The problems raised by the author in the comedy are ignorant. Analysis of the comedy “Minor” by Fonvizin: the essence and meaning of the play, analysis of the characters. Plot continuation of "The Minor"

The comedy “Nedorosl” absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in terms of the depth of ideological issues, the courage and originality of the artistic solutions found, it remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century. The accusatory pathos of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. Satire and journalism are lame.

Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teaching, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual squalor.

An equally destructive verdict on this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on stage, contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan’s parents. Dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin. which touch upon deep, sometimes national issues, are passionate journalistic speeches reflecting the author’s position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the exposure merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself.

Two problems that especially worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of “The Minor.” This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, was “buried with their ancestors,” in his reported observations from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society, he seeks the reasons for this decline.

The final remark of Starodum, which ends “Undergrowth”: “Here are the fruits of evil!” - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin’s treatise, gives the entire play a special political sound. The unlimited power of landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities, became a source of arbitrariness; this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the ruling class. In the light of Fonvizin’s general moral and political concept, the exponents of which in the play are positive characters, the world of simpletons and brutes appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.

Another problem of “Minor” is 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 acquired national significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education.

A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan’s teaching and most of Starodum’s moral teachings are subordinated to it. The culminating point in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in Act IV of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory and sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of simpletons and brutes. The passing of this verdict is ensured not only through the self-disclosure of Mitrofan’s ignorance, but also through the demonstration of examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milon. -

A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and the direction of his creative quest, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. Courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the serf owners were heard in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Fonvizin.

What problems does Fonvizin raise in the comedy “The Minor” you will learn in this article.

“Undergrowth”: problems

Problems raised in the comedy “The Minor”:

1. What should a true nobleman be like - and does the Russian nobility correspond to its purpose?

2. The need for enlightenment, education - their absence..

3. The lack of rights of peasants and the arbitrariness of landowners.

Each of these issues is considered through the prism of educational ideas. Fonvizin, sharpening attention to the shortcomings of the era through comic techniques, emphasizes the need to change traditional, outdated, long-irrelevant foundations that drag people into the swamp of “evil morality”, stupidity, likening them to animals.

The problem of education in the comedy “The Minor”

In Fonvizin’s view, the problem of education acquired national significance, since the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society—the spiritual degradation of the nobility—was rooted in correct education.

Education should give “the direct value of learning,” awaken humane, philanthropic feelings, and contribute to the general improvement of morals.

"Undergrowth" problem of serfdom

The theme of the lack of rights of peasants and the arbitrariness of landowners is indicated by the writer already in the first act. Prostakova’s first remark: “The caftan is all ruined. Eremeevna, bring the swindler Trishka here. He, the thief, has burdened him everywhere” - introduces us to the atmosphere of the arbitrariness of the landowners’ power. All further five phenomena are devoted precisely to showing this arbitrariness.
This is how “The Minor” begins. The main conflict in the socio-political life of Russia - the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the highest authorities, and the lack of rights of the serfs - becomes the theme of the comedy. The dramatic conflict of “Nedoroslya” is the struggle of the progressive-minded progressive nobles - Pravdin and Starodum - with the serf owners - the Prostakovs and Skotinins.
Slavery, and not education, corrupts and corrupts the landowners themselves, Fonvizin makes the second conclusion. The playwright sternly and accusatoryly declares: Russian nobles turned into Skotinins, who lost honor, dignity, humanity, became cruel executioners of the people around them and all-powerful tyrants and parasites only as a result of serfdom. Hence the demonstration of the Skotinin nature of those who call themselves the “noble class” - Prostakova, her husband, her son, her brother. Slave owners not only turned their peasants into “draft animals,” but they themselves became vile and despicable slaves.
Fonvizin’s main intention in “Nedorosl” was to show all the actions, deeds, thoughts of Prostakov and Skotinin, all their morality and interests in social conditioning. . They are generated by serfdom, says Fonvizin. That is why, from the first to the last act, the theme of serfdom permeates the entire work.

In the comedy “The Minor,” D.I. Fonvizin poses one of the most important problems of society: the upbringing and education of the younger generation. The play caricatures the “educational process” in the Prostakov family of landowners. Satirically depicting the morals of the local nobles, showing their complete ignorance of how they prepare children for life and activity in society, the writer sought to condemn this approach to education. Mitrofan's mother is forced (in addition to her main concern - the nutrition of her son) to demonstrate the implementation of the decree on the education of noble children, although of her own free will she would never force her beloved child to “useless teaching.”

The author satirically depicts Mitrofan's lessons in mathematics, geography, and the Russian language. His teachers were the sexton Kuteikin, the retired sergeant Tsyfirkin and the German Vralman, who were not far from the landowners who hired them. During an arithmetic lesson, when the teacher suggested solving a division problem, the mother advises her son not to share with anyone, not to give anything away, but to take everything for himself. And geography, according to Prostakova, is not needed by the master, because there are cab drivers who will take you where you need to go.

The “exam” scene in which Mitrofan demonstrated all his knowledge is imbued with a special comedy. He sought to convince the “commission” how “far he had gone” in studying, for example, the Russian language. And therefore he sincerely assured that the word “door” can be both a noun and an adjective, depending on its location. Mitrofan achieved such results thanks to his mother, who indulged her lazy son in everything, who was used to doing only what he liked: eating, sleeping, climbing the dovecote and seeing unquestioning obedience from everyone around him, the fulfillment of his desires. Study was not part of my interests.

In the conditions depicted in the comedy, children could not be very different from their parents, since ignorant people are not able to instill in their offspring a thirst for knowledge, a desire to become educated and intelligent citizens who would consciously prepare to serve the Fatherland. Mitrofan’s father and mother don’t even know how to read, and his uncle “hasn’t read anything in his life”: “God... saved this boredom.” The vital interests of these landowners are extremely narrowed: satisfaction of needs, passion for profit, desire to arrange a marriage of convenience rather than love (at the expense of Sophia’s dowry, Skotinin would like to “buy more pigs”). They have no concept of duty and honor, but they have an immensely developed desire to rule. Prostakova is rude, cruel, inhumane towards the serfs. “Beast, thief's mug” and other curses are a reward, and the payment for work was “five blows a day and five rubles for a year.” Mitrofan will become the same owner, who has been taught cruelty to serfs since childhood. He considers teachers to be servants, wanting them to submit to his lordly will.

Mrs. Prostakova is mentally “too simple” and “not trained in delicacy.” He solves all issues with abuse and fists. Her brother, Skotinin, belongs to that group of people who are close to animals in their image and likeness. For example, Skotinin says: “Mitrofan loves pigs because he is my nephew. Why am I so addicted to pigs?” To this statement, Mr. Prostakov answers him: “And here there is some similarity.” Indeed, the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan is in many ways similar to his mother and uncle. For example, he does not have a desire for knowledge, but he eats a lot, and at the age of sixteen he is quite overweight. The mother tells the tailor that her child is “delicately built.” Nanny Eremeevna reports about Mitrofan’s needs: “I deigned to eat five buns before breakfast.”

The goal of D.I. Fonvizin was not only ridiculing and denouncing the morals of the local nobility, but also a satirical depiction of the current order in society, in the state. Despotism destroys humanity in a person. The writer substantiates his conclusions about the need to abolish serfdom by showing how some landowners in their own way understood the “Decree on the Freedom of the Nobility” and other royal decrees supporting serf owners. The peculiarity of the life and everyday life of the local nobles is that they accept laxity of morals as a virtue, since they have unlimited power, which is why rudeness, lawlessness, and immorality flourished in their society.

The comedy “Undergrown” is aimed at exposing the vices of society. Satirically depicting the morals of landowners, their “methods of education,” Fonvizin sought conclusions about what people should not be like, how children should not be raised, so that new “Mitrofanushki” do not appear among the nobles. Mitrofan's life principles are directly opposite to the beliefs of an enlightened person. The author of the work created not a positive, but a negative image. He wanted to show “the fruits of evil worthy of it,” so he depicted the worst aspects of landowner life, the evil spirit of the serf-owners, and also highlighted the vices of upbringing the younger generation.

The landowner Prostakova raised her son in her own image and likeness (as her parents once raised her) and instilled in him the qualities that she considered necessary, so Mitrofan, at the age of sixteen, had already defined goals and priorities for himself, and they are as follows:
– does not want to study;
- work or service does not seduce, it is better to chase pigeons in a dovecote;
– food has become the most important pleasure for him, and daily overeating is the norm;
– greed, greed, stinginess – qualities that help achieve complete well-being;
- rudeness, cruelty and inhumanity are the necessary principles of the serf-owner;
– deceit, intrigue, deception, fraud are the usual means in the struggle for one’s own interests;
– the ability to adapt, that is, to please the authorities and show lawlessness with people without rights, is one of the conditions for a free life.

For each of these “principles” in the comedy “The Minor” there are examples. The author wanted to ridicule and expose the low morals of many landowners, so in creating images he used techniques such as satire, irony, and hyperbole. For example, Mitrofan complains to his mother that he was starved: “I haven’t eaten anything since the morning, only five buns,” and last night “he didn’t have dinner at all - only three slices of corned beef, and five or six hearth (buns).” The author also reports with sarcasm and hostility about Mitrofan’s “thirst for knowledge,” who is going to give the old nanny a “trash” because she asks him to study a little. And he agrees to go to lessons only if the conditions he set are fulfilled: “... so that this is the last time and so that there is an agreement today” (about marriage).

Mrs. Prostakova shamelessly lies to Pravdin that her son “doesn’t get up for days because of a book.” And Mitrofan enjoys the permissiveness and blind love of his mother; he has learned well how to achieve the fulfillment of his desires. This ignoramus is self-willed, rude, cruel not only towards the nanny or other serfs, but even towards his mother, for whom he is the main joy. “Get off me, mother, I’m so intrusive!” - the son pushes his mother away when she tries to find support from him.

Starodum’s conclusion, made at the end of the play (“These are the worthy fruits of evil!”), returns viewers and readers to previous facts that explain and clearly show how characters like the undergrown Mitrofan and his mother are formed in society.

The noble son accepts Pravdin’s decision to send Mitrofanushka to serve unquestioningly. But a question arises that is not answered in the comedy, although it is implied: “Can Mitrofan be useful in the service of the Fatherland?” Of course not. This is why D.I. Fonvizin created his comedy, to show society what “underage” people are being raised by landowners and in whose hands the future of Russia may lie.

2 problems:

P. moral decay of the nobility, decline in the moral foundations of society

P education! The primary factor that determines the moral appearance of the person himself.

“The Minor” is distinguished by greater social depth and a sharper satirical focus. In “Nedorosl” the theme of landowner tyranny comes first. The main criterion in assessing the heroes is their attitude towards the serfs. The action takes place on the Prostakov estate. The unlimited mistress of it is Mrs. Prostakova. It is interesting to note that in the list of characters, only she is assigned the word “madam”; the rest of the characters are named only by last name or first name. She really dominates the world under her control, she dominates brazenly, despotically, with complete confidence in her impunity. Taking advantage of Sophia's orphanhood, Prostakova takes possession of her estate. Without asking the girl’s consent, he decides to marry her to his brother. However, the full nature of this “fury” is revealed in its treatment of serfs. Prostakova is deeply convinced of her right to insult, rob and punish peasants, whom she views as beings of a different, lower breed.

The very beginning of the play - the famous trying on of a caftan - immediately introduces us to the atmosphere of the Prostakovs' house. Here there is rude abuse against the home-grown tailor Trishka, and an unfounded accusation of theft, and the usual order to punish an innocent servant with rods. Prostakova’s well-being rests on the shameless robbery of serfs. Order in the house is restored through abuse and beatings. Prostakova’s tongue in conversation with the servants never leaves rude, abusive words: cattle, mug, rascal, old witch. The news of the illness of the yard girl Palashka infuriates her.

Prostakova's primitive nature is especially clearly revealed in the sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. She is rude to Sophia while she feels her power over her, but upon learning of Starodum’s return, she instantly changes her tone and behavior. When Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakova on trial for inhumane treatment of the peasants, she humiliatingly lies at his feet. But having begged for forgiveness, he immediately hurries to deal with the sluggish servants who let Sophia go.

The presence of Skotinin in the play emphasizes the wide distribution of nobles like Prostakova and gives it a typical character. It is not for nothing that at the end of the play Pravdin advises to warn the other Skotinins about what happened on the Prostakov estate.

Another problem is connected with the image of Mitrofan - the writer’s reflection on the legacy that the Prostakovs and Skotinins are preparing for Russia. Before Fonvizin, the word “minor” did not have a condemnatory meaning. Minors were the children of the nobility who had not reached 15 years of age, i.e., the age appointed by Peter I for entering the service. In Fonvizin it received a mocking, ironic meaning.

Mitrofan is an undergrowth primarily because he is a complete ignorant, knowing neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun. But he is also immature morally, since he does not know how to respect the dignity of other people. He is rude and impudent to servants and teachers. He ingratiates himself with his mother as long as he feels her strength. But as soon as she lost power in the house, Mitrofan sharply pushed Prostakova away from him. And finally, Mitrofan is an immature in the civic sense, since he has not matured enough to understand his responsibilities to the state. “We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland?..”

Like all famous satirists, Fonvizin in his criticism proceeds from certain civil ideals. The depiction of these ideals in satirical works is not necessary, but in didactic literature of the 18th century. satire, as a rule, was complemented by the display of ideal heroes. Fonvizin did not bypass this tradition, sharply contrasting the world with the Prostakovs and Skotinins - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia. Thus, the ideal nobles are contrasted with the evil ones in the play. Starodum and Pravdin unconditionally condemn the tyranny of the landowners, robbery and violence against the peasants. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery,” states Starodum (p. 167). Let us immediately note that we are not talking about condemning the institution of serfdom itself, but about its abuse. Unlike Prostakova, who builds her well-being on the robbery of peasants, Starodum chooses a different path to enrichment. He goes to Siberia, where, in his words, “they demand money from the land itself” (T. I. P. 134). Apparently, we are talking about gold mining, which is quite consistent with Fonvizin’s own opinion about the need for a “trading nobility” for Russia.

Pravdin takes an even more decisive position in relation to the arbitrariness of the nobles. He serves as an official in the viceroyalty. This was the name of the institutions created in 1775 by Catherine II in each province to monitor the local implementation of government decrees. Pravdin considers his main task, not only according to his position, but also “out of his own feat of heart,” to be monitoring those landowners who, “having complete power over their people, use it for evil inhumanly” (Vol. 1. P. 117). Having learned about Prostakova’s cruelties and outrages, Pravdin, on behalf of the government, takes custody of her estate, depriving the landowner of the right to arbitrarily dispose of the peasants. In his actions, Pravdin relies on the decree of Peter I of 1722, directed against tyrant landowners. In real life, this law was applied extremely rarely. Therefore, the denouement of Fonvizin’s comedy looked like a kind of instruction to the government of Catherine II.

No less important for Fonvizin was the question of the attitude of the nobles to the service. After the decree on “liberty,” this problem became especially acute, since many of the nobles already legally preferred to stay at home. Fonvizin even includes this theme in the title of the comedy and thereby specially emphasizes it. Mitrofan is not eager to study or serve and prefers the position of a “minor.” Mitrofan's sentiments are completely shared by his mother. “While Mitrofanushka is still in his infancy,” she argues, “let him sweat and pamper him, and then in ten years, when he comes out, God forbid, into the service, he will suffer everything” (Vol. 1. P. 114),

Starodum adheres to a diametrically opposite point of view. The name of this hero indicates that his ideals belong to the era of Peter the Great, when every nobleman had to confirm his class rights through service. Starodum remembers the duty of the nobles, or, as they said in the 18th century, “position,” with particular fervor. “Position!.. How this word is on everyone’s tongue, and how little they understand it!.. This is the sacred vow that we owe to all those with whom we live... If only the office was fulfilled as they say about it... A nobleman, for example, would consider it the first dishonor to do nothing when he has so much to do: there are people to help; there is a fatherland to serve... A nobleman unworthy of being a nobleman! I don’t know anything more vile than him in the world” (T. 1. P. 153).

Starodum indignantly points out the practice of favoritism, which became widespread during the reign of Catherine II, when ordinary officers, without any merit, received high ranks and awards. Starodum recalls one of these upstarts - a young count, the son of the same “random” man, as they said at that time, with deep contempt in a conversation with Pravdin.

The antipode of Mitrofanushka in the play is Milon - an exemplary officer who, despite his youth, already participated in military operations and at the same time showed genuine “fearlessness”.

A special place in the play is occupied by Starodum’s reflections on the “duty” of the monarch and critical remarks addressed to Catherine’s court. As the famous literary critic K.V. Pigarev rightly said, Starodum’s very adherence to Peter’s “antiquity” was “a peculiar form of rejection of Catherine’s “newness”.” Here there was a clear challenge to the empress, who presented herself as the successor and continuer of the affairs of Peter I, which she transparently hinted at in the inscription on his monument: Petro Primo - Catarina Secunda - i.e. Peter the Great - Catherine the Second. The ruler, according to Starodum’s deep conviction, must not only issue laws useful to society, but also be a model of their implementation and high morality. “The great sovereign,” he says, “is a wise sovereign. His job is to show people their direct good... A sovereign worthy of the throne strives to elevate the souls of his subjects” (Vol. 1, pp. 167-168). Such a monarch is obliged to surround himself with executive nobles useful to society, who, in turn, could serve as an example for his subordinates and for the entire noble class as a whole. But the reality turned out to be strikingly different from Starodum’s educational program. Starodum judges the morals of court society not from hearsay, but from his own bitter experience, since after serving in the army he was “taken to court.” What he saw here horrified him. The courtiers thought only about their own self-interest, about their career. “Here they love themselves very well,” recalls Starodum, “they care about themselves alone, they fuss about one real hour” (Vol. 1. P. 132). In the struggle for power and rank, any means are used: “... one knocks down the other, and the one who is on his feet never raises the one who is on the ground” (Vol. 1. P. 132). Feeling completely powerless to change the established order, Starodum left court service. “I left the court,” he notes, “without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought mine home intact, my soul, my honor, my rules.”

TICKET 7
1. The evolution of the sermon genre in the works of Feofan Prokopovich.
Sermons occupy a prominent place in Prokopovich's work. He managed to give a new sound to this traditional church genre. Preaching in Ancient Rus' pursued mainly religious goals. Feofan subordinated it to pressing political tasks. Many of his speeches are dedicated to Peter's military victories, including the Battle of Poltava. He glorifies not only Peter, but also his wife Catherine, who accompanied her husband on the Prut campaign in 1711. In his speeches, Feofan talks about the benefits of education, the need to visit foreign countries, and admires St. Petersburg. Theophan's weapons in his sermons were reasoning, evidence, and in some cases a witty satirical word.

Theophan’s “Words,” spoken vividly and vividly from the church pulpit, were imbued with the pathos of affirming Peter’s reforms and enjoyed enormous success. Many of his sermons were not only delivered in church, but also published. Only to a small extent (the use primarily of the church genre - sermons) did they have a church character. Written in a clear style, without unnecessary rhetoric, the rhythmically constructed “Words” were distinguished by their depth of content and literary merit.

The political agitation inherent in the sermons of Feofan Prokopovich was aimed at explaining the activities carried out by Peter in defense of education. In his works, Feofan often acts as a pamphleteer and satirist. In the famous sermon “The Sermon on the Power and Honor of the Tsar,” delivered by him in 1718, he sharply denounces the reactionary churchmen grouped around Tsarevich Alexei. He portrays “angry and despondent” melancholic people who love a cloudy day more than a bucket, bad news than good. Drawing a satirical image of such a clergyman, Feofan Prokopovich compares him with a locust, which “has a great belly, but small porches, and not according to the size of the body: it rises up to fly, and immediately falls to the ground.”

Feofan Prokopovich appears before us as a true champion and propagandist of education. Theophan had to endure a fierce struggle with the churchmen, who accused him of unbelief. He really rejected blind faith in the writings of the “Church Fathers,” considering only faith in the Bible obligatory for himself.

His famous “Lay for the Funeral of Peter the Great” (1725) is filled with the pathos of patriotism and faith in the future of Russia. This sermon, permeated with deep sorrow, sums up the brilliant work of Peter, and Feofan Prokopovich’s call to continue his work in the interests of Russia sounds with tremendous force.

In the image of Peter, Feofan Prokopovich embodied the features of an “ideal monarch”, under whom only the strengthening and prosperity of the state is possible.

A striking feature of Theophan’s oratorical speeches is the indiscriminateness of praise and blasphemy within the same text, and as a consequence, the fundamental diversity of his sermons, combining panegyrics to Peter or the fleet with denunciations of enemies of enlightenment, ignoramuses, opponents of reforms.

One of the most striking examples of this diversity is the “Sermon on the Power and Honor of the King,” where solemn praises of the God-given supreme power are combined with expressive and evil reproaches against its enemies. It is noteworthy that in terms of style, these thematic layers are clearly differentiated: denouncing the conspirators against the royal power, Feofan uses not just words with a pronounced negative semantic and stylistic connotation, but also crude vernacular.

Thus, within the genre of sermon itself, which combines two opposing attitudes (praiseworthy and accusatory), two types of artistic imagery with the help of which their emotional pathos is expressed (conceptual-thesis and everyday-writing-argumentative) and two stylistic keys, relatively speaking, high and low, an internal contradiction is outlined, which turned out to be very productive at the next stage of literary development. Breaking down into its simple components, praise and blasphemy, with their inherent figurative and stylistic means of expression, Feofan Prokopovich’s sermon gave birth to two older genres of Russian literature of modern times: the solemn ode of Lomonosov, into which the panegyric tendencies of the sermon were transferred, and the satire of Kantemir, which took over from the sermon accusatory motives with their inherent methods of expression.

Comedy D.I. Fonvizin "Minor":

problems, sources of comic

The comedy “The Minor” absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in terms of the depth of ideological issues, the courage and originality of the artistic solutions found, it remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century. The accusatory pathos of "The Minor" is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. Satire and journalism are lame. Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teaching, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual squalor. An equally destructive verdict on this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on stage, contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan’s parents.

The dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin, which touch upon deep, sometimes state-related issues, are passionate journalistic speeches that reflect the author’s position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the exposure merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself. Two problems that particularly worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of “The Minor.” This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, was “buried with their ancestors,” in his reported observations from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society, he seeks the reasons for this decline. The final remark of Starodum, which ends “The Minor”: “These are the fruits worthy of evil!” - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin’s treatise, gives the entire play a special political sound. The unlimited power of landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities, became a source of arbitrariness; this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the ruling class. In the light of Fonvizin’s general moral and political concept, the exponents of which in the play are positive characters, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.

Another problem of "Undergrown" is 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 acquired national significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education. A significant part of the dramatic action in "The Minor" is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan’s teaching and most of Starodum’s moral teachings are subordinated to it. The culminating point in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in Act IV 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. The passing of this verdict is ensured not only through the self-disclosure of Mitrofan’s ignorance, but also through the demonstration of examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milon.

The genre originality of the work lies in the fact that “The Minor,” according to G. A. Gukovsky, is “half comedy, half drama.” Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin’s play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes are introduced into it. These include Pravdin’s conversation with Starodum, Starodum’s touching and edifying conversations with Sophia and Milon. The tearful drama suggests the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as the image of “suffering virtue” in the person of Sophia.

Bibliography

Berkov P.N. History of Russian journalism of the 18th century. M. - L., 1952. - 656 p.

Blagoy D.D. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. – M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960.

Buranok O.M. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. – M.: Flinta, 2013.

Herzen A.I. Preface to the book “On the Damage of Morals in Russia” by Prince M. Shcherbatov and “Travel” by A. Radishchev // Collection. Op. M., 1958. T. 13. P. 273.

Herzen A.I. Preface to the book “On the Damage of Morals in Russia” by Prince M. Shcherbatov and “The Journey” by A. Radishchev // Collection. Op. M., 1958. T. 13. 296 p.

Derzhavin G.R. Complete collection of poems. Leningrad “Soviet writer” 1957. – 480 p.

Derzhavin G.R. Complete collection of poems. Leningrad “Soviet writer” 1957. – P. 236.

Zapadov V.A. Poetry by A.H. Radishchev // Radishchev A. N. Poems. L., 1975. – 122 p.

History of Russian literature / ed. D.S. Likhacheva, P. Makogonenko. - L., 1999. – 318 p.

Lebedeva O.B. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. – M.: Higher school: Publishing house. Center "Academy", 2000.

Lomonosov M.V. Full composition of writings. – M., 1955. – volume 4, p. 165.

Mineralov Yu.I. History of Russian literature. 18 century. – M.: Higher School, 2007.

Motolskaya D.K. Lomonosov // History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes - Vol. III: Literature of the 18th century. Part 1. – M L 1941. – P. 264-348.

ON THE. Dobrolyubov. Works, vol. 1. Leningrad. – 1934. – 600 p.

Nekrasov N.A. Autobiographical notes, From the diary // Complete. collection Op. and letters. M., 1953. T. 12. – 534 p.

Orlov A. Tilemakhida V.K. Trediakovsky. // XVIII century Collection of articles and materials. Ed. A. Orlova. – M 1985. – P. 81-98.

Pumpyansky L.V. Trediakovsky // History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes. T. III: Literature of the 18th century. Part 1. – M L 1941. – P. 215-263.

Russian poets. Anthology of Russian poetry in 6 volumes. Moscow: Children's literature, 1996. – 346 p.

Fonvizin D.I. Comedy. - L.: “Det. lit", 1980.

Stein A. L. “D. I. Fonvizin: 1745-1792: Essay on life and creativity." (M., 1945).