What is the role of negative characters in the comedy undergrowth. Images of the positive heroes of the comedy “Minor”

Fonvizin’s contemporaries highly valued “Nedoroslya”; he delighted them not only with his amazing language, clarity of the author's civic position, innovation of form and content.

Features of the genre

In terms of genre, this work is a classic comedy, it complies with the requirements of “three unities” inherent in classicism (place, time, action), the heroes are divided into positive and negative, each of the heroes has its own role (“reasoner”, “villain”, etc.). etc.), however, there are also deviations from the requirements of classicist aesthetics, and serious deviations.So, the comedy was only supposed to amuse, it could not be interpreted in multiple meanings, there could be no ambiguity in it - and if we remember “The Minor”, ​​then we cannot help but admit that, raising the most important social issues of his time, the author resolves them by means far from comic: for example, at the end of the work, when, it would seem, “the vice is punished,” the viewer cannot help but sympathize with Mrs. Prostakova, who is rudely and cruelly pushed away by the ungrateful Mitrofanushka, preoccupied with his own fate: “ Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself..." - and the tragic element powerfully invades the comedy, which was unacceptable.. And with the "unity of action" everything is also not so simple in comedy, it has too much storylines, which do not “work” in any way to resolve the main conflict, but create a broad social background that determines the characters of the characters. Finally, Fonvizin’s innovation was reflected in the language of the comedy “The Minor”; the speech of the characters is very highly individualized, it contains folklorisms, vernacular, and high style (Starodum, Pravdin), which also violates the classic canons of creating speech characteristics of characters. We can, summing up, conclude that Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” became a truly innovative work for its time; the author pushed the boundaries of the aesthetics of classicism, subordinating it to the solution of the task set for himself: to angrily ridicule the vices of his contemporary society, to rid it of “evil morals” ", capable of destroying both the human soul and public morality.

Image system

Let us analyze the system of images of the comedy "The Minor", which, as required by the aesthetics of classicism, represents two directly opposite "camps" - positive and negative heroes. Here you can also notice a certain deviation from the canons; it manifests itself in the fact that it carries duality; it is almost impossible to classify them as purely positive or purely negative heroes. Let us remember one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers, Kuteikin. On the one hand, he suffers humiliation from Mrs. Prostakova and his student, on the other hand, he is not averse, if the opportunity arises, to “snatch his piece,” for which he is ridiculed. Or “Mitrofan’s mother” Eremeevna: she is reviled and humiliated by her mistress in every possible way, she humbly endures, but, forgetting herself, rushes to protect Mitrofanushka from her uncle, and does this not only out of fear of punishment...

The image of Prostakova in the comedy "Minor"

As already noted, Fonvizin innovatively portrays his main character- Mrs. Prostakova. From the very first scenes of the comedy, we are faced with a despot who does not want to reckon with anyone or anything. She rudely imposes her will on everyone, suppresses and humiliates not only the serfs, but also her husband (how can one not recall Mitrofan’s “dream in hand” about how “mother” beats “father”?..), she tyrannizes Sophia, she wants to force her to marry first her brother Taras Skotinin, and then, when it turns out that Sophia is now a rich bride, her son. Being herself an ignorant and uncultured person (with what pride she declares: “Read it yourself! No, madam, thank God, I was not brought up like that. I can receive letters, but I always tell someone else to read them!”), she despises education, although he tries to teach his son, he does this only because he wants to ensure his future, and what is Mitrofan’s “training” worth, as it is presented in the comedy? True, his mother is convinced: “Believe me, father, that, of course, it’s nonsense that Mitrofanushka doesn’t know”...

Mrs. Prostakova is characterized by cunning and resourcefulness, she stubbornly stands her ground and is convinced that “we will take ours” - and is ready to commit a crime, kidnap Sophia and, against her will, marry her to a man from the “Skotinin family.” When she meets resistance, she simultaneously tries to beg for forgiveness and promises punishment to those of her people, due to whose oversight the “enterprise” failed, in which Mitrofanushka is ready to actively support her: “Take it for people?” The “transformation” of Mrs. Prostakova is striking, who just on her knees humbly begged to forgive her, and, having received the petition, “jumping up from her knees”, fervently promises: “Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. I’ll take it one by one. Now I’ll find out who let her out of her hands. No, swindlers! I won’t forgive this mockery forever.” There is so much voluptuousness in this triple “now”, and how truly scary it becomes from her request: “Give me at least three days (Aside) I would make myself known...”.

However, as already noted, there is a certain duality in the image of Prostakova. She deeply and devotedly loves her son and is ready to do anything for him. Is she guilty of comparing her love for him to the love of a dog for puppies: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?”? We must not forget that she is from the Skotinin-Priplodin family, where such half-animal love was the only possible one, how could she be different? So she disfigures Mitrofan’s soul with her blind love, her son pleases her in every possible way, and she is happy because he “loves” her... Until he throws her away from him, because now he doesn’t need her, and even those people who just condemned Mrs. Prostakova sympathize with her in her maternal grief...

Image of Mitrofan

The image of Mitrofan was created by Fonvizin also not quite traditionally. The “minor” who likes to be “small” and who diligently takes advantage of his mother’s attitude toward him is not as simple and stupid as it might seem at first glance. He has learned to use his parents' love for himself for his own benefit, he knows well how to achieve his goal, he is convinced that he has the right to everything he wants. Mitrofanushka's selfishness is driving force his actions, but in the hero there is cruelty (remember his remark about “people”), resourcefulness (what is his discussion about the “door”), and a lordly contempt for people, including his mother, with whom he, on occasion, looking for help and protection. And his attitude towards education is so dismissive only because he does not see any real benefit from it. Probably, when he “serves”, he - if it is beneficial - will change his attitude towards education, potentially he is ready for anything: “For me, wherever they tell me.” Consequently, the image of Mitrofan in the comedy “Minor” is also characterized by a certain psychologism, as well as the image of Prostakova, which is Fonvizin’s innovative approach to creating negative images, who were only supposed to be "villains".

Positive images

The playwright is more traditional in creating positive images. Each of them is an expression of a certain idea, and as part of the statement of this idea, an image-character is created. Almost positive images are devoid of individual traits; they are images-ideas inherent in classicism; Sophia, Milon, Starodum, Pravdin are not living people, but exponents of a “certain type of consciousness”; they represent a system of views that was advanced for their time on the relationship between spouses, the social structure, the essence human personality and human dignity.

Image of Starodum

During the time of Fonvizin special sympathy The audience was evoked by the image of Starodum in the comedy "The Minor". Already in the very “talking” surname of the character, the author emphasized the opposition of “century this century to the past": in Starodum they saw a man of the era of Peter I, when "In that century, courtiers were warriors, but warriors were not courtiers." Starodum's thoughts about education, about the ways in which a person can achieve glory and prosperity, about what kind of sovereign should be warm response from a significant part of the audience who shared the progressive beliefs of the author of the comedy, while special sympathy for the image of the hero was caused by the fact that he did not just proclaim these progressive ideas - according to the play it turned out that he own life proved the correctness and benefit of such behavior for a person. The image of Starodum was the ideological center around which the positive heroes of the comedy united, opposing the dominance of the morality of the Skotinins and Prostakovs.

Image of Pravdin

Pravdin, a government official, embodies the idea of ​​statehood, which protects the interests of education and the people, which seeks to actively change life for the better. Guardianship of Prostakova's estate, which Pravdin appoints by the will of the empress, gives hope that the ruler of Russia is able to stand up for the protection of those of her subjects who most need this protection, and the determination with which Pravdin carries out the reforms should have convinced the viewer, that the highest authorities are interested in improving the lives of the people. But how then can we understand Starodum’s words in response to Pravdin’s call to serve at court: “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”? It is likely that behind Pravdin stood the System, which confirmed its reluctance and inability to carry out real reforms, and Starodum represented himself, an individual person, in the play, and explained why the image of Starodum was perceived by the audience with much more sympathy than the image of the “ideal official” .

Milon and Sophia

The love story of Milon and Sophia is a typically classic love story of two noble heroes, each of which has high moral qualities, that’s why their relationship looks so artificial, although, against the backdrop of Skotinin’s attitude towards the same Sophia (“You are my dear friend! If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a bright one for my wife”) and in fact represents an example of the high feeling of moral, educated, worthy young people, contrasted with the “fertility” of negative heroes.

The meaning of the comedy "Minor"

Pushkin called Fonvizin “a brave ruler of satire,” and the comedy “Minor,” which we analyzed, fully confirms this assessment of the writer’s work. In it, Fonvizin’s author’s position is expressed completely unambiguously, the writer defends the ideas of enlightened absolutism, he does this in highest degree talented, creating convincing artistic images, significantly expanding the scope of the aesthetics of classicism, taking an innovative approach to the plot of the work, to the creation of images-characters, some of which are not just an expression of certain socio-political ideas, but have a pronounced psychological individuality, expressing the inconsistency of human nature. All this explains the enormous significance of Fonvizin’s work and the comedy “Nedorosl” for Russian literature XVIII century, the success of the work among his contemporaries and his significant influence on the subsequent development of Russian drama.

In 1782 he finished work on his best work - the comedy “The Minor” - D. I. Fonvizin.

Written in accordance with the traditions of classicism, it nevertheless became innovative for its time. This was also reflected in the issues (the author makes you think about the issues of education, government structure, public and family relations), and in the depiction of heroes. Despite the fact that the comedy “Minor” has positive and negative heroes clearly demarcated, the reader’s (or viewer’s) attitude towards them is not always clear. Let's try to figure it out: why?

Classical traditions in the work

Let's start with the fact that in Fonvizin's comedy the unity of time (day) and place (the Prostakov estate) is noted. love triangle and the presence of a reasoner, speaking surnames. The main characters are grouped around Starodum and Prostakova, the secondary ones are adjacent to one or the other. This is how groups are formed: the young uneducated nobleman Mitrofanushka - he is the ignoramus - positive and negative heroes, distinguished by moral beliefs, attitude towards others, speech, etc.

“I scold, then I fight...”

The phrase uttered by Prostakova fully characterizes the characters who evoke a negative assessment. The powerful (up to a certain point) owner of the estate is the main negative character.

“The Minor” is a parody of what happened in many noble families who were not distinguished by intelligence and literacy, but had money and power. Mrs. Prostakova reigns supreme over the entire house - even her weak-willed husband is afraid of her. “Fraudster”, “blockhead”, “grunt”, “scoundrel” and so on. - this is her usual appeal to others. She only calls her son “darling” and makes it clear that she does everything for his happiness. Prostakova is an uneducated and evil person who perfectly senses the situation. She knows who is not worth a penny, and who should smile and please.

As the action in the comedy “The Minor” develops, positive and negative characters are characterized from different sides. So, we learn Prostakova’s life story from her communication with Starodum. She inherited all of hers from equally ignorant parents. In turn, she instilled them in her beloved Mitrofanushka.

Not much different from sister Skotinin. Fonvizin almost completely deprived this hero of his human appearance. And the surname sounds like it’s not human, and the only hobby that turns into a passion is pigs, and the vocabulary is appropriate. And when it comes to marriage, dear nephew, who also wants to grab the rich inheritance of the bride, turns into a rival for him.

Mitrofanushka is a negative hero

Minor - this was the name in Russia for a young underage nobleman who had not yet entered the service. It is at this age that Mitrofanushka is - “like his mother.” He is as illiterate, rude, two-faced, cunning as Prostakova. Moreover, he is lazy, contemptuous of all sciences and teachers, but at the same time has fully mastered the laws of immorality, deception, and the ability to please. He had already fully experienced the taste of power that his position gave him. Mitrofanushka even treats his father as an insignificant person, as evidenced by his “dream”. However, it can be noted that the undergrowth will go further than its mother. In this regard, the behavior of the hero in final scene, when he rather rudely pushes her away with the words: “Get off, mother, how you imposed yourself...”. By the way, it was after Fonvizin’s comedy that the word “minor” acquired a general meaning with a negative assessment.

Antipodes of the Prostakovs - positive heroes

“Minor” is distinguished by a clearly defined author’s assessment historical events late XYIII century. The image of Starodum plays a significant role in this. This is a sixty-year-old husband who at one time made a small fortune with his own labor while working in Siberia. Then he fought, and after retirement he served at court. As a fair man who has seen a lot, he gives a not entirely unflattering description of officials, public relations. Special attention Starodum emphasized the need to serve the Fatherland and emphasized the role of education. It is no coincidence that many of his statements, for example, “Have a heart, have a soul, and you will be a man...” immediately became aphorisms.

There were other positive heroes - “The Minor” in this regard strictly adheres to traditions. This is the Moscow official Pravdin (he came to expose evil), Starodum’s niece and heiress Sophia, who for a long time experienced oppression in Prostakova’s house, a young officer who dreamed of devoting his life to the Fatherland, Milon. Their statements and actions further expose the vices of people like the Prostakovs and Skotinin. They have practically no disadvantages, so they can be called

Thus, in the comedy “The Minor” they are positive and play a strictly defined role. The first expose evil and cruelty, and their speeches affirm the principles of justice. public order. The latter embody the most common human vices: ignorance, despotism, selfishness, confidence in one’s own superiority, etc.

Author's innovation

Despite all its compliance with traditions, the comedy had a number of differences from its predecessors. Commitment to realism is something new that Fonvizin introduced into the play. “The Minor,” whose characters are shown vividly and multifaceted, is distinguished by its desire for typification. What happened in the Prostakov family is viewed through the prism of the social order and makes one think about such issues as serf rule in the state and the importance of education. As a result, we are talking about a violation of the trinity as one of the requirements of classicism.

It also becomes unexpected that in the finale the reader sympathizes with the cruel Prostakova, who has become a victim of her own evil nature. Against this background, the words of Starodum sound even more eloquent: “Have a heart, have a soul, and you will be a man at all times,” which do not lose their relevance today.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the most prominent literary figures of the 18th century. His love for theater began in his youth, and the talent of the future playwright was noticed by his high school teachers. Over time, Fonvizin’s educational views deepened, his desire to intervene with his works in the very thick of Russian events grew stronger. public life. Fonvizin is rightfully considered the creator of Russian socio-political comedy. His famous play “” turned the Prostakovs’ estate into a center of vices, “the evil of worthy fruits,” which the playwright denounces with his characteristic slander, sarcasm, and irony.

“Minor” is a multi-themed work.

Here questions are raised about the unwavering fulfillment of “duty” by every citizen, about the nature of family relationships in the author’s contemporary Russia, about the system of upbringing and education. But the main ones, undoubtedly, are the problems of serfdom and state power.

In the very first act we find ourselves in an atmosphere of landowner tyranny. Trishka sewed Mitrofan’s caftan “pretty well,” but this does not save him from scolding and flogging. The old nanny Mitrofana Eremeevna is immensely devoted to her masters, but receives from them “five rubles a year and five slaps a day.” Prostakova is outraged by the fact that the serf girl Palashka, having fallen ill, lies there “as if she were noble.” The arbitrariness of the landowners led to the complete impoverishment of the peasants. “Since we took away everything the peasants had, we can’t take anything back. Such a disaster! - Prostakova complains. But the landowners know for sure that they are protected by the entire system of state power. It was the social structure of Russia that allowed the Prostakovs and Skotinins to dispose of their estates in their own way.

Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin emphasizes the “bestial” essence of Prostakova and her brother. Even Vralman thinks that, living with the Prostakovs, he is “a fairy with horses.” Mitrofan will be no better. The author does not simply expose his “knowledge” in the sciences and his reluctance to learn to ridicule. Fonvizin sees that the same cruel serf owner lives inside him.

A huge influence on the formation of people like Mitrofan, according to the author, is exerted not only by the general situation in noble estates, but also by the adopted system of education and upbringing. The education of young nobles was carried out by ignorant foreigners. What could Mitrofan learn from the coachman Vralman? Could such nobles become the backbone of the state?

Group goodies in the play it is represented by the images of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia. For a writer of the era of classicism, it was extremely important not only to show social vices, but also to identify the ideal to which one should strive. On the one hand, Fonvizin denounces government regulations, on the other hand, the author gives a kind of instruction on what a ruler and society should be like. Starodum sets out the patriotic views of the best part of the nobility and expresses topical political thoughts. By introducing into the play the scene of Prostakova’s deprivation of her master’s rights, Fonvizin suggests to the audience and the government one of the possible ways to suppress the arbitrariness of the landowners. Let us note that this step of the writer was met with disapproval by Catherine II, who directly made the writer feel this.

The Empress could not help but see in the comedy “The Minor” a sharp satire on the most terrible vices empires.

Fonvizin’s sarcasm was also reflected in the work entitled “General Court Grammar,” compiled in the form of a textbook. The writer gives apt descriptions of court morals and reveals the vices of representatives of the upper class. Calling his grammar “universal,” Fonvizin emphasized that these features are characteristic of monarchical rule in general. He calls the courtiers flatterers, sycophants, and scoundrels. The satirist divides people living at court into “vowels,” “voiceless,” and “half-vowels,” and considers the most common verb to be “to owe,” although debts are not paid at court.

Catherine never saw submission from Fonvizin, and therefore his works soon stopped appearing in print. But Russia knew them because they were on the lists. And the satirist entered the consciousness of his generation as a bold exposer of the vices of society. No wonder Pushkin called him a “friend of freedom”, and Herzen put the comedy “The Minor” on a par with “ Dead souls» Gogol.

Fonvizin's satirical and dramatic successes are closely related to his social and political activity“Life teaches only those who study it,” wrote V. Klyuchevsky, and he was absolutely right. First life teaches us, then we teach others

Real recognition of his dramatic talent came to Fonvizin with the creation of the comedy “The Brigadier” in 1768-1769. It was the result of the search for Russian original comedy that the members of the Elagin circle lived, and at the same time carried new, deeply innovative principles of dramatic art in general . Proclaimed in France, in the theoretical treatises of D. Diderot, these principles contributed to the rapprochement of theater with reality

Already from the raising of the curtain, the viewer found himself immersed in a setting that amazed with the reality of life. In a peaceful picture of home comfort, everything is significant and at the same time everything is natural - the rustic decoration of the room, the clothes of the characters, their activities, and even individual touches of behavior. All this corresponded to the scenic innovations of the Diderot theater .

But there was one significant one that shared the creative positions of the two playwrights: Diderot’s theater theory, born on the eve of the French bourgeois revolution, reflected the tastes and demands of the third-class viewer, asserting in its own way the importance of the average person, those moral ideals, which were generated by the modest way of life of a simple worker. This was an innovative step that entailed a revision of many traditional, previously recognized as unshakable, ideas about the function of theater and the boundaries of artistry.

Fonvizin could not, naturally, mechanically follow the program of Diderot’s plays for the reason that the moral conflicts of Diderot’s dramaturgy were not supported by the real conditions of Russian social life. He adopted Diderot’s requirement of fidelity to nature, but subordinated this artistic principle for other tasks Center of gravity ideological issues in Fonvizin's comedy he moved into a satirical and accusatory plane.

A retired Brigadier arrives at the Advisor's house with his wife and son Ivan, whom his parents are wooing for the owner's daughter Sophia. She herself loves the poor nobleman Dobrolyubov, but no one takes her feelings into account. “So if God blesses, then the wedding will be on the twenty-sixth” - with these words from Sophia’s father the play begins

All the characters in "The Brigadier" are Russian nobles. In the modest, everyday atmosphere of Central Moscow life, the personality of each character appears as if gradually in conversations. Gradually, from action to action, the spiritual interests of the characters are revealed from different sides, and step by step the originality of the artistic solutions found by Fonvizin is revealed in his innovative play.

The conflict between a virtuous, intelligent girl and a stupid groom, traditional for the comedy genre, is complicated by one circumstance.

He recently visited Paris and is full of contempt for everything that surrounds him at home, including his parents. “Anyone who has been to Paris,” he confesses, “has the right, when speaking about Russians, not to include himself and the number of those then that he has already become more French than Russian." Ivan’s speech is replete with French words pronounced at the right time and inappropriately. The only person with whom he finds a common language is the Advisor, who grew up reading romance novels and going crazy for everything French.

The absurd behavior of the newly-minted “Parisian” and the Advisor, who is delighted with him, suggests that the basis of the ideological concept in the comedy is the denunciation of gallomania. With their idle chatter and newfangled mannerisms, they seem to be opposing Ivan’s parents and the Advisor, who are wise from life experience. However, the fight against gallomania is only part of the accusatory program that feeds the satirical pathos of “The Brigadier.” Ivan’s kinship with all the other characters is revealed by the playwright in the first act, where they speak out about the dangers of grammar; each of them considers the study of grammar unnecessary, and she has nothing to do with the ability to achieve ranks and wealth doesn't add

This new chain of revelations, revealing the intellectual horizons of the main characters of the comedy, leads us to an understanding of the main idea of ​​the play. In an environment where mental apathy and lack of spirituality reign, familiarization with European culture turns out to be an evil caricature of enlightenment. The moral squalor of Ivan, proud of his contempt for his compatriots, matches the spiritual ugliness of the rest, for their morals and way of thinking are, in essence, just as base

And what is important, in comedy this idea is revealed not declaratively, but through the means of psychological self-disclosure of the characters. If earlier the tasks of comedic satire were thought mainly in terms of bringing to the stage a personified vice, for example, “stinginess”, “evil tongue”, “bragging”, now under the pen Fonvizin's content of vices is socially concretized. The satirical bombast of Sumarokov's "comedy of characters" gives way to a comically pointed study of the mores of society. And this is the main meaning of Fonvizin's "Brigadier"

The success of "Brigadier" put Fonvizin among the most famous writers of his time, the head of the educational camp of Russian literature of the 1760s, N. I. Novikov, praised the new comedy of the young author in his satirical magazine “Drone”. In collaboration with Novikov, Fonvizin finally defines his place in literature as a satirist and publicist. It is no coincidence that in his other magazine , “Painter” for 1772, Novikov will place Fonvizin’s sharpest satirical “Letters to Falals”, as well as “Word on the recovery of His Highness the Tsarevich and Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich in 1771” - an essay in which, within the genre of official panegyric, addressed to the heir to the throne, the practice of favoritism and self-aggrandizement adopted by Catherine II was exposed. In these writings, the outlines of the ideological program and creative guidelines that later determined artistic originality“Minor” For example, in “A Word for Recovery” the prerequisites for the political program are already stated, which Fonvizin would later develop in the famous “Discourse on Indispensable State Laws” “The love of the people is the true glory of sovereigns Be a ruler over your passions and almost that he will not can control others with glory, who cannot control himself "As it turns out later, the pathos of reflection positive characters“The Minor” by Starodum and Pravdin is largely fueled by the ideas embodied in the above-mentioned works

Fonvizin's interest in political journalism was not accidental. In December 1769, while remaining an official of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, Fonvizin, at the suggestion of Count N.I. Panin, went into his service, becoming the secretary of Chancellor I for almost 13 years, until his retirement in 1782 , Fonvizin remained Panin’s closest assistant, enjoying his unlimited trust

The autumn of 1772 was approaching. But transferring the throne to her son was not part of the empress’s plans. Having postponed the celebration of Paul’s coming of age for a year under the pretext of his upcoming marriage, Catherine managed to get out of the difficult situation. In September 1773, the wedding took place. From now on, a limit was put on Panin’s influence on the heir, for with marriage the upbringing was considered completed. The campaign of political intrigue, which Fonvizin had to observe on the eve of the Tsarevich’s marriage, again forced him to face the mores of court life. “It is unnecessary to describe the depravity here,” he said in a letter to his sister in August 1773. “No stingy order contains such partisan intrigues, what happens in our yard all the time"

The comedy "The Minor" is rightly considered the pinnacle of Fonvizin's creativity and all Russian drama of the 18th century. While maintaining connections with the worldview of classicism, the comedy became a deeply innovative work.
The play ridicules vices (rudeness, cruelty, stupidity, lack of education, greed), which, according to the author, require immediate correction. The problem of education is central to the ideas of the Enlightenment and is the main one in Fonvizin’s comedy, which is emphasized by its name. (Minor - a young nobleman, a teenager who received home education).
The rule of three unities is also observed in comedy. The action of the play takes place in the estate of Mrs. Prostakova (unity of place). The unity of time also seems to be present. Unity of action presupposes the subordination of the action of the play to the author's task, in in this case- solution to the problem of true education. In the comedy, the unenlightened (Prostakova, Skotinin, Prostakov, Mitrofanushka) are contrasted with the educated (Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin, Milon) characters.
This is where the adherence to the traditions of classicism ends. What was the innovation of comedy? For Fonvizin, unlike the classicists, it was important not only to pose the problem of education, but also to show how circumstances (conditions) influence the formation of an individual’s character. This significantly distinguishes comedy from works of classicism. In "Nedorosl" the foundations were laid for a realistic reflection of reality in Russian fiction. The author reproduces the atmosphere of landowner tyranny, exposes the greed and cruelty of the Prostakovs, the impunity and ignorance of the Skotinins. In his comedy about education, he raises the problem of serfdom, its corrupting influence on both the people and the nobles.

Unlike the works of classicism, where the action developed in accordance with the solution of one problem, "The Minor" is a multi-dimensional work. Its main problems are closely related to each other: the problem of education - with the problems of serfdom and state power. To expose vices, the author uses such techniques as speaking surnames, self-exposure of negative characters, and subtle irony on the part of positive characters. In the mouths of positive heroes, Fonvizin puts criticism of the “depraved age,” idle nobles and ignorant landowners. The theme of service to the fatherland and the triumph of justice is also conveyed through positive images.

The common meaning of the surname Starodum (Fonvizin’s favorite hero) emphasizes his commitment to the ideals of the old, Peter the Great times. Starodum's monologues are aimed (in accordance with the tradition of classicism) at educating those in power, including the empress. Thus, the scope of reality in comedy is unusually wide compared to strictly classic works.

The system of comedy images is also innovative. Characters However, they are traditionally divided into positive and negative. But Fonvizin goes beyond classicism, introducing characters from the lower class into the play. These are serfs, slaves (Eremeevna, Trishka, teachers Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin).

What was also new was Fonvizin’s attempt to give at least a brief background to the characters, to reveal different faces the characters of some of them. Thus, the evil, cruel serfwoman Prostakova in the finale becomes an unhappy mother, rejected by her own son. She even evokes our sympathy.

Fonvizin's innovation was also evident in the creation of the characters' speech. It is clearly individualized and serves as a means of characterizing them. Thus, formally following the rules of classicism, Fonvizin’s comedy turns out to be a deeply innovative work. This was the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage, and Fonvizin was the first playwright to present not a character prescribed by the laws of classicism, but a living human image.

As was customary in classicism, the heroes of the comedy “The Minor” are clearly divided into negative and positive. However, the most memorable and striking are the negative characters, despite their despotism and ignorance: Mrs. Prostakova, her brother Taras Skotinin and Mitrofan himself. They are interesting and ambiguous. It is with them that comic situations are associated, full of humor, and bright liveliness of dialogues.

Positive characters do not evoke such vivid emotions, although they are sounding boards that reflect author's position. Educated, endowed only positive features, they are ideal - they cannot commit lawlessness, lies and cruelty are alien to them.

Let us describe each of the characters in more detail: