Comedy idea "Undergrown" originated with Denis Fonvizin in 1778, and four years later he presented the play to his friends. But the path of the work to the stage turned out to be thorny. In St. Petersburg and Moscow they immediately refused to stage the comedy. The censors were afraid of some of the bold lines.
In September 1782, Volny risked staging the play. Russian Theater on Tsaritsyno Meadow. The success was stunning. True, this courage cost the theater its closure, but it was too late - Fonvizin’s comedy gained enormous popularity. Since then, the play has not left the stage.
The “minor” caused serious dissatisfaction with Catherine II. Fonvizin was not allowed to publish any more works, not even a translation into Russian of the works of the Roman historian Tacitus.
The name of the comedy is associated with the decree of Peter I, according to which the children of nobles who have not received an education do not have the right to serve or marry. Such young people were called “minors.” It was believed that they were not ready for adult conscious life.
Main problems that the author raises in the comedy: the vicious education and decay of the nobility under serfdom. Education, according to Fonvizin, determines moral character younger generation. Entrusting their children to illiterate serf nannies, half-educated sextons and dubious foreigners, the noble class plunges into the abyss of ignorance, stupidity, money-grubbing and immorality. The Skotinins and Prostakovs are only capable of raising Mitrofanushek.
Fonvizin on simple examples shows that the landowners for the most part forgot not only about noble honor, but even about human dignity. Instead of serving the interests of the country, they do not comply with either moral or state laws.
The occasional victory of the forces of good gives the comedy a special edge. If Pravdin had not received an order to take custody of the Prostakovs’ property, and if Starodum had not returned from Siberia on time, everything might not have ended so well.
The comedy "Minor" is built according to the laws classicism. There's only one here story line, one location and all events take place within 24 hours. But the play also shows some features realism: a reliable depiction of everyday life, characters that are far from sketchy, individual elements of drama. Fonvizin created a new genre- a socio-political comedy. In the center of the plot, contrary to the canons of classicism, is not a love affair, but an acute social conflict.
The play consists of five acts. In the first, the author introduces us to the main characters, the plot begins - a letter from Starodum, in which Sophia is named a rich heiress. The climax comes in the fifth act, when Pravdin reads a letter about the transfer of the Prostakov estate to his care. The denouement becomes last words Starodum: “These are the fruits of evil!”
Almost all classes are shown in “Minor” Russian state. There are serfs Trishka, Palashka and Eremeevna, landowners Prostakovs and Skotinin, officer Milon and retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, official Pravdin, clergyman Kuteikin. According to the traditions of classicism, everything characters clearly divided into negative and positive, and their names indicate the main character traits. Pravdin personifies justice, Starodum - wisdom and morality, and the surnames Vralman and Skotinin are understandable even to a child.
The negative and positive characters of the comedy are created by pairs of antagonists: “children” – Mitrofan and Sophia, “grooms” – Skotinin and Milon, “main” – Prostakova and Starodum, “main assistants” – Prostakov and Pravdin, “teachers” – the selfless Tsyfirkin and greedy Kuteikin.
Mrs. Prostakova is the most striking comedic image. An evil, cunning, impudent and extremely active landowner constantly swears and beats her servants. Prostakova strives to take everything into her hands and has absolute control over not only the serfs, but also her relatives. Her husband is a powerless creature who does not dare take a single step without his wife’s order. Prostakova extends her power to everyone who does not have the strength to fight back: Sophia, Skotinin, teachers. The main motto of the landowner: “Whatever you want, I’ll put it on mine”.
The heroine blindly loves her only son and is ready to do anything for his good. Prostakova throws her fists at her brother, defending Mitrofanushka, making sure that the “child” eats well and does not bother himself with science. She makes all decisions for her son, protects him from the slightest trouble, crippling the young man’s fate.
With such an upbringing, it is absolutely not surprising that the son grows up to be a coward, a slacker, a glutton and a boor. Mitrofan’s ignorance and stupidity make us horrified through laughter: what is the future of the country where such a generation is growing up? At the same time, the “minor” is smart enough to manipulate his tyrannical mother and evoke tenderness from his father. He, like his mother, understands only the power of the strong; he can pretend to be kind, well-mannered, loving, and grateful. But as soon as Prostakova loses her power, her beloved son rudely pushes her away.
Against the background of bright images of negative characters, positive Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia look pale and expressionless. But they are necessary for the development of the plot and the dynamics of events. At the same time, these characters speak on behalf of the author himself. Their instructive conversations show the right way an honest man, explain the true duties of a nobleman and the rules of family morality.
The contrast between the worlds of Prostakova and Starodum is most clearly visible in their attitude to education. The landowner herself does not know how to read and says to her son: “Don’t learn this stupid science!” Starodum received an excellent education and calls his upbringing "the guarantee of the state's welfare".
Fonvizin is a great master of words. Each of his characters has his own linguistic characteristics. Prostakova spouts rude and common expressions. Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin speak freely and beautifully. The speech of Mitrofan and Skotinin, like the speech of the serfs, is poor and primitive. Kuteikin's vocabulary is rich in Church Slavonic words, and retired sergeant Tsyfirkin flaunts military jargon. The illiteracy of the German Vralman is conveyed by his characteristic tongue-tiedness.
The pinnacle of Russian dramaturgy XVIII century is the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor”, the first Russian socio-political comedy, in which the “worthy fruits of evil” are condemned with sarcasm. According to Gogol, Fonvizin created a “truly social comedy”, where he revealed “the wounds and illnesses of our society, serious internal abuses, which, by the merciless power of irony, are exposed in stunning evidence.”
The comedy genre has been known since ancient times. Aristotle also defined the main features of comedy, based on the fact that the main thing in dramatic work is an image of a person, his character. Since people “are either good or bad”, “are distinguished by either depravity or virtue,” he saw the difference between tragedy and comedy in the fact that comedy “seeks to portray the worst,” and tragedy “ the best people than existing ones." The next stage in the development of comedy was associated with classicism, which preserved the distinction between the tragic and the comic, characteristic of the era of antiquity. The moral principle of dividing people into “best” and “worst” was also preserved. At the same time, in the literature of classicism, those who were concerned about state affairs were recognized as the “best”, and those who lived by their own interests were recognized as the “worst”.
The purpose of classical comedy is to “enlighten”, making fun of shortcomings: eccentricity, extravagance, laziness, stupidity. However, it does not follow from this that the comedy of the classic period was devoid of social content. Just the opposite: the ideal of that era, its a true hero a person of a social nature was recognized, for whom the interests of the state and nation were higher than personal ones. Comedy was intended to affirm this high ideal by ridiculing psychological human properties that reduced the social significance of the individual.
D. I. Fonvizin in “Nedorosl” observes the classic principle of the “trinity” of time, place and action: events take place “in the village of Prostakova” during the day. At the same time, readers are delighted by the boldness and unexpectedness of the artistic solutions proposed by the playwright. It is safe to say that in “Nedorosl” Fonvizin acted as a true innovator. The genre definition of comedy has been controversial among critics. The playwright himself called his comedy social. V. G. Belinsky, noting genre originality of this work, gave it a clear definition - “satire of genres.” The critic argued: “Undergrowth” is not piece of art, but a satire on morals, and a masterful satire. Its characters are fools and smart ones: the fools are all very nice, and the smart ones are all very vulgar; the first are caricatures written with great talent; the latter are reasoners who bore you with their maxims.” He also noted that Fonvizin’s comedies “will never cease to excite laughter and, gradually losing readers in the highest educational circles of society, all the more will they win them in the lower ones and become popular reading.”
The historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, disputing the definition given by Belinsky, argued that “Nedorosl” is a sitcom: “In Nedorosl” bad people of the old school are placed directly against new ideas, embodied in the pale virtuous figures of Starodum, Pravdin and others, who came to tell those people that times have changed, that they need to educate themselves, think and act differently from the way they are used to doing it.”
Based modern definition genres, consider artistic and genre features socio-political comedy "Minor". The comedy is based on the traditional motive of matchmaking and the fight of suitors for the heroine. The events that the comedy narrates have the following background. At Sophia's main character comedy, mother dies. A distant relative of Prostakov takes the girl to the village and decides to marry Sophia to her brother Skotinin. At this time, Sophia receives a letter from her uncle Starodum, from which everyone learns that she is a rich heiress. This radically changes the behavior strategy of Prostakova, who decides to “place” her idiot son Mitrofanushka. He happily accepts his mother’s decision, because he has long been tired of studying: “The hour of my will has long come. I don’t want to study, I want to get married.”
However, in the arena of the struggle for a rich bride, Milon, whom Sophia loves, upsets Prostakova’s plans. This is love line plays. However, she was not the only one in the focus of the playwright’s attention.
The action in the comedy unites all the characters and at the same time divides them into “evil” and “virtuous”. The former are concentrated around Prostakova, the latter - around Starodum. The dialogues of the characters of the second group, in fact, represent a presentation of the positive program of Fonvizin himself. In them we're talking about about an enlightened monarch, about the appointment of a nobleman, about marriage and family, about the education of young nobles and that “it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” This is especially clearly manifested in Starodum’s edifying, didactic speech addressed to Sophia. Starodum reflects on wealth (“according to my calculations, it is not the rich man who counts out money in order to hide it in a chest, but the one who counts out his excess in order to help those who do not have what he needs”), nobility (“without noble affairs noble fortune is nothing"). His conclusions reflect the system of views and principles of Catherine’s era: “ To an honest man There is no way to forgive if he lacks some quality of heart... An honest person must be a completely honest person.”
The characters of the first group are depicted in the comedy satirically and caricaturedly. What is Fonvizin against? Against the ignorance of the nobles, “those malicious ignoramuses who, having their full power over people, use it inhumanly for evil.” Against the consumer attitude to life, which is determined by the entire atmosphere of manor life. Against the heartlessness and despotism of the masters, their reluctance to recognize the rights of serfs to equality with the “nobles”. Thus, this comedy has a strong socio-political orientation. According to V.G. Belinsky, Fonvizin’s comedies, including “The Minor,” are not comedies in artistic significance, but they are "fine works of fiction, precious records of the public life of the time."
The poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “Minor”
Truly social comedy.
N. V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor”
The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw.
Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays.
What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom.
Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence contemporary author European comedy, here he goes further than Sumarokov. " French comedy absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language.
It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out...
The main idea of the play is to show the fruits of bad upbringing or even the lack thereof, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer main role takes away goodies.
“The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new good morality...
Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the comedy.
Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive heroes, the negative ones wear speaking names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows to a full-fledged one artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait.
“Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. .
Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs?
Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.”
The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...” and Starodum interrupts him: “That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam.” Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milon’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature.
“Prostakova. After all, I am the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; Yes, look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, won’t bark with you,” “Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! What have I done!". Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.”
The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured features of pronunciation.
The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
Denis Fonvizin's immortal comedy "The Minor" is outstanding work Russian literature XVIII century. Bold satire and truthfully described reality are the main components of this writer’s skill. Centuries later, every now and then modern society heated debates emerge about the main character of the play, Mitrofanushka. Who is he: a victim of improper upbringing or shining example moral decay of society?
The comedy “Brigadier” written by Fonvizin, which had a stunning success in St. Petersburg, became the basis of one of the world’s greatest literary monuments. After its publication, the writer did not return to drama for more than ten years, devoting himself more and more to state issues and tasks. However, the thought of creating a new book excited the author’s imagination. Let’s not hide the fact that, according to scientists, the first note related to “The Minor” was started back in the 1770s, long before its publication.
After a trip to France in 1778. The playwright had a precise plan for writing the future work. Interesting fact— initially Mitrofanushka was Ivanushka, which naturally spoke of the similarity of the two comedies (Ivan was a character in “The Brigadier”). In 1781 the play was completed. Of course, a production of this type meant coverage of one of the most problematic issues of the noble society of that time. However, despite the risk, Fonvizin became the direct “instigator” of the literary revolution. The premiere was postponed due to the empress's hostility to any kind of satire, but it still took place on September 24, 1782.
Genre of the work
COMEDY is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict is specifically resolved. It has a number of signs:
- does not entail the death of one representative of the warring parties;
- aimed at “nothing” goals;
- the narrative is lively and vivid.
Also in Fonvizin’s work, a satirical orientation is obvious. This means that the author set himself the task of ridiculing social vices. This is an attempt to disguise life problems under the mask of a smile.
“Minor” is a work built according to the laws of classicism. One storyline, one location, and all events take place within 24 hours. However, this concept is also consistent with realism, as they say individual items and places of action. In addition, the characters are very reminiscent of real landowners from the outback, ridiculed and condemned by the playwright. Fonvizin added something new to classicism - merciless and sharp humor.
What is the work about?
The plot of Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” revolves around a family of landowners who are completely mired in immorality and tyranny. Children became like their rude and narrow-minded parents, and their sense of morality suffered as a result. Sixteen-year-old Mitrofanushka is trying his best to finish his studies, but he lacks the desire and ability. The mother looks at this carelessly, she does not care whether her son will develop. She prefers that everything remain as it is; any progress is alien to her.
The Prostakovs “sheltered” a distant relative, the orphan Sophia, who differs from the rest of the family not only in her outlook on life, but also in her good manners. Sophia is the heiress of a large estate, which Mitrofanushka’s uncle, Skotinin, who is a great hunter, “looks” at. Marriage is the only one affordable way to take over Sophia's household, so the relatives around her are trying to persuade her into an advantageous marriage.
Starodum, Sophia’s uncle, sends his niece a letter. Prostakova is terribly dissatisfied with this “trick” of her relative, who was considered dead in Siberia. The deceit and arrogance inherent in her nature is manifested in the accusation of a “deceptive” letter, supposedly “amorous”. Illiterate landowners will soon learn the true content of the message, resorting to the help of the guest Pravdin. He reveals to the whole family the truth about the Siberian inheritance he left, which gives as much as ten thousand in annual income.
It was then that Prostakova came up with an idea - to marry Sophia to Mitrofanushka in order to appropriate the inheritance for herself. However, officer Milon, walking through the village with soldiers, “bursts” into her plans. He met with his old friend Pravdin, who, as it turned out, is a member of the vicegerental board. His plans include observing landowners mistreating their people.
Milon speaks of his long-standing love for a sweet person who was transported to an unknown place due to the death of a relative. Suddenly he meets Sophia - she is that same girl. The heroine talks about her future marriage with the undersized Mitrofanushka, from which the groom “flashes up” like a spark, but then gradually “weakens” with detailed story about "narrowed".
Sophia's uncle has arrived. Having met Milon, he accepts Sophia’s choice, while inquiring about the “correctness” of her decision. At the same time, the Prostakovs' estate was transferred to state custody due to cruel treatment of the peasants. Seeking support, the mother hugs Mitrofanushka. But the Son did not intend to be polite and polite, he was rude, causing the venerable matron to faint. Waking up, she laments: “I am completely lost.” And Starodum, pointing at her, says, “These are the fruits worthy of evil!”
The main characters and their characteristics
Pravdin, Sophia, Starodum and Milon are representatives of the so-called “new” time, the Age of Enlightenment. The moral components of their souls are nothing more than goodness, love, thirst for knowledge and compassion. The Prostakovs, Skotinin and Mitrofan are representatives of the “old” nobility, where the cult of material well-being, rudeness and ignorance flourish.
- The minor Mitrofan is a young man whose ignorance, stupidity and inability to adequately analyze the situation do not allow him to become an active and reasonable representative of the noble community. “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” is a life motto that fully reflects the character young man, not taking anything seriously.
- Sophia - educated, kind girl, which becomes a black sheep in a society of envious and greedy people.
- Prostakova is a cunning, careless, rude woman with many shortcomings and a lack of love and respect for all living things, except for her beloved son Mitrofanushka. Prostakova’s upbringing is only a confirmation of the persistence of conservatism, which does not allow the Russian nobility to develop.
- Starodum raises “his little blood” in a different way - Sophia is no longer for him Small child, but a formed member of society. He gives the girl freedom of choice, thereby teaching her the correct fundamentals of life. In it, Fonvizin portrays the type of personality that has gone through all the “ups” and downs,” becoming not only a “worthy parent,” but also an undoubted example for the future generation.
- Skotinin, just like everyone else, is an example of a “talking surname.” A person whose inner essence is more similar to some kind of rude, uncouth cattle than to a well-bred person.
Theme of the work
- The education of the “new” nobility is the main theme of the comedy. “Undergrowth” is a kind of allusion to the “disappearing” moral principles in people who are afraid of transformations. Landowners raise their offspring the old fashioned way, without paying due attention to their education. But those who were not taught, but were only spoiled or intimidated, will not be able to take care of either their family or Russia.
- Family theme. Family is social institution, on which personality development depends. Despite Prostakova’s rudeness and disrespect towards all residents, she cherishes her beloved son, who does not at all appreciate her care or her love. This behavior is a typical example of ingratitude, which is a consequence of spoiling and parental adoration. The landowner does not understand that her son sees her treatment of other people and repeats it. Thus, the weather in the house determines the character of the young man and his shortcomings. Fonvizin emphasizes the importance of maintaining warmth, tenderness and respect in the family towards all its members. Only then will children be respectful and parents worthy of respect.
- The theme of freedom of choice. The “new” stage is Starodum’s relationship with Sophia. Starodum gives her freedom of choice, without limiting her with his beliefs, which can affect her worldview, thereby cultivating in her the ideal of a noble future.
Main problems
- The main problem of the work is the consequences of improper upbringing. The Prostakov family - family tree, which has its roots in the distant past of the nobility. This is what the landowners boast about, not realizing that the glory of their ancestors does not add to their dignity. But class pride has clouded their minds, they do not want to move forward and achieve new achievements, they think that everything will always be as before. That’s why they don’t realize the need for education; in their world, enslaved by stereotypes, it really isn’t needed. Mitrofanushka will also sit in the village all her life and live off the labor of her serfs.
- The problem of serfdom. The moral and intellectual decay of the nobility under serfdom is an absolutely logical result of the tsar’s unjust policies. The landowners have become completely lazy; they don’t need to work to support themselves. The managers and peasants will do everything for them. With this social order The nobles have no incentive to work and get an education.
- The problem of greed. The thirst for material well-being blocks access to morality. Prostakovs are fixated on money and power, they don’t care whether their child is happy, for them happiness is synonymous with wealth.
- The problem of ignorance. Stupidity deprives the heroes of spirituality; their world is too limited and tied to the material side of life. They are not interested in anything other than primitive physical pleasures, because they don’t know anything else at all. Fonvizin saw the true “human appearance” only in that person who was raised by literate people, and not by half-educated sextons.
Comedy idea
Fonvizin was a person, so he did not accept rudeness, ignorance and cruelty. He professed the belief that man is born " blank slate“, therefore, only upbringing and education can make him a moral, virtuous and intelligent citizen who will benefit the fatherland. Thus, chanting the ideals of humanism - main idea"Undergrown." A young man who obeys the call of goodness, intelligence and justice is a true nobleman! If he is brought up in the spirit of Prostakova, then he will never go beyond the narrow confines of his limitations and will not understand the beauty and versatility of the world in which he lives. He will not be able to work for the good of society and will not leave anything significant behind.
At the end of the comedy, the author speaks of the triumph of “retribution”: Prostakova loses the estate and the respect of her own son, raised in accordance with her spiritual and physical ideals. This is the price to pay for miseducation and ignorance.
What does it teach?
Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” first of all, teaches respect for one’s neighbors. The sixteen-year-old young man Mitrofanushka did not perceive the care of either his mother or his uncle at all; he took it for granted as a fact: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane? Yes, I don’t know why you deigned to attack me.” The natural result of rough treatment in the home is the ending where the son pushes away his loving mother.
The lessons of the comedy “Minor” do not end there. It is not so much respect as ignorance that shows people in the position they are carefully trying to hide. Stupidity and ignorance hover in the comedy like a bird over a nest, they envelop the village, thereby not letting the residents out of their own shackles. The author cruelly punishes the Prostakovs for their narrow-mindedness, depriving them of their property and the very opportunity to continue their idle lifestyle. Thus, everyone needs to learn, because even the most stable position in society can easily be lost if you are an uneducated person.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
“Nedorosl” is the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage.
The artistic originality of "The Minor" is determined by the fact that the play combines the features of classicism and realism. Formally, Fonvizin remained within the framework of classicism: observance of the unity of place, time and action, the conventional division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in the depiction of positive ones, “ speaking names", features of reasoning in the image of Starodum, and so on. But, at the same time, he took a certain step towards realism. This is manifested in the accuracy of the reproduction of the provincial noble type, social relations in a fortress village, faithfulness in recreating the typical traits of negative characters, life-like authenticity of the images. For the first time in the history of Russian drama, the love affair was relegated to the background and acquired secondary importance.
Fonvizin's comedy is a new phenomenon, because it is written on the material of Russian reality. The author innovatively approached the problem of the character of the hero, the first of the Russian playwrights sought to psychologize him, to individualize the speech of the characters (here it is worth adding examples from the text!).
In his work, Fonvizin introduces biographies of heroes, takes a comprehensive approach to solving the problem of education, denoting the trinity of this problem: family, teachers, environment, that is, the problem of education is posed here as social problem. All this allows us to conclude that “The Minor” is a work of educational realism.
K.V. Pisarev: “Fonvizin sought to generalize and typify reality. In the negative images of comedy, he succeeded brilliantly.<...> Positive characters“The Minor” clearly lacks artistic and life-like persuasiveness.<...>The images he created were not clothed with living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and the best representatives of his time.”
Critics doubted Fonvizin's art of building dramatic action and they talked about the presence of “extra” scenes in it that do not fit into the action, which must certainly be unified:
P. A. Vyazemsky: “All other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others are only adjacent to the action. Of the forty phenomena, including several rather long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”
A. N. Veselovsky: “the ineptitude of the structure of the play, which remains forever weak side Fonvizin's writing, despite the school of European models"; “A widely developed desire to speak not in images, but in rhetoric<...>gives rise to stagnation, freezing, and the viewer then recognizes Milo’s view of true fearlessness in war and in peaceful life, then the sovereigns hear the unvarnished truth from virtuous people, or Starodum’s thoughts on the education of women...”
The word, the initial constructive material of the drama, emphatically appears in “Minor” in dual functions: in one case, the pictorial, plastic-depictive function of the word (negative characters) is emphasized, creating a model of the world of physical flesh, in the other - its self-valuable and independent ideal-conceptual nature (positive characters), for which a human character is needed only as an intermediary, translating ethereal thought into matter sounding word. Thus, the specificity of his dramaturgical word, which is initially and fundamentally two-valued and ambiguous, moves to the center of the aesthetics and poetics of “Minor.”
punning nature of the word
A technique for destroying a phraseological unit that pits the traditionally conventional figurative against the direct literal meaning of a word or phrase.
