Let's look at the features of the comedy created by Fonvizin ("The Minor"). Analysis of this work is the topic of this article. This play is a masterpiece of Russian literature of the 18th century. This work is now included in the Russian collection classical literature. It affects a whole range of eternal problems". And the beauty of the high style still attracts many readers today. The name of this play is associated with the decree issued by Peter I, according to which “minors” (young nobles) are prohibited from entering the service and getting married without education.
History of the play
Back in 1778, the idea of this comedy arose from its author, who was Fonvizin. “The Minor,” the analysis of which interests us, was written in 1782 and presented to the public in the same year. We should briefly highlight the time of creation of the play that interests us.
During the reign of Catherine II, Fonvizin wrote “The Minor.” The analysis of the heroes presented below proves that they were heroes of their time. The period in the development of our country is associated with the dominance of ideas. They were borrowed by the Russians from the French enlighteners. The dissemination of these ideas and their great popularity among the educated philistines and nobility was largely facilitated by the empress herself. She is known to have corresponded with Diderot, Voltaire, and d'Alembert. In addition, Catherine II opened libraries and schools, and supported the development of art and culture in Russia through various means.
Continuing to describe the comedy created by D.I. Fonvizin (“The Minor”), analyzing its features, it should be noted that, as a representative of his era, the author certainly shared the ideas that dominated the noble society at that time. He tried to reflect them in his work, exposing not only the positive aspects to readers and viewers, but also pointing out misconceptions and shortcomings.
"Minor" - an example of classicism
Analysis of the comedy "Minor" by Fonvizin requires considering this play as part cultural era and literary tradition. This work is considered one of the best examples of classicism. There is unity of action in the play (there are no secondary plot lines in it, only the struggle for Sophia’s hand and her property is described), place (the characters do not move long distances, all events take place either near the Prostakovs’ house or inside it), and time ( All events take no more than a day). In addition, he used “speaking” surnames, which are traditional for the classic play, Fonvizin (“The Minor”). Analysis shows that, following tradition, he divided his characters into positive and negative. The positive ones are Pravdin, Starodum, Milon, Sophia. They are contrasted with Prostakov, Mitrofan, Skotinin by D.I. Fonvizin (play "The Minor"). An analysis of their names shows that they make it clear to the reader which features in the image of a particular character are prevalent. For example, Pravdin is the personification of morality and truth in the work.
A new genre of comedy, its features
At the time of its creation, “Minor” became an important step forward in the development of literature in our country, in particular drama. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin created a new socio-political. It harmoniously combines a number of realistic scenes depicted with sarcasm, irony, and laughter from the life of some ordinary representatives of high society (nobility) with sermons about morality, virtue, and the need to cultivate human qualities that were characteristic of the Enlightenment. Instructive monologues do not burden the perception of the play. They complement this work, as a result of which it becomes deeper.
First action
The play, the author of which is Fonvizin (“Minor”), is divided into 5 acts. Analysis of a work involves a description of the organization of the text. In the first act we meet the Prostakovs, Pravdin, Sophia, Mitrofan, Skotinin. The characters' personalities emerge immediately, and the reader understands that Skotinin and the Prostakovs - and Sophia and Pravdin - are positive. In the first act there is an exposition and plot of this work. In the exhibition we get to know the characters, we learn that Sophia lives in the care of the Prostakovs, who is going to be married off to Skotinin. Reading the letter from Starodum is the beginning of the play. Sophia now turns out to be a rich heiress. Any day now, her uncle is returning to take the girl to his place.
Development of events in the play created by Fonvizin (“Minor”)
We will continue the analysis of the work with a description of how events developed. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th acts are their development. We meet Starodum and Milon. Prostakova and Skotinin are trying to please Starodum, but their flattery, falsity, lack of education and enormous thirst for profit only repels them. They look stupid and funny. The funniest scene of this work is the questioning of Mitrofan, during which the stupidity of not only this young man, but also his mother is revealed.
Climax and denouement
Act 5 - climax and denouement. It should be noted that researchers have different opinions about what moment should be considered the climax. There are 3 most popular versions. According to the first, this is the kidnapping of Sophia Prostakova, according to the second, Pravdin’s reading of a letter, which says that Prostakova’s estate is coming under his care, and, finally, the third version is Prostakova’s rage after she realizes her own powerlessness and tries to “get back "on his servants. Each of these versions is fair, since it examines the work of interest to us from different points of view. The first, for example, highlights the storyline dedicated to Sophia’s marriage. An analysis of the episode of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” connected with marriage, indeed allows us to consider it key in the work. The second version examines the play from a socio-political point of view, highlighting the moment when justice prevails on the estate. The third focuses on the historical one, according to which Prostakova is the personification of the weakened principles and ideals of the old nobility that have become a thing of the past, who, however, still do not believe in their own defeat. This nobility, according to the author, is based on lack of enlightenment, lack of education, as well as low moral principles. During the denouement, everyone leaves Prostakova. She had nothing left. Pointing to it, Starodum says that these are “worthy fruits” of “evil morality.”
Negative characters
As we have already noted, the main characters are clearly divided into negative and positive. Mitrofan, Skotinin and Prostakovs are negative heroes. Prostakova is a woman seeking profit, uneducated, rude, and domineering. She knows how to flatter to gain benefits. However, Prostakova loves her son. Prostakov appears as the “shadow” of his wife. This is a weak-willed character. His word means little. Skotinin is the brother of Mrs. Prostakova. This is an equally uneducated and stupid person, quite cruel, like his sister, greedy for money. For him, a walk to the pigs in the barnyard is best activity. Mitrofan is a typical son of his mother. This is a spoiled young man of 16 who inherited a love of pigs from his uncle.
Issues and heredity
In the play, it should be noted important place addresses the issue of family ties and heredity by Fonvizin (“The Minor”). Analyzing this question, let's say, for example, that Prostakova is only married to her husband (a “simple” man who doesn’t want much). However, she is actually Skotinina, akin to her brother. Her son absorbed the qualities of both of his parents - “animal” qualities and stupidity from his mother and weak-willedness from his father.
Similar family ties can be traced between Sophia and Starodum. Both of them are honest, virtuous, educated. The girl listens to her uncle attentively, respects him, and “absorbs” science. Pairs of opposites are created by negative and positive heroes. Children - spoiled, stupid Mitrofan and meek smart Sophia. Parents love children, but they approach their upbringing in different ways - Starodub talks about truth, honor, morality, and Prostakova only pampers Mitrofan and says that he will not need education. A pair of suitors - Milon, who sees an ideal and his friend in Sophia, who loves her, and Skotinin, who calculates the fortune that he will receive after marrying this girl. At the same time, he is not interested in Sophia as a person. Skotinin does not even try to provide his bride with comfortable housing. Prostakov and Pravdin are in fact the “voice of truth”, a kind of “auditors”. But in the person of the official we find active strength, help and real action, while Prostakov is a passive character. The only thing this hero could say was to reproach Mitrofan at the end of the play.
Issues raised by the author
Analyzing, it becomes clear that each of the above-described pairs of characters reflects a separate problem that is revealed in the work. This is a problem of education (which is complemented by the example of half-educated teachers like Kuteikin, as well as impostors such as Vralman), upbringing, fathers and children, family life, relationships between spouses, relations of nobles to servants. Each of these problems is examined through the prism of educational ideas. Fonvizin, sharpening his attention to the shortcomings of the era through the use of comic techniques, places emphasis on the need to change outdated, traditional foundations that have become irrelevant. They drag people into the swamp of stupidity and evil, and liken people to animals.
As our analysis of Fonvizin’s play “The Minor” showed, main idea and the theme of the work is the need to educate the nobility in accordance with educational ideals, the foundations of which are still relevant today.
Fonvizin’s role as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as is the fruitful influence he exerted on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half of the 19th century. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770-1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of the Russian aesthetic worldview of that time, which prepared - at the first stage - for its future Pushkin stage. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, not to mention Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited to his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in this regard in the tradition of the “satirical direction,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature of the 18th century. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style critical realism. In itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with the specific forms that classicism acquired in Russia; it ultimately exploded the principles of classicism, but its origins from it are obvious.
Fonvizin grew up as a writer in the literary environment of Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in Fonvizin’s work. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individuality as a unit in a social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the social, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the writer’s mind the interests of the “too human” in a person, forced Fonvizin to see in his hero a pattern of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanistically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great advantages of the classicism of his century: clarity, precision of the analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis is at the level of scientific achievements of his time, and social principle assessments of human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin also had the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable “abilities,” the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social existence.
In Fonvizin, many characters are constructed not according to the law of individual character, but according to a pre-given and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Advisor; Gallomaniac Ivanushka - and the entire composition of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martinet, there is little in him characteristic features. This is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not everyday life, but a diagram of social relationships. Characters in comedies and satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them “meaningful” names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character’s characteristics primarily to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. appear. At the same time, the artist’s task includes not so much the depiction of individual people, but the depiction of social relations, and this task could and was performed brilliantly by Fonvizin. Social relations, understood as applied to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm. The subjectively noble character of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others.” The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; the same is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the corresponding works. On the contrary, “others”, “ignoble” are characterized primarily by their profession, class, place in the social system - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. Nobles for this system of thought are still people par excellence; or – according to Fonvizin – vice versa: the best people must be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers of the general features of their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
It is typical for a classicist writer to have the same attitude towards tradition, towards established mask roles literary work, to familiar and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, representing the established collective experience of humanity (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerical Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society as a classified “mind” that has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. A satirical article, a comedy, a solemn speech of praise in a high style (Fonvizin’s “Word for Pavel’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to communicate to Russian literature the best achievements of world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin because he understood and felt the specific features of Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; this article contains a hot political thought, a rise in political pathos; It also contains the hero’s track record, and there is also his civil glorification; but there is no person, personality, environment, and, in the end, no biography in it. This is a “life”, a diagram ideal life, not a saint, of course, but a political figure, as Fonvizin understood him. Fonvizin’s anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. They are called “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts,” but there is almost no disclosure of inner life in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with Rousseau’s “Confession,” although he immediately characteristically contrasts his plan with the latter’s plan. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, first of all; individualistic self-revelation, brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book, is alien to him. In his hands, the memoirs turn into a series of moralizing sketches, such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760-1780s. At the same time, they provide a picture of social life in its negative manifestations that is exceptional in its wealth of witty details, and this is their great merit. Fonvizin the classic's people are static. The Brigadier, the Advisor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early “Nedorosl”), etc. - they are all given from the very beginning and do not develop during the movement of the work. In the first act of "The Brigadier", in the exposition, the heroes themselves directly and unambiguously define all the features of their character schemes, and in the future we see only comic combinations and collisions of the same features, and these collisions do not affect the internal structure of each role. Then, characteristic of Fonvizin is the verbal definition of masks. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerical speech of the Advisor, the petimetric speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhausts the description. After subtracting the speech characteristics, no other individual human traits remain. And they will all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and good will make jokes, because the heroes of “The Brigadier” are still heroes of a classical comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate,” and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that he the words were everywhere replete with witticisms” (“Poetic Art”). It was a strong, powerful system of artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and was superbly implemented not only in “The Brigadier”, but also in Fonvizin’s satirical articles.
Fonvizin remains a classic in the genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin most often has no interest in the plot side of the work.
In a number of Fonvizin’s works: in the early “Minor”, in “The Governor’s Choice” and in “The Brigadier”, in the story “Kalisthenes” the plot is only a frame, more or less conventional. “The Brigadier,” for example, is structured as a series of comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushka and the Advisor, the Advisor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Advisor, and all these couples are contrasted not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane of schematic contrast, a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in the comedy; "The Brigadier" is very reminiscent in terms of construction of Sumarokov's farces with a gallery of comic characters.
However, even the most convinced, most zealous classicist in Russian noble literature, Sumarokov, found it difficult, perhaps even impossible, not to see or depict specific features of reality at all, to remain only in the world created by reason and the laws of abstract art. To leave this world was obligated, first of all, by dissatisfaction with the real, real world. For the Russian noble classicist, the concrete individual reality of social reality, so different from the ideal norm, is evil; it invades, as a deviation from this norm, the world of the rationalistic ideal; it cannot be framed in reasonable, abstract forms. But it exists, both Sumarokov and Fonvizin know this. Society lives an abnormal, “unreasonable” life. We have to reckon with this and fight against it. Positive phenomena in public life for both Sumarokov and Fonvizin they are normal and reasonable. Negative ones fall out of the scheme and appear in all their painful individuality for the classicist. Hence, in the satirical genres of Sumarokov in Russian classicism, the desire to show concretely real features of reality is born. Thus, in Russian classicism, the reality of a specific fact of life arose as a satirical theme, with a sign of a certain, condemning author’s attitude.
Fonvizin’s position on this issue is more complicated. Tension political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of real reality, hostile to him, surrounding him on all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vigilance for life. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of an impact on life that is more acute than noble writers could do before him. “At the court of a king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything... can the truth be freely expressed? “- writes Fonvizin in the story “Kalisthenes”. And now his task is to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter is emerging, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism in the Western educational movement. Fonvizin draws closer to the bourgeois progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.
Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia? - Fonvizin poses the question in “Friend of Honest People” and answers that this does not come “from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, but rather from a lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for everyone.” expression”, but from the lack of freedom, lack of public life, preventing citizens from participating in political life countries. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, the writer is “a guardian of the common good,” “a useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes the savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland.”
In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of bourgeois radical thinkers in France. In 1764, he remade Gresset’s “Sidney” into Russian, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of bourgeois literature of the 18th century. in France. In 1769, an English story, “Sidney and Scilly or Beneficence and Gratitude,” translated by Fonvizin from Arno, was published. This is a sentimental work, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with bourgeois French literature. The fight against reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in his literary work Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.
What is the composition of "Undergrowth"? First of all, it is worth saying that all the events of the comedy are grouped around one main intrigue: the struggle for Sophia by three contenders for her hand - Skotinin, Mitrofanushka and Milon.
Composition "Undergrowth"
The action of the comedy develops clearly and harmoniously. At the beginning of the play, in the scene with the fitting of a caftan, the author skillfully introduces the viewer to the everyday environment of a provincial estate. This episode immediately allows the author to introduce the viewer to most of the main characters of the play. This is the exposition of the play.
In the sixth and seventh scenes of the first act, around the scene with Starodum’s letter, a knot of comedy is tied. New characters appear: Sophia and Pravdin. This is the beginning of a comedy.
In the second and third acts, events develop and escalate. All the characters in the comedy are on stage. All three contenders enter the fight for Sophia. Characters are also revealed characters.
The highest moment of tension in the action falls at the end of the fourth act, when Prostakova decides to kidnap Sophia and forcefully marry Mitrofanushka.
In the fifth act, when the failure of Prostakova’s attempt is discovered, the action begins to decline. In the fourth scene, a denouement occurs: Prostakova’s estate comes into trusteeship. The last phenomenon is the finale of the play. Starodum’s exclamation: “Here are the fruits of evil!” sums up Prostakova’s entire life and at the same time explains the idea of comedy. This is the composition “Undergrowth”. Let us now move on to consider the realism in this work.
Realism in "Minor"
Despite the presence in "The Minor" of the features of the dominant literary style - classicism (unity of place, time, action, the division of characters into positive and negative, "significant" names and surnames that reveal the main features of the characters), "The Minor" is a comedy of the new literary school, it contains obvious deviations from classicism. The rules of classicism did not allow the mixing of comic and tragic elements in drama.
Meanwhile, in Fonvizin’s comedy we see both funny scenes and sketches of the difficult, disgusting sides of serf life. Further, what attracts attention in the comedy is the breadth and versatility of the characters’ characteristics. Prostakova is both a cruel landowner, and an ignorant woman, and a person deceitful to the point of cynicism, and a loving mother; Mitrofanushka is a stupid person, a glutton, an ignorant person, a cunning person, and an ungrateful son. These are not abstract images of classicism, but real, living people. The principle of dividing heroes into “positive” and “negative” did not prevent Fonvizin from giving a realistic interpretation of the images. In the comedy "The Minor" even the reasoners turned into living people. The names of some of the characters in the work (Mitrofanushka, Prostakova, Skotinin) therefore became household names because the very images of the heroes are distinguished by their vitality and truthfulness. In these images, Fonvizin achieved remarkable artistic typification. And this speaks of the unconditional realism of the comedy images.
The language of "Minor" is also realistic. Brightness speech characteristics We have already noted the characters. The sharpness and accuracy of the language of comedy is evidenced by the fact that many of its expressions entered Russian colloquial speech and turned into a kind of proverbs, for example: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married,” “But what about cabbies?”, “Skotinins are all strong-willed by birth”, “Wealth is no help to a stupid son”, “Here are the worthy fruits of evil”, etc. Even the Gallicisms of the comedy (“I rejoice having made your acquaintance”, “I did my duty”, etc.) reflect the true language of individual layers of Russian society of the Fonvizin era.
Finally, the ideological pathos of the play goes beyond the usual tasks of a classical comedy - just to make the audience laugh.
Thus, the comedy turned into the first realistic work of Russian literature. That is why Gorky called Fonvizin “the founder of realism” in Russian literature.
P. A. Vyazemsky, From the book “Fonvizin”
In the comedy “The Minor,” the author already had a most important goal: the disastrous fruits of ignorance, bad upbringing and abuses of domestic power were exposed by him with a bold hand and painted with the most hateful colors... In “The Minor” he no longer jokes, does not laugh, but is indignant at the vice and stigmatizes it without mercy: even if it makes the audience laugh with the picture of abuses and tomfoolery brought out, then even then the laughter inspired by it does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions...
The ignorance in which Mitrofanushka grew up, and the examples at home should have prepared in him a monster, like his mother, Prostakova... All the scenes in which Prostakova appears are full of life and fidelity, because her character is sustained to the end with unflagging art, with unchanging the truth. A mixture of arrogance and baseness, cowardice and malice, vile inhumanity towards everyone and tenderness, equally vile, towards her son, with all that ignorance, from which, like from a muddy source, all these properties flow, coordinated in her character by a sharp-witted and observant painter.
The success of the comedy “Minor”
was decisive. Its moral action is undeniable. Some of the names of the characters became household names and are still used in popular circulation. There is so much reality in this comedy that provincial legends still name several persons who allegedly served as the author’s originals.
N.V. Gogol, From the article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry and what is its peculiarity”
Fonvizin's comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, which stems from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia. She exhibited such a terribly bark of coarseness that you could hardly recognize a Russian person in her. Who can recognize anything Russian in this evil creature, full of tyranny, such as Prostakova, the tormentor of peasants, husband and everything except her son... This insane love for her brainchild is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity, expressed itself in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that is not her child. Then Skotinin’s character is a different type of coarseness. His clumsy nature, having not received any strong and violent passions, turned into something calmer, in its own way. artistic love to cattle, instead of man: pigs became for him the same thing as an art gallery for an art lover. Then Prostakova’s husband - an unfortunate, murdered creature, in whom even those weak forces that were holding on were crushed by his wife’s prodding - a complete dulling of everything! Finally, Mitrofan himself, who, having nothing evil in his nature, having no desire to cause misfortune to anyone, becomes insensitively, with the help of pleasing and self-indulgence, a tyrant of everyone, and most of all of those who love him most, that is, his mother and nannies, so that insulting them had already become a pleasure for him.
V. O. Klyuchevsky, From the article “Minor” by Fonvizin (Experience of historical explanation of an educational play)
...In the comedy there is a group of figures led by Uncle Starodum. They stand out from the comic staff of the play: these are noble and enlightened reasoners, academicians of virtue. They are not so much the characters in the drama as its moral setting: they are placed near the characters in order to sharpen their dark faces with their light contrast... Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia... appeared as walking, but still lifeless, schemes of the new, good morality that they put on themselves like a mask. Time, effort and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations...
“The Minor” is a comedy not of faces, but of situations. Her faces are comical, but not funny, comical as roles, but not at all funny as people. They can amuse you when you see them on stage, but they are disturbing and upsetting when you meet them outside the theater, at home or in society.
...Yes, Mrs. Prostakova is a master at interpreting decrees. She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness. She said nonsense, and this nonsense is the whole point of “The Minor”; without it, it would have been a comedy of nonsense... The decree on the freedom of the nobility was given so that the nobleman was free to flog his servants whenever he wanted...
...Mitrofan is a synonym for a stupid ignoramus and his mother’s darling. The underage Fonvizin is a caricature, but not so much a stage caricature as an everyday one: his upbringing disfigured him more than the comedy made him laugh.
Other works on this topic:
- No wonder Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin named the author of the comedy “The Minor” Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. He wrote many honest, brave and fair works, but the pinnacle of his work is considered to be...
- 1. System of images in comedy. 2. The originality of the conflict. 3. Features of classicism in comedy. 4. The educational value of the work. Fonvizin executed in his comedies the wild ignorance of the old...
- The comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” is rightfully considered the pinnacle of Russian dramaturgy XVIII century. While maintaining some connection with traditional literary genres and styles, “The Minor” is deeply...
- Comedy “Minor” - main work the life of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin and the first socio-political comedy in Russian literature. D. I. Fonvizin sharply satirically depicts the vices of his contemporary...
The history of the creation of Fonvizin’s work “The Minor”
DI. Fonvizin is one of the most prominent figures in the educational movement in Russia in the 18th century. He perceived the ideas of Enlightenment humanism especially keenly, and lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. Therefore, the writer was especially upset by the nobles’ failure to fulfill their duty to society: “I happened to travel around my land. I have seen where most of those bearing the name of a nobleman rely on their curiosity. I have seen many of them who serve, or, moreover, take places in the service just to ride a pair. I have seen many others who immediately resigned as soon as they gained the right to harness fours. I have seen contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw nobles servile. I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart.” This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the author of “Facts and Fables,” the authorship of which belonged to Empress Catherine II herself.
The name Fonvizin became known to the general public after he created the comedy “Brigadier”. Then for more than ten years the writer worked state affairs. And only in 1781 was he completed new comedy- “Undergrown.” Fonvizin did not leave evidence of the creation of “Nedoroslya”. The only story dedicated to the creation of the comedy was recorded much later by Vyazemsky. It's about about the scene in which Eremeevna defends Mitrofanushka from Skotinin. “It is recounted from the words of the author himself that, when he began to explore the phenomenon mentioned, he went for a walk in order to think about it while walking. At the Myasnitsky Gate he came across a fight between two women. He stopped and began to guard nature. Returning home with the spoils of his observations, he drew his phenomenon and included in it the word hooks, which he overheard on the battlefield” (Vyazemsky, 1848).
Catherine's government, frightened by Fonvizin's first comedy, for a long time opposed the production of the writer's new comedy. Only in 1782 did Fonvizin’s friend and patron N.I. Panin, through the heir to the throne, the future Paul I, managed with great difficulty to achieve the production of “The Minor.” The comedy was performed in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow by the actors of the court theater. Fonvizin himself took part in the actors learning their roles and was involved in all the details of the production. The role of Starodum was created by Fonvizin with the expectation of best actor Russian theater I.A. Dmitrevsky. Possessing a noble, refined appearance, the actor constantly occupied the role of the first hero-lover in the theater. And although the performance was a complete success, soon after the premiere the theater, on the stage of which “The Minor” was first staged, was closed and disbanded. The attitude of the empress and the ruling circles towards Fonvizin changed dramatically: until the end of his life, the author of “The Minor” felt from that time on that he was a disgraced, persecuted writer.
As for the name of the comedy, the word “minor” itself is perceived today not as intended by the author of the comedy. In the time of Fonvizin, this was a completely definite concept: this was the name given to nobles who had not received proper education, and who were therefore forbidden to enter the service and marry. So the undergrowth could be more than twenty years old, while Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s comedy is sixteen years old. With the appearance of this character, the term “underage” acquired a new meaning - “a dunce, a dumbass, a teenager with limited vicious inclinations.”
Kind, genre, creative method in Fonvizin’s work “The Minor”
Second half of the 18th century. - the heyday of theatrical classicism in Russia. It is the comedy genre that is becoming the most important and widespread in stage and dramatic art. The best comedies of this time are part of social and literary life, are associated with satire and often have a political orientation. The popularity of comedy lay in its direct connection with life. “The Minor” was created within the framework of the rules of classicism: the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, the rule of three unities in composition, “speaking names.” However, realistic features are also visible in the comedy: the authenticity of the images, the depiction of noble life and social relations.
The famous creativity researcher D.I. Fonvizina G.A. Gukovsky believed that “in Nedorosl two literary styles are fighting among themselves, and classicism is defeated. Classical rules prohibited mixing sad, funny and serious motives. “In Fonvizin’s comedy there are elements of drama, there are motives that were supposed to touch and touch the viewer. In “The Minor,” Fonvizin not only laughs at vices, but also glorifies virtue. “The Minor” is half-comedy, half-drama. In this regard, Fonvizin, breaking the tradition of classicism, took advantage of the lessons of the new bourgeois dramaturgy of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature of the 18th century. M., 1939).
By making both negative and positive characters life-like, Fonvizin managed to create a new type of realistic comedy. Gogol wrote that the plot of “The Minor” helped the playwright to deeply and insightfully reveal the most important aspects of the social existence of Russia, “the wounds and illnesses of our society, severe internal abuses, which by the merciless power of irony are exposed in stunning evidence” (N.V. Gogol, complete collection . op. vol. VIII).
The accusatory pathos of the content of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. These are satire and journalism. Destructive and merciless satire fills all scenes depicting lifestyle Prostakova family. Starodum’s final remark, which ends “Undergrowth”: “These are the fruits of evil!” - gives the whole play a special sound.
Subjects
The comedy “Minor” is based on two problems that especially worried the writer. This is the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century. was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national importance, since proper education could save noble society from degradation.
The comedy “Nedorosl” (1782) became a landmark event in the development of Russian comedy. It represents a complex, well-thought-out system in which every line, every character, every word is subordinated to revealing the author's intention. Starting the play like domestic comedy morals, Fonvizin does not stop there, but boldly goes further, to the root cause of “evil morality,” the fruits of which are known and strictly condemned by the author. The reason for the vicious education of the nobility in feudal and autocratic Russia is the established state system, which gives rise to arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, the problem of education turns out to be inextricably linked with the entire life and political structure of the state in which people live and act from top to bottom. The Skotinins and Prostakovs, ignorant, limited in mind, but not limited in their power, can only educate their own kind. Their characters are drawn by the author especially carefully and fully, with all the authenticity of life. Fonvizin significantly expanded the scope of classicism’s requirements for the comedy genre here. The author completely overcomes the schematism inherent in his earlier heroes, and the characters in “The Minor” become not only real persons, but also common nouns.
The idea of the analyzed work
Defending her cruelty, crimes and tyranny, Prostakova says: “Am I not powerful in my people too?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And then she unexpectedly refers to the law: “I’m not free! A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The amazed Starodum and together with him the author exclaim only: “She is a master at interpreting decrees!”
Subsequently, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky rightly said: “It’s all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they contain the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama is in them... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness.” Prostakova does not want to recognize any duties of the nobility, she calmly violates Peter the Great’s law on the compulsory education of nobles, she knows only her rights. In her person, a certain part of the nobles refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities. There is no need to talk about any kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving state interests. Fonvizin saw what this actually led to: state collapse, immorality, lies and corruption, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. That’s why he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “The state in which the most honorable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign and its corps and represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name only and is sold to every scoundrel who has robbed the fatherland.”
So, the idea of the comedy: condemnation of ignorant and cruel landowners, who consider themselves full masters of life, do not comply with state and moral laws, affirmation of the ideals of humanity and enlightenment.
Nature of the conflict
The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in the public life of the country. Mrs. Prostakova states that the decree “on noble freedom” (which freed the nobleman from compulsory service to the state established by Peter I) made him “free” primarily in relation to serfs, freeing him from all burdensome human and moral responsibilities to society. Fonvizin puts a different view on the role and responsibilities of a nobleman into the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. Starodum on political and moral ideals- a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.
All the heroes of the comedy are drawn into the conflict, the action seems to be taken out of the landowner's house, family and acquires a socio-political character: the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the authorities, and the lack of rights of the peasants.
Main characters
The audience in the comedy “Minor” was primarily attracted by the positive characters. The serious scenes in which Starodum and Pravdin performed were received with great enthusiasm. Thanks to Starodum, performances turned into a kind of public demonstration. “At the end of the play,” recalls one of his contemporaries, “the audience threw G. Dmitrevsky a wallet filled with gold and silver onto the stage... G. Dmitrevsky, picking it up, made a speech to the audience and said goodbye to her” (“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”, 1840, No. 5.)-
One of the main characters of Fonvizin's play is Starodum. In his worldview, he is a bearer of the ideas of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Starodum served in the army, fought bravely, was wounded, but was not rewarded. It was received by his former friend, the count, who refused to go to the active army. Having retired, Starodum tries to serve at court. Disappointed, he leaves for Siberia, but remains true to his ideals. He is ideological inspirer fight against Prostakova. In reality, Starodum’s like-minded official Pravdin acts on the Prostakovs’ estate not on behalf of the government, but “out of his own deed of heart.” The success of Starodum determined Fonvizin’s decision to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” in 1788.
The positive characters are depicted by the playwright somewhat palely and schematically. Starodum and his like-minded people teach from the stage throughout the play. But these were the laws of dramaturgy of that time: classicism presupposed the depiction of heroes who delivered monologues and teachings “from the author.” Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas.
Fonvizin presents negative characters with amazing realism: Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son Mitrofan, Prostakova’s evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and law, they bow only to power and wealth, they are afraid only of material power and are cunning all the time, by all means they achieve their benefits, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morals, ideas, ideals, or any moral principles, not to mention knowledge and respect for laws.
The central figure of this group, one of the significant characters in Fonvizin’s play, is Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the main spring driving the stage action, for in this provincial noblewoman there is some powerful vital force that is lacking not only in the positive characters, but also in her lazy, selfish son and pig-like brother. “This face in a comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically,” historian V.O., an expert on the era, said about Prostakova. Klyuchevsky. Yes, this character is completely negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin’s comedy is that his mistress Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the mistress Prostakova in real life and would be defenseless.
From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, spies, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, government official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot calm her down. At the heart of this living, strong, completely folk character- monstrous tyranny, intrepid impudence, greed for the material goods of life, the desire for everything to be according to her liking and will. But this evil, cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm. “This insane love for one’s child is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity was expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that don’t eat her child,” N.V. wrote about Prostakova. Gogol. For the sake of her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milo, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.”
Place of minor characters
There are other characters on stage: Prostakova’s downtrodden and intimidated husband and her brother Taras Skotinin, who loves his pigs more than anything in the world, and the noble “minor” - his mother’s favorite, the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan, who does not want to learn anything, spoiled and corrupted by his mother’s upbringing. Next to them are the following: the Prostakovs' servant - the tailor Trishka, the serf nanny, the former nurse Mitrofana Eremeevna, his teacher - the village sexton Kuteikin, the retired soldier Tsifirkin, the cunning rogue German coachman Vralman. In addition, the remarks and speeches of Prostakova, Skotinin and other characters - positive and negative - constantly remind the viewer of the peasants of the Russian serf village, invisibly present behind the scenes, given by Catherine II to full and uncontrolled power by Skotinin and Prostakov. It is they, remaining behind the stage, who actually become the main suffering face of the comedy; their fate casts a menacing, tragic reflection on the fate of its noble characters. The names of Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin, Ku-teikin, Vralman became household names.
Plot and composition
An analysis of the work shows that the plot of Fonvizin’s comedy is simple. In the family of provincial landowners the Prostakovs, their distant relative lives - Sophia, who remained an orphan. Mrs. Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin and the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan would like to marry Sophia. At a critical moment for the girl, when she is desperately divided by her uncle and nephew, another uncle appears - Starodum. He becomes convinced of the evil nature of the Prostakov family with the help of the progressive official Pravdin. Sophia marries the man she loves - officer Milon. The Prostakovs' estate is taken into state custody for cruel treatment of serfs. Mitrofan is sent to military service.
Fonvizin based the plot of the comedy on the conflict of the era, the socio-political life of the 70s - early 80s. XVIII century This is a struggle with the serf woman Prostakova, depriving her of the right to own her estate. At the same time, other storylines are traced in the comedy: the struggle for Sofya Prostakova, Skotinin and Milon, the story of the union of Sophia and Milon who love each other. Although they do not form the main plot.
“The Minor” is a comedy in five acts. Events take place on the Prostakov estate. A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is devoted to solving the problem of education. These are scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, the vast majority of Starodum's moral teachings. The culminating point in the development of this theme, undoubtedly, is the scene of Mitrofan’s examination in the 4th act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of the Prostakovs and Skotinins.
Artistic originality
Fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic situations, individualized Speaking characters, evil satire on the Russian nobility, ridicule of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive. Young Fonvizin attacked noble society and its vices, the fruits of half-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck human minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of severe tyranny, everyday everyday cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language understandable to the audience, sharp current problems, recognizable collisions. All this is in Fonvizin’s famous comedy “The Minor,” which is still staged today.
Fonvizin created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of words and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, but his heroes positive characters. As a member of the Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in studying and improving his contemporary language. Fonvizin masterfully builds the linguistic characteristics of his characters: these are rude, offensive words in Prostakova’s uncouth speeches; the words of soldier Tsyfirkin, characteristic of military life; Church Slavonic words and quotes from the spiritual books of seminarian Kuteikin; Vralman's broken Russian speech and the speech of the noble heroes of the play - Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin. Certain words and phrases from Fonvizin's comedy became popular. Thus, already during the life of the playwright, the name Mitrofan became a household name and meant a lazy person and an ignoramus. Phraseologisms have become widely known: “Trishkin caftan”, “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married”, etc.
Meaning of the work
The “people's” (according to Pushkin) comedy “Nedorosl” reflected the acute problems of Russian life. The audience, seeing it in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin’s cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the audience of that time: “My grandmother told me that during the performance of Nedoroslya there was a crush in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who had come to the service from the steppe villages, were present here - and, consequently, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy thought upon leaving it,” historian V.O. wrote about “The Minor.” Klyuchevsky.
Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “The Minor” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, resulting from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.” Realism and satire help the author of the comedy talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education “the key to the well-being of the state.” And all the comic and tragic circumstances he described and the very characters of the negative characters can safely be called the fruits of ignorance and evil.
In Fonvizin's comedy there is grotesque, and satirical comedy, and a farcical beginning, and a lot of serious things, something that makes the viewer think. With all this, “Nedorosl” had a strong impact on the development of Russian national drama, as well as the entire “most magnificent and, perhaps, the most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line” (M. Gorky).
This is interesting
The characters can be divided into three groups: negative (Prostakovs, Mitrofan, Skotinin), positive (Pravdin, Milon, Sophia, Starodum), the third group includes all the other characters - these are mainly servants and teachers. Negative characters and their servants are characterized by common people colloquial The Skotinins' vocabulary consists mainly of words used in the barnyard. This is well shown by the speech of Skotinin - Uncle Mitrofan. It is all filled with words: pig, piglets, barn. The idea of life begins and ends with the barnyard. He compares his life with the life of his pigs. For example: “I want to have my own piglets,” “if I have... a special barn for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife.” And he is proud of it: “Well, I’ll be a pig’s son if...” The vocabulary of his sister Mrs. Prostakova is a little more diverse due to the fact that her husband is “a fool beyond counting” and she has to do everything herself. But Skotinin’s roots are also evident in her speech. Favorite curse word: “cattle.” To show that Prostakova is not far behind her brother in development, Fonvizin sometimes denies her basic logic. For example, such phrases: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear off anything anymore,” “So is it necessary to be like a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well?”
All that can be said about her husband is that he is a man of few words and does not open his mouth without his wife’s instructions. But this characterizes him as a “countless fool,” a weak-willed husband who fell under the heel of his wife. Mitrofanushka is also a man of few words, although, unlike his father, he has freedom of speech. Skotinin’s roots are manifested in his inventiveness of curse words: “old bastard”, “garrison rat”. Servants and teachers have in their speech characteristic features of the classes and parts of society to which they belong. Eremeevna’s speech is constant excuses and a desire to please. Teachers: Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant, Kuteikin is a sexton from Pokrov. And with their speech they show their belonging to the type of activity.
All characters, except the positive ones, have very colorful and emotionally charged speech. You may not understand the meaning of words, but the meaning of what is said is always clear.
The speech of the positive heroes is not so bright. All four of them lack colloquial, colloquial phrases in their speech. This is a bookish speech, a speech educated people of that time, which practically does not express emotions. You understand the meaning of what is said from the direct meaning of the words. Milon's speech is almost impossible to distinguish from Pravdin's speech. It is also very difficult to tell anything about Sophia based on her speech. An educated, well-behaved young lady, as Starodum would call her, sensitive to the advice and instructions of her beloved uncle. Starodum’s speech is completely determined by the fact that the author put his moral program into the mouth of this hero: rules, principles, moral laws by which a “pious person” should live. Starodum's monologues are structured in this way: Starodum first tells a story from his life, and then draws a moral.
As a result, it turns out that the speech of the negative character characterizes himself, and the speech positive hero used by the author to express his thoughts. The person is depicted three-dimensionally, the ideal is depicted in a plane.
Makogonenko G.I. Denis Fonvizin. Creative path M.-L., 1961.
Makogonezho G.I. From Fonvizin to Pushkin (From the history of Russian realism). M., 1969.
Nazarenko M.I. “An incomparable mirror” (Types and prototypes in D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”) // Russian language, literature, culture at school and university. K., 2005.
StrichekA. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Enlightenment. M., 1994.
