind of son-in-law Famus dreamed of having. After all, Skalozub is “both a golden bag and aims to be a general.” This character embodied the typical features of a reactionary of Arakcheev’s time. “A wheeze, a strangled man, a bassoon. A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas,” he is as much an enemy of education and science as Famusov. “You can’t fool me with learning,” says Skalozub.

It is quite obvious that the very atmosphere of Famus society forces representatives of the younger generation to show their negative qualities. So Sophia uses her sharp mind to outright lie, spreading rumors about Chatsky’s madness. Sophia fully corresponds to the morality of the “fathers”. And although she is an intelligent girl, with a strong, independent character, a warm heart, and a dreamy soul, her false upbringing still instilled in Sophia many negative qualities and made her a representative of the generally accepted views in this circle. She does not understand Chatsky, she has not grown up to him, to his sharp mind, to his logical, merciless criticism. She also does not understand Molchalin, who “loves her because of his position.” It is not her fault that Sophia has become a typical young lady of Famus society.

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

Another comedy character is very interesting. This is Repetilov. He is a completely unprincipled person, a “cracker,” but he was the only one who considered Chatsky to be “highly intelligent” and, not believing in his madness, called Famus’s pack of guests “chimeras” and “game.” Thus, he was at least one step above them all. "So! I'm completely sober!" - Chatsky exclaims at the end of the comedy. What is this - defeat or insight? Yes, the end of this work is far from cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said about the ending this way: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it in turn a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.” And I completely agree with Goncharov, who believes that the role of all Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always “victorious”.

Chatsky opposes the society of ignoramuses and serf owners. He fights against noble scoundrels and sycophants, swindlers, cheats and informers. In his famous monologue “And who are the judges”... he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar world of Famusov, in which the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where landowners exchanged people-serfs who saved “both honor and life... more than once" to "three greyhounds". Chatsky defends a real person, humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He protects the Russian people, his Russia from the bad, the inert and the backward. Chatsky wants to see Russia literate and cultural. He defends this in disputes and conversations with all the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit", directing all his intelligence, wit, evil, temper and determination to this. Therefore, those around him take revenge on Chatsky for the truth, which hurts his eyes, for his attempt to disrupt the usual way of life. The “past century,” that is, Famus society, is afraid of people like Chatsky, because they encroach on the order of life that is the basis of the well-being of this society. Chatsky calls the past century, which Famusov admires so much, the century of “humility and fear.” The Famus society is strong, its principles are firm, but Chatsky also has like-minded people. These are the persons mentioned: Skalozub's cousin ("The rank followed him - he suddenly left the service..."), the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. Chatsky himself constantly says “we,” “one of us,” thus speaking 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, smart, educated. The comedy "Woe from Wit" was a huge success. It sold thousands of handwritten copies even before it was printed. Progressive people of that time warmly welcomed the appearance of this work, and representatives of the reactionary nobility were outraged by the appearance of the comedy.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov is a bright and original work. It not only outlived its creator and immortalized his name, but to this day remains sharply satirical and, unfortunately, relevant. Written during the era of preparation for the “knightly feat” of the Decembrists, the play spoke about the moods and conflicts of that tense time. Echoes of pre-Decembrist sentiments were heard in Chatsky’s harsh denunciations, in the frightened remarks of Famusov and his friends, and in the general tone of the comedy. Thus, the confrontation between the main character Chatsky and “Famusov’s Moscow” was a real projection of the processes taking place in the country.

The image of the main character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, is still ambiguous, arousing either admiration for his courage or sympathy. After all, he vehemently denounces lies and all the foundations that prevent one from living honestly and freely. But why are such worthy people doomed to be rejected, misunderstood and unhappy? Is this really the fate of everyone who fights for bright ideals, who is ahead of their time?

So, at the center of the comedy lies a clash between supporters of lordly Moscow and a group of new people. These new people are represented in the comedy by Chatsky, Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, Skalozub’s brother, Gorich, professors and students of the Pedagogical Institute, “who practice schisms and unbelief,” some people who teach in boarding houses and lyceums. Chatsky constantly says “we” about these people, each of them “breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.” It is easy to understand that such people in a society of rock-toothed and silent people are considered “dangerous dreamers.” They are afraid of them, hearing their speeches, they shout “Robbery! Fire!".

But only Chatsky directly opposes the old order in the comedy. By this, the author emphasizes the exceptional position of people with new views, the views of the “present century.” “In my comedy,” wrote Griboedov, “there are twenty-five fools for one sane person.” The figure of Chatsky, receiving a special place in the play, becomes large and strong.

The hero's life story is outlined in the comedy in separate strokes. Childhood in the Famusovs’ house (Sophia talks about this in the 5th episode and Chatsky himself in the 7th episode I), then service in the regiment “five years ago”, St. Petersburg - “connection with the ministers, then a break”, travel abroad - and a return to the sweet and pleasant smoke of the Fatherland.

Chatsky is young, he is no more than twenty-three to twenty-four years old, and he already has a lot of events behind him. It is no coincidence that he is so observant and understands people well.

In one of his letters, Griboedov wrote about the features of his play: “The girl herself, who is not stupid, prefers a fool to an intelligent man... And this man, of course, is in conflict with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little taller than others... Voice general unkindness reaches him, and the dislike of the girl for whom he came to Moscow alone is completely explained to him, he did not give a damn to her and everyone else - and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey honey..."

From this author’s explanation it becomes clear that Chatsky’s tragedy unfolds at the core of love experiences. But this also emphasizes the socio-political intensity of the comedy, strengthens it, because this intensity arises as a result of real life circumstances. Chatsky fights for his bright feelings and for his life ideals.

Each outbreak of personal resentment entails Chatsky’s involuntary rebellion against the inertia of Sophia’s circle. This characterizes the hero as a thinking, progressive and youthfully ardent person, doomed to misunderstanding in Famus society, because this is a time of silent, soulless and ambitious sycophants. And, knowing this, Molchalin became bolder and adopted a patronizing tone in his relations with Chatsky, whom he considered a loser.

Meanwhile, the unexpected coldness of the girl whom the protagonist passionately and sincerely loves, her neglect so stuns Chatsky that in despair he throws all his pain and contempt into the eyes of Famus society in accusatory monologues. And only self-esteem saves him from useless humiliation before this world of servility and servility: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt his blow to it with the power of the new. He is the personification of the proverb: “alone in the field is not a warrior.” But I still think that a warrior and, moreover, a winner, is only an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and therefore always a victim.”

Of course, he did not bring Famusov to his senses or correct him. But if Famusov had no witnesses when leaving, he would have easily dealt with his grief, he would have just hastened with his daughter’s wedding. But this is no longer possible. Thanks to Chatsky, the next morning this incident will be discussed throughout Moscow. And Famusov will inevitably have to face something that had never even occurred to him before.

And only Sofya Pavlovna is difficult to treat with the same indifference with which we part with the other heroes of the play. There is a lot of cuteness in her, she has all the makings of a remarkable nature: a lively mind, courage and passion. She was ruined by the stuffiness of her father's house. Her ideals are wrong, but where do other ideals come from in Famus society? It’s hard for her, of course, harder even than for Chatsky, she gets her “millions of torments.”

And Chatsky’s words will spread, be repeated everywhere and create their own storm. The battle is just beginning. Chatsky’s authority was known before; he already has like-minded people. Not all of his peers have such experience: Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without receiving rank and began reading books. One of the old women complains that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is studying chemistry and botany.

All that was needed was an explosion, and the battle began, stubborn and hot, on one day, in one house, but its consequences would affect all of Moscow and Russia.

Chatsky, undoubtedly, boldly looked into the future and could not accept and understand the inertia and hypocrisy of the Famusovs and Molchalins. He is a representative not only of the present century, but also of the coming century. He suffered the same fate as many: those around him did not find anything sensible in his thoughts, they did not understand him and did not even try to understand him. Unfortunately, many people find it difficult to reject outdated stereotypes, principles, habits, because it is easier to consider those who think about development and strive forward as crazy.

Chatsky created a split among the representatives of the past century, and, although he himself was deceived in his personal expectations and did not find the “charm of meetings”, “living participation,” he “sprinkled living water on the dried soil,” taking with him “a million torments.”