Essay “Exposure of the serfdom system in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”

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's why Starodum is ideological hero comedies; 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. on a government led not the best people, but “favorites”, favorites, upstarts.

In the first phenomenon III actions Starodum gives a damning description of the court of Catherine II. And Pravdin draws a natural conclusion from this conversation: "WITH According to your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” - “Summon? Why? - 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 decisiveness raises the question of whether it is possible to rely on the Skotinins and Mitrofanovs in running the country? No, you can't. 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 and 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.

A significant point in the ideological orientation of Fonvizin’s comedy was its conclusion: Pravdin takes custody of the Prostakov estate. The question of guardianship over tyrant landowners, of control over the actions of landowners in their villages was, in essence, a question of the possibility of government and law intervention in serfdom relations, a question of the possibility of limiting serfdom's arbitrariness, of introducing serfdom into at least some norms . This question was repeatedly raised by advanced groups of the nobility, demanding legal restrictions on serfdom. The government rejected draft laws on guardianship. Fonvizin poses this question from the stage.

Prostakova, furious with anger, wants to torture and beat all her servants. “Why do you want to punish your people?” – asks Pravdin. - “Oh, father, what kind of question is this? Am I not powerful over my people too?” Prostakova does not consider it necessary to report her actions to any authority.

Pravdin. – Do you consider yourself to have the right to fight whenever you want?

Skotinin. “Isn’t a nobleman free to beat a servant whenever he wants?”

Pravdin. - No... madam, no one is free to tyrannize.

Mrs. Prostakova. - Not free! A nobleman, when he wants, is not free to whip his servants? But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?

Here they argue about the limits of the landowners' power; Prostakova and Skotinin insist on its limitlessness; Pravdin demands its restrictions. This is a dispute about serfdom: whether it should remain slavery, or whether it will change its forms. But the most important thing here is that practically the Prostakovs and Skotinins were right, the right of the winners. In fact, life was for them; the government was behind them. Meanwhile, at Fonvizin’s, Pravdin, precisely as a result of this conversation, announces guardianship over the Prostakovs’ estate, i.e. he, standing on a point of view opposite to that defended by the practically empress, commits a government act. He deprives those who actually had this power of power. He cancels the program of noble policy that was adopted and carried out by the government of the Skotinins and Potemkins. The denouement of “The Minor” is an image not of what the government actually does, but of what it should do – and does not do.

Defending the Pravdins and trying to defeat the Skotinins, Fonvizin emphasized the culture of the former and the lack of culture of the latter.

Education for Fonvizin, as well as for his teachers, is the basis and justification of noble privileges. A noble upbringing makes a person a nobleman. An ill-mannered nobleman is not worthy of using other people's labor. Russian noble thinkers of the 18th century. learned the theory of Locke, who taught that the consciousness of every person from birth is a sheet of white paper, on which upbringing and environmental influences inscribe the character and content of that person. Moreover, they attached importance to education in the social practice of the Russian nobility. Sumarokov already believed that it was precisely “learning,” education, and the cultivation of virtue and reason that distinguished a nobleman from his peasant subject. Kheraskov, a student of Sumarokov and partly Fonvizin’s teacher, also wrote a lot about education. He demanded that noble children not be allowed to be nurtured by nannies, mothers, and serf servants. Likewise, in “Nedorosl,” the serf “mother” Eremeevna only harms the cause of Mitrofanushka’s upbringing. In the fifth act of “The Minor,” Starodum attacks the noble fathers, “who entrust the moral education of their son to their slave-serf.”

For Fonvizin, the topic of education is the main one in his literary creativity. Fonvizin wrote about the upbringing of noble children in the comedy “The Tutor’s Choice”, in articles for the magazine “Friend” honest people or Starodum,” he mourned the shortcomings of his own upbringing in “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts”; education was supposed to be discussed in the unfinished comedy “The Good Mentor.” And “The Minor” is, first of all, a comedy about education. In its first draft, written many years before the well-known text of the comedy was completed, this is especially evident. Education for Fonvizin is not only a topic of general moralizing discussions, but a burning topical political topic.

Fonvizinsky Starodum says: “A nobleman unworthy of being a nobleman, I don’t know anything in the world more vile than him.” These words are directed directly against the Prostakovs and Skotinins. But the most important thing is that these words are directed against the entire landowner class as a whole, just as, in essence, all comedy is directed against it. In the heat of the struggle against the oppressors of the fatherland and people, Fonvizin crossed the boundaries of noble liberalism and a specifically noble worldview in general. Boldly challenging autocracy and slavery, Fonvizin told the truth that was needed by the Decembrists, by Pushkin, by Belinsky and Chernyshevsky.

In this lesson, you will continue your acquaintance with the work of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin “The Minor”, ​​consider how the author presented the problems of education and serfdom in his play, what way out he sees from this situation.

After this many events happened in Russian life: annexation of Crimea, Suvorov’s legendary crossing of the Alps, the founding of the Tsarsko-Selo Lyceum and Patriotic War 1812. And Pushkin’s generation perceives the era of Fonvizin almost as a venerable antiquity. In the novel “Eugene Onegin” Pushkin writes:

“...in old age,

Satire is a brave ruler,

Fonvizin, friend of freedom, shone..."

If Pushkin (Fig. 2) feels such a temporal distance in 1823, talking about the comedy that was staged in 1782, then it is even more difficult for our generation to understand Fonvizin’s work.

Rice. 2. A.S. Pushkin ()

Like any talented work, the comedy “Minor” (Fig. 3) reflects specific features of a certain era, its unique signs, but at the same time it poses universal timeless questions. One of them was the issue of education. This topic turns out to be very important in general for the Enlightenment tradition, where the focus is on the improvement of man, the maturation of his mind, and the social status of a wise public person. We remember education when we work with a movement such as classicism, where the author in one way or another tries to enlighten and educate his reader or viewer. It is no coincidence that Fonvizin’s work is often called a comedy of education. This is such a clarifying genre definition.

Rice. 3. Title page of the first edition of the comedy “Minor” ()

In the comedy, the reader sees the upbringing of Mitrofan, who is a young man, a nobleman, an undergrowth, that is, one who has not yet matured to civil service, but will soon grow. In modern Russian, the concept of “minor” is a common noun and has a negative semantic connotation. Initially, the word “minor” did not imply any assessment. It was social status, even age - a teenager, a teenager, someone who is not yet 18 years old and therefore has not yet acquired his rights and is not responsible. It is only because of the comedy “The Minor” that the word means what we are accustomed to - an ignorant, uneducated person, spineless, ill-mannered, arrogant.

In the comedy “The Minor”, ​​upbringing and such an important component as education come to the fore.

Education is mastery of the sciences, an increase in scientific knowledge, some kind of academic success.

Let's consider what successes the hero of Fonvizin's comedy shows in the field of teaching science:

Act four. PhenomenonVII

Mitrofan. So I sat down.

Tsyfirkin is cleaning the stylus.

Mrs. Prostakova.And I’ll sit down right away. I'll knit a wallet for you, my friend! There would be somewhere to put Sophia's money.

Mitrofan.Well! Give me the board, garrison rat! Ask what to write.

Tsyfirkin.Your Honor, please always bark idlely.

Ms. Prostakova(working).Oh, my God! Don’t you dare elect Pafnutich, little kid! I'm already angry!

Tsyfirkin.Why be angry, your honor? We have a Russian proverb: the dog barks, the wind blows.

Mitrofan.Get off your butts and turn around.

Tsyfirkin.All butts, your honor. He stayed with his backside a century ago.

Mrs. Prostakova.It's none of your business, Pafnutich. It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward. With his intelligence, he may fly far, and God forbid!

Tsyfirkin.Task. You deigned, by the way, to walk along the road with me. Well, at least we’ll take Sidorich with us. We found three...

Mitrofan(writes).Three.

Tsyfirkin.On the road, for the butt, three hundred rubles.

Mitrofan(writes).Three hundred.

Tsyfirkin.It came down to division. Think about it, why on your brother?

Mitrofan(calculating, whispers).Once three - three. Once zero is zero. Once zero is zero.

Mrs. Prostakova.What, what about division?

Mitrofan.Look, the three hundred rubles that were found should be divided among the three.

Mrs. Prostakova.He's lying, my dear friend! I found the money and didn’t share it with anyone. Take everything for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don't study this stupid science.

Mitrofan.Listen, Pafnutich, ask another question.

Tsyfirkin.Write, your honor. You give me ten rubles a year for my studies.

Mitrofan.Ten.

Tsyfirkin.Now, really, no problem, but if you, master, took something from me, it wouldn’t be a sin to add ten more.

Mitrofan(writes).Well, well, ten.

Tsyfirkin.How much for a year?

Mitrofan(calculating, whispers).Zero yes zero - zero. One and one...(Thinking.)

Mrs. Prostakova.Don't work in vain, my friend! I won’t add a penny; and you're welcome. Science is not like that. Only you are tormented, but all I see is emptiness. No money - what to count? There is money - we’ll figure it out well without Pafnutich.

Kuteikin.Sabbath, really, Pafnutich. Two problems have been solved. They won’t bring it to reality.

Mitrofan.Probably, brother. Mother herself can’t make a mistake here. Go now, Kuteikin, teach yesterday a lesson.

Kuteikin(opens the book of hours, Mitrofan takes the pointer).Let's start by blessing ourselves. Follow me, with attention. “I am a worm...”

Mitrofan.“I am a worm...”

Kuteikin.Worm, that is, animal, cattle. In other words: “I am cattle.”

Mitrofan.“I am cattle.”

Mitrofan(Also)."Not a man."

Kuteikin."Reproaching people."

Mitrofan."Reproaching people."

Kuteikin."And uni..."

Act four. PhenomenonVIII

Mrs. Prostakova.That's the thing, father. For the prayers of our parents - we sinners, where could we beg - the Lord gave us Mitrofanushka. We did everything to make him the way you would like to see him. Wouldn’t you like, my father, to take on the labor and see how we learned it?

Starodum.O madam! It has already reached my ears that he now only deigned to unlearn. I have heard about his teachers and I can see in advance what kind of literate he needs to be, studying with Kuteikin, and what kind of mathematician, studying with Tsyfirkin. (To Pravdin.) I would be curious to hear what the German taught him.

Ms. Prostakova, Prostakov(together):

- All sciences, father.

- Everything, my father. Mitrofan. Whatever you want.

Pravdin(To Mitrofan).Why, for example?

Mitrofan(hands him the book).Here, grammar.

Pravdin(taking the book).I see. This is grammar. What do you know about it?

Mitrofan.Many. Noun and adjective...

Pravdin.Door, for example, which name: a noun or an adjective?

Mitrofan.A door, which is a door?

Pravdin.Which door! This one.

Mitrofan.This? Adjective.

Pravdin.Why?

Mitrofan.Because it is attached to its place. Over there at the closet of the pole for a week the door has not yet been hung: so for now that is a noun.

Starodum.So that's why you use the word fool as an adjective, because it is applied to a stupid person?

Mitrofan.And it is known.

Mrs. Prostakova.What, what is it, my father?

Mitrofan.How is it, my father?

Pravdin.It couldn't be better. He is strong in grammar.

Milo.I think no less in history.

Mrs. Prostakova.Well, my father, he is still a hunter of stories.

Skotinin.Mitrofan for me. I myself won’t take my eyes off it without the elected official telling me stories. Master, son of a dog, where does everything come from!

Mrs. Prostakova.However, he still won’t come against Adam Adamych.

Pravdin(To Mitrofan).How far are you in history?

Mitrofan.How far is it? What's the story. In another you will fly to distant lands, to a kingdom of thirty.

Pravdin.A! Is this the story that Vralman teaches you?

Starodum.Vralman? The name is somewhat familiar.

Mitrofan.No, our Adam Adamych doesn’t tell stories; He, like me, is a keen listener himself.

Mrs. Prostakova.They both force themselves to tell stories to the cowgirl Khavronya.

Pravdin.Didn’t you both study geography from her?

Ms. Prostakova(to son).Do you hear, my dear friend? What kind of science is this?

Prostakov(quietly to mother).How do I know?

Ms. Prostakova(quietly to Mitrofan).Don't be stubborn, darling. Now is the time to show yourself.

Mitrofan(quietly to mother).Yes, I have no idea what they are asking about.

Ms. Prostakova(Pravdin).What, father, did you call science?

Pravdin.Geography.

Ms. Prostakova(To Mitrofan).Do you hear, eorgafiya.

Mitrofan.What is it! Oh my God! They stuck me with a knife to my throat.

Ms. Prostakova(Pravdin).And we know, father. Yes, tell him, do me a favor, what kind of science this is, he will tell it.

Pravdin.Description of the land.

Ms. Prostakova(To Starodum).What would this serve in the first case?

Starodum.In the first case, it would also be suitable for the fact that if you happen to go, you know where you are going.

Mrs. Prostakova.Ah, my father! But what are cab drivers for? It's their business. This is not a noble science either. Nobleman, just say: take me there, and they will take you wherever you please. Believe me, father, that, of course, what Mitrofanushka does not know is nonsense.

Starodum.Oh, of course, madam. In human ignorance, it is very comforting to consider everything that you don’t know to be nonsense.

Mrs. Prostakova.Without sciences people live and lived.

Act one. PhenomenonVI

Sophia.Read it yourself, madam. You will see that nothing could be more innocent.

Mrs. Prostakova.Read it for yourself! No, madam, thank God, I was not brought up like that. I can receive letters, but I always tell someone else to read them. (To my husband.) Read.

Prostakov(looks for a long time).It's tricky.

Mrs. Prostakova.And you, my father, were apparently raised like a pretty girl. Brother, read it, work hard.

Skotinin. I ? I haven't read anything in my life, sister! God saved me from this boredom.

Act three. PhenomenonVII

Mrs. Prostakova.While he is resting, my friend, at least for the sake of appearance, you should learn, so that it reaches his ears how you work, Mitrofanushka.

Mitrofan.Well! What's there?

Mrs. Prostakova.And there I got married.

In Fonvizin’s comedy, which is natural for works of classicism, everything is said unambiguously, in clear text. We can only ask a rhetorical question: what success can be expected from a child if his parents instill in him from childhood that learning is not only unnecessary, but also harmful?

Mitrofan's teachers are not trustworthy either. The reader will learn interesting details about them:

Mrs. Prostakova.We pay three teachers. The sexton from Pokrov, Kuteikin, comes to him to read and write. One retired sergeant, Tsyfirkin, teaches him arithmetic, father. Both of them come here from the city. The city is three miles away from us, father. He is taught French and all sciences by the German Adam Adamych Vralman. This is three hundred rubles a year. We seat you at the table with us.<…>To tell the truth, we are happy with him, dear brother. He does not bondage the child.

Of course, the “talking” names are striking. The reader immediately gets an idea of ​​Mitrofanushka’s teachers. The “talking” surnames here are a sign of the author’s irony. The surname Vralman especially stands out - a hypocrite who curries favor with his masters and behaves extremely arrogantly with his servants. We find out that we have a deceiver in front of us, because he is a coachman, but pretends to be a competent teacher.

This creates a very sad picture. Indeed, Russian education at that time left much to be desired. Russia, with light hand Peter I, having just plunged into something completely alien to her European culture, I couldn’t learn everything at once. In combination with natural human laziness, this gave such funny and sad results.

It is no coincidence that Fonvizin and his characters will later be spoken of famous critic Belinsky:

“His fools are very funny and disgusting. But this is because they are not creations of fantasy, but rather faithful lists from life.”

Pushkin and Fonvizin

Consider the table in which two heroes are compared: the hero of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” and the hero of Pushkin’s novel “ Captain's daughter».

The heroes of these two works are in very similar starting conditions, but life paths theirs will be different. Think about why Pushkin deliberately orients his hero to some similarities with the undergrown Mitrofanushka.

Education involves not only obtaining scientific knowledge, but also awakening in a person his best qualities, the formation of his character. This situation in the family depicted by the author is even sadder than with arithmetic and geography.

Act four. PhenomenonVII

Skotinin.And I'm here.

Starodum.Why did you come?

Skotinin.For your needs.

Starodum.How can I serve?

Skotinin.In two words.

Starodum.What are these?

Skotinin.Hugging me tighter, say: Sophia is yours.

Starodum.Are you planning something foolish? Think about it carefully.

Skotinin.I never think and I’m sure in advance that if you don’t think either, then Sophia is mine.

Starodum.This is a strange thing! You, as I see, are not crazy, but you want me to give my niece, to whom I don’t know.

Skotinin.You don't know, I'll say this. I am Taras Skotinin, not the last of my kind. The Skotinins family is great and ancient. You won’t find our ancestor in any heraldry.

Pravdin(laughing).This way you can assure us that he is older than Adam.

Skotinin.What do you think? At least a few...

Starodum(laughing.)That is, your ancestor was created at least on the sixth day, and a little earlier than Adam?

Skotinin.No, right? So do you have a good opinion of the antiquity of my family?

Starodum.ABOUT! so kind that I wonder how in your place you can choose a wife from another family, like the Skotinins?

Skotinin.Think about how lucky Sophia is to be with me. She's a noblewoman...

Starodum.What a man! Yes, that’s why you’re not her fiancé.

Skotinin.I went for it. Let them talk that Skotinin married a noblewoman. It doesn't matter to me.

Starodum.Yes, it doesn’t matter to her when they say that the noblewoman married Skotinin.

Milo.Such inequality would make you both miserable.

Skotinin.Bah! What does this one equal? (Quietly to Starodum.) But isn’t he beating?

Starodum(quietly to Skotinin).It seems so to me.

Skotinin(same tone).Where's the line?

Starodum(same tone).Hard.

Skotinin(loudly, pointing to Milo).Which of us is funny? Ha ha ha ha!

Starodum(laughs).I see who's funny.

Sophia.Uncle! How nice it is to me that you are cheerful.

Skotinin(To Starodum).Bah! Yes, you are funny. Just now I thought that there would be no attack on you. You didn’t say a word to me, but now you keep laughing with me.

Starodum.Such is the man, my friend! The hour doesn't come.

Skotinin.This is clear. Just now I was the same Skotinin, and you were angry.

Starodum.There was a reason.

Skotinin.I know her. I'm the same way about this myself. At home, when I go to bite and find them out of order, I get annoyed. And you, without saying a word, when you came here, you found your sister’s house no better than the nibbles, and you’re annoyed.

Starodum.You make me happier. People touch me.

Skotinin.And I'm such a pig.

If a hero, according to him in my own words, was created somewhat earlier than Adam, then, knowing biblical history, we can interpret this unambiguously: he classifies himself as a dumb creature - an animal. If we remember the incredible love for pig-like animals that Skotinin experiences, then a very definite perception occurs. This is, of course, a caricature - satirical image, but the Prostakov family and the Skotinin line are, in general, not entirely people. They do not have the most important quality for classicists - the quality of reason. These are dumb animals.

It is no coincidence that in his surroundings Mitrofan learns to behave like bestials. He's getting lessons again. Now he is already quite a talented student, and the lessons of immorality are not in vain for him. The main teacher here is his mother. It is no coincidence that the very name of the main character is Mitrofan, which translated from Greek means “like a mother.”

Mitrofan sees how Prostakova despises, insults, and cruelly beats an old man - nanny Eremeevna. How he calls her “hrychovka”, how he tortures his own husband. She was born Skotinina, she is rude to everyone who depends on her, and openly flatters Starodum when she finds out that he has a fortune. At the beginning of the play, she mocks Sophia and humiliates her. And he fawns over her when she becomes a rich bride. Prostakova speaks with pride about her father, who acquired his fortune through bribes. Therefore, in Mitrofan she deliberately cultivates deceit and greed so that he too can achieve prosperity:

“I found the money, don’t share it with anyone! Keep everything for yourself, Mitrofanushka.”

Tired of this nightmare, the reader is glad to find something else in the play - good upbringing. Characters in comedy, as is typical of classicism, are built on the principle of antithesis - a clear opposition of good and bad. The terrible family is opposed, of course, by Starodum.

“My upbringing was given by my father according to the best of the century», - he says.

He has thought a lot in his time and, of course, knows that everything depends on who exactly is raising the young person. “What kind of education can children expect from a mother who has lost virtue?”- he asks. It is in the education of a person’s character and his spiritual qualities that the wise hero sees the promise of future happiness. Home human value for Starodum - internal purity and decency.

Starodum.My father constantly repeated the same thing to me: have a heart, have a soul, and you will be a man at all times.

Everyone will find enough strength within themselves to be virtuous. You have to want it decisively, and then the easiest thing will be not to do something for which your conscience would prick you.

The mind, if it is only the mind, is the most trifle. With runaway minds we see bad husbands, bad fathers, bad citizens. Good behavior gives him a direct price.

The rich man... the one who takes away what you don’t have in order to help someone who doesn’t have what they need.

This is what Starodum says and is guided by these principles in his life.

The reader finds a positive example and antithesis to Mitrofan in the representative younger generation- Sophia, whose name is translated from Greek as “wisdom.” The heroine appears on stage with a book by the French educator Fenelon about the education of girls. Being a poor orphan, she does not have invited teachers and stubbornly wants to improve herself mentally and grow. For this, both Starodum and the author himself sympathize with her.

Starodum is the hero-reasoner in the play.

Reasoning hero- the one who expresses the views of the author in a work.

Starodum loves Sophia very much, because she is ready to learn and become better at any cost, and from her uncle she expects not wealth, but good advice:

“Your instructions, uncle, will make up all my well-being. Give me rules that I must follow." Sophia asks about this.

The characters of the virtuous heroes in the play are not complex and believable. These, paradoxically, are much less alive people than the unpleasant Prostakova and her relatives. However, it is important for Fonvizin, as a classicist author, to give readers and viewers not only a disgusting, frightening picture, but also an example to follow.

According to the author, the ending of the comedy should also have an educational function. We must think about what model of family behavior Mitrofanushka will inherit: will the stupid, weak-willed Prostakovs or the aggressive and cruel Skotinins influence him in the end? But maybe there is some other way? It is obvious that Mitrofanushka, who has neither education nor benefits, will begin his service at the lowest level career ladder. From a simple soldier he will rise up.

The same choice, but not under the pressure of circumstances, but independently and consciously, will be made by Petrusha Grinev’s father in Pushkin’s novel “The Captain’s Daughter.” He does not want an easy fate for Petrusha, but wants to raise him to be a real person and a valiant warrior. Thus, two young heroes - Mitrofanushka Prostakov and Petrusha Grinev - will find themselves in similar life circumstances. You can think for yourself about why Pushkin, who wrote his novel much later (in 1836), does this, it’s very interesting question.

Pay attention to one statement of Starodum (hero-reasoner):

Starodum. We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing... how many noble fathers who entrust the moral education of their son to their serf slave! Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out, an old guy and a young master.

It is not the careful, respectful coexistence and cooperation of peasants and nobles that the hero-reasoner sees in Russian life, but cruel mockery and humiliation. Thus, the text raises a very important and very acute problem in the era of Fonvizin, the problem of serfdom, or rather the abuse of serfdom.

Act one

Ms. Prostakova(examining the caftan on Mitrofan). The caftan is all ruined. Eremeevna, bring the swindler Trishka here. (Eremeevna moves away.) He, the thief, has burdened him everywhere. Mitrofanushka, my friend! I'm guessing you're dying. Call your father here.

Ms. Prostakova(Trishka). And you, brute, come closer. Didn’t I tell you, you thieving mug, that you should make your caftan wider? The first child grows; another, a child and without a narrow caftan of delicate build. Tell me, idiot, what is your excuse?

Trishka.But, madam, I was self-taught. I reported to you at the same time: well, if you please, give it to the tailor.

Mrs. Prostakova.So is it really necessary to be a tailor to be able to sew a caftan well? What bestial reasoning!

Trishka.Yes, I studied to be a tailor, madam, but I didn’t.

Mrs. Prostakova.While searching, he argues. A tailor learned from another, another from a third, but who did the first tailor learn from? Speak up, beast.

Trishka.Yes, the first tailor, perhaps, sewed worse than mine.

Act two. PhenomenonVI

Eremeevna.Uncle scared everyone. I almost grabbed him by the hairs. And for nothing... about nothing...

Ms. Prostakova(in anger). Well...

Eremeevna.I pestered him: do you want to get married?..

Mrs. Prostakova.Well...

Eremeevna.The child didn’t hide it, it’s been a long time since he started hunting, uncle. How he will become furious, my mother, how he will throw himself up!..

Ms. Prostakova(trembling). Well... and you, beast, were dumbfounded, and you didn’t dig into your brother’s mug, and you didn’t tear his snout head over heels...

Eremeevna.I accepted it! Oh, I accepted, yes...

Mrs. Prostakova.Yes... yes what... not your child, you beast! For you, at least kill the child to death.

Eremeevna.Ah, creator, save and have mercy! If my brother hadn’t deigned to leave at that very moment, I would have broken down with him. That's what God wouldn't order. If these were dull (pointing to the nails), I wouldn’t even take care of the fangs.

Mrs. Prostakova.All of you beasts are zealous in words only, but not in deeds...

Eremeevna(crying). I'm not zealous for us, mother! You don’t know how to serve anymore... I would be glad if nothing else... you don’t regret your stomach... but you don’t want everything.

Act three. Phenomenon IV

Mrs. Prostakova.Are you a girl, are you a dog’s daughter? Do I have no maids in my house, besides your nasty face? Where is the broadsword?

Eremeevna.She fell ill, mother, and has been lying there since the morning.

Mrs. Prostakova.Lying down! Oh, she's a beast! Lying down! As if noble!

Eremeevna.Such a fever, mother, she raves incessantly...

Mrs. Prostakova.He's delusional, you beast! As if noble!

We find an explanation for this shameless behavior not only in Prostakova’s character, but also in some circumstances external to the heroine. At the end of the comedy, Prostakova utters a phrase that can be called one of the most important lines in the entire play:

Mrs. Prostakova.Not free! A nobleman is not free to whip his servants when he wants! But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?

The famous Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (Fig. 5) considers this phrase the most essential for understanding comedy. And all the events that precede this statement are just an introduction to the main topic.

Rice. 5. V.O. Klyuchevsky

To justify her behavior, Prostakova mentions a decree, a manifesto on noble liberty, proclaimed by Emperor Peter III (Fig. 6) in 1762.

In order to understand the essence of this important law, it is worth taking a short historical excursion. It so happened that it was the nobility that bore the brunt of military service for many centuries. Privileges, lands, estates are a fair reward for that person who is always ready to put his chest under arms. For a very long time, service (25 years) was mandatory for nobles, and it was impossible to evade it. As soon as a young man reached a certain age, thereby becoming a minor, he prepared for military service. However, at some point the size of the army becomes very impressive due to the fact that other classes are already joining military service, and then there is no need for the total service of the nobility. The state sees in this new opportunities for the activities of the nobles. A nobleman is no longer obliged to serve for 25 years and spend his entire life on military campaigns. Now he has the right to work for the good of the Fatherland, living on his own estate. The nobleman’s mission now is to take care of his peasants, make their life easier, establish schools and hospitals, and provide education (at least the basics of basic literacy). The nobleman faces another very important task - to give his children an education of the European level, so that future nobles will be a true support for their Fatherland - a developing, young country.

The Prostakovs did not succeed in either one or the other. And they are not the only ones. The fact is that the law on noble liberty was written in such a respectful, calm language, it was formulated so peacefully, and nothing threatened the person who violated it, that the nobles perceived the law not as an order, but as permission to do whatever they wanted. The authors of the decree thought that the nobles would be truly pleased to voluntarily take care of the peasants, raise children in the traditions of the European Enlightenment, and engage in science, because now they have all the opportunities for this.

But this hope turned out to be unfounded. The nobles took it this way: we have all the rights and no more responsibilities. Thus, the law proclaimed by Peter III in 1762 and after 20 years of the reign of Catherine II (Fig. 7) was never fully comprehended by Russian society, but, on the contrary, everything became even worse.

Rice. 7. Catherine II ()

Two decades after the adoption of the law, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin undertakes, in a sense, to educate an entire class of nobles. And he writes a work that raised the question of the role of a nobleman very acutely and painfully. This important document (the decree on the liberty of the nobility) must be rethought. The abstract, beautiful law does not reach the consciousness of the nobles. Just polite persuasion and expressions of hope have no effect on those who are accustomed to doing monstrous things with impunity. According to the playwright, intervention is necessary state power. When the author forces Pravdin to take custody of Prostakova’s estate at the end of his comedy, he thereby suggests a real way out - all landowners who cruelly treat serfs should be deprived of the right to own peasants and manage their estate.

The image of Prostakova, which absorbed the features of many landowners, was, according to the author’s plan, to become a living reproach to those nobles in whose houses the same thing was happening.

Thus, the comedy “The Minor” calls for a humane and fair attitude towards the peasants. Noting the author’s extremely negative attitude towards the humiliation of serfs, it is worth remembering that the author of “The Minor” is not against serfdom as such, as a form of organizing economic and social life. He is against the abuse of serfdom. The basis of the state is the commonwealth and cooperation of peasants and nobles, which must be humane, fair and based on the principles of the Enlightenment.

In this lesson, you looked at how Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” reflected modern to the author And eternal problems: the question of abuse of serfdom and the global question of education human personality and a worthy citizen. You also became acquainted with the important concept of a “reasoning hero.”

References

1. Ko-ro-vi-na V.Ya., Zhu-rav-lev V.P., Ko-ro-vin V.I. Literature. 9th grade. - M.: Pro-sve-shche-nie, 2008.
2. Lady-gin M.B., Esin A.B., Nefe-do-va N.A. Literature. 9th grade. - M.: Bustard, 2011.
3. Cher-tov V.F., Tru-bi-na L.A., An-ti-po-va A.M. Literature. 9th grade. - M.: Pro-sve-shche-nie, 2012.

1. Internet portal “5litra.ru” ()
2. Internet portal “litresp.ru” ()
3. Internet portal "Festival pedagogical ideas"Open lesson"" ()

Homework

1. Describe the level of upbringing, education and morality of Mrs. Prostakova and her son Mitrofanushka. Give examples from the text.
2. Draw up Starodum’s “moral code”.
3. How does Fonvizin see the problem of serfdom? What solution does the author propose in the play?

There in the old days

Satires brave ruler

Fonvizin, friend of freedom, shone.

A.S. Pushkin

The comedy “The Minor” was written by Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin in 1782. In it, Fonvizin not only laughed at Mrs. Prostakova and her relatives, but also showed serfdom"in all its glory." The power of the landowners at that time was unlimited. And when the landowners were like Prostakova and Skotinin, then this power was to the detriment of everyone: both the landowners, because they felt the right to push other people around, and the peasants, who were treated like cattle, if not worse. The peasants had no rights: neither personal nor civil, they paid exorbitant quitrents and went to corvee labor. They had to give almost everything they grew with their own hands to the insatiable landowners, who grew rich while the peasants starved and starved.

The serfs were ignorant, but this was not their fault, while the nobles, who seemed to have opportunities, were almost no different from the serfs in this regard. The upbringing of the younger generation was entrusted to courtyard people, and the education of young nobles was carried out by foreigners (who in their homeland were often coachmen, janitors and had nothing to do with science), retired semi-literate soldiers and clerks, who forced their students to memorize the psalter. Many young nobles lacked a sense of duty to the Fatherland. They served not for Russia, but for ranks, honors and money.

But Starodum was not like that - main character comedies. He was a nobleman, raised in the time of Peter the Great. He was sure that “a nobleman 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." Starodum highly valued the soul in a person, honor and rules. He despised flatterers, people striving for wealth and rank. He was at court, but “decided that it was better to lead life at home than in someone else’s hallway.” Starodum said: “I left the court without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought mine home intact, my soul, my honor, my rules.” The Starodum is characterized by such qualities as determination, nobility, honesty, and good behavior. He always followed his rules, and “from childhood his tongue did not say yes when his soul felt no.”

In his youth, Starodum had a friend, a count, the illegitimate son of a nobleman, who “had a special opportunity to learn something that was not yet part of their upbringing.” When war was declared, Starodum invited his friend to go to war, “to become worthy of the title of nobleman.” But the count refused. Then Starodum realized that “there is sometimes an immeasurable difference between random people and respectable people, that in the big world there are very small souls and that with great enlightenment one can be very stingy.” Then, when Starodum was in the hospital, he learned that the count had been given a new rank, and he, who had many wounds, was bypassed. He resigned, but then realized that “a truly inquisitive person is jealous of deeds, and not of ranks, that ranks are often begged for, but true respect is deserved, that it is much more honest to be passed over without guilt than to be awarded without merit.”

Even Starodum’s speech characterizes him; it is full of aphorisms. This is the speech of a wise man who has lived his life in such a way that he has nothing to be ashamed of, he has never deviated from his rules.

Starodum despises people like Prostakova, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin. Prostakova is an angry, rude, unpredictable, ruthless landowner. Prostakov is a pathetic, weak-willed man, under the thumb of his wife. Mitrofanushka is an illiterate, lazy, selfish idiot. Skotinin is a cruel, ignorant, bestial landowner who adores pigs and compares everyone around him to them. All these people flatter Starodum, try to present themselves in the best light, fawn, pretend to be good people, because they want to force his niece Sophia, the heiress of a large fortune, into marriage. Greedy, selfish, ignorant people without a sense of duty or self-esteem can only cause contempt. But Starodum treats his niece, her fiancé Milon, and Pravdin with respect and love, because they are noble, purposeful people, ready to serve their Fatherland.

It seems to me that Starodum is an ideal hero of the era of Russian classicism, because he is a patriot of his Motherland. I believe that Starodum is a person from whom it is worth taking an example, because he never deviated from his rules, did not flatter, did not grovel, and devoted all his strength to serving the Motherland. I am sure that at least a few people who read the comedy “The Minor” will learn something, draw conclusions for themselves, and I will try to make every effort to never be like Mrs. Prostakova, her husband, Mitrofanushka and Skotinin , but try to cultivate in yourself the qualities inherent in Starodum.

Fonvizin's play is multifaceted and includes several topics: a discussion of serfdom and serf owners; condemnation of autocracy; harmful upbringing.

The conflict of the work is based on the confrontation between dishonest serf owners and noble nobles. One of the main characters, Starodum, belongs to the second type. This is a nobleman who received education and upbringing during the reign of Peter, the reformer tsar who supported enlightenment. The policy of the authorities after Peter was more focused on the brutalization of serfdom. Ranks were received not for merit, but for the ability to please the crowned person. Starodum understood this, but still believed that it was better to be “dispensed with without guilt than to be rewarded without merit.”

Honest, noble and always follows the principle: do not say “yes” if the heart feels that “no”. He does not favor people with small souls, such as the Prostakovs and Skotinin. However, it applies to great love To noble people- Sophia, Milon, Pravdin.

The hero believed that a real nobleman cannot sit idle when there is so much work to do: help people in need, serve the Motherland. Therefore, the selfishness and laziness of Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin are disgusting to him. Some for him are not people, but animals who are only looking for where they can profit. Another thing is Milo, a brave officer defending the state. Starodum is highly valued for her educational views. The hero respects Pravdin, a man as principled as himself.

As we can see from the above, Starodum is an exponent of the author’s ideas. He puts thoughts into his mouth about the importance of enlightenment. It is this hero who directly condemns serfdom and the brutal serf owners. He is endowed with the features of the author himself - he is noble, fair, wise. If you think about the meaning of the surname, then Starodum is someone who thinks in the old way, but it was in that old time that there were more educational ideas and reforms. This means that he did not fall behind the times, but retained the best in himself. While many have lost the spirit of nobility and lived “in step” with new era insane autocracy and the policy of recovery from poor peasants.

Starodum leaves his villages because he does not want to collect taxes from the unfortunate people. The hero leaves for Siberia. There, in his opinion, he can earn a fortune as an honest person. Why does he need money? In order to provide a comfortable life for his niece Sophia, whom he loved very much. The hero was a supporter of traditional family values and wanted to successfully marry the girl to a noble man. When he learns about Sophia’s choice of Milone, he supports her because this man is noble and serves the fatherland.