In the work “Woe from Wit” the author describes what is happening in Russia after her victory over Napoleon Bonaparte. During this period, relations between representatives of the nobility, so to speak, people who adhere to the old order and customs and youth, are heated, which, despite the victory of the Russian Tsar over France, is opposed to the ruling monarchy and dreams of a revolution. The society of the old way of comedy is represented by Famusov, who is ideologically opposed by Chatsky.
Young people of the time, to which Alexander Chatsky is fond of Decembrist sentiments, creates literary circles, discusses the overthrow of the tsarist regime. Most of these trends come from Freemasons, to which at that time many public figures belonged. But Griboedov, or rather his hero Chatsky, who is an example of this new, young society, believes in his ideals, which, by the way, are very contradictory. For example, one of the young people’s thoughts was the need to create their own culture, they did not like that most of the country speaks French, they called for stopping using someone else’s. But was it not in the French Revolution that they drew their inspiration for the creation of conspiracies? Nevertheless, Chatsky says a lot of new, bold, fresh thoughts.
Chatsky is a strong-willed person, strong, free. He is determined to fight for his ideas. The clash of such a hero with representatives of the “old” world could not have been avoided. In the play, the confrontation between two generations, two worlds with different ideals, becomes more rigid with time, in part because of Chatsky’s personal drama. Famusov defends the traditions of the old and the landowners, while Chatsky bows serfdom on the rights of the Decembrist. He denounces the nobility and his phrase “Who are the judges?” became legendary, having long gone beyond the...limits of the work. All that is dear to Famusov is the principles of the times of Catherine, for Chatsky the principles of “flattery and arrogance”. Alexander Andreevich idealizes personal freedom and independence, which no one can humiliate, and Maxim Petrovich he calls “a hunter to reassure.”
The play depicts many differences between two times, between the ideas of two generations, and more specifically two people. In the society of Famusov, a person was assessed with respect to his origin, the profits of his estate, the number of souls. Chatsky seeks to evaluate people for education, mentality and morality. For Famusov and his entourage, first of all, the opinion of society and the preservation of honor are important, so that people can not condemn that the name was unblemished. For Chatsky, the main thing is to defend one’s own thoughts. He believes that everyone should be free to say whatever he thinks. Alexander Andreevich sharply condemns the nobles, the whole world of conservatives and considers their life empty.
Chatsky very accurately, skillfully builds all his arguments, his phrases, manner of speech and even intonation put him on another scale, he has nothing to do with those who blame everything. His words are portrayed as his orator, a person with a wonderful education. The more sharp the confrontation between Chatsky and the society of Famusov, the more sarcasm and indignation the hero expresses.
Another example of comparison is a different attitude to work. Famusov, Molchalin and similar people consider the service an opportunity to get personal benefits. For Chatsky this is not acceptable, he left his service from the fact that you need to work for a true, big deal. For the new generation it is unacceptable to be lackeys. Here Griboedov gives the literature one more immortal phrase: “To serve would be glad, it is sickening to serve.”