1. Why do you think the comedy begins with a scene with the tailor Trishka? What do we learn about life in the Prostakovs’ house by carefully reading the first act?
The scene with the tailor Trishka shows what kind of order is established in the house of the Prostakov landowners. The reader sees from the first lines that Prostakova is an evil, ignorant woman who does not love or respect anyone, and does not take anyone’s opinion into account. She treats simple peasants, her serfs, like cattle. She has one measure of influence on others - insults and assault. Moreover, she behaves the same way with her loved ones, except for her son Mirofan. She adores Prostakov’s son. She is ready to do anything for him. From the first act it becomes clear that in the Prostakovs’ house the hostess herself is in charge. Everyone is afraid of her and never contradicts her.
2. What are the relationships between the people in this house? How are the characters of the comedy characterized in scene VIII of the fourth act? What means (humor, irony, sarcasm, etc.) does the author use to describe this? It is said about Mitrofan’s “exam” that in this scene there is a clash of true enlightenment and militant ignorance. Do you agree with this? Why?
Everyone in the house is afraid of Mrs. Prostakova and tries to please her in everything. Otherwise, they will face inevitable punishment in the form of beatings. Mr. Prostakov will never contradict her, he is afraid to express his opinion, relying on his wife in everything. Only Mitrofan is not afraid of his mother. He flatters her, realizing that she is the main one in the house and his well-being, or rather the fulfillment of all his whims, depends on her. All people in the Prostakovs' house are characterized by deep ignorance. It was especially clearly manifested in the scene of Mitrofan’s examination (VIII phenomenon of the fourth act). At the same time, Mrs. Prostakova believes that she herself and her son are very smart and will be able to adapt to this life. But they don’t need literacy, the main thing is more money. She admires her son, pleased with his answers. I agree with the view that true enlightenment and militant ignorance collided in this scene. After all, Prostakova is sure that a person in her circle does not need education at all. The coachman will take you wherever they order. There is nothing special to stand out in society, etc. According to Prostakova, this is how it should be in the world, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool not worthy of her attention.
Fonvizin uses satire to characterize the characters. He ridicules the ignorance of the feudal landowners and shows all the ugliness of serfdom.
3. In the poster with the listing characters indicated: Prostakova, his wife (Mr. Prostakov). Meanwhile, in the comedy, its characters characterize themselves differently: “It’s me, my sister’s brother,” “I’m my wife’s husband,” “And I’m my mother’s son.” How do you explain this? Why do you think the full owner of Fonvizin’s estate is not the landowner, but the landowner? Is this connected with the time when the comedy “The Minor” was created?
Since Prostakova is the main one in the house, everyone recognizes themselves as subordinate to her. After all, absolutely everything depends on her decision: the fate of the serfs, son, husband, brother, Sophia, etc. I think that Fonvizin made the landowner the mistress of the estate for a reason. This is directly related to the time when the comedy was created. Then Catherine the Great ruled Russia. The comedy “The Minor,” in my opinion, is a direct appeal to it. Fonvizin believed that it was possible to restore order in the country, to bring ignorant landowners and dishonest officials to justice under the authority of the empress. Starodum talks about this. This is evidenced by the fact that Prostakova’s power was deprived by order of higher authorities.
4. Observe how the conflict develops between the positive and negative characters of the comedy. How the idea of comedy is revealed in this conflict (“It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery”)
The conflict between positive and negative characters reaches its climax in the scene of Sophia's theft. The outcome of the conflict is the order received by Pravdin. Based on this order, Mrs. Prostakova is deprived of the right to manage her estate, because impunity has turned her into a despot who is capable of causing enormous harm to society by raising a son like herself. And she is deprived of her power precisely because she cruelly treated the serfs.
5. Which of the characters in the comedy, in your opinion, was Fonvizin more successful than others? Why?
In my opinion, the most successful were D.I. Fonvizin negative characters, especially Mrs. Prostakova. Her image is depicted so clearly and vividly that it is impossible not to admire the skill of the comedy author. But positive images are not so expressive. They are more the spokespersons for Fonvizin’s thoughts.
6. What are the difficulties in reading this old comedy? Why is “Nedorosl” interesting to us today?
The language of comedy is not entirely clear to the modern reader. It is difficult to understand some of the reasoning of Starodum and Pravdin, since they are directly related to the time of creation of the work, to the problems that existed in society during the time of Fonvizin. The comedy is relevant to the problems of education and upbringing that Fonvizin raises in the comedy. And today you can meet Mitrofanushki who “don’t want to study, but want to get married,” and marry profitably, who look for benefits in absolutely everything and achieve their goal at any cost; Mr. Prostakov, for whom money is the most important thing in life, and they are ready to do anything for the sake of profit.
The main problem raised by D. Fonvizin in the play “The Minor” is the problem of the moral and intellectual level of the nobility. The relevance of the low level of education of the nobility in Russia was especially glaring against the backdrop of the Enlightenment in Europe.
D. Fonvizin ridicules the intellectual level of the nobility using the example of members of the Skotinin-Prostakov family. Before the reforms of Peter I, children of nobles could enter the civil service and get married without receiving an education.
The education of Mitrofan, the son of the Prostakov family, was always the responsibility of his mother, who could not instill in him a love of knowledge, since she did not possess it herself and did not see any use in it. Mrs. Prostakova knows only one real value in life - it is money, for the sake of which she, without a twinge of conscience, is ready to do any meanness. At the same time, she shows excessive “concern” for her son. It is not surprising that he took after his mother and grew up lazy, spoiled and uneducated. Mitrofan appeared collectively many representatives “ high society society” in those days, that is, I did not know
After the reforms, Mitrofan, for the sake of appearance, has to study with teachers. Mitrofan’s teacher Tsifirkin says in despair about his student: “I’ve been fighting with him for three years: he can’t count three.” The key scene that ridicules the level of education of the nobility represented by Mitrofan is the exam scene. For example, his mental squalor is manifested in the fact that he is sure that the word “fool” is an adjective, “because it is applied to a stupid person.” And Mitrofan’s teachers are in many ways a match for his student, especially Vralman, a former coachman who has nothing to do with teaching.
The mother’s compliance with any whims of the “child” makes Mitrofan a rude despot, an ignorant serf owner. In this regard, Starodum says: “An ignoramus without a soul is a beast.” The little Mitrofanushka is distinguished by her cruelty, imperiousness and rudeness towards her family. His manner of speech with teachers is “barking”, in his words one of the teachers is a “garrison rat”, the old nanny Eremeeva is “an old bastard”. Mitrofan grows up as an extremely inert person; he is fed, clothed and protected from danger. According to his mother: “It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward.” From time to time he is puzzled by his own lack of independence, but his mother, nanny and teachers always help him. At the same time, he does not feel inferior or unworthy at all. Possessing no virtue, Mitrofan is sure that all his desires and whims must be fulfilled at any moment.
Thus, according to D. Fonvizin, the problem of ignorance and despotism of the aristocracy takes on national significance, and only correct education and upbringing is a source of salvation from the spiritual and intellectual degradation of the nobility that threatens society, because it is they who concentrate power in the state and it depends on them what to do the state will come.
Other works on this topic:
- In the comedy “The Minor,” Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin portrayed a gallery of satirical types whose names became household names. One of the most expressive characters in the play is the sixteen-year-old son of the landowners Prostakov...
- D. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” tells about the events that took place in the Prostakovs’ house. Their main participants are Mitrofan, the son of the owner of the house, his mother, Mrs. Prostakova, and...
- D.I. Fonvizin, by writing his comedy “The Minor,” opened an important milestone in the history of the development of Russian literature, and in particular classicism. The play describes life not only...
- The heroes of these works have a lot in common. Both main characters are peers, contemporaries, representatives of the same class - the small landed nobility. Both bear the stamp of raising minors...
DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN CLASSICISM
AND THE BEGINNING OF ITS RADICAL CHANGES
DRAMATURGY OF THE 60-90s OF THE 18TH CENTURY
D. I. Fonvizin (1744/1745-1792)
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is the author of the famous comedy “The Minor” (1782), which has not left the stage to this day. He also owns the comedy “The Brigadier” (1769) and a number of other satirical and journalistic works. In his beliefs, Fonvizin was close to the educational camp. The leading theme of his drama is noble “evil morality.” His attitude towards the “noble” class is far from the view of an outsider. “I saw,” he wrote, “from the most respectable ancestors of contemptuous descendants... I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart to pieces.” 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. He sharply condemned the despotic rule of Catherine II and the shameful practice of favoritism. Pushkin in the novel “Eugene Onegin” called Fonvizin “a friend of freedom.” The playwright's works were popular among the Decembrists.
Satirical poems
Fonvizin’s belonging to the educational camp can be traced in his earliest works, both translated and original. In the early 60s, he translated and published the fables of the Danish writer Holberg, Voltaire’s anti-clerical tragedy “Alzira”, Terrason’s didactic novel “Heroic Virtue, or the Life of Seth, King of Egypt” and a number of other books. Among the original experiments is “Message to my servants - Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka.” The author later recalled that for this essay he was known by many as an atheist. The “Message” combines two themes: the denial of the harmonious structure of the universe, which the churchmen insisted on, and, as confirmation of this idea, a satirical depiction of the life of Moscow and St. Petersburg. The poem depicts Fonvizin's real servants, whose names are mentioned in his letters. The writer addresses them with a philosophical question: “Why was this light created?”, i.e., what goal did God pursue when creating man and human society. The task turns out to be too difficult for unprepared interlocutors, as Uncle Shumilov immediately admits. The coachman Vanka, an experienced man, can only say one thing: the world rests on self-interest and deception: Priests try to deceive the people, Butlers' servants, masters' butlers, each other's masters, and noble boyars often want to deceive the sovereign. (T. 1. P. 211). Lackey Petrushka complements Vanka’s thought with a purely practical conclusion. If the world is so vicious, then you need to extract as much benefit from it as possible, without disdaining any means. However, why such a bad light was created, even he does not know. Therefore, all three servants turn to the master for an answer. But he is also unable to resolve this issue. The form of the “Message” approaches a small dramatic scene. The characters of each of the interlocutors are clearly outlined: the sedate uncle Shumilov, the lively, smart Vanka, who has seen the great world and formed his own unflattering opinion about him, and, finally, Petrushka with his lackey, cynical outlook on life. The fable “The Fox the Executor” (i.e. The Fox the Preacher) was written around 1785 and published anonymously in 1787. Its plot is borrowed from a prose fable by the German educator H.F.D. Schubart. At Leo’s funeral, the funeral oration is delivered by the Fox, “with a humble chareya, in monastic attire.” She lists the “merits” and “virtues” of the late tsar, which gives Fonvizin the opportunity to parody the genre of praise. The theme of the fable - the condemnation of despotism and servility - is a characteristic feature of Fonvizin’s work, as well as the theme of “bestiality” (Leo “was a wild beast”, “He nourished bestiality in his soul”), widely represented in his comedies.
Comedy
Fonvizin's first dramatic experience was a poetic comedy with love story- “Corion” (1764). This work was written according to the recipes of the Elagin circle, that is, it is a foreign play “applied” to Russian reality. The model for Fonvizin was the comedy “Sydney” by the French writer Gresset. The author replaced foreign names with Russian ones, although rare, but still found in the calendar: Corion, Zenoveya, Menander. Only the servant has the commonly used name Andrei. The action takes place on the Korion estate near Moscow. The heroes' remarks mention Moscow and St. Petersburg. This, in essence, is what limits the “local” flavor in the play. There is only one episode in the comedy, which is absent from the original and vividly conveys the serfdom in Russia. The peasant, who is sent to Moscow with a letter, complains about the large taxes and even the physical torture to which his fellow villagers are subjected from the “dragoon collectors.” In general, the play was still far from Russian reality. But Fonvizin’s next comedy, “The Brigadier” (1769), made a real revolution in Russian drama.
"Brigadier"
The comedy "Brigadier" presents a broad picture of the morals of the Russian nobility. The author is deeply concerned about the decline in the social prestige of this class, its ignorance, and lack of civic and patriotic feelings. Already in the list of characters, Fonvizin indicates the official position of his heroes, thereby making it clear that before us are persons invested with public powers. This is, first of all, the Advisor, who served most of his life in court, shamelessly taking bribes from the right and the wrong. With the money thus raised, he bought an estate, and after the Senate decree of 1762 on punishing bribe-takers, he retired in advance. Over his many years of service, he passed good school chicanery and learned, in his own words, twenty-one manners to interpret decrees. The adviser understands perfectly well that he is no exception in the bureaucratic world. On this basis, he developed a unique philosophy of life that justifies bribery as a completely normal and even natural phenomenon. “And I always said this,” he admits, “that it is impossible to prohibit bribes. How can you solve a case for nothing, for just your salary?.. This is against human nature” (Vol. 1, p. 81). The adviser is not only a bribe-taker, but also a hypocrite, covering up his dirty deeds with constant references to the Holy Scriptures. Religious hypocrisy and official hypocrisy easily coexist in his character and seem to complement each other. Next to the Advisor, another “serving” nobleman is brought out - the Brigadier, a rude, ignorant man. The rank of brigadier, next to colonel, did not come easily to him. Having a high opinion of himself, the Brigadier demands unquestioning obedience from those around him. His wife remembers his fist reprisals well, and in a moment of irritation he threatens to “smack” his son “in the back with two hundred Russian sticks” (T. 1. P. 73). It is easy to guess how the Brigadier behaves with his subordinates in the service. The Brigadier's wife - Brigadier - was conceived by Fonvizin as a more complex image. The playwright made stupidity the dominant feature of her character. She is really very limited, she does not understand the simplest things that are not related to economic, home life. She's stingy. The difficult nomadic life with her husband, who began his career in the lower ranks, taught her to be thrifty, reaching the point of hoarding. According to her son, she is ready to endure a “fever with spots” for a penny. This is the predecessor of the future Gogol's Korobochka, and her husband is Griboyedov's Skalozub. But at the same time, the Brigadier is simple-minded, kind-hearted, patient, and only occasionally, when things are especially difficult for her, does she complain about her difficult life with the rude, hot-tempered Brigadier, who takes all his official troubles out on her. There is something in her of a simple Russian peasant woman, doomed to a bitter life with a despot husband. The gallery of negative characters is completed by the images of Gallomaniacs: Ivan, the son of the Brigadier and the Brigadier, and the Advisor. Fonvizin uses here the technique of doubling negative characters, which Gogol would later widely use in his comedies. Ivan’s disdain for everything Russian and domestic is frank and even defiant. He flaunts his love of France. “My body,” he declares, “was born in Russia... but my spirit belonged to the French crown” (T. 1. P. 72). The advisor admires Ivan and his stories about France. She is a dandy and spends three hours every morning at the toilet trying on fashionable caps. The evil ones are contrasted with the positive characters: Sophia, the Advisor’s daughter from her first marriage, and her “lover” - Dobrolyubov. The hero's surname speaks for itself; as for the heroine, Sophia, translated from Greek language, means "wisdom". With the light hand of Fonvizin, this name will be attached for a long time to the main heroines of Russian comedies, right up to Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”. The author endows Sophia and Dobrolyubov with intelligence, correct views on life, and constancy in love. Both of them are good at seeing the shortcomings of the people around them and often make ironic remarks about them. The adviser did not want to marry Sophia to Dobrolyubov because of his poverty. But the rejected groom managed to win the trial in an honest way, resorting to “higher justice,” apparently with the help of the empress herself. After this, he became the owner of 2000 souls, which immediately won the favor of the Advisor. Sophia and Dobrolyubov were clearly unsuccessful for the playwright. Their thoughts are correct, their feelings are sublime, their speech is literary, but they lack vitally convincing features and verisimilitude. These are the sounding boards that the author needs to directly express his ideas. The play “The Brigadier” was a great success among his contemporaries, but Fonvizin’s real triumph was his next comedy, “The Minor.”
"Undergrown"
In comparison with “The Brigadier,” “The Minor” (1782) is distinguished by greater social depth and a sharper satirical orientation. In "The Brigadier" we were talking about the mental limitations of the heroes, about their gallomania, and dishonest attitude towards service. In “Nedorosl” the theme of landowner tyranny comes first. The main criterion in assessing the heroes is their attitude towards the serfs. The action takes place on the Prostakov estate. The unlimited mistress of it is Mrs. Prostakova. It is interesting to note that in the list of characters, only she is assigned the word “madam”; the rest of the characters are named only by last name or first name. She really dominates the world under her control, she dominates brazenly, despotically, with complete confidence in her impunity. Taking advantage of Sophia's orphanhood, Prostakova takes possession of her estate. Without asking the girl’s consent, he decides to marry her to his brother. However, the full nature of this “fury” is revealed in its treatment of serfs. Prostakova is deeply convinced of her right to insult, rob and punish peasants, whom she views as beings of a different, lower breed. The very beginning of the play - the famous trying on of a caftan - immediately introduces us to the atmosphere of the Prostakovs' house. Here there is rude abuse against the home-grown tailor Trishka, and an unfounded accusation of theft, and the usual order to punish an innocent servant with rods. Prostakova’s well-being rests on the shameless robbery of serfs. “Since then,” she complains to Skotinin, “like everything that the peasants had, we took it away, we can no longer rip off anything” (T. 1. P. 111). Order in the house is restored through abuse and beatings. “From morning to evening,” Prostakova complains, “it’s like being hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, then I fight” (Vol. 1. P. 124). Eremeevna, when asked how much salary she is entitled to, replies with tears: “Five rubles a year, up to five slaps a day” (T. 1. P. 128). Prostakova’s tongue in conversation with the servants never leaves rude, abusive words: cattle, mug, rascal, old witch. The news of the illness of the yard girl Palashka infuriates her: “Oh, she’s a beast! Lying down. As if noble!” (T. 1. P. 136). Prostakova's primitive nature is especially clearly revealed in the sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. She is rude to Sophia while she feels her power over her, but upon learning of Starodum’s return, she instantly changes her tone and behavior. When Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakova on trial for inhumane treatment of the peasants, she humiliatingly lies at his feet. But having begged for forgiveness, he immediately hurries to deal with the sluggish servants who let Sophia go: “I forgive you! Ah, father! Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. Now I’ll go through everyone one by one” (Vol. 1. P. 171). The decree on the freedom of the nobility, which dealt with the release of nobles from compulsory service, is perceived by Mrs. Prostakova as “the legal consecration of unlimited power... over the person and property of the peasant.” “A nobleman,” she is indignant, “is not free to whip his servants whenever he wants!” But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?” (T. 1. P. 172). Prostakova's brother Skotinin is related to her not only by blood, but also by spirit. He exactly repeats the serfdom practice of his sister. “If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. In this, sister, I have the same custom with you... and any loss... I will rip off my own peasants, and so will the ends in the water” (T. 1. P. 109-111). The presence of Skotinin in the play emphasizes the wide distribution of nobles like Prostakova and gives it a typical character. It is not for nothing that at the end of the play Pravdin advises to warn the other Skotinins about what happened on the Prostakov estate. The vitality and indestructibility of the Skotinins’ family was accurately noted by Pushkin, who named among the Larins’ guests “the gray-haired Skotinins’ couple... with children of all ages.” Another problem is connected with the image of Mitrofan - the writer’s reflection on the legacy that the Prostakovs and Skotinins are preparing for Russia. Before Fonvizin, the word “minor” did not have a condemnatory meaning. Minors were the children of the nobility who had not reached 15 years of age, i.e., the age appointed by Peter I for entering the service. In Fonvizin it received a mocking, ironic meaning. Mitrofan is an undergrowth primarily because he is a complete ignorant, knowing neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun. But he is also immature morally, since he does not know how to respect the dignity of other people. He is rude and impudent to servants and teachers. He curries favor with his mother as long as he feels her strength. But as soon as she lost power in the house, Mitrofan sharply pushed Prostakova away from himself. And finally, Mitrofan is an immature in the civic sense, since he has not matured enough to understand his responsibilities to the state. “We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland?..” (Vol. 1. P. 168). Like all famous satirists, Fonvizin in his criticism proceeds from certain civil ideals. The depiction of these ideals in satirical works is not necessary, but in didactic literature of the 18th century. satire, as a rule, was complemented by the display of ideal heroes. Fonvizin did not bypass this tradition, sharply contrasting the world with the Prostakovs and Skotinins - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia. Thus, the ideal nobles are contrasted with the evil ones in the play. Starodum and Pravdin unconditionally condemn the tyranny of the landowners, robbery and violence against the peasants. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery,” states Starodum (p. 167). Let us immediately note that we are not talking about condemning the institution of serfdom itself, but about its abuse. Unlike Prostakova, who builds her well-being on the robbery of peasants, Starodum chooses a different path to enrichment. He goes to Siberia, where, in his words, “they demand money from the land itself” (T. I. P. 134). Apparently, we are talking about gold mining, which is quite consistent with Fonvizin’s own opinion about the need for a “trading nobility” for Russia. Pravdin takes an even more decisive position in relation to the arbitrariness of the nobles. He serves as an official in the viceroyalty. This was the name of the institutions created in 1775 by Catherine II in each province to monitor the local implementation of government decrees. Pravdin considers his main task, not only according to his position, but also “out of his own feat of heart,” to be monitoring those landowners who, “having complete power over their people, use it for evil inhumanly” (Vol. 1. P. 117). Having learned about Prostakova’s cruelties and outrages, Pravdin, on behalf of the government, takes custody of her estate, depriving the landowner of the right to arbitrarily dispose of the peasants. In his actions, Pravdin relies on the decree of Peter I of 1722, directed against tyrant landowners. In real life, this law was applied extremely rarely. Therefore, the denouement of Fonvizin’s comedy looked like a kind of instruction to the government of Catherine II. No less important for Fonvizin was the question of the attitude of the nobles to the service. After the decree on “liberty,” this problem became especially acute, since many of the nobles already legally preferred to stay at home. Fonvizin even includes this theme in the title of the comedy and thereby specially emphasizes it. Mitrofan is not eager to study or serve and prefers the position of a “minor.” Mitrofan's sentiments are completely shared by his mother. “While Mitrofanushka is still an undergrowth,” she argues, “let’s sweat him and pamper him, and then in ten years, when he comes out, God forbid, into the service, he will suffer everything” (Vol. 1. P. 114), she adheres to a diametrically opposite point of view Starodum. The name of this hero indicates that his ideals belong to the era of Peter the Great, when every nobleman had to confirm his class rights through service. Starodum remembers the duty of the nobles, or, as they said in the 18th century, “position,” with particular fervor. “Position!.. How this word is on everyone’s tongue, and how little they understand it!.. This is the sacred vow that we owe to all those with whom we live... If only the office was fulfilled as they say about it... A nobleman, for example, would consider it the first dishonor to do nothing when he has so much to do: there are people to help; there is a fatherland to serve... A nobleman unworthy of being a nobleman! I don’t know anything more vile than him in the world” (T. 1. P. 153). Starodum indignantly points out the practice of favoritism, which became widespread during the reign of Catherine II, when ordinary officers, without any merit, received high ranks and awards. Starodum recalls one of these upstarts - a young count, the son of the same “random” person, as they said at that time, with deep contempt in a conversation with Pravdin. The antipode of Mitrofanushka in the play is Milon - an exemplary officer who, despite his youth, already participated in military operations and at the same time showed genuine “fearlessness”. A special place in the play is occupied by Starodum’s reflections on the “duty” of the monarch and critical remarks addressed to Catherine’s court. As the famous literary critic K.V. Pigarev rightly said, Starodum’s very adherence to Peter’s “antiquity” was “a peculiar form of rejection of Catherine’s “newness”” . Here there was a clear challenge to the empress, who presented herself as the successor and continuer of the affairs of Peter I, which she transparently hinted at in the inscription on his monument: Petro Primo - Catarina Secunda - i.e. Peter the Great - Catherine the Second. The ruler, according to Starodum’s deep conviction, must not only issue laws useful to society, but also be a model of their implementation and high morality. “The great sovereign,” he says, “is a wise sovereign. His job is to show people their direct good... A sovereign worthy of the throne strives to elevate the souls of his subjects” (Vol. 1, pp. 167-168). Such a monarch is obliged to surround himself with executive nobles useful to society, who, in turn, could serve as an example for his subordinates and for the entire noble class as a whole. But the reality turned out to be strikingly different from Starodum’s educational program. Starodum judges the morals of court society not from hearsay, but from his own bitter experience, since after serving in the army he was “taken to court.” What he saw here horrified him. The courtiers thought only about their own self-interest, about their career. “Here they love themselves very well,” recalls Starodum, “they care about themselves alone, they fuss about one real hour” (Vol. 1. P. 132). In the struggle for power and rank, any means are used: “... one knocks down the other, and the one who is on his feet never again raises the one who is on the ground” (Vol. 1. P. 132). Feeling completely powerless to change the established order, Starodum left court service. “I left the court,” he notes, “without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought mine home intact, my soul, my honor, my rules” (Vol. 1. P. 133).
Creative method
Fonvizin's plays continue the traditions of classicism. “For his entire life,” G. A. Gukovsky pointed out, “his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of this school.” But unlike the comedies of Sumarokov and Lukin, Fonvizin’s plays are a phenomenon of later, more mature Russian classicism, which was strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideology. From classicism comes, first of all, the principle of the highest assessment of a person: serving the state, fulfilling his civic duty. In “Nedorosl” there is a contrast between two eras, characteristic of Russian classicism: Peter’s and the one to which the author belongs. The first acts as a model of civil behavior, the second - as a deviation from it. This is how both Lomonosov and Sumarokov assessed modernity. Classicism is associated with a clear, mathematically thought-out system of images. In every play there are two camps - evil and virtuous heroes. Good and evil, light and shadows are sharply delineated. Positive heroes are only virtuous, negative ones are only vicious. In the comedy “Brigadier”, the heroes form peculiar pairs, united by marital or love relationships: Brigadier and Brigadier, Advisor and Advisor, Ivan and Advisor, Dobrolyubov and Sophia. Many scenes are built on the principle of symmetry: the characters take turns expressing their opinions about what should be read, about the benefits of grammar, etc. Fonvizinsky’s “Brigadier” is more associated with the first stage of Russian classicism. Even the choice of heroes was largely suggested by Kantemir’s satires and Sumarokov’s early comedies: a cunning clerk, a boastful warrior, gallomaniacs and dandies. The means of characterizing the characters also go back to artistic techniques satires. The characters reveal themselves not in stage action. They themselves talk about their shortcomings, passing them off, in the simplicity of their souls, as virtues: the Advisor boasts of his dexterity in legal proceedings, the Brigadier - of his power, the Brigadier - of frugality, Ivan and the Advisor - of imaginary education and sophistication. This is how the heroes of Cantemir's satires exposed themselves - the bigot Crito, the miser Silvanus, the dandy Medor. Often, Fonvizin’s heroes give each other accurate assessments. But Fonvizin wrote not satire, but comedy. In order to unite his heroes through stage action, he turns to a proven means - a love affair, which in “The Brigadier” he takes to too conventional and implausible limits, drawing almost all the characters into it. The Advisor drags after the Brigadier, the Brigadier - after the Advisor. Ivan also courtes the Advisor and thereby becomes his father's rival. The fourth “love” couple is Sophia and Dobrolyubov. This gives the author the opportunity to once again compare negative and positive characters according to the nature of their love. The love of “evil” characters, Dobrolyubov declares, “is ridiculous, shameful and brings dishonor to them. Our love is based on an honest intention and is worthy of everyone wishing for our happiness” (Vol. 1, pp. 59-60). The love explanations of each of the characters are designed in full accordance with their character and manner of speech, which is useful material for a number of comic scenes. So, for example, the Advisor remains a hypocrite and a hypocrite here, covering up his sinful thoughts with moral and religious reasoning. “Every person,” he persuades the Brigadier, “has a spirit and a body. Although the spirit is vigorous, the flesh is weak. Moreover, there is no sin that cannot be cleansed by repentance... Let us sin and repent” (Vol. 1, p. 65). The brigadier, in a loving explanation with the Advisor, compares it to a “fortification”, “which, no matter how strong it is, can still be made into anything.” The eyes of the Advisor, in his words, “are more terrible than all bullets, cannonballs and grapeshots” (T. 1. P. 80). In “Nedorosl” the system of images is thought out just as strictly. There are three groups of characters, including three male and one female image : positive characters - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia; malevolent - Prostakova, Prostakov, Skotinin and Mitrofan; Mitrofan's teachers are Tsifirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman and Eremeevna, endowed with both positive and negative qualities. The plot of "The Minor" is built on a traditional classicist basis - the rivalry between worthy and unworthy contenders for the heroine's hand. However, the love affair does not reveal the serfdom theme, which is extremely important for the author. In this regard, the playwright complements the love affair with a social collision, expressed in the play by the conflict between Pravdin and Prostakova. Intrigue and conflict are connected by a common image of Prostakova. In the last act, both lines converge and Prostakova suffers a double fiasco. Pravdin wants to put her on trial for trying to kidnap Sophia. Prostakova begs his forgiveness and immediately intends to deal with the sluggish servants. Then Pravdin announces his decision to transfer her estate into guardianship. Thus, the comedy ends with two endings. Thus, Fonvizin’s plays not only relied on the traditions of Russian satire and comedy of the second third of the 18th century, but also testified to the new achievements of Russian classicism. If Sumarokov's comedies were still too dependent on foreign models - on commedia dell'arte, on French drama of the 17th century, which was expressed in farcical scenes, in non-Russian names of the heroes, then Fonvizin frees his plays from primitive farcical comedy. He gives the heroes distinctly Russian names. Unlike Sumarokov, he strives to surround them with a familiar environment and preserve Russian customs on stage. All this does not contradict the norms of classicism, which researchers often strive to reduce to complete logicization, to isolating heroes from their characteristic social environment. At the same time, he forgets that, for example, the heroes of the typical classicist Moliere are always surrounded by an everyday environment that corresponds to their social nature. The author prefaces the first act of “The Brigadier” with a lengthy remark, which indicates what the Advisor’s house looks like, where the events of the play take place, how each of the characters is dressed, and what he is doing. “The theater presents a room decorated in a rustic way. The brigadier, in a frock coat, walks around and smokes tobacco. His son, in disbelief, swears, drinks tea. The adviser, in a cossack, looks at the calendar... The adviser, in a desabille and cornet, is simpering, pouring tea. The foreman sits at a distance and knits a stocking. Sophia also sits at a distance and sews in the vestibule" (T. 1. P. 47). As the action progresses, the heroes drink tea, play cards, chess, make wishes on cards - in a word, they behave as was customary in provincial noble houses. In “The Minor” there are no special author’s remarks regarding the everyday environment, but these details themselves are presented in abundance in the play. Here is the fitting of a caftan, preparation for the “conspiracy,” Mitrofan’s training sessions, and a number of other features of the noble life of the 18th century. In comparison with the classicism of previous decades, in Fonvizin’s comedies the object of ridicule is not the private life of the nobles, as was the case with Sumarokov and Lukin, but their social, official activities and serfdom practices. Not content with just depicting noble “evil morality,” the writer strives to show its causes, which, again, was not observed in Sumarokov’s plays. In resolving this issue, enlightenment played a major role, explaining the vices of people by their “ignorance” and improper upbringing. For Fonvizin, the question of enlightenment and ignorance, of good and bad education occupies a central place. “It’s all about education” (Vol. 1, p. 90), says Dobrolyubov in the comedy “Brigadier.” The humanity of Fonvizin's positive heroes stems from their enlightened views. The very way of thinking of positive heroes does not allow them to behave rudely, cruelly and lawlessly. “Education,” Starodum points out, “was given to me by my father for that century” (Vol. 1. P. 1. 29). On the contrary, vices negative heroes the author explains them by dense ignorance, presented in the play in its various manifestations. So, Prostakova, her husband and her brother don’t even know how to read. Moreover, they are deeply convinced of the uselessness and unnecessaryness of knowledge. “People live and have lived without science” (Vol. 1. P. 129), Prostakova confidently declares. Their social ideas are just as wild. High positions exist, in their opinion, only for enrichment. According to Prostakova, her father “was a commander for fifteen years... did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to make enough money” (T. 1. P. 90). They see the advantages of the “noble” class in the opportunity to insult and rob people dependent on them. The cause of “evil character” can also be bad mentors. Ivan confesses to the Advisor that even before leaving for Paris, he “was at a boarding house with a French coachman, to whom he owes for “.. love for the French and for coldness ... towards the Russians” (T. 1. P. 98). Mitrofan's training is entrusted to the half-educated seminarian Kuteynik, the retired soldier Tsifirkin and the former coachman, the German Vralman. But it's not just the teachers. Mitrofan's character and behavior are a natural result of the living examples with which he is surrounded in his parents' house. The most destructive influence was on Mitrofan Prostakov. After all, his name , translated from Greek, means “given by the mother,” i.e., “representing the mother.” From Prostakova, Mitrofan adopted rudeness, greed, and contempt for work and knowledge. The theme of “bestiality” of landowners, repeatedly played out by Fonvizin, is organically connected with the educational worldview. Society was created for thinking, “enlightened” people who respect the laws and remember their duty. But many nobles are so low in mental and civic development that they can only be likened to animals. Ivan complains to the Counselor: “You know what it’s like to live with kind people, and I, damn me, I live with animals” (T. I. P. 54). “Whatever you say,” the Brigadier says to Ivan, “you still lie like a horse” (Vol. 1. P. 73). Ivan does not remain in debt and responds to his father’s demand to treat him with respect: “When a puppy is not obliged to respect the dog who was his father, then do I owe you even the slightest respect?” (T. 1. P. 74). In “The Minor,” Mrs. Prostakova is constantly compared to a dog, Skotinin to pigs; “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” (T. 1. P. 136) - asks Prostakova. “Oh me, a dog’s daughter!” (Vol. 1. P. 170) - she states in another place. Skotinin’s base spiritual appearance is revealed in his passion for “pigs.” “I love pigs...” he admits, “and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head” (Vol. 1. C . 112). “No, sister,” he declares to Prostakova, “I want to have my own piglets” (T. 1. P. 121). And Mitrofan, according to his mother, “was raised to pigs by the same hunter... Sometimes, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy” (T. 1. P. 112). “I am cattle,” Mitrofan reads from the book of hours, “and not a man” (T. 1. P. 144). The influence of educational literature on “Minor” was also reflected in the genre originality of this work. “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 it was influenced by Western European “philistine” drama, examples of which were given by Diderot, Seden and Mercier. This influence is reflected in the introduction of serious and even touching scenes into the play. These include Pravdin’s conversation with Starodum in the third and fifth acts and Starodum’s touching and edifying conversations with Sophia, and then with Milo in the fourth act. The tearful drama suggests the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as of “suffering virtue” in the person of Sophia. The ending of the play is also connected with the “philistine” drama, which 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. And this happens at the moment when Prostakova lost all rights in her estate: “I completely died! - she exclaims. - My power has been taken away from me! You can’t show your eyes anywhere out of shame! I don’t have a son!” (T. 1. P. 177). 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 - she is disgusting even in her despair - but the trampled, distorted human dignity, human nature in her face. Starodum’s final remark addressed to Prostakova also resonates strongly: “Here are the evil spirits.” worthy fruits"(Vol. 1. P. 177) - that is, fair retribution for violation of moral and social norms. Fonvizin's comedies, especially “The Minor,” are an extremely important milestone in the history of our drama. In essence, this is where Russian social comedy begins. 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 Griboedov’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 education, the other from ill-understood enlightenment.” Fonvizin managed to create truly typical images that became household names and survived their time. “...The rank of brigadier,” pointed out P. A. Vyazemsky, “has turned into a funny slur, although the rank of brigadier itself is no funnier than the other.” I remembered another, off-stage, character from the same play in the 60s of the 19th century. F. M. Dostoevsky: “Gvozdilov is still nailing his captain’s wife... Gvozdilov is so tenacious among us... that he is almost immortal.” The names of Mitrofan, Skotinin, and Prostakova became even more “immortal.” Fonvizin made a real revolution in the field of comedy language. Of course, features of the previous tradition still live in his plays. The speech of many of his characters is predetermined by the specifics of the image. The brigadier uses military terminology everywhere, even in love explanations, Ivan spouts Gallicisms, Kuteikin uses Church Slavonicisms, the German Vralman speaks with a German accent. But something else is much more important - the writer’s appeal to a living spoken language, to the vernacular, to vulgarisms with all their deviations from the “correct” literary speech. “In “The Brigadier,” wrote P. A. Vyazemsky, “for the first time we heard a natural, witty language on our stage...” This especially applies to the speech of the Brigadier, which was immediately noticed by one of the listeners of the play, Nikita Panin: “I am amazed at your art,” he told the author, “how, having forced such nonsense to speak in all five acts, you, however, made her role so interesting that everyone wants to listen to her.” In “Nedorosl” the speeches of Trishka, Prostakova, Skotinin, and Eremeevna are especially colorful. Fonvizin retains all the irregularities in the language of his ignorant heroes: “pervoet” instead of the first one, “robenka” - instead of a child, “goloushka” - instead of little head, “kotoro” - instead of which. Proverbs and sayings like “you can’t beat your betrothed with a horse”, “henbane has eaten too much”, “take them shot”, “why are you confusing your grandmother” are successfully used. Prostakova’s rude, dissolute nature is well revealed by the vulgarisms she uses: “And you, beast, were dumbfounded, but you didn’t dig into your brother’s mug, and you didn’t tear his snout up to his ears” (Vol. 1. P. 127). Fonvizin values rare but colorful expressions that he noticed in popular speech: “Indo bent my uncle to the back of the head” (T. 1. P. 164) (i.e., with the back of the head to the upper tail strap from the saddle). Eremeevna threatens Skotinin: “I’ll scratch out those thorns... I’ve got my own hooks sharp! "(T. 1. P. 123). Fonvizin heard the last phrase on the street in an argument between two women. Fonvizin's linguistic practice leads to the comedies of Gogol and the plays of Ostrovsky. “All the faces of Fonvizin,” wrote Chernyshevsky, “speak almost everywhere in an excellent language, which in most places has not yet lost its aesthetic dignity, and will retain its historical value forever.”
Journalism
Fonvizin’s political views were most clearly formulated by him in his work “Discourse on Indispensable State Laws.” This work, written in the late 70s of the 18th century, was conceived as an introduction to the project “Fundamental rights, irreplaceable at all times by any authority,” compiled by the brothers N.I. and P.I. Panin. Both works are of a combat, offensive nature. They talk about the need to limit autocratic power. N.I. Panin was one of the educators of the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, in whom he saw the executor of his ideas. In his social views, Fonvizin is a monarchist, but at the same time a fierce opponent of uncontrolled, autocratic power. He is deeply outraged by the despotism reigning in Russia. “...Where the arbitrariness of one,” he writes, “is the supreme law, there a strong common connection cannot exist; there there is a state, but there is no fatherland, there are subjects, but there are no citizens...” (T. 2. P. 255). Fonvizin considered the favorites, or, as he calls them, “the sovereign’s favorites,” who especially strengthened their influence at the court of the Russian empresses, to be a terrible evil for Russia. “Here the subjects,” he points out, “are enslaved to the sovereign, and the sovereign is usually his unworthy favorite... In such a depraved situation, the abuse of autocracy rises to the point of incredibleness, and any distinction between the state and the sovereign, between the sovereign and the favorite ceases” (Vol. 2) . P. 256). Some passages of the Discourse point directly at Potemkin, who, according to Fonvizin, “in the very royal palaces hoisted the banner of lawlessness and wickedness...” (Vol. 2. P. 257). Fonvizin considered the soul of the state, its best class, the nobility, “the most respectable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign...” (Vol. 2. P. 265). But the writer knew very well that the overwhelming mass of the nobility did not at all resemble the ideal he had created, that they only existed and were sold to every scoundrel who robbed the state” (Vol. 2. P. 265). Without speaking out against serfdom, Fonvizin at the same time speaks with bitterness about the plight of the serf peasantry, about its complete lack of rights. Russia, he notes, is a state “where people are the property of people, where a person of one state has the right to be both a plaintiff and a judge over a person of another state...” (Vol. 2. P. 265). While not sympathizing with the Pugachev uprising, Fonvizin at the same time understands that the main culprits of the peasant indignation were the government and the nobles. Therefore, he considers it his duty to remind about the possibility of its repetition. “A man,” he writes, “differing in one human species from cattle” can lead the state “in a few hours to the very edge of final destruction and death” (Vol. 2. P. 265). Fonvizin sees a way out of the disastrous situation in which society is in the government’s voluntary limitation of its own and the noble’s arbitrariness and in consolidating this decision in the relevant laws. “An enlightened and virtuous monarch...,” he declares, “begins his great service by immediately protecting the communication of security through immutable laws” (Vol. 2. P. 266). During Fonvizin’s lifetime, his project was not published, but it was distributed in handwritten form and was very popular among the Decembrists, and in 1861 it was published by Herzen in one of his foreign publications.
Magazine satire
In the same year, 1783, in which the first publication of “The Minor” appeared, Fonvizin published in the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers” Russian word" row satirical works in prose. Most often the author uses in them the form of a parody of high literary genres or on official documents. In “The Petition of the Russian Minerva from Russian writers"The genre of petition is parodied. In the “Teaching given on Spiritual Day by Priest Vasily in the village of P**” - the genre of church sermon. Interesting is “The Experience of a Russian Estatesman,” i.e., a dictionary of synonyms, where, as an explanation of words with similar meanings, the author selects examples on the topic of the day, drawn from the social and administrative field. So, to the words deceive, deceive, deceive Fonvizin makes the following notes: “It is an art to deceive big boyars,” “Solicitors usually conduct petitions” (Vol. 1. P. 224). It is said about the word madman: “The madman is very dangerous when in power” (Vol. 1, p. 225). The synonyms low, vile are accompanied by purely educational reflection: “In a low state one can have a noble soul, just as a very big gentleman can be a very vile person” (Vol. 1. P. 226). Regarding the word rank, it is said: “There are great ranks in which there is no need to have great merits, and sometimes one reaches them through the nobility of the breed, which is the least of human virtues” (Vol. 1. pp. 229-230). In 1783, Fonvizin anonymously sent twenty questions to the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word”, actually addressed Catherine II, who secretly headed this publication and published feuilletons in it entitled “There were stories and fables.” The questions turned out to be so bold and challenging that Catherine entered into a debate with the author, placing her own “answers” against each of the “questions.” “Why,” asked Fonvizin, hinting at the removal of the Panin brothers from service, “do we see many good people in retirement?” “Many good people,” answered Catherine, “left the service, probably because they found it beneficial to be in retirement” (Vol. 2. P. 272). The empress's objection was not made on the merits, since she perfectly understood that it was not a question of voluntary, but of forced resignation. Question number 13 was asked in connection with the moral and social degradation of the nobility: “How can one raise the fallen souls of the nobility? How can we drive out of our hearts insensitivity to the dignity of a noble title? (Vol. 2. P. 272). In question 10, the author hinted at the despotic nature of government in Russia: “Why, in a legislative age, does no one in this part think of distinguishing themselves?” “Because,” the empress answered irritably, “this is not everyone’s business” (T. 2. P. 273). In one of the questions (18th) the author hinted at Catherine’s failed farce with the convening and premature dissolution of the Commission for drawing up a new Code. “Why,” Fonvizin asked, “do our affairs begin with great heat and ardor, but then they are abandoned and completely forgotten?” Catherine’s answer deprived Fonvizin’s question of specific meaning and transferred it to a universal human plane: “For the same reason that a person tries” (Vol. 2. P. 275). Question 14 was aimed at the empress’s court circle and was especially insulting: “Why in former times did jesters, tricksters and buffoons not have ranks, but now they have, and very high ones?” The nickname “shpyn” was worn by the Chief of the Horse, Count L.A. Naryshkin, who voluntarily played the role of a funny man and a jester at court. Catherine's answer sounds like the cry of an angry ruler. It conveys not only irritation, but also a direct threat: “Our ancestors did not all know how to read and write. This question was born from freedom of speech , which our ancestors did not have: if they had, they would have started on the present one with ten former ones” (Vol. 2. P. 274). To the last question: “What is our national character?” - followed a categorical answer, demanding unquestioning obedience to authority: “In a keen and quick understanding of everything, in exemplary obedience and in the root of all virtues given to man by the creator” (Vol. 2. P. 275). Fonvizin’s discussion with Catherine II, as we see, is in many ways reminiscent of Novikov’s “Drone” polemic with “All sorts of things,” right down to its sad ending. Fonvizin perfectly grasped the anger of his addressee and was forced to soften his daring attacks. In the “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word,” he places a letter “To the author of “Facts and Fables” from the author of “Questions.” Fonvizin compliments the literary and even administrative talents of Catherine II. At the same time, he explains that his critical remarks about some nobles are dictated “not by the bile of malice,” but by sincere concern for their fate. The accusation of “free speech” forced Fonvizin to refuse to continue the dangerous dispute, which he reports in his letter. “I confess,” he declares, “that your prudent answers convinced me internally... This inner conviction of mine decided to cancel the questions I had already prepared... so as not to give others a reason for daring free speech, which I hate with all my soul” (Vol. 2. P. 278). The popularity of "The Minor" inspired Fonvizin to attempt to publish the magazine "Friend of Honest People, or Starodum", which the writer intended to start in 1788. But the government banned the publication of the magazine, and the materials prepared for it were published for the first time only in 1830. "Friend honest people...” not only in name, but also in its themes, was closely related to the comedy “The Minor.” The serfdom theme is represented in it by “A Letter from Taras Skotinin to his sister Mrs. Prostakova.” The author of the letter reports that after the death of his beloved pig Aksinya, he set out to “correct with birch” the morals of his peasants, knowing “neither mercy nor pity.” Another work - “General Court Grammar” - clearly echoes Starodum’s impressions of his service in the palace. Starodum’s reflections on the moral decline of the nobility are continued in “Conversation with Princess Khaldina,” highly appreciated by Pushkin. “The image of Sorvantsov,” wrote Pushkin, “is worthy of the brush that painted the Prostakov family. He signed up for the service to ride in a train. He spends his nights playing cards and sleeps in public places... He sells peasants as recruits, and talks intelligently about enlightenment. He does not take bribes out of vanity, and calmly excuses poor bribe givers. In a word, he is a truly Russian nobleman of the last century, as nature and semi-enlightenment formed him.”
Letters from France
In 1777-1778 Fonvizin traveled around Western Europe. The letters that he sent from France to N.I. Panin were not intended for publication and were published only in the 19th century. But despite this, Fonvizin carefully processed the material he collected, which represents an undoubted artistic value. Fonvizin's travel notes were a kind of response to the craze of the Russian nobility for everything French, from language to clothing. “I left France,” he admitted in the last of his letters. - My stay in this state greatly reduced its value in my opinion. I found the good to a much lesser extent than I imagined, and the bad in such to a large extent, which I could not even imagine” (Vol. 2. P. 480). Fonvizin visited France ten years before French Revolution , when the rottenness of the feudal absolutist world became completely obvious. “...You feel,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “the beginning of the French Revolution in this terrible picture of French society, so masterfully drawn by our traveler.” Much space in the letters is devoted to pictures of the ruin and moral degradation of the French nobility, since it was this class that Fonvizin was accustomed to consider as the spring of the political life of the state. “The French nobility...” he wrote, “are in extreme poverty, and their ignorance is incomparable...” (Vol. 2. P. 484). “How many cavaliers of St. The only way Louis lives is that, having approached a stranger and borrowed from him as much as his simplicity of heart allows him to take, the next day they disappear completely and with the money from their lender! How much do they trade for their spouses, sisters, daughters!” (Vol. 2. P. 462). The educator Fonvizin writes with undisguised contempt about the French clergy, dissolute and ignorant: “... prelates publicly keep girls, and there is no more shameful life than the life that French abbots lead” (T. 2. P. 485). “The priests...,” he writes in another place, “instill, on the one hand, a slavish attachment to chimeras beneficial to the clergy, and on the other, a strong aversion to common sense” (Vol. 2. p. 459). The writer is deeply outraged by the hierarchy of despotism in absolutist France. The king, unrestricted in his power, can calmly flout the laws. Each of his ministers is a despot in the department he controls. One of the sources of government revenue is the sale of positions, as a result of which many “mean people” ended up in administrative posts. The nobility, clergy, judges shamelessly rob... a people already ruined by numerous taxes. The natural consequence of all these abuses is poverty and an increase in crime. In the provinces of Languedoc and Provence, the traveler’s carriage “was always surrounded by beggars, who very often, instead of money... asked if we had a piece of bread with us” (T. 2. P. 466). “The severity of the laws,” according to Fonvizin, “does not stop the atrocities that are born in France almost always from poverty” (Vol. 2. P. 489). Fonvizin turned out to be less vigilant in relation to those forces that entered into the fight against the feudal-absolutist system. There was no place in the letters to characterize the third estate. Fonvizin spoke sharply negatively about the French enlighteners. He regards their views, especially atheism, as a manifestation of the moral nihilism that has gripped all of France. “The Alamberts, Diderots,” writes Fonvizin, “are in their way the same charlatans that I saw every day on the boulevard” (Vol. 2. P. 481). “But you only have to look at the gentlemen of today’s philosophers themselves to see , what is a person like without religion, and then conclude how vicious the entire human society would be without it!” (Vol. 2. P. 482). Fonvizin greatly exaggerated the degree of dependence of the enlighteners on Catherine II. “Their calculation is clearly visible,” he writes, “they ... caressed ... to get gifts from our court” (Vol. 2. P. 482). 481). Fonvizin described in detail Voltaire’s triumphal entry into Paris, the honors bestowed upon him at the Academy and in the theater, but he himself remained absolutely indifferent to these celebrations... Letters about France testify to Fonvizin’s high skill in the field of journalistic prose. His characteristics are distinguished by accuracy and precision. wit, language - colorfulness and laconicism. Many phrases sound like polished aphorisms: “Every vice seeks to hide behind the appearance of the virtue that borders on it” (Vol. 2. P. 462). , form one nation among themselves” (Vol. 2. P. 480).
Memoirs
In the last years of his life, following the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the author of “Confession,” Fonvizin began to write memoirs, to which he gave the title “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts.” They were, according to the writer, to consist of four sections, marking the history of his spiritual development: “infancy”, “youth”, “perfect age” and “approaching old age”. The contents of the memoirs leave an ambivalent impression. On the one hand, it sounds a note of repentance. Fonvizin bitterly admits his youthful “blasphemy” towards religion, and regretfully recalls the “sharp words” because of which he made many enemies. Fonvizin regards all this as sins of youth, as the fruits of an inexperienced, arrogant mind. The confessional nature of these reflections is strengthened by epigraphs for each chapter taken from the Holy Scriptures. Fonvizin’s repentant thoughts were caused by two reasons. In 1785 he was struck down by paralysis. The writer was inclined to regard his illness as God’s punishment for his youthful freethinking. Fonvizin's mood could also have been influenced by the government repressions that fell on writers in 1790 -1792. in connection with the revolution in France. But there are other pages in the memoirs that resurrect interesting, sometimes funny events from the writer’s life. These include, for example, a description of the Latin language exam at the university boarding school. On the eve of this day, the teacher came to class in a caftan with five buttons and a camisole with four buttons. These buttons, he explained to his students, “are the essence of the guard of your and my honor: for on a caftan there are five declensions, and on a camisole there are four conjugations... When they ask... then take note of which button I take... and never make a mistake you won’t” (Vol. 2, pp. 87-88). With great enthusiasm, Fonvizin talks about his meeting with Lomonosov, about his first visit to the St. Petersburg theater, which brought him, then still a boy, into indescribable delight, about meeting the best artists of that time - Volkov, Shumsky, Dmitrevsky. Fonvizin writes with undisguised pride about the success of his first comedy, “The Brigadier.” At first, the author read it to his acquaintances, read it, getting used to each character of the play. “I... had the gift,” he points out, “to take on a face and speak in the voice of very many people” (Vol. 2. P. 99). Rumors about the comedy reached the imperial court, and Fonvizin was invited to the palace, where he read it first to Catherine II, and then to Paul. Among the listeners was Count N. I. Panin, who made a number of interesting comments about the language and images of “The Brigadier”. Death prevented Fonvizin from bringing his memoirs to completion, but even in their unfinished form they remain one of the best examples of memoir literature of the 18th century.
Vyazemsky P. A. Fonvizin. P. 207.Right there. P. 332.
Chernyshevsky N. G. Full collection cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1949. T. 2. P. 796.
Pushkin A. S. Full collection op. T. 7. pp. 106-107.
Belinsky V. G. Full collection op. T.S.119.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is a famous Russian satirist. He wrote the comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor.” The comedy “The Minor” was written in the era of the autocratic-serf system. In it, Fonvizin denounces the system of noble upbringing and education. He creates typical images of feudal landowners, narcissistic and ignorant. The writer is concerned about the future of Russia.
The comedy teaches me to treat my elders with respect, so as not to be like Mitrofanushka, who even treats his own uncle with disdain: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane? Yes, I don’t know why you deigned to attack me.”
He called the elderly nanny who raised him “the old bastard.” Mitrofan treats teachers like his mother treats serfs: “Well! Give me the board, garrison rat! Ask what to write." “The Minor” teaches me to treat my parents with respect, and not like Mitrofanushka: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself...” He only feels sorry for mother because she is tired, “beating father.”
Comedy teaches me to work as hard as I can and to appreciate the work of others. Mitrofan only “runs to the dovecote.” His mother does nothing, but pays Eremeevna “five slaps a day” for faithful service.
“Nedorosl” teaches me to successfully master knowledge, unlike Mitrofan, who in four years of study only “finishes the Book of Hours.” His knowledge of grammar makes him laugh: “The door... This one? Adjective. Because it is attached to its place. Over there by the closet... the door is not hung: so for now that’s a noun.” The hero’s mathematical “knowledge” does not stand up to criticism: “Zero and zero - zero. One and one... (Thinking).”
Comedy teaches me to appreciate smart, educated people. Prostakova herself despises smart people and is afraid of enlightenment: “There are a lot of smart people these days. It’s them that I’m afraid of.” And her son is of the same opinion: “I myself, mother, am not a fan of clever girls. Your brother is always better.” Prostakova believes that geography is not a noble science: “Nobleman, just say: take me there, they will take you wherever you please.” Although she teaches her son, she has a negative attitude towards education: “People live and have lived without science. The deceased father... did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to make enough money.” In Prostakov’s son he instills greed: “I found the money, don’t share it with anyone. Take everything for yourself...” The ignorant Skotinin is also hostile to science: “I haven’t read anything in my life... God saved me from this boredom.”
The comedy “The Minor” teaches me to value kindness and honesty. I like Starodum’s statements: “... it is much more honest to be bypassed without guilt than to be rewarded without merit.” He says that one must work honestly, without vile seniority, without robbing the fatherland.” Starodum left the court “without ranks, without a ribbon, without villages,” but retained his honor and dignity. He believes that happiness does not lie in wealth and nobility, but in “helping someone who doesn’t have what they need.”
“The Minor” teaches me to love people, so as not to be like Skotinin, who prefers pigs to people and wants to marry Sophia only because there are pigs in her villages: “I love pigs, sister, and in our neighborhood there are such big ones...” Yes, and Since childhood, Mitrofanushka has had a love for them: “When I was only three years old, it used to be when I saw a pig that I would tremble with joy.”
Comedy also teaches you to restrain your emotions so as not to be like Prostakova, whose cruel temper makes the life of the entire house unbearable: “From morning to evening I don’t give up: I scold, then I fight, and that’s how the house holds together.” Fighting even brings her pleasure: “Oh, father! It took my heart, let me fight!”
“The Minor” teaches you to love your Fatherland and be useful to it, Starodum speaks about this in the comedy: “... there are people to help, there is a Fatherland to serve.” Pravdin believes that the state should be led by worthy people: “So that there is no shortage of worthy people, special efforts are now being made to educate...” Education should be the key to the well-being of the state. Starodum says: “Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers?” Moral education landowners instruct the serfs: “... and instead of one slave, two come out...”
The comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” does not leave the theater stages. Viewers enjoy watching it these days. She denounces evil and tyranny. Teaches us to work for the good of the Fatherland, and not for our own benefit, to love our neighbor, to value intelligence, kindness, and honesty in a person. The author advocates the triumph of knowledge and reason. He believes that the future of Russia is in the hands of honest, enlightened people.
History of creation
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 was he completed new comedy- “Undergrown.” 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, when he began 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 underage could be twenty-something extra years, 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.”
Genre, genre, creative method
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 the 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.
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 drama of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature XVIII century. M., 1939).
Having made both negative and positive characters life-like, Fonvizin managed to create new type 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 “Undergrowth” is fueled by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of 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 the identification of 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 political system, giving 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.
Idea
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 “The Minor” was attracted, first of all, 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 a wallet filled with gold and silver onto Mr. Dmitrevsky’s stage... Mr. 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. She got it ex-buddy, a 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 like-minded people teach from the stage throughout the 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 are afraid only of material power and are cunning all the time, by all means they 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 Prostakov mistresses in real life and will 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, fearless arrogance, 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 material well-being She throws her fists at her son, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milon, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin, with bribery, threats and an appeal to influential patrons. 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
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 of the 18th 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 loving friend friend of Sophia and Milon. 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 half-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's 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, pressing 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, but his heroes 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 Tsy-firkin, characteristic of military life; Church Slavonic words and quotes from the spiritual books of seminarian Kuteikin; Vralman's broken Russian speech and speech noble heroes plays by Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin. Certain words and phrases from Fonvizin's comedy became popular. Thus, already during the playwright’s lifetime, the name Mitrofan became a household name and meant a lazy person and an ignorant person. 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 Nedorosl’s performance 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, shocking stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and tested 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 and the very characters of 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).