home › It's cozy at home › Education in the work of Fonvizin is undersized. Why is the topic of education relevant in the comedy "undergrowth"? composition

Education in the work of Fonvizin is undersized. Why is the topic of education relevant in the comedy "undergrowth"? composition

/ / / How is the theme of education revealed in Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth"?

Fonvizin's play is considered relevant and instructive in our time. It stands on a par with other masterpieces of world literature. The play, which is a comedy in form, in its essence reveals the tragic moments of the author's reality - the problems of autocracy, serfdom and education. Last problem is central to the work, because the whole play can be called a comedy of education.

The issue of education worries almost all the characters in the work. But they do not understand it the same way.

Why was education so exciting? It depended on him whether a person would be included in high society or not. Therefore, even an uneducated woman tries to give her son an education and upbringing. But he does it clumsily, so the result is the opposite.

Fonvizin wrote "Undergrowth" in 1782 - during the reign of Catherine II, who encouraged the omnipotence of tyrant landlords. Serfdom then flourished "in full glory" and corrupted the young minds of the underage. After all, they saw how the peasants were robbed and that they were not punished for it. Therefore, what kind of noble upbringing could we talk about?

The problem of education was of great concern to the author. He tried to push society towards the return of enlightenment in the state. Fonvizin believed that only those brought up in the spirit of enlightenment could become worthy rulers of the country. But so far the writer has seen only a malevolent upbringing younger generation and clearly showed this on the example of the hero. It seems that his story is exaggerated - and that makes it look funny. However, there were many such Mitrofanushki then, and even now they are. But people like Milo, smart and noble, were rather an exception. But the author supports them in every possible way, endowing them with the best qualities and making a good ending for them.

Fonvizin in the play confronts two views on education: patriarchal, supported by Prostakova and Skotinin, and advanced, supported by and. The result of the upbringing of the first was the half-educated Mitrofan, and the second - the noble and intelligent Sophia and her beloved Milon. So, showing grown different upbringing fruits, the author convincingly answers the question of what kind of education is better. Of course, this is an advanced educational upbringing.

Mrs. Prostakova has conservative views. She believes that it is not necessary for a woman to be able to read and write and is proud of being brought up differently. Why does she hire teachers for her son? Firstly, so that he would not be taken to the service, and secondly, so that he could enter high society. After all, something, but vanity was enough for this lady. She tries to demonstrate her power in everything, seeks to subjugate her relatives. Therefore, she does not consider it necessary to tell Sophia in advance about her engagement to Mr. Skotinin. The heroine believes that the girl should listen to her unconditionally. Upon learning that Sophia will become the heiress of Starodum, she weaves intrigues, trying to marry her off to her son Mitrofan.

Fonvizin shows in a comedy that the system of upbringing and education must be radically changed.

And education of the eighteenth century is placed in the main work of Denis Fonvizin, and the behavior of the characters and their characteristics contribute to the development of the conflict. "Undergrowth" is a brilliant comedy about pseudo-intellectuals who take lessons from the leading teachers of the state, but themselves do not learn anything at all. So was main character, Mitrofan.

Summary. "Undergrowth" as the best educational comedy

The Prostakov family is going to marry their only son Mitrofan to the clever and beautiful Sophia. Skotinin also has views of the bride, who, after the celebration, wants to take possession of the living creatures of the village - pigs, to which he is a great hunter. However, Sophia does not have feelings for any of the suitors and is waiting for the third - the well-mannered and educated young man Milon. Shortly before the wedding, the girl's uncle, Starodum, announces a large inheritance. The Prostakovs, having heard about this, wish to speed up the matchmaking, and before that they teach their son to read and write. From this moment events begin. How is the problem of upbringing and education solved in the comedy "Undergrowth"?

Mitrofan is a minor youth who has not yet served in public service and does not have a sharp mind. In the classroom, he is rude to teachers and makes fun of them, does not respect his mother at all and declares: “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married!”. Fortunately, Starodum and Milon appear in the village in time, who are going to take Sophia away from the Prostakovs. The mother of the family does not cease to insist on her own and boasts of the imaginary achievements of her son. Starodum is convinced that Mitrofan must first of all be given a good education and upbringing: the undergrowth speaks illiterately and cannot answer simple questions. Sophia's marriage with him will not take place, since the girl gives her consent to Milon. The Prostakovs remain in their village, and Starodum leaves with the newly-made bride and groom.

The problem of education in the society of the 18th century on the example of the Prostakov family

In Russia and throughout the world it is marked by the development of scientific and philosophical thought. Salons and schools were opened, as having a good education was considered fashionable, especially among the nobility. Enlightenment did not end with the knowledge of foreign languages and the ability to behave in society: a person must be able to read, write and count. and education in the comedy "Undergrowth" is staged in a different way: people of the older generation, such as Mrs. Prostakova, believe that education is not necessary at all. Mitrofan will not need arithmetic in his life: "There is money - we will calculate well even without Pafnutich." Nevertheless, Prostakova makes her son study so that he looks worthy in the eyes of the public.

Images of positive and negative characters

"Undergrowth" is a classic comedy in which all unities are observed, including the presence of speaking names. It is easy for the reader to guess that Prostakova, Skotinin and Vralman are negative characters: the first is as simple as three kopecks, the second is notable for his passion for cattle, the third lied so that he himself forgot about his origin; on the example of another negative character, Mitrofanushka, the author raises the actual problem of upbringing and education.

In the comedy "Undergrowth" Starodum, Pravdin and Milon are the bearer of virtue. They want to rescue Sophia from the village of Prostakov, and they succeed. These people were given the best education and they talk about "ignoramuses without a soul", such as Mitrofan. The speech of goodies is sublime, so readers still quote them.

The image of Mitrofan

The comedy "Undergrowth" becomes interesting due to the atypical character of the protagonist. Mrs. Prostakova in her only son. She boasts of his good education, although he never learned to read and write and other sciences. Fonvizin wrote the best classic comedy depicting the conflict of education, which the reader can delve into by reading full content.

and their characteristics

Mrs. Prostakova hires three teachers for her son: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman. The first is the most worthy and honest. Pafnutich Tsyfirkin responsibly treats the issue of education and tries with all his might to teach Undergrowth arithmetic, but is harassed by Prostakova and Vralman. At the end of the comedy, he refuses to pay for his work, because, as he himself admits, he failed to teach Mitrofan his science.

The half-educated seminarian Kuteikin boasts that he comes from scientists, but he also fails to find the right approach to the Undergrowth. For four years of teaching grammar Mitrofan " newline He won’t understand.” In the finale, Kuteikin demands payment not only for teaching hours, but also for worn shoes.

Vralman managed to achieve favor with the Prostakovs with flattering speeches. The false teacher claims that it is enough for Mitrofan to know how to behave in society, and arithmetic and grammar will not do him any good. Soon Starodum exposes Vralman: he recognizes in him his retired coachman, who began to engage in a new craft. The problem of upbringing and education in the comedy "Undergrowth" is solved in the finale: they decide to send Mitrofan to the army, since the young man is deaf to science and elementary etiquette.

The meaning of the last scenes

The title of the comedy reveals the essence of Mitrofan, his negative characteristic. The minor is not only deaf to the questions of education, but also shows elementary disrespect for the older generation. He shocks his mother, who doted on him and did all the best for him. People like Mrs. Prostakova are said to have fallen in love with their children. “Yes, get rid of it, mother,” Mitrofanushka tells her, after which the poor woman faints, and Starodum concludes: “Here are worthy fruits of evil-mindedness.” In the finale, the author laid a deep meaning: people who at first were deaf to the sciences very rarely acquire a desire to learn through long years, so they continue to be ignoramuses. Ignorance gives rise to other negative human qualities: stinginess, rudeness, cruelty.

At the end of the play, the carriers of virtue - Sophia, Milon, Pravdin and Starodum - leave the Prostakov village. "The ignorant without a soul" is left to choose the path of their development: their worldview must change, or they will remain the same soulless.

Problems of upbringing and education in the comedy D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth"

upbringing education young generation youth

The comedy "Undergrowth" by Fonvizin was written by Fonvizin in 1781 and staged in the theater in 1782. It was the pinnacle of the playwright's work. The historical prototype of the "Undergrowth" was the title of a noble teenager who did not complete his studies. During the time of Fonvizin, the burdens of compulsory service increased at the same time as the weakening of material incentives for it. "Shedding" from school and service became a chronic ailment of the nobility. According to the law of 1736, the term of teaching the undergrowth was extended to 20 years. The same law allowed undergrowth with means to be brought up at home. The demands of society and service imposed on these people the hated science. These people did not understand their noble status and the importance of the sciences in their lives. At this time, a turning point was taking place in the position of the nobility, requiring full attention to itself.

Educated Russian people of that time persistently insisted that the entire Russian nobility needed knowledge of civil laws and the state of their own fatherland, Russian geography and history. Confirmation of this was the immortal comedy Fonvizin "Undergrowth". The author himself was in sharp opposition to the autocratic arbitrariness of the Russian monarchy, to the ignorant feudal noblemen, who “oppressed slavery” of the serfs given into their full power. Therefore, one of the central problems in comedy was the problem of education and upbringing of noble youth - the creation of new generations of advanced people.

Everyone talks about upbringing in the play - starting with Mrs. Prostakova and ending with Pravdin and Starodum. Fonvizin shows the clash of two views on upbringing and education: patriarchal (Prostakova, Skotinin, Mitrofan) and advanced, educational (Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia).

The question of false and true education lies in the name itself. It is not for nothing that in modern Russian the word "undergrowth" means a half-educated person. After all, Mitrofan did not learn anything positive at the age of sixteen, although his mother hired teachers for him, but she did this not out of love for literacy, but only because Peter I commanded so. Prostakova did not hide this and said:

“... at least for the sake of appearance, study, so that it comes to his ears how you work! ..”

It was precisely because of the decree of Peter I that all underage sons of the nobility were required to have knowledge of the law of God, grammar, and arithmetic. Without this, they had no right to marry or enter the service. They were ordered to be given to soldiers or sailors without seniority. That is why, fearing for the future of Mitrofan, that he will have to serve in the army, Prostakov hires teachers for him.

Mrs. Prostakova herself and her brother Skotinin, who squeezes the last juices out of his serfs, take conservative positions. Prostakova proudly declares that she cannot read, and, in general, is it ever heard that “girls can read and write!” The same view is held by Skotinin, who also "has never read anything from his birth." But already both Skotinin and Prostakova are beginning to understand that times are changing, and one cannot do without education. Of course, a title of nobility will allow you to get some kind of rank, but you can break into high society only with a good education. Therefore, they force Mitrofan to study and hire teachers for him. But here, too, they try in every possible way to protect Mitrofanushka from teachers and damned teaching, as a result of which he treated his teachers, of whom only the arithmetic teacher tried to transfer his knowledge to Mitrofan, with disdain. That is why nothing worthwhile comes out of such a teaching, since “through education they understood one food,” says one of the heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy.

Truthful, vitally convincing in the comedy are the images of Mitrofan's home teachers: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman.

Retired soldier Tsyfirkin - a man who has a number good qualities. He is industrious: “I don’t like to live idle,” he says. In the city, he helps the clerks: “to check the account, then to sum up the results,” and “he teaches the guys at his leisure.” Fonvizin painted the image of Tsyfirkin with obvious sympathy.

In another light, Fonvizin gives a teacher of Russian and Church Slavonic languages, Kuteikin. This is a half-educated seminarian who left the first classes of the theological seminary, who, “fearing the abyss of wisdom”, leaves the teaching. This fact already suggests that we have a person who does not seek to learn, therefore, does not strive and does not know how to teach anything worthwhile, engaged in this craft in order to feed himself. In the language of Kuteikin, Church Slavonicisms, which he brought from the spiritual environment and the spiritual school, are strongly emphasized, which indicates his conservatism and lack of understanding of the true purpose of the teaching in the life of both an individual and the whole society. He is not without cunning. Reading with Mitrofan, not without intent, he chooses the text: “I am a seven worm, not a man, a reproach to people,” and even interprets the word worm - “that is, animal, cattle.” Like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna. But Kuteikin sharply differs from Tsyfirkin in his greed for money.

In a satirical light, the German Vralman, a rogue teacher, a man with a lackey soul, a former coachman of Starodum, is portrayed in a comedy. Having lost his place due to the departure of Starodum to Siberia, he became a teacher, because he could not find a place for a coachman. Naturally, such an ignorant "teacher" could not teach his student anything. He did not teach, indulging Mitrofan's laziness and taking advantage of Prostakova's complete ignorance.

Mitrofan clearly demonstrated the results of his “learning” to read and write, calling one door an “adjective”, and the other “a noun for the time being”. He does not even know that there are such sciences as geography and history.

Also, with great artistic power, Fonvizin depicted the attitude of the young nobility (through the image of Mitrofan) to the serfs, the relationship laid down by parents in the course of raising their children. Fonvizin, through the introduction of the image of Eremeevna, Mitrofan's nanny, convincingly shows what a corrupting influence serfdom had on both the feudal nobles and the servants of the yard, how it disfigures, perverts their inherent good human qualities, develops and educates cruelty in some, and in others - slavish humiliation.

For forty years Yeremeevna has served as Prostakov-Skotinin. She is selflessly devoted to them, slavishly attached to the house, she has a highly developed sense of duty. Not sparing herself, she protects Mitrofan. When Skotinin wants to kill Mitrofan, Eremeevna, shielding Mitrofan, frenzied and raising her fist, shouts:

“I’ll die on the spot, but I won’t give the child away. Sunsya, sir, just show yourself if you please. I'll scratch those walleyes."

But this devotion and sense of duty acquire a distorted, slavish character from Yeremeyevna. She has no sense of human dignity. There is not only no hatred for their inhuman oppressors, but even no protest. Serving her tormentors, "not sparing her stomach (that is, life)," Eremeevna lives in constant fear. Prostakova repairs the court and reprisals, and therefore the serf trembles before her fierce mistress.

"Oh, he's leaving him! Where should my head go? - She screams in despair and fear, seeing how Skotinin approaches Mitrofan with threats. And when Milon pushes Eremeevna away from Sofya, Eremeevna yells: “My little head is gone!”

And for such selfless and faithful service, Eremeevna receives only beatings and hears such appeals from Prostakova and Mitrofan as a beast, a dog's daughter, an old witch, an old grunt. The son, seeing before him an example of the treatment of his mother and uncle with serfs, takes it from them and, despite the care and kindness of Eremeevna, is rude and cruel to the nanny. Hard and tragic is the fate of Eremeevna, forced to serve the fiendish landlords, who are unable to appreciate her faithful service. At the end of the play, we see that Mitrofan also shows an inhuman attitude towards his mother, as soon as he finds out that she has lost power, and, rudely pushing Prostakov away, tells her: “Get off, mother, how they imposed themselves.” She was able to feel the result of her upbringing on herself: her son changed her cruel attitude towards others to her attitude.

Thus, home education did not give him any, even the most simple knowledge and ideas about duty, honor, rules of conduct in society. Such a young man cannot be useful to society. This satirical picture, created in a comedy, deadly by the power of the accusatory sarcasm contained in it, serves as a sentence for such a system of education and upbringing of simpletons and cattle.

In contrast to Mitrofanushka, Fonvizin creates positive image young man, honest, noble, educated. This is a young officer Milon. The playwright puts a certain idea into this image, because he sincerely believes that such people can truly serve their homeland. In order to educate such young nobles who think about honest service to the Fatherland, who in their actions are guided by the norms of morality and philanthropy, it is necessary to build new system upbringing and education, focusing on the principles of Starodum, the hero-reasoner, who expresses the position of the author of the play.

Speaking of Starodum, it would not be superfluous to recall Father Fonvizin. Fonvizin, presenting his father as a man of the old times, distinguished by such virtues that are not available in the "current circulation of the world." It makes it possible to indicate the prototype for the Starodum he created: those maxims of personal and public morality that he puts into the mouth of Starodum were, perhaps, already in the instructions of his father, who aroused in Fonvizin a love for the old Russian life.

Fonvizin put his ideas regarding the education of the younger generation into the mouth of the hero Starodum. From the conversation of the heroes, we learn that Sophia wants to earn a good opinion of herself from worthy people. She wants to live in such a way that, if possible, she never offends anyone. Starodum instructs the girl on the “true path”, and she absorbs all the life truths of her uncle, who believes: “Good manners give a direct price to the mind. Without him clever man- monster. It is immeasurably higher than all the fluency of the mind ... one respect should be flattering to a person - sincere; and spiritual respect is worthy of the one who is in ranks not according to money, but in the nobility not according to ranks.

Starodum is the ideal educator of Catherine's time. It is not for nothing that he claims that “not the rich one who counts money to hide it in a chest, but the one who counts too much to help those who do not have what they need ...”

The final remark of Starodum, which ends the "Undergrowth":

“Here are the worthy fruits of evil-mindedness!” - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin, the whole play is given a special political sound. The unlimited political power of the landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example from the highest authorities, became a source of arbitrariness, this led to the oblivion of the nobility of their duties and principles of estate honor, that is, to spiritual degeneration ruling class. In the light of the general moral and political concept of Fonvizin, which is expressed in the play by positive characters, the world of simpletons and cattle appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of malevolence.

A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and direction of creative research, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of enlighteners and voiced a courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the feudal lords. The whole play is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of enlightenment, justice and humanism.

Gryazeva Tatiana

The inner world of man spiritual world, his intellectuality and erudition, education can develop throughout our lives, there is no limit to the endless improvement of human knowledge of the truth. But at the same time, as there is no limit to the endless improvement, so there is no limit to the endless fall and degradation of man. But at the same time, the world of man, his spiritual development allows us to talk about quite definite patterns in the system of education and upbringing in our country, and, accordingly, possible ways of its development.

Classical literature invites us to such a conversation, in which concern for upbringing and education for the fate of mankind and a close study of the inner world and upbringing, education of an individual are merged into an inseparable whole.

The mere understanding that a person must be internally educated and educated is not enough; one must combine knowledge and life, word and deed. Such a connection contributes to moral improvement and strengthening of consciousness that any person must have an inner intellect, education and upbringing, which contribute to humane undertakings and high moral guidelines for life.

Download:

Preview:

Ministry of Education of the Nizhny Novgorod Region

State budgetary educational institution secondary vocational education

Arzamas Commercial Technical College

ABSTRACT

THE PROBLEM OF UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION IN D.I. FONVIZINA "NEDOROSL"

Developed by:

Gryazeva Tatyana, student of group 09-22TM SBEI SPO AKTT

Supervisor:

Gorozhankina Elena Vyacheslavovna, teacher of Russian language and literature

GBOU SPO AKTT

Arzamas

2012

Introduction 3

The history of the creation of comedy 5
Comedy Theme and Plot 7
The problem of upbringing and education in comedy 11
Characters, their placement. Talking names 15
The originality and modernity of the sound of comedy 19

Conclusion 22

Literature 24

Introduction

The inner world of a person, his spiritual world, his intellectuality and erudition, education can develop throughout our lives, there is no limit to the endless improvement of human knowledge of the truth. But at the same time, as there is no limit to the endless improvement, so there is no limit to the endless fall and degradation of man. But at the same time, the world of man, his spiritual development allows us to talk about quite definite patterns in the system of education and upbringing in our country, and, accordingly, possible ways of its development.

In our work, we will talk about the system of education and upbringing in the work of D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". Fonvizin in his comedy revealed the internal laws of the system of education and upbringing in Russia of his time on the example of one Prostakov family, where they teach a young nobleman various sciences, because educated people of that time persistently insisted that all Russian nobility needed knowledge of civil laws and the state of their own fatherland, Russian geography and history.

Relevance present topic lies in the fact that the works of D.I. Fonvizin remain sharply modern today, because the writer thought and created in the light of millennia of history. He was able to perceive every fact, every phenomenon of life and thought as a new link in the thousand-year chain of being and consciousness.

The purpose of the work is to characterize the system of education and upbringing in the country during the life of Fonvizin himself.

Research objectives:

1) refer to the history of the creation of comedy;

2) analyze the theme and plot of the comedy;

3) to explore the problem of upbringing and education;

4) characterize the characters and their placement;

5) to reveal the originality and modernity of the sound of comedy in our time.

The object of the study is the system of education and upbringing of Catherine's time, portrayed by Fonvizin.

The subject of the study is D.I. Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth", which is one of the best works of Russian literature. Fonvizin achieved an extremely clear construction of comedy, finding the artistic originality of the sound, the arrangement of the characters and the storyline. The system of education and upbringing in the country as a social phenomenon interested the writer. The world described by the author, as well as the problems that worried the writer, are revealed in the work in the actions and thoughts of the comedy characters.

In "Undergrowth" is given bright case on the example of one noble family, how the system of education and upbringing of their children was decided by the nobles of that time.

The work of D.I. Fonvizin is distinguished by the drama of ideological clashes, the irreconcilability of judgments. Fonvizin sincerely and passionately expresses and defends his ideas, views, and beliefs in comedy.

1 History of the creation of comedy

The Russian audience got acquainted with the genre of comedy already in the time of Peter the Great. In the first public theater, organized by Peter the Great, translated comedies were staged, including several plays by the greatest French comedian of the 18th century, Molière. Since that time, the so-called sideshows have gained great popularity in very wide circles of the people - small comic scenes designed for a mass audience, which were distinguished by a significant simplicity of the language, close to the living folk language.

The first Russian comedies were Sumarokov's three plays: "Tressotinius", "Monsters" and "Empty Quarrel", written by him one after another in 1750 and then staged. Already in 1765, the first sample of the Russian “tearful comedy” appeared - “Mine, corrected by love”, by the 18th century playwright V. I. Lukin. At the same time, Lukin spoke out against the comedies of his predecessor Sumarokov, written by him in the first period of his comedic work. Compiled according to Western European models, Sumarokov's early comedies, although they claimed to depict Russian life, were very far from reality. Lukin believed that the time had not yet come for the appearance of a completely original Russian dramaturgy. “It is necessary to borrow,” he said bluntly. But in accordance with their theoretical provisions. Lukin tried to borrow "successfully". He carefully “cleaned out” the foreign original, that is, he eliminated from it all the features not characteristic of Russian life: foreign proper names and names, household details, non-Russian turns of speech, replacing all this with the corresponding Russian material. Lukin called such a reworking of a foreign original "an inclination to Russian customs", a reworking "into our customs and habits." Such was the situation in the field of Russian drama, in particular, Russian comedy, before Fonvizin. Lukin's ideas were also accepted by the young Fonvizin. But, in contrast to Lukin, Fonvizin did not stop there: from the "inclination" of foreign originals to Russian customs, he quickly moved on to creating a truly original national Russian dramaturgy.

The central work of Fonvizin "Undergrowth" was nurtured by him for many years, playing for him about the same role as "Eugene Onegin" for Pushkin. The first draft of The Undergrowth, which is very different from the comedy in its final form and only recently - in 1934 - published (only three acts of it have come down to us), dates back to 1760. And according to a number of signs, one might even think it precedes The Brigadier, that is, it is Fonvizin's first experience of creating an original Russian comedy in prose. The Undergrowth was completed almost 20 years later, in 1782, when it first appeared on the stage of the theater.

At first, Fonvizin only wanted to portray how a spoiled landowner's son, who is indulged in everything by a stupid mother, grows up as a completely ignorant and rude egoist. These first sketches of the comedy show how mother and father are trying to teach reading and writing to their son Ivanushka, who does not yet know the alphabet, although he already has a beard. In the original draft of the comedy, Ivanushka's stupid mother is stubborn but weak-willed. The father understands better that his son still needs to be taught, but he does not know how to make him study. Ivanushka beats and scolds his parents with impunity. These rough sketches of The Undergrowth did not satisfy Fonvizin. He didn't want to just limit himself to portraying bad teaching. Fonvizin understood that it was necessary to show how serfdom, developing cruelty and rudeness in the nobility, is also reflected in the upbringing of children. He pondered new scenes in which the arbitrariness of the landlord power would be clearly depicted. This comedy, in which serfdom was directly touched upon, was supposed to show, first of all, how repulsive such an order is, in which some people are the property of other people. Every year, morals in Catherine's palace became more and more outrageous, more often she exalted random close associates who had no merit to the Motherland. So Starodum appears in the comedy, who served at the imperial court, but quit this service and now speaks of palace customs with sharp condemnation. Now Fonvizin wanted not only to ridicule the bad upbringing of the landowner's son, but also to portray the inhumanity of serfdom, and at the same time show it. How deceptive is the splendor of the court of Catherine II. The problem of educating a young nobleman is put in focus in The Undergrowth. Education, or rather, the lack of any normal education of Mitrofanushka, constitute the main theme of the final edition of The Undergrowth, which continues to be emphasized by the very title of the play. Mitrofanushka is not only a fruit bad upbringing, but also this education itself (this is how this topic is now deepening). Fonvizin shows how the organic result of the entire social way of life of the "evil-tempered" serf-owners Prostakovs - Skotinins. A play about upbringing grows into a play about landlord malice, our first social comedy - satire. In "Undergrowth" he falls upon the main evil of that time - serfdom.

2 Comedy theme and plot

The main theme of "Undergrowth" is indicated by the writer already in the first act. The landowner Prostakova is trying on Mitrofanushka's caftan. The first phrase of Prostakova: “The caftan is all ruined, Eremeevna, bring the swindler Trishka here. He, the thief, has restrained him everywhere,” introduces us into the atmosphere of the main theme of the comedy - the arbitrariness of the landowners' power. All the following five phenomena are devoted precisely to showing this arbitrariness. The serf Trishka, summoned to reprisal, intelligibly explains that he sewed the caftan to measure, that he fits well, and that if you don’t like the work, then you had to give it to a real tailor, since he, Trishka, is a self-taught tailor. Rejecting any explanation, Prostakova believes that the caftan is narrow, and therefore orders her husband: “I don’t intend to indulge slaves. Go, sir, and punish now.” The arrival of Skotinin crowns this scene. To his sister's question - what is the caftan, he remarks that "the caftan is pretty well sewn." This phrase clarifies the whole meaning of the scene with Trishka - the possession of people like himself corrupts the nobles, hardens them, turning them into despots. Trishka sewed a good caftan. And instead of gratitude, he is ordered to be punished. And no force is able to change this order, there is no way to prove one's innocence - for Trishka's lawlessness is opposed by the arbitrariness of the landowners.

This is how "Undergrowth" begins. The main conflict in the social and political life of Russia - the arbitrariness of the landlords, supported by the highest authorities, and the lack of rights of the serfs - becomes the theme of a comedy. In a dramatic work, the theme is revealed with special power of persuasiveness in the development of the plot, in action, in the struggle. The only dramatic conflict of the "Undergrowth" is the struggle between the progressive-minded advanced nobles - Pravdin and Starodum - with the feudal lords - the Prostakovs and Skotinin.

The first act openly confronts the viewer with the central and the most important topic era - disaster for Russia serfdom. The author raises this question actively - he shows the horrors of slavery, its consequences, depicts the struggle against it. Already at the very beginning of the comedy, Pravdin appears, who, as it turns out, came to the Prostakovs' estate in order to limit the power of the landlord's arbitrariness. The second act reveals to the spectator the content of the necessary extended struggle. Pravdin declares to officer Milon: “As a friend, I will reveal to you the reason for my stay here. I have been designated as a member of the governorship here. I have a command to go round the local area, and, moreover, from my own feat of my heart, I do not leave to notice those malicious ignoramuses who, having full power over their people, use it for evil inhumanly.

The third and fourth acts demonstrate the horrors of slavery, which should confirm to the viewer the moral correctness of Pravdin, the need to fight Skotinin and the Prostakovs. The consequences of slavery are truly terrible. The peasants of the Prostakovs are completely ruined. Even Prostakova herself does not know what to do next: “since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t take anything away. Such a disaster." But it turns out that there is no limit to the art of tearing three skins from a man. Brother Prostakova Skotinin found a new remedy, about which he proudly says to his sister: “I’ll tear everything off my own peasants, and the ends will be in the water.”

But the Prostakovs are not limited to the torment and ruin of their serfs. Slavery turns the peasants into slaves, completely killing in them all human traits, all the dignity of the individual. With special force it appears on the yard. Fonvizin created an image of enormous power - the slaves of Eremeevna. An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings - that's what fell to her lot. She has long lost even a human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames - "beast", "old grunt", "dog's daughter", "scum". Beatings and insults, insults and humiliations fall on the head every day old woman, which serves faithfully to its owners. For all the "great blessings" from the masters, she receives "five rubles a year, and five slaps a day." But this is only one side of cruel tyranny. The writer also saw another one - how such a life completely killed a man in Eremeevna, turning her into a serf, a watchdog of his mistress, who humbly licks the hand of the owner who beat her. The mother's servility is shown with special force by the playwright in the scene of her defense of her foster child Mitrofanushka from the enraged Skotinin. Eremeevna, with her suffering and servility, as a living witness to the criminality of serfdom, helps the author to condemn slavery severely and angrily.

Prostakova's husband is a nobleman only according to the "velvet book" - in life he is a downtrodden, insignificant, impersonal creature, trembling in fear of Mrs. Prostakova on a par with Eremeevna. The son of Prostakova - Mitrofanushka - is not only a stupid and ignorant animal, "cattle, not a man", "reproach of people", but also a cruel, soulless tyrant and despot. The despotism of the landowners' power corrupted Prostakova, who, having lost her human appearance, ceased to be a wife and mother. As a result of this landlord despotism, she mutilated family relations, turning her husband into a slave, and her son into a tyrant. At the same time, the unlimited power over people, the consciousness of their complete irresponsibility, brought up disgusting cowardice in the nobles. Mitrofan, who constantly offended his old mother, mocked his father, shamefully cowards before his uncle and, a sixteen-year-old kid, humiliatedly hides behind Eremeevna's skirt. Prostakova, who cruelly punished all the people around her subject to her, feels great fear of Pravdin and Milon when her attempt to take away Sophia was revealed, and humbly begs for mercy on her knees.

The main intention of Fonvizin in "Undergrowth" was the desire to show all the actions, deeds, thoughts of Prostakovs and Skotinin, all their morality and interests in social conditioning. They are generated by serfdom, - says Fonvizin. That is why, from the first to the last act, the theme of serfdom permeates the entire work. The end of the comedy is natural - the struggle against the feudal lords is crowned with victory, the rights to own serfs are taken away from the cruel landowners, guardianship is imposed on the estate. As soon as this main and only theme, which determined the content of the struggle, is completed, the comedy is over. The only plot struggle is the struggle with the serf-owner Prostakova, a political struggle, because the content of this struggle is the deprivation of the nobleman's right to own his estate. This struggle is waged by Pravdin, supported by Starodum and Milon, who determine the outcome of the struggle, they are the main active force of comedy. At the same time, they are least of all engaged in moral condemnation of Skotinin, Prostakovs, Mitrofan - their insignificance causes them only a feeling of contempt and indignation, which immediately entails action - the desire to take away their power from the Prostakovs, the source of all troubles and misfortunes. For the first time, positive heroes appeared on the scene, who act, putting their ideals into practice.

In his comedy, Fonvizin completely compromised the love plot as the basis of a dramatic work, laying the foundation for the conflict of the era, taken from the social and political life of Russia in the 70s and early 80s.

And the love struggle for Sophia Skotinin and Mitrofan does not organize the action. It is shown by the writer as a parody, introduced with the aim of comically compromising the heroes exposed. Skotinin's "passion" is determined, on the one hand, by the desire to get Sofyushkin's money, with which he "will redeem all the pigs from the wide world", and, on the other hand, by the desire to "have his own piglets." Mitrofan wants to get married because he is tired of studying. The harassment of these suitors is not intrigue. They only make Sophia smile - the idea of this matchmaking is so monstrously absurd for her and her friends. Sophia herself tells her beloved Milon about Mitrofan - the groom: “If you saw him, your jealousy would bring you to the extreme ... Although he is sixteen years old, he has already reached the last degree of his perfection and will not go further.” When the second rival, Skotinin, appears, Pravdin reasonably stops Milon, outraged by his reasoning: “How can you be angry with Skotinin!” The whole subsequent struggle of the "rivals" - Mitrofan and Skotinin is of a mocking nature, clearly pursuing only one goal - to once again emphasize the "bestiality" of the representatives of the "noble class". The plot is built on the struggle against serfdom as the greatest evil that morally corrupts modern noble society and the people as a whole, against the policy of Catherine II and directly against her as the defender of serfdom. It was in the plot, and above all in the plot, that the realism of The Undergrowth manifested itself. Not a traditional, conditionally literary love affair sets up a comedy, but big social and political events in the public life of Russia. This was perfectly understood and welcomed by Gogol. Speaking of "Undergrowth" and "Woe from Wit", he wrote: "The content, taken into intrigue, is not tightly tied, but masterfully untied. It seems that the comedians themselves cared a little about him, seeing something else through him, higher content and contemplating with him the goings and goings of their faces. This innovative nature of the plot led to the creation of a new type of comedy. “They can be called,” Gogol continued, “truly social comedies, and as far as it seems to me, comedy has not yet taken on such an expression among any of the peoples. Therefore, such new plot helped to reveal deeply and penetratingly the most important aspects of the socio-political life of Russia, "the wounds and illnesses of our society, which are exposed by the merciless power of irony in stunning evidence."

3 The problem of upbringing and education in comedy

The historical prototype of the "Undergrowth" was the title of a noble teenager who did not complete his studies. During the time of Fonvizin, the hardships of compulsory service increased at the same time as the material motivation for it weakened. Evasion from school and service became a chronic ailment of the nobility. Mitrofan at Fonvizin's will soon turn sixteen; but he is still a minor: according to the law of 1736, the term of teaching a minor is extended to twenty years. The same law allowed undergrowth with means to be brought up at home. The demands of society and service imposed on these people the hated science. These people did not understand their noble position, and in the position of the estate there was a turning point that required full attention to itself. Educated people of that time persistently asserted that the entire Russian nobility needed knowledge of civil laws and the state of their own fatherland, Russian geography and history. In the same autumn, when "Undergrowth" was played for the first time, a commission was created in St. Petersburg on the establishment of public schools in Russia. And it is clear that Fonvizin, as an active figure in the Enlightenment, could not but participate in the discussion of the problems of education and upbringing in the country. Therefore, these problems take up so much space in his comedy The Undergrowth.

So, Mitrofan, who will soon be sixteen years old, is studying at his parents' house. Chief educator Mitrofanushki is his own mother. In "Undergrowth" a wealthy noble family of Catherine's time is shown in an absolutely chaotic state. All concepts here are turned upside down; all feelings are turned inside out; in everything there is oppression and arbitrariness, lies and deceit, a general general misunderstanding. Who is stronger, oppresses; who is weaker, lies and deceives. The mistress of Prostakov's house is a mixture of arrogance and meanness, cowardice and malice, inhumanity towards everyone and tenderness for her son. With all this, she is absolutely ignorant and uneducated, so the teachers chosen for her son are, in fact, a half-educated seminarian, a retired soldier and just a coachman. What can they teach Mitrofan? However, for Prostakova, this does not matter. Even her tailor didn't actually learn tailoring anywhere. Prostakova's self-confidence is so great that she believes that it is enough just to order, and her tailor will learn the skill himself. The tyranny of Prostakova makes her loved ones lie and dodge, so the result of upbringing in this family is natural. The ignorance in which Mitrofanushka grew up and domestic examples raised in him a monster and a home teacher just like his own mother. At the end of the comedy, Mitrofan with great ease abandons his own mother. His upbringing disfigured his essentially harmless character. According to P. A. Vyazemsky, in the person of Prostakova, Fonvizin ridicules “the disastrous fruits of ignorance, poor education and abuse of domestic power.”

The opponent of Prostakova in the comedy is Starodum, in whose person Fonvizin tried to present the enlightened power of the noble society. Starodum was the hero and ideal of Fonvizin. Of course, the positive characters of the play are not so much the characters in the drama as its moral setting. Starodum not so much living face, how much a moral mannequin, the ideal educator of Catherine's time. It is not for nothing that he claims that “not the rich one who counts money to hide it in a chest, but the one who counts out the excess in order to help someone who does not need it ... A nobleman would consider it a first dishonor not to do anything: there are people who help, there is a fatherland to serve”, “a great sovereign, there is a wise sovereign”, “conscience is always, as a friend warns, before the judge punishes”. Starodum's words are Fonvizin's call for the moral purity of the moral foundations of contemporary society. At one time, he even published a magazine with a symbolic title - “Friend honest people or Starodum.

The question of the system of education and upbringing is one of the important problems of Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth". Everyone talks about upbringing in the play - starting with Mrs. Prostakova and ending with Pravdin and Starodum. Fonvizin shows the clash of two views on upbringing and education: patriarchal (Prostakova, Skotinin, Mitrofan) and advanced, educational (Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia). Prostakova and Skotinin are on conservative positions. Prostakova declares that she can’t read, and indeed, is it ever heard that “girls can read and write!” The same view is held by Skotinin, who also "has never read anything from his birth." But already Skotinin and Prostakova are beginning to understand that times are changing, and one cannot do without education.

Of course, a title of nobility will allow you to get some kind of rank, but you can break into high society only if you have a good education and upbringing. Therefore, they force Mitrofan to study and hire teachers themselves for him. However, they themselves are trying to protect Mitrofanushka from any study. As a result, Mitrofan grows up not just an ignoramus, who knows absolutely nothing and does not want to learn. This is also a vicious, rude, cruel and heartless person. He grew up a soulless egoist, completely disrespectful even to his mother. Starodum is absolutely right when he says that this is “evil morality worthy of fruit”.

In contrast to Mitrofanushka, Fonvizin creates a positive image of a young man, honest, noble, educated. This is a young officer Milon. The playwright puts a certain idea into this image, because he sincerely believes that such people can truly serve their Motherland. Fonvizin put his ideas on the education of the younger generation into the mouth of the reasoning hero Starodum. In the fourth act of the play, we become witnesses of how Starodum educates Sofya, expressing to her his thoughts, his life observations. From the conversation of the heroes, we learn that Sophia wants to earn a good opinion of herself from worthy people. She wants to live in such a way that, if possible, she never offends anyone. Starodum instructs the girl on the "true path", and she absorbs all the life truths of her uncle. We can say that Starodum's instructions fell on fertile ground. They will undoubtedly bear fruit.

Fonvizin creates memorable images of Mitrofan's teachers. The playwright seeks to show that it is unlikely that teachers like Kuteikin, who himself did not graduate from the seminary, or Vralman, a former coachman, will be able to teach anything sensible to a young man. Of these, one Tsyfirkin evokes sympathy for his honesty, directness and conscientiousness. He refuses to take money that he did not deserve, since he could not teach anything to the club-headed Mitrofan. The playwright believes that the problem of upbringing and education is of national importance, because only in proper upbringing and education is the source of salvation from the evil that threatens society. The story of Mitrofanushka explains where the Skotinins come from and what should be changed so that they no longer appear: destroy slavery and overcome by moral education vices of human nature.

The problem of upbringing lies, firstly, in getting an education. Mrs. Prostakova understands that "now the age is different" and hires "teachers" to teach Mitrofan the sciences. He was taught by three "teachers": "literacy" - deacon Kuteikin, "arithmetic" - retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, "in French and all sciences" - coachman Vralman. The author frankly laughs at such "learning". Mitrofan clearly demonstrated the results of "learning" to read and write, calling one door "adjective", and the other - "for the time being a noun." He does not even know that there are such sciences as geography and history. Home upbringing and education did not give him any, even the most simple concepts about duty, honor, rules of conduct in society. Such a young man cannot be useful to society.

The most important problem education, according to Starodum and Pravdin, is to educate a person in high moral qualities. Much attention is paid to explaining their views on this issue in the comedy. Here are some typical sayings:

“The direct price of the mind gives good manners. Without it, a smart person is a monster. It is immeasurably higher than all the fluency of the mind.

“One respect should be flattering to a person - sincere; and spiritual respect is worthy of the one who is in ranks not according to money, but in the nobility not according to ranks.

“Not the rich one who counts money to hide it in a chest, but the one who counts the excess in himself in order to help someone who does not have what he needs.”

A nobleman, a future citizen of the country, who must do deeds for the good of the fatherland, is brought up from birth in an atmosphere of immorality and complacency. Such upbringing immediately deprives him of the purpose and meaning of life. And teachers will not be able to help (this is a tribute to fashion on the part of Mrs. Prostakova); Mitrofan had no other desires than to eat, run around in the dovecote, and get married. His whole life is pre-limited by the barnyard, where people are perceived as pigs, and pigs as part of a cult that they worship.

But immorality flourishes not only in noble estates. Talking about life at court, Starodum notes that there “almost no one travels along the high road, and everyone goes around by a detour, hoping to get there as soon as possible.” The nobles do not know what duty and useful good deeds are. They do not leave the courtyard because "the courtyard is useful to them." The courtiers forgot what the soul, honor, good manners are. Fonvizin's famous play "Undergrowth" turned the house of the landowners Prostakovs into a concentration of vices, "malices worthy of fruit," which the playwright denounces with his usual slander, sarcasm, and irony.

"Undergrowth" is a work that raises questions about the steady performance of the "position" by each citizen, about the nature of family relations in contemporary Russia, as well as about the system of upbringing and education in the first place.

4 Characters, their arrangement. Talking names

The inhuman treatment of the ignorant and vicious feudal landowner with the disenfranchised and helpless people who fell under her terrible power is, as it were, the leitmotif of the entire play. A kind of overture to everything that follows is the very first famous scene between Prostakova and her home-grown serf tailor Trishka, who is instructed to sew a caftan for a sixteen-year-old master's "child". The wild serf, who casually calls the people subordinate to her cattle, but in fact she herself has lost all human image and likeness, immediately stands in front of the audience in her full height. In the future, this image is revealed in its ever more vile and disgusting nakedness. One can recall at least the bitter irony of Mitrofan's serf mother, Yeremeevna, who was betrayed not for fear, but for her conscience to her pet, about the lord's "mercy" for her labors: "Five rubles a year and five slaps in the face a day." “Have you heard, brother, what is life like for the local servants? - asks one of Mitrofanushka's "teachers", half-educated seminarian Kuteikin, of his colleague, retired soldier Tsyfirkin. “For nothing that you are a serviceman, you have been to battles, fear and trembling will come to you ...”. - "Here it is! Have you heard? - answers Tsyfirkin. “I myself saw a quick fire here a day in a row for three hours.” Prostakova herself, in response to the message that the girl Palashka fell ill and has been lying in the morning: “Lies! Oh, she's a beast! Lies! Like she's noble!" Prostakova herself again informs the official Pravdin about this with cynical innocence, who heard about her atrocities and decided to put an end to them. “I manage everything myself, father,” she boasts to Pravdin. “From morning to evening, like I’m hanging by the tongue, I don’t lay my hands on it: either I scold, or I fight, that’s how the house holds up, my father!”

And indeed, Prostakova is the main, central figure of the play, a kind of axis of rotation for her entire small and disgusting family world. Not without reason, introducing themselves to the rich uncle Starodum, her relatives are alternately recommended: “It's me, my sister's brother”, “I'm a burning husband”, “And I'm a mother's son” - a famous phrase that has received the widest proverbial use among the people. In a mercilessly satirical display of serf arbitrariness and violence, embodied in the face of a frantic and cruel tyrant - the landowner Prostakova, her strong-browed brother Skotinin, who cares only for pigs and reveres his people worse than cattle, in the image of a rude and well-fed sixteen-year-old booby and an ignorant Mitrofan, combining in to himself all the ugly features of his mother and uncle, and this is the main artistic and cognitive meaning of "Undergrowth".

The images of both Prostakovs, Mitrofanushka and Skotinin are given in grotesque exaggerations, funny, but at the same time these funny caricatures were terribly true to the reality of that time. Fonvizin in "Undergrowth" deliberately sharpened, sometimes comically exaggerated, the images of landlords - serfs, but these pointed, deliberately exaggerated images deeply and truthfully expressed the ugly, bestial essence of this socially - historical phenomenon- Russian serfdom. Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin continued to maintain typicality far beyond the limits of their time. The main characters of "Undergrowth" entered that wonderful gallery of realistic artistic images- types, which Russian literature can rightfully be proud of and which it is they themselves who discover.

Fonvizin considered the goal of comedic creativity to be the correction of morals. He sought to achieve this goal, not only exposing his "evil" characters in funny way, but also through the author's explanations, a kind of comments. These comments are given with the help of extraordinarily virtuous characters introduced into the play, “virtue academics”, as the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wittily calls them, who reason importantly and extensively, “resonate” on moral and public topics and just as extensively and importantly explain to the audience that evil characters plays are really evil.

The positive characters of "Undergrowth" are not only carriers and preachers of the ideas of Fonvizin himself, but also the embodiment of his ideas about ideal, positive heroes, such as Pravdin, Milon, Starodum, Sophia. Of all the positive characters, the central role is assigned to Starodum, who is the mouthpiece of the author (not without reason is there news that Fonvizin himself played the role of Starodum) and elevated to the height of the image of an ideal nobleman in general. "A friend of honest people," as he calls himself, Starodum is, like Fonvizin, in clear opposition to the Catherine's regime. He retires because he cannot demolish those who dominated official relations"injustice": noble idlers are rewarded, and true merits are neglected - "without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks", because they do not want to "join in someone else's front." The conclusion of Starodum's accusatory tirades against the court shows that the court is the most infected place in the empire. In response to Pravdin’s words that with such “rules” as Starodum’s, “people should not be let out of the yard, but they should be called to the yard ... for why they call a doctor to the sick,” Starodum replies: “My friend! Wrong! It is in vain to call a physician to the sick. Here the doctor will not help, unless he becomes infected. The author also puts into the mouth of Starodum a very energetic tirade against the feudal lords: "It is illegal to oppress your own kind with slavery."

Like the positive characters of the play - Pravdin, Starodum, Milon, Sophia (in Greek - "wisdom") - the negative characters are endowed by the author with names that immediately reveal the essence of each: Prostakov, Skotinin, Vralman and others. But even to this purely external, traditionally conditional device, Fonvizin is able to impart remarkable artistic power. Take, for example, the surname "Skotinin". Even Sumarokov, in his satire “On Nobility,” wrote about the malevolent nobleman: “Ah. Should cattle have people? Comparison of evil landowners with cattle is repeatedly found in Novikov's journals. In The Undergrowth, Fonvizin turns this almost permanent epithet, which has become applicable to the "evil-minded" landowner, into a name - a characteristic. However, in this case, this name-characteristic is not only glued to the forehead of the character, but also organically grows into his very being, artistically embodied, realized. Furthermore, the definition embodied in a living image is also an expression of the main internal theme of the entire play - the image of the bestial life of malevolent landowners. With rude but genuine humor, this motif is "played out" throughout the comedy in various variations.

In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised at his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and we have such large pigs in the neighborhood that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us with a whole head. Sarcastic meaning last words all the more so because they are put into the mouth of Skotinin himself. It turns out that love for pigs in general is a "family" Scotin trait. In Prostakov’s simple-hearted remark, the reason for this incomprehensible passion for pigs is also comprehended: “It’s a strange thing, brother, how relatives can resemble relatives! Our Mitrofanushka is all like an uncle - and from childhood he is the same hunter of pigs as you are. As he was still three years old, it happened, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy. And there are some similarities. That's how I talk." The same motif is persistently played up by Fonvizin in the lines of other characters. The cunning churchman Kuteikin puts the autocharacteristic of this kind into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself. During a literacy lesson, he makes his student read from the Book of Hours: "I am cattle, not a man, a reproach to men." However, the representatives of the “great and of old kind» Skotinin. Being recommended to Starodum, the sister of Taras Skotinin, Prostakova, tells about herself: “After all, I am also the father of the Skotininins. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodny. They had eighteen of us children…”. In similar tones, Skotinin speaks of his sister, speaking of her in exactly the same language in which he could speak of his “pigs” so dear to him: “To be honest, one litter; Yes, you see how squealed ... ". Speaking to Prostakova about his desire to have children, Skotinin declares: "I want to have my own pigs." Prostakova herself likens her love for Mitrofanushka with the attachment of a bitch to her puppies: “Have you heard that a bitch gave out her puppies?” This motive is equally played up several times by Fonvizin. “I, brother, will not bark with you,” she says, turning to her brother. When Pravdin threatens to bring her to trial for attempting to forcibly take Sophia down the aisle, she exclaims with merciless spontaneity: “Oh, I'm a dog's daughter! What have you done!”

Finally, in the finale of the play, the Skotinins' surname is taken out by the author outside of one family, proclaimed the generic name of all malevolent noble landowners in general. After the announcement of the transfer of the estate to Prostakova for her inhuman treatment of her peasants in custody, Pravdin says, referring to Skotinin: “... Go to your stables ... Do not forget, however, to tell all Skotinins what they are subject to.”

5 The originality and modernity of the sound of comedy

About ninety years ago, V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about Fonvizin’s “Undergrowth”: “It can be said without risk that “Undergrowth” has not yet lost a significant share of its former artistic power over either the reader or the viewer ... ". In our time, perhaps, it is no longer possible to say this without risk. Fonvizin's comedy to a certain extent lost its "artistic power" over the reader, but did not lose its figurative and semantic significance, accuracy and brightness. psychological characteristics, that type of narration, superbly found by the author, “on the border of tragedy and comedy”, in the course of which, behind the comedy of individual situations, the social ill-being of the entire nation emerges.

A satirist - accuser, Fonvizin was the first to give a complete generalized picture of serfdom reality, created vivid images-types generated by serfdom, showed the corrupting effect of serfdom on the psychology of both the serf owner and the serf.

Since "Undergrowth" is certainly the most outstanding work of classicist dramaturgy in Russian literature of the last century, this play occupies a special place in program study. Especially great attention given artistic originality and innovation in the comedy genre. Undoubtedly, the merit of Fonvizin in the creation of the language of comedy. The true innovation of Fonvizin was the widespread use colloquial speech, in the principles of its selection, in the skill of individualization. All this is all the more important because in the second half of the 18th century a common Russian literary language was being formed, and Russian comedy played a certain role in this process.

Fonvizin's comedy differs sharply from other comedies of that time also in its sharp publicism. The basis for the division of heroes into positive and negative, the author puts a different criterion compared to most playwrights. Fonvizin has positive heroes - leading figures of his era. We not only see their actions, but also know them. moral ideal- honest service to the Fatherland, intolerant attitude towards vice, injustice. The educated, progressively thinking heroes of Fonvizin express the innermost thoughts of the author, a representative of the noble opposition during the reign of Catherine II - this is the main ideological and artistic function of positive heroes. Therefore, the high style of their speech is psychologically motivated, which distinguishes their speech from the speech of abstractly positive heroes of other comedies - wise fathers, devoted friends. Through linguistic characteristics, the characters of the characters are very clearly traced and different opinions are formed about the two groups in the comedy, that is, the positive and negative heroes, about their attitude towards serfs and serfdom. Using the example of Mitrofanushka, Fonvizin shows how spoiled the younger generation of nobles grows up in this environment and declares his protest against the dominance of the Skotinins. The dictionary of Mitrofanushka and Skotinin is small and poor. There are many rough and common words in Prostakova's speeches, her language does not differ from the language of serfs. These linguistic characteristics emphasize the limitedness, stupidity and illiteracy of the representatives of the uncultured nobility, corrupted by the landowners' power. Starodum, Sofya, Pravdin are fluent in speech - all these heroes represent an advanced, enlightened nobility who demand limiting the unlimited power of the nobles over the serfs.

Fonvizin filled his comedies with bright and direct content, drawn directly from the reality around him. To write from nature, to listen to the living folk dialect - this is not the method of a classicist writer. But this is precisely what made it possible for Fonvizin to raise his play to the level of a “folk comedy,” since Pushkin already wrote that in “The Undergrowth” “an excellent satirist smashed ignorance in a folk comedy.” The nationality of the "Undergrowth" constituted, in Pushkin's eyes, his most important and significant feature. In one of his critical and polemical sketches, he again emphatically refers to "Undergrowth" as "the only monument of popular satire." The nationality of the "Undergrowth" was not only in its language. “What is our Fonvizin? asks Gogol in a rough draft of his critical article for Pushkin's Sovremennik. “This is not Molière, not Beaumarchais, not Goldoni.” Pushkin, twenty years before Gogol, had already resolved this issue for himself, calling Fonvizin in one of his lyceum works - the satirical poem "The Shadow of Fonvizin" - "Russian merry fellow."

This national-Russian character of Fonvizin's humor was also noted by subsequent criticism. “Comicism is an exceptional, special ability of the Russian mind,” wrote Apollon Grigoriev about Denis Fonvizin. Fonvizin's crushing, angry-destroying laughter, directed at the most disgusting aspects of the autocratic-feudal system, played a great creative role in further destinies Russian literature. From the humor of Fonvizin, direct threads stretch to the humor of Krylov's fables, to the subtle irony of Pushkin.

In the history of our dramaturgy, "Undergrowth" occupies a glorious row of the greatest creations of the Russian comic genius.

Fonvizin's comedy is the creation of an educator who focuses on advanced philosophy and new advanced forms of art. Deeply reflecting his contemporary life, Fonvizin created images and situations that became part of the Russian literary tradition. He composed, for example, a proverb in the folk spirit: “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” - and gave an unsurpassed image of such an overgrown ignoramus who wanted to get married. Every time a Russian writer turned to the image of a character who did not come out of his mind, chased pigeons and remained ignorant, he creates something that has a resemblance to the hero of "Undergrowth" - this is the modern sound of comedy.

The compositional searches of Fonvizin themselves are typical of Russian comedy. The public social moment, which grew in the French comedy of the 18th century, especially in Beaumarchais, did not lead French playwrights to abandon the love affair as the basis of comedy. On the contrary, Beaumarchais even tried to breathe into her new life: "The Marriage of Figaro" is built on a love affair. Fonvizin pushes back love affair Sophia - Milon in the background. In the center of the comedy is the opposition of the progressive man Starodum to the dark feudal lords Skotinins and Prostakovs. Fonvizin was the first to follow this path. The words of V. G. Belinsky about Fonvizin contain a deep meaning: “Russian comedy began long before Fonvizin, but it began only with Fonvizin.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, we will make a conclusion on the whole topic.

The comedy "Undergrowth" by D.I. Fonvizin is a masterpiece of Russian dramaturgy of the 18th century, which reveals the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education.

In comedy, two worlds collide with different needs, lifestyles and speech patterns, with different ideals. Starodum and Prostakova most frankly express the positions of the essentially irreconcilable camps. The ideals of the heroes are clearly visible in the way they want to see their children.

In terms of plot and title, "Undergrowth" is a play about how badly and incorrectly a young nobleman was taught, raising him "undergrowth". The problem of education is central in the works of the Enlightenment. But Fonvizin greatly expanded the very formulation of this problem: we are talking about education in the broadest sense of the word. Mitrofan is the same undergrowth that the title of the play speaks of. The history of his upbringing explains where the terrible world of the Skotinins and Prostakovs comes from. This means not just posing the problem of education, but considering the circumstances that influence the formation of personality, which corresponds to the tasks of realism.

Naturally, such a task could not be solved only by means of classicism; it was necessary to find new approaches to the depiction of heroes. Hence, a kind of fusion of traditional and innovative elements in comedy arises.

The comedy "Undergrowth" has not lost its relevance for us. The upbringing of the younger generation depends not only on the school, but also on the family. Fonvizin tells us: educates, first of all, the family. Children inherit from their parents not only genes, but also ideals, habits, ways of thinking and living. As a rule, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

"Undergrowth" is a work that raises questions about the steady fulfillment of "duty" by each citizen, about the nature of family relations, as well as about the system of upbringing and education in the first place. Of course, these questions have not lost their modern sound even today, because indeed the topic and problem of upbringing and education are “eternal”, especially now, of our generation, our time, when money rules the world and the values of education have depreciated when it became educated not fashionable when many young people believe that the main virtues are a prestigious job, good money, and not knowledge and service to the Fatherland.

At the same time, there is another trend in modern society. Now many wealthy parents send their children to prestigious and expensive private schools, but the education there is not always up to par. As a result, children are imbued with a dislike for learning. Parents, on the other hand, do not always monitor their behavior in the presence of children, setting a bad example for them. At the same time, they do not have a soul in their children and spoil them greatly. Thus, today we see a certain coincidence with the situation described by Fonvizin. And just like 250 years ago, we understand that a strong person, noble in thoughts and deeds, a real citizen is made by the desire and ability to learn, apply their knowledge in practice, productive work for the benefit of society.

Literature

Belinsky VG Complete Works. T. 5. / V. G. Belinsky - M .: Education, 1954.
The Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius. M., LLC "Cyril and Methodius", 2006. (CD-ROM).
Vsevolodsky - Gengross V. N. Fonvizin-playwright. / V. N. Vsevolodsky-Gengross - M .: Education, 1960.
Glukhov V. I. The Formation of Realism in the Literature of the 18th - Early 19th Centuries. / V. I. Glukhov - Volgograd: Science, 1976.
Granik, G.G. Dramatists, dramaturgy, theater / G.G. Granik, L.A. End. - M. : VLADOS - PRESS, 2001. - 320 p.
Gukovsky G. A. Essays on Russian literature of the 18th century. / G. A. Gukovsky - L .: Book, 1983.
Klyuchevsky V. O. Literary portraits. / V. O. Klyuchevsky - M .: Education, 1991.
Lyustrov, M. Yu. “Message to my servants: Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka” by D. I. Fonvizin and its genre originality / M. Yu. Lyustrov // Russian literature. - 1997. - No. 2. - S. 19 - 22.
Rassadin, S. Russian literature: from Fonvizin to Brodsky / S. Rassadin. - M.: WORD / SLOVO, 2001. - 288 p.
Tatarinova, L. E. Russian literature and journalism of the XVIII century / L. E. Tatarinova. - M. : Prospekt, 2001. - 368 p.
Fonvizin, D.I. Pieces / D.I. Fonvizin, A.S. Griboyedov. - M.: OLMA-PRESS Education, 2004. -670 p.