home › Salon › What problems does the author touch upon in the work of the undergrowth. Problems of the comedy “Undergrowth”

What problems does the author touch upon in the work of the undergrowth. Problems of the comedy “Undergrowth”

Comedy D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth":

problems, sources of comic

The comedy "Undergrowth" absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in terms of the depth of ideological issues, the courage and originality of the artistic solutions found, remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century. The accusatory pathos of The Undergrowth feeds on two powerful sources equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. Lacquer are satire and journalism. Destroying and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the lifestyle of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual poverty. No less annihilating sentence to this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on the stage, contrastingly contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan's parents.

The dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin, which touch upon deep, sometimes state problems, are passionate publicistic speeches that reflect the author's position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the accusation merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself. Two problems that particularly worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of The Undergrowth. This is primarily a problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of the Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom the nobility, one might say, "buried with their ancestors", in the observations he reports from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline in the moral foundations of society, he is looking for the reasons for this decline. The final remark of the Starodum, which ends the "Undergrowth": "Here are worthy fruits of malevolence!" - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin's treatise, it gives the whole play a special political sound. The unlimited 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 class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the 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 the Prostakovs and Skotinins appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of malevolence.

Another problem of "Undergrowth" is the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century was considered as the primary factor that determines the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin's ideas, the problem of education acquired state significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in proper education. A significant part of the dramatic action in The Undergrowth is to some extent subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan's teachings and most of Starodum's moralizing are subordinate to her. The climax in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in the fourth act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the strength of the accusatory, sarcasm contained in it, serves as a sentence for the education system of the Prostakovs and Skotinins. The passing of this sentence is ensured not only by self-disclosure of Mitrofan's ignorance, but also by demonstrating examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milon.

The genre originality of the work lies in the fact that "Undergrowth", according to G. A. Gukovsky, "half comedy, half drama." Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin's play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes have been introduced into it. These include Pravdin's conversation with Starodum, Starodum's touching and instructive conversations with Sophia and Milon. The tearful drama suggested the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as the image of "suffering virtue" in the person of Sophia.

A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and direction of creative quest, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who made up the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. A courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the feudal lords sounded in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Fonvizin.

Bibliography

Berkov P.N. History of Russian journalism of the 18th century. M. - L., 1952. - 656 p.

Blagoy D.D. History of Russian literature of the XVIII century. – M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1960.

Buranok O.M. History of Russian literature of the XVIII century. – M.: Flinta, 2013.

Herzen A.I. Preface to the book “On the Damage of Morals in Russia” by Prince M. Shcherbatov and “Journey” by A. Radishchev // Collected. op. M., 1958. T. 13. S. 273.

Herzen A.I. Preface to the book "On the Damage of Morals in Russia" by Prince M. Shcherbatov and "Journey" by A. Radishchev // Collected. op. M., 1958. T. 13. 296 p.

Derzhavin G.R. Complete collection of poems. Leningrad "Soviet writer" 1957. - 480 p.

Derzhavin G.R. Complete collection of poems. Leningrad "Soviet writer" 1957. - S. 236.

Zapadov V.A. Poetry A.H. Radishchev // Radishchev A. N. Poems. L., 1975. - 122 p.

History of Russian literature / ed. D.S. Likhachev, P. Makogonenko. - L., 1999. - 318 p.

Lebedeva O.B. History of Russian literature of the XVIII century. - M .: Higher school: Ed. center "Academy", 2000.

Lomonosov M.V. Full composition of writings. - M., 1955. - t 4, p. 165.

Mineralov Yu.I. History of Russian literature. 18 century. - M .: Higher school, 2007.

Motolskaya D.K. Lomonosov // History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes - Volume III: Literature of the 18th century. Part 1. - M L 1941. - S. 264-348.

ON THE. Dobrolyubov. Works, vol. 1. Leningrad. - 1934. - 600 p.

Nekrasov N.A. Autobiographical notes, From the diary // Full. coll. op. and letters. M., 1953. T. 12. - 534 p.

Orlov A. Tilemakhida V.K. Trediakovsky. // XVIII century. Collection of articles and materials. Ed. A. Orlova. - M 1985. - S. 81-98.

Pumpyansky L.V. Trediakovsky // History of Russian Literature: In 10 vols. T. III: Literature of the 18th century. Part 1. - M L 1941. - S. 215-263.

Russian poets. Anthology of Russian poetry in 6 volumes. Moscow: Children's Literature, 1996. - 346 p.

Fonvizin D.I. Comedy. - L .: "Det. lit., 1980.

Stein A. L. “D. I. Fonvizin: 1745-1792: Essay on life and work. (M., 1945).

2 problems:

P. moral decay of the nobility, the decline of the moral foundations of society

P education! The primary factor that determines the moral character of the person himself.

"Undergrowth" is distinguished by greater social depth and a sharper satirical focus. In "Undergrowth" the theme of landlord arbitrariness is placed in the first place. The main criterion in evaluating the heroes is their attitude towards the serfs. The action takes place in the estate of the Prostakovs. The unlimited hostess in it is Mrs. Prostakova. It is curious to note that in the list of characters only she was given the word “lady”, the rest of the characters are named only by their last names or first names. She really dominates the world subject to her, she rules arrogantly, despotic, with complete confidence in her impunity. Taking advantage of Sophia's orphanhood, Prostakova takes possession of her estate. Without asking the girl's consent, he decides to marry her to his brother. However, the full nature of this "fury" is revealed in the treatment of serfs. Prostakova is deeply convinced of her right to insult, rob and punish the peasants, whom she looks at as creatures of a different, lower breed.

Already the beginning of the play - the famous trying on a caftan - immediately introduces us to the atmosphere of the Prostakovs' house. Here is a rude abuse against the home-grown tailor Trishka, and an unfounded accusation of his theft, and the usual order to punish an innocent servant with rods. The welfare of Prostakova rests on the shameless robbery of the serfs. Order in the house is brought about by abuse and beatings. Rude, abusive words do not leave Prostakova’s language in conversation with the servants: cattle, mug, rascals, an old witch. The news of the illness of the yard girl Palashka infuriates her.

The primitive nature of Prostakova is especially clearly revealed in the sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. She is rude to Sophia while she feels her power over her, but upon learning of the return of Starodum, she instantly changes her tone and behavior. When Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakov on trial for inhuman treatment of the peasants, she humiliatedly wallows at his feet. But having begged for forgiveness, he immediately hurries to deal with the slow servants who missed Sophia.

The presence of Skotinin in the play emphasizes the wide distribution of nobles like Prostakova, gives it a typical character. Not without reason, at the end of the play, Pravdin advises to warn the other Skotinins about what happened at the Prostakov estate.

Another problem is connected with the image of Mitrofan - the writer's reflection on the legacy that the Prostakovs and Skotinins are preparing for Russia. Before Fonvizin, the word "undergrowth" did not have a condemnatory meaning. Undergrowths were called children of the nobility under the age of 15, i.e., the age appointed by Peter I for entering the service. In Fonvizin, it received a mocking, ironic meaning.

Mitrofan is an undergrowth primarily because he is a complete ignoramus, who knows neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun. But he is undersized and morally, because he does not know how to respect the dignity of other people. He is rude and impudent with servants and teachers. He fawns over his mother until he feels her strength. But as soon as she lost power in the house, Mitrofan sharply pushes Prostakov away from himself. And finally, Mitrofan is a minor in the civil sense, since he has not grown up to understand his duties to the state. “We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of bad education. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland? .. ".

Like all famous satirists, Fonvizin in his criticism proceeds from certain civic ideals. The depiction of these ideals in satirical works is not necessary, but in the didactic literature of the 18th century. satire, as a rule, was supplemented by showing ideal heroes. Fonvizin did not bypass this tradition, sharply contrasting the world with the Prostakovs and Skotinins - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia. Thus, the ideal nobles are opposed in the play to the malevolent. Starodum and Pravdin unreservedly condemn the arbitrariness of the landlords, robbery and violence against the peasants. “It is illegal to oppress your own kind with slavery,” Starodum declares (p. 167). Let us immediately note that we are not talking about condemning the institution of serfdom itself, but about its abuse. Unlike Prostakova, who builds her well-being on the robbery of peasants, Starodum chooses a different way of enrichment. He goes to Siberia, where, according to him, "they demand money from the land itself" (T. I. C. 134). Apparently, we are talking about gold mining, which is quite consistent with the opinion of Fonvizin himself about the need for Russia to have a "merchant nobility."

Pravdin takes an even more decisive position in relation to the arbitrariness of the nobles. He serves as a government official. This was the name of the institutions created in 1775 by Catherine II in each province to monitor the implementation of government decrees on the ground. Pravdin considers his main task not only by position, but also “from his own feat of the heart” to be monitoring those landowners who, “having complete power over their people, use it for evil inhumanly” (T. 1. P. 117). Having learned about the cruelties and excesses of Prostakova, Pravdin, on behalf of the government, takes custody of her estate, depriving the landowner of the right to arbitrarily dispose of the peasants. In his actions, Pravdin relies on the decree of Peter I of 1722, directed against tyrant landlords. In life, this law was applied extremely rarely. Therefore, the denouement of Fonvizin's comedy looked like a kind of instruction to the government of Catherine II.

No less important for Fonvizin was the question of the attitude of the nobles to the service. After the decree on "liberty", this problem became especially acute, since many of the nobles already legally preferred to sit at home. In Fonvizin, this theme is even included in the title of the comedy and thus specially accentuated. Mitrofan is not eager either for teaching or for service and prefers the position of "undergrowth". Mitrofan's mood is entirely shared by his mother. “While Mitrofanushka is still undergrowth,” she argues, “sweat him and pamper him, and there, in a dozen years, when he comes out, God forbid, he will endure everything” (T. 1. S. 114),

Starodum adheres to a diametrically opposite point of view. The name of this hero indicates that his ideals belong to the Petrine era, when every nobleman had to confirm his estate rights by service. About duty, or, as they said in the 18th century, about “position”, Starodum recalls the nobles with particular fervor. “Position! .. How this word is in everyone’s language, and how few people understand it! .. This is the sacred vow that we owe to all those with whom we live ... If only the position was performed as they say about it .. A nobleman, for example, would consider it a first dishonor not to do anything when he has so much to do: there are people to help; there is a fatherland to serve... A nobleman, unworthy of being a nobleman! I don’t know anything meaner than him in the world ”(T. 1. S. 153).

Starodum indignantly points to the practice of favoritism, which became widespread during the reign of Catherine II, when ordinary officers, without any merit, received high ranks and awards. About one of these upstarts - a young count, the son of the same "accidental", as they said at that time, a person, Starodum recalls with deep contempt in a conversation with Pravdin.

The antipode of Mitrofanushka in the play is Milon - an exemplary officer who, despite his youth, already participated in hostilities and at the same time showed genuine "fearlessness".

A special place is occupied in the play by Starodum's reflections on the "position" of the monarch and critical remarks about Catherine's court. As the well-known literary critic K. V. Pigarev rightly said, Starodum’s very commitment to Peter’s “old times” was “a kind of rejection of Catherine’s “novelty””. Here there was a clear challenge to the empress, who pretended to be the successor and continuer of the affairs of Peter I, which she transparently hinted at in the inscription on his monument: Petro Primo - Catarina Secunda - i.e. e. Peter the Great - Catherine II. The ruler, according to the deep conviction of Starodum, should not only issue laws useful to society, but also be a model of their implementation and high morality. “A great sovereign,” he says, “is a wise sovereign. His job is to show people their direct benefit ... A sovereign worthy of the throne seeks to elevate the souls of his subjects ”(T. 1. S. 167-168). Such a monarch is obliged to surround himself with executive nobles useful to society, who, in turn, could serve as an example for subordinates and for the entire nobility as a whole. But the reality turned out to be strikingly different from the educational program of Starodum. Starodum judges the morals of the court society not by hearsay, but from his own bitter experience, since after serving in the army he was “taken to court”. What he saw here horrified him. The courtiers thought only about their own self-interest, about their career. “Here they love themselves perfectly,” Starodum recalls, “they care about themselves alone, they fuss about one real hour” (T. 1. S. 132). In the struggle for power and ranks, any means are used: “... one knocks down the other and the one who is on his feet never lifts the one who is on the ground” (T. 1. S. 132). Feeling his complete impotence to change the established order, Starodum left the court service. “I left the court,” he remarks, “without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought mine home intact, my soul, my honor, my rules.”

TICKET 7
1. The evolution of the sermon genre in the work of Feofan Prokopovich.
Sermons occupy a prominent place in Prokopovich's work. He managed to give a new sound to this traditional church genre. Sermon in ancient Rus' pursued mainly religious goals. Theophan subordinated her to topical political tasks. Many of his speeches are dedicated to Peter's military victories, including the Battle of Poltava. He glorifies not only Peter, but also his wife Catherine, who accompanied her husband in the Prut campaign in 1711. In his speeches, Theophan speaks about the benefits of education, about the need to visit foreign countries, admires St. Petersburg. Theophan's weapon in his sermons was reasoning, evidence, and in some cases a witty satirical word.

Feofan's "words", pronounced vividly and vividly from the pulpit, were permeated with the pathos of affirming Peter's reforms and were a huge success. Many of his sermons were not only delivered in church, but also printed. Only to a small extent (the use primarily of the ecclesiastical genre - sermons) were they ecclesiastical in nature. Written in a clear style, without unnecessary rhetoric, the rhythmically constructed "Words" were distinguished by the depth of content and literary merit.

The political agitation inherent in Feofan Prokopovich's sermons was aimed at explaining the measures taken by Peter in defense of enlightenment. In his works, Theophan often acts as a pamphleteer and satirist. In the well-known sermon "The Sermon on the Power and Honor of the Tsar", delivered by him in 1718, he sharply denounces the reactionary churchmen who had grouped around Tsarevich Alexei. He depicts "evil and downcast" melancholics who love a cloudy day more than a bucket, bad news than good. Drawing a satirical image of such a clergyman, Feofan Prokopovich compares him with a locust, which has "a large bellows, and small porches, and not the size of the body: it rises to fly, but immediately falls to the ground."

Feofan Prokopovich appears before us as a true champion and propagandist of enlightenment. Theophan had to endure a fierce struggle with the churchmen, who accused him of unbelief. He really rejected blind faith in the writings of the "fathers of the Church", considering only faith in the Bible obligatory for himself.

The pathos of patriotism, faith in the future of Russia is filled with his famous "Sermon for the Burial of Peter the Great" (1725). This sermon, permeated with deep sorrow, sums up the brilliant work of Peter, and Feofan Prokopovich's call to continue his work in the interests of Russia sounds with amazing power.

In the image of Peter, Feofan Prokopovich embodied the features of the “ideal monarch”, in which only the strengthening and prosperity of the state is possible.

A striking sign of Theophan's oratorical speeches is the indivisibility of praise and blasphemy within the same text, and as a result, the fundamental diversity of his sermons, connecting the panegyric to Peter or the fleet with denunciations of the enemies of enlightenment, ignoramuses, opponents of reforms.

One of the most striking examples of this diversity is the “Sermon on the Power and Honor of the Tsar”, where solemn glorifications of the God-given supreme power are combined with expressive and evil reproach against its enemies. It is noteworthy that these thematic layers are clearly differentiated in terms of style: when denouncing conspirators against the royal power, Feofan uses not just words with a pronounced negative semantic and stylistic coloring, but also rude vernacular.

So, within the genre of sermon itself, which combines two opposite attitudes (commendable and accusatory), two types of artistic imagery, with the help of which their emotional pathos is expressed (conceptual-thesis and everyday-descriptive-argumental) and two stylistic keys, relatively speaking, high and low, an internal contradiction is outlined, which turned out to be very productive at the next stage of literary development. Breaking up into its simple components, praise and blasphemy, with their inherent figurative and stylistic means of expression, Feofan Prokopovich's sermon gave rise to two older genres of Russian literature of modern times: the solemn ode of Lomonosov, into which the panegyric tendencies of the sermon departed, and the satire of Kantemir, which took from the sermon accusatory motives with their inherent ways of expression.

Destroying and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the lifestyle of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual poverty.

No less annihilating sentence to this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on the stage, contrastingly contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan's parents. Dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin. in which deep, sometimes state problems are touched upon, these are passionate publicistic speeches that reflect the author's position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the accusation merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself.

Two problems that particularly worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of The Undergrowth. This is primarily a problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of the Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, “buried with their ancestors”, in the observations he reports from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline in the moral foundations of society, he is looking for the reasons for this decline.

The final remark of the Starodum, which ends the "Undergrowth": "Here are worthy fruits of malevolence!" - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin's treatise, it gives the whole play a special political sound. The unlimited 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 class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the 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 significant part of the dramatic action in The Undergrowth is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan's teachings and most of Starodum's moralizing are subordinate to her. The climax in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in the fourth act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly by the strength of the accusatory, sarcasm contained in it, serves as a sentence for the system of education of simpletons and cattle. The passing of this sentence is ensured not only by self-disclosure of Mitrofan's ignorance, but also by demonstrating examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milon. -

Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" is considered one of the most important works of Russian literature. After all, she managed to influence the course of thought in all subsequent literature. She stepped ahead in her form and, above all, in her problematics.

One may get the impression that the play "Undergrowth" corresponds to the framework of the classicism that dominated that period. It adheres to the principles of a single time, place and action, the characters make speeches that correspond to their position, and the comedy is often based on an unexpected situation. The main difference from the canons of classicism can be called the problematics of the work - the importance of education in human life.

Many critics noted that the main conflict in this work lies in the line of love relationships, and the problematic concerns social problems. Yes, there is some truth in these words, but, in fact, the problems of comedy are deeper.

The author draws the reader's attention to the problems of education. He wrote this work, wanting to pass on the woeful experience to future generations. To do this, Fonvizin selects every word spoken by the hero, pays attention to the movements of the characters, to their every gesture. In "Undergrowth" every letter is thought out.

It is easy to understand that the problem of education is shown here by the example of two characters: Mitrofanushka and Sophia. In order not to be condemned for the one-sidedness of the presented view, the author describes the situation from different angles, relatively completely opposite young people. The author intentionally draws the reader's attention to contrasting individuals.

Morality, reverence for his father, spirituality and even a certain humility of Sophia are directly opposed to Mitrofan's cruelty, negligence and lack of education. Precisely thanks to this opposition, the main problematic of the play becomes simply obvious.

The reader does not know what Mitrofan does in his free time. We do not understand what this young man likes. He has no obligations at home, he is left to himself.

But what led to such results? What are the roots of the problem of the appearance of such an ignorant and stupid Mitrofan?

All children are born with a pure mind. And what will surround them largely depends on what they will become when they grow up. If for Sophia the tactful father was an example, then for Mitrofan such was the mother, a strong despotic woman who decided to take everything in the family into her own hands. She even gives her son a name with the meaning “being with his mother”, as if fearing his independence like a fire. The mother only negatively affects the family with her behavior, making an ignoramus out of her son, and a spineless doll out of her husband. Mitrofan is accustomed to everything being brought at his first request. The boy does not need to make any effort - mom will do everything. He did not see the need for training until a new edict came out forcing all nobles under 18 to study. If there were no decree and fear of being recruited in case of disobedience, he would not have begun to learn science.

Although it is difficult to call his training as such. It is known that it is difficult to teach a person against his will something. So Mitrofan, starting classes under compulsion, does not receive any benefit from them.

The problem of education also affected another image - Skotinin. He grew up in the same family in which Mitrofanushka's mother was brought up, because he is her brother. So they have similar views. He is cruel to the peasants. But he boasts of his grip and is ready to teach this to his sister. However, not for nothing, but on the condition that Prostakova marry Sophia to him. Even the relationship of siblings is built on profit and the desire for material wealth. He wants to marry not out of heartfelt affection, but wanting to get all the property of a possible bride, her money, with which you can buy many pigs.

In other words, the upbringing of parents without love and mutual understanding, based only on physical and material needs, led to the appearance of their cruel and immoral copies. The problem of the family is inextricably linked with the problem of education.

The manner of education presented by Fonvizin in the comedy "Undergrowth" proved that the age-old tradition broke the young minds and the ink of the souls of the young. The only salvation from this terrible vicious circle, the author considered leaving the family to serve the state. Only in this way, Fonvizin believed, can one open the eyes of young nobles, put them next to real problems and teach them to live independently, which means dispelling the ignorant vices nurtured in them in an ignorant family: self-interest, cruelty and laziness.

The comedy "Undergrowth" was written in a transitional period for Russia - during the reign of Catherine II. The old, feudal foundations and norms were no longer suitable for the new society, but were artificially supported by the conservative nobility, which was not ready to abandon obsolete values and adopt the ideals of enlightenment. This is most clearly seen in the analysis of the problem of education in the comedy "Undergrowth".

In the work, the theme of education occupies a central place and is connected with the main conflict of the play, which is a confrontation between the new ideas of education and outdated serfdom. Prostakova and Skotinin are the direct carriers of the latter, as they adopted them with their upbringing from their parents. Cruelty towards serfs, greed, the excessive value of things and money, the denial of learning, a bad attitude even towards relatives - Mitrofan “absorbs” all this into himself, becoming a “worthy” son of his mother.

Considering the educational issues of the comedy "Undergrowth" in more depth, it becomes clear that Fonvizin created a not strictly canonical classic comedy, where the hero must be either strictly positive or strictly negative. Prostakova, despite her greed, cunning and rudeness, remains a loving mother, ready to do anything for her son. However, it is precisely excessive guardianship that leads to disastrous results - the spoiled Mitrofan, who was brought up with only "gingerbread", does not appreciate the zeal of his mother. At the same time, the tragedy of the situation lies in the fact that Prostakova herself, brought up according to the rules of Domostroy (recall her indignation that the girls can now read), simply cannot understand where she made a mistake. Perhaps her fate would have been different if she had married an educated man, next to whom her practicality was directed to a virtuous course. However, Mitrofan's father, Prostakov, appears as a weak-willed character who agrees with his more active wife in everything. We see the same passivity in the young man, when he agrees in everything, first with his mother, then with Pravdin, when he is going to take him with him.

The complete opposite of the stupid, rude Mitrofan is Sophia. The girl reads a lot, carefully listens to the instructions of the Starodum, strives for a virtuous life. Unlike Mitrofan, for whom marriage is a new entertainment, the girl takes marriage seriously. In addition, Sophia does not oppose Starodum's decision to marry her off as a worthy person, who he chooses for her himself, that is, the parent's opinion is authoritative for her, which cannot be said about Mitrofan.

The problem of education is most clearly revealed in Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" when comparing the pedagogical ideas of Starodum and Prostakova. In the play, they are contrasted not only as positive and negative mirror characters, but also as carriers of diametrically opposed ideas. Starodum treats Sophia as an adult, talks to her on an equal footing, instructs her in virtue and the need for education. Prostakova, on the other hand, treats Mitrofan not as an accomplished 16-year-old youth, but as a small child who really does not need teaching (she lived well without him), because he will receive all the benefits not through his own labor, but by inheritance . Particularly interesting in the play is the moment that, succumbing to fashion, a woman invites teachers to her son, but due to her own ignorance, she does not see their incompetence (as, for example, in the case of Vralman) and does not fully understand how this can be useful in life (the scene where Prostakova solved Tsyfirkin's problems in her own way).

Exposing all the backwardness of outdated norms of education, Fonvizin not only ridicules the situation, but pushes for a possible solution to this problem. Thus, the wormhole lies not only in family pedagogy, where dying ideas that are unacceptable in the new society are passed on from generation to generation. Fonvizin cites a number of arguments related to the all-Russian problem of education. "Undergrowth" is a mirror of the social life of the whole of Russia, which is afraid to get rid of the old and open up to the new. Therefore, hypertrophied forms of the embodiment of educational ideas appear in the play - teachers who have not graduated from the seminary or have nothing to do with education, tailors who have no idea how to sew, and young people who pretend to study because it is generally accepted. .

For Fonvizin, as a personality of the Enlightenment, it was important that the reader or viewer of the comedy adopt his ideas and support a new step in the development of Russian society. However, the value of "Undergrowth" as a significant milestone in Russian literature lies in its timeless ideas - the instructions expressed by the author do not lose their relevance today, helping to educate a strong, educated, intelligent and highly moral person.

Artwork test

Popular in category: