The denunciation of the serfdom in the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor. An essay on a work on the topic: Who are you laughing at? You laugh at yourself

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. In the poster with the listing characters indicated: Prostakova, his wife (Mr. Prostakov). 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. And here positive images 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.

Scene III

Pravdin runs up and announces that he will present the Prostakov family “before the court as violators of civil peace.”

Fonvizin. Minor. Maly Theater performance

Phenomenon IV

The Prostakovs and Mitrofan throw themselves on their knees in front of Pravdin and Starodum, begging for forgiveness. Sophia, taking pity, says: “I forget my insult.” Starodum also asks not to bring the case to court.

Hearing this, the Prostakovs jump up from their knees. Mrs. Prostakova shouts in rage that she will now give the heat to her servants - “swindlers and thieves” who have let Sophia out of their hands. Pravdin stands up for the servants, but Prostakova and Skotinin shout: “Isn’t a nobleman free to beat a servant whenever he wants? Why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?”

Pravdin then takes a paper out of his pocket and reads out the governor’s order: The Prostakovs are deprived of their estates, which are transferred to the guardianship of the government. Mrs. Prostakova shouts: “I’m losing everything! I’m completely dying!”

Skotinin is in a hurry to leave for his own estate. Pravdin admonishes him with the words: “Go to your pigs and notify your friends so that they do not tyrannize over the people under their control.”

Phenomenon V

Prostakova begs Pravdin to give her a reprieve for at least three days. Pravdin replies that he won’t give even three hours. Prostakova asks: who will pay what is not paid to Mitrofan’s teachers? Pravdin says: I will pay them myself - and orders the teachers to be brought.

Scene VI

Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman arrive. Starodum, seeing Vralman, recognizes him as a German who previously served as his coachman. He asks in surprise how Vralman got into teaching? He explains: for three months he couldn’t find a position as a coachman in Moscow, “I had to die, I had to die.”

Kuteikin assures that the Prostakovs owe him a lot of money. Tsyfirkin, on the contrary, refuses any payment: “Mitrofan still hasn’t learned anything from me.” Starodum, Vralman and Milon praise Tsyfirkin for his selflessness and take him money as a gift from their own wallets. On the contrary, they reproach Kuteikin for greed and suggest that tomorrow he himself should go to Mrs. Prostakova to pay the debt. Hearing her name, Kuteikin, in horror, refuses any calculation.

Vralman asks Starodum to take him on as a coachman again. Starodum asks the German if during his time as a teacher he forgot how to handle horses? Vralman answers: no, living with the local gentlemen, it seemed to me that “I’m all with the little horses.”

The name of D. I. Fonvizin rightfully belongs to the number of names that make up the pride of Russian national culture. His comedy “Nedorosl” - the ideological and artistic pinnacle of creativity - has become one of the classic examples of Russian dramatic art. It is written according to the rules of classicism: the unity of place and time is observed (the action takes place in Prostakova’s house over the course of one day), the characters are clearly divided into positive and negative.

The artistic originality of the comedy “The Minor” lies in a broad, generalizing depiction of serfdom, a sharp social satire on Russian landowners and the policies of the landowner government. Middle-class landowners and illiterate provincial nobles constituted the strength of the government. The struggle for influence on her was a struggle for power - Fonvizin showed this in the comedy with the help of the image of Starodum.

Before this play, there was no such skill in showing the characters, there was no such lively folk humor. The words of the virtuous Starodum: “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery” sound like a condemnation of the entire serfdom system.

“The Minor” is a play about the evil nature of the feudal landowners. It is not for nothing that it ends with Starodum’s edifying saying addressed to the audience: “Here are the fruits of evil!” In “The Minor,” Fonvizin showed the main evil of Russian life at that time - serfdom, and was the first of the Russian playwrights to correctly guess and embody negative images in his comedy the essence of the social power of serfdom, he painted typical features Russian serf owners.

The entire household structure of the Prostakovs is based on the unlimited power of serfdom. The mistress of the house alternately scolds and fights: “that’s how the house holds together.” The pretender and tyrant Prostakova does not evoke any sympathy with her complaints about the power taken from her.

Like all enlighteners of the 18th century, Fonvizin attached great importance proper upbringing of children. And in the person of the rude ignoramus Mitrofanushka wanted to show “the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing.” As soon as we pronounce the name of the comedy, the image of a quitter, an ignoramus and a mama’s boy immediately appears in our imagination, for whom the word “door” is an adjective, because

What's attached to the wall. Mitrofanushka is a lazy person, accustomed to being lazy and climbing into the dovecote. He is spoiled, poisoned not by the upbringing he is given, but, most likely, by the complete lack of upbringing and the harmful example of his mother.

We can expect that in the future the son will even outdo his mother. It seems that the worthy offspring of the Prostakovs and Skotinins can only inspire a feeling of disgust and indignation, but Mitrofan’s appearances on stage and his remarks often caused laughter in auditorium. This happens because Fonvizin endowed the image of the undergrowth with features of genuine comedy. As are the parents, so are the children. The dominance of Mitrofanushki, according to Fonvizin, will lead the country to destruction. Mitrofanushki do not want to study or serve the state, but only strive to snatch a bigger piece for themselves. The author believes that they should be deprived of the noble right to rule the peasants and the country, and at the end of the play he deprives Prostakova of power over the serfs.

But bad Education- not a cause, but a consequence of the way of life of evil landowners. The play about education develops into a sharp denunciation of serfdom, into a social comedy-satire.

Fonvizin's entire comedy evokes not cheerful, but bitter laughter. No matter how much the audience laughs at the characters in the play, there are moments when tears appear in their eyes. Kantemir said: “I laugh in poetry, but in my heart I cry for the evil ones.” Such laughter and irony is a feature of the national uniqueness of Russian comedy. Fonvizin looked at Russian social reality “through laughter visible to the world and invisible, unknown to him tears.”

N.V. Gogol in “The Minor” sees “no longer light ridicule of the funny sides of society, but the wounds and illnesses of our society, severe internal abuses, which are exposed in stunning obviousness by the merciless power of irony.” This “stunning obviousness” in the image social evil Russian feudal reality allowed Gogol to call Fonvizin’s comedies “truly social comedies”, and also to see in this their global significance: “It seems to me that comedy has never taken such an expression among any of the nations.”

...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 practically 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 the 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 quit-rent 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 corruption takes place human personality under the influence of serfdom. The ideology of these people completely coincides with their social status. 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.