In the comedy “The Minor,” written in 1782, D.I. Fonvizin brings to the stage representatives of the nobility, corrupted by the landowners’ power, and shows how corrupt the younger generation grows up in this environment.

The topic of education has always occupied Fonvizin. He advocated for the flourishing of education in Russia and believed that nobles brought up in strict civil rules would be worthy leaders and guardians of the country's peasant population. But no one was seriously involved in educating young nobles. What could Mitrofan learn from the German coachman Vralman in order to become an officer or official? The worst qualities of character, the most backward views on science characterize such young nobles as Mitrofan.

The opinion was often expressed that Starodum, Milon, Sophia, Pravdin are ideal heroes, that Russian reality did not have such people and that the author invented them. But among Fonvizin’s acquaintances there were figures similar to Starodum and Pravdin, and there were educated and sensitive girls who resembled Sophia. The writer summarized their features, presented in one image what he found in several real prototypes.

With even greater confidence he portrayed the Prostakovs and Skotinins: such characters were much more common among the Russian provincial nobility of the second half of the 18th century.

For Fonvizin’s contemporaries, Starodum’s speeches sounded politically sharp and wise. The author, through the mouth of this hero, expounded the patriotic beliefs of the best part of society. It is not for nothing that, starting his magazine “Friend of Honest People,” Fonvizin wrote, allegedly addressing Starodum: “I must admit that for the success of my comedy “The Minor” I owe it to you. From your conversations with Pravdin, Milon and Sophia, I compiled whole phenomena.”

The figure of Prostakova is depicted by Fonvizin with extraordinary fidelity and realism. He understood the unreasonableness of her blind, animal love for her brainchild, Mitrofan, a love that, in essence, destroys her son. Prostakova is disgusting in scenes with serfs, pathetic when meeting with Pravdin and Starodum. Fonvizin clearly shows that Prostakovs should not control people. But with all this, Prostakova is a person, albeit hopelessly spoiled by her environment and upbringing, but still a person. The writer managed to show this in the last scene of “The Minor,” when Prostakova, who has lost power, seeing the collapse of her plans, rushes to her son: “You are the only one left with me, my dear friend, Mitrofanushka!” And in response he hears the heartless: “Let go, mother, you imposed yourself...”

“These are the fruits worthy of evil!” - says Starodum, ending the comedy. But his assessment applies not only to Prostakova, but also to the entire system of state order in Russia.

One of the outstanding advantages of comedy is its language. Fonvizin gives the linguistic characteristics of the heroes. The vocabulary of Mitrofan and Skotinin is small and poor; Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin speak fluently. There are many rude and common words in Prostakova’s speeches; her language does not differ from the language of serfs. Retired soldier Tsyfirkin uses expressions used in military life; seminarian Kuteikin decorates his speech with Church Slavonic words and quotes from spiritual books. To strengthen the characterization of Vralman, the writer conveys his broken Russian speech and emphasizes the incorrect pronunciation.

“Fonvizin executed in his comedies the wild ignorance of the old generation and the rough gloss of the superficial and external European half-education of the new generations,” wrote V.G. Belinsky.

Fonvizin's contemporaries highly valued The Minor; he delighted them not only with his amazing language, the clarity of the author's civic position, and the innovation of form and content.

Features of the genre

According to the genre, this work is a classic comedy, it complies with the requirements of “three unities” (place, time, action) inherent in classicism; the heroes are divided into positive and negative, each of the heroes has its own role (“reasoner”, “villain”, etc.). etc.), however, there are also deviations from the requirements of classicist aesthetics, and serious deviations.So, the comedy was only supposed to amuse, it could not be interpreted in multiple meanings, there could be no ambiguity in it - and if we remember “The Minor”, ​​then we cannot help but admit that, raising in the work the most important social issues of his time, the author resolves them by means far from comic: for example, at the end of the work, when, it would seem, “the vice is punished,” the viewer cannot help but sympathize with Mrs. Prostakova, who is rudely and cruelly pushed away by the ungrateful Mitrofanushka, preoccupied with his own fate: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself. .." - and the tragic element powerfully invades the comedy, which was unacceptable.. And with the “unity of action” everything is also not so simple in comedy, it has too many storylines that do not “work” in any way to resolve the main conflict , but create a broad social background that determines the characters of the characters. Finally, Fonvizin’s innovation was reflected in the language of the comedy “The Minor”; the speech of the characters is very highly individualized, it contains folklorisms, vernacular, and high style (Starodum, Pravdin), which also violates the classic canons of creating speech characteristics of characters. We can, summing up, conclude that Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” became a truly innovative work for its time; the author pushed the boundaries of the aesthetics of classicism, subordinating it to the solution of the task set for himself: to angrily ridicule the vices of his contemporary society, to rid it of “evil morals.” ", capable of destroying both the human soul and public morality.

Image system

Let us analyze the system of images of the comedy "The Minor", which, as required by the aesthetics of classicism, represents two directly opposite "camps" - positive and negative heroes. Here you can also notice a certain deviation from the canons; it manifests itself in the fact that it carries duality; it is almost impossible to classify them as purely positive or purely negative heroes. Let us remember one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers, Kuteikin. On the one hand, he suffers humiliation from Mrs. Prostakova and his student, on the other hand, he is not averse, if the opportunity arises, to “snatch his piece,” for which he is ridiculed. Or “Mitrofan’s mother” Eremeevna: she is reviled and humiliated by her mistress in every possible way, she humbly endures, but, forgetting herself, rushes to protect Mitrofanushka from her uncle, and does this not only out of fear of punishment...

The image of Prostakova in the comedy "Minor"

As already noted, Fonvizin innovatively portrays his main character, Mrs. Prostakova. From the very first scenes of the comedy, we are faced with a despot who does not want to reckon with anyone or anything. She rudely imposes her will on everyone, suppresses and humiliates not only the serfs, but also her husband (how can one not recall Mitrofan’s “dream in hand” about how “mother” beats “father”?..), she tyrannizes Sophia, she wants to force her to marry first her brother Taras Skotinin, and then, when it turns out that Sophia is now a rich bride, her son. Being herself an ignorant and uncultured person (with what pride she declares: “Read it 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!”), she despises education, although he tries to teach his son, he does this only because he wants to ensure his future, and what is Mitrofan’s “training” worth, as it is presented in the comedy? True, his mother is convinced: “Believe me, father, that, of course, it’s nonsense that Mitrofanushka doesn’t know”...

Mrs. Prostakova is characterized by cunning and resourcefulness, she stubbornly stands her ground and is convinced that “we will take ours” - and is ready to commit a crime, kidnap Sophia and, against her will, marry her to a man from the “Skotinin family.” When she meets resistance, she simultaneously tries to beg for forgiveness and promises punishment to those of her people, due to whose oversight the “enterprise” failed, in which Mitrofanushka is ready to actively support her: “Take it for people?” The “transformation” of Mrs. Prostakova is striking, who just on her knees humbly begged to forgive her, and, having received the petition, “jumping up from her knees”, fervently promises: “Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. I’ll take it one by one. Now I’ll find out who let her out of her hands. No, swindlers! I won’t forgive this mockery forever.” There is so much voluptuousness in this triple “now”, and how truly scary it becomes from her request: “Give me at least three days (Aside) I would make myself known...”.

However, as already noted, there is a certain duality in the image of Prostakova. She deeply and devotedly loves her son and is ready to do anything for him. Is she guilty of comparing her love for him to the love of a dog for puppies: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?”? We must not forget that she is from the Skotinin-Priplodin family, where such half-animal love was the only possible one, how could she be different? So she disfigures Mitrofan’s soul with her blind love, her son pleases her in every possible way, and she is happy because he “loves” her... Until he throws her away from him, because now he doesn’t need her, and even those people who just condemned Mrs. Prostakova sympathize with her in her maternal grief...

Image of Mitrofan

The image of Mitrofan was created by Fonvizin also not quite traditionally. The “minor” who likes to be “small” and who diligently takes advantage of his mother’s attitude toward him is not as simple and stupid as it might seem at first glance. He has learned to use his parents' love for himself for his own benefit, he knows well how to achieve his goal, he is convinced that he has the right to everything he wants. Mitrofanushka’s selfishness is the driving force behind his actions, but the hero also has cruelty (remember his remark about “people”), resourcefulness (what is his discussion about the “door”), and lordly contempt for people, including his mother, from whom he, on occasion, seeks help and protection. And his attitude towards education is so dismissive only because he does not see any real benefit from it. Probably, when he “serves”, he - if it is beneficial - will change his attitude towards education, potentially he is ready for anything: “For me, where they tell me.” Consequently, the image of Mitrofan in the comedy “Minor” is also characterized by a certain psychologism, as is the image of Prostakova, which is Fonvizin’s innovative approach to creating negative images that were only supposed to be “villains”.

Positive images

The playwright is more traditional in creating positive images. Each of them is an expression of a certain idea, and as part of the statement of this idea, an image-character is created. Almost positive images are devoid of individual traits; they are images-ideas inherent in classicism; Sophia, Milon, Starodum, Pravdin are not living people, but exponents of a “certain type of consciousness”; they represent a system of views that was advanced for their time on the relationship between spouses, the social structure, the essence of the human personality and human dignity.

Image of Starodum

During the time of Fonvizin, the image of Starodum in the comedy “The Minor” aroused special sympathy among the audience. Already in the very “talking” surname of the character, the author emphasized the contrast between “the present century and the past century”: in Starodum they saw a man of the era of Peter I, when “In that century, courtiers were warriors, but warriors were not courtiers.” Starodum’s thoughts on education, on the ways in which a person can achieve fame and prosperity, about what a sovereign should be evoked a warm response from a significant part of the audience who shared the progressive beliefs of the author of the comedy, while special sympathy for the image of the hero was caused by the fact that he did not just proclaim these progressive ideas - according to the play It turned out that with his own life he proved the correctness and advantage of such behavior for a person. The image of Starodum was the ideological center around which the positive heroes of the comedy united, opposing the dominance of the morality of the Skotinins and Prostakovs.

Image of Pravdin

Pravdin, a government official, embodies the idea of ​​statehood, which protects the interests of education and the people, which seeks to actively change life for the better. Guardianship of Prostakova's estate, which Pravdin appoints by the will of the empress, gives hope that the ruler of Russia is able to stand up for the protection of those of her subjects who most need this protection, and the determination with which Pravdin carries out the reforms should have convinced the viewer, that the highest authorities are interested in improving the lives of the people. But how then can we understand Starodum’s words in response to Pravdin’s call to serve at court: “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”? It is likely that behind Pravdin stood the System, which confirmed its reluctance and inability to carry out real reforms, and Starodum represented himself, an individual person, in the play, and explained why the image of Starodum was perceived by the audience with much more sympathy than the image of the “ideal official” .

Milon and Sophia

The love story of Milon and Sophia is a typically classic love story of two noble heroes, each of whom is distinguished by high moral qualities, which is why their relationship looks so artificial, although, against the backdrop of Skotinin’s attitude towards the same Sophia (“You are my dear friend! If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife”) she really is an example of the high feeling of moral, educated, worthy young people, contrasted with the “fertility” of negative heroes.

The meaning of the comedy "Minor"

Pushkin called Fonvizin “a brave ruler of satire,” and the comedy “Minor,” which we analyzed, fully confirms this assessment of the writer’s work. In it, Fonvizin’s author’s position is expressed quite unambiguously, the writer defends the ideas of enlightened absolutism, he does this with extreme talent, creating convincing artistic images, significantly expanding the scope of the aesthetics of classicism, taking an innovative approach to the plot of the work, to the creation of character images, some of which are not It simply represents the expression of certain socio-political ideas, but has a pronounced psychological individuality and expresses the inconsistency of human nature. All this explains the enormous importance of Fonvizin’s work and the comedy “Nedorosl” for Russian literature of the 18th century, the success of the work among his contemporaries and its significant influence on the subsequent development of Russian drama.

Literature lesson in 9th grade

Topic: “The world of “The Minor” and its heroes”

(based on the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin “The Minor”)

The purpose of the lesson: development of independent thinking of students, awakening their imagination, creating conditions in the lesson for self-expression of each student, for their creative development; work on the content of the first three acts of the comedy.

During the classes

1.Organizing moment

Teacher's opening speech

“Russian classical literature has always raised problems of a person’s responsibility to the Motherland and the people, the meaning and purpose of life, good and evil, loyalty to the word, honor, dignity, conscience and others. Isn’t all this close to us, doesn’t it worry us?!

And I really want our lesson today to become a joint dialogue with the work and its author. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, who dedicated his “Minor” to the fight for man, because man is a multifaceted concept, the highest title of all on earth.

Our first lessons on the work are devoted to working on the content and analysis of the first three acts of the comedy.

So…. The curtain opens!!!"

Children trying to determine tasks lessons.

3. We begin work on testing knowledge of the text of the work. Based on the characters' remarks, guess who they belong to. (Quiz).

6. Here is the one who owns my heart. Dear Sophia! (to Milo).

7. I have such a custom that if I put something into my head, I can’t knock it out with a nail. In my mind, you hear, what came into my mind is stuck here. That’s all I think about, that’s all I see in a dream, as if in reality, and in reality, as in a dream. (Skotinin).

8. I manage everything myself, father. From morning to evening, like someone hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight; This is how the house holds together, my father. (Prostakova).

Self-test (key on the board). 1-2 errors – “4”; 3-4 errors – “3”; 5 or more - “2”.

4. Express survey

At home, while reading the comedy, you should have made up three questions for the first three acts of the work.

To the blackboard into the literary ring Two students are called and asked questions. The student, acting as a referee, marks the correct answers of both students and determines the winner. The respondents, in turn, must determine the author of the best question. (Winners receive excellent marks)

5.Contest for the best interpreter of words.

The teacher’s word “Conscious reading is the basis for understanding the text. We will now check how much you understood what you read about.”

The competition is held pre-prepared student, who compiled a dictionary of words that raise doubts.

6. In fiction, the surname and name of a character, as a rule, are deeply thought out by the author and are often used to characterize the characters.

Name the comedy characters whose actions and words are in accordance with their first and last names (Sofya, Vralman, Pravdin, Skotinin, Starodum).

Using examples from the first three acts of the comedy, try to explain the correspondence of the actions and statements of Prostakova, Vralman, Skotinin and Pravdin with their surnames (front work).

7. You and I met the heroes of the comedy and established the main content of its three actions.

How do the comedy characters live, what is their world like?

You try to determine it yourself, working in groups.

Tell about the provincial estate nobility (group 1).

What did we learn about Mitrofanushka (group 2).

Service industrial nobility (group 3).

Mitrofan's teachers (4th group).

Images of serf servants (group 5).

Staging phenomenon 7, actions 3 (group 7).

(Prepare for the performance within five to six minutes).

8. Performance of the teams (no more than one and a half minutes).

(The teacher evaluates the performances,

foremen evaluate work of your team members).

9. Now we will all act as theater critics. Our task is to analyze the acting work of the guys who staged one of the comedy episodes. Moreover, some will note the positive aspects, others – the disadvantages. Opponents will be options 1 and 2. (Reading by roles).

10. Lesson Summary(children fail).

Final words from the teacher.

“So, the first part of our performance has ended.

Today we tried to enter the world in which the heroes of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin’s immortal comedy “The Minor” live.

The curtain is closing."

11. Homework:

3) issue (optional) creative work (poster, coat of arms, illustration, quiz, crossword, etc.).

To help the teacher.

On cards with support...

1 group

“The Prostakovs and Skotinin are the provincial estate nobility.

Both Prostakova and Skotinin...

However, they are different..."

2nd group

“What have we learned about Mitrofanushka from the first three acts of the comedy?

Mitrofan is a child worthy of his parents..."

3 group

“Images of the service and industrial nobility are the embodiment of the best qualities of a person, as their author understood.

This group includes…..

…. is the embodiment of...

…. is the embodiment of...

…. is the embodiment of ...."

4 group

“The images of serf servants (…., ….) are not developed by the author. The complete humiliation and downtroddenness of these people is the result of a powerless serfdom. They…."

5 group

“Mitrofan’s teachers (...,...) are also dependent on the Prostakovs and Skotinins, although to a lesser extent than the serfs.

Show that speech... And …. is in accordance with their upbringing, profession and social status.

Speech …. saturated...

The speech of ..., who studied at the theological seminary, is replete with outdated words taken from church books and worship ... "

6 group

“In “The Minor,” according to the fair remark of Fonvizin’s biographer, Vyazemsky, the author “... does not laugh, but is indignant at the vice and brands it without mercy...”. He opposes...”

Answer Keys

3 group

Milon - nobility;

Starodum - intelligence, wisdom;

Pravdin - justice.

6 group

Problems:

Ignorance;

Education system;

Legislation;

System of family relations.

How to evaluate the answer.

1. Richness of factual material.

2. Sequence of presentation.

3. Culture of speech design.

4. Availability, emotionality.

5. Ability to control the audience.

Algorithm for assessing face reading.

1.Ability to control the audience.

2. Emotionality.

3. Expressiveness (pauses, logical stress, tempo...).

4. In the image - look, pose, gesture.

Quiz

1. So is it really necessary to be a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well? What bestial reasoning! (Prostakova).

2. With your eyes, mine see nothing. (To Prostakov).

3. Surround me, my dear friend! Here, son, is my only consolation. (Prostakova).

4. Excuse me, madam. I never read letters without the permission of those to whom they are written. (Pravdin).

5. I can’t. I was ordered to lead the soldiers without delay... yes, moreover, I myself am eager to be in Moscow. (to Milo).

6. Here is the one who owns my heart. Dear Sophia! (to Milo)

7. I have such a custom that if I put something into my head, I can’t knock it out with a nail. In my mind, you hear, what came into my mind is stuck here. That’s all I think about, that’s all I see in a dream, as if in reality, and in reality, as in a dream. (to Skotinin)

8. I manage everything myself, father. From morning to evening, like someone hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight; This is how the house holds together, my father. (Prostakova)

9. I indulge in a little arithmetic. (To Tsyfirkin).

10. I speak without ranks. The ranks begin - sincerity ceases. (To Starodum).

The comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin is a masterpiece of Russian literature of the 18th century. The work entered the collection of classical literature, touching on a number of “eternal problems” and attracting modern readers with the beauty of its high style. The name of the play is associated with the decree of Peter I, in which the ruler stated that young nobles, “minors” without education, were prohibited from marrying and entering the service.

The writer came up with the idea for a comedy back in 1778. And in 1782 it was already written and presented to the public. An analysis of Fonvizin’s “Minor” would not be complete without a brief coverage of the time when the play was created. The author wrote it during the reign of Catherine II. This stage in the development of Russia is associated with the dominance of the then advanced ideas of an enlightened monarchy, borrowed from the French enlighteners. Their spread and popularity among the educated nobility and philistines was greatly facilitated by the empress herself, who corresponded with Voltaire, Diderot, d'Alembert, opened schools and libraries, and strongly supported the development of culture and art in Russia. Fonvizin, as a representative of his time, undoubtedly shared the prevailing ideas in noble society. He tried to reflect them in his work, revealing to the audience and readers not only their positive aspects, but also ridiculing their shortcomings and misconceptions.

Analysis of the comedy "The Minor" requires consideration of the play as part of the literary tradition and cultural era during which it was written. The work is one of the best examples of classicism. In "The Minor" there is unity of action (there are no minor storylines, only the struggle for Sophia's hand and property), place (the characters do not move long distances, events take place either in the Prostakovs' house or near their house), and time (all events do not take more than a day). In addition, Fonvizin used “speaking” surnames traditional for a classic play and a clear division into positive and negative characters. Positive Pravdin, Milon, Starodum, Sophia are contrasted with negative Prostakov, Skotinin, Mitrofan. At the same time, the names of the characters themselves make it clear to the reader what features prevail in the image of a given character - for example, Pravdin is the personification of truth and morality in the play.

At the time of its creation, “Nedorosl” became an important step in the development of Russian literature, in particular, Russian drama. Fonvizin creates a new genre of socio-political comedy, harmoniously combining a number of realistic scenes, depicted with irony, sarcasm, laughter, from the life of ordinary representatives of the nobility with educational sermons about virtue, morality, and the need to cultivate the best human qualities. At the same time, instructive monologues do not burden the perception of the play, but complement the work, making it deeper.

“Undergrowth” is divided into 5 actions. In the first, the reader gets acquainted with the Prostakovs, Sophia, Pravdin, Mitrofan Skotinin. The characters' personalities immediately emerge; it becomes clear to the reader that the Prostakovs and Skotinin are negative heroes, and Pravdin and Sophia are positive. The first act includes the exposition and plot of the work. Exposition - the reader gets acquainted with the characters, learns that Sophia lives in the care of the Prostakovs and they are going to marry her to Skotinin. The plot of the play is the reading of a letter from Starodum - Sophia is now a rich heiress, and her uncle is returning any day to take her to him.

The second, third and fourth acts are the development of the events of the work. The reader gets acquainted with Milon and Starodum. Skotinin and Prostakova try to please Starodum, but their falsity, flattery, excessive thirst for profit and lack of education only repels, looks funny and stupid. The funniest scene of the play is Mitrofan's questioning of what he knows, where not only the stupidity of the young man, but also of his mother is exposed.

The fifth act is the climax and denouement of the action. Scholars' opinions vary as to which moment in the play constitutes the climax of the play. So, there are three most common versions: the first is the abduction of Sofia Prostakova; the second is Pravdin’s reading of the letter stating that Prostakova’s estate is completely coming under his care; the third is Prostakova’s rage, when she realizes her powerlessness and wants to “take it out” on the servants. Each version is fair, as it is viewed from different points of view of the work. The first - from the point of view of the storyline of Sophia's marriage, the second - from the socio-political, as the moment of the triumph of justice in this estate, the third - from the historical, Prostakova personifies at this moment those who are exhausted, gone into the past, but still “not believing in their defeat “ideals and principles of the old nobility, based on lack of education, lack of enlightenment, and low moral principles. The denouement of the play is that everyone abandons Prostakova, who has nothing left. Starodum, pointing at her, says: “These are the fruits worthy of evil!”

Speaking about the main characters of the play, as already indicated above, they are clearly divided into positive and negative. Negative - Prostakovs, Skotinin, Mitrofan. Prostakova is a powerful, rude, uneducated woman who seeks profit everywhere, who knows how to flatter for gain, but who loves her son. Prostakov appears as the “shadow” of his wife, a weak-willed character whose word means little. Skotinin is Prostakova’s brother, just as stupid and uneducated, quite cruel, greedy for money, like his sister, for whom there is nothing better than a walk to the barnyard to see the pigs. Mitrofan is his mother's son, a spoiled 16-year-old boy who inherited a love for pigs from his uncle. In general, the issue of heredity and family ties occupies an important place in the play. So, Prostakova is only married to Prostakov (a really “simple” man who doesn’t want much), in fact she is Skotinina, a match for her brother. Mitrofan absorbed the qualities of both parents - the stupidity and “animal” qualities of the Skotinins (“I don’t want to study, I want to get married,” priorities are to eat, not read a book), and the weak-willedness of his father (his mother first decided for him, and then decided Pravdin).

Similar family ties can be traced between Starodum and Sophia. Both are educated, virtuous, honest. The girl listens carefully to her uncle, “absorbing” his science, and respects him. Positive and negative characters create dual pairs of opposites. “Children” - stupid, spoiled Mitrofan and smart, meek Sophia. “Parents” - both love children, but have different approaches to upbringing - Starodub conducts conversations on topics of morality, honor, truth, while Prostakova pampers Mitrofan and claims that education will not be useful to him. “Grooms” is a loving Milon who sees in Sophia his ideal and friend and counts the money that Skotinin will receive after marriage (at the same time, the girl is not interesting to him as a person, he does not even plan to arrange a comfortable home for her). Pravdin and Prostakov are in fact both the “voice of truth”, some kind of “auditors”, however, if the official represents active force, real action and help, then Prostakov is a passive character who the only thing he could say was to reproach Mitrofan in the end plays.

Analyzing Fonvizin’s “Minor”, ​​it becomes clear that in each of these pairs of characters a separate problem is raised, revealed in the work - the problem of education (supplemented by the example of half-educated teachers like Kuteikin and impostors like Vralman), the problem of fathers and children, education, the problem of family life, the relationship between husband and wife, the acute social problem of the attitude of nobles towards their servants. Each of these issues is considered through the prism of educational ideas. Fonvizin, sharpening attention to the shortcomings of the era through comic techniques, emphasizes the need to change traditional, outdated, long-irrelevant foundations that drag people into the swamp of “evil morality”, stupidity, likening them to animals.
As the analysis of the work “Minor” has shown, the central theme and idea of ​​the work is the need to educate the Russian nobility in accordance with the ideas of enlightenment, the foundations of which are still relevant today.

Work test

The topic of today's story is the history of the creation and analysis of Fonvizin's "Minor". The work of the author of Catherine’s era has not lost its relevance today. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” was included in the collection of classical literature. This work touches on a number of problems and issues that attract readers at all times.

An analysis of Fonvizin’s “Minor” should include a brief description of the heroes of this dramatic work. It is also worth talking about the idea of ​​the Russian writer. What inspired Fonvizin to write a comedy that has been popular for more than two hundred years? What shortcomings of society did the author primarily want to ridicule in his essay? And what was the reaction of contemporaries to this work? The answers to all these questions are contained in the article. But before we begin to analyze Fonvizin’s “The Minor,” we should talk about the main events depicted in the play.

Actions, as in any other dramatic work of the era of classicism, take place over the course of just one day.

The events take place in the village of the Prostakov landowners. What is the meaning of the title of the comedy “Minor” by Fonvizin? Even without knowing the meaning of this word, you can guess that it has a negative connotation. The meaning of the title of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” should be sought in the realities of the 18th century. The writer's contemporaries used this term in relation to young nobles who did not receive a special certificate indicating that they had received an education. This document was issued by the teacher. If the young man did not have a certificate, he was not accepted into the service and was not allowed to marry.

In the comedy, the son of the main character, the landowner Prostakova, is called a minor. The work begins with a scene taking place in her house. Prostakova is angry with Trishka because he sewed a caftan that was too wide for her son Mitrofanushka. She does not take into account the fact that the servant does not have the necessary skills in tailoring, and giving him such instructions was initially a mistake.

A sixteen-year-old boy does not show much zeal in his studies, which is facilitated by the lack of education and stupidity of his mother. We'll tell you more about these characters later. First, the author introduces readers to Sophia, the positive heroine of the work.

The girl has not been living in Prostakova’s house for long. She is a relative of a landowner, and she has no fortune. At least that’s what Prostakova believes. But one day Sophia receives a letter from her uncle Starodum. Mrs. Prostakova is not able to read the message because she has not been taught to read and write. Pravdin, having read the letter, gives her a summary. In Fonvizin’s “The Minor,” this hero, along with Starodum, is a supporter of enlightenment.

What is the letter Sophia received about? Starodum writes to his niece that he will bequeath her a huge fortune. This excites almost all the characters in the comedy. Prostakova believed that the girl was an orphan. But an unexpected turn of events suggests that Starodum’s niece can be married off to the careless Mitrofan.

Skotinin also begins to dream about marrying Sophia. However, Sophia's heart is occupied. She is in love with officer Milon, whom she met in Moscow before she was orphaned. Soon she will meet the young man again, and he will save her from the claims of the selfish Skotinin and the despotic Prostakova.

Starodum comes to the small town where the main events take place. He recognizes one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers as his former coachman. The teachers of Prostakova’s son deserve special attention.

Kuteikin is a half-educated seminarian. Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant. Vralman, whose last name speaks very eloquently of his human qualities, does not teach Mitrofanushka anything, because he himself knows little. As already mentioned, he previously worked as a coachman. But he was fired and couldn’t find a suitable job, so he became a teacher. Prostakova does not notice that Vralman is incompetent in teaching, since she herself is extremely ignorant.

History of writing

Fonvizin’s idea for the comedy “The Minor” arose in 1778. The Russian writer spent more than a year in France, where he studied jurisprudence and philosophy. He observed how European aristocrats lived and came to a rather disappointing conclusion: the Russian nobility was mired in inertia and ignorance. Upon returning home, Fonvizin began writing the work. It took him more than three years.

The idea of ​​the comedy “Minor” by Fonvizin was very original at that time. The writer sought to ridicule the shortcomings of typical representatives of the landowner class. It is not surprising that both Moscow and St. Petersburg refused to stage his comedy for a long time.

Criticism of contemporaries

The theme of Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" seemed interesting to the censors, but there were too many bold remarks in it. The premiere of the play took place in 1782. Fonvizin's work was a stunning success. True, the theater on whose stage the play was staged was almost closed. In addition, the comedy displeased Catherine II.

Idea of ​​the work

The spiritual decay of representatives of the nobility under serfdom is the main theme of the comedy discussed in this article. According to Fonvizin, pedagogical methods determine the moral character of an entire generation. In the 18th century, landowners often entrusted the upbringing of their children to half-educated sextons, illiterate nannies, and foreigners with dubious education. Such “teachers” are only capable of teaching young men like Mitrofanushka, the central character of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.”

The author of this work showed, using simple examples, that the nobles for the most part do not remember either honor or dignity. They do not serve the interests of the state, do not comply with moral and state laws. The poignancy of Fonvizin’s dramatic work is given by the victory of good over evil, which, however, is of a random nature. If Starodum had not returned from Siberia on time, and Pravdin had not received orders to take Prostakova’s property, everything would not have ended so well for Sophia. She would not have left the city with the young, educated officer Milon, but would have become the wife of the stupid Mitrofanushka.

Characters

The system of images in Fonvizin’s “Nedorosl” is quite simple. The characters are divided into positive and negative, almost all of them have meaningful surnames: Vralman, Starodum, Pravdin. Negative characters are representatives of the old nobility, trying with all their might to hold on to the outdated ideas of the serf system. They are opposed by heroes who support the ideas of the Enlightenment - Pravdin, Sophia, Milon, Starodum.

Positive and negative heroes

Among the characters in the comedy, several dual pairs can be distinguished. So, Sophia is opposed to Mitrofanushka. Starodum is an adherent of educational views. This is a man of new times. And therefore he represents the opposite of the landowner Prostakova. Milon is opposed to Skotinin. If the first is educated and brought up and has sincere feelings for Sophia, then the second wants to marry the girl for selfish reasons. Skotinin dreams of acquiring land where he will be actively involved in livestock farming, namely raising pigs.

Mitrofanushka

An analysis of Fonvizin’s “Minor” cannot do without a description of this bright character. The stupid, spoiled young man is absolutely not prepared for an independent life. His mother, servants or nannies do everything for him. From Prostakova, the boy adopts an uncontrollable passion for money. He, like his mother, is rude and disrespectful to his family. Mitrofanushka inherited his weak-willedness from his father. A sixteen-year-old boy does not want to study, but wants to get married. He is the opposite of Sophia, an educated, serious, intelligent girl with a difficult fate.

Prostakova

When analyzing Fonvizin’s “Minor,” you should pay attention to the negative heroine. Prostakova is an uneducated, stupid woman, but at the same time very cunning. She is a practical housewife and loving mother. For Prostakova, Mitrofanushka’s carefree future and happiness come above all else. But in her upbringing she makes fatal mistakes, because she knows nothing about the correct pedagogical methods. She treats her son the way her parents once treated her. In running the household and raising her son, the landowner uses exhausted values ​​and ideas.

Starodum

When analyzing Fonvizin’s “Minor”, ​​special attention should be paid to the hero, symbolizing educational ideas, which few knew about in Russia in the 18th century. Starodum communicates with Sophia in a completely different way than Prostakova communicates with Mitrofanushka. He uses completely different methods of education. Talking with Sophia as an equal, she instructs and gives advice based on her wealth of experience. Knowing nothing about Sophia’s feelings for Milon, he does not make decisions for her. Starodum wants his niece to marry a smart, educated officer, but does not impose his views on her.

In this image, the author depicted his ideal of a teacher and parent. Starodum is an authoritative, strong personality who has walked a worthy path. For modern readers, this hero, of course, is not an ideal educator. But Fonvizin’s contemporaries, inspired by educational ideas, were greatly impressed by him.