The history of the creation of Fonvizin's work "Minor"
DI. Fonvizin is one of the most prominent figures in the educational movement in Russia in the 18th century. He perceived the ideas of Enlightenment humanism especially keenly, and lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. Therefore, the writer was especially upset by the nobles’ failure to fulfill their duty to society: “I happened to travel around my land. I have seen where most of those bearing the name of a nobleman rely on their curiosity. I have seen many of them who serve, or, moreover, take places in the service just to ride a pair. I have seen many others who immediately resigned as soon as they gained the right to harness fours. I have seen contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw nobles servile. I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart.” This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the author of “Facts and Fables,” the authorship of which belonged to Empress Catherine II herself.
The name Fonvizin became known to the general public after he created the comedy “Brigadier”. Then for more than ten years the writer was involved in government affairs. And only in 1781 he completed a new comedy, “The Minor.” Fonvizin did not leave evidence of the creation of “Nedoroslya”. The only story dedicated to the creation of the comedy was recorded much later by Vyazemsky. We are talking about the scene in which Eremeevna defends Mitrofanushka from Skotinin. “It is recounted from the words of the author himself that, having begun to explore the phenomenon mentioned, he went for a walk in order to think about it while walking. At the Myasnitsky Gate he came across a fight between two women. He stopped and began to guard nature. Returning home with the spoils of his observations, he drew his phenomenon and included in it the word hooks, which he overheard on the battlefield” (Vyazemsky, 1848).
Catherine's government, frightened by Fonvizin's first comedy, for a long time opposed the production of the writer's new comedy. Only in 1782 did Fonvizin’s friend and patron N.I. Panin, through the heir to the throne, the future Paul I, managed with great difficulty to achieve the production of “The Minor.” The comedy was performed in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow by the actors of the court theater. Fonvizin himself took part in the actors learning their roles and was involved in all the details of the production. The role of Starodum was created by Fonvizin with the best actor of the Russian theater I.A. in mind. Dmitrevsky. Possessing a noble, refined appearance, the actor constantly occupied the role of the first hero-lover in the theater. And although the performance was a complete success, soon after the premiere the theater, on the stage of which “The Minor” was first staged, was closed and disbanded. The attitude of the empress and the ruling circles towards Fonvizin changed dramatically: until the end of his life, the author of “The Minor” felt from that time on that he was a disgraced, persecuted writer.
As for the name of the comedy, the word “minor” itself is perceived today not as intended by the author of the comedy. In the time of Fonvizin, this was a completely definite concept: this was the name given to nobles who had not received proper education, and who were therefore forbidden to enter the service and marry. So the undergrowth could be more than twenty years old, while Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s comedy is sixteen years old. With the appearance of this character, the term “underage” acquired a new meaning - “a dunce, a dumbass, a teenager with limited vicious inclinations.”
Gender, genre, creative method in Fonvizin’s work “Minor”
Second half of the 18th century. - the heyday of theatrical classicism in Russia. It is the comedy genre that is becoming the most important and widespread in stage and dramatic art. The best comedies of this time are part of social and literary life, are associated with satire and often have a political orientation. The popularity of comedy lay in its direct connection with life. “The Minor” was created within the framework of the rules of classicism: the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, the rule of three unities in composition, “speaking names.” However, realistic features are also visible in the comedy: the authenticity of the images, the depiction of noble life and social relations.
The famous creativity researcher D.I. Fonvizina G.A. Gukovsky believed that “in Nedorosl” two literary styles are fighting among themselves, and classicism is defeated. Classical rules prohibited mixing sad, funny and serious motives. “In Fonvizin’s comedy there are elements of drama, there are motives that were supposed to touch and touch the viewer. In “The Minor,” Fonvizin not only laughs at vices, but also glorifies virtue. “The Minor” is half-comedy, half-drama. In this regard, Fonvizin, breaking the tradition of classicism, took advantage of the lessons of the new bourgeois dramaturgy of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature of the 18th century. M., 1939).
By making both negative and positive characters life-like, Fonvizin managed to create a new type of realistic comedy. Gogol wrote that the plot of “The Minor” helped the playwright to deeply and insightfully reveal the most important aspects of the social existence of Russia, “the wounds and illnesses of our society, severe internal abuses, which by the merciless power of irony are exposed in stunning evidence” (N.V. Gogol, complete collection . op. vol. VIII).
The accusatory pathos of the content of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. These are satire and journalism. Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. Starodum’s final remark, which ends “The Minor”: “These are the fruits of evil!” - gives the whole play a special sound.
Topics
The comedy “Minor” is based on two problems that especially worried the writer. This is the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century. was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national importance, since proper education could save noble society from degradation.
The comedy “Nedorosl” (1782) became a landmark event in the development of Russian comedy. It represents a complex, well-thought-out system in which every line, every character, every word is subordinated to revealing the author's intention. Having started the play as an everyday comedy of manners, Fonvizin does not stop there, but boldly goes further, to the root cause of “evil morals,” the fruits of which are known and strictly condemned by the author. The reason for the vicious education of the nobility in feudal and autocratic Russia is the established state system, which gives rise to arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, the problem of education turns out to be inextricably linked with the entire life and political structure of the state in which people live and act from top to bottom. The Skotinins and Prostakovs, ignorant, limited in mind, but not limited in their power, can only educate their own kind. Their characters are drawn by the author especially carefully and fully, with all the authenticity of life. Fonvizin significantly expanded the scope of classicism’s requirements for the comedy genre here. The author completely overcomes the schematism inherent in his earlier heroes, and the characters in “The Minor” become not only real persons, but also household figures.
The idea of the analyzed work
Defending her cruelty, crimes and tyranny, Prostakova says: “Am I not powerful in my people too?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And then she unexpectedly refers to the law: “I’m not free! A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The amazed Starodum and together with him the author exclaim only: “She is a master at interpreting decrees!”
Subsequently, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky rightly said: “It’s all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they contain the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama is in them... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness.” Prostakova does not want to recognize any duties of the nobility, she calmly violates Peter the Great’s law on the compulsory education of nobles, she knows only her rights. In her person, a certain part of the nobles refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities. There is no need to talk about any kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving state interests. Fonvizin saw what this actually led to: state collapse, immorality, lies and corruption, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. That’s why he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “The state in which the most respectable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign and its corps and represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name only and is sold to every scoundrel who has robbed the fatherland.”
So, the idea of the comedy: condemnation of ignorant and cruel landowners, who consider themselves full masters of life, do not comply with state and moral laws, affirmation of the ideals of humanity and enlightenment.
Nature of the conflict
The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in the public life of the country. Mrs. Prostakova states that the decree “on noble freedom” (which freed the nobleman from compulsory service to the state established by Peter I) made him “free” primarily in relation to serfs, freeing him from all burdensome human and moral responsibilities to society. Fonvizin puts a different view on the role and responsibilities of a nobleman into the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. In terms of political and moral ideals, Starodum is a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.
All the heroes of the comedy are drawn into the conflict, the action seems to be taken out of the landowner's house, family and acquires a socio-political character: the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the authorities, and the lack of rights of the peasants.
Main characters
The audience in the comedy “Minor” was primarily attracted by the positive characters. The serious scenes in which Starodum and Pravdin performed were received with great enthusiasm. Thanks to Starodum, performances turned into a kind of public demonstration. “At the end of the play,” recalls one of his contemporaries, “the audience threw G. Dmitrevsky a wallet filled with gold and silver onto the stage... G. Dmitrevsky, picking it up, made a speech to the audience and said goodbye to her” (“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”, 1840, No. 5.)-
One of the main characters of Fonvizin's play is Starodum. In his worldview, he is a bearer of the ideas of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Starodum served in the army, fought bravely, was wounded, but was not rewarded. It was received by his former friend, the count, who refused to go to the active army. Having retired, Starodum tries to serve at court. Disappointed, he leaves for Siberia, but remains true to his ideals. He is the ideological inspirer of the fight against Prostakova. In reality, Starodum’s like-minded official Pravdin acts on the Prostakovs’ estate not on behalf of the government, but “out of his own deed of heart.” The success of Starodum determined Fonvizin’s decision to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” in 1788.
The positive characters are depicted by the playwright somewhat palely and schematically. Starodum and his associates teach from the stage throughout the entire play. But these were the laws of dramaturgy of that time: classicism presupposed the depiction of heroes who delivered monologues and teachings “from the author.” Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas.
Fonvizin presents negative characters with amazing realism: Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son Mitrofan, Prostakova’s evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and law, they bow only to power and wealth, they fear only material force and are always cunning, using all means to achieve their benefits, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morals, ideas, ideals, or any moral principles, not to mention knowledge and respect for laws.
The central figure of this group, one of the significant characters in Fonvizin’s play, is Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the main spring driving the stage action, for in this provincial noblewoman there is some powerful vital force that is lacking not only in the positive characters, but also in her lazy, selfish son and pig-like brother. “This face in a comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically,” historian V.O., an expert on the era, said about Prostakova. Klyuchevsky. Yes, this character is completely negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin’s comedy is that his mistress Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the mistress Prostakova in real life and would be defenseless.
From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, spies, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, government official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot calm her down. At the heart of this living, strong, completely popular character is monstrous tyranny, intrepid impudence, greed for the material benefits of life, the desire for everything to be according to her liking and will. But this evil, cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm. “This insane love for one’s child is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity was expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that don’t eat her child,” N.V. wrote about Prostakova. Gogol. For the sake of her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milo, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.”
Place of minor characters
Other characters also act on the stage: Prostakova’s downtrodden and intimidated husband and her brother Taras Skotinin, who loves his pigs more than anything in the world, and the noble “minor” - his mother’s favorite, the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan, who does not want to learn anything, spoiled and corrupted by his mother’s upbringing. Next to them are the following: the Prostakovs' servant - the tailor Trishka, the serf nanny, the former nurse Mitrofana Eremeevna, his teacher - the village sexton Kuteikin, the retired soldier Tsifirkin, the cunning rogue German coachman Vralman. In addition, the remarks and speeches of Prostakova, Skotinin and other characters - positive and negative - constantly remind the viewer of the peasants of the Russian serf village, invisibly present behind the scenes, given by Catherine II to full and uncontrolled power by Skotinin and Prostakov. It is they, remaining behind the stage, who actually become the main suffering face of the comedy; their fate casts a menacing, tragic reflection on the fate of its noble characters. The names of Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin, Kuteikin, Vralman became household names.
Plot and composition
An analysis of the work shows that the plot of Fonvizin’s comedy is simple. In the family of provincial landowners the Prostakovs, their distant relative lives - Sophia, who remained an orphan. Mrs. Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin and the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan would like to marry Sophia. At a critical moment for the girl, when she is desperately divided by her uncle and nephew, another uncle appears - Starodum. He becomes convinced of the evil nature of the Prostakov family with the help of the progressive official Pravdin. Sophia marries the man she loves - officer Milon. The Prostakovs' estate is taken into state custody for cruel treatment of serfs. Mitrofan is sent to military service.
Fonvizin based the plot of the comedy on the conflict of the era, the socio-political life of the 70s - early 80s. XVIII century This is a struggle with the serf woman Prostakova, depriving her of the right to own her estate. At the same time, other storylines are traced in the comedy: the struggle for Sofya Prostakova, Skotinin and Milon, the story of the union of Sophia and Milon who love each other. Although they do not form the main plot.
“The Minor” is a comedy in five acts. Events take place on the Prostakov estate. A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is devoted to solving the problem of education. These are scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, the vast majority of Starodum's moral teachings. The culminating point in the development of this theme, undoubtedly, is the scene of Mitrofan’s examination in the 4th act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of the Prostakovs and Skotinins.
Artistic originality
A fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic situations, individualized colloquial speech of the characters, a vicious satire on the Russian nobility, ridicule of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive. Young Fonvizin attacked noble society and its vices, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck human minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of severe tyranny, everyday everyday cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language that were understandable to the audience, acute current problems, and recognizable conflicts. All this is in Fonvizin’s famous comedy “The Minor,” which is still staged today.
Fonvizin created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of words and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, or his heroes as positive characters. As a member of the Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in studying and improving his contemporary language. Fonvizin masterfully builds the linguistic characteristics of his characters: these are rude, offensive words in Prostakova’s uncouth speeches; the words of soldier Tsyfirkin, characteristic of military life; Church Slavonic words and quotes from the spiritual books of seminarian Kuteikin; Vralman's broken Russian speech and the speech of the noble heroes of the play - Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin. Certain words and phrases from Fonvizin's comedy became popular. Thus, already during the life of the playwright, the name Mitrofan became a household name and meant a lazy person and an ignoramus. Phraseologisms have become widely known: “Trishkin caftan”, “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married”, etc.
Meaning of the work
The “people's” (according to Pushkin) comedy “Nedorosl” reflected the acute problems of Russian life. The audience, seeing it in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin’s cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the audience of that time: “My grandmother told me that during the performance of Nedoroslya there was a crush in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who had come to the service from the steppe villages, were present here - and, consequently, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy thought upon leaving it,” historian V.O. wrote about “The Minor.” Klyuchevsky.
Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “The Minor” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, resulting from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.” Realism and satire help the author of the comedy talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education “the key to the well-being of the state.” And all the comic and tragic circumstances he described and the very characters of the negative characters can safely be called the fruits of ignorance and evil.
In Fonvizin's comedy there is grotesque, and satirical comedy, and a farcical beginning, and a lot of serious things, something that makes the viewer think. With all this, “Nedorosl” had a strong impact on the development of Russian national drama, as well as the entire “most magnificent and, perhaps, most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line” (M. Gorky).
This is interesting
The characters can be divided into three groups: negative (Prostakovs, Mitrofan, Skotinin), positive (Pravdin, Milon, Sophia, Starodum), the third group includes all the other characters - these are mainly servants and teachers. Negative characters and their servants have a common colloquial language. The Skotinins' vocabulary consists mainly of words used in the barnyard. This is well shown by the speech of Skotinin - Uncle Mitrofan. It is all filled with words: pig, piglets, barn. The idea of life begins and ends with the barnyard. He compares his life with the life of his pigs. For example: “I want to have my own piglets,” “if I have... a special barn for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife.” And he is proud of it: “Well, I’ll be a pig’s son if...” The vocabulary of his sister Mrs. Prostakova is a little more diverse due to the fact that her husband is “a fool beyond counting” and she has to do everything herself. But Skotinin’s roots are also evident in her speech. Favorite curse word: “cattle.” To show that Prostakova is not far behind her brother in development, Fonvizin sometimes denies her basic logic. For example, such phrases: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear off anything anymore,” “So is it necessary to be like a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well?”
All that can be said about her husband is that he is a man of few words and does not open his mouth without his wife’s instructions. But this characterizes him as a “countless fool,” a weak-willed husband who fell under the heel of his wife. Mitrofanushka is also a man of few words, although, unlike his father, he has freedom of speech. Skotinin's roots are manifested in his inventiveness of curses: “old bastard”, “garrison rat”. Servants and teachers have in their speech characteristic features of the classes and parts of society to which they belong. Eremeevna’s speech is constant excuses and a desire to please. Teachers: Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant, Kuteikin is a sexton from Pokrov. And with their speech they show their belonging to the type of activity.
All characters, except the positive ones, have very colorful and emotionally charged speech. You may not understand the meaning of words, but the meaning of what is said is always clear.
The speech of the positive heroes is not so bright. All four of them lack colloquial, colloquial phrases in their speech. This is bookish speech, the speech of educated people of that time, which practically does not express emotions. You understand the meaning of what is said from the direct meaning of the words. Milon's speech is almost impossible to distinguish from Pravdin's speech. It is also very difficult to tell anything about Sophia based on her speech. An educated, well-behaved young lady, as Starodum would call her, sensitive to the advice and instructions of her beloved uncle. Starodum’s speech is completely determined by the fact that the author put his moral program into the mouth of this hero: rules, principles, moral laws by which a “pious person” should live. Starodum's monologues are structured in this way: Starodum first tells a story from his life, and then draws a moral.
As a result, it turns out that the speech of the negative hero characterizes himself, and the speech of the positive hero is used by the author to express his thoughts. The person is depicted three-dimensionally, the ideal is depicted in a plane.
Makogonenko G.I. Denis Fonvizin. Creative path M.-L., 1961.
Makogonezho G.I. From Fonvizin to Pushkin (From the history of Russian realism). M., 1969.
Nazarenko M.I. “An incomparable mirror” (Types and prototypes in D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”) // Russian language, literature, culture at school and university. K., 2005.
StrichekA. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Enlightenment. M., 1994.
A comedy by D. I. Fonvizin, in which, while maintaining a theatrically conventional plot collision, the everyday life of middle-income landowners, busy with concerns about their own prosperity, was depicted, the artistic content of which consisted in a new display of life on stage, and specifically Russian provincial, landowner life, and a new showing a person 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.
Externally, 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 narrated in the comedy unfold. They constitute the final stage and are completed within a day.
Prostakova decides to marry 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 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 the everyday life of an uncultured landowner family, the level of its demands, intra-family relationships, and 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. They talk 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 to secondary 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.
Fonvizin’s role as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as well as the fruitful influence he exerted on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half of the 19th century. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770-1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of the Russian aesthetic worldview of that time, which prepared - at the first stage - for its future Pushkin stage. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, not to mention Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited to his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in this regard in the tradition of the “satirical direction,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature of the 18th century. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style of 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 at the level of scientific achievements of his time, and the social principle of assessing 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; the martinet of the Brigadier, but, apart from the martinet, there are few characteristic features in him. 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 of the general features of their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
What is typical for a classicist writer is the very attitude towards tradition, towards the established mask roles of a literary work, towards habitual and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, which represent the established collective experience of humanity (the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards the creative process is characteristic here). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerical Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society as a classified “mind” that has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. A satirical article, a comedy, a solemn speech of praise in a high style (Fonvizin’s “Word for Pavel’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to communicate to Russian literature the best achievements of world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin because he understood and felt the specific features of Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; this article contains a hot political thought, a rise in political pathos; It also contains the hero’s track record, and there is also his civil glorification; but there is no person, personality, environment, and, in the end, no biography in it. This is a “life”, a diagram of an ideal life, not of a saint, of course, but of a political figure, as Fonvizin understood him. Fonvizin’s anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. They are called “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts,” but there is almost no disclosure of inner life in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with Rousseau’s “Confession,” although he immediately characteristically contrasts his plan with the latter’s plan. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, first of all; individualistic self-revelation, brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book, is alien to him. In his hands, the memoirs turn into a series of moralizing sketches, such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760-1780s. At the same time, they provide a picture of social life in its negative manifestations that is exceptional in its wealth of witty details, and this is their great merit. Fonvizin the classic's people are static. The Brigadier, the Advisor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early “Nedorosl”), etc. - they are all given from the very beginning and do not develop during the movement of the work. In the first act of "The Brigadier", in the exposition, the heroes themselves directly and unambiguously define all the features of their character schemes, and in the future we see only comic combinations and collisions of the same features, and these collisions do not affect the internal structure of each role. Then characteristic of Fonvizin is the verbal definition of masks. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerical speech of the Advisor, the petimetric speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhausts the description. After subtracting the speech characteristics, no other individual human traits remain. And they will all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and good will make jokes, because the heroes of “The Brigadier” are still heroes of a classical comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate,” and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that he the words were everywhere replete with witticisms” (“Poetic Art”). It was a strong, powerful system of artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and was superbly implemented not only in “The Brigadier”, but also in Fonvizin’s satirical articles.
Fonvizin remains a classic in the genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin most often has no interest in the plot side of the work.
In a number of Fonvizin’s works: in the early “Minor”, in “The Governor’s Choice” and in “The Brigadier”, in the story “Kalisthenes” the plot is only a frame, more or less conventional. “The Brigadier,” for example, is structured as a series of comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushka and the Advisor, the Advisor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Advisor, and all these couples are contrasted not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane of schematic contrast, a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in the comedy; 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 are normal and reasonable for both Sumarokov and Fonvizin. 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. The tension of the political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of reality, hostile to him, surrounding him on all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vigilance for life. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of an impact on life that is more acute than noble writers could do before him. “At the court of a king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything... can the truth be freely expressed? “- writes Fonvizin in the story “Kalisthenes”. And now his task is to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter is emerging, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism in the Western educational movement. Fonvizin draws closer to the bourgeois progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.
Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia? - Fonvizin poses the question in “Friend of Honest People” and answers that this does not come “from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, but rather from a lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for everyone.” expression,” but from the lack of freedom, the lack of public life, and the exclusion of citizens from participating in the political life of the country. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, the writer is “a guardian of the common good,” “a useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes the savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland.”
In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of bourgeois radical thinkers in France. In 1764, he remade Gresset’s “Sidney” into Russian, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of bourgeois literature of the 18th century. in France. In 1769, an English story, “Sidney and Scilly or Beneficence and Gratitude,” translated by Fonvizin from Arno, was published. This is a sentimental work, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with bourgeois French literature. The fight against reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in his literary work, Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.
The rich ideological and thematic content of the comedy “The Minor” is embodied in a masterfully developed artistic form. Fonvizin managed to create a coherent plan for the comedy, skillfully interweaving pictures of everyday life with revealing the views of the characters. With great care and breadth, Fonvizin described not only the main characters, but also secondary ones, like Eremeevna, teachers and even the tailor Trishka, revealing in each of them some new side of reality, without repeating itself anywhere. All the heroes of his comedy are drawn not by an indifferent contemplator of life, but by a citizen writer who clearly shows his attitude towards the people he portrays. He executes some with angry indignation and a caustic, killing laugh, treats others with cheerful mockery, and depicts others with great sympathy. Fonvizin showed himself to be a deep expert on the human heart and human character. He skillfully reveals the spiritual life of the characters, their attitude towards people, their actions. The same purpose is served in comedy by stage directions, that is, by the author's instructions to the actors. For example: “stammering out of timidity”, “with annoyance”, “frightened, with anger”, “delighted”, “impatiently”, “trembling and threatening”, etc. Such remarks were news in Russian dramatic works of the 18th century .
In the artistic style of comedy, the struggle between classicism and realism is noticeable, that is, the desire for the most truthful depiction of life. The first is clearly on the side of realism.
This is manifested mainly in the depiction of characters, especially negative ones. They are typical representatives of their class, widely and diversifiedly shown. These are living people, and not the personification of any one quality, which was typical for the works of classicism. Even positive images are not devoid of vitality. And Prostakova, Skotinin, especially Mitrofanushka are so vital and typical that their names have become household names.
The rules of classicism are also violated in the very construction of comedy. These rules prohibited mixing the comic and dramatic, cheerful and sad in the play. In comedy it was supposed to correct morals with laughter. In “The Minor,” in addition to funny (comic), there are also dramatic scenes (Prostakova’s drama at the end of the work). Along with comic paintings, there are scenes that reveal the difficult sides of serf life. In addition, the comedy contains scenes that are only indirectly related to the main action (for example, the scene with Trishka and a number of others), but the author needed them for a broad and truthful sketch of everyday life.
The language of the comedy is so bright and apt that some expressions have passed from it into life like proverbs: “If I don’t want to study, I want to get married”; “Wealth is no help to a foolish son”, “Here are the fruits of evil”, etc.
This victory of realism in the most important area - in the depiction of a person - constitutes the most valuable side of Fonvizin, an artist of words. Truthfulness in the depiction of life is closely connected with the progressive views of Fonvizin, with his struggle against the main evils of his time, so vividly revealed by him in the comedy “The Minor.”
The important questions that Fonvizin posed and illuminated in the comedy “The Minor” determined its great social significance, primarily in his contemporary era. From the pages of the comedy, from the stage of the theater, the bold voice of a leading writer sounded, who angrily denounced the ulcers and shortcomings of life of that time, and called for a fight against them. The comedy painted true pictures of life; showed living people, good and bad, called on them to imitate the former and fight the latter. She enlightened consciousness, cultivated civic feelings, and called for action.
The significance of “The Minor” is also great in the history of the development of Russian drama. No wonder Pushkin called “The Minor” a “folk comedy.” Fonvizin's comedy has remained on the theater stage until the present day. The vitality of the images, the historically accurate depiction of people and life of the 18th century, the natural spoken language, the skillful construction of the plot - all this explains the keen interest that the comedy arouses in our days.
Fonvizin’s “Minor” is the founder of Russian (in Gorky’s words) “accusatory-realistic” comedy, socio-political comedy. Continuing this line, in the 19th century such wonderful comedies appeared as “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov and “The Inspector General” by Gogol.
37. The problem of education and its artistic expression in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin "Minor"
In the comedy D.I. Fonvizin’s “Minor”, of course, criticism of the ignorant nobility, cruel serf-owners, corrupted by the decree of Catherine II “On the Liberty of the Nobility” (1765) comes to the fore. In connection with this topic, another topic is raised in the comedy - the problem of education. How can we correct the situation so that the younger generation, represented by Mitrofanushka and other undergrowth, turns into a true support for the state? Fonvizin saw only one way out - in educating youth in the spirit of educational ideals, in cultivating the ideas of goodness, honor, and duty in young minds.
Thus, the topic of education becomes one of the leading ones in comedy. It, in many of its aspects, develops throughout the work. So, first we see scenes of Mitrofanushka’s “upbringing”. This is also what is instilled and demonstrated to the underage by his parents, primarily by his mother, Mrs. Prostakova. She, accustomed to being guided by only one law - her desire, treats the serfs inhumanely, as if they were not people, but soulless objects. Prostakova considers it completely normal to stoop to curses and beatings, and for her this is the norm of communication not only with servants, but also with family members and her husband. Only for her son, whom she adores, does the heroine make an exception.
Prostakova does not understand that by communicating with others in this way, she first of all humiliates herself, is deprived of human dignity and respect. Fonvizin shows that the way of life that the Russian provincial nobility led, thanks, among other things, to state policy, is destructive and fundamentally wrong.
The playwright points out that Mitrofanushka adopted his mother’s manner of dealing with people; it is not for nothing that his name is translated as “revealing his mother.” We see how this hero mocks his nanny Eremeevna, other serfs, and neglects his parents:
"Mitrofan. And now I’m walking around like crazy. All night such rubbish was in my eyes.
Mrs. Prostakova. What rubbish, Mitrofanushka?
Mitrofan. Yes, either you, mother, or father.”
Mitrofan grows up as a spoiled, ignorant, lazy and selfish lump, thinking only about his own entertainment. He was not used to working either mentally or, of course, physically.
Out of necessity, Mitrofan’s mother hires teachers - according to the empress’s new decree, nobles must have an education, otherwise they will not be able to serve. And so, reluctantly, the young hero is engaged in “sciences”. It is important that he does not even think about the benefits of his own enlightenment. He seeks only one benefit in education, which is given to this hero with great difficulty.
And the teenager’s teachers are a match for him. Seminarist Kuteikin, retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, teacher Vralman - all of them have nothing to do with real knowledge. These pseudo-teachers give Mitrofan poor fragmentary knowledge, but he is not able to remember even that. Fonvizin paints comical pictures of the training of young Prostakov, but behind this laughter there is the bitter indignation of the playwright - such underage people will determine the future of Russia!
In contrast to such upbringing, Fonvizin presents his ideal of upbringing. We find its main postulates in the speeches of Starodum, who in many ways is the sounding board of the author himself. Starodum shares his experience and views on life with his niece Sophia - and this is presented in the play as another way of education: the transfer of life wisdom from the older generation to the younger.
From the conversation of these heroes, we learn that Sophia wants to earn “a good opinion of herself from worthy people.” She wants to live in such a way that, if possible, she will never offend anyone. Starodum, knowing this, instructs the girl on the “true path.” His vital “laws” relate to the state and social activities of a nobleman: “degrees of nobility “are calculated by the number of deeds that the great gentleman has done for the fatherland”; “It is not the rich man who counts out money in order to hide it in a chest, but the one who counts out what he has in excess in order to help those who do not have what they need”; “An honest person must be a completely honest person.”
In addition, Starodum gives advice regarding “matters of the heart,” the family life of a well-behaved person: to have “friendship for your husband that would resemble love.” It will be much stronger,” “it is necessary, my friend, that your husband obey reason, and you obey your husband.” And finally, as a final chord, the most important instruction: “...there is happiness greater than all this. This is to feel worthy of all the benefits that you can enjoy.”
I think that Starodum’s instructions fell on fertile soil. They will undoubtedly give positive results - Sophia and Milon will be guided by them and raise their children according to them.
Thus, the problem of education is central to Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” Here the playwright raises the question of the future of Russia, in connection with which the problem of education arises. The real state of affairs in this area does not suit the writer; he believes that the nobility is degrading, turning into an ignorant crowd of brutes and simpletons. This is largely due to the connivance of Catherine II.
Fonvizin believes that only education in the spirit of educational ideas can save the situation. The bearers of these ideas in comedy are Starodum, Sophia, Milon, Pravdin.