The conflict between the present century and the past century. The collision of the present century and the past century

Plan:

1. Introduction

a) representatives of the “past century”;

b) representatives of the “present century”.

2. Main part:

a) Chatsky’s point of view;

b) Famusov’s point of view;

c) conflict resolution.

3. Conclusion.

In the comedy "" by A.S. Griboyedov shows the conflict of the “present century” represented by Chatsky and the “past century” represented by the “Famusov society”. This is the main conflict that the entire play is dedicated to; No wonder Goncharov critical article“A Million Torments” writes that “Chatsky begins new century- and this is his whole meaning and his whole “mind”. Thus, even the title of the work indicates that, first of all, Griboedov wanted to show the collision of two centuries.

“The Past Century” is, of course, the Famusovs. Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, an elderly nobleman and official with money, and his daughter, Sofia Pavlovna Famusova, an educated and pretty young girl. This should also include Colonel Skalozub, as well as almost all minor characters comedies: the Tugoukhovsky couple, Mrs. Khlestova and others. Together they form " Famusov society”, the personification of the “past century”.

"The present century" - . Others are fleetingly mentioned, as if heroes similar in thinking to him: Skalozub’s cousin, Prince Fyodor - these young people also strive to live a different life, different from the life of “Famus society”. However, there is a significant difference between them and Chatsky: Chatsky is an accuser and an irreconcilable fighter, while these characters do not impose their point of view on anyone.

The collision between Famusov and Chatsky inevitably leads to a collision of the centuries to which they belong. According to Pavel Afanasyevich, Chatsky should take up service - Famusov sees in young man good makings for a brilliant career, besides, Alexander Andreevich is the son of his friend, so Famusov is extremely friendly towards him. Chatsky is also glad to return home, not yet knowing how this return will end; he is glad to see Famusov, but is not ready to share his views: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.”

A young nobleman, after traveling around Europe, sees all too clearly all the frightening flaws of the Motherland: destructive for human souls serfdom, imitation of foreigners, “meanness,” stupid and absurd “love for the uniform”... each of these flaws raises a sincere protest in him, and Chatsky breaks out into another fiery tirade. His famous monologues “And sure enough, the world has begun to grow stupid”, “I won’t come to my senses...”, “Who are the judges?” - a desperate attempt to make people see what false ideals they follow, how they curtain their windows from the rays of a bright future with their own hands. Famusov is disappointed in Chatsky. “The little one with the head” refuses to follow generally accepted traditions, acts as an exposer and even an insult to the values ​​of “Famus society.” “Everything has its own laws,” and Chatsky diligently violates these laws, and then mocks them.

Of course, a worthy representative of Moscow society cannot tolerate this, and every now and then asks Chatsky to remain silent for his own good. Oddly enough, the most terrible, decisive clash does not occur between Pavel Afansevich and Chatsky. Yes, they are developing the conflict of centuries, demonstrating different views on the order in society, but it is not Famusov who will put an end to the conflict, but his daughter. , who was dearly loved by Chatsky to the last, not only exchanged him for the obliging hypocritical Molchalin, but also unwittingly became the culprit of his expulsion - it was because of her that Chatsky began to be considered crazy. Or rather, she just wanted to start a rumor in order to take revenge on him for ridiculing Molchalin, but the “Famus society” too readily picked it up and believed: after all, the madman is not dangerous, all his accusatory, terrible speeches for the “bygone century” can be attributed to clouding of reason...

So, “the present century” and the “past century” could not help but come into conflict because they were too different, contradictory friends friend's views on the correct structure of society and the behavior of people in it. And although in the comedy Chatsky flees Moscow, admitting his defeat, the “Famus society” does not have long left. Goncharov writes about it this way: “Chatsky is broken by the number old power, inflicting a mortal blow on her with the quality of fresh strength.”

"The present century and the past" (the main conflict in the comedy "Woe from Wit")

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

For classic comedy There was a characteristic division of heroes into positive and negative. Victory was always for positive heroes, while the negative ones were ridiculed and defeated. In Griboyedov's comedy, 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 first includes almost only Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, moreover, he often finds himself in a funny position, although he is a positive hero. At the same time, his main “opponent” Famusov is by no means some notorious scoundrel; on the contrary, he is a caring father and a good-natured person.

It is interesting that Chatsky spent his childhood in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. Moscow lordly life was measured and calm. Every day was the same. Balls, lunches, dinners, christenings...

He made a match - he succeeded, but he missed.

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

Women are mainly concerned with their outfits. They love everything foreign and French. The ladies of Famus society have one goal - to marry or give their daughters to an influential and rich man. With all this, as Famusov himself puts it, women “are judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges over them.” Everyone goes to a certain Tatyana Yuryevna for patronage, because “officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives.” Princess Marya Alekseevna has such weight in high society that Famusov somehow exclaims in fear:

Oh! My God! What will he say?

Princess Marya Aleksevna!

What about men? They are all busy trying to move up the social ladder as much as possible. Here is the thoughtless martinet 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 become a general.” Here is the petty official Molchalin. He says, not without pleasure, that “he received three awards and is listed in the Archives,” and he, of course, wants to “reach the well-known levels.”

The Moscow “ace” 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, no talents, and became famous only for the fact that he often “bent his neck” when bowing. But “he had a hundred people at his service,” “all wearing orders.” This is the ideal of Famus society.

Moscow nobles are arrogant and arrogant. They treat people poorer than themselves with contempt. But special arrogance can be heard in remarks addressed to the serfs. They are “parsleys”, “crowbars”, “blocks”, “lazy grouse”. One conversation with them: “Get you to work! Get you settled!” In close formation, the Famusites oppose everything new and advanced. They can be liberal, but they are afraid of fundamental changes like fire. There is so much hatred in Famusov’s words:

Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,

What is worse now than then,

There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.

Thus, Chatsky is well acquainted with 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 St. Petersburg. “High thoughts” are above all for him. It was in St. Petersburg that Chatsky’s views and aspirations took shape. He apparently became interested in literature. Even Famusov heard rumors that Chatsky “writes and translates well.” At the same time, Chatsky is fascinated by social activities. He develops a “connection with the ministers.” However, not for long. High concepts of honor do not allow him to serve; he wanted to serve the cause, not individuals.

After this, Chatsky probably visited the village, where, according to Famusov, he “made a mistake” by mishandling the estate. Then our hero goes abroad. At that time, “travel” was looked at askance, as a manifestation of the liberal spirit. But just the acquaintance of representatives of Russian noble youth with life, philosophy, history Western Europe had great value for their development.

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

These are the ones who lived to see their gray hairs!

This is who we should respect in the wilderness!

Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!

Chatsky hates “the meanest traits of the past,” people who “draw judgments from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” His aristocratic servility to everything foreign evokes a sharp protest. French upbringing, common in a lordly environment. In his famous monologue about the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" he talks about passionate affection common people to your homeland, national customs and language.

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

Now let one of us

Among the young people there will be an enemy of quest,

Without demanding either places or promotion,

He will focus his mind on science, thirsting for knowledge;

Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul

To the creative, high and beautiful arts, -

They immediately: robbery! Fire!

He will be known among them as a dreamer! Dangerous!!!

Among such young people in the play, besides Chatsky, one can perhaps also include Skalozub’s cousin, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “a chemist and a botanist.” But the play talks about them in passing. Among Famusov's guests, our hero is a loner.

Of course, Chatsky makes enemies for himself. Well, will Skalozub forgive him if he hears about himself: “Wheezing, 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, of course, Molchalin gets the most. Chatsky considers him a “most pitiful creature”, like all fools. Out of revenge for such words, Sophia declares Chatsky crazy. Everyone happily picks up this news, they sincerely believe in the gossip, because, indeed, in this society he seems crazy.

A.S. Pushkin, having read “Woe from Wit,” noticed that Chatsky was throwing pearls before swine, that he would never convince those to whom he addressed with his angry, passionate monologues. And one cannot but agree with this. But Chatsky is young. Yes, he has no goal of starting disputes with the older generation. First of all, he wanted to see Sophia, for whom he had a heartfelt affection since childhood. Another thing is that in 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 break between Chatsky and the world in which he spent his childhood and with which he is connected by blood ties. But the conflict that led to this break is not personal, not accidental. This conflict is social. We didn't just collide different people, but different worldviews, different public positions. The external outbreak of the conflict was Chatsky’s arrival at Famusov’s house; it was developed in disputes and monologues of the main characters (“Who are the judges?”, “That’s it, you are all proud!”). Growing misunderstanding and alienation lead to a climax: at the ball, Chatsky is declared insane. And then he understands himself that all his words and emotional movements were in vain:

You all glorified me as crazy.

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

Who will have time to spend a day with you,

Breathe the air alone

And his sanity will survive.

The outcome of the conflict is Chatsky’s departure from Moscow. The relationship between Famus society and the main character is clarified to the end: they deeply despise each other and do not want to have anything in common. It's impossible to tell who has the upper hand. After all, the conflict between old and new is as eternal as the world. And the topic of the suffering of an intelligent, educated person in Russia is still topical today. To this day, people suffer more from their intelligence than from their absence. In this sense, Griboyedov created a comedy for all times.

In 1824 A.S. Griboyedov finished his comedy “Woe from Wit”. 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. At the center of the play lies the clash between supporters of lordly Moscow and a group of “new people”. Only Alexander Andreevich Chatsky directly opposes the old order in comedy. Thus, the author emphasizes the exceptional position of people with progressive views. “In my comedy,” wrote Griboyedov, “there are twenty-five fools for one sane person.” The most a prominent representative “of the past century” in the play is Famusov. His image, in comparison with other representatives of Moscow society, is more clearly depicted by the author. Good-natured and hospitable Famusov, as he may seem in a conversation with Skalozub at the beginning of the play, is rude to his family, picky, stingy and petty. Here is his understanding of how one should value acquaintances and relatives: I crawl in front of relatives where I meet; I will find her at the bottom of the sea. This hero really doesn’t care about his daughter’s fate or his official affairs. Famusov is afraid of only one thing in his life: “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!” Thus, in the person of Famusov, the author exposed the ceremonial worship of Moscow society. Every conversation between Famusov and Chatsky ends with the former’s inevitable “upset.” So, in the second act (episode 2) the heroes are left alone and they manage to talk. Famusov has not seen Chatsky for a long time, so he still does not know what the boy he once knew became like. In their conversation, the heroes first touch on the issue of service. Chatsky immediately notes: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” Famusov, not understanding what Alexander Andreevich means, tries to teach him how to achieve “both places and promotion to rank.” Through the mouth of Famusov, all of noble Moscow speaks at this moment: And uncle! What is your prince? What's the count? When it was necessary to serve, And he bent over... This and only this way of serving, as Famusov says, can bring glory and honor. And so it was in the era of Catherine II. But times have changed. Chatsky points to this when he retorts in an ironic and somewhat evil manner: But meanwhile? Who will the hunt take, Even in the most ardent servility, Now, in order to make people laugh, Bravely sacrifice the back of the head? Further, Chatsky, in the most apt and witty expressions, brands “the past century.” He claims that now is a new time, that people no longer fawn over patrons (“patrons yawn at the ceiling”), but achieve everything in this life only with the help of abilities and intelligence: No, today the world is not like that. Everyone breathes more freely and is in no hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters. The hero says all this in such fervor that he doesn’t notice - Famusov hasn’t listened to him for a long time, he covered his ears. Thus, the conversation between the two characters is a farce. The author uses this technique specifically to outline even more clearly the position of the Chatskys - their arguments are not listened to, because it is impossible to oppose anything to them. The only thing that the old familiar regime can do to protect Famusov is this: I would strictly forbid these gentlemen to approach the capitals for a shot. In Chatsky’s fair, passionate attacks on Moscow society Famusov sees danger, freedom. He believes that the reason lies in the fact that they are scouring the world, beating their heads, They are returning, expect order from them. We also hear one of Famusov’s exclamations: “What is he saying! And he speaks as he writes! It refers to Chatsky’s speeches and stands among such characteristics of this hero as “ dangerous man", "He doesn't recognize the authorities!", "Carbonari". Why is this, from Famusov’s point of view, terrible? Later, in the third appearance, Famusov will declare that the reason for Chatsky’s madness is “study”, therefore all books

“The present century” and “the past century.”
In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” written at the beginning of the 19th century, A. S. Griboyedov touches on many serious issues public life, morality, culture, relevant in the era of the change of centuries, when social foundations are changing and contradictions between representatives of the “present century” and the “past century” are growing.
In the work there are people from different societies, from Famusov and Khlestova to serf servants. The representative of an advanced, revolutionary-minded society is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky; he is opposed to the conservative Famus society, which includes older generation(Skalozub, Khryumina), and youth (Sofia, Molchalin). “The past century” is not only an indicator of age, but also a system of outdated views.
So what are the main contradictions between the “present century” and the “past century”?
Members of the Famus society value a person only by origin, wealth, and position in society. Their ideals are people like Maxim Petrovich, an arrogant nobleman and a “hunter of indecency.” All characteristic features The veneration of rank of that time is clearly expressed in the image of Mochalin: he is silent, afraid to express his opinion, seeks the favor of everyone whose rank is higher than his own, in order to become an important official, he is ready to do a lot. For Chatsky the main thing human quality is rich spiritual world. He communicates with those who are really interesting to him and does not curry favor with the guests of Famusov’s house.
The goal of life for Pavel Afanasyevich and others like him is career and enrichment. Nepotism is common in their circles. Secular people do not serve for the benefit of the state, but for the sake of personal gain, this is confirmed by the statement of Colonel Skalozub:
Yes, to get ranks, there are many channels;
I judge them as a true philosopher:
I just wish I could become a general.
Chatsky does not want to serve “persons”; it was he who made the statement: “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.”
Alexander Andreevich - wonderful educated person. He spent three years abroad, which changed his worldview. Chatsky is the bearer of new, revolutionary ideas, but it is everything new and progressive that frightens Famus society, and these people see the source of “freethinking” in education:
Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What's worse now than ever?
There were crazy people, deeds, and thoughts.
Society saw in Chatsky a person who contradicted basic moral principles, which is why the rumor about his madness spread so quickly, and it was not difficult for anyone to believe in him.
Representatives of two centuries have different views on love. Famusov from the brightest and pure feeling managed to benefit: for his daughter, he chose Skalozub as her husband, who “both has a golden bag and aims to be a general.” It is clear that with such an attitude, there is no need to talk about true love. Chatsky maintained sincere feelings for Sophia for many years. Returning to Moscow, he hoped for reciprocity, but Sophia found herself under strong influence her father’s society, and also, having read French novels, she found herself “both a boy-husband and a servant-husband” Molchalin, and he, in turn, with the help of Sophia, was going to receive another rank:
And now I take the form of a lover
To please the daughter of such a man
The only time the opinions of Famusov and Chatsky coincide is on the issue of the influence of foreigners on Russia, but each has their own reasons. Chatsky says how true patriot, he is an opponent of “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of foreigners, he is disgusted to listen to the speech of the people of Famus’s society, where “a mixture of languages: French and Nizhny Novgorod” dominated. Famusov has a negative attitude towards foreigners only because he is a father, and his daughter might accidentally marry some Frenchman:
And all the Kuznetsky Bridge and the eternal French,
From there fashion comes to us, both authors and muses:
Robbers of pockets and hearts.
In a clash with Famus society, Chatsky is defeated, but he remains undefeated, as he understands the need to fight the “past century.” He believes that the future belongs to his fellow souls.

1. The purpose of writing comedy.
2. Chatsky and Famusov.
3. Chatsky and Molchalin.
4. Love conflict comedies.
5. Chatsky - winner or loser?

In “Woe from Wit,” exactly, the whole plot consists of Chatsky’s opposition to other persons.
V. K. Kuchelbecker

“Woe from Wit” is one of the most topical works of Russian literature. In the early 20s of the 19th century, a conflict arose in Russian society between two opposing camps of the Russian nobility - reactionary and progressive. The purpose of writing his comedy A. S. Griboedov was, first of all, to reveal the mores of his contemporary society and the contradictions emerging in it between the “present century” and the “past century.” He showed this conflict with great artistic force through the example of the clash between the protagonist of the comedy, a man of progressive views, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, and lordly Moscow, the representative of which is the reactionary Famus society. These two hostile camps differ in their views on almost all issues of a socio-political and ethical nature.

Chatsky represents advanced person era, understanding the need for reforms, opposing the forces of reaction and opposing the conservative autocracy, whose ardent defender is Famusov. He and serf owners like him, who consider it completely legal to dispose of people as they please: punish, sell, send them to hard labor. People like Famusov are not recognized as serfs human dignity. Chatsky expresses respect for ordinary people, calls the Russian people smart and kind. It is against such serf owners that Chatsky directs his blow. In the famous monologue “Who are the judges?” He angrily attacks the famous theater landowner in Moscow, “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who traded his loyal servants, who more than once saved his life and honor, for greyhound dogs.

The discrepancy between views, level of education, and morality is clearly manifested in the speeches of Chatsky and representatives of the Famus society. Chatsky
- an enlightened person, his passionate speeches reflect the depth of feelings and thoughts. He is noble and full of desire for knowledge. lives in it true love to his fatherland and the desire to serve his homeland, But he “... would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served!” For the careerist Famusov, service is, first of all, the opportunity to receive all sorts of benefits from life and to place his many relatives in warm places. It doesn’t even occur to Famusov that service can imply not only personal gain, but also concern for the people and the state.

The Moscow gentleman and others like him are convinced that all the “evil” in Chatsky comes from science and education: “Learning is a plague...”. The essence of the conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit” is not only in the collision of the “present century” and the “past century”. The depth of the conflict lies not only in the confrontation between two generations. After all, Molchalin and Chatsky are the same age.

Molchalin does not show his hypocrisy and desire to serve as openly as Maxim Petrovich. He flatters at every opportunity, trying to butter up those who can be useful to him. Molchalin believes that at his age “one should not dare to have one’s own opinion,” since “we are of small rank.” From childhood he absorbed the precepts of the Famus society:

First, please all people without exception -
The owner, where he will live,
The boss with whom I will serve,
To his servant, who cleans the dress,
Doorman, janitor to avoid evil,
To the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate.

But sycophancy is unacceptable for Chatsky. He himself freely and directly expresses his opinion. Chatsky is outraged by the servility and opportunism raised by Molchalin to a principle and accepted in noble society. He exclaims bitterly: “The silent ones are blissful in the world.” Chatsky is outraged by people who worship everything foreign; he contrasts them with progressive people, “who are the enemy of registered people...”. These people dare to “publicly announce” their thoughts, but they are hated in society, called “dangerous dreamers.”

The hero's conflict with the environment extends to his love relationships. Chatsky’s love for Sophia is a sincere, ardent, immediate feeling. However, Chatsky is not ideal; he is a living person with his own shortcomings. Heartbroken, he can be hot-tempered and unfair.

Who is Sophia? She is young and inexperienced, but has already managed to assimilate the thoughts and foundations of the environment that raised her. When Sophia starts a rumor about Chatsky's madness, it hits the prepared ground and spreads with lightning speed in Famus society. And this society stands as a united front against Chatsky, sensing an ideological enemy in him.

After Chatsky learns about Sophia’s role in spreading slander, he has an epiphany. He utters his last accusatory words, sparing neither Famus society, nor himself, nor Sophia. The collision with society ends with the rupture of the emerging love relationship. Both conflicts are over.

The old world is still strong, its supporters are numerous. Chatsky is forced to flee from Famusov's house and from Moscow. But Chatsky’s flight cannot be perceived as his defeat.

In my opinion, Chatsky is a winner, fighting against the entrenched foundations of the lordly environment and not making concessions to the reactionary Famous society. “He is an eternal exposer of lies hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior,” A. A. Goncharov wrote about him. “No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.”

The enduring, in my opinion, value of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is that in any society there will always be progressive people whose meaning in life will be the fight against the obsolete, outdated and inert. And it is in their speeches that the tone and meaning of Chatsky’s speeches will be heard.

The creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit” was an irreconcilable protest against the “vile racial reality” (V. G. Belinsky). The bearer of protest in the comedy is the smart, noble and passionate Chatsky.