Ideological content comedies.
The main themes of the comedy “The Minor” are the following four: the theme of serfdom and its corrupting influence on landowners and servants, the theme of the fatherland and service to it, the theme of education and the theme of the morals of the court nobility.
All these topics were very topical in the 70s and 80s. Satire magazines and fiction paid a lot of attention to these issues, resolve them differently in accordance with the views of the authors.
Fonvizin poses and resolves them in a socio-political context, as a progressive figure.
The topic of serfdom acquired paramount importance after the Pugachev uprising.
Fonvizin reveals this topic not only with household side, showing how Prostakova and Skotinin manage their estates. He talks about the destructive impact of serfdom on the landowner and the serf. Fonvizin also points out that “it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.”
The theme of the fatherland and honest service to it is heard in the speeches of Starodum and Milon. From the moment he appears on stage until the end, Starodum tirelessly talks about the need to serve the fatherland, about the nobleman honestly fulfilling his duty to his homeland, about promoting its good. He is also supported by Milo, who declares that a “truly undaunted military leader” “prefers his glory to life, but most of all, for the benefit of the fatherland, he is not afraid to forget his own glory.”
How advanced such views were can be judged by the fact that not only in the first two thirds of the XVIII centuries, but even in the era of Fonvizin, noble writers believed that “the sovereign and the fatherland are one essence.”
Fonvizin speaks only about service to the fatherland, but not to the sovereign.
Expanding on the topic of education, Fonvizin says through the mouth of Starodum: “It (upbringing) should be the key to the well-being of the state. We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad education. What can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? How many noble fathers who moral education entrust their son to their serf slave? Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out: an old man and a young master.” Fonvizin raises the topic of education as an important social and political issue: it is necessary to educate nobles as citizens, as progressive and enlightened figures of the country.
The fourth theme posed in the comedy concerns the morals of the court and metropolitan nobility. It is revealed in Starodum’s speeches, especially in his conversation with Pravdin. Starodum sharply and angrily denounces the corrupted court nobility. From his stories we learn about the morals of the court circle, where “almost no one drives on a straight road,” where “one knocks over the other,” where “there are very small souls.” It is impossible to correct the morals of Catherine’s court, according to Starodum. “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing: here the doctor will not help unless he himself becomes infected.”
Comedy images.
The ideological concept determined the composition characters"Undergrown." The comedy depicts typical feudal landowners (Prostakovs, Skotinin), their serf servants (Eremeevna and Trishka), teachers (Tsy-firkin, Kuteikin and Vralman) and contrasts them with such advanced nobles as, according to Fonvizin, the entire Russian nobility should be: public service (Pravdin), in the region economic activity(Starodum), on military service(Milon). The image of Sophia, an intelligent and enlightened girl, contributes to a more complete disclosure of Prostakova’s self-will and ignorance; The entire struggle that takes place in the “comedy” is connected with Sophia.
Updated: 2011-03-02
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
The central place among the positive heroes belongs to Starodum in the comedy "The Minor". Starodum, as his name shows, is a person who “thinks in the old way.” In his person, Fonvizin portrayed, however, not a conservative, a man of outdated views, but, on the contrary, a representative of advanced ideas. The name Starodum and his position are explained by the polemical objectives of the play. The author needed to contrast modern reality, which he criticized, with a different era, a different political system. For Starodum, such an era was the “old”, Peter the Great era, which he holds up as an example of modernity.
Starodum's personality is revealed mainly in his conversations with Pravdin and Sophia. We learn from the stories of this hero about his past: about his military career in his youth, about retirement, about court service, about his further activities. Starodum speaks somewhat mysteriously and unclearly about his activities after refusing court service in the comedy “The Minor.” He says that he retired “to that land where money is obtained without exchanging it for conscience, without vile service, without robbing the fatherland; where they demand money from the land itself...” What kind of activity is this? This, apparently, is the development of the subsoil of the earth and the extraction of minerals somewhere in Siberia or the Urals. If this is so, then in the comedy “The Minor” Starodum actually embodied his reasoning as a leading nobleman of the era. In his time, industry and trade were not a noble matter in the eyes of the nobles. Fonvizin himself fought against this prejudice, releasing in 1766 a translation of Quaye’s treatise “The Trading Nobility, Opposed to the Military Nobility.” In the comedy "The Minor", Starodum, therefore, not only reasoned - he actually broke the prejudices of his class, showed it new ways of activity. This honest man, whose word does not diverge from deeds.
How did Starodum picture the ideal of the state and the individual? The answer to this question is given by his reasoning. They touch on three main themes: politics, morality and education.
Starodum's political views are the views of the opposition nobility of his era. We learn his point of view both on the ideal of a ruler (“great sovereign”) and on public duties nobility, and serfdom, etc. Thus, Starodum’s position on the issue of serfdom is very clearly expressed by his phrase: “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.”
His indignation against the decline and coarsening of noble morals is very strong in Starodum’s speeches. Talking about the happiness of a citizen, about a person’s rights to nobility, about the signs of an enlightened mind, about the choice of friends, about family and marriage, Starodum first of all talks about morality, i.e. about human morality. For him, the indicator of a person’s dignity is “soul”, “virtue”. Starodum illustrates what the violation of moral foundations leads to with a story about the young count, a friend of his youth, and a description of court morals, and remarks addressed to Mitrofanushka.
It is impossible to understand the ideological side of “The Minor” without the speeches of this hero. These speeches are an expression of the views and sentiments of the author himself. That's why Starodum has to talk so much from the stage. The heroes of old plays, who expressed the views of the author from the stage and reasoned more than acted, were called reasoners (from French word raisonner—to reason). In this sense, Starodum can also be called a reasoner. However, this is not the usual rationale for classical drama. In the comedy "Minor" Starodum at the same time living face. When necessary, he reasons; when possible, he jokes and laughs (for example, act IV, scene 7). This is a kind, sympathetic person. He forgives Prostakova and, when she faints, he carefully offers Sophia to help her.
There weren’t many people who shared his progressive views in the 18th century, but they did exist. Starodum's speeches, in any case, found a sympathetic response. Proof of this is that the greatest success during the performance of “The Minor” in Fonvizin’s days was usually the role of Starodum. During the years of Fonvizin, there was an assumption that N.I. served as the prototype for this hero. Novikov, an ardent fighter for progressive ideals.
The play “The Minor” by Denis Fonvizin was written in the 18th century - during the transitional era, when Russian society represented two opposing camps - adherents of new, educational ideas and bearers of outdated, landowner values. Starodum is a prominent representative of the former in the play. “The Minor” is a classic work, therefore, already in the hero’s surname, Fonvizin provides the reader with brief description Starodum. “Starodum” is someone who thinks in the old way. In the context of comedy, this is a person for whom the priorities of the previous - Peter's era - are important - at that time the monarch actively introduced reforms in education and enlightenment, thus moving away from the ideas of house-building that were rooted in Russian society. In addition, the meaning of the surname “Starodum” can be interpreted more globally - as a bearer of wisdom, experience, traditions, Christian morality and humanity.
Starodum performs in the play positive hero. This educated man old age, with great life experience. The main features of Starodum are wisdom, honesty, kindness, respect for other people, justice, responsibility for the future of one’s fatherland and love for one’s homeland.
Starodum and Prostakova
According to the plot of the comedy, Starodum is Sophia's uncle. Even when the girl was little, he had to go to Siberia, where he honestly made a fortune, and now he has returned home to spend his old age in peace. In the comedy, Starodum is one of the main characters and is contrasted in the play, first of all, with Mrs. Prostakova. Both characters are parents, but their approach to parenting is radically different. If Prostakova sees in Mitrofan a small child requiring constant care, pampers and indulges him in every possible way, then Starodum treats Sophia as an adult, fully formed personality. He cares about her future, choosing either the rude Skotinin or stupid Mitrofan, but the worthy, educated and honest Milo. Talking with Sophia, he instructs her, explaining how important equality, respect and friendship between spouses are, which leads to misunderstanding and detachment in marriage, while Prostakova does not even explain to Mitrofan the full responsibility of marriage, and the young man perceives it as just another fun.
In addition, the basic values instilled by parents in their children are also contrasted. So, Prostakova explains to Mitrofan that the main thing is money, which gives unlimited power, including over people - servants and peasants, whom you can mock, as the landowner wants. Starodum explains to Sophia that the most important thing in a person is good behavior. Particularly indicative are his words that if an intelligent person does not have any quality of mind, then he can be fully excused, whereas “an honest person cannot be forgiven if he lacks some quality of heart.”
That is, for Starodum, an exemplary person is not necessarily someone who has achieved a lot or knows a lot, but an honest, kind, merciful, loving person with high moral values - without them, according to a man, a person is a failure. Representing just such a person, Starodum is opposed to others negative heroes– Mitrofan, Skotinin and Prostakov.
Starodum and Pravdin
The image of Starodum in “The Minor” is contrasted not only negative characters, but also positive Pravdin. The heroes have seemingly similar views on the need to re-educate the landowners, both are bearers of the ideas of humanism and enlightenment, both consider the good behavior and moral values of a person to be important. However, Pravdin’s main regulatory mechanism is the letter of the law - it is she who determines who is right and who is wrong - even Prostakova’s punishment is carried out only after the appearance of the corresponding order. He is, first of all, an official, for whom a person’s mind, his achievements and reasoning are more important than personal preferences. Starodum is more guided by his heart than by his mind - the story of his friend, an educated smart person who did not want to serve his homeland, thinking more about himself than about the fate of the fatherland. While Tsyfirkin evokes sympathy and favor from Starodum, the teacher does not have good education, but kind and honest, which attracts a man.
Thus, when comparing the images of Pravdin and Starodum, it becomes clear that the official is a modern rational person of the Enlightenment era; the justice of the law, based on humanity and honesty, is important to him. Starodum, on the other hand, acts as an image representing the wisdom of generations - he condemns the outdated values of the landowners, but does not elevate the rationalism of the new nobles to a pedestal, adhering to timeless, “eternal” human values - honor, cordiality, kindness, good behavior.
Starodum as a reasoner for the comedy “The Minor”
The image of Starodum in the comedy acts as a sounding board for the opinion of the author himself. One confirmation of this is Fonvizin’s decision, several years after writing the play, to publish the magazine “Starodum” (even before the release of the first issue it was banned by Catherine II). Contrasting two opposite value-ideological directions in the play - landowners and the new nobility, the author introduces a third, located between them and depending not only on the education received in childhood, as can be seen in the other characters, but on personal experience hero. Starodum did not receive a good education in childhood, but “the education given to me by my father was the best for that century. At that time there were few ways to learn, and they still didn’t know how to fill empty heads with someone else’s mind.” Fonvizin emphasizes that a person with the right upbringing is able to obtain the necessary knowledge himself and grow into a worthy person.
In addition, in the words of Starodum, the author sharply criticizes the contemporary government - Catherine II and the court, exposing all their shortcomings, emphasizing the cunning and deceit of the nobility, their dishonest struggle for ranks, when people are ready to “go over their heads.” According to the hero, and, consequently, Fonvizin, the monarch should be an example of nobility, honor, justice, the best human qualities for their subjects, and society itself needs to change its guidelines, cultivate humanism, kindness, respect and love for one’s neighbor and one’s Motherland.
The views expressed in the work on what society as a whole and each individual in particular should be remain relevant today, attracting more and more connoisseurs of classical literature.
A detailed description of Starodum in “Nedorosl” allows us to understand ideological plan author, to clarify his views on Russian society of that era. It will be useful to students of different classes when preparing an essay on the topic “Characteristics of the image of Starodum in the comedy “The Minor”.”
Work test
A talented writer, a widely educated person, a prominent political figure, Fonvizin in his works not only acted as an exponent of the advanced ideas of the socio-political life of Russia at that time, but also made an invaluable contribution to the treasury of Russian literature.
Fonvizin was the first Russian writer and playwright to denounce serfdom. In his immortal comedy“Undergrowth” he very expressively depicted the unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power, which took on ugly forms during the period of strengthening of the autocratic serfdom system under Catherine II.
According to the rules of classicism, the events in the comedy take place over the course of one day in one place - the estate of the landowner Prostakova. The names of the heroes are extremely eloquent; they can tell a lot about their bearers: Pravdin, Starodum, Vralman, Skotinin.
The unlimited arbitrariness of landowner power in the comedy "The Minor" is depicted vividly and expressively. K.V. Pigarev wrote that “Fonvizin guessed correctly and implemented negative images In his comedy, the essence of the social force of serfdom, showed the typical features of Russian serf-owners in general, regardless of their social position." Fonvizin most clearly revealed the power, cruelty, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness of the landowners in the negative images of the comedy:
“An inhuman mistress, whose evil in a well-established state cannot be tolerated,” Pravdin calls the serf woman Prostakova a “despicable fury.” What kind of person is this? All of Prostakova’s behavior is antisocial; she is a terrible egoist, accustomed to worrying only about her own benefit.
In her house, Prostakova is a powerful and cruel despot, and not only for serfs. Masterfully pushing around her weak-willed husband, Prostakova calls him either a “weeper” or a “freak.” She was accustomed to his resigned submission. Prostakova’s passionate love for her only son, the sixteen-year-old teenager Mitrofanushka, also takes ugly forms. She persistently and systematically conveys to him her main commandments of life: “When you find money, don’t share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself,” “Don’t learn this stupid science.” She herself is ignorant and illiterate to the point that she cannot read letters, Prostakova understands that her son, without education, is in trouble. public service closed. She hires teachers, asks Mitrofan to study a little, but he adopts her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment. “People live and have lived without science,” the Prostakovs are sure.
Prostakova's brother Taras Skotinin is not only no less wild, limited and immoral than his sister, but is also just as cruel and despotic with the serfs, whom he not only mocks, but also “masterfully rips off.” The most valuable and expensive thing in Skotinin’s life is pigs. These animals live much better with the landowner than people.
The vices of the serf landowners, their ignorance, greed, selfishness, selfishness, and narcissism are clearly visible, since these people themselves do not consider it necessary to hide them. They believe that their power is limitless and unquestionable. However, Fonvizin, in his comedy, expressively showed that serfdom not only turns peasants into uncomplaining slaves, but also stupefies and dulls the landowners themselves.
Positive images of representatives of the advanced nobility (Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia, Milon) are contrasted in the comedy with tyrant serf owners. They are educated, smart, charming, humane.
Starodum is a true patriot, for whom the main thing is service to the fatherland. He is honest and smart, does not tolerate hypocrisy, and is ready to fight injustice.
The attitude of the Old Duma to serfdom is expressed in the words: “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” He is also concerned about the problems of raising noble children: “What can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out: an old man and a young master.”
Pravdin in comedy is like-minded with Starodum; he supports his progressive views in everything. It is with the help of this image that Fonvizin suggests one of the possible ways restrictions on the arbitrariness of landowner power. Pravdin is a government official. Convinced of Prostakova’s inability to humanly manage the estate, he takes it under his guardianship.
Thus, we see that Fonvizin in his comedy, with the help of satire, exposed the arbitrariness and despotism of Russian serfdom. He managed to create expressive portraits of feudal landowners, contrasting them with both the advanced progressive nobility and representatives of the people.
- New!
“Nedorosl” is the first Russian socio-political comedy. Fonvizin depicts the vices of his contemporary society: masters who rule unjustly, nobles who are not worthy of being nobles, “accidental” statesmen, self-proclaimed teachers. Madam...
The comedy by D. N. Fonvizin “The Minor” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century. The work was created according to the strict rules of classicism: the unity of time (day), place (the Prostakovs' house) and action (the rivalry of Sophia's suitors) is observed; heroes share...
Mitrofanushka’s teachers—dropout seminarian Kuteikin and retired soldier Tsyfirkin—know little, but they try to fulfill their duties honestly and conscientiously. However, the main educator of the undergrowth remains Prostakova herself with her “solid logic”...
Comedy is a very unique genre. Most comedies have a mythical or fairy-tale plot. And very few comic works are distinguished by an accurate and complete depiction of reality. And “Nedorosl” is no exception. The question of whether a writer should...
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 gave her great attention in "Nedorosl". She was brought on stage live, shown in full. About the “yard”, i.e. the heroes of “The Minor” only talk about the government itself. Fonvizin, of course, did not have the opportunity to show the nobles to the public from the stage.
But still, “Nedorosl” talks about the court, about the government. Here Fonvizin instructed the Starodum to present his point of view; that is why Starodum is the ideological hero of the comedy; and that is why Fonvizin subsequently wrote that he owed the success of “Nedoroslya” to Starodum. In lengthy conversations with Pravdin, Milon and Sofia, Starodum expresses thoughts clearly related to the system of views of Fonvizin and Panin. Starodum attacks with indignation the corrupt court of the modern despot, i.e. on a government led not the best people, but “favorites”, favorites, upstarts.
In the first appearance Act III 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 determination, poses 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, 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 authorities actually do, but of what they should do - and do 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 to use the labor of others. 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 “ Sincere confession in 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 meaner than him in the world.” 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.