“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: adherence to 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 the fortress village, the fidelity of the recreation of the typical features of negative characters, and the 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 skill in 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 in the structure of the play, which forever remained the weak side of 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.

The role of Fonvizin as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as well as the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half of the 19th century centuries. 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 trend,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature XVIII 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 individual 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 appears, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. 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 - on the contrary: the best people should be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features 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 his classical method, is not looking for new individual topics. 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 Paul’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 politician, 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 give a picture that is exceptional in its richness of witty details. social life in its negative manifestations, 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 are not reflected in 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 Adviser, 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 “Kalisthen” 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; In terms of construction, “The Brigadier” is very reminiscent 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, asks Fonvizin in “Friend” honest people” and answers that this does not come “from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, lower from the lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for any expression,” but from the lack of freedom, the lack of public life, the exclusion of 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 the bourgeoisie 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.

The originality of D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” Fonvizin executed in his comedies the wild ignorance of the old generation and the rough gloss of the superficial and external European half-education of the new generations. The comedy “The Minor” was written by D. I. Fonvizin in 1782 and has not yet left the stage. She is one of best comedies author. M. Gorky wrote: “In “Minor” the corrupting significance of serfdom and its influence on the nobility, spiritually ruined, degenerated and corrupted precisely by the slavery of the peasantry, was brought to light and onto the stage for the first time.”

All the heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” are conventionally divided into positive and negative. The negative ones include the Prostakov family. Moral and positive people are represented by Pravdin, Starodum, Sophia and Milon.

Some literary critics believed that goodies“Undergrowth” is too ideal, that in reality such people did not exist and they were simply invented by the author. However, documents and letters from the 18th century confirm the existence real prototypes heroes of the Fonvizin comedy. And about negative characters such as the Prostakovs and Skotinins, we can say with confidence that, despite the unconditional generalization, they were often found among the Russian provincial nobility of that time. There are two conflicts in the work. The main one is love, since it is he who develops the action of the comedy. It involves Sophia, Mitrofanushka, Milon and Skotinin. The characters have different attitudes to issues of love, family, and marriage. Starodum wants to see Sophia married to a worthy man, wishes her mutual love. Prostakova wants to marry Mitrofan profitably and rake in Sophia’s money. Mitrofan's motto: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married.” This phrase from the comedy “The Minor” has become a catchphrase. Overgrown people who don’t want to do anything, don’t want to study and only dream of pleasure are called Mitrof-1 nushki.

Another conflict of comedy is socio-political. It touches a lot important questions upbringing and education, morality. If Starodum believes that education comes from the family and the main thing in a person is honesty and good behavior, then Prostakova is convinced that it is more important that the child is fed, clothed and lives for his own pleasure. The comedy "The Minor" is written in the traditions of Russian classicism. It observes almost all the main features of classicism as literary direction. There is also a strict division of heroes into positive and negative, the use of speaking surnames and the application of the rule of three unities (unity of place, time and action). The unity of the place is respected, since the entire action of the comedy takes place in the village of the Prostakovs. Since it lasts for 24 hours, the unity of time is maintained. However, the presence of two conflicts in a comedy violates the unity of action.

Unlike Western European classicism, there is a connection in Russian classicism with Russian folklore, civic patriotism and a satirical orientation. All this takes place in Nedorosl. The satirical slant of the comedy leaves no one in doubt. Proverbs and sayings, often found in the text of the comedy, make it a truly folk comedy (“Golden caftan, but a leaden head”, “The courage of the heart is proven in the hour of battle”, “Wealth is of no help to a foolish son”, “He who ranks not according to money, and in the nobility not according to ranks"), Pushkin called “The Minor” “the only monument of folk satire.” She is imbued with the spirit of civic patriotism, since her goal is to educate a citizen of her fatherland. One of the main advantages of comedy is its language. To create the characters of his heroes, Fonvizin uses speech characteristics. The vocabulary of Skotinin and Mitrofan is significantly limited. Sophia, Pravdin and Starodum speak correctly and very convincingly. Their speech is somewhat schematic and seems to be contained within strict boundaries.

Fonvizin’s negative characters, in my opinion, turned out to be more lively. They speak simple spoken language, which sometimes even contains abusive language. Prostakova’s language is no different from the language of serfs; in her speech there is a lot rude words and common expressions. In his speech, Tsyfirkin uses expressions that were used in military life, and Vralman speaks in broken Russian. In contemporary Fonvizin society, admiration for foreign countries and contempt for one’s Russian reigned. The education of the nobles was much better. Often the younger generation found itself in the hands of ignorant foreigners who, apart from backward views on science and bad qualities, could not instill anything in their charges. Well, what could the German coachman Vralman teach Mitrofanushka? What kind of knowledge could an over-aged child acquire to become an officer or official? In “The Minor,” Fonvizin expressed his protest against the Skotinins and Prostakovs and showed how young people cannot be educated, how spoiled they can grow up in an environment corrupted by the landowners’ power, obsequiously bowing to foreign culture. The comedy is instructive in nature and has great educational value. It makes you think about moral ideals, about the attitude towards family, love for one’s fatherland, raises questions of education and landowner tyranny.

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 Russian literature 18th century. This work is now included in the Russian fund 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.

The 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 in 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 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, do not yet 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 does not want much). However, she is actually Skotinina, akin to her brother. Her son absorbed the qualities of both 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 their 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 by using comic techniques, the emphasis is 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 fundamentals of which are still relevant today.

23. D.I. Fonvizin: creativity, personality. Comedy “The Minor”: issues, plot and compositional structure. Researchers about comedy

Outstanding Russian educator, playwright, writer, comedian. DI. Fonvizin was born in 1745. From an old noble family. He studied at the Moscow State University in the gymnasium. In 1762 he moved to St. Petersburg and actively participated in literary life. Experiences the ideas of enlightenment. His political and realistic freethinking.

Researchers of Fonvizin’s work Makogonenkov, Moskvicheva, Zapadov identified 2 periods in Fonvizin’s work. Early period and mature. The early period ends with "The Brigadier", in the mature 1770-80s - the time of the creation of the comedy "The Minor". In 1769 he writes “a message to my servants.” Teaching with laughter. Since the 60s, it has been marked by ideological and creative maturity. He is burdened by creative life. In 1769, The Brigadier was published. An important milestone in the domestic liter. 12 years later, Fonvizin will continue the topic in “Nedorosl”, where he will pose the problem of education and enlightenment. In 1782 he retired and was engaged in literary activities. It is published in the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word.” An attempt to publish a five-volume collected works. For the last three years of his life he has been working in the magazine “Friend of Honest People or Starodum.” In 1789, when the French Revolution broke out, he began work on an autobiographical story. “A sincere confession about my deeds and thoughts.” The work was not finished. He was a major playwright and educator. In his works he put forward the ideals of goodness, equality and justice. His traditions were continued by Griboyedov in “Woe from Wit” and Gogol in “The Inspector General”.

Comedy "Undergrown"

This is Fonvizin’s pinnacle work, which is closely connected with the era and worldview of the author himself. The comedy was completed in 1782. The author brings representatives of the provincial nobility onto the stage. The landowners were corrupted. It shows the depravity of the society that grew up in this environment. The comedy addresses several issues, the main one being the problem of education; this problem, according to Fonvizin, is of national importance, so he demonstrates the fruits of Mitrofanushka’s bad upbringing. As a result, we have Mitrofanushka - a consequence of the entire way of life.

The 2nd problem is the problem of serfdom and the problem of slavery. Through the lips of positive heroes, Fonvizin says: “It is illegal to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.”

The problem of power and sharp criticism of the regime based on tyranny are also condemned.

The plot and compositional structure of the comedy is complex. Conventionally, there are 2 lines in a comedy: First line– everyday – the struggle for Sophia’s hand and inheritance. The comedy is based on the fact that the world of simpletons and Skotinins is a world of ignorant, narcissistic tyrant landowners. He wants to subjugate his whole life. Wants to assign the right to unlimited power over all people. Both over serfs and over nobles.

Negative and positive heroes were shared. The Prostakovs and Skotinins are like this because their ancestors were like this. Wednesday is addictive. The negative characters show the loss of humanity and the presence of the carnal principle. This is how the motive of bestiality is played out. Prostakova is a rude woman. There is constant abuse and beatings in her house, she is the guardian of order. People with different views on life collide.

The second line is public. In the play, people of different views on life collide. The difference is in a person's assessment. Positive heroes are assessed by their moral state.

The comedy of the play lies in the fact that the rudeness, greed and ignorance of the Prostakovs and Skotinins pretend to be polite and simple-minded. The comic is based on the absurdity of the form of the content. Among the outstanding advantages of comedy is its language.

Speaking names. Starodum and Pravdin speak fluently. Kuteikin embellishes speech from spiritual books. The comedy is highly appreciated by Belinsky: “Fonvizin very truthfully portrayed feudal reality. He put her out to shame, in all her nakedness and general ugliness. Fonvizin executed in comedy the wild ignorance of the old generation and the rough gloss of the superficial and external European half-education of the new generation. Problem artistic method

1st position. G.V. Moskvicheva: “The comedy is written entirely in the traditions of classicism, while realistic tendencies are not denied.”

2nd position. G.P. Makogonenko believed that the comedy was written in line with realism. In recent years, this position has been criticized in the scientific literature.

3rd position. Yu.V. Stennik talks about different layers in the artistic structure of comedy.