Famusov and the Famusov society as representatives of the “past century”
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. In the first act, Famusov finds Sophia in a room with Molchalin, his secretary, who lives in their house. He doesn’t like his daughter’s behavior, and Famusov begins to read morals to her. His views on education reflect the position of the entire noble class: “We were given these languages! We take tramps, both into the house and on tickets, so that we can teach our daughters everything.” There are minimum requirements for foreign teachers, the main thing is that there should be “more in number, at a cheaper price.”
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” and had “a hundred people to his name.” 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.”
A. Molchalin and the problems of Famusov’s Moscow in “Woe from Wit”
The image of Molchalin is very interesting to consider through the prism of education and family issues.
16 pp., 7960 words
What is the conflict of the play Woe from Wit. Conflict between fathers and children in the comedy “Woe from Wit”
... family upbringing and education. Fathers must show the right path to their children, because they are their first and important example. Famusov... there was no bad opinion about him in society: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” As the action of the play develops, Molchalin's true face is revealed. It turns out that with Sophia... morality has returned to her father's house. A.S. Pushkin “The Captain’s Daughter” Father, sending Peter...
He is a “quiet” person, following the orders of his own father, which consist mainly of pleasing all people.
He follows this rule, is moderate and careful. That is why he was noticed by Famusov. The master even took him to Moscow and made him his secretary; “warmed me up” and provided me with a career.
“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.
Essay: Conflict of generations in the play “Woe from Wit” (A.S. Griboyedov)
At first glance, in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" there are two obvious conflicts - love and the conflict of the hero with society. But if you delve deeper into the essence of the second, you will notice another important contradiction - a clash of views of different generations. A similar topic has been raised more than once in works, because it never loses its relevance.
The conflict between “fathers and sons” always lies in the difference in views of generations on the same thing, incident or phenomenon. Time does not stand still, views change, and the younger generation strives for everything new, different, progressive, while older people often resist change and look for the truth in things that are more familiar to them. They are conservative, because they are attached to what they have acquired and are limited by the narrow framework of personal experience. It is precisely this division of heroes that we see in the play “Woe from Wit.” Chatsky opposes the main manifestations and values of Famus society, rejecting serfdom, cronyism and nepotism in the distribution of positions, life for rank and luxury, and imitation of foreign fashion. Alexander advocates radical changes. But his main opponents are people old enough to be his fathers. Pavel Famusov is a wise nobleman for whom it is too late to change his views. He cannot lose his authority by listening to the “boy” and the “Jacobin”. He, like the legislators of the Moscow nobility like Khlestova, does not want to change anything, because everything suits him: there is wealth and honor, but at what cost - these are details that you don’t even have to look at from your luxuriously decorated window. Famusov and his guests do not notice that Russia is not developing, and the people are suffering. They fenced themselves off from the world in an ivory tower, from where the screams of Chatsky and others like him were barely audible. Alexander was easily recognized as crazy and made a laughing stock. It is interesting that the fate of Chatsky, just a few years after the release of the play, befell P.Ya. Chaadaev, author of the scandalous work “Philosophical Letters”. This confirms the severity and vitality of the conflict posed by Griboyedov.
It is interesting to note that the conflict of different views of generations in the comedy “Woe from Wit” goes beyond the usual theme of fathers and sons. So, for example, the hero Molchalin belongs to the younger generation by age, but adheres to the views of the last century, which is manifested in his actions and depending on the opinions of others, respect for rank and excessive attention to his status. Even in love, he prefers Sophia (for the sake of promotion), although he himself is infatuated with the maid Lisa. Molchalin is a young hero who lives by the rules of the past generation, and, as the author himself noted, such people “are blissful in the world.” This indicates an “advantage” on the side of the fathers’ generation, because the Molchalins always side with the strong side. Since all power in Russia belongs to retrogrades and conservatives, conformists and hypocrites, it is difficult for the younger generation to break through and change something.
Family conflicts in comedy cannot be ignored. We all know that many of the principles and attitudes of parents do not always resonate in the hearts of children who strive to learn new things and become the best version of themselves. And the influence of parents is not always for the good. Speaking about Famusov and his daughter Sophia, you can see from the example of the heroes that the parent’s attitude to life does not correspond to the views of the child. Famusov says: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you!” And the daughter in response tells a dream, with the help of which she allegorically hints to her father about her choice. She fell in love with Molchalin, despite his poverty. This means that even through the influence and pressure of the “fathers” a pure and new sprout breaks through - the opinion of children, unencumbered by prejudices. The concept of “Famus society” acquires a household name and denotes people who are ready to do anything for the sake of wealth and power. At the same time, the hero Chatsky personifies the “present century”; he is well-read and educated, and has a rich inner world. Such views are alien to the “Famus society”, so all they do is ridicule the principles and the hero himself that are incomprehensible to them. The author's sympathies are clearly on the side of the younger generation.
Thus, the conflict of generations is revealed from different sides. Its reason is a misunderstanding between children and parents, conservatives and supporters of progress, the confrontation between old and new views in society.
Previous
Essays Final essay: What does it mean to be a “happy person”?
Next
EssaysEssay: Problematics of the work “Uncle Vanya” (A.P. Chekhov)
