Honest and dishonest heroes are undergrown fonvizin. Analysis of the work “Minor” by Fonvizin

History of creation

DI. Fonvizin is one of the most prominent figures in the educational movement in Russia in the 18th century. He perceived the ideas of Enlightenment humanism especially keenly, and lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. Therefore, the writer was especially upset by the nobles’ failure to fulfill their duty to society: “I happened to travel around my land. I have seen where most of those bearing the name of a nobleman rely on their curiosity. I have seen many of them who serve, or, moreover, take places in the service just to ride a pair. I have seen many others who immediately resigned as soon as they gained the right to harness fours. I have seen contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw nobles servile. I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart.” This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the author of “Facts and Fables,” the authorship of which belonged to Empress Catherine II herself.

The name Fonvizin became known to the general public after he created the comedy “Brigadier”. Then for more than ten years the writer worked state affairs. And only in 1781 was he completed new comedy- “Undergrown.” Fonvizin did not leave evidence of the creation of “Nedoroslya”. The only story dedicated to the creation of the comedy was recorded much later by Vyazemsky. We are talking about the scene in which Eremeevna defends Mitrofanushka from Skotinin. “It is recounted from the words of the author himself that, having begun to explore the phenomenon mentioned, he went for a walk in order to think about it while walking. At the Myasnitsky Gate he came across a fight between two women. He stopped and began to guard nature. Returning home with the spoils of his observations, he drew his phenomenon and included in it the word hooks, which he overheard on the battlefield” (Vyazemsky 1848).

Catherine's government, frightened by Fonvizin's first comedy, for a long time opposed the production of the writer's new comedy. Only in 1782 did Fonvizin’s friend and patron N.I. Panin, through the heir to the throne, the future Paul I, managed with great difficulty to achieve the production of “The Minor.” The comedy was performed in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow by the actors of the court theater. Fonvizin himself took part in the actors learning their roles and was involved in all the details of the production. The role of Starodum was created by Fonvizin with the best actor in mind Russian theater I.A. Dmitrevsky. Possessing a noble, refined appearance, the actor constantly occupied the role of the first hero-lover in the theater. And although the performance was a complete success, soon after the premiere the theater, on the stage of which “The Minor” was first staged, was closed and disbanded. The attitude of the empress and the ruling circles towards Fonvizin changed dramatically: until the end of his life, the author of “The Minor” felt from that time on that he was a disgraced, persecuted writer.

As for the name of the comedy, the word “minor” itself is perceived today not as intended by the author of the comedy. In the time of Fonvizin, this was a completely definite concept: this was the name given to nobles who had not received proper education, and who were therefore forbidden to enter the service and marry. So the undergrowth could be more than twenty years old, while Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s comedy is sixteen years old. With the appearance of this character, the term “underage” acquired a new meaning - “a dunce, a dumbass, a teenager with limited vicious inclinations.”

Genre, genre, creative method

Second half of the 18th century. - the heyday of theatrical classicism in Russia. It is the comedy genre that is becoming the most important and widespread in stage and dramatic art. The best comedies of this time are part of social and literary life, are associated with satire and often have political orientation. The popularity of comedy lay in its direct connection with life. “The Minor” was created within the framework of the rules of classicism: the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, the rule of three unities in composition, “ speaking names" However, realistic features are also visible in the comedy: the authenticity of the images, the depiction of noble life and social relations.

Famous creativity researcher D.I. Fonvizina G.A. Gukovsky believed that “in Nedorosl” two literary style, and classicism is defeated. Classical rules prohibited mixing sad, funny and serious motives. “In Fonvizin’s comedy there are elements of drama, there are motives that were supposed to touch and touch the viewer. In “The Minor,” Fonvizin not only laughs at vices, but also glorifies virtue. “The Minor” is half-comedy, half-drama. In this regard, Fonvizin, breaking the tradition of classicism, took advantage of the lessons of the new bourgeois drama of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature of the 18th century. M., 1939).

By making both negative and positive characters life-like, Fonvizin managed to create a new type of realistic comedy. Gogol wrote that the plot of “The Minor” helped the playwright to deeply and insightfully reveal the most important aspects of the social existence of Russia, “the wounds and illnesses of our society, severe internal abuses, which by the merciless power of irony are exposed in stunning evidence” (N.V. Gogol, complete collection . op. vol. VIII).

The accusatory pathos of the content of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. These are satire and journalism. Destructive and merciless satire fills all scenes depicting lifestyle the Prostakova family. Starodum’s final remark, which ends “The Minor”: “These are the fruits of evil!” - gives the whole play a special sound.

Subjects

The comedy “Minor” is based on two problems that especially worried the writer. This is the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education became national significance, since proper education could save noble society from degradation.

The comedy “Nedorosl” (1782) became a landmark event in the development of Russian comedy. It represents a complex, well-thought-out system in which every line, every character, every word is subordinated to the identification of the author's intention. Having started the play as an everyday comedy of manners, Fonvizin does not stop there, but boldly goes further, to the root cause of “evil morals,” the fruits of which are known and strictly condemned by the author. The reason for the vicious education of the nobility in feudal and autocratic Russia is the established state system, which gives rise to arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, the problem of education turns out to be inextricably linked with the entire life and political structure of the state in which people live and act from top to bottom. The Skotinins and Prostakovs, ignorant, limited in mind, but not limited in their power, can only educate their own kind. Their characters are drawn by the author especially carefully and fully, with all the authenticity of life. Fonvizin significantly expanded the scope of classicism’s requirements for the comedy genre here. The author completely overcomes the schematism inherent in his earlier heroes, and the characters in “The Minor” become not only real persons, but also household figures.

Idea

Defending her cruelty, crimes and tyranny, Prostakova says: “Am I not powerful in my people too?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And then she unexpectedly refers to the law: “I’m not free! A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The amazed Starodum and together with him the author exclaim only: “She is a master at interpreting decrees!”

Subsequently, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky rightly said: “It’s all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they contain the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama is in them... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness.” Prostakova does not want to recognize any duties of the nobility, she calmly violates Peter the Great’s law on the compulsory education of nobles, she knows only her rights. In her person, a certain part of the nobles refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities. There is no need to talk about any kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving state interests. Fonvizin saw what this actually led to: state collapse, immorality, lies and corruption, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. That’s why he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “The state in which the most honorable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign and its corps and represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name only and is sold to every scoundrel who has robbed the fatherland.”

So, the idea of ​​​​the comedy: condemnation of ignorant and cruel landowners who consider themselves full masters of life, do not comply with state and moral laws, affirmation of the ideals of humanity and enlightenment.

Nature of the conflict

The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in public life countries. Mrs. Prostakova states that the decree “on noble freedom” (which freed the nobleman from compulsory service to the state established by Peter I) made him “free” primarily in relation to serfs, freeing him from all burdensome human and moral responsibilities to society. Fonvizin puts a different view on the role and responsibilities of a nobleman into the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. Starodum on political and moral ideals- a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.

All the heroes of the comedy are drawn into the conflict, the action seems to be taken out of the landowner's house, family and acquires a socio-political character: the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the authorities, and the lack of rights of the peasants.

Main characters

The audience was attracted to the comedy “Minor”, ​​first of all, goodies. The serious scenes in which Starodum and Pravdin performed were received with great enthusiasm. Thanks to Starodum, performances turned into a kind of public demonstration. “At the end of the play,” recalls one of his contemporaries, “the audience threw a wallet filled with gold and silver onto Mr. Dmitrevsky’s stage... Mr. Dmitrevsky, picking it up, made a speech to the audience and said goodbye to her” (“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”, 1840, No. 5.).

One of the main characters of Fonvizin's play is Starodum. In his worldview, he is a bearer of the ideas of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Starodum served in the army, fought bravely, was wounded, but was not rewarded. It was received by his former friend, the count, who refused to go to the active army. Having retired, Starodum tries to serve at court. Disappointed, he leaves for Siberia, but remains true to his ideals. He is ideological inspirer fight against Prostakova. In reality, Starodum’s like-minded official Pravdin acts on the Prostakovs’ estate not on behalf of the government, but “out of his own deed of heart.” The success of Starodum determined Fonvizin’s decision to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” in 1788.

The positive characters are depicted by the playwright somewhat palely and schematically. Starodum and his associates teach from the stage throughout the entire play. But these were the laws of dramaturgy of that time: classicism presupposed the depiction of heroes who delivered monologues and teachings “from the author.” Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas.

Fonvizin presents negative characters with amazing realism: Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son Mitrofan, Prostakova’s evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and law, they bow only to power and wealth, they fear only material force and are always cunning, using all means to achieve their benefits, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morals, ideas, ideals, or any moral principles, not to mention knowledge and respect for laws.

The central figure of this group, one of the significant characters in Fonvizin’s play, is Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the main spring driving the stage action, for in this provincial noblewoman there is some powerful vital force that is lacking not only in the positive characters, but also in her lazy, selfish son and pig-like brother. “This face in a comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically,” historian V.O., an expert on the era, said about Prostakova. Klyuchevsky. Yes, this character is completely negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin’s comedy is that his mistress Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the mistresses Prostakova in real life and will be defenseless.

From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, spies, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, government official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot calm her down. At the heart of this living, strong, completely folk character- monstrous tyranny, intrepid impudence, greed for the material goods of life, the desire for everything to be according to her liking and will. But this evil, cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm. “This insane love for one’s child is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity was expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that don’t eat her child,” N.V. wrote about Prostakova. Gogol. For the sake of her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milon, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.”

Place of minor characters

Other characters also act on the stage: Prostakova’s downtrodden and intimidated husband, and her brother Taras Skotinin, who loves his pigs more than anything in the world, and the noble “minor” - his mother’s favorite, the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan, who does not want to learn anything, spoiled and corrupted by his mother’s upbringing. Next to them are the following: the Prostakovs' servant - the tailor Trishka, the serf nanny, the former nurse Mitrofana Eremeevna, his teacher - the village sexton Kuteikin, the retired soldier Tsifirkin, the cunning rogue German coachman Vralman. In addition, the remarks and speeches of Prostakova, Skotinin and other characters - positive and negative - constantly remind the viewer of the peasants of the Russian serf village, invisibly present behind the scenes, given by Catherine II to full and uncontrolled power by Skotinin and Prostakov. It is they, remaining behind the stage, who actually become the main suffering face of the comedy; their fate casts a menacing, tragic reflection on the fate of its noble characters. The names of Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin, Kuteikin, Vralman became household names.

Plot and composition

The plot of Fonvizin's comedy is simple. In the family of provincial landowners the Prostakovs, their distant relative lives - Sophia, who remained an orphan. Mrs. Prostakova’s brother, Taras Skotinin, and the Prostakovs’ son, Mitrofan, would like to marry Sophia. At a critical moment for the girl, when she is desperately divided by her uncle and nephew, another uncle appears - Starodum. He becomes convinced of the evil nature of the Prostakov family with the help of the progressive official Pravdin. Sophia marries the man she loves - officer Milon. The Prostakovs' estate is taken into state custody for cruel treatment of serfs. Mitrofan is sent to military service.

The plot of Fonvizin's comedy was based on the conflict of the era, the socio-political life of the 70s - early 80s of the 18th century. This is a struggle with the serf woman Prostakova, depriving her of the right to own her estate. At the same time, other storylines are traced in the comedy: the struggle for Sofya Prostakova, Skotinin and Milon, the story of the union loving friend friend of Sophia and Milon. Although they do not form the main plot.

"The Minor" is a comedy in five acts. Events take place on the Prostakov estate. A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is devoted to solving the problem of education. These are scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, the vast majority of Starodum's moral teachings. The culminating point in the development of this theme, undoubtedly, is the scene of Mitrofan’s examination in the 4th act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of the Prostakovs and Skotinins.

Artistic originality

Fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic situations, individualized Speaking characters, evil satire on the Russian nobility, ridicule of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive. Young Fonvizin attacked noble society and its vices, the fruits of half-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of severe tyranny, everyday everyday cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language understandable to the audience, sharp current problems, recognizable collisions. All this is in Fonvizin’s famous comedy “The Minor,” which is still staged today.

Fonvizin created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of words and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, but his heroes positive characters. As a member of the Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in studying and improving his contemporary language. Fonvizin masterfully builds the linguistic characteristics of his characters: these are rude, offensive words in Prostakova’s uncouth speeches; the words of soldier Tsy-firkin, characteristic of military life; Church Slavonic words and quotes from the spiritual books of seminarian Kuteikin; Vralman's broken Russian speech and the speech of the noble heroes of the play - Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin. Certain words and phrases from Fonvizin's comedy became popular. Thus, already during the playwright’s lifetime, the name Mitrofan became a household name and meant a lazy person and an ignorant person. Phraseologisms have become widely known: “Trishkin caftan”, “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married”, etc.

Meaning of the work

The “people's” (according to Pushkin) comedy “Nedorosl” reflected the acute problems of Russian life. The audience, seeing it in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin’s cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the audience of that time: “My grandmother told me that during Nedorosl’s performance there was a crush in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who had come to the service from the steppe villages, were present here - and, consequently, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy thought upon leaving it,” historian V.O. wrote about “The Minor.” Klyuchevsky.

Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “The Minor” authentically social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, resulting from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.” Realism and satire help the author of the comedy talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education “the key to the well-being of the state.” And all the comic and tragic circumstances he described and the very characters of the negative characters can safely be called the fruits of ignorance and evil.

In Fonvizin's comedy there is grotesque, and satirical comedy, and a farcical beginning, and a lot of serious things, something that makes the viewer think. With all this, “Nedorosl” had a strong impact on the development of Russian national drama, as well as the entire “most magnificent and, perhaps, most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line” (M. Gorky).

Denis Fonvizin’s immortal comedy “The Minor” is an outstanding work of Russian literature of the 18th century. Bold satire and truthfully described reality are the main components of this writer’s skill. Centuries later, every now and then modern society heated debates emerge about the main character of the play, Mitrofanushka. Who is he: a victim of improper upbringing or shining example moral decay of society?

The comedy “Brigadier” written by Fonvizin, which had a stunning success in St. Petersburg, became the basis of one of the world’s greatest literary monuments. After its publication, the writer did not return to drama for more than ten years, devoting himself more and more to state issues and tasks. However, the thought of creating a new book excited the author’s imagination. Let’s not hide the fact that, according to scientists, the first note related to “The Minor” was started back in the 1770s, long before its publication.

After a trip to France in 1778. The playwright had an exact plan for writing the future work. Interesting fact— initially Mitrofanushka was Ivanushka, which naturally spoke of the similarity of the two comedies (Ivan was a character in “The Brigadier”). In 1781 the play was completed. Of course, a production of this type meant coverage of one of the most problematic issues of the noble society of that time. However, despite the risk, Fonvizin became the direct “instigator” of the literary revolution. The premiere was postponed due to the empress's hostility to any kind of satire, but it still took place on September 24, 1782.

Genre of the work

COMEDY is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict is specifically resolved. It has a number of signs:

1. does not entail the death of one representative of the warring parties;
2. aimed at “nothing” goals;
3. the narrative is lively and vivid.

Also in Fonvizin’s work, a satirical orientation is obvious. This means that the author set himself the task of ridiculing social vices. This is an attempt to disguise life problems under the mask of a smile.

“Minor” is a work built according to the laws of classicism. One story line, one location, and all events take place within 24 hours. However, this concept is also consistent with realism, as they say individual items and places of action. Besides, characters They are very reminiscent of real landowners from the outback, ridiculed and condemned by the playwright. Fonvizin added something new to classicism - merciless and sharp humor.

What is the work about?

The plot of Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” revolves around a family of landowners who are completely mired in immorality and tyranny. Children became like their rude and narrow-minded parents, and their sense of morality suffered as a result. Sixteen-year-old Mitrofanushka is trying his best to finish his studies, but he lacks the desire and ability. The mother looks at this carelessly, she does not care whether her son will develop. She prefers that everything remain as it is; any progress is alien to her.

The Prostakovs “sheltered” a distant relative, the orphan Sophia, who differs from the rest of the family not only in her outlook on life, but also in her good manners. Sophia is the heiress of a large estate, which Mitrofanushka’s uncle, Skotinin, who is a great hunter, “looks” at. Marriage is the only one affordable way to take over Sophia's household, so the relatives around her are trying to persuade her into an advantageous marriage.

Starodum, Sophia’s uncle, sends his niece a letter. Prostakova is terribly dissatisfied with this “trick” of her relative, who was considered dead in Siberia. The deceit and arrogance inherent in her nature is manifested in the accusation of a “deceptive” letter, supposedly “amorous”. Illiterate landowners will soon learn the true content of the message, resorting to the help of the guest Pravdin. He reveals to the whole family the truth about the Siberian inheritance he left, which gives him as much as ten thousand in annual income.

It was then that Prostakova came up with an idea - to marry Sophia to Mitrofanushka in order to appropriate the inheritance for herself. However, officer Milon, walking through the village with soldiers, “bursts” into her plans. He met with his old friend Pravdin, who, as it turned out, is a member of the vicegerental board. His plans include observing landowners mistreating their people.

Milon speaks of his long-standing love for a sweet person who was transported to an unknown place due to the death of a relative. Suddenly he meets Sophia - she is that same girl. The heroine talks about her future marriage with the undersized Mitrofanushka, from which the groom “flashes up” like a spark, but then gradually “weakens” with detailed story about "narrowed".

Sophia's uncle has arrived. Having met Milon, he accepts Sophia’s choice, while inquiring about the “correctness” of her decision. At the same time, the Prostakovs' estate was transferred to state custody due to cruel treatment of the peasants. Seeking support, the mother hugs Mitrofanushka. But the Son did not intend to be polite and polite, he was rude, causing the venerable matron to faint. Waking up, she laments: “I am completely lost.” And Starodum, pointing at her, says, “These are the fruits worthy of evil!”

The main characters and their characteristics

Pravdin, Sophia, Starodum and Milon are representatives of the so-called “new” time, the Age of Enlightenment. The moral components of their souls are nothing more than goodness, love, thirst for knowledge and compassion. The Prostakovs, Skotinin and Mitrofan are representatives of the “old” nobility, where the cult of material well-being, rudeness and ignorance flourish.

• The minor Mitrofan is a young man whose ignorance, stupidity and inability to adequately analyze the situation do not allow him to become an active and reasonable representative of the noble community. “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” is a life motto that fully reflects the character of a young man who does not take anything seriously.
• Sophia is an educated, kind girl who becomes a black sheep in a society of envious and greedy people.
• Prostakova is a cunning, careless, rude woman with many shortcomings and a lack of love and respect for all living things, except for her beloved son Mitrofanushka. Prostakova’s upbringing is only a confirmation of the persistence of conservatism, which does not allow the Russian nobility to develop.
• Starodum raises “his little blood” in a different way - for him Sophia is no longer a small child, but a mature member of society. He gives the girl freedom of choice, thereby teaching her the correct fundamentals of life. In it, Fonvizin portrays the type of personality that has gone through all the “ups” and downs,” becoming not only a “worthy parent,” but also an undoubted example for the future generation.
• Skotinin, just like everyone else, is an example of a “talking surname.” A person whose inner essence is more similar to some kind of rude, uncouth cattle than to a well-bred person.

Theme of the work

• The education of the “new” nobility is the main theme of the comedy. “Undergrowth” is a kind of allusion to the “disappearing” moral principles in people who are afraid of transformations. Landowners raise their offspring the old fashioned way, without paying due attention to their education. But those who were not taught, but were only spoiled or intimidated, will not be able to take care of either their family or Russia.
• Family theme. The family is a social institution on which the development of the individual depends. Despite Prostakova’s rudeness and disrespect towards all residents, she cherishes her beloved son, who does not at all appreciate her care or her love. This behavior is a typical example of ingratitude, which is a consequence of spoiling and parental adoration. The landowner does not understand that her son sees her treatment of other people and repeats it. Thus, the weather in the house determines the character of the young man and his shortcomings. Fonvizin emphasizes the importance of maintaining warmth, tenderness and respect in the family towards all its members. Only then will children be respectful and parents worthy of respect.
• The theme of freedom of choice. The “new” stage is Starodum’s relationship with Sophia. Starodum gives her freedom of choice, without limiting her with his beliefs, which can affect her worldview, thereby cultivating in her the ideal of a noble future.

Main problems

• The main problem of the work is the consequences of improper upbringing. The Prostakov family - family tree, which has its roots in the distant past of the nobility. This is what the landowners boast about, not realizing that the glory of their ancestors does not add to their dignity. But class pride has clouded their minds, they do not want to move forward and achieve new achievements, they think that everything will always be as before. That’s why they don’t realize the need for education; in their world, enslaved by stereotypes, it really isn’t needed. Mitrofanushka will also sit in the village all her life and live off the labor of her serfs.
• The problem of serfdom. The moral and intellectual decay of the nobility under serfdom is an absolutely logical result of the tsar’s unjust policies. The landowners have become completely lazy; they don’t need to work to support themselves. The managers and peasants will do everything for them. With such a social system, the nobles have no incentive to work and get an education.
• The problem of greed. The thirst for material well-being blocks access to morality. Prostakovs are fixated on money and power, they don’t care whether their child is happy, for them happiness is synonymous with wealth.
• The problem of ignorance. Stupidity deprives the heroes of spirituality; their world is too limited and tied to the material side of life. They are not interested in anything other than primitive physical pleasures, because they don’t know anything else at all. Fonvizin saw the true “human appearance” only in that person who was raised by literate people, and not by half-educated sextons.

Comedy idea

Fonvizin was a person, so he did not accept rudeness, ignorance and cruelty. He professed the belief that a person is born a “blank slate”, therefore only upbringing and education can make him a moral, virtuous and intelligent citizen who will benefit the fatherland. Thus, chanting the ideals of humanism - main idea"Undergrown." A young man who obeys the call of goodness, intelligence and justice is a true nobleman! If he is brought up in the spirit of Prostakova, then he will never go beyond the narrow confines of his limitations and will not understand the beauty and versatility of the world in which he lives. He will not be able to work for the good of society and will not leave anything significant behind.

At the end of the comedy, the author speaks of the triumph of “retribution”: Prostakova loses the estate and the respect of her own son, raised in accordance with her spiritual and physical ideals. This is the price to pay for miseducation and ignorance.

What does it teach?

Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” first of all, teaches respect for one’s neighbors. The sixteen-year-old young man Mitrofanushka did not perceive the care of either his mother or his uncle at all; he took it for granted as a fact: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane? Yes, I don’t know why you deigned to attack me.” The natural result of rough treatment in the home is the ending where the son pushes away his loving mother.

The lessons of the comedy “Minor” do not end there. It is not so much respect as ignorance that shows people in the position they are carefully trying to hide. Stupidity and ignorance hover in the comedy like a bird over a nest, they envelop the village, thereby not letting the residents out of their own shackles. The author cruelly punishes the Prostakovs for their narrow-mindedness, depriving them of their property and the very opportunity to continue their idle lifestyle. Thus, everyone needs to learn, because even the most stable position in society can easily be lost if you are an uneducated person.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

The comedy is called "Undergrown". What is this word? Obviously not from the lexicon of the 21st century... Let's turn to the dictionary. Efremova’s dictionary gives the following interpretation of this word: “1. A young man who has not reached the age of majority. // A young nobleman who has not yet reached the age of majority and has not yet entered the public service. 2. transfer a stupid, underdeveloped young man; an undereducated, undeveloped person."

The word undergrowth acquired a second meaning thanks to Fonvizin’s comedy. If the name of the comedy is “Undergrown,” then he is her main character. So
or not? Who else is in the spotlight of viewers and readers? (Prostakovs, Skotinin, Starodum, Sophia.)

Let's carefully re-read the playbill. Judging by the author's notes next to the character's name, what is important to him? Where and in what environment will the action take place?

Fonvizin draws attention to family ties and social status heroes.

The action takes place in a landowner's house, in a noble family, which is surrounded by people of different classes. Therefore, family and social relations, and the play will raise issues related to
these spheres.

Let us also pay attention to what names and surnames the playwright gives to his characters: Prostakovs, Skotinin, Pravdin, Starodum, Sophia, Milan, Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman. Such names and surnames are called speaking. What do they tell us about their carriers?

The Prostakovs are apparently extremely primitive in their development, Skotinin has a strong animal nature, Pravdin is a champion of truth, Starodum is a man faithful to traditions, Sophia is wise, Milan is a sweet, courteous person, Tsyfirkin is associated with numbers (arithmetic), Kuteikin is a former seminarian (the word kutya reminds us of this, from which, apparently, the surname is derived), Vralman is a deceitful person.

Behind many names lie not only the characters of the characters, but also moral concepts that are important to the author. Think about what kind of characters they are associated with.

Justice, honesty, honor, loyalty to traditions, wisdom, love are associated with Starodumam, Pravdin, Sophia, Milan. The animal nature in man, selfishness, ignorance, pride are represented in the Prostakov and Skotinin families. Thanks to the speaking names, we also come to the problems raised in the work: morality and immorality (viceness), enlightenment and ignorance, spirituality and lack of spirituality.

Let us remember the words with which the play ends: “Here are the fruits of evil.” Who do they refer to? Who are they talking about and by whom?

These are the words of Starodum about Mitrofan and the fate of the Prostakov family. This means that, after all, the emphasis is not on Mitrofan alone, but on the entire Prostakov family.

What place does Mitrofan occupy in the Prostakov family?

He is the son of the Prostakovs and nephew of Skotinin. Let's see how, judging by the statements, family members evaluate their child: “This child is smart, this child is smart. Funny man, entertainer; sometimes I am beside myself with him, with joy I truly don’t believe that he is my son...” (Prostakov).
“Mitrofan for me” (Skotinin).
“Small, sharp, agile”; “Groom for anyone. (Prostakova).

They are proud of him and believe that they did everything possible to bring their child into the public eye. “We did everything to make him the way you would like to see him,” says Prostakova.

And what did he become?

Rude, arrogant, lazy, ignorant, ungrateful, selfish.
Sophia says: “Even though he is sixteen years old, he has already reached the last degree of his perfection and will not go further.” What does it mean?

How does Mitrofan appear here?

He is infinitely lazy and ignorant: he does not know how to perform the simplest arithmetic operations, he does not understand what he reads and writes. And on top of all this, he is disrespectful and rude to his teachers. But the parents are sure: he has been trained in the best possible way, and they decide to show off their son’s knowledge to the Starodums.

How does this scene expand our idea of ​​Mitrofan’s “education”?
The minor does not even know what geography is, does not understand the essence of the subject history, is not familiar with the parts of speech, but knows how to very wittily get out of a sticky situation (he determines the part of speech not by grammar, but by the use of the subject: the door that is “attached” to its place,” is an adjective, and that
that “there’s a week in the closet… it’s not hung yet: so that’s a noun for now.

This is for him “the last degree of... perfection,” according to Sophia.
Why is he doing so poorly in school? Is this due to stupidity? Why doesn’t he want to study, doesn’t value education?

No, he is far from stupid, he is even quite shrewd when it comes to some kind of benefit. He simply does not have any desire or motivation to study: why should he study if he is wealthy, his mother decides everything for him. For fun and adventures
the dovecote and other places do not require education, and Mitrofan doesn’t need anything else from life.

Why does he have such an attitude towards learning?

So, after all, both mother and father and uncle are proud of their lack of education:
“People live and have lived without science. The deceased father was a commander for fifteen years, and at the same time he deigned to die because he did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to make and save enough wealth” (Prostakova).

“If we have to prove that the teaching is nonsense, then let’s take Uncle Vavila Falaleich.
Nobody had heard from him about literacy, and he didn’t want to hear from anyone.” (Skotinin.)

“I haven’t read anything in my life, sister! God saved me from this boredom!” (The same one.)
From this pride comes the attitude towards learning. Prostakova says to her son: “At least for the sake of appearances, learn....” or “Mitrofanushka... if studying is so dangerous for your little head, then for me, stop.”

So where will Mitrofan have the desire to study if his family constantly says that studying is a forced, optional activity, if his parents themselves indulge his idleness (“go frolic, Mitrofanushka”). We can say that the family purposefully instills in its offspring an attitude towards education and science: “Don’t learn this stupid science.” And without that, “this is a smart child, this is a reasonable child.”

And what, according to the parents, are the advantages of Mitrofan?

He is a “funny man, an entertainer.” (This is the father’s assessment.) And here are the mother’s assessments: “Our Mitrofanushka is just like his uncle - and he’s the same hunter from pigs to pigs...”; “You... already understand so much that you will raise the kids yourself”; “It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward. With his intelligence, let him fly far, and God forbid.” Groomed, they are proud of his lack of development, addiction to pigs and idleness. Is this something you can be proud of?

The question is rhetorical. Of course not! Only those who are ignorant, who are not used to working, and who find the meaning of life only in satisfying their needs can be proud of this.

The name Mitrofan translated from Greek means “revealing his mother.” How are mother and son similar?

Both are rude, ignorant, self-serving, selfish, arrogant. Mitrofan exactly
repeats the mother’s behavior with others (and even with the father), her vocabulary. Truly the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree...

The son absorbs everything like a sponge and becomes a worthy embodiment of the family traits of the Prostakov-Skotinin family. Name these family traits. (Pride, selfishness, greed, laziness, rudeness, ignorance.)

Can these traits be called the basis of evil behavior? What other traits would you consider evil?

Undoubtedly. After all, the main source of evil behavior can be called pride, which gives rise to arrogance, selfishness, the desire for power, greed, cruelty, rudeness towards others (since I am higher than others, everything is allowed to me!), the belief that education is not necessary for those who it's better than others.
Prostakova is not only rude in dealing with others, she can be hypocritical if she needs to achieve her goal: having learned about the inheritance that Sophia should get from her uncle, she immediately changes her attitude towards her, becoming affectionate and even servile.

A plan to marry Mitrofan to a suddenly rich relative is instantly born in her head, and when this plan fails, Mrs. Prostakova is ready to use violence and deception.

The simpletons are cruel to their serfs and shamelessly rob them. “Since we took away everything the peasants had, we can’t take anything back. Such a disaster! - complains to Prostakov’s brother. Her husband is an absolutely spineless person, and therefore he is even more dangerous, since he thoughtlessly shares all the plans and views of his wife.

Their son treats rudely not only the servants, but also his parents, and easily agrees to his mother’s treacherous plan to marry him.

When do you think the culmination of evil comes? What scene, in your opinion, can be called the culmination of evil behavior?

This is the finale of the comedy, when Mitrofan pushes his mother away with the words: “Get rid of yourself, mother, how you imposed yourself...” black ingratitude in response to love, albeit blind, but love, no compassion - that’s all that the mother deserved from her son. “Here are the worthy fruits of evil…” Is there an alternative to it?

Eat. These are Starodum, Pravdin, Sofya, Milan. How does their good nature manifest itself? What would you classify as good morals?

Eighth-graders name honesty, conscientiousness, decency, mercy, kindness, hard work, loyalty, responsibility.

Unfortunately, among these qualities there is almost no love for the Fatherland, although Fonvizin’s positive heroes talk about it more than once. These are the costs of upbringing for the last 20 years...

Try to recognize the characters by their lines.

“I never read letters without the permission of those to whom they are written.” “The direct dignity in a person is the soul...” (Pravdin).

“It is much more honest to be treated without guilt than to be rewarded without merit.”
“Respect alone should be flattering to a person - spiritual; and sincere respect
Only those who are in rank not according to money are worthy, and in the nobility not according to rank” (Starodum).

“I will use all my efforts to earn the good opinion of worthy people.”
“Yes, I don’t understand this... how can a person remember everything only about himself?” (Sophia).

What are life values malevolent and good-natured heroes?

For Prostakovs and Skotinin, wealth comes first, which allows them to satisfy any needs, acquire ranks and position in society, and power, which gives them the right to manage their own and other people’s lives.

For Starodum, Sophia, Milon, Pravdin, life priorities are honor, honesty, service to the Fatherland, virtue, love, education.

These life priorities of good-natured heroes come into natural conflict with the priorities of malevolent heroes, and their clash becomes the main conflict of the play, or, figuratively speaking, its “engine.”

What became the fruits of evil?

The depravity of the heroes, which was expressed in personality degradation, arrogance, rudeness, laziness, hypocrisy; loss of family ties (in the finale of the comedy, the son disgraces his mother, and the mother renounces her son); loss of honor and dignity (an attempt to achieve one's goals through violence and deception).

Has good behavior borne fruit? Which?

I brought it! Good-natured heroes remained true to their principles, did not compromise their honor and dignity, followed the rules of virtue in life and, as a result, found happiness...

Let's return to the title of the comedy. Let us remember the meaning of the word undergrowth, there are two of them: historical, denoting a certain status of a young nobleman, and figurative: a stupid, underdeveloped young man, an undereducated, undeveloped person. What meaning is used in the title of the comedy?

Of course, the leading one is the second one, and it appeared together with Fonvizin’s comedy.

Calling the comedy “The Minor,” Fonvizin focuses on a young nobleman who has not yet entered the civil service, but will soon. What should it be like? Like Mitrofan Prostakov?

If civil servants are like him, what will the state be like, what awaits it? Is there an answer in comedy to the question of what a nobleman should be? Who gives this answer?

“A nobleman who is not worthy of being a nobleman—I don’t know anything more vile than him in the world,” says Starodum. That is, according to Fonvizin, a nobleman should be a model of service to the Fatherland, the state, selfless and selfless, honest and educated.

This is how we see Starodum himself, Pravdin, Milon.

But if civil servants are like Mitrofan, who does not need anything in life but pleasures, uneducated, rude, narrow-minded, then the state, without a doubt, will decline and its people will be in poverty.

The topic of today's story is the history of the creation and analysis of Fonvizin's "Minor". The work of the author of Catherine’s era has not lost its relevance today. Fonvizin’s comedy “Nedorosl” was included in the fund classical literature. This work touches on a number of problems and issues that attract readers at all times.

Analysis of Fonvizin’s “Nedorosl” should include brief description heroes of this dramatic work. It is also worth talking about the idea of ​​the Russian writer. What inspired Fonvizin to write a comedy that has been popular for more than two hundred years? What shortcomings of society did the author primarily want to ridicule in his essay? And what was the reaction of contemporaries to this work? The answers to all these questions are contained in the article. But before we begin to analyze Fonvizin’s “The Minor,” we should talk about the main events depicted in the play.

Actions, as in any other dramatic work of the era of classicism, take place over the course of just one day.

The events take place in the village of the Prostakov landowners. What is the meaning of the title of the comedy “Minor” by Fonvizin? Even without knowing the meaning of this word, you can guess that it has a negative connotation. The meaning of the title of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” should be sought in the realities of the 18th century. The writer's contemporaries used this term in relation to young nobles who did not receive a special certificate indicating that they had received an education. This document was issued by the teacher. If the young man did not have a certificate, he was not accepted into the service and was not allowed to marry.

The son is called a minor in the comedy main character- landowner Prostakova. The work begins with a scene taking place in her house. Prostakova is angry with Trishka because he sewed a caftan that was too wide for her son Mitrofanushka. She does not take into account the fact that the servant does not have the necessary skills in tailoring, and giving him such instructions was initially a mistake.

A sixteen-year-old boy does not show much zeal in his studies, which is facilitated by the lack of education and stupidity of his mother. We'll tell you more about these characters later. First, the author introduces readers to Sophia, the positive heroine of the work.

The girl has not been living in Prostakova’s house for long. She is a relative of a landowner, and she has no fortune. At least that’s what Prostakova believes. But one day Sophia receives a letter from her uncle Starodum. Mrs. Prostakova is not able to read the message because she has not been taught to read and write. Pravdin, having read the letter, gives her a summary. In Fonvizin’s “The Minor,” this hero, along with Starodum, is a supporter of enlightenment.

What is the letter Sophia received about? Starodum writes to his niece that he will bequeath her a huge fortune. This excites almost all the characters in the comedy. Prostakova believed that the girl was an orphan. But an unexpected turn of events suggests that Starodum’s niece can be married off to the careless Mitrofan.

Skotinin also begins to dream about marrying Sophia. However, Sophia's heart is occupied. She is in love with officer Milon, whom she met in Moscow before she was orphaned. Soon she will meet the young man again, and he will save her from the claims of the selfish Skotinin and the despotic Prostakova.

Starodum comes to the small town where the main events take place. He recognizes one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers as his former coachman. The teachers of Prostakova’s son deserve special attention.

Kuteikin is a half-educated seminarian. Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant. Vralman, whose last name speaks very eloquently of his human qualities, does not teach Mitrofanushka anything, because he himself knows little. As already mentioned, he previously worked as a coachman. But he was fired and couldn’t find a suitable job, so he became a teacher. Prostakova does not notice that Vralman is incompetent in teaching, since she herself is extremely ignorant.

History of writing

Fonvizin’s idea for the comedy “The Minor” arose in 1778. The Russian writer spent more than a year in France, where he studied jurisprudence and philosophy. He observed how European aristocrats lived and came to a rather disappointing conclusion: the Russian nobility was mired in inertia and ignorance. Upon returning home, Fonvizin began writing the work. It took him more than three years.

The idea of ​​the comedy “Minor” by Fonvizin was very original at that time. The writer sought to ridicule the shortcomings of typical representatives of the landowner class. It is not surprising that both Moscow and St. Petersburg refused to stage his comedy for a long time.

Criticism of contemporaries

The theme of Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" seemed interesting to the censors, but there were too many bold lines in it. The premiere of the play took place in 1782. Fonvizin's work was a stunning success. True, the theater on whose stage the play was staged was almost closed. In addition, the comedy displeased Catherine II.

Idea of ​​the work

The spiritual decay of representatives of the nobility under serfdom is the main theme of the comedy, about which we're talking about In this article. According to Fonvizin, pedagogical methods determine the moral character of an entire generation. In the 18th century, landowners often entrusted the upbringing of their children to half-educated sextons, illiterate nannies, and foreigners with dubious education. Such “teachers” are only capable of teaching young men like Mitrofanushka, the central character of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.”

The author of this work showed, using simple examples, that the majority of nobles do not remember either honor or dignity. They do not serve the interests of the state, do not comply with moral and state laws. Sharpness dramatic work Fonvizin is given the victory of good over evil, which, however, is of a random nature. If Starodum had not returned from Siberia on time, and Pravdin had not received orders to take Prostakova’s property, everything would not have ended so well for Sophia. She would not have left the city with the young, educated officer Milon, but would have become the wife of the stupid Mitrofanushka.

Characters

The system of images in Fonvizin’s “Nedorosl” is quite simple. Heroes are divided into positive and negative, almost all of them have speaking names: Vralman, Starodum, Pravdin. Negative characters are representatives of the old nobility, trying with all their might to hold on to the outdated ideas of the serf system. They are opposed by heroes who support the ideas of the Enlightenment - Pravdin, Sophia, Milon, Starodum.

Positive and negative heroes

Among the characters in the comedy, several dual pairs can be distinguished. So, Sophia is opposed to Mitrofanushka. Starodum is an adherent of educational views. This is a man of new times. And therefore he represents the opposite of the landowner Prostakova. Milo is opposed to Skotinin. If the first is educated and brought up and has sincere feelings for Sophia, then the second wants to marry the girl for selfish reasons. Skotinin dreams of acquiring land where he will be actively involved in livestock farming, namely raising pigs.

Mitrofanushka

An analysis of Fonvizin’s “Minor” cannot do without a description of this bright character. The stupid, spoiled young man is absolutely not prepared for an independent life. His mother, servants or nannies do everything for him. From Prostakova, the boy adopts an uncontrollable passion for money. He, like his mother, is rude and disrespectful to his family. Mitrofanushka inherited his weak-willedness from his father. A sixteen-year-old boy does not want to study, but wants to get married. He is the opposite of Sophia, an educated, serious, intelligent girl with a difficult fate.

Prostakova

When analyzing Fonvizin’s “Minor,” you should pay attention to the negative heroine. Prostakova is an uneducated, stupid woman, but at the same time very cunning. She is a practical housewife and loving mother. For Prostakova, Mitrofanushka’s carefree future and happiness come above all else. But in her upbringing she makes fatal mistakes, because she doesn’t know anything about the right ones. pedagogical methods. She treats her son the way her parents once treated her. In running the household and raising her son, the landowner uses exhausted values ​​and ideas.

Starodum

When analyzing Fonvizin’s “Minor” Special attention should be given to a hero who symbolizes educational ideas, which few knew about in Russia in the 18th century. Starodum communicates with Sophia in a completely different way than Prostakova communicates with Mitrofanushka. He uses completely different methods of education. Talking with Sophia as an equal, she instructs and gives advice based on her wealth of experience. Knowing nothing about Sophia’s feelings for Milon, he does not make decisions for her. Starodum wants his niece to marry a smart, educated officer, but does not impose his views on her.

In this image, the author depicted his ideal of a teacher and parent. Starodum - authoritative strong personality, who has come a worthy way. For modern readers this hero, of course, is not an ideal educator. But Fonvizin’s contemporaries, inspired by educational ideas, were greatly impressed by him.

The events of the comedy revolve around a wealthy noble family. Everything in their house is topsy-turvy. There is no question of any order. Chaos and disorder reign everywhere. There are no concepts or principles at all here. Complete arbitrariness and oppression.

The owner of the house, Mrs. Prostakova, is a woman of flint, running everything and everyone. The woman even managed own husband curb, forcing you to walk in line. A stupid, uneducated person who puts herself above everyone else. Prostakova does not care about the opinions of others; the woman hears only herself, believing that she always does the right thing.

Prostakova's weak string is Mitrofan's only son. The outlet and love of my life. The guy is allowed everything. The spoiled, selfish brat has no principles, upbringing, or good manners. The teenager doesn't even consider his father worthy of attention, taking the example of a mother who allows her to put her hand on her husband, humiliating her in front of everyone. In fact, Mitrofan is a moral cripple and the mother is to blame for this, fulfilling her son’s whims at his first request. She herself was ignorant and did not consider it necessary to give her son a decent education, instilling in him that studying was a burden and not a necessity. Mitrofan, who grew up in this environment, was spoiled by its influence. What he could have grown up to be, but nothing. Under other circumstances, the guy might have gotten better, but in this situation it was impossible. Some will arouse pity and a bit of compassion, others will be amazed at how cunning and resourceful he is. The guy knew perfectly well how to manipulate his mother for his own purposes and took advantage of it at every opportunity. The doglike devotion in her eyes irritated him. Love and care were stifling. At the end of the work, realizing that the mother had lost everything, the woman ceased to be of interest to him. Why does he need her without money?

The teachers were taken into the house for appearances; this was required by the rules. All were former simple workers. Nobody had higher education. Is it any wonder that Mitrofan learned nothing from them in four years? Vralman is a German, a teacher of French and other sciences. The highest paid. The coachman is in the past. The only one of the trio of teachers with whom Prostakova communicates as equals with some degree of respect.

Sophia suffered the most. The poor orphan, after her guardian Uncle Starodum left in an unknown direction, was left alone to be torn apart by the villainess Prostakova, who saw in her a tasty morsel for her son. Prostakova did nothing without visible benefit for herself. Although Sophia was an orphan, the girl had a dowry, and a good one at that. The pigs in her villages interested not only the owner, but also the owner’s brother, Skotinin. The girl herself was indifferent to him. But Skotinin loved pigs, and adding new heads certainly wouldn’t hurt him.

The positive characters of the comedy are Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia. They seem not as bright as the negative characters in the form of the Prostakov family and Skotinin, but without them the plot would not have been able to develop properly. Their conversations with each other are instructive for everyone. The theme of moral character, education, family values is close and understandable to them. The path they chose is the path of an honest, decent person fighting lawlessness and injustice.

Good eventually triumphed over evil. Starodum returned on time from distant travels, where he solved his material problems. With his arrival, Starodum saved his niece from an unsuccessful marriage. Pravdin managed to take custody of the Prostakov estate, deservedly punishing the unruly lady.
When analyzing the work, it is clear that Fonvizin wanted to focus on the problem of education younger generation, relationship between fathers and children, education. Expand the topic of family values, the attitude of nobles towards serfs.
The ending of the comedy is unpredictable, but in strict accordance with the traditions in which the play was performed, where the righteous and the sinful are intertwined, lining up in one storyline.