Analysis of the work “Minor. Fonvizin, “The Minor”: analysis of the work, characteristics of the characters The author’s attitude towards the heroes of the minor

The history of the creation of Fonvizin’s work “The Minor”

DI. Fonvizin is one of the most prominent figures educational movement in Russia XVIII V. He perceived the ideas of Enlightenment humanism especially keenly, and lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. Therefore, the writer was especially upset by the nobles’ failure to fulfill their duty to society: “I happened to travel around my land. I have seen where most of those bearing the name of a nobleman rely on their curiosity. I have seen many of them who serve, or, moreover, take places in the service just to ride a pair. I have seen many others who immediately resigned as soon as they gained the right to harness fours. I have seen contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw nobles servile. I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart.” This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the author of “Facts and Fables,” the authorship of which belonged to Empress Catherine II herself.
The name Fonvizin became known to the general public after he created the comedy “Brigadier”. Then for more than ten years the writer was involved in government affairs. And only in 1781 he completed a new comedy, “The Minor.” Fonvizin did not leave evidence of the creation of “Nedoroslya”. The only story dedicated to the creation of the comedy was recorded much later by Vyazemsky. We are talking about the scene in which Eremeevna defends Mitrofanushka from Skotinin. “It is recounted from the words of the author himself that, having begun to explore the phenomenon mentioned, he went for a walk in order to think about it while walking. At the Myasnitsky Gate he came across a fight between two women. He stopped and began to guard nature. Returning home with the spoils of his observations, he drew his phenomenon and included in it the word hooks, which he overheard on the battlefield” (Vyazemsky, 1848).
Catherine's government, frightened by Fonvizin's first comedy, for a long time opposed the production of the writer's new comedy. Only in 1782 did Fonvizin’s friend and patron N.I. Panin, through the heir to the throne, the future Paul I, managed with great difficulty to achieve the production of “The Minor.” The comedy was performed in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow by the actors of the court theater. Fonvizin himself took part in the actors learning their roles and was involved in all the details of the production. The role of Starodum was created by Fonvizin with the expectation of best actor Russian theater I.A. 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 ruling circles to 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.”

Gender, genre, creative method in Fonvizin’s work “Minor”

Second half of the 18th century. - the heyday of theatrical classicism in Russia. Exactly comedy genre becomes the most important and widespread in stage and dramatic art. Best comedies of this time are part of social and literary life, are associated with satire and often have a political orientation. The popularity of comedy lay in its direct connection with life. “The Minor” was created within the framework of the rules of classicism: the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, the rule of three unities in composition, “ speaking names" However, realistic features are also visible in the comedy: the authenticity of the images, the depiction of noble life and social relations.
The famous creativity researcher D.I. Fonvizina G.A. Gukovsky believed that “in Nedorosl” two literary styles are fighting among themselves, and classicism is defeated. Classic rules It was forbidden to mix sad, cheerful and serious motives. “In Fonvizin’s comedy there are elements of drama, there are motives that were supposed to touch and touch the viewer. In “The Minor,” Fonvizin not only laughs at vices, but also glorifies virtue. “The Minor” is half-comedy, half-drama. In this regard, Fonvizin, breaking the tradition of classicism, took advantage of the lessons of the new bourgeois dramaturgy of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature of the 18th century. M., 1939).
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 “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. These are satire and journalism. Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the life of the Prostakova family. Starodum’s final remark, which ends “The Minor”: “Here are the evil spirits worthy fruits! - gives the whole play a special sound.

Subjects

The comedy “Minor” is based on two problems that especially worried the writer. This is the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century. was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national importance, since proper education could save noble society from degradation.
The comedy “Nedorosl” (1782) became a landmark event in the development of Russian comedy. It represents a complex, well-thought-out system in which every line, every character, every word is subordinated to revealing the author's intention. Having started the play as an everyday comedy of manners, Fonvizin does not stop there, but boldly goes further, to the root cause of “evil morals,” the fruits of which are known and strictly condemned by the author. The reason for the vicious education of the nobility in feudal and autocratic Russia is the established state system, which gives rise to arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, the problem of education turns out to be inextricably linked with the entire life and political structure of the state in which people live and act from top to bottom. The Skotinins and Prostakovs, ignorant, limited in mind, but not limited in their power, can only educate their own kind. Their characters are drawn by the author especially carefully and fully, with all the authenticity of life. Fonvizin significantly expanded the scope of classicism’s requirements for the comedy genre here. The author completely overcomes the schematism inherent in his earlier heroes, and the characters in “The Minor” become not only real persons, but also household figures.

The idea of ​​the analyzed work

Defending her cruelty, crimes and tyranny, Prostakova says: “Am I not powerful in my people too?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And then she unexpectedly refers to the law: “I’m not free! A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The amazed Starodum and together with him the author exclaim only: “She is a master at interpreting decrees!”
Subsequently, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky rightly said: “It’s all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they contain the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama is in them... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness.” Prostakova does not want to recognize any duties of the nobility, she calmly violates Peter the Great’s law on the compulsory education of nobles, she knows only her rights. In her person, a certain part of the nobles refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities. There is no need to talk about any kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving state interests. Fonvizin saw what this actually led to: state collapse, immorality, lies and corruption, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. That’s why he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “The state in which the most respectable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign and its corps and represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name only and is sold to every scoundrel who has robbed the fatherland.”
So, the idea of ​​​​the comedy: condemnation of ignorant and cruel landowners who consider themselves full masters of life, do not comply with state and moral laws, affirmation of the ideals of humanity and enlightenment.

Nature of the conflict

The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in public life countries. Mrs. Prostakova states that the decree “on noble freedom” (which freed the nobleman from compulsory service to the state established by Peter I) made him “free” primarily in relation to serfs, freeing him from all burdensome human and moral responsibilities to society. Fonvizin puts a different view on the role and responsibilities of a nobleman into the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. In terms of political and moral ideals, Starodum is a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.
All the heroes of the comedy are drawn into the conflict, the action seems to be taken out of the landowner's house, family and acquires a socio-political character: the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the authorities, and the lack of rights of the peasants.

Main characters

The audience in the comedy “Minor” was primarily attracted by the positive characters. The serious scenes in which Starodum and Pravdin performed were received with great enthusiasm. Thanks to Starodum, performances turned into a kind of public demonstration. “At the end of the play,” recalls one of his contemporaries, “the audience threw G. Dmitrevsky a wallet filled with gold and silver onto the stage... G. Dmitrevsky, picking it up, made a speech to the audience and said goodbye to her” (“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”, 1840, No. 5.)-
One of the main characters of Fonvizin's play is Starodum. In his worldview, he is a bearer of the ideas of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Starodum served in the army, fought bravely, was wounded, but was not rewarded. It was received by his former friend, the count, who refused to go to the active army. Having retired, Starodum tries to serve at court. Disappointed, he leaves for Siberia, but remains true to his ideals. He is the ideological inspirer of the fight against Prostakova. In reality, Starodum’s like-minded official Pravdin acts on the Prostakovs’ estate not on behalf of the government, but “out of his own deed of heart.” The success of Starodum determined Fonvizin’s decision to publish the satirical magazine “Friend” in 1788 honest people, or Starodum."
The positive characters are depicted by the playwright somewhat palely and schematically. Starodum and his associates teach from the stage throughout the entire play. But these were the laws of dramaturgy of that time: classicism presupposed the depiction of heroes who delivered monologues and teachings “from the author.” Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas.
Fonvizin presents negative characters with amazing realism: Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son Mitrofan, Prostakova’s evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and law, they bow only to power and wealth, they fear only material force and are always cunning, using all means to achieve their benefits, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morals, ideas, ideals, or any moral principles, not to mention knowledge and respect for laws.
The central figure of this group, one of the significant characters in Fonvizin’s play, is Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the main spring driving the stage action, for in this provincial noblewoman there is some kind of powerful life force, which is missing not only from the positive characters, but also from 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 Mrs. 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 Prostakova Mrs. 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 her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with Milon armed with a sword, and even hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.”

Place of minor characters

There are other characters on 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, Ku-teikin, Vralman became household names.

Plot and composition

An analysis of the work shows that the plot of Fonvizin’s comedy is simple. In the family of provincial landowners the Prostakovs, their distant relative lives - Sophia, who remained an orphan. Mrs. Prostakova’s brother, Taras Skotinin, and the Prostakovs’ son, Mitrofan, would like to marry Sophia. At a critical moment for the girl, when she is desperately divided by her uncle and nephew, another uncle appears - Starodum. He becomes convinced of the evil nature of the Prostakov family with the help of the progressive official Pravdin. Sophia marries the man she loves - officer Milon. The Prostakovs' estate is taken into state custody for cruel treatment of serfs. Mitrofan is sent to military service.
Fonvizin based the plot of the comedy on the conflict of the era, the socio-political life of the 70s - early 80s. XVIII century This is a struggle with the serf woman Prostakova, depriving her of the right to own her estate. At the same time, other storylines are traced in the comedy: the struggle for Sofya Prostakova, Skotinin and Milon, the story of the union 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

Fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic situations, individualized Speaking characters, evil satire on the Russian nobility, ridicule of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive. Young Fonvizin attacked noble society and its vices, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck human minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of severe tyranny, everyday everyday cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language understandable to the audience, sharp current problems, recognizable collisions. 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. Being a member Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in studying and improving his contemporary language. Fonvizin masterfully builds the linguistic characteristics of his characters: these are rude, offensive words in Prostakova’s uncouth speeches; the words of soldier Tsyfirkin, characteristic of military life; Church Slavonic words and quotes from the spiritual books of seminarian Kuteikin; Vralman's broken Russian speech and speech noble heroes plays by Starodum, Sophia and Pravdin. Certain words and phrases from Fonvizin's comedy became popular. Thus, already during the life of the playwright, the name Mitrofan became a household name and meant a lazy person and an ignoramus. Phraseologisms have become widely known: “Trishkin caftan”, “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married”, etc.

Meaning of the work

The “people's” (according to Pushkin) comedy “The Minor” reflected acute problems Russian life. The audience, seeing it in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin’s cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the audience of that time: “My grandmother told me that during the 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 their loved ones and acquaintances in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy thought upon leaving it,” historian V.O. wrote about “The Minor.” Klyuchevsky.
Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “The Minor” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, resulting from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.” Realism and satire help the author of the comedy talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education “the key to the well-being of the state.” And all the comic and tragic circumstances he described and the very characters of the negative characters can safely be called the fruits of ignorance and evil.
In Fonvizin's comedy there is grotesque, and satirical comedy, and a farcical beginning, and a lot of serious things, something that makes the viewer think. With all this, “Nedorosl” had a strong impact on the development of Russian national drama, as well as the entire “most magnificent and, perhaps, the most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line” (M. Gorky).

This is interesting

The characters can be divided into three groups: negative (Prostakovs, Mitrofan, Skotinin), positive (Pravdin, Milon, Sophia, Starodum), the third group includes all the other characters - these are mainly servants and teachers. Negative characters and their servants are characterized by common people colloquial The Skotinins' vocabulary consists mainly of words used in the barnyard. This is well shown by the speech of Skotinin - Uncle Mitrofan. It is all filled with words: pig, piglets, barn. The idea of ​​life begins and ends with the barnyard. He compares his life with the life of his pigs. For example: “I want to have my own piglets,” “if I have... a special barn for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife.” And he’s proud of it: “Well, I’ll be a son of a pig if...” Lexicon his sister Mrs. Prostakova is a little more diverse due to the fact that her husband is a “countless fool” and she has to do everything herself. But Skotinin’s roots are also evident in her speech. Favorite curse word: “cattle.” To show that Prostakova is not far behind her brother in development, Fonvizin sometimes denies her basic logic. For example, such phrases: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear off anything anymore,” “So is it necessary to be like a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well?”
All that can be said about her husband is that he is a man of few words and does not open his mouth without his wife’s instructions. But this characterizes him as a “countless fool,” a weak-willed husband who fell under the heel of his wife. Mitrofanushka is also a man of few words, although, unlike his father, he has freedom of speech. Skotinin’s roots are manifested in his inventiveness of curse words: “old bastard”, “garrison rat”. Servants and teachers have in their speech characteristic features of the classes and parts of society to which they belong. Eremeevna’s speech is constant excuses and a desire to please. Teachers: Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant, Kuteikin is a sexton from Pokrov. And with their speech they show their belonging to the type of activity.
Everyone has characters Apart from the positive ones, the speech is very colorful and emotionally charged. You may not understand the meaning of words, but the meaning of what is said is always clear.
The speech of the positive heroes is not so bright. All four of them lack colloquial, colloquial phrases in their speech. This is bookish speech, the speech of educated people of that time, which practically does not express emotions. You understand the meaning of what is said from the direct meaning of the words. Milon's speech is almost impossible to distinguish from Pravdin's speech. It is also very difficult to tell anything about Sophia based on her speech. An educated, well-behaved young lady, as Starodum would call her, sensitive to the advice and instructions of her beloved uncle. Starodum’s speech is completely determined by the fact that the author put his moral program into the mouth of this hero: rules, principles, moral laws by which a “pious person” should live. Starodum's monologues are structured in this way: Starodum first tells a story from his life, and then draws a moral.
As a result, it turns out that the speech negative hero characterizes him, and the speech of a positive hero is used by the author to express his thoughts. The person is depicted three-dimensionally, the ideal is depicted in a plane.

Makogonenko G.I. Denis Fonvizin. Creative path M.-L., 1961.
Makogonezho G.I. From Fonvizin to Pushkin (From the history of Russian realism). M., 1969.
Nazarenko M.I. “An incomparable mirror” (Types and prototypes in D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”) // Russian language, literature, culture at school and university. K., 2005.
StrichekA. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Enlightenment. M., 1994.