D. I. Fonvizin. Minor. Text of the work. Act five. Socio-political idea “Undergrowth It is unlawful to humiliate one’s own kind with slavery

Starodum (Eremeevne).

Sofya and Eremeevna are helping.

This work has entered the public domain. The work was written by an author who died more than seventy years ago, and was published during his lifetime or posthumously, but more than seventy years have also passed since publication. It may be freely used by anyone without anyone's consent or permission and without payment of royalties.

1. Why do you think the comedy begins with a scene with the tailor Trishka? What do we learn about life in the Prostakovs’ house by carefully reading the first act?
The scene with the tailor Trishka shows what kind of order is established in the house of the Prostakov landowners. The reader sees from the first lines that Prostakova is an evil, ignorant woman who does not love or respect anyone, and does not take anyone’s opinion into account. She treats simple peasants, her serfs, like cattle. She has one measure of influence on others - insults and assault. Moreover, she behaves the same way with her loved ones, except for her son Mirofan. She adores Prostakov’s son. She is ready to do anything for him. From the first act it becomes clear that in the Prostakovs’ house the hostess herself is in charge of everything. Everyone is afraid of her and never contradicts her.

2. What are the relationships between the people in this house? How are the characters of the comedy characterized in scene VIII of the fourth act? What means (humor, irony, sarcasm, etc.) does the author use for this characterization? It is said about Mitrofan’s “exam” that in this scene there is a clash of true enlightenment and militant ignorance. Do you agree with this? Why?
Everyone in the house is afraid of Mrs. Prostakova and tries to please her in everything. Otherwise, they will face inevitable punishment in the form of beatings. Mr. Prostakov will never contradict her, he is afraid to express his opinion, relying on his wife in everything. Only Mitrofan is not afraid of his mother. He flatters her, realizing that she is the main one in the house and his well-being, or rather the fulfillment of all his whims, depends on her. All people in the Prostakovs' house are characterized by deep ignorance. It was especially clearly manifested in the scene of Mitrofan’s examination (VIII phenomenon of the fourth act). At the same time, Mrs. Prostakova believes that she herself and her son are very smart and will be able to adapt to this life. But they don’t need literacy, the main thing is more money. She admires her son, pleased with his answers. I agree with the view that true enlightenment and militant ignorance collided in this scene. After all, Prostakova is sure that a person in her circle does not need education at all. The coachman will take you wherever they order. There is nothing special to stand out in society, etc. According to Prostakova, this is how it should be in the world, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool not worthy of her attention.
Fonvizin uses satire to characterize the characters. He ridicules the ignorance of the feudal landowners and shows all the ugliness of serfdom.

3. The poster listing the characters states: Prostakova, his (Mr. Prostakov’s) wife. Meanwhile, in the comedy, its characters characterize themselves differently: “It’s me, my sister’s brother,” “I’m my wife’s husband,” “And I’m my mother’s son.” How do you explain this? Why do you think the full owner of Fonvizin’s estate is not the landowner, but the landowner? Is this connected with the time when the comedy “The Minor” was created?
Since Prostakova is the main one in the house, everyone recognizes themselves as subordinate to her. After all, absolutely everything depends on her decision: the fate of the serfs, son, husband, brother, Sophia, etc. I think that Fonvizin made the landowner the mistress of the estate for a reason. This is directly related to the time when the comedy was created. Then Catherine the Great ruled Russia. The comedy “The Minor,” in my opinion, is a direct appeal to it. Fonvizin believed that it was possible to restore order in the country, to bring ignorant landowners and dishonest officials to justice through the power of the empress. Starodum talks about this. This is evidenced by the fact that Prostakova’s power was deprived by order of higher authorities.

4. Observe how the conflict develops between the positive and negative characters of the comedy. How the idea of ​​comedy is revealed in this conflict (“It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery”)
The conflict between positive and negative characters reaches its climax in the scene of Sophia's theft. The outcome of the conflict is the order received by Pravdin. Based on this order, Mrs. Prostakova is deprived of the right to manage her estate, because impunity has turned her into a despot who is capable of causing enormous harm to society by raising a son like herself. And she is deprived of her power precisely because she cruelly treated the serfs.

5. Which of the characters in the comedy, in your opinion, was Fonvizin more successful than others? Why?
In my opinion, the most successful were D.I. Fonvizin negative characters, especially Mrs. Prostakova. Her image is depicted so clearly and vividly that it is impossible not to admire the skill of the comedy author. But positive images are not so expressive. They are more the spokespersons for Fonvizin’s thoughts.

6. What are the difficulties in reading this old comedy? Why is “Nedorosl” interesting to us today?
The language of comedy is not entirely clear to the modern reader. It is difficult to understand some of the reasoning of Starodum and Pravdin, since they are directly related to the time of creation of the work, to the problems that existed in society during the time of Fonvizin. The comedy is relevant to the problems of education and upbringing that Fonvizin raises in the comedy. And today you can meet Mitrofanushki who “don’t want to study, but want to get married,” and marry profitably, who look for benefits in absolutely everything and achieve their goal at any cost; Mr. Prostakov, for whom money is the most important thing in life, and they are ready to do anything for the sake of profit.

­ It is unlawful to oppress one's own kind through slavery.

It is known that Fonvizin did not choose names and surnames for his heroes by chance, but with the intention of showing their essence. Skotinin, for example, loved his pigs more than anything in the world. In contrast to people like him, heroes with euphonious names are shown: Starodum, Sophia, Milon, Pravdin. A special role is assigned to Starodum, a sixty-year-old retired man, who with his speeches opens the eyes of those around him to the evil morals of the Prostakov family.

This man served at the imperial court and adheres to the old principles. He believes that everyone should receive a public education, and most importantly, maintain goodness in their souls. Because even the smartest person without a kind soul can turn into a monster. The phrase “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery” was introduced precisely by Fonvizin and he put it into the mouth of Starodum. The hero was in every possible way against bullying of the serfs.

In contrast to him, Mrs. Prostakova is shown, easily humiliating, insulting and punishing her peasants. She pays them negligibly little, only the charlatan Vralman, who was once a coachman, manages to receive a high salary from her, like a great scientist. She considers it normal to treat the elderly Eremeevna rudely, who gave forty years of her life in the service of their family. The tailor treats Trishka like cattle.

In a word, Prostakova was accustomed to humiliating the peasants, elevating herself, her klutz son and weak-willed husband against their background. However, everything is decided by the insight of Starodum and the awareness of government official Pravdin. For fraud and mistreatment of the peasants, he deprives the evil landowner of the village and her entire farm. At the end of the work, Prostakova is left with nothing and even her son turns away from her.

...It is lawlessness to oppress one's own kind through slavery.
D. I. Fonvizin

“Everything turned pale before two bright works: before the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin and “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. They do not ridicule one person, but the wounds and illnesses of an entire society, exposed for public display.”

These words were said about Fonvizin by the great Russian writer N.V. Gogol. What caused Fonvizin’s caustic mockery, what fueled his evil jokes?..

The decree of Catherine II of 1762 “On the freedom of the nobility” gave almost unlimited rights to the noble class. And the century of Catherine became a time of external prosperity and internal decline of the country, in all respects, from enlightenment to the development of serfdom. In Catherine's era, the situation of the peasants was especially difficult, because the power of the landowners over the serfs was not limited. Progressive people of their time raised the question of any restrictions on the arbitrariness of landowners. One of the first Russian comedians, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, belonged to them, who in his comedy “The Minor” clearly showed that slavery “cannot be tolerated in a well-established state.”

In his comedy, Fonvizin portrayed in the images of Prostakova and Skotinin not the shortcomings of individuals, but brightly, colorfully and, most importantly, very accurately characterized all serf-landowners with their rudeness, cruelty, and ruthless attitude towards the peasants under their control. These landowners are haunted by a thirst for accumulation, greed, and a passion for profit: they sacrifice everything public to their own, personal. Their attitude - in particular, Mrs. Prostakova and her son - towards education is also characteristic. By not considering it necessary, they thereby further emphasize their moral failure. Their tyranny makes the life of serfs difficult, full of suffering, hardship and pain. No one can make a living from such landowners: neither the courtyard servants, nor the quitrent workers. Both of them feel the imperious and ruthless hand of the master. Fonvizin in his comedy, revealing the image of Mitrofan, makes it clear that even with the new, young generation, the situation of the peasants will not improve, but, most likely, will become even more difficult, since “what can come of such a Mitrofan, for whom the ignorant parents pay even more?” and money for ignorant teachers."

Using images of feudal landowners and their peasants, Fonvizin showed how the corruption of the human personality takes place under the influence of serfdom. The ideology of these people completely coincides with their social position. If Eremeevna is a slave at heart, then Prostakova is a true slave owner. The entire comedy “Undergrowth” fully reflects reality. Belinsky said that “together with Derzhavin, Fonvizin is the complete expression of Catherine’s century.” Fonvizin himself is a nobleman-serf owner. He cannot talk about the complete destruction of serfdom; he only talks about its mitigation. But the main ideological hero of “The Minor,” Starodum, is against the oppression of the human person. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery,” he asserts.

A talented writer, a widely educated person, a prominent political figure, Fonvizin in his works not only acted as an exponent of the advanced ideas of the socio-political life of Russia at that time, but also made an invaluable contribution to the treasury of Russian literature.

Fonvizin was the first Russian writer and playwright to denounce serfdom. In his immortal comedy “The Minor,” he very expressively depicted the unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power, which took on ugly forms during the period of strengthening of the autocratic serfdom system under Catherine II.

According to the rules of classicism, the events in the comedy take place over the course of one day in one place - the estate of the landowner Prostakova. The names of the heroes are extremely eloquent; they can tell a lot about their bearers: Pravdin, Starodum, Vralman, Skotinin.

The unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power in the comedy “The Minor” is depicted vividly and expressively. K.V. Pigarev wrote that “Fonvizin correctly guessed and embodied in the negative images of his comedy the essence of the social force of serfdom, showed the typical features of Russian serf-owners in general, regardless of their social position.” Fonvizin most clearly revealed the power, cruelty, ignorance, and limitations of the landowners in the negative images of comedy:

“The inhuman mistress, whose evil in a well-established state cannot be tolerated,” Pravdin calls the serf woman Prostakova “a despicable fury.” What kind of person is this? All of Prostakova’s behavior is antisocial; she is a terrible egoist, accustomed to worrying only about her own benefit. Many times throughout the comedy, Prostakova demonstrates her inhumane attitude towards serfs, whom she does not even consider to be people, since she treats them like animals: “And you, cattle, come closer,” “Are you a girl, a dog?” are you the daughter? Do I have any maids in my house, besides your nasty face?” The landowner is confident in her own impunity; for the slightest offense she is ready to “beat to death” her servants. In her house, Prostakova is a powerful and cruel despot, and not only for serfs. Masterfully pushing around her weak-willed husband, Prostakova calls him either “weeper” or “freak”. She was accustomed to his resigned submission. Prostakova’s passionate love for her only son, the sixteen-year-old teenager Mitrofanushka, also takes on ugly forms. Persistently and systematically, she conveys to him her main commandments of life: “If you find money, don’t share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself,” “Don’t learn this stupid science.” She herself is so ignorant and illiterate that she cannot read the letters, Prostakova understands that her son without education is barred from entering public service. She hires teachers, asks Mitrofan to study a little, but he adopts her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment. “People live and have lived without science,” the Prostakovs are sure.

Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin is not only no less wild, limited and immoral than his sister, but is also just as cruel and despotic with the serfs, whom he not only mocks, but also “masterfully rips off.” The most valuable and expensive thing in Skotinin’s life is pigs. These animals live much better with the landowner than people.

The vices of the serf landowners, their ignorance, greed, greed, selfishness, narcissism are clearly visible, since these people themselves do not consider it necessary to hide them. They believe that their power is limitless and unquestionable. However, Fonvizin, in his comedy, expressively showed that serfdom not only turns peasants into uncomplaining slaves, but also stupefies and stupefies the landowners themselves.

Positive images of representatives of the advanced nobility (Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia, Milon) are contrasted in the comedy with tyrant serf-owners. They are educated, smart, charming, humane. Material from the site

Starodum is a true patriot, for whom the main thing is service to the fatherland. He is honest and smart, does not tolerate hypocrisy, and is ready to fight injustice. Starodum demands restrictions on the arbitrariness of the tsar and landowners, sharply speaking out against the “court,” where “almost no one travels on a straight road” and where “there are very small souls.” Starodum’s attitude towards serfdom is expressed in the words: “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” He is also concerned about the problems of raising noble children: “What can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? About fifteen years later, instead of one slave, there are two: an old man and a young master.”

Pravdin in comedy is like-minded with Starodum; he supports his progressive views in everything. It is with the help of this image that Fonvizin suggests one of the possible ways to limit the arbitrariness of the landowner power. Pravdin is a government official. Convinced of Prostakova’s inability to humanly manage the estate, he takes it under his guardianship.

Thus, we see that Fonvizin in his comedy, with the help of satire, exposed the arbitrariness and despotism of Russian serfdom. He managed to create expressive portraits of feudal landowners, contrasting them with both the advanced progressive nobility and representatives of the people.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• the problem of serfdom in the comedy Nedorosol
• denouncing officials as immature
• quotes from simpleton to serfs and teachers
• criticism of the autocratic serf system in its infancy
• oppressing one's own kind with slavery is unlawful

In the very year when the fate of Panin’s party was decided, when Panin himself lost his strength, Fonvizin opened a battle in literature and fought to the end. The centerpiece of this battle was “The Minor,” written somewhat earlier, around 1781, but staged in 1782. Government bodies did not allow the comedy to appear on stage for a long time, and only the efforts of N.I. Panin, through Pavel Petrovich, was led to its production. The comedy was a resounding success.
In “Nedorosl,” Fonvizin, giving a sharp social satire on Russian landowners, also spoke out against the policies of the landowner government of his time. The noble "mass", middle-class and smaller landowners, illiterate noble provinces, constituted the strength of the government. The struggle for influence over her was a struggle for power. Fonvizin paid a lot of attention to her in “Minor”. She was brought on stage live, shown in full. About the “yard”, i.e. the heroes of “The Minor” only talk about the government itself. Fonvizin, of course, did not have the opportunity to show the nobles to the public from the stage.

But still, “Nedorosl” talks about the court, about the government. Here Fonvizin instructed the Starodum to present his point of view; that is why Starodum is the ideological hero of the comedy; and that is why Fonvizin subsequently wrote that he owed the success of “Nedoroslya” to Starodum. In lengthy conversations with Pravdin, Milon and Sofia, Starodum expresses thoughts clearly related to the system of views of Fonvizin and Panin. Starodum attacks with indignation the corrupt court of the modern despot, i.e. to a government led not by the best people, but by “favorites,” favorites, upstarts.

In the first scene of Act III, Starodum gives a damning description of the court of Catherine II. And Pravdin draws a natural conclusion from this conversation: “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” - “Summon? What for?" - asks Starodum. - “Then why do they call a doctor to the sick?” But Fonvizin recognizes the Russian government in its current composition as incurable; Starodum replies: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing. The doctor won’t help here unless he gets infected himself.”

In the last act, Fonvizin expresses his cherished thoughts through the mouth of Starodum. First of all, he speaks out against the unlimited slavery of the peasants. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” He demands from the monarch, as well as from the nobility, legality and freedom (at least not for everyone).

The question of the government's orientation towards the wild landowner reactionary masses is resolved by Fonvizin with the entire picture of the Prostakov-Skotinin family.

Fonvizin, with the greatest determination, poses the question of whether it is possible to rely on the Skotinins and Mitrofanovs in running the country? No you can not. Making them a force in the state is criminal; Meanwhile, this is what the government of Catherine and Potemkin does. The dominance of the Mitrofans should lead the country to destruction; and why do Mitrofans receive the right to be masters of the state? They are not nobles in their lives, in their culture, in their actions. They do not want to study or serve the state, but only want to greedily tear bigger pieces for themselves. They should be deprived of the rights of the nobles to participate in governing the country, as well as the right to govern the peasants. This is what Fonvizin does at the end of the comedy - he deprives Prostakova of power over the serfs. So, willy-nilly, he takes a position of equality, enters into a struggle with the very basis of feudalism.

Raising questions of the politics of the noble state in his comedy, Fonvizin could not help but touch upon the question of the peasantry and serfdom. Ultimately, it was serfdom and the attitude towards it that resolved all issues of landowner life and landowner ideology. Fonvizin introduced this characteristic and extremely important feature into the characterization of the Prostakovs and Skotinins. They are monster landowners. The Prostakovs and Skotinins do not rule the peasants, but torment and shamelessly rob them, trying to squeeze more income out of them. They take serf exploitation to the extreme limit and ruin the peasants. And again here the policy of the government of Catherine and Potemkin comes into play; “You can’t give a lot of power to the Prostakovs,” Fonvizin insists, “you can’t let them manage uncontrollably even on their own estates; otherwise they will ruin the country, exhaust it, and undermine the basis of its well-being. Torment towards the serfs, the savage reprisals against them by the Prostakovs, their limitless exploitation were also dangerous on another level. Fonvizin could not help but remember the Pugachev uprising; they didn't talk about him; the government had difficulty allowing mention of him. But there was a peasant war. The pictures of landowner tyranny shown by Fonvizin in “The Minor”, ​​of course, brought to mind all the nobles who gathered at the theater for the production of the new comedy, this most terrible danger - the danger of peasant revenge. They could sound like a warning - not to aggravate popular hatred.

Follow how the conflict develops between positive and negative characters in the comedy "Minor". How is the idea of ​​comedy revealed in this conflict (“It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery”)? Thank you.

Answers and solutions.

The idea of ​​the comedy: condemnation of ignorant and cruel landowners who consider themselves full masters of life and do not comply with state and moral laws, affirmation of the ideals of humanity and enlightenment.
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!”
The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in the public life of the country. 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 in the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. Starodum in terms of political and moral ideals is a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.
The conflict between positive and negative characters reaches its climax in the scene of Sophia's theft. The outcome of the conflict is the order received by Pravdin. Based on this order, Mrs. Prostakova is deprived of the right to manage her estate, because impunity has turned her into a despot who is capable of causing enormous harm to society by raising a son like herself. And she is deprived of her power precisely because she cruelly treated the serfs.

A talented writer, a widely educated person, a prominent political figure, Fonvizin in his works not only acted as an exponent of the advanced ideas of the socio-political life of Russia at that time, but also made an invaluable contribution to the treasury of Russian literature.

Fonvizin was the first Russian writer and playwright to denounce serfdom. In his immortal comedy “The Minor,” he very expressively depicted the unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power, which took on ugly forms during the period of strengthening of the autocratic serfdom system under Catherine II.

According to the rules of classicism, the events in the comedy take place over the course of one day in one place - the estate of the landowner Prostakova. The names of the heroes are extremely eloquent; they can tell a lot about their bearers: Pravdin, Starodum, Vralman, Skotinin.

The unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power in the comedy “The Minor” is depicted vividly and expressively. K.V. Pigarev wrote that “Fonvizin correctly guessed and embodied in the negative images of his comedy the essence of the social force of serfdom, showed the typical features of Russian serf-owners in general, regardless of their social position.” Fonvizin most clearly revealed the power, cruelty, ignorance, and limitations of the landowners in the negative images of comedy:

“The inhuman mistress, whose evil in a well-established state cannot be tolerated,” Pravdin calls the serf woman Prostakova “a despicable fury.” What kind of person is this? All of Prostakova’s behavior is antisocial; she is a terrible egoist, accustomed to worrying only about her own benefit. Many times throughout the comedy, Prostakova demonstrates her inhumane attitude towards serfs, whom she does not even consider to be people, since she treats them like animals: “And you, cattle, come closer,” “Are you a girl, a dog?” are you the daughter? Do I have any maids in my house, besides your nasty face?” The landowner is confident in her own impunity; for the slightest offense she is ready to “beat to death” her servants. In her house, Prostakova is a powerful and cruel despot, and not only for serfs. Masterfully pushing around her weak-willed husband, Prostakova calls him either “weeper” or “freak”. She was accustomed to his resigned submission. Prostakova’s passionate love for her only son, the sixteen-year-old teenager Mitrofanushka, also takes on ugly forms. Persistently and systematically, she conveys to him her main commandments of life: “If you find money, don’t share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself,” “Don’t learn this stupid science.” She herself is so ignorant and illiterate that she cannot read the letters, Prostakova understands that her son without education is barred from entering public service. She hires teachers, asks Mitrofan to study a little, but he adopts her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment. “People live and have lived without science,” the Prostakovs are sure.

Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin is not only no less wild, limited and immoral than his sister, but is also just as cruel and despotic with the serfs, whom he not only mocks, but also “masterfully rips off.” The most valuable and expensive thing in Skotinin’s life is pigs. These animals live much better with the landowner than people.

The vices of the serf landowners, their ignorance, greed, greed, selfishness, narcissism are clearly visible, since these people themselves do not consider it necessary to hide them. They believe that their power is limitless and unquestionable. However, Fonvizin, in his comedy, expressively showed that serfdom not only turns peasants into uncomplaining slaves, but also stupefies and stupefies the landowners themselves.

Positive images of representatives of the advanced nobility (Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia, Milon) are contrasted in the comedy with tyrant serf-owners. They are educated, smart, charming, humane. Material from the site

Starodum is a true patriot, for whom the main thing is service to the fatherland. He is honest and smart, does not tolerate hypocrisy, and is ready to fight injustice. Starodum demands restrictions on the arbitrariness of the tsar and landowners, sharply speaking out against the “court,” where “almost no one travels on a straight road” and where “there are very small souls.” Starodum’s attitude towards serfdom is expressed in the words: “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” He is also concerned about the problems of raising noble children: “What can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? About fifteen years later, instead of one slave, there are two: an old man and a young master.”

Pravdin in comedy is like-minded with Starodum; he supports his progressive views in everything. It is with the help of this image that Fonvizin suggests one of the possible ways to limit the arbitrariness of the landowner power. Pravdin is a government official. Convinced of Prostakova’s inability to humanly manage the estate, he takes it under his guardianship.

Thus, we see that Fonvizin in his comedy, with the help of satire, exposed the arbitrariness and despotism of Russian serfdom. He managed to create expressive portraits of feudal landowners, contrasting them with both the advanced progressive nobility and representatives of the people.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• the problem of serfdom in the comedy Nedorosol
• denouncing officials as immature
• quotes from simpleton to serfs and teachers
• criticism of the autocratic serf system in its infancy
• oppressing one's own kind with slavery is unlawful

In the very year when the fate of Panin’s party was decided, when Panin himself lost his strength, Fonvizin opened a battle in literature and fought to the end. The centerpiece of this battle was “The Minor,” written somewhat earlier, around 1781, but staged in 1782. Government bodies did not allow the comedy to appear on stage for a long time, and only the efforts of N.I. Panin, through Pavel Petrovich, was led to its production. The comedy was a resounding success.
In “Nedorosl,” Fonvizin, giving a sharp social satire on Russian landowners, also spoke out against the policies of the landowner government of his time. The noble "mass", middle-class and smaller landowners, illiterate noble provinces, constituted the strength of the government. The struggle for influence over her was a struggle for power. Fonvizin paid a lot of attention to her in “Minor”. She was brought on stage live, shown in full. About the “yard”, i.e. the heroes of “The Minor” only talk about the government itself. Fonvizin, of course, did not have the opportunity to show the nobles to the public from the stage.

But still, “Nedorosl” talks about the court, about the government. Here Fonvizin instructed the Starodum to present his point of view; that is why Starodum is the ideological hero of the comedy; and that is why Fonvizin subsequently wrote that he owed the success of “Nedoroslya” to Starodum. In lengthy conversations with Pravdin, Milon and Sofia, Starodum expresses thoughts clearly related to the system of views of Fonvizin and Panin. Starodum attacks with indignation the corrupt court of the modern despot, i.e. to a government led not by the best people, but by “favorites,” favorites, upstarts.

In the first scene of Act III, Starodum gives a damning description of the court of Catherine II. And Pravdin draws a natural conclusion from this conversation: “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” - “Summon? What for?" - asks Starodum. - “Then why do they call a doctor to the sick?” But Fonvizin recognizes the Russian government in its current composition as incurable; Starodum replies: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing. The doctor won’t help here unless he gets infected himself.”

In the last act, Fonvizin expresses his cherished thoughts through the mouth of Starodum. First of all, he speaks out against the unlimited slavery of the peasants. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” He demands from the monarch, as well as from the nobility, legality and freedom (at least not for everyone).

The question of the government's orientation towards the wild landowner reactionary masses is resolved by Fonvizin with the entire picture of the Prostakov-Skotinin family.

Fonvizin, with the greatest determination, poses the question of whether it is possible to rely on the Skotinins and Mitrofanovs in running the country? No you can not. Making them a force in the state is criminal; Meanwhile, this is what the government of Catherine and Potemkin does. The dominance of the Mitrofans should lead the country to destruction; and why do Mitrofans receive the right to be masters of the state? They are not nobles in their lives, in their culture, in their actions. They do not want to study or serve the state, but only want to greedily tear bigger pieces for themselves. They should be deprived of the rights of the nobles to participate in governing the country, as well as the right to govern the peasants. This is what Fonvizin does at the end of the comedy - he deprives Prostakova of power over the serfs. So, willy-nilly, he takes a position of equality, enters into a struggle with the very basis of feudalism.

Raising questions of the politics of the noble state in his comedy, Fonvizin could not help but touch upon the question of the peasantry and serfdom. Ultimately, it was serfdom and the attitude towards it that resolved all issues of landowner life and landowner ideology. Fonvizin introduced this characteristic and extremely important feature into the characterization of the Prostakovs and Skotinins. They are monster landowners. The Prostakovs and Skotinins do not rule the peasants, but torment and shamelessly rob them, trying to squeeze more income out of them. They take serf exploitation to the extreme limit and ruin the peasants. And again here the policy of the government of Catherine and Potemkin comes into play; “You can’t give a lot of power to the Prostakovs,” Fonvizin insists, “you can’t let them manage uncontrollably even on their own estates; otherwise they will ruin the country, exhaust it, and undermine the basis of its well-being. Torment towards the serfs, the savage reprisals against them by the Prostakovs, their limitless exploitation were also dangerous on another level. Fonvizin could not help but remember the Pugachev uprising; they didn't talk about him; the government had difficulty allowing mention of him. But there was a peasant war. The pictures of landowner tyranny shown by Fonvizin in “The Minor”, ​​of course, brought to mind all the nobles who gathered at the theater for the production of the new comedy, this most terrible danger - the danger of peasant revenge. They could sound like a warning - not to aggravate popular hatred.

The ideological content of comedy.

The main themes of the comedy “Minor” are the following four: the theme of serfdom and its corrupting influence on landowners and servants, the theme of the fatherland and service to it, the theme of education and the theme of the morals of the court nobility.

All these topics were very topical in the 70s and 80s. Satirical magazines and fiction have devoted a lot of attention to these issues, resolving them in different ways in accordance with the views of the authors.

Fonvizin poses and resolves them in a socio-political context, as a progressive figure.

The topic of serfdom acquired paramount importance after the Pugachev uprising. ( This material will help you write competently on the topic of the ideological content of Fonfizin's comedy Nedorosol. .) Fonvizin reveals this topic not only from the everyday side, showing how Prostakova and Skotinin manage their estates. He talks about the destructive impact of serfdom on the landowner and the serf. Fonvizin also points out that “it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.”

The theme of the fatherland and honest service to it is heard in the speeches of Starodum and Milon. From the moment he appears on stage until the end, Starodum tirelessly talks about the need to serve the fatherland, about the nobleman honestly fulfilling his duty to his homeland, about promoting its good. He is also supported by Milo, who declares that a “truly undaunted military leader” “prefers his glory to life, but most of all, for the benefit of the fatherland, he is not afraid to forget his own glory.”

How advanced such views were can be judged by the fact that not only in the first two-thirds of the 18th century, but also in the era of Fonvizin, noble writers believed that “the sovereign and the fatherland are one essence.” Fonvizin speaks only about service to the fatherland, but not to the sovereign.

Expanding on the topic of education, Fonvizin says through the mouth of Starodum: “It (upbringing) should be the key to the well-being of the state. We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad education. What can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? How many noble fathers entrust the moral education of their son to their slave-serf? Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out: an old guy and a young master.” Fonvizin raises the topic of education as an important social and political issue: it is necessary to educate nobles as citizens, as progressive and enlightened figures of the country.

The fourth theme posed in the comedy concerns the morals of the court and metropolitan nobility. It is revealed in Starodum’s speeches, especially in his conversation with Pravdin. Starodum sharply and angrily denounces the corrupted court nobility. From his stories we learn about the morals of the court circle, where “almost no one drives on a straight road,” where “one knocks over the other,” where “there are very small souls.” It is impossible to correct the morals of Catherine’s court, according to Starodum. “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing: the doctor will not help unless he himself becomes infected.”

Comedy images.

The ideological concept determined the composition of the characters in “Minor”. The comedy depicts typical feudal landowners (Prostakovs, Skotinin), their serf servants (Eremeevna and Trishka), teachers (Tsy-firkin, Kuteikin and Vralman) and contrasts them with such advanced nobles as, according to Fonvizin, the entire Russian nobility should be: public service (Pravdin), in the field of economic activity (Starodum), in military service (Milon). , an intelligent and enlightened girl, contributes to a more complete disclosure of Prostakova’s self-will and ignorance; The entire struggle that takes place in the “comedy” is connected with Sophia.

If your homework is on the topic: » The ideological content of Fonfizin's comedy Nedorosol. – artistic analysis If you find it useful, we will be grateful if you post a link to this message on your page on your social network.