In this lesson we will learn what the work “Woe from Wit” conveys. We will also look at the language in which the comedy is written.
Topic: Russian masterpieces literature of the 19th century century
Lesson: Features of the characters and language of the comedy “Woe from Wit”
We continue to talk about the comedy "Woe from Wit". Whenever we talk about language, there is a certain feeling of boredom. The fact is that those Russian language lessons that were held at school in past years and are held now, as a rule, evoke this same boredom. But there is nothing more fun than the language of comedy, which constantly provides reasons for laughter.
Speech styles as a way of characterization
There is a fairly clear explanation of how the modes of verbal expression, called stylistic features speech. The style of speech mainly determines everything that speech can achieve. Style is a way of speech determined by its purpose.
The story begins with Griboyedov modern theater in Russia. Each of the characters in his comedy speaks in a very special way, and there is a character who is generally silent, silent until they force him to say something, his name is Molchalin. Each character is characterized most fully by the style with which he constructs his speech. Lizonka, fluttering with light phrases from one interlocutor to another. Sophia, who constructs her speech like a page of translation from French novel. Chatsky, who flares up with his tirades like a speaker gathering a circle around him at a social ball. Famusov, skillfully combining his teachings, his moral teachings, and the orders that he gives to his subordinates. Each of them has their own individual style. By how the character of each is revealed in these remarks, we can monitor the integrity of the plan.
There is a legend that Griboedov tried to read his comedy for the first time by I.A. Krylov, who perfectly mastered free speech, relaxed, easily combining different characters. So, according to this version, Griboyedov agreed with Krylov that he would listen as much as he wanted, at the very moment when he got tired, he could get up and leave. Krylov had a reputation as a rude, straightforward old man who avoided social decency and formalities. Krylov did not interrupt Griboedov’s reading, and then hugged him, kissed him and recognized him as his successor.
One witty writer has a very precise expression: “Laughter is exposing someone’s stupidity.” So, Griboyedov’s comedy is built on exposing stupidity. Language is the main means of exposing it.
We are talking about the meaning that is expressed in forms of speech. The point of what Griboyedov does is that characters are not depicted, but those feelings that carry him with them are directly expressed. stage characters. Viewers, actors, and readers recognize themselves, their contemporaries, and acquaintances in them.
Griboedov's comedy was rewritten many times. This method contributed to the development of comedy throughout its existence until its production on stage in 1833, after Griboyedov’s death. Comedy exists in orally. This is exactly what A.S. imagined. Pushkin, one of the most thoughtful listeners, not readers. In 1825, in a letter to Bestuzhev, Pushkin wrote this: “I listened to Chatsky, but only once and not with the attention that he deserves. That’s what I caught a glimpse of.” Everything that Pushkin notices, he notices by ear, and in order for us to understand and appreciate how Griboedov sculpts the characters with the help of language, it is fundamentally important for us to hear, and not see, this text. Just as a sculptor sculpts clay with his hands, creating what he wants to show the viewer, so a playwright, with the help of words, with the help of sound images, sculpts what he wants to show. Therefore, by depicting his characters with sounds, the playwright sets before us a very specific task of perception. All playwrights created their stories in approximately the same way. dramatic works. “A dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself has recognized above himself” - the words that Pushkin wrote in that very letter to Bestuzhev, where they talked about Chatsky’s audition. The main character for Pushkin is not Famusov, but Chatsky, whose speech contains all the impressions that Griboyedov wants to express plastically. He expresses the feelings that his generation shares.
Chatsky's tirades
Of all the speeches that Griboyedov’s characters pronounce from the stage, the tirades uttered by Chatsky sound most expressively and clearly. No wonder Pushkin said that he “listened to Chatsky.” Famusov with all his speeches builds a treatise on the decline of morals contemporary to that time of Russia. All that Chatsky says in response to him is a response about a change in morals, about the need to reconsider those political and state convictions that guided the people of the past century. In essence, the dispute between fathers and sons, which will then continue throughout Russian literature, at the very beginning reaches high voltage and extreme sharpness. In response to Famusov’s monologue about Uncle Maxim Petrovich, Chatsky utters something that carries the main semantic difference, the opposition of what is main idea the present century and the idea of the past century. Everything he says is smart. But what matters to us is not what he says, but how. The fervor with which this entire sequence of thoughts is presented is of very special interest.
“..And exactly, the world began to grow stupid,
You can say with a sigh;
How to compare and see
The present century and the past:
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe,
As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;
As not in war, but in peace they took it head on,
They hit the floor without regret!
Who needs it: those are arrogant, they lie in the dust,
And for those who are higher, flattery was woven like lace.
It was an age of obedience and fear,
All under the guise of zeal for the king.
I'm not talking about your uncle;
We will not disturb his ashes:
But in the meantime, who will the hunt take?
Even in the most ardent servility,
Now, to make people laugh,
Bravely sacrifice the back of your head?..”
In the way Chatsky constructs periods in his speech, clear traces of the rhetoric of the very science that Griboyedov studied at the university noble boarding school are visible. These are rhetorical periods, built in strict accordance with the canons of ancient rhetoric. Chatsky speaks like a statesman, unlike Famusov, who thinks of himself as a service man. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” says Chatsky.
And this is how Chatsky ends his monologue:
“...Although there are hunters everywhere to be mean,
Yes, nowadays laughter frightens and keeps shame in check;
No wonder the sovereigns favor them sparingly..."
By mentioning laughter and shame, Chatsky generally takes the dispute with Famusov to a different plane. Laughter stops a person before committing any act; this is laughter, which we now call public opinion. For Famusov, such a concept does not exist at all. Yes, there is the opinion of Princess Marya Alekseevna, which can affect his reputation, but the concept of “ public opinion“Famusov doesn’t have it. But Chatsky is guided by precisely this idea; he believes that the opinion of society is more important than the opinion of individuals. Also the concept of shame, which Famusov does not have, but for Chatsky it is decisive. The speech of the characters turns out completely different levels consciousness.
The structure of this language requires special explanation. The point is that in our everyday speech we use language that is determined by the situation. Sometimes we speak in formal, strict language, but in most cases we speak in everyday language. Everyday language does not have certain rules; we may not finish sentences or words. We can simply leave hints without revealing our thought, although it will be clear. This language is similar to sign language. Words can be replaced with gestures or facial expressions.
This living, spontaneous everyday language, completely unacceptable in books, is necessary for stage speech. In order to get an idea of the person on stage, you need to convey in short strokes, in separate words, the feeling of communicating with this person. It’s as if we are communicating with the characters that Griboyedov brings to the stage. The principle of unity of place is observed: all the action takes place at the same time on the stage, which is designed as a room in the Famusovs’ house and is very organically connected with the home theater where Griboedov’s comedy is to be presented. The principle of unity of action is observed: everything that happens in Griboyedov’s comedy happens inextricably, in one piece - here and now. Famusov's house becomes a kind of similarity to the house in which that home theater is located.
Unity of time, unity of place, unity of action - the three formal principles of classic drama for Griboedov turn out to be a completely different kind of device. This is a technique that provides a direct, natural perception of everything that happens on stage and in the auditorium too. The stage and the auditorium have something in common, and phrases heard from the stage are perceived as a direct conversation with auditorium. Therefore, there is a feeling of a kind of tight rope. In a conversation between two people, there is a feeling that they understand each other from half a word, from half a glance, sometimes they understand each other without words at all. We also understand them without words. The words that are spoken at the same time serve only to maintain this emotional tension.
Consider the first scene of the comedy. Lizonka is sitting in the living room, guarding the peace of Sophia and Molchalin, and suddenly master Famusov enters... The way they exchange phrases in this situation, expressing those very feelings about which it is impossible to say in any way, illustrates our thesis. The master entered, Lizonka was scared, now the master finds out that Sophia is in the bedroom with a man, and this man is Molchalin, who has no place in the young lady’s bedroom. So this fear cannot be told, it can only be shown. Here's how it happens:
Lisa
Oh! master!
Famusov
Master, yes.
After all, what a naughty girl you are.
I couldn’t figure out what kind of trouble this was!
Now you hear a flute, now it’s like a piano;
Would it be too early for Sophia??
Lisa
No, sir, I... just by chance...
Famusov
Just by chance, take notice of you;
Yes, that's right, with intent.
Oh! potion, spoiler.
And then Famusov clings to Lisa. It is clear that the words in this case are those speech means, plastic means of expression, find themselves in some kind of contradiction with the meanings that arise. So for you and me, what is important is not what is said in a comedy, but how the characters speak. And this is crucial for the perception of any dramatic work.
In what each of the characters says, one can find signs of intelligence, and signs of stupidity, and signs of that great madness that distinguishes wise men. But every time these words acquire true meaning and significance only when they sound together with the intonation, rhythm of speech, along with the meaning that the actor puts into it.
Pushkin, in his letter to Bestuzhev, already known to us, says that Chatsky is “an ardent, noble and kind fellow who spent some time with a very smart person" So he says very smart things, but who is he talking to? He says this to fools. “Is it worth throwing pearls in front of Repetilov?” - writes Pushkin and asks to give this letter to Griboyedov. It is quite obvious that Chatsky is not the mouthpiece of the author’s idea, whom we are accustomed to meeting on stage in classical drama. This is a completely independent character. And the author, Griboyedov, is a man of epic qualities who imbued him with thoughts. In the same way, we can talk about every character in a comedy, whether he is smart or stupid, whether he is evil or kind, depends on how the actor does it. Later it depended on the director, who dictated his will to the actors. And how the reader, viewer, listener will perceive it depends on him.
The language of the spectator and the language of the actor in the hall must coincide - this is very important condition. The replica that sounds from the stage should be perceived in the hall as if it were alive, as an address to the audience. Everything that the characters say on stage is addressed not so much to each other as to auditorium. This is absolutely special welcome, reception of that fair booth folk theater, from which grew both the European theater, which was soon imitated by Russian classicists, and its own Russian theater. But Griboyedov’s theater is not oriented towards Shakespeare, Molière, Schiller, it is mainly oriented towards that very popular squabble of throwing words around that exists in a fair booth. The characters exchange words like jugglers throw different objects around in the arena. In this sense, Griboyedov apparently laid the foundations of a theater that had not yet been born in Europe at that time. A theater that will appear in the 20th century and which will find itself in another crisis in the 21st century. But this is the topic of our next lessons.
1. Korovina V.Ya., Zhuravlev V.P., Korovin V.I. Literature. 9th grade. M.: Education, 2008.
2. Ladygin M.B., Esin A.B., Nefedova N.A. Literature. 9th grade. M.: Bustard, 2011.
3. Chertov V.F., Trubina L.A., Antipova A.M. Literature. 9th grade. M.: Education, 2012.
1. Tell us about the features of the comedy “Woe from Wit”
2. Why is Chatsky the main character of the comedy for Pushkin?
3. The language of the viewer and the language of the actor, what is their feature?
The language of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”
The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboedov, written between 1815 and 1820 and published in 1824, remains in Russian literature greatest monument. The author, who said about himself: “As I live, so I write freely and freely,” created a work that marked the emergence of a new realistic artistic style for Russian literature of the 19th century.
Griboyedov also said that he strives to depict the “nature of events,” which was for him both a source and a subject of art. But at the same time, he did not set out to copy reality; he called naturalistic images caricatures: “I hate caricatures, you won’t find a single one in my picture. This is my poetry." This was the poetics of a realist artist, who through the power of art transforms the “nature of events” and is able to highlight the most essential and typical in it. Griboyedov was the same realist artist and innovator in the field literary language. In resolving issues of language, he was ahead of most writers - his contemporaries. The critic Orlov believed that, along with Krylov and Pushkin, Griboyedov was the true creator of our literary language. On the one hand, he sought to get away from the smooth, impersonal language of secular love comedies, which were written by playwrights fashionable at that time. On the other hand, he tried to rid his verse of the ponderous techniques of ancient book speech.
Griboedov considered his artistic task to be the enrichment of the literary language through living practice. colloquial speech. Therefore, in “Woe from Wit” he widely used colloquial language and, in addition, endowed each of his characters with his own special speech characteristics. Thus, Skalozub’s speech is full of military terms, phrases similar to military orders, rude military expressions: “learning will not faint me,” “teach in our way: one, two.” Silent speech is laconic, insinuating, delicate, filled with respectful words. The experienced Moscow lady Khlestova speaks in a rude, unceremonious language, clearly reflecting her essence. Chatsky’s speech is very diverse and rich in shades. It sounds either romantic sensitivity, fiery passion, or harsh satire, exposing the vices of Famus society. At the same time, he is able to accurately and expressively reveal the low essence of the representatives of this society with only two or three words. The hero subtly senses the originality and richness of his native language. Being a man of high culture, he rarely resorts to foreign words, consciously making this his principle: “so that our smart, cheerful people, even by language, do not consider us to be Germans.” The same cannot be said at all about the speech of lordly Moscow, in which a monstrous mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod appears. In his comedy, Griboyedov subtly and evilly ridicules the fact that most members of the nobility do not speak their native language.
The literary community of the 20s of the 19th century was delighted with the skill with which Griboyedov “transformed” the living “colloquial language” into easy rhymes. Talking about verse comedies of that time, critic V.F. Odoevsky wrote: “In Griboedov alone we find a relaxed, easy, completely similar language to what is spoken in our societies; in him alone we find Russian flavor in his syllable.” The brilliance and nationality of the poetic language of Griboyedov’s comedy evoked rave reviews not only from his contemporaries. I. A. Goncharov, who wrote the literary-critical article “A Million Torments” in 1872, which still remains a classic work on the comedy “Woe from Wit,” was delighted with his conversational liveliness, aphorism and accuracy. “Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse,” he wrote, “seems to never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of wizard spirit, in his castle , and he bursts into evil laughter there. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the author’s collected intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language.”
The verse of the comedy, as well as its language, amazed contemporaries with its ease and naturalness. Using the usual iambic hexameter, he at the same time intersperses it with other meters - from monometer to pentameter. Thanks to this, his verse becomes light, colorful and diverse. The poetic form itself in “Woe from Wit” brings a lot of new things. Here the author has achieved an amazing lightness of verse, which is almost imperceptible in the dialogue and at the same time is unusually clear and expressive. Griboyedov's free style of writing prepared the transition of Russian drama, in particular comedy, to prose language.
He created a work that still remains in Russian literature the greatest monument of linguistic realism, reflecting all the diversity, all the flexibility of living Russian speech. He turned to the riches of the common national language and learned a lot from them. On the other hand, and his creative work became public property. We often say: “Blessed is he who believes...”, “ happy hours they don’t observe,” “the legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe,” without even noticing that we are speaking in Griboyedov’s verses.
The language of "Woe from Wit" differed significantly from the language of the comedy of those years. Griboedov contrasted sentimentalist aestheticism and sensitivity, as well as the classicist “theory of three calms,” with the realistic principle of nationality. The speech of the characters in the play is, first of all, the speech that could actually be heard in salons and living rooms, “while driving around on the porch,” at inns, in clubs and in officer meetings. Such a rejection of the basic principles of belles lettres has caused critical controversy. The already mentioned Dmitriev reproached Griboedov for a number of phrases and speech patterns that, in the critic’s opinion, could not be acceptable in literature. However, most critics praised the playwright's linguistic innovation. “I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb” - this is how Pushkin assessed Griboedov’s skill. “As for the poems with which “Woe from Wit” is written, - in this regard, Griboedov killed for a long time any possibility of Russian comedy in verse. A brilliant talent is needed to continue with success the work begun by Griboedov...” wrote in one from his articles Belinsky.
Indeed, many lines from the comedy began to be perceived as aphorisms, catchphrases, living their independent life. Saying: “Happy people don’t watch the clock”; “I walked into a room and ended up in another”; “sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”; “and grief awaits around the corner”; “and the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us”; “in more numbers, at a cheaper price”; “with feeling, with sense, with arrangement”; “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served”; “the legend is fresh, but hard to believe”; " evil tongues worse than a pistol"; "the hero is not my novel"; "lie, but know your limits"; "bah! all familiar faces" - many people do not remember where these phrases came from.
Language in comedy is both a means of individualizing characters and a method of social typification. Skalozub, for example, as a social type of military man, very often uses army vocabulary (“frunt”, “ranks”, “sergeant major”, “trench”), and individual characteristics his speeches reflect his self-confidence and rudeness (“you won’t faint me with learning,” “but make a uttered noise, it will instantly calm you down”), insufficient education, manifested in the inability to construct a phrase (“on the third of August, we sat in a trench: it was given to him with a bow, to me on the neck") and in an inaccurate choice of words ("with this estimate" instead of "sharpness"). At the same time, he tries to make jokes (“she and I didn’t serve together”).
Famusov’s speech is the so-called Moscow noble vernacular (“they don’t blow anyone’s mouth,” “you should smoke in Tver,” “I scared you,” “trouble in the service”), replete with diminutive forms (“to the little cross, to shtetl", "outlet"). This character appears in the play in different situations, which is why his speech is so varied: sometimes ironic (“After all, I’m somewhat akin to her,” he says about Sofya to Chatsky), sometimes angry (“To work for you! To settle you!”) , then scared.
Especially the monologues and remarks of Chatsky, who appears as a new social type, close in speech characteristics to the Decembrist pathos, required a lot of author’s work. In his speech there are often rhetorical questions (“Oh! if someone penetrated into people: what is worse in them? soul or language?”), inversions (“Aren’t you the one to whom I was still from the shrouds, for some kind of plans?” incomprehensible, did they take children to bow?"), antitheses ("He himself is fat, his artists are skinny"), exclamations and special vocabulary ("weakness", "vilest", "hungry", "slavish", "holiest"). At the same time, in Chatsky’s speech one can find Moscow vernacular (“okrome”, “I won’t remember”). The main character's language contains the most aphorisms, irony, and sarcasm. Moreover, this speech conveys a wide range of psychological characteristics character: love, anger, friendly sympathy, hope, wounded pride, etc. The language also reveals the negative sides of Chatsky’s character - harshness and willfulness. So, to Famusov’s question: “...would you like to get married?” - he replies: “What do you need?”, and Sophia declares: “Has your uncle jumped off his life?” The hero's monologues and remarks are always right on target, and it is always difficult to avoid or parry them. He does not miss a serious reason, not the slightest reason for a strike, and does not give the opportunity to retreat with honor, and then his opponents unite. Chatsky is truly a warrior, as Goncharov convincingly showed, but war always entails grief and suffering.
The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” was written after Patriotic War 1812, during the period of the rise of the spiritual life of Russia. The comedy raised topical social issues of that time: the situation of the Russian people, the relationship between landowners and peasants, autocratic power, the insane wastefulness of the nobles, the state of enlightenment, the principles of upbringing and education, independence and personal freedom, national identity. The ideological meaning of the comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, ways of life, worldviews: old, serfdom, and new, progressive, in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming advanced ideas of that time. The conflict of comedy is the conflict between Chatsky and Famusovsky society , between “the present century and the past century.” The society in the comedy was named after Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. This hero is a typical representative of old Moscow society. He has all the advantages that are valued here - wealth, connections, so Famusov is an example to follow. Chatsky is a representative of the “present century”, an exponent of the advanced ideas of his time. His monologues reveal a holistic political program: he exposes serfdom and its products - inhumanity, hypocrisy, stupid military, ignorance, false patriotism. Representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of any civic thoughts and interests. They see the meaning of life, first of all, in material and life well-being. These are careerists and hypocrites who are in power and occupy a high social position. The Famus people view the service only as a source of income, as a means to receive undeserved honors. The confession of Famusov himself is very indicative: And what is my business, what is not my business, My custom is this: Signed, off your shoulders. In the society of Moscow nobles, such phenomena as nepotism and nepotism are common. Famusov says: “Well, how can you not please your own little person,” and does not hide the fact that his “foreign employees are very rare: More and more sisters, sisters-in-law, children.” These people are deprived of a sense of humanity, they are enemies of freedom and stranglers of enlightenment, their innermost desire - “to take all the books and burn them.” One of them trades a crowd of his servants for three greyhounds. Another, for the sake of empty amusement, drives “rejected children from mothers and fathers” to the serf ballet, and then sells them off one by one. Satirically denouncing the local and bureaucratic nobility, the entire feudal-serf system, A. S. Griboyedov clearly saw the positive social forces of his era: the emergence and growth of new, progressive aspirations and ideas. Thus, Skalozub complains to Famusov that his cousin, having acquired “some new rules,” neglected the rank that followed him, left the service and “began reading books in the village.” Princess Tugoukhovskaya says that her relative, who studied at the pedagogical institute, “doesn’t want to know the ranks!” Famusov, referring to the widespread prevalence of freethinking, calls his time a “terrible century.” But the awakening of national, social self-consciousness is most fully embodied in the image of Chatsky. This is, undoubtedly, an ardent patriot, a fearless opponent of serfdom and despotic autocracy, a merciless judge of all lies and falsehood, of everything that is hostile to the new, that stands in the way of reason. Chatsky stigmatizes ignorance, denounces the nobility and acts as an ardent propagandist of science, education, and art. In the comedy, the conflict ends with the universal recognition of Chatsky as crazy, and the love drama ends with the exposure of the love affair led by Molchalin. At the end of the play, Chatsky feels abandoned by everyone, and his feeling of alienation from the society to which he once belonged intensifies. Denouement love drama influences the main conflict: Chatsky leaves all contradictions unresolved and leaves Moscow. In a clash with Famus society, Chatsky is defeated, but, losing, he remains undefeated, since he understands the need to fight the “past century,” its norms, ideals, and life position. As the first realistic comedy in new Russian literature, “Woe from Wit” bears in itself the signs of a bright artistic originality. The realism of comedy is manifested in the art of verbal individualization of characters: each hero speaks in his own language, thereby revealing his unique character. Griboyedov the realist significantly enriched the language of new Russian literature with elements of colloquial speech, including vernacular and mastering the folk language. Before Woe from Wit, comedies were written in iambic hexameter, and the dialogues lost the flavor of lively speech.
In Fonvizin’s work there is a clear transition from classicism, which predominates in his early works, to realism, which clearly appears in the comedy “Minor”.
Classicism and realism in the work
Fonvizin developed as a writer in the 60s of the 18th century. All his works bear, to one degree or another, the imprint of the classicism that dominated literature at that time.
But Fonvizin, an original and strong artist, developed mainly the strong, progressive sides of classicism: the principle of “imitation of nature”, denunciation dark sides life by the light of “mind”, harmony of composition, clarity of images, i.e. everything from which the artist’s new, realistic attitude to reality began. In “The Minor,” the features of classicism are intertwined with the features of realism, and a truthful, versatile reflection of life in typical and at the same time specific images wins here.
The comedy is built according to the rules of classicism. It strictly observes both the unity of time and place, and the sharp division of heroes into positive and negative. But, nevertheless, despite some artificiality of construction, “Nedorosl” provides an excellent image of Russian serfdom reality. The images of the feudal landowners are illuminated so clearly and brightly that the comedy can rightfully be called a wonderful folk work of everyday life. Weak side comedy is an image goodies: it is pale, sketchy. In them, the author did not draw typical characters of the people of his time, but conveyed his thoughts. And Starodum, and Pravdin, and Milon are just mouthpieces for proclaiming the author’s ideas.
The language of the comedy "Minor"
Convex realistic outline negative characters and the pale schematism of the positive ones are clearly revealed in the language characters comedies. Skotinin's narrow-mindedness, rudeness, and ignorance find excellent expression in his speech. “Whenever I get something into my head,” says this barnyard hero, “you can’t knock it out with a nail.” He threatens to “break Mitrofanushka like hell” and calls him a “damned pig.” Mrs. Prostakova expresses herself no less rudely: “Let me go, father. Give me until I face, until I face...” “Oh, she’s a beast,” she exclaims about Palashka, who is lying sick. Downtrodden and frightened by his wife, Mr. Prostakov speaks stammeringly, obsequiously and pleadingly: “It’s a little baggy,” he defines the merits of the caftan sewn for his son, thinking with such a definition to please his wife. “Oh, my dear father,” he timidly remarks to Pravdin at the news of the arrival of soldiers in the village. “I don’t dare show up to them.” The language of negative characters reveals the individual appearance of each. The positive characters all speak almost the same language - the language of the author himself.
Character typing
The main advantage of comedy lies in its broad typical generalization of representatives of the ruling class. The typicality of the Skotinins was noted by Fonvizin himself. For him, these images are collective. “I think that the Skotinins are all strong-willed by birth,” says Starodum. Pravdin also speaks about “all” Skotinins.
Pushkin also understood this typicality. “The gray-haired Skotinin couple” appears in his “Eugene Onegin.” And all the provincial nobility satirically depicted by Pushkin is in many ways reminiscent of the images of the Skotinins and Prostakovs.
The comedy “The Minor” had a great influence on writers of subsequent generations, especially on dramatic works Griboedov (“Woe from Wit”) and Gogol (“The Inspector General,” “Marriage”).