The history of the interpretation of the comedy “The Minor” over the past two centuries - from the first critical reviews of the 19th century. to the fundamental literary works of the 20th century. - strictly returns any researcher to the same observation of the poetics of Fonvizin’s masterpiece, a kind of aesthetic paradox of comedy, the essence of which the literary tradition sees in the different aesthetic dignity of ethically polar characters. The tradition considers the criterion of this dignity to be nothing more than life-likeness: a bright, reliable, plastic image of vice is recognized as more artistically valuable than pale, ideological virtue:
V. G. Belinsky:“There is nothing ideal and, therefore, creative in his [Fonvizin’s] comedy: the characters of fools in it are faithful and clever lists from caricatures of the reality of that time; the characters of the intelligent and virtuous are rhetorical maxims, images without faces.”
P. A. Vyazemsky: “All other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others are only adjacent to the action. ‹…› Of the forty phenomena, including several quite long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”
The quoted observations on the poetics of “The Minor” clearly reveal the aesthetic parameters of two antagonistic groups of characters in the comedy: on the one hand, verbal painting and “ living life"in a plastically authentic everyday environment, on the other - oratory, rhetoric, reasoning, speaking. These two semantic centers very accurately determine the nature of artistic specificity different groups characters like different types artistic imagery, and the Russian literary tradition to which these types go back. Need I say that general principles designs artistic images“Undergrowth” is due to the same value orientations and aesthetic settings of pictorial plastic satire (comedy) and ideologically ethereal ode (tragedy)!
The specificity of his dramatic word, which is initially and fundamentally two-valued and ambiguous, is brought to the center of the aesthetics and poetics of “Minor.”
The first property that the dramatic word comedy offers its researcher is its obvious punning nature. The speech element of “Nedoroslya” is a stream of voluntary and involuntary puns, among which the technique of destroying phraseological units is especially productive, pitting the traditionally conventional figurative against the direct literal meaning of a word or phrase:
Skotinin. ‹…› 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 (I, 5); Skotinin. ‹…› Yes, listen, I’ll do it so that everyone will blow the trumpet: in this little neighborhood there are only pigs to live (II, 3).
Playing with meanings is inaccessible to Skotinin: moreover, that the pigs are very tall, and the forehead of Uncle Vavila Falaleich is incredibly strong to break, he does not want and cannot say. In exactly the same way, Mr. Prostakov, declaring that “Sofyushkino’s real estate estate cannot be moved to us” (1.5), means real movement in physical space, and Mitrofan, answering Pravdin’s question: “How far are you in history?” very precise indication of a specific distance: “In another you will fly to distant lands, to a kingdom of thirty” (IV, 8), I do not intend to be funny at all, playing with the meanings of the words “history” ( academic discipline and the genre of popular literature) and “far” (the amount of knowledge and the extent of space).
Milon, Pravdin and Starodum are a different matter. In their mouths, the word “strong-browed” sounds like a sentence mental abilities Skotinin, and the question “How far are you in history?” suggests an answer that outlines the scope of knowledge. And this division of the meanings of a punning word between characters of different groups takes on the meaning of a characterological artistic device. The level of meaning that a character uses begins to serve as his aesthetic characteristic:
Pravdin. When only your cattle can be happy, then your wife will have bad peace from them and from you. Skotinin. Thin peace? bah! bah! bah! Don't I have enough light rooms? For her alone I will give a coal stove with a stove-bed (II,3); Mrs. Prostakova. I cleaned the chambers for your dear uncle (II.5); Pravdin. ‹…› your guest has just arrived from Moscow and that he needs peace much more than your son’s praises. ‹…› Ms. Prostakova. Ah, my father! Everything is ready. I cleaned the room for you myself (III.5).
Compare with the speech of Pravdin and the dictionary of Starodum, Milon and Sophia, almost entirely consisting of similar abstract concepts, which, as a rule, relate to the sphere of spiritual life (education, teaching, heart, soul, mind, rules, respect, honor, position, virtue, happiness, sincerity, friendship, love, good behavior, calmness, courage and fearlessness), to make sure: synonymous relationships within this group of characters are also formed on the basis of the same level of mastery of the word and its meaning. This synonymy is supported by the idea of not so much blood, but rather spiritual and intellectual kinship, realized in the verbal motif of “way of thinking”, which connects the virtuous heroes of “The Minor” with each other: “Starodum” (reads). Take the trouble to find out his way of thinking” (IV, 4).
For the heroes of this series, the “way of thinking” becomes in the full sense of the word a way of action: since it is impossible to recognize the way of thinking except in the process of speaking (or written communication), the dialogues of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia with each other turn into a full-fledged stage action in which the act of speaking acquires dramatic significance, since for these characters it is speaking and verbal operations at the level general concepts have characterological functions.
And just as the blood relatives of the Prostakovs-Skotinins absorb strangers into their circle based on the level of proficiency with words in its material, objective sense (Kuteikin), so the circle of spiritual like-minded people Starodum-Pravdin-Milon-Sofya willingly opens up to meet their ideological brother Tsyfirkin, who is guided in his actions by the same concepts of honor and position:
Tsyfirkin. I took money for service, I didn’t take it in vain, and I won’t take it. Starodum. Here's the direct one kind person! ‹…› Tsyfirkin. Why, your honor, are you complaining? Pravdin. Because you are not like Kuteikin (V,6).
The semantic centers of character nomination also work on this same hierarchy of meanings. Their meaningful names and the surnames elevate one group to the material series - the Prostakovs and Skotinins are simple and bestial, and Kuteikin, who joined them, traces his personal genesis from the ritual dish kutya; while the names and surnames of their antagonists go back to conceptual and intellectual categories: Pravdin - truth, Starodum - thought, Milon - dear, Sophia - wisdom. But after all, Tsyfirkin owes his surname not only to his profession, but also to abstraction - a number. Thus, people-objects and people-concepts, united within a group by a synonymous connection, enter into intergroup antonymic relationships. So in comedy, it is precisely the punning word, which is itself a synonym and antonym, that forms two types of artistic imagery - everyday heroes and ideological heroes - going back to different literary traditions, equally one-sided and conceptual in the model of reality they create, but also equally to an artistic extent - the traditions of satirical and odic imagery.
Genre traditions of satire and ode in the comedy “Minor”
The doubling of the types of artistic imagery in “The Minor,” due to the punningly doubling word, actualizes almost all the formative attitudes of the two older literary traditions of the 18th century. (satires and odes) within the text of the comedy.
The very way of existence of antagonistic comedy characters on stage, which presupposes a certain type of connection between a person and the environment in its spatial-plastic and material incarnations, resurrects the traditional opposition of satirical and odic types of artistic imagery. The heroes of the comedy are clearly divided into satirical and everyday “homebodies” and odic “wanderers”.
The settledness of the Prostakov-Skotinins is emphasized by their constant attachment to the enclosed space of the house-estate, the image of which grows from the verbal background of their remarks in all its traditional components: a fortress village (“Mrs. Prostakova. ‹…› I was now looking for you throughout the village” - II,5), the manor's house with its living room, which is the stage area and the scene of action of "The Minor", outbuildings ("Mitrofan. Now let's run to the dovecote" - 1.4; "Skotinin. I was going for a walk in the barnyard "- 1.8) - all this surrounds the everyday characters of “The Minor” with a plastically authentic home environment.
The dynamism of Starodum’s image makes him a genuine human generator and the root cause of all the incidents of “The Minor.” And along this line, quite dramatic associations arise: in tragedy, the troublemaker also came from outside; in the pre-Fonvizin comedy the function external force there was, on the contrary, the harmonization of a world that had deviated from the norm. The function of Starodum is both; he not only disturbs the tranquility of the simpleton’s monastery, but also contributes to the resolution of the conflict of the comedy, in which Pravdin also takes an active part.
It is curious that the satirical spatial statics of everyday life and the odic dynamics of the ideologized heroes of “The Minor” are complemented by a picture of the inheritance of odo-satirical figurative structures and, as far as their stage plasticity is concerned, only with a mirror exchange of the categories of dynamics and statics. In the camp of the denounced homebodies, intense physical action reigns, most evident in the external plastic drawing of the roles of Mitrofan and Mrs. Prostakova, who every now and then run somewhere and fight with someone (in this regard, it is appropriate to recall two stage fights, Mitrofan and Eremeevna with Skotinin and Prostakova with Skotinin):
Mitrofan. Now I’ll run to the dovecote (I,4); (Mitrofan, standing still, turns over.) Vralman. Utalets! He won’t stand still like a ticking horse! Go! Fort! (Mitrofan runs away.)(III.8); Mrs. Prostakova. From morning to evening, like someone hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight (I.5); Ms. Prostakova (running around the theater in anger and in thoughts)(IV,9).
Not at all the same - virtuous wanderers, of whom Milo shows the greatest plastic activity, twice intervening in the fight (“separates Ms. Prostakova from Skotinin” - III,3 and “pushing away from Sophia Eremeevna, who was clinging to her, she shouts to the people, having a naked sword in her hand” - V,2), and even Sophia, several times making explosive, impulsive movements on stage: “Sophia (throwing herself into his arms). Uncle! (II,2); “(Seeing Starodum, he runs up to him"(IV,1) and "rushes" to him with the words: “Oh, uncle! Protect me! (V.2). Otherwise, they are in a state of complete stage static: standing or sitting, they conduct a dialogue - just like “two jury speakers.” Apart from a few remarks marking entrances and exits, the performance of Pravdin and Starodum is practically not characterized in any way, and their actions on stage are reduced to speaking or reading aloud, accompanied by typically oratorical gestures:
Starodum (pointing to Sophia). Her uncle Starodum (III.3) came to her; Starodum (pointing to Ms. Prostakova). That's evil worthy fruits! (V, is the last one).
Thus, the general feature of the type of stage plasticity divides the characters of “The Minor” into different genre associations: Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia are stage statues, like images of a solemn ode or heroes of a tragedy; their plasticity is completely subordinated to the act of speaking, which has to be recognized as the only form of stage action characteristic of them. The Prostakov-Skotinin family is active and lively, like characters in satire and comedy; their stage performance is dynamic and has the character of a physical action, which is only accompanied by the word that names it.
The same complexity of genre associations, oscillation on the brink of types of odic and satirical imagery can be noted in the material attributes of “The Minor,” which completes the transition of different types of artistic imagery in their human incarnation to the world image of comedy as a whole. Food, clothes and money accompany every step of the Prostakov-Skotinins in the comedy:
Eremeevna. ‹…› I deigned to eat five buns. Mitrofan. What! Three slices of corned beef, but I don’t remember the hearth slices, five, I don’t remember, six (I,4); Ms. Prostakova (examining the caftan on Mitrofan). The caftan is all ruined (I,1); Prostakov. We ‹…› took her to our village and look after her estate as if it were our own (I.5); Skotinin and both Prostakovs. Ten thousand! (I,7); Mrs. Prostakova. This is three hundred rubles a year. We seat you at the table with us. Our women wash his linen. (I,6); Mrs. Prostakova. I'll knit a wallet for you, my friend! There would be somewhere to put Sophia’s money (III.6).
Food, clothing and money appear in their simplest form physical nature objects; By absorbing simpleton’s soulless flesh into their circle, they aggravate the very property of the characters of this group, in which the literary tradition sees their “realism” and aesthetic advantage over ideological heroes - their extreme physical authenticity and, so to speak, material character. Another thing is whether this property looked so worthy, even if only from an aesthetic point of view, for the 18th century viewer, for whom such materiality was not only a secondary image, but also undoubtedly an undeniable reality.
As for the material halos of characters of another series, here the situation is more complicated. Letters pass through the hands of all the hero-ideologists, introducing them to the substantial, existential level of dramatic action. Their ability to read (i.e., engage in spiritual activity) is one way or another actualized in the stage action of the comedy with the help of those being read on stage (Sophia reading Fenelon’s treatise “On the Education of Girls”) or behind the stage (“Sofyushka! My glasses are on the table, in book” – IV,3) books. So it turns out that it is precisely things - letters, glasses and books, mainly associated with the images of heroic ideologists, that take them out of the confines of everyday life into the existential realm of spiritual and intellectual life. The same applies to other objects that appear in their hands, which in this position strive to renounce their material nature as soon as possible and move into the allegorical, symbolic and moral spheres, as was characteristic of the few material attributes of the tragic action before Fonvizin:
Pravdin. So, you left the yard empty-handed? (opens his snuff box). Starodum (takes tobacco from Pravdin). How about nothing? The snuff box costs five hundred rubles. Two people came to the merchant. One, having paid money, brought home a snuff box ‹…›. And you think that the other one came home with nothing? You're wrong. He brought his five hundred rubles intact. I left the court without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought what was mine home intact: my soul, my honor, my rules (III, 1).
And if money for Prostakovs and Skotinin has the meaning of a goal and causes a purely physiological thirst for possession, then for Starodum it is a means of acquiring spiritual independence from the material conditions of life: “Starodum. I have gained so much that at your marriage the poverty of a worthy groom will not stop us (III, 2).”
If the members of the Prostakov family in their material world eat corned beef and hearth pies, drink kvass, try on caftans and chase pigeons, fight, count once on their fingers and move a pointer along the pages of an incomprehensible book, look after other people’s villages as if they were their own, knit wallets for strangers money and try to kidnap other people's brides; if this dense material environment, into which a person enters as a homogeneous element, rejects any spiritual act as alien, then the world of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia is emphatically ideal, spiritual, immaterial. In this world, the way of communication between people is not family resemblance, as between Mitrofan, Skotinin and the pig, but like-mindedness, the fact of which is established in the dialogical act of communicating one’s opinions. In this world, the admittedly tragic ideologies of virtue, honor and office dominate, with ideal content which compares the way of thinking of each person:
Pravdin. You make one feel the true essence of the position of a nobleman (III.1); Sophia. I now vividly feel dignity honest man, and his position (IV,2); Starodum. I see in him the heart of an honest man (IV, 2); Starodum. I am a friend of honest people. This feeling is ingrained in my upbringing. In yours I see and honor virtue, adorned with enlightened reason (IV, 6); Pravdin. I will not step down from my position in any way (V,5).
Among the hero-ideologists, the spiritual improvement of people is constantly carried out: Pravdin gets rid of his political illusions, a well-bred girl, in front of the audience, reads a book about her upbringing, drawing the appropriate conclusions from it, and even Starodum - albeit in an off-stage act, which he only narrates , – is still represented in the process of spiritual growth:
Starodum. The experiences of my life have taught me this. Oh, if I had previously been able to control myself, I would have had the pleasure of serving my fatherland longer. ‹…› Then I saw that between casual people and respectable people there is sometimes an immeasurable difference ‹…› (III, 1).
The only action of the people inhabiting this world - reading and speaking, perceiving and communicating thoughts - replaces all possible actions of dramatic characters. Thus, the world of thought, concept, ideal is, as it were, humanized on the stage of “The Minor” in the figures of private people, whose bodily forms are completely optional, since they serve only as conductors of the act of thinking and its translation into matter sounding word. So, following the dichotomy of words into objective and conceptual, systems of images into everyday heroes and the hero-ideologists are divided into the flesh and spirit of the world image of the comedy, but the comedy continues to remain the same. And this brings us to the problem of the structural originality of that general, holistic world image that takes shape in a single text of the dual imagery of “The Minor.”
A pun word is funny because of its vibration, combining incompatible meanings at one common point, the awareness of which gives rise to a grotesque picture of absurdity, nonsense and illogicality: when there is no definite, unambiguous meaning, ambiguity arises, leaving the reader inclined to accept one or the other of the meanings; but the point at which they meet is nonsense: if not yes and not no (and yes and no), then what? This relativity of meaning is one of the most universal verbal leitmotifs of “The Minor.” We can say that all comedy is located at this point of intersection of meanings and the absurd, but extremely life-like image of reality it generates, which is equally determined not by one, but by two, and, moreover, opposing world images. This grotesque flickering of the action of “The Minor” on the verge of reliable reality and absurd alogism finds itself in the comedy, at its very beginning, a peculiar embodiment in an object: the famous caftan of Mitrofan. In the comedy, it remains unclear what this caftan actually is: is it narrow (“Mrs. Prostakova. He, the thief, burdened him everywhere” - I, 1), is it wide (“Prostakov (stammering out of timidity). Me... a little baggy..." - I, 3), or, finally, it fits Mitrofan (“Skotinin. Kaftan, brother, well sewn” – I, 4).
In this aspect, the name of comedy acquires fundamental significance. “The Minor” is a multi-figure composition, and Mitrofan is by no means its main character, so the text does not give any reason to attribute the title only and exclusively to him. Minor is another pun word, covering the entire worldview of the comedy with its dual meaning: in relation to Mitrofan, the word “minor” appears in its objective terminological sense, since it actualizes a physiological quantitative characteristic - age. But in its conceptual meaning it qualitatively characterizes another version of the world image: the young shoots of the Russian “new people” are also undergrowth; flesh without soul and spirit without flesh are equally imperfect.
The confrontation and juxtaposition of two groups of characters in the comedy emphasizes one of their common properties: both of them are located, as it were, on the verge of being and existence: the physically existing Prostakov-Skotinins are spiritless - and, therefore, they do not exist from the point of view of the consciousness of the 18th century devoted to the existential idea .; possessing supreme reality ideas of Starodum and K? deprived of flesh and life - and, therefore, in some sense they also do not exist: virtue, which does not live in the flesh, and vice, deprived of being, turn out to be equally a mirage life.
This paradoxical and absurd situation most accurately reproduces the general state of Russian reality of the 1760-1780s, when Russia seemed to have an enlightened monarchy (“Order of the Commission on the drafting of a New Code”, which exists as a text, but not as legislative life and legal space), but in reality it was not there; as if there were laws and freedom (the decree on guardianship, the decree on bribes, the decree on noble freedom), but in reality they did not exist either, since some decrees did not work in practice, and in the name of others the greatest lawlessness was committed.
Here is the deep root, to put it mildly, of the “originality” of Russian reality of modern times, discovered for the first time by Fonvizin and embodied by purely artistic means - a catastrophic split between word and deed, which, each in itself, give rise to different realities, in no way compatible and absolutely opposite : the ideal reality of right, law, reason and virtue, existing as a pure existential idea outside of everyday life, and the everyday unideal reality of arbitrariness, lawlessness, stupidity and vice, existing as everyday everyday practice.
| | 3 | | | | | |
“Nedorosl” is the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage.
The artistic originality of "The Minor" is determined by the fact that the play combines the features of classicism and realism. Formally, Fonvizin remained within the framework of classicism: observance of the unity of place, time and action, the conventional division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in the depiction of positive ones, “ speaking names", features of reasoning in the image of Starodum, and so on. But, at the same time, he took a certain step towards realism. This is manifested in the accuracy of the reproduction of the provincial noble type, social relations in a fortress village, faithful recreation of the typical traits of negative characters, life-like authenticity of the images. For the first time in the history of Russian drama, the love affair was relegated to the background and acquired secondary importance.
Fonvizin's comedy is a new phenomenon, because it is written on the material of Russian reality. The author innovatively approached the problem of the character of the hero, the first of the Russian playwrights sought to psychologize him, to individualize the speech of the characters (here it is worth adding examples from the text!).
In his work, Fonvizin introduces biographies of heroes, takes a comprehensive approach to solving the problem of education, denoting the trinity of this problem: family, teachers, environment, that is, the problem of education is posed here as social problem. All this allows us to conclude that “The Minor” is a work of educational realism.
K.V. Pisarev: “Fonvizin sought to generalize and typify reality. IN negative images he succeeded brilliantly in comedy.<...>The positive characters of "The Minor" clearly lack artistic and life-like persuasiveness.<...>The images he created were not clothed with living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and the best representatives of his time.”
Critics doubted Fonvizin’s art of constructing dramatic action and spoke about the presence of “extra” scenes in it that do not fit into the action, which must certainly be unified:
P. A. Vyazemsky: “All other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others are only adjacent to the action. Of the forty phenomena, including several rather long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”
A. N. Veselovsky: “the ineptitude of the structure of the play, which forever remained the weak side of Fonvizin’s writing, despite the school of European models”; “A widely developed desire to speak not in images, but in rhetoric<...>gives rise to stagnation, fading, and the viewer will then recognize Milo’s view of true fearlessness in war and in peaceful life, then sovereigns hear the unvarnished truth from virtuous people, or Starodum’s thoughts on the education of women...”
The word, the initial constructive material of the drama, emphatically appears in “Minor” in dual functions: in one case, the pictorial, plastic-depictive function of the word (negative characters) is emphasized, creating a model of the world of physical flesh, in the other - its self-valuable and independent ideal-conceptual nature (positive characters), for which a human character is needed only as an intermediary, translating an ethereal thought into the matter of a spoken word. Thus, the specificity of his dramatic word, which is initially and fundamentally two-valued and ambiguous, moves to the center of the aesthetics and poetics of “The Minor.”
punning nature of the word
A technique for destroying a phraseological unit that pits the traditionally conventional figurative against the direct literal meaning of a word or phrase.
The originality of D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” Fonvizin executed in his comedies the wild ignorance of the old generation and the rough gloss of the superficial and external European half-education of the new generations. The comedy “The Minor” was written by D.I. Fonvizin in 1782 and has not yet left the stage. It is one of the author's best comedies. M. Gorky wrote: “In “Nedorosl” the corrupting significance of serfdom and its influence on the nobility, spiritually ruined, degenerated and corrupted precisely by the slavery of the peasantry, was brought to light and onto the stage for the first time.”
All the heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” are conventionally divided into positive and negative. The negative ones include the Prostakov family. Moral and positive people are represented by Pravdin, Starodum, Sophia and Milon.
Some literary critics They believed that the positive heroes of “The Minor” were too ideal, that in reality such people did not exist and they were simply invented by the author. However, documents and letters from the 18th century confirm the existence real prototypes heroes of the Fonvizin comedy. And about negative characters, such as the Prostakovs and Skotinins, we can say with confidence that, despite the unconditional generalization, they were often found among the Russian provincial nobility of that time. There are two conflicts in the work. The main one is love, since it is he who develops the action of the comedy. It involves Sophia, Mitrofanushka, Milon and Skotinin. The characters have different attitudes to issues of love, family, and marriage. Starodum wants to see Sophia married to a worthy man, wishes her mutual love. Prostakova wants to marry Mitrofan profitably and rake in Sophia’s money. Mitrofan's motto: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married.” This phrase from the comedy “The Minor” has become a catchphrase. Overgrown people who don’t want to do anything, don’t want to study and only dream of pleasure are called Mitrof-1 nushki.
Another conflict of comedy is socio-political. It touches a lot important issues upbringing and education, morality. If Starodum believes that education comes from the family and the main thing in a person is honesty and good behavior, then Prostakova is convinced that it is more important that the child is fed, clothed and lives for his own pleasure. The comedy "The Minor" is written in the traditions of Russian classicism. It observes almost all the main features of classicism as literary direction. There is also a strict division of heroes into positive and negative, the use of speaking surnames and the application of the rule of three unities (unity of place, time and action). The unity of the place is respected, since the entire action of the comedy takes place in the village of the Prostakovs. Since it lasts for 24 hours, the unity of time is maintained. However, the presence of two conflicts in a comedy violates the unity of action.
Unlike Western European classicism, Russian classicism has a connection with Russian folklore, civic patriotism and a satirical orientation. All this takes place in Nedorosl. The satirical slant of the comedy leaves no one in doubt. Proverbs and sayings, often found in the text of the comedy, make it a truly folk comedy (“Golden caftan, but a leaden head”, “Courage of the heart is proven in the hour of battle”, “Wealth is of no help to a foolish son”, “He who ranks not according to money, and in the nobility not according to ranks"), Pushkin called “The Minor” “the only monument of folk satire.” She is imbued with the spirit of civic patriotism, since her goal is to educate a citizen of her fatherland. One of the main advantages of comedy is its language. To create the characters of his heroes, Fonvizin uses speech characteristics. Vocabulary Skotinin and Mitrofan is significantly limited. Sophia, Pravdin and Starodum speak correctly and very convincingly. Their speech is somewhat schematic and seems to be contained within strict boundaries.
Fonvizin’s negative characters, in my opinion, turned out to be more lively. They speak simple spoken language, which sometimes even contains abusive language. Prostakova's language is no different from the language of serfs; her speech contains many rude words and common expressions. In his speech, Tsyfirkin uses expressions that were used in military life, and Vralman speaks in broken Russian. In modern Fonvizin society, admiration for foreign countries and contempt for one’s Russian reigned. The education of the nobles was much better. Often the younger generation found itself in the hands of ignorant foreigners who, apart from backward views on science and bad qualities, could not instill anything in their charges. Well, what could the German coachman Vralman teach Mitrofanushka? What knowledge could an over-aged child acquire to become an officer or official? In “The Minor,” Fonvizin expressed his protest against the Skotinins and Prostakovs and showed how young people cannot be educated, how spoiled they can grow up in an environment corrupted by the landowners’ power, obsequiously bowing to foreign culture. Comedy is instructive in nature and has great educational value. It makes you think about moral ideals, about the attitude towards family, love for one’s fatherland, raises questions of education and landowner tyranny.
Outwardly remaining within domestic comedy, offering the viewer a series of everyday scenes, Fonvizin in “Nedorosl” touched on new and deep issues. The task of showing modern “mores” as the result of a certain system of relationships between people determined the artistic success of “The Minor” and made it a “folk” comedy, according to Pushkin.
Touching upon the main and topical issues, “Nedorosl” was indeed a very vivid, historically accurate picture of Russian life in the 18th century. and as such went beyond the ideas of the narrow circle of the Panins. Fonvizin in “Nedorosl” assessed the main phenomena of Russian life from the point of view of their socio-political meaning. But his idea of the political structure of Russia was formed taking into account the main problems of class society, so that the comedy can be considered the first picture of social types in Russian literature.
According to the plot and title, “The Minor” is a play about how badly and incorrectly a young nobleman was taught, raising him to be a direct “minor.” In fact, we are not talking about learning, but about “education” in the usual way for Fonvizin broad meaning this word. Although Mitrofan is a minor figure on stage, the fact that the play received the name “Minor” is not accidental.
Mitrofan Prostakov is the last of three generations of Skotinins who pass before the audience directly or in the memories of others characters and demonstrate that during this time nothing has changed in the Prostakovs’ world. The story of Mitrofan’s upbringing explains where the Skotinins come from and what should be changed so that they do not appear in the future: to destroy slavery and overcome moral education“bestial” vices of human nature.
In "Nedorosl" not only are deployed positive characters, sketched out in “The Brigadier,” but a deeper image of social evil is also given. As before, Fonvizin’s focus is on the nobility, but not in itself, but in close ties with the serf class, which it rules, and the supreme power, representing the country as a whole. The events in the Prostakovs' house, quite colorful in themselves, are ideologically an illustration of more serious conflicts.
From the first scene of the comedy, the fitting of a caftan sewn by Trishka, Fonvizin depicts the very kingdom where “people are the property of people,” where “a person of one state can be both a plaintiff and a judge over a person of another state,” as he wrote in “Discourse.” Prostakova is the sovereign mistress of her estate.
Whether her slaves Trishka, Eremeevna or the girl Palashka are right or wrong, this depends only on her arbitrariness, and she says about herself that “she doesn’t give up: she scolds, she fights, and that’s how the house holds together.” However, calling Prostakova a “despicable fury,” Fonvizin does not at all want to emphasize that the tyrant landowner he depicts is some kind of exception to the general rule.
His idea was, as M. Gorky accurately noted, “to show the nobility degenerate and corrupted precisely by the slavery of the peasantry.” Skotinin, Prostakova’s brother, the same ordinary landowner, is also “to blame for everything,” and the pigs in his villages live much better than people. “Isn’t a nobleman free to beat a servant whenever he wants?” (he supports his sister when she justifies her atrocities by citing the Decree on the Liberty of the Nobility.
Accustomed to impunity, Prostakova extends her power from the serfs to her husband, Sophia, Skotinin - to everyone from whom she hopes she will not meet resistance. But, autocratically managing her own estate, she herself gradually turned into a slave, devoid of self-esteem, ready to grovel before the strongest, and became a typical representative of the world of lawlessness and tyranny.
The idea of the “animal” lowland of this world is carried out in “Nedorosl” as consistently as in “The Brigadier”: both the Skotinins and the Prostakovs are “of the same litter.” Prostakova is just one example of how despotism destroys the human being in a person and destroys the social ties of people.
Talking about his life in the capital, Starodum paints the same world of selfishness and slavery, people “without a soul.” Essentially, Starodum-Fonvizin asserts, drawing a parallel between the small landowner Prostakova and the noble nobles of the state, “if an ignoramus without a soul is a beast,” then the “most enlightened clever woman” without her is nothing more than a “pathetic creature.” The courtiers, to the same extent as Prostakova, have no idea of duty and honor, subservient to the nobles and push around the weak, crave wealth and rise at the expense of their rival.
Starodum's aphoristic invective touched the entire noble class. There is a legend that a landowner filed a complaint against Fonvizin for Starodum’s remark “she’s a master at interpreting decrees,” feeling personally insulted. As for his monologues, no matter how secret they were, the most topical of them were removed at the request of the censor from the stage text of the play. Fonvizin’s satire in “Nedorosl” was directed against Catherine’s specific policies.
Central in this regard is the first scene of the 5th act of “The Minor,” where, in a conversation between Starodum and Pravdin, Fonvizin sets out the main thoughts of the “Discourse” about the example that the sovereign should set for his subjects and the need for strong laws in the state.
Starodum formulates them as follows: “A sovereign worthy of the throne strives to elevate the souls of his subjects... Where he knows what his true glory is..., there everyone will soon feel that everyone must seek their happiness and benefits in the one thing that is lawful, and that it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.”
In the pictures drawn by Fonvizin of the abuses of serf owners, in the story he depicted of Mitrofan’s upbringing as a slave Eremeevna, so that “instead of one slave there are two,” in the reviews of the favorites standing at the helm of power, where there is no place for honest people, there was an accusation against the ruling empress herself. In a play composed for a public theater, the writer could not express himself as precisely and definitely as he did in the “Discourse on Indispensable State Laws,” intended for a narrow circle of like-minded people. But the reader and viewer understood the inevitable misunderstandings. According to Fonvizin himself, it was the role of Starodum that ensured the success of the comedy; The audience “applauded the performance of this role by I. A. Dmitrevsky by throwing wallets” onto the stage.
The role of Starodum was important for Fonvizin in one more respect. In scenes with Sophia, Pravdin, Milon, he consistently sets out the views of an “honest man” on family morality, on the duties of a nobleman engaged in the affairs of civil government and military service.
The appearance of such an extensive program indicated that in Fonvizin’s work Russian educational thought moved from criticism dark sides reality to search for practical ways to change the autocratic system.
From a historical point of view, Fonvizin’s hopes for a monarchy limited by law, for the effective power of education, “decent for every state of people,” were a typical educational utopia. But on the difficult path of liberation thought, Fonvizin, in his searches, acted as a direct predecessor of Radishchev’s republican ideas.
In terms of genre, “The Minor” is a comedy. The play contains many truly comic and partly farcical scenes, reminiscent of The Brigadier. However, Fonvizin’s laughter in “The Minor” takes on a darkly tragic character, and the farcical brawls, when Prostakova, Mitrofan and Skotinin take part in them, cease to be perceived as traditional funny interludes.
Addressing far from funny problems in comedy, Fonvizin did not so much strive to invent new stage techniques as rethink the old ones. In The Minor, the techniques of bourgeois drama were interpreted in a completely original way in connection with the Russian dramatic tradition. For example, the function of the sounding board of classical drama has changed radically.
In “The Minor,” a similar role is played by Starodum, who expresses the author’s point of view; This person is not so much acting as speaking. In translated Western drama there was a similar figure of a wise old nobleman. But his actions and reasoning were limited to the area of moral, most often family, problems. Starodum Fonvizin acts as a political speaker, and his moralizations are a form of presentation of a political program.
In this sense, he rather resembles the heroes of the Russian tyrant-fighting tragedy. It is possible that the latent influence of the high “drama of ideas” on Fonvizin, the translator of Voltaire’s Alzira, was stronger than it might seem at first glance.
Fonvizin was the creator of social comedy in Russia. His socio-political concept determined the most characteristic and common feature his dramaturgy is a purely educational opposition between the world of evil and the world of reason, and, thus, the generally accepted content of everyday satirical comedy received a philosophical interpretation. Bearing in mind this feature of Fonvizin’s plays, Gogol wrote about how the playwright deliberately neglects the content of the intrigue, “seeing through it another, higher content.”
For the first time in Russian drama, the love affair of comedy was completely relegated to the background and acquired an auxiliary meaning.
At the same time, despite the desire for broad, symbolic forms generalizations, Fonvizin managed to achieve high individualization of his characters. Contemporaries were struck by the convincing verisimilitude of the heroes of “The Brigadier”. Recalling the first readings of the comedy, Fonvizin reported on the immediate impression it made on N. Panin. “I see,” he told me, writes Fonvizin, “that you know our morals very well, for the Brigadier is your relative to everyone; no one can say that such Akulina Timofeevna does not have a grandmother, or an aunt, or some kind of relative.”
And then Panin admired the skill with which the role was written, so that “you see and hear the foreman.” The method by which such an effect was achieved is revealed in several remarks by the playwright himself and reviews from contemporaries about the vitality of the characters in “The Brigadier” and “The Minor.”
The practical method of Fonvizin’s comedic work was to rely on a life original, a vivid prototype. By his own admission, as a young man he knew the Brigadier, who served as the prototype for the heroine of the play, and greatly amused himself at the simplicity of this simple-minded woman. In connection with the “Brigadier”, a legend has been preserved that the model for the Advisor was some well-known president of the board; some of Eremeevna’s remarks were overheard by Fonvizin on the Moscow streets.
The image of Starodum was compared with P. Panin, Neplyuev, N. Novikov and other persons; several prototypes of Mitrofan were named. It is also known that the actors played some roles, deliberately imitating on stage the manners of contemporaries well known to the audience.
In itself, the empiricism to which Fonvizin resorted is not artistic system. But a characteristic detail, a colorful face, a funny phrase, copied from life, can become a vivid means of individualizing and detailing an image or scene. This technique was widespread mainly in the satirical genres of the 1760s.
For example, Fonvizin’s poetic messages, written at this time, as we know, play on the character traits of very real persons - his own servants, a certain poet Yamshchikov. On the other hand, in his dramaturgy, Fonvizin clearly defines the class and cultural affiliation of the characters and reproduces their real class relationships.
In his original comedies, the servant never acts as a conventional literary confidant. Most often, individualizing traits are manifested not in stage behavior, but in Fonvizin’s favorite linguistic characteristic. Negative heroes Fonvizin is usually spoken in professional and secular jargon or rough vernacular. Positive characters expressing the author's ideas are contrasted with negative ones in a completely literary manner of speech.
Such a technique of linguistic characterization, with the linguistic flair characteristic of Fonvizin the playwright, turned out to be very effective. This can be seen in the example of the scene of Mitrofan’s examination, borrowed from Voltaire, but irreversibly Russified in processing.
In terms of their satirical orientation, Fonvizin’s images have much in common with the social mask-portraits of satirical journalism. Their fates were similar in the subsequent literary tradition. If the type of Fonvizin comedy as a whole was not repeated by anyone, then the hero-types received a long independent life.
At the end of the XVIII - early XIX V. New plays are composed from Fonvizin’s images; in the form of reminiscences, they end up in the most various works, right up to “Eugene Onegin” or Shchedrin’s satires. Long stage history comedies, which remained in the repertoire until the 1830s, turned Fonvizin’s heroes into household images and symbols.
Fonvizin's heroes are static. They leave the stage the same way they appeared. The clash between them does not change their characters. However, in the living journalistic fabric of the works, their actions acquired ambiguity that was not characteristic of the dramaturgy of classicism.
Already in the image of the Brigadier there are features that could not only make the viewer laugh, but also evoke his sympathy. The foreman is stupid, greedy, evil. But suddenly she turns into an unhappy woman who, with tears, tells the story of Captain Gvozdilova, so similar to her own fate. A similar stage technique is even stronger - evaluating a character with different points vision - carried out in the denouement of "Undergrowth".
The atrocities of the Prostakovs suffer a well-deserved punishment. An order comes from the authorities to take the estate into government custody. However, Fonvizin fills the external rather traditional denouement - vice is punished, virtue triumphs - with deep internal content.
The appearance of Pravdin with a decree in his hands resolves the conflict only formally. The viewer knew well that Peter's decree on guardianship over tyrant landowners was not applied in practice. In addition, he saw that Skotinin, Prostakova’s worthy brother in oppressing the peasants, remained completely unpunished.
He is just frightened by the thunderstorm that broke out over the Prostakovs’ house and safely retreats to his village. Fonvizin left the viewer in clear confidence that the Skotinins would only become more careful.
“The Minor” concludes with the famous words of Starodum: “Here are the fruits worthy of evil!” This remark refers not so much to Prostakova’s abdication from landowner power, but to the fact that everyone, even her beloved son, is abandoning her, deprived of power. Prostakova's drama is the final illustration of the fate of every person in a world of lawlessness: if you are not a tyrant, then you will find yourself a victim.
On the other side, last scene Fonvizin also emphasized the moral conflict of the play. A vicious person prepares his own inevitable punishment through his actions.
History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.
The immortal comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” was and remains one of the most relevant works of Russian classics. The breadth of views of the writer, his deep convictions about the benefits of education and enlightenment, were reflected in the creation of this brilliant work. We invite you to familiarize yourself with brief analysis works according to plan. This material can be used for work in a literature lesson in 8th grade, to prepare for the Unified State Exam.
Brief Analysis
Year of writing– 1782
History of creation– The writer’s idea for a comedy arose after returning from abroad, under the influence of the educational views of a foreign country.
Subject– The main theme of “Minor” is enlightenment and education, educating a new generation in the spirit of new trends of the times and political changes.
Composition- the comedy is built according to all the rules of the genre, three components are observed in it - the unity of action, place and time. Consists of five actions.
Genre– The play is a comedy, a bright and lively narrative that does not contain tragic episodes.
History of creation
In “The Minor,” the analysis of the work involves revealing the theme, the main idea of the comedy, its essence and idea.
First, let's define the meaning of the name. In the eighteenth century, the word “minor” meant a person who did not have an education document. Such a person was not accepted into the service and was not allowed to marry.
Fonvizin more than a year lived in France, deeply delving into its educational doctrines. He was occupied with all areas social life country, he delved into philosophy and jurisprudence. Much attention the writer paid theatrical productions, in particular, comedies.
When the writer returned to Russia, he came up with a plan for the comedy “Unorosl”, where the characters would receive meaningful surnames in order to more deeply express the meaning of the comedy. Work on the history of creation took the writer almost three years; it began in 1778, and the final year of writing was 1782.
Subject
Initially main theme comedy the topic of upbringing and education of the new generation was assumed; later, social issues were included in the problems of “Undergrowth” political problems, which directly related to the decree of Peter the Great prohibiting the service and marriage of noblemen - undergrowth.
The Prostakov family, which has the undergrown Mitrofanushka, has deep noble roots. In the first place for such Prostakovs is pride in their noble class, and they do not accept anything new and progressive. They do not need education at all, because serfdom They haven’t canceled it yet, and there is someone to work for them. Above all for the Prostakovs material well-being, greed and greed turns a blind eye to his son’s education, power and wealth are more important.
The family is the example on which a person grows and is educated. Mitrofanushka fully reflects the behavior and lifestyle of her despotic mother, but Mrs. Prostakova does not understand that she is the example for her son, and wonders why he does not show her due respect.
Revealing comedy problems, intrafamily conflict Prostakov, we come to the conclusion that everything depends on a person’s upbringing. A person’s attitude towards others depends only on a decent upbringing in the family. to strangers, his integrity and honesty. What the writer’s comedy teaches is education, respect for one’s neighbor, good manners and prudence.
Composition
The masterfully executed features of the composition allow you to become familiar with the main characters at the very beginning of the play. Already at the end of the first act the plot begins. Pravdin and Sophia immediately appear in the comedy. There is intrigue in the comedy - Sophia's rich dowry, which they learn about from Starodum's story, and the fight for her hand flares up.
In the next two acts, events develop rapidly, tension grows, the peak of which occurs in the fourth act, in which Prostakova comes up with the idea of kidnapping Sophia and forcefully marrying her to a minor.
Gradually, the development of the action begins to decline, and in the fifth act the comedy comes to a denouement. It becomes known about the unsuccessful abduction of Sophia. Pravdin accuses the Prostakovs of evil intentions and threatens punishment.
A paper arrives about the arrest of the Prostakovs' property, Sophia and Milon are about to leave, and Mitrofanushka is forced to join the soldiers.
Using such in your comedy artistic media as speaking names and surnames, the author gives a moral assessment to the characters, which does not raise any doubts about its justice. This is general characteristics comedies.
Main characters
Genre
Fonvizin's play is built according to the laws of classicism. Events take place during the day in one place. The comedic nature of the play is clearly expressed through sharp satire, mercilessly ridiculing the vices of society. The play also contains funny motifs, permeated with humor, and there are also sad ones, in which the landowner arrogantly mocks her serfs.
The writer was an ardent supporter of education; he understood that only comprehensive education and proper upbringing can help a person grow into a highly moral person and become a worthy citizen of his homeland. The institution of the family, where the foundations of human behavior are laid, should play a huge role in this.
Critics were enthusiastic about the comedy “The Minor,” calling it the pinnacle of Russian drama in the 18th century. All critics wrote that Fonvizin, with maximum accuracy and straightforwardness, described typical images and characteristics of society, which look caricatured and grotesque, but in fact, are simply taken from life and described from life. And in the modern world, comedy remains relevant: now in society there is also a large number of “Mitrofanushki”, for whom the meaning of life lies in material wealth, and education is given a minimal place.