Essay: Funny and tragic in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”

20.04.2019

It's really not a sin to laugh

Above everything that seems funny.

N. M. Karamzin

Having become acquainted with Gogol’s “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka,” Pushkin said that Russia had not laughed so much since the time of Fonvizin. It turns out that “Nedorosl” made all of Russia laugh for many years.

For school plays Usually they choose scenes from a comedy that cause friendly laughter in the audience. This is, first of all, a lesson in which Pravdin and Starodum examine Mitrofan. When asked by Pravdin what Mitrofan knows about grammar, he replies: “A lot. Noun and adjective." Pravdin asks to answer: is the word “door” a noun or an adjective? Mitrofanushka clarifies: “A door, which is a door?” And he explains that, they say, this door is an “adjective” because “it is attached to its place. Here at the closet of the pole for a week the door has not yet been hung: so for now that is a noun.”

The viewer is delighted with Mitrofanushka’s answers to other questions. He doesn’t know anything about any subject, but he cleverly gets out of it. His mother, Mrs. Prostakova, knows even less and therefore looks at those around her with pride for her son.

Skotinin is funny when he wants to marry Sophia only because in her villages there are pigs, which he has a “mortal hunt” for.

The reasoning of the German teacher Adam Adamych Vralman, who in the past served as a coachman for Starodum, is funny. What can this illiterate person, who cannot speak Russian properly, teach?

Mitrofanushka is hilarious in his gluttony. Eat three slices of corned beef for dinner, five or six huge hearths, then drink a jug of kvass - and consider that he “almost didn’t have dinner at all”! Even his mother, who indulges him in everything, tells Vralman that Mitrofan “had a careless dinner,” that is, he does not take care of himself, he eats too much. Which one is the groom?! Sophia does not even feel insulted when she learns about Mitrofan’s matchmaking. She's just funny. To Milon’s jealous words about his “happy rival,” she grins slyly and answers ironically: “My God! If you saw him, your jealousy would drive you to the extreme!”

Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin reveals the bestial essence of Prostakova and her relatives: either he directly denounces their actions, or he forces Starodum, Pravdin and Sophia to subtly ironize them, or with sly humor he forces these ignoramuses to expose themselves. Thus, Skotinin, having boasted of the antiquity of his family, falls into the trap of Starodum and Pravdin. He agrees that his ancestor was created by God somewhat earlier than Adam, that is, at the time when cattle were created. It even seemed to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he was “all with the horses.” These people have nothing to cover up their ignorance and bestiality. When Prostakova puts on a mask of decency, intending to show the kind hospitality of her home and the dignity of Mitrofan, she fails. Playing at nobility with Sophia, Starodum, Pravdin, she constantly breaks down. How can she know what true nobility is? The discrepancy between the mask and the face is both absurd and funny. When Prostakova scolds like a street vendor, it’s not so funny, because it’s a pity for innocent people. And it’s not funny at all, but rather scary from the thought that ignorant, rude and cruel serf owners are preparing a worthy replacement for themselves. After all, it’s not for nothing that the comedy is called “The Minor.” Material from the site

In creating the image of Mitrofan, the author pursued the goal not only of exposing him to ridicule. Of course, with his reluctance to learn and his “desire to get married,” he causes laughter. But his attitude towards Eremeevna, his disgusting, perhaps deliberate, pity for his mother, who “was tired, beating the priest,” no longer causes laughter. This “child of delicate build” does not know any responsibilities, and therefore he has neither intelligence nor conscience. He cowardly hides behind Eremeevna’s skirt, frightened by Skotinin’s fists, but is instantly ready to “take on people,” that is, to inflict reprisals on them. Before us is a future despot. For a moment we even forget what Prostakova is and sympathize with her. This woman's unreasonable, blind, animal love for her brainchild - Mitrofan - destroys her beloved son. At the end of the play, Prostakova, who has lost power, seeing the collapse of her plans, rushes to her son with an exclamation: “You are the only one left with me, my dear friend, Mitrofanushka!” But unexpectedly she comes across a heartless and evil answer: “Get off yourself, mother, you forced yourself on me...” This is a terrible blow for Prostakova. She thought that Mitrofan was growing up smart, educated, that he would always be a heartfelt friend for her, a consolation in her old age. It turned out that he didn't need her. “And you! And you leave me!” - the mother exclaims in despair and faints. This scene is tragic in its true life.

The comedy ends with the words of Starodum addressed to Prostakova: “Here is evil worthy fruits! However, viewers and readers perceive these words much more broadly. They are addressed not only to Prostakova, but also to the entire state structure of Russia. Moreover, they concern each of us. Laughter is a very valuable medicine, especially if it is presented to us by such a wonderful healer as D.I. Fonvizin.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

humor in the work of the undergrowth
epigraph to Fonvizin's essay
what did adam vrahlman say
Vralman ignoramus essay
funny and sad in the comedy Fonvizina Nedorost

Famous comedy by D. I. Fonvizin "The Minor" It is distinguished by great social depth and a sharp satirical orientation. In essence, this is where Russian social comedy begins. The play continues the traditions of classicism, but of a later, mature Russian classicism, which was strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideology. This play also reflected the influence of the so-called tearful comedy, that is, a play that combines touching and comic beginning. Such a play was distinguished not only by the destruction of the usual genre forms, but also by the complexity and inconsistency of the characters of the new heroes, who combined both virtues and weaknesses.

In “The Minor,” as the first biographer Fonvizin notes, the author “no longer jokes, no longer laughs, but is indignant at vice and brands it without mercy, and even if it makes you laugh, then the laughter it inspires does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions.” The object of ridicule in Fonvizin’s comedy is not the private life of the nobles, but their public, official activities and serfdom.

The finale of the play also combines a touching and deeply moralistic beginning. Here Mrs. Prostakova is overtaken by a terrible, completely unforeseen punishment. She is rejected, rudely pushed away by Mitrofan, to whom she devoted all her boundless, albeit unreasonable love.

The feeling they have for her goodies- Sophia, Starodum and Pravdin - complex, ambiguous. It contains both pity and condemnation. It is not Prostakova who evokes compassion, but trampled human dignity. Starodum’s final remark addressed to Prostakova also resonates strongly: “Here are the worthy fruits of evil” – i.e. fair retribution for violating moral and social norms.

Fonvizin managed to create a vivid, strikingly true picture of the moral and social degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century. The playwright uses all the means of satire, denounces and criticizes, ridicules and condemns, but his attitude towards the “noble” class is far from the view of an outsider. “I saw,” he wrote, “from the most respectable ancestors of despised descendants... I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart.”

Fonvizin's comedy represents the true flowering of Russian drama of the 18th century, but at the same time it is an extremely important milestone in the history of our drama. Following it are “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov and “The Inspector General” by Gogol. “...Everything turned pale,” Gogol wrote, “before two bright works: before Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” and Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” ... They no longer contain light ridicule of the funny sides of society, but the wounds and illnesses of our society ... Both comedies took two different eras. One was struck by illnesses from lack of enlightenment, the other from ill-understood enlightenment.”

Genre originality The work lies in the fact that “The Minor,” according to G. A. Gukovsky, is “half comedy, half drama.” Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin’s play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes are introduced into it. These include Pravdin’s conversation with Starodum, Starodum’s touching and edifying conversations with Sophia and Milon. The tearful drama suggests the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as the image of “suffering virtue” in the person of Sophia.

All this would be funny if it weren't so sad. M. Yu. Lermontov The last four decades of the 18th century. are distinguished by the genuine flowering of Russian drama. But classic comedy and tragedy far from exhaust its genre composition. Works not provided for by the poetics of classicism are beginning to penetrate into dramaturgy, indicating an urgent need to expand the boundaries and democratize the content of the theatrical repertoire. Among these new products, first of all, was the so-called tearful comedy, that is, a play that combines touching and comic principles. It was distinguished not only by the destruction of the usual genre forms, but also by the complexity and contradiction of the characters of the new heroes, who combined both virtues and weaknesses. The famous comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” is distinguished by its great social depth and sharp satirical orientation.

In essence, this is where Russian social comedy begins. The play continues the traditions of classicism. “For his entire life,” G. A. Gukovsky pointed out, “his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the school.” However, Fonvizin's play is a phenomenon of later, more mature Russian classicism, which was strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideology. In “The Minor,” as the first biographer Fonvizin noted, the author “no longer jokes, no longer laughs, but is indignant at vice and brands it without mercy, and even if it makes you laugh, then the laughter it inspires does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions.” The object of ridicule in Fonvizin’s comedy is not the private life of the nobles, but their public, official activities and serfdom.

Not content with just depicting noble “evil morality,” the writer strives to show its causes. The author explains the vices of people by their improper upbringing and dense ignorance, presented in the play in its various manifestations. The genre uniqueness of the work lies in the fact that “The Minor,” according to G. A. Gukovsky, is “half comedy, half drama.” Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin’s play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes are introduced into it.

These include Pravdin’s conversation with Starodum, Starodum’s touching and edifying conversations with Sophia and Milon. The tearful Drama suggests the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Sta-Rodum, as well as of “suffering virtue” in the person of Sophia. The finale of the play also combines touching and deeply moralistic principles. Here Mrs. Prostakova is overtaken by a terrible, completely unforeseen punishment.

She is rejected, rudely pushed away by Mitrofan, to whom she devoted all her boundless, albeit unreasonable love. The feeling that the positive characters have for her - Sophia, Starodum and Pravdin - is complex and ambiguous. It contains both pity and condemnation. It is not Prostakova who evokes compassion, but trampled human dignity. Starodum’s final remark addressed to Prostakova also resonates strongly: “These are the worthy fruits of evil” - that is, fair retribution for violating moral and social norms. D.I. Fonvizin managed to create a vivid, strikingly true picture of the moral and social degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century. The playwright uses all the means of satire, denounces and criticizes, ridicules and condemns, but his attitude towards the “noble” class is far from the view of an outsider: “I saw,” he wrote, “from the most respectable ancestors of despised descendants...

I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart." Fonvizin's comedy is an extremely important milestone in the history of our drama. Following it are "Woe from Wit" by Griboedov and "The Inspector General" by Gogol. "...Everything turned pale," Gogol wrote, " in front of two striking works: before Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” and Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”.

This might interest you:

“One respect should be flattering for a person - spiritual, and only those who are in rank not by money, and in the nobility not by rank, are worthy of spiritual respect.” I. FonvizinAt the beginning of the 18th century...

The comedy by D. N. Fonvizin “The Minor” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century. The work was created according to the strict rules of classicism: the unity of time (day), place (Prostakovs’ house) and action (rivalry of suitors) is observed...

The comedy “Minor” absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in depth ideological issues, in terms of the courage and originality of the artistic solutions found, remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian...

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin - creator immortal comedy“Undergrowth.” For more than two hundred years it has not left the stages of Russian theaters, remaining still interesting and relevant...

The Russian line of literary satire, to which N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.P. Chekhov can be counted in the 19th century, and in the 20th century -...

Rating entries
- - 15,565 views
- - 11,062 views
- - 10,650 views
- - 9,827 views
- - 8,733 views

News

The comic and the tragic in the comedy “The Minor” (mini-review)

Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" makes the reader smile at the funny and absurd characters. The writer ridicules the dense ignorance and reluctance to somehow change the situation, the improper upbringing of noble children, their laziness and lack of their own position.

The comedy "The Minor" seems funny only at first glance. Of course, one can condemn Mrs. Prostakova for her incorrect and unreasonable upbringing of her own son. But she received a worthy punishment for her mistakes. The son's words at the end of the comedy are living proof of the genuine contempt and indifference that the son feels towards his mother.

The mother indulged all the whims of her child, but this turned out to be the most negative factor that turned Mitrofanushka into a wretched and insignificant creature. Prostakova is a very colorful character; she personifies all human vices and weaknesses. Her brother looks the same, whose favorite place is a barn with pigs. Mitrofanushka also left not far from them. He has neither intelligence, nor nobility, nor lofty aspirations. He is primitive and pathetic. Of course, all these characters are very comical. But at the same time, in this comedy lies a huge human tragedy.

Vices such as rudeness, greed, hypocrisy, indifference, ignorance testify to the enormous moral degradation of people. The baseness and squalor of the Prostakovs and Skotinins are active and aggressive qualities that affect the lives of other people, that is, in the work there is a confrontation between good and evil. And the tragedy is precisely that evil is actually very strong.

References

To prepare this work, materials from the site http://sochinenya.narod.ru were used

Fonvizin's play "The Minor" is the first Russian socio-political comedy. In it, the playwright exposes the vices of the Russian nobility and, at the same time, develops his ideal, based on educational ideas of universal education. Although the genre of “The Minor” is defined as a comedy, the work skillfully combines and interweaves the funny and the sad, the comic and the dramatic. What in the play makes us laugh? It seems to me, first of all, the scenes related to Mitrofan’s training. This overgrown lout doesn’t even know the simplest things, and, moreover, doesn’t want to learn anything. He dreams only of marrying Sophia for the sake of receiving a large dowry. What thoughts about studying can there be! It is interesting that Mitrofan’s expression “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” entered the colloquial Russian language and became popular. Episodes of Mitrofan's “training” are depicted in comic tones. The scenes of his “ostentatious” lessons with Tsifirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman are hilarious. We see how ignorant and rude this little fellow is to teachers. He has one solution for all problems: “Once three is three. Once zero is zero. Once zero is zero,” to all comments there is one answer: “Well! Give me the board, garrison rat! Ask what to write." It’s curious that the teachers, who themselves are who knows how educated people, and some, like Vralman, are even decent swindlers, have long “seen through” the lazy and stupid Mitrofan. Thus, seminarian Kuteikin almost openly mocks his student, but neither he nor his mother sees this: “Kuteikin. Worm, that is, animal, cattle. In other words: “I am cattle.” Mitrofan. “I am cattle.” Kuteikin (in a training voice). "Not a man." Mitrofan (ditto). "Not a man." In addition, the scenes in “The Minor” seem funny, where they describe family relationships Prostakov-Skotinin. One involuntarily laughs at the way Prostakova treats her husband and brother - she “keeps them under her thumb” and twirls them as she wants. Funny her swear words addressed to the serfs, her curses. Skotinin is funny with his obsession with pigs, etc. But, reading all these scenes, you involuntarily catch yourself thinking that something sad and even scary is mixed in with the laughter. This feeling reaches its culmination, for example, in the episode of Skotinin’s quarrel with his nephew. These seemingly dear people are ready to physically destroy each other because of money - Sophia’s dowry: “Skotinin (trembling and threatening, walks away). I'll get you there. Eremeevna (trembling, following). I have my own grips sharp! Mitrofan (following Skotinin). Get out, uncle; get lost." Among other things, in this scene additional touches appear to the image of Mitrofan. This little guy, well-fed and physically strong, turns out to be a coward. We see that he, frightened by his uncle, hides behind old Eremeevna’s back: “Mommy! shield me." Mitrofan was accustomed to always and in everything rely on his mother and serfs. Without them, this almost adult man is as helpless as a child. We see that he largely repeats the fate of his father, the same spineless lump. It is sad to observe Eremeevna’s behavior in this scene. A peasant woman who had never heard one in her entire life. kind words from the owners, however, she is devoted to them to the last drop of blood: “Eremeevna (shielding Mitrofan, becoming furious and raising her fists). I’ll die on the spot, but I won’t give up the child.” How can we explain this truly canine devotion? Historical circumstances or peculiarities of the Russian character? It seems to me that the author leaves this question unanswered, only raising the question of a more humane, “enlightened” attitude of the nobles towards their serfs. Sad and dramatic final scenes“Undergrowth”, where “the worthy fruits of evil” are punished. But, despite the fact that Prostakova rightly failed in all her plans and deservedly lost her estate, in last scenes her fate evokes pity and even sympathy. But we feel sorry not for Prostakova the serf-wife, but for Prostakova the mother. In the finale, Mitrofan, for whom she lived and who, in fact, was the meaning of her life, betrays Prostakova, cowardly refuses her: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself...” A playwright with great psychological mastery describes the mother’s grief: “And you! And you leave me! A! ungrateful! (Fainted).” And then follows the almost final phrase of this heroine: “Ms. Prostakova (waking up in despair). I'm completely lost! My power has been taken away! You can’t show your eyes anywhere out of shame! I don’t have a son!” Thus, in the play by D.I. Fonvizin's work closely intertwines the funny and the sad, the comic and the dramatic. Moreover, the laughter in the work is, in my opinion, not entertaining, but edifying. By ridiculing the shortcomings of the Russian nobility, the writer seeks to point them out to enlightened people, and, perhaps, to eradicate them. The same purpose is served by dramatic episodes"Undergrown." The combination of these contrasting ways the depiction of reality enhances the effect and makes Fonvizin’s comedy an outstanding work of Russian drama of the 18th century.

Essay: Funny and tragic in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”

This might interest you:

Rating entries

News

Popular Essays

Exam essays

The comic and the tragic in the comedy “The Minor” (mini-review)

References