“Nedorosl” is the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage.
The artistic originality of "The Minor" is determined by the fact that the play combines the features of classicism and realism. Formally, Fonvizin remained within the framework of classicism: observance of the unity of place, time and action, the conventional division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in the depiction of positive ones, “ speaking names", features of reasoning in the image of Starodum, and so on. But, at the same time, he took a certain step towards realism. This is manifested in the accuracy of the reproduction of the provincial noble type, social relations in the fortress village, the accuracy 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.<...>The positive characters of "The Minor" clearly lack artistic and life-like persuasiveness.<...>The images he created were not clothed with living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and the best representatives of his time.”
Critics doubted Fonvizin’s art of constructing dramatic action and spoke about the presence of “extra” scenes in it that do not fit into the action, which must certainly be unified:
P. A. Vyazemsky: “All other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others are only adjacent to the action. Of the forty phenomena, including several rather long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”
A. N. Veselovsky: “the ineptitude of the structure of the play, which 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 human character needed only as an intermediary, translating an ethereal thought into the matter of a 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 poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “Minor”
A truly social comedy.
N. V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor”
The first appearance of the comedy "Minor" on theater stage in 1872, according to the recollections of contemporaries, it caused “throwing of wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw.
Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays.
What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom.
Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules classic comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence contemporary author European comedy, here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language.
It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out...
The main idea of the play is to show the fruits of bad upbringing or even the lack thereof, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer main role allocates to positive heroes.
“The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new good morality...
Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the comedy.
Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive heroes, the negative ones wear speaking names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows to a full name artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love
Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” was staged in the theater in 1782. The historical prototype of the “Miscellaneous” was the title of a noble teenager who did not complete his studies. During the times of Fonvizin, hardships compulsory service increased at the same time as it weakened...
The plot of Fonvizin's play is built around the events taking place in the village where the entire Prostakov-Skotinin family lives in anticipation of Taras Skotinin's wedding arrangement with distant relative Prostakov - Sophia. A story familiar to Fonvizin’s contemporaries...
Russian literature XVIII century largely determined the development of Russian literature in the future, prepared it for the “golden” 19th century. But, perhaps, of the playwrights of that era, only Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin managed to survive his time. His comedy "Undergrown"...
In the Age of Enlightenment, the value of art was reduced to its educational and moral role. Artists of this time took upon themselves the hard work of awakening in a person the desire for development and self-improvement. Classicism is one of the movements within...
Minor is rightly considered the pinnacle of D.I. Fonvizin’s creativity. This play is the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage. The main conflict in it is the clash between the progressive nobles and the conservative part of the noble class on the issue of the extermination of slavery and wild serfdom. But at the same time, a number of other acts are revealed in the comedy, without distracting from it only its poetic moments; took it with all the coldness, with all its prose and vulgarity... Belinsky notes.
At the beginning of 1782, Fonvizin read to friends and social acquaintances the comedy “The Minor,” on which he had been working for many years. He acted with new play just like once with “Brigadier”.
Fonvizin’s previous play was the first comedy about Russian morals and, according to N.I. Panin, Empress Catherine II liked it extraordinarily. Will this be the case with “Minor”? Indeed, in “Nedorosl”, according to the fair remark of Fonvizin’s first biographer, P.A. Vyazemsky, author “He no longer makes noise, does not laugh, but is indignant at vice and stigmatizes it without mercy; even if the pictures of abuse and tomfoolery make the audience laugh, then even then the inspired laughter does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions.
Pushkin admired the brightness of the brush that painted the Prostakov family, although he found traces of “pedantry” in the positive heroes of “The Minor,” Pravdin and Starodum. Fonvizin for Pushkin is an example of the truth of gaiety.
No matter how old-fashioned and prudent Fonvizin’s heroes may seem to us at first glance, it is impossible to exclude them from the play. After all, then in comedy the movement, the confrontation between good and evil, baseness and nobility, sincerity and hypocrisy, the animality of high spirituality disappears. Fonvizin's "Minor" is built on the fact that the world of the Prostakovs from the Skotinins - ignorant, cruel, narcissistic landowners - wants to subjugate all life, to assign the right of unlimited power over both serfs and noble people, to whom Sophia and her fiancé, the valiant officer Milon belong. ; Sophia's uncle, a man with the ideals of Peter's time, Starodum; keeper of the laws, official Pravdin. In comedy, two worlds with different needs, lifestyles and speech patterns, with different ideals collide. Starodum and Prostakova most openly express the positions of essentially irreconcilable camps. The ideals of the heroes are clearly visible in how they want their children to be. Let’s remember Prostakova in Mitrofan’s lesson:
“Prostakova. It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward... He’s lying, my dear friend. I found the money - I don’t share it with anyone... Take it all for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don’t learn this stupid science!”
Now let’s remember the scene where Starodum speaks to Sophia:
“Starodum. The rich man is not the one who counts out money so that he can hide it in a chest, but the one who counts out what he has in excess in order to help someone who does not have what he needs... A nobleman... would consider it the first dishonor of not doing anything: there are people to help, there are A fatherland to serve."
Comedy, in the words of Shakespeare, is “an incompatible connector.” The comedy of “The Minor” lies not only in the fact that Mrs. Prostakova, funny and colorful, like a street vendor, scolds that her brother’s favorite place is a barn with pigs, that Mitrofan is a glutton: having hardly rested from a rich dinner, it’s already five in the morning I ate the buns. This child, as Prostakova thinks, is “delicately built,” unencumbered by intelligence, studies, or conscience. Of course, it’s funny to watch and listen to how Mitrofan either shrinks in front of Skotinin’s fists and hides behind the backs of nanny Eremeevna, or with dull importance and bewilderment talks about the doors “which is an adjective” and “which is a noun.” But there is a deeper comedy in “The Minor,” internal: rudeness that wants to look polite, greed that disguises generosity, ignorance that pretends to be educated.
The comic is based on absurdity, a discrepancy between form and content. In “The Minor,” the pitiful, primitive world of the Skotinins and Prostakovs wants to break into the world of the nobles, usurp its privileges, and take possession of everything. Evil wants to get its hands on good and acts very energetically, in different ways.
According to the playwright, serfdom is a disaster for the landowners themselves. Accustomed to treating everyone rudely, Prostakova does not spare her relatives. The basis of her nature will stop. Self-confidence is heard in every remark of Skotinin, devoid of any merits. Rigidity and violence become the most convenient and familiar weapon of the serf owners. Therefore, their first instinct is to force Sophia into marriage. And only after realizing that Sophia has strong defenders, Prostakova begins to fawn and try to imitate the tone of noble people.
In the finale of the comedy, arrogance and servility, rudeness and confusion make Prostakova so pathetic that Sophia and Starodum are ready to forgive her. The landowner's autocracy taught her not to tolerate any objections, not to recognize any obstacles.
But good heroes Fonvizin can only win in comedy thanks to the drastic intervention of the authorities. If Pravdin had not been such a staunch guardian of the laws, if he had not received a letter from the governor, everything would have turned out differently. Fonvizin was forced to cover up the satirical edge of the comedy with the hope of legitimate rule. As Gogol later did in The Government Inspector, he cuts the Gordian knot of evil with unexpected intervention from above. But we heard Starodum's story, about truthful life and Khlestakov’s chatter about St. Petersburg. The capital and the remote corners of the province are actually much closer than it might seem at first glance. The bitterness of the thought of the randomness of the victory of good gives the comedy a tragic overtone.
The creative activity of Fonvizin - the author of “The Fox - the Executor”, “Message to the Servants”, “Brigadier”, “Discourses on the Indispensable State Laws”, “The Minor” and a number of sharp satirical and journalistic works directed against the autocratic-serf policy of Catherine II, - covers the 1760s – 1780s. All the most significant things that were created by Fonvizin, all that makes him, in the words of M. Gorky, the founder of “the most magnificent and, perhaps, the most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line,” is closely connected with ideological and artistic and aesthetic trends brought to life by the peculiarities of the socio-historical development of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. It was not without reason that Belinsky classified Fonvizin’s works among those literary monuments that are important “as moments of historical development and the development of the public among the people.”
Fonvizin both in his youth and in mature years believed that the nobility was responsible for the situation in the country. But he saw that the overwhelming majority of nobles were unworthy of this high role. Representatives of the ruling class, they are inhuman, selfish, ignorant and least of all think about the interests of their homeland. Exposing nobles unworthy to be nobles, and elucidating the reasons disfiguring human personality occupies a huge place in the writer’s work.
The confusing question of dating the comedy can now be considered resolved. Fonvizin’s work on “The Brigadier,” if not completely, then in a significant part, should be attributed to the time of his six-month stay in Moscow in the winter of 1768 - spring of 1769. In April 1769, Fonvizin reported to I.P. Elagin: “I almost finished your comedy." IN next letter to him, he again mentions the comedy, apparently already finished. It seems that clarifying the dating is not so significant. One thing is clear: the work on the comedy is connected with a range of issues raised during the convening of the Commission for the drafting of the New Code. Fonvizin joined those who, like Ya.P. Kozelsky, considered it necessary to show a picture of Russian life with the help of “righteous speeches”. At the same time, in “The Brigadier” the question of how to create a national comedy, raised in Elagin’s circle, was resolved in a new way. The first Russian national - domestic comedy Fonvizin’s “Brigadier” is, first of all, a literary monument reflecting the struggle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century for the national identity of Russian culture. Fonvizin in his comedy cruelly ridiculed the servility of the contemporary noble society to foreign, in in this case French civilization.
If Lomonosov and Suvorov resisted German dominance with all their might, then a vivid expression of the same process of struggle for the national identity of Russian culture is what unfolded in Russian fiction, mainly starting from the mid-18th century, denouncing the nobles' partiality towards the French. It is no coincidence that ridicule of “Frenchmania” took such a prominent place in Russian literature of the second half of the 18th century, since it was at this time that the French rushed to replace the Germans who flooded Russia in the first half of the century. They enjoyed special patronage at the court of Elizabeth. Following the court environment, “Frenchmania” spread quite wide circles Russian society, not excluding the highest strata of the clergy. It cannot be said that the government of Elizabeth and the government of Catherine did not take any measures to curb this evil, but these measures were very ineffective. The main role in the fight against the dominance of foreign crooks and their pernicious influence on Russian noble society belonged to writers. The denunciation of this “foreign insanity” becomes one of the main themes in Russian literature of the second half of the 18th century, especially in comedy and satire - one of the forms of the struggle for national education and the purity of the national language.
Classicism is being replaced by sentimentalism. The influence of the aesthetics of sentimentalism was felt with greater or lesser force in all genres of Russian literature. Its signs appeared earlier and most clearly on theater stage, where the mixed genre is most widespread. In the 60s and early 70s, despite the fierce opposition of Sumarokov, “a new and nasty kind of tearful comedies” “crept” onto the Russian stage, as this defender of the foundations of classicism characterized the entire new “sensitive” dramaturgy. To Sumarokov’s great indignation, these “tearful comedies” earned “national praise and applause.” The very penetration of the mixed genre onto the Russian stage testified to the democratization of Russian theater, to the new aesthetic demands placed on it by a new, more democratic viewer.
In close interaction with the advanced ideological and artistic aspirations of the Russian literary intelligentsia of the 60s - 80s of the 18th century, the work of Fonvizin, a publicist, satirist and playwright, developed, in whose works they found their most complete expression distinctive features ideologies of the Russian Enlightenment and the best achievements of Russian literature on the path to critical realism.
In “Frank Confession,” Fonvizin says that he owed his decision under the leadership of Elagin to the success of his translation of Voltaire’s tragedy “Alzira.” This translation was started by Fonvizin, possibly while still in Moscow, but completed after moving to St. Petersburg. This play is imbued with an anti-clerical tendency. The choice of this particular tragedy was deeply logical for Fonvizin, whose original work, starting with “The Fox - the Executor” and “Message to the Servants” and ending with letters from Italy, is full of anti-clerical sentiments.
Voltaire spoke out in Alzira against the violence committed allegedly in the name of the triumph of Christianity by civilized colonialists in the countries they conquered. At the end of the tragedy, the dying ruler of Peru, Don Guzman, having condemned his cruelties against the enslaved people, turns to his killer Zamor with words of reconciliation, which sound like the apotheosis of the Christian religion, but essentially do not smooth out the general anti-clerical tone of the play.
Related information.
The poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “Minor”
A truly social comedy.
N. V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor”
The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw.
Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays.
What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom.
Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence of the author’s contemporary European comedy; here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language.
It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out...
The main idea of the play is to show the fruits of bad upbringing or even the lack thereof, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and why he is bad, the writer assigns the main role to the positive characters.
“The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new good morality...
Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the comedy.
Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows into a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood we have such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait.
“Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. .
Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs?
Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.”
The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...” and Starodum interrupts him: “That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam.” Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milo’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature.
“Prostakova. After all, I am the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; Yes, look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, won’t bark with you,” “Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! what have I done!” Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.”
The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured features of pronunciation.
The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
Comedy by D. I. Fonvizin, in which, while maintaining the theatrical convention plot collision depicted the everyday life of middle-income landowners, busy with concerns about their own prosperity, the artistic content of which consisted in a new show of life on stage, and specifically Russian provincial, landowner life, and a new show of man with more complex psychological characteristics and in more clarified specific social conditions, had a great influence on the subsequent development of the comedy genre.
The artistic method of “Minor” by D. I. Fonvizin is defined as early Russian realism of the Enlightenment, which relies on existing literary traditions (classicism), uses artistic techniques and visual means of previous literary movements, but updates them, subordinating them to its creative task.
Outwardly, the comedy is based on the traditional motive of matchmaking and the emerging struggle of suitors for the heroine. It respects all three unities - action, time, place. The action takes place in the village of Prostakova during the day. By the beginning of the events in Prostakova’s house, the fate of the heroes was determined as follows. Sophia and Milon love each other. They know each other from St. Petersburg. Milon's uncle Cheston was favorable towards the love of young people. On business, Milon travels with his team to one of the provinces. During his absence, Sophia's mother dies. A young girl is taken to the village by a distant relative. Here, after some time, the events that are narrated in the comedy unfold. They constitute the final stage and are completed within a day.
Prostakova decides to marry off her poor relative Sophia to her brother, believing that Sophia as a bride is of no interest to her personally. Starodum's letter, from which everyone learns that she is a rich heiress, changes Prostakova's plans. A conflict arises between her and her brother.
The third “seeker” appears - Milon. Prostakova decides to stand her ground and organizes Sophia’s kidnapping. Sophia is saved from a very dramatic end to the matchmaking by the intervention of Milon, who takes his bride away from Prostakova’s “people.” This scene sets up the denouement. Comic heroes are put to shame, vice is punished: the comedy has a moralizing ending. Prostakova was deprived of her rights over the peasants for abusing her power, and her estate was taken under guardianship.
Thus, Skotinin’s matchmaking, receipt of Starodum’s letter, the decision to marry Mitrofan to Sophia, the attempt to kidnap Sophia, Prostakova’s intention to deal with the servants, sort them out “one by one” and find out “who let her out of their hands”, finally, Pravdin’s announcement of the decree on the capture Prostakova's houses and villages under her care are the key, central situations of the comedy.
In connection with the main theme of the comedy, the structure of “The Minor” includes scenes and persons that are not directly related to the development of the plot, but are somehow related to the content of the comedy. Some of them are imbued with true comedy. These are scenes with Mitrofan trying on a new dress and a discussion of Trishka’s work, Mitrofan’s lessons, a quarrel between a sister and brother ending in a “brawl,” a quarrel between teachers, a comic dialogue during Mitrofan’s exam. All of them create an idea of everyday life, everyday life uncultured landowner family, the level of its demands, intra-family relationships, convince the viewer of the verisimilitude and vitality of what is happening on stage.
Other scenes are in a different style. These are dialogues of positive heroes - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Starodum and Sophia, whose content echoes the dialogues of tragic heroes. In them we're talking about about an enlightened monarch, about the appointment of a nobleman, about marriage and family, about the education of young nobles, about “that it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” These speeches, in essence, represent a presentation of the positive program of D. I. Fonvizin.
The action in the comedy unites all the characters and at the same time divides them into. evil and virtuous. The former seem to be concentrated around Prostakova, the latter - around Starodum. This also applies minor characters: teachers and servants. The nature of the characters' participation in events is not the same. In terms of the degree of activity among negative characters, Prostakova is rightly placed in first place, then Skotinin, Mitrofan. Prostakov essentially does not participate in the struggle. Of the positive characters, Sophia is passive. As for the rest, their participation in events manifests itself at the most decisive moments; Starodum announces his “will” to the suitors, predetermining the outcome; saves his bride from Milon's kidnappers with a weapon in his hands; announces a government decree on the guardianship of Pravdin.
It should be noted that, preserving the classic tradition, D. I. Fonvizin gives the heroes of the comedy meaningful names and surnames. This corresponds to the one-line character of the heroes, whose characters have a certain dominant. What is new in the depiction of heroes are the individual biographical factors of character formation (Prostakov and Prostakova), the presence of vivid speech characteristics of the heroes, the reflection in the comedy of the complexity of characters capable of self-development (the images of Mitrofan, Prostakova, Eremeevna).
The difference between heroes is not limited to their moral qualities. The introduction of extra-plot scenes into the comedy expanded and deepened its content and determined the presence of other, deeper grounds for contrasting the nobles depicted in it. In accordance with this, the comedy has two endings. One concerns the relationship between Mitrofan, Skotinin, Milon and Sophia, whose fate was determined, on the one hand, by Prostakova, on the other, by Starodum; the second relates to the fate of Prostakova as an evil landowner and a bad mother. In the events of this denouement, the social and moral ideals of the author are revealed, and the ideological and ethical orientation of the comedy as a whole is determined.
The poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “Minor”
A truly social comedy.
N. V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor”
The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw.
Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays.
What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom.
Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence of the author’s contemporary European comedy; here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language.
It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out...
The main idea of the play is to show the fruits of bad upbringing or even the lack thereof, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and why he is bad, the writer assigns the main role to the positive characters.
“The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new good morality...
Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the comedy.
Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows into a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood we have such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait.
“Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. .
Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs?
Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.”
The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...” and Starodum interrupts him: “That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam.” Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milo’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature.
“Prostakova. After all, I am the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; Yes, look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, won’t bark with you,” “Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! what have I done!” Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.”
The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured features of pronunciation.
The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
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 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 that D.I. Fonvizin created (“The Minor”), analyzing its features, it should be noted that, as a representative of his era, the author certainly shared the ideas that dominated at that time in noble society. 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 of a 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
“Minor” at the time of its creation 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 for education human qualities, which 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 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 - 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, going to the pigs in the barnyard is the best thing to do. 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 that Fonvizin (“The Minor”) devotes an important place to the issue of family ties and heredity. 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 create negative and goodies. 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 foundations of which are still relevant today.
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 They believed that the positive heroes of “The Minor” were too ideal, that in reality such people did not exist and they were simply invented by the author. However, documents and letters of the 18th century confirm the existence of real prototypes of the 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 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 on very important issues of 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”, “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 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 colloquial language, which sometimes even contains swear words. Prostakova's language is no different from the language of serfs; her speech contains many 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.
The immortal comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” was and remains one of the most relevant works of Russian classics. The writer’s breadth of views, his deep convictions about the benefits of education and enlightenment, were reflected in the creation of this a work of genius. We invite you to familiarize yourself with brief analysis works according to plan. This material can be used for work in a literature lesson in 8th grade, to prepare for the Unified State Exam.
Brief Analysis
Year of writing– 1782
History of creation– The writer’s idea for a comedy arose after returning from abroad, under the influence of the educational views of a foreign country.
Subject– The main theme of “Minor” is enlightenment and education, educating a new generation in the spirit of new trends of the times and political reforms.
Composition- the comedy is built according to all the rules of the genre, three components are observed in it - the unity of action, place and time. Consists of five actions.
Genre– The play is a comedy, a bright and lively narrative that does not contain tragic episodes.
History of creation
In “The Minor,” the analysis of the work involves revealing the theme, the main idea of the comedy, its essence and idea.
First, let's define the meaning of the name. In the eighteenth century, the word “minor” meant a person who did not have an education document. Such a person was not accepted into the service and was not allowed to marry.
Fonvizin lived in France for more than a year, delving deeply into its educational doctrines. He was occupied with all spheres of the country's social life, he delved into philosophy and jurisprudence. The writer paid great attention theatrical productions, in particular, comedies.
When the writer returned to Russia, he came up with a plan for the comedy “Unorosl”, where the characters would receive meaningful surnames in order to more deeply express the meaning of the comedy. Work on the history of creation took the writer almost three years; it began in 1778, and the final year of writing was 1782.
Subject
Initially main theme comedy the theme of upbringing and education of the new generation was assumed; later, the problems of “Undergrowth” included socio-political problems that directly related to the decree of Peter the Great banning the service and marriage of noblemen – undergrowth.
The Prostakov family, which has the undergrown Mitrofanushka, has deep noble roots. In the first place for such Prostakovs is pride in their noble class, and they do not accept anything new and progressive. They do not need education at all, since serfdom has not yet been abolished, and there is someone to work for them. Above all for the Prostakovs material well-being, greed and greed turns a blind eye to his son’s education, power and wealth are more important.
The family is the example on which a person grows and is educated. Mitrofanushka fully reflects the behavior and lifestyle of her despotic mother, but Mrs. Prostakova does not understand that she is the example for her son, and wonders why he does not show her due respect.
Revealing comedy problems, intrafamily conflict Prostakov, we come to the conclusion that everything depends on a person’s upbringing. A person’s attitude towards others depends only on a decent upbringing in the family. to strangers, his integrity and honesty. What the writer’s comedy teaches is education, respect for one’s neighbor, good manners and prudence.
Composition
The masterfully executed features of the composition allow you to become familiar with the main characters at the very beginning of the play. Already at the end of the first act the plot begins. Pravdin and Sophia immediately appear in the comedy. There is intrigue in the comedy - Sophia's rich dowry, which they learn about from Starodum's story, and the fight for her hand flares up.
In the next two acts, events develop rapidly, tension grows, the peak of which occurs in the fourth act, in which Prostakova comes up with the idea of kidnapping Sophia and forcefully marrying her to a minor.
Gradually, the development of the action begins to decline, and in the fifth act the comedy comes to a denouement. It becomes known about the unsuccessful abduction of Sophia. Pravdin accuses the Prostakovs of evil intentions and threatens punishment.
A paper arrives about the arrest of the Prostakovs' property, Sophia and Milon are about to leave, and Mitrofanushka is forced to join the soldiers.
Using in his comedy such artistic means as speaking surnames and first names, the author gives a moral assessment to the characters, which does not raise any doubts about its justice. This is general characteristics comedies.
Main characters
Genre
Fonvizin's play is built according to the laws of classicism. Events take place during the day in one place. The comedic nature of the play is clearly expressed through sharp satire, mercilessly ridiculing the vices of society. The play also contains funny motifs, permeated with humor, and there are also sad ones, in which the landowner arrogantly mocks her serfs.
The writer was an ardent supporter of education; he understood that only comprehensive education and proper upbringing can help a person grow into a highly moral person and become a worthy citizen of his homeland. The institution of the family, where the foundations of human behavior are laid, should play a huge role in this.
Critics were enthusiastic about the comedy “The Minor,” calling it the pinnacle of Russian drama in the 18th century. All critics wrote that Fonvizin, with maximum accuracy and straightforwardness, described typical images and characteristics of society, which look caricatured and grotesque, but in fact, are simply taken from life and described from nature. And in modern world comedy remains relevant: now it is also present in society large number“Mitrofanushki”, for whom the meaning of life lies in material wealth, and education is given a minimal place.
