Essay on the theme of Fonvizin “Minor.” “Here are the fruits of evil! Evil worthy fruits (Fonvizin D
The main problem raised in this famous play, is the task of raising an enlightened, hardworking, purposeful and at the same time devoted home country person. In the 18th century, the nobles were considered to be the real “stronghold of society”; it was with this class that advanced Russian people pinned their hopes for a better future.
However, the central character of the comedy, Mitrofan Prostakov, grows up from birth in an atmosphere of complete ignorance, rudeness, rudeness, and disregard for others on the part of his parents. It is for this reason that the young man grows up virtually illiterate and just as confident in his chosenness and in the fact that he has no need to do anything, just like his extremely limited and at the same time quite cruel mother.
Throughout the entire play, the author never ceases to emphasize that the most serious evil in Russia at that time was the unconditional ownership of serfs, in relation to whom the owners were allowed absolutely everything. The entire way of life of the Prostakov family is based on serfdom, which ensures the arbitrariness of the masters and the complete lack of rights of the courtyard servants.
From the very first scenes of the comedy, one is struck by the mismanagement and sloppiness that reigns in the estate where Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son, as well as this woman’s brother named Skotinin, live. The owner of the estate herself does not at all hide the fact that from morning to evening she scolds and uses assault, otherwise, in her opinion, it is simply impossible to maintain any order in the house. However, for all her rudeness and seeming heartlessness, she still adores her son, which is also easy to see.
Prostakova's speech can be either openly boorish or timid and obsequious, depending on who she is talking to at a certain moment. Skotinin’s manner of speaking fully justifies his surname; this man, both in himself and in those around him, sees primarily some animals, not people.
Sixteen-year-old Mitrofan becomes a victim of the family environment and the upbringing he received, or rather, the complete absence of it. At first, a nanny, Eremeevna, was assigned to the boy, whose salary is about five rubles a year and about five slaps in the face every day, as she herself bitterly notes. But the nanny only cared about making sure her ward was fed, without trying in any way to develop and educate the boy.
For several years now, Mitrofanushka has been studying with three mentors simultaneously, trying to teach him something, but all their efforts are completely in vain. A certain retired military man Tsyfirkin teaches arithmetic to a young nobleman, seminarian Kuteikin teaches literacy, while the German Vralman assures the owners that he is enlightening their son in the field of all sciences, in particular, helping him master foreign languages. However, in reality, he previously served only as a coachman and is absolutely unsuitable for the role of a teacher.
Nevertheless, the uneducated Prostakovs trust this person, and they also like the fact that he clearly does not overload their now practically adult “child” with activities. The German receives much more than Russian teachers, he is also provided with table and clothes in the house, and Mitrofan behaves extremely unceremoniously with the teachers, interrupting classes for no reason. at will and without learning anything, although his “training” has been going on for at least four years.
In the Prostakov family and in the estate, the mistress is in charge of everything; Mitrofanushka’s father and his uncle unconditionally obey his wife and sister. Prostakova herself, who dotes on her son, does not notice that in the depths of his soul he treats her just as disdainfully as he treats others. The sixteen-year-old boy lazes around day after day, only occasionally climbing into the dovecote.
The house guest immediately notices that Mitrofan is not only a complete ignorant, but also a heartless person, indifferent to other people, and it is this circumstance that causes him the greatest anxiety. He understands perfectly well how useless visits from teachers are for a growing guy, because Mitrofanushka learns absolutely nothing from them and does not want to learn, the young nobleman openly says that he only strives to eat, sleep and get married as soon as possible, he has no other interests .
For Starodum, there is no doubt that Mitrofan grew up this way precisely because of the cruelty, rudeness, aggressiveness and at the same time pampering on the part of his mother reigning in the house. At the end of the play, the author warns readers that any education should be based, first of all, on instilling such spiritual qualities, like kindness, mercy, compassion for other people, and only then the necessary education should be given.
The main problem central character comedy lies in the absence of the present human heart, and in combination with its extremely low mental development such a person can be equated to a beast, which is what Starodum does. However, to a man wise in life, it seems that Mitrofan is not completely hopeless, that when the young man moves to a different environment, to the service, where he will be surrounded by other people who are not like his parents and uncle, he can still change.
D.I. Fonvizin is the first Russian playwright and comedian who dared, during the times of cruel serfdom, to raise the question of its immorality, which corrupted both masters and peasant slaves. Using the example of the Prostakov-Skotinin families and their households, he revealed the destructive essence of autocracy and showed into what socio-economic and cultural abyss such “masters” of the country are pushing the state.
Name and rank
Among the portraits of all the heroes, the image of Mitrofanushka is of particular importance. In Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” he represents the young generation of nobles, the future stronghold and strength state power, hope and support for the country. To what extent does the young man meet his high destiny? In characterizing a hero, two concepts are key: his name and interpretation social status. Why did Fonvizin call him “minor Mitrofanushka”? The first word was quite common in everyday use of Russian speakers at that time. They were called young people noble origin who had not yet reached 21 years of age, were not adults and did not serve, therefore, public service. They lived under the care of their parents, not bothering themselves with anything. If we remember " Captain's daughter"Pushkin, then there main character gets the same nickname. As for the name, deciphering its meaning is very important for understanding what the image of Mitrofanushka is. In Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor", a work in the spirit and traditions of classicism, the technique of speaking names and surnames is used. “Mitrofan” is a Greek word, translated as “showing his mother”, “resembling his mother”. Let's look at what this means below.
“My age is passing. I’m preparing him to become a people"
This is what Mrs. Prostakova says about her son. And, indeed, she literally bends over backwards to provide him with a comfortable and happy future. Happy, of course, from my point of view. How does it grow under its mother's wing? reliable protection“mother” Eremeevna this noble offspring? Let's face it: he is an impudent, rude, lazy egoist, spoiled, on the one hand, by the permissiveness of his origin and class privileges, and on the other, by the unreasonable, blind, animal love of “mama.” In this sense, the image of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” is very typical. Huge number local nobles, like him, spent idle time on their parents' estates, chasing pigeons, commanding serfs and enjoying the benefits that could be derived from their labor. Fonvizinsky's character embodies the most negative traits of his class. He is brave and arrogant with those who are defenseless and powerless. He insults Eremeevna, who raises him like her own. He mocks the teachers, not wanting to do anything, not interested in anything useful. He even despises his own father and is rude to him. But in front of those who are stronger, he is openly cowardly. When Skotinin wants to beat his nephew, he hides behind his old nanny. And she rushes like an eagle to protect her beloved pet! The character and image of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” speak for themselves. Son and mother complement each other perfectly. Mother is proud that her son cannot read or write. And he advises him: do not study the science of mathematics, do not share with anyone, take everything for yourself. And he doesn’t need geography either: cab drivers will take you there! The hero mastered the main science - to fleece his peasants like crazy, to “fight and bark” - perfectly. Like his mother, he rolls up his sleeves so that, just beyond him, he can deal with serfs and servants, who for him are not people, but things or draft animals.
“The fruits of evil are worthy”
We remember well what phrase the author (D. I. Fonvizin) ends with “The Minor.” in it at a glance. For the sake of a rich dowry, he participated in the kidnapping of Sophia initiated by his mother. And then, when Prostakova finds herself excommunicated from managing the estate, deprived of power and seeks sympathy from her son, he simply pushes her away.
He doesn't need a mother. No one is needed. This is an animal devoid of even instinctive attachments. In this regard, the hero even surpassed his mother. If at the end of the play she evokes pity and even some kind of sympathy, then he evokes only contempt and indignation.
Unfortunately, comedy is still relevant today. No wonder it never leaves the stage of capital and provincial theaters!
Didn't like the essay?
We have 4 more similar essays.
"The Minor" is a comedy that reflects the conditions public life Russia XVIII V. Fonvizin in his work did not ridicule specific people, such as Mrs. Prostakova or Skotinin, but the prevailing morals and customs. The author went even further - he touched on the reasons that gave rise to such morals. These reasons can be briefly defined in one word, so precisely chosen by Fonvizin. This word is "evil."
Mrs. Prostakova, to whom the phrase in the title of the essay refers, had the surname Skotinina as a girl, which already speaks for itself. She grew up in the Skotinin family and received her first life lessons, where the main traits of her character were formed: hatred of education (the desire to study in her eyes was not appropriate for a nobleman), despotism, love of children, which acquired truly brutal forms. Her horizons are extremely narrow, her consciousness is undeveloped. And what could one expect from nee Skotinina? People similar to Prostakova in development, that is, simply stupid, are very often unreasonably self-confident and stubborn.
Prostakova's character is fully manifested already in the very first scene, when she scolds the tailor Trishka for a poorly sewn caftan. It is impossible to dissuade her of anything; she stands her ground. She is a lady, the sovereign mistress of the house and is absolutely confident in her power over people. What can we say about servants when even her husband agrees with her on everything, knowing full well that it is useless and even dangerous to contradict her. God forbid you fall into the hands of an angry fury, so no one tries not to anger her.
The longer, the more disgusting Prostakova seems to the reader. For example, the scene where Prostakova last words scolds the maid Palashka for the fact that she, having fallen ill, lies in bed “like a noblewoman.” In Prostakova’s eyes, a servant is not a person, he cannot have feelings, desires, he cannot be sick or feel unwell. Not only Prostakova was like this, this is how all landowners treated their serfs, considering them not people, but “souls” that can be sold, bought, donated, like any other product.
It’s even more unpleasant to look at Prostakova in those moments when she curries favor with Starodum or hovers around her son. Special mention should be made about Mitrofan. He is the fruit of a poor mother's upbringing. Feeling his mother’s weakness for him, he takes advantage of this in every possible way and turns everyone in the house as he wants. Any of his wishes is a law for his mother. It is not surprising that Mitrofan grows into such a disgusting and two-faced creature. And it is quite natural that he turns away from his mother: this is her merit and no one else’s.
The closer to the denouement, the more furious Prostakova becomes, more unbearable for those around her. Finally, she decides on a completely lawless act - to kidnap Sofyo in order to marry her to her son. This is logical conclusion image of Prostakova. The reader not only recognizes the urgent need for her exposure and punishment, but also desires it.
Fonvizin really punishes the despotic landowner, and the punishment turns out to be too severe for such a creature unworthy of pity. The loss of her son makes her unhappy. From a comic heroine, she suddenly becomes tragic. Even those around her feel sorry for her. When she faints, everyone rushes to help her, forgetting about the insults she caused. But sympathy or pity will no longer help her, because she has lost her two main treasures - power and her son.
It is no coincidence that the image of Mrs. Prostakova seems so alive to us. Many contemporaries, and even more so descendants, who had the advantage that they looked at the "Minor" as part of historical painting, saw in the village fury a portrait of Empress Catherine II herself. There are many features that bring Prostakova and Ekaterina together: complete autocracy in their patrimony, a soft-bodied husband removed from management, a favorite who has received all the rights (Prostakova has a son, Ekaterina has numerous lovers who succeeded each other). Prostakova built her little empire, like Catherine, although, naturally, she did it not consciously, but like a child who imitates his parents. The picture of life in the Prostakovs' house is an indirect accusation of state power. Fonvizin openly denounced the court in Starodum’s speeches. And the way of life of the Prostakovs’ house became a kind of parody of the life of Catherine’s court.
Thus, Mrs. Prostakova is nothing more than a product of time, just like Mitrofanushka is a product of her own upbringing. The author of the comedy makes three main accusations against Prostakova. The first is lack of education and stupidity, which give rise to ignorance and stupidity that is the same, if not even greater, as we see in the example of Mitrofanushka. Second: excessive love for her son, which brought Prostakova to such a bestial state. And finally, the third is the accusation of tyranny and “evil morality.” These vices harm not only people (the husband is a weak-willed slave, the son is a fool and a lazy person), but also the entire state, because if all its citizens are like this, the state will perish.
D.I. Fonvizin in his comedy "Minor" raises the problems of his time, when there was still serfdom, and poor people were uneducated, and rich people neglected their opportunities to learn. But I think some of them are still relevant today. Main problem- arrogance and lack of education of the serf-owning nobles.
In this comedy, the main character is Mitrofan, the son of the Prostakovs, who are noble serfs. It's safe to say that he is worthy of his parents. Selfish, stupid and lazy.
But who else could he become if his mother is an arrogant and greedy woman, and his father does not even have influence in his own home?
Mitrofanushka treats her teachers terribly, calls them names and throws tantrums just because she doesn’t want to study. He also does not show due respect to Eremeevna and insults her in every possible way, despite the fact that she raised him from childhood and invested her soul and love. But the boy has someone to follow as an example; his mother, because of her narrow-mindedness, does not understand how high-ranking people who have influence over their servants tend to behave. Mitrofan is a little afraid of Prostakov, but the mother, although in her own way, loves her son. She assents to him and pampers him in every possible way, thereby unconsciously making him a real “minor.”
All this was not in vain, because at the end of the comedy, when such an unpleasant picture emerges for the Prostakovs, when justice and prudence came to their house in the form of Pravdin, even his own son abandons his mother.
This is what Starodum had in mind when she expressed the idea that this whole situation is “Evil worthy fruits".
Comedy has great value in the world of literature, you can laugh and think with her. It can help you understand many things related to morality and draw the right conclusions. Fonvizin deliberately presents this work in the form of a comedy so that people make fun of the “minor”, but do not become one themselves. And I hope that this work will always be relevant and readable.
Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2017-11-18
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
“Undergrown,” I was surprised. The fact is that the play, written in the 18th century, touches on issues that are still relevant two hundred years later.
So, the comedy takes place in the Prostakov village; the main character is their son Mitrofanushka - an undergrowth in the direct and figuratively this word. The main events of the comedy unfold against the backdrop of a conflict between enlightened nobles (such as Starodum, Pravdin) and ignorant serf-owners (Skotinin, Prostakova). The author describes the life of the Prostakovs and other heroes, revealing in detail their characters, views on life and aspirations. Main characters in the comedy D.I. Fonvizin is endowed with bright, sometimes grotesque character traits. I would like to dwell in more detail on some of them and try to trace how moral their thoughts are and how these thoughts are realized by the author in comedy.
Firstly, Mrs. Prostakova. All her care was directed towards her son, Mitrofan; to settle him down and make him happy. “My only concern, my only joy is Mitrofanushka”; “I am preparing him to become a people,” she says about her beloved son. She also seeks to rule the estate. But in the end she lost power, and Mitrofan “stepped over her,” saying: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself.”
Mitrofan clearly outlined his life aspirations and desires with the phrase: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married.” Moreover, he wanted to marry Sophia not for love, but because of her inheritance, and he also did not want to serve. But Sofyushka Mitrofan is “not a groom,” and still had to serve him.
Mrs. Prostakova's brother, Skotinin, like Mitrofan, wanted to marry Sophia and enrich himself at her expense. Another of his “aspirations” were pigs: “I love pigs, sister, and we have such large pigs in our neighborhood...” However, Skotinin did not achieve his goal.
Why did this happen? What is their depravity? Let's take a closer look at the heroes. For example, Mrs. Prostakova is a “despicable fury” - the embodiment of greed, rudeness, ignorance, and power. Her attitude towards servants and people of the lower class is more than disdainful: “And you, cattle, come closer”; “All of you, beasts, are zealous in words alone, and not in deeds...”; “So you feel sorry for the sixth one, beast?” Mrs. Prostakova also treats her husband condescendingly and does not value him: “This is the kind of hubby God gave me…” However, towards her son she shows excessive, blind love: “Go and frolic, Mitrofanushka!”; “Oh mother of God! What happened to you, Mitrofanushka?”; “Mitrofanushka, my friend, if studying is so dangerous for your little head, then for me, stop.” Mitrofan enjoys his mother’s love: while she is “in power,” that is, the mistress of the house, he tries to please her, to flatter her. Mitrofan is the mirror of Mrs. Prostakova. Vyazemsky wrote about this lazy person like this: “The ignorance in which Mitrofan grew up, and the examples at home should have raised in him a monster like his mother.” From birth he is brought up in an atmosphere of immorality, complacency and self-sufficiency. In the last scene, when Messrs. Prostakova was deprived of her estate, her son “stepped over her.” Mitrofan does not love anyone, he is selfish, angry and ignorant.
Skotinin is a typical representative speaking surname. Skotinin's speech is rude; he talks about himself and others not as people, but as animals. Skotinin is very similar to his sister, Mrs. Prostakova, he is greedy, cruel and ignorant.
Mr. Prostakov, having fallen under the influence of his wife, became her henpecked man, indulges her in everything: “Yes, I thought, mother, that it seems so to you.” He turned into a characterless, lacking own opinion person, into a gray personality.
Thus, in his play D.I. Fonvizin drew typical features Russian serf owners. It was serfdom that was the main evil of Russian life at that time. And on its soil such cruel, vile and ignorant people “grew”.
