Comedy Fonvizina “Nedorosl” raised the problems of education. After all, it depends on it whether a person will be accepted in society and how the society will react to a specific individual. Incidentally, many of her characters argue about education in comedy. This is Ms. Prostakova and Pravdin, as well as other images masterfully created by the author.
The comedy was written in 1782. As we remember from history, it was the reign of Catherine II. Despite the fact that the queen was well treated with education, tyranny and permissiveness flourished in the country. Suffice it to recall the story of Saltychikha, which tortured many serfs. Serfdom corrupted the nobility, it was a shameful stain in the whole history of Russia.
The subject of upbringing always excited the author. He was ill for the flowering of enlightenment in Russia, and also believed that noblemen, brought up in strict rules, would become worthy rulers of Russia. At the same time, the author understood that the education of young nobles was not satisfactory. It seems ridiculous examples of educational processes associated with Mitrofanushka. His name has become a household name for a long time to denote lazy and inexpensive, ignorant and arrogant. It is quite obvious that, alas, Mitrofanushka was not the only case of negligent upbringing in the vastness of Russia.
On the contrary, it was possible to meet people like Sophia and Milo, but very, very rarely. Thus, Fonvizin did not
Prostakov and Skotinin are in very conservative positions. With all this, Prostakov does not know how to read and write, she says that a girl should not be able to do this. In a word, I do not want to read here, because it’s quite obvious what such people are. This is stupidity and stupidity of the soul and mind, this is the grayness of everyday life. Another thing is the images of comedy, like Milo and Sophia, which are interesting to the reader, because their mind is bright and not deprived of erudition and breadth of views.
Why did Mitrofan’s parents hire him teachers? Yes, they simply did it formally, realizing that without education in the modern age there is no way out: to higher society, in particular. At the same time, seeming to understand the need for teaching, they scold the very process of education and teachers Mitrofanushki. As for the image of Mitrofanushka, the author does not skimp on “compliments.” This man grew up not only ignorant and ignorant, he is still a stupid and heartless teenager. In contrast to this character, Fonvizin speaks of Milo, a man who will bring immense benefit to the Fatherland. This man is intelligent, cordial and not selfish.
The problem of upbringing lies not only in Mitrofanushka himself or his parents, but also in the teachers whom they hired for their child. Hardly anything can teach a person a teacher who did not graduate from the seminary (Kuteykin) or Vralman, who engaged in the teaching business because he did not die of hunger. In principle, from the whole range of teachers, one Tsyfirkin arouses the reader’s respect for his directness and honesty. He refuses to take money, because he knows that he does not deserve it. But Tsyfirkin can not give the maximum necessary knowledge. Thus, Fonvizin says that the education system must be radically changed.