The original idea of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” was to reveal the theme of education, which was very relevant in the Age of Enlightenment; a little later, socio-political issues were added to the work.
The title of the play is directly related to the decree of Peter the Great, who banned the ability of young uneducated noblemen to serve and marry.
History of creation
The first manuscripts of sketches of “The Minor” date back to approximately 1770. To write the play, Fonvizin had to rework many works with the corresponding ideological content - the works of Russian and foreign modern writers (Voltaire, Rousseau, Lukin, Chulkov, etc.), articles from satirical magazines and even comedies written by Empress Catherine II herself. Work on the text was completely completed in 1781. A year later, after some obstacles from censorship, the first production of the play took place, with Fonvizin himself being the director, and the first publication of the play took place in 1773.
Description of the work
Action 1
The scene begins with a heated discussion of the caftan made for Mitrofanushka. Mrs. Prostakova scolds her tailor Trishka and Prostakov supports her in her desire to punish the careless servant. The situation is saved by the appearance of Skotinin, he justifies the unfortunate tailor. What follows is a comical scene with Mitrofanushka - he reveals himself to be an infantile young man, and also very fond of eating heartily.
Skotinin discusses with the Prostakov couple the prospects of his marriage with Sofyushka. The girl’s only relative, Starodum, unexpectedly sends news of Sophia’s acquisition of an impressive inheritance. Now the young lady has no end to suitors - now the “minor” Mitrofan appears on the list of candidates for husbands.
Act 2
Among the soldiers staying in the village, by chance, turns out to be Sofyushka’s fiancé, officer Milon. He turns out to be a good acquaintance of Pravdin, an official who came to deal with the lawlessness happening on the Prostakov estate. During a chance meeting with his beloved, Milon learns about Prostakova’s plans to arrange the fate of her son by marrying a now wealthy girl. What follows is a quarrel between Skotinin and Mitrofan over the future bride. Teachers Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin appear, they share with Pravdin the details of their appearance in the Prostakovs’ house.
Act 3
Arrival of Starodum. Pravdin is the first to meet Sophia’s relative and reports to him about the atrocities happening in the Prostakovs’ house in relation to the girl. The entire owner's family and Skotinin greet Starodum with hypocritical joy. The uncle’s plans are to take Sofiushka to Moscow and marry her off. The girl submits to the will of her relative, not knowing that he chose Milon to be her husband. Prostakova begins to praise Mitrofanushka as a diligent student. After everyone has left, the remaining teachers Tsyfirkin and Kuteikin discuss the laziness and mediocrity of their underage student. At the same time, they accuse the rogue, Starodum’s former groom, Vralman, of hindering the learning process of the already stupid Mitrofanushka with his dense ignorance.
Act 4
Starodum and Sofyushka are having a conversation about high moral principles and family values - true love between spouses. After a conversation with Milo, making sure of the young man’s high moral qualities, the uncle blesses his niece to marry her lover. What follows is a comical scene in which the unlucky suitors Mitrofanushka and Skotinin are shown in a very unfavorable light. Having learned about the departure of the happy couple, the Prostakov family decides to intercept Sophia on the way out.
Action 5
Starodum and Pravdin are having pious conversations, hearing a noise, they interrupt the conversation and soon learn about the attempt to kidnap the bride. Pravdin accuses the Prostakovs of this crime and threatens them with punishment. Prostakova begs Sophia's forgiveness on her knees, but as soon as she receives it, she immediately accuses the servants of being slow in kidnapping the girl. A government document arrives announcing the transfer of all the Prostakovs’ property to Pravdin’s custody. The scene of paying off debts to teachers ends with a fair denouement - Vralman’s deception is revealed, the modest hard worker Tsyfirkin is generously rewarded, and the ignorant Kuteikin is left with nothing. The happy young people and Starodum are preparing to leave. Mitrofanushka heeds Pravdin’s advice to join the army.
Main characters
Considering the images of the main characters, it is worth noting that the speaking surnames of the characters in the play express the one-linearity of their character and leave no doubt about the author’s moral assessment of the characters in the comedy.
The sovereign mistress of the estate, a despotic and ignorant woman who believes that all matters, without exception, can be solved with the help of force, money or deception.
His image is the focus of stupidity and lack of education. He has an amazing lack of will and unwillingness to make decisions himself. Mitrofanushka was called a minor not only because of his age, but also because of his total ignorance and low level of moral and civic education.
A kind, sympathetic girl who received a good education and has a high level of internal culture. Lives with the Prostakovs after the death of his parents. She is devoted to her fiancé, officer Milon, with all her heart.
A person who personifies the truth of life and the word of the law. As a government official, he is on the Prostakov estate in order to understand the lawlessness happening there, in particular the unfair treatment of servants.
Sophia's only relative, her uncle and guardian. A successful person who managed to bring his highly moral principles to life.
Sophia's beloved and long-awaited groom. A brave and honest young officer distinguished by high virtue.
A narrow-minded, greedy, uneducated person who does not disdain anything for the sake of profit and is distinguished by deceit and hypocrisy to a high degree.
Comedy Analysis
“The Minor” by Fonvizin is a classic comedy in 5 acts, in which all three unities are strictly observed - the unity of time, place and action.
The solution to the problem of education is the central point of the dramatic action of this satirical play. The accusatory sarcastic scene of Mitrofanushka's exam is a true culmination in the development of the educational theme. In Fonvizin's comedy, there is a collision of two worlds - each of them with different ideals and needs, with different lifestyles and speech dialects.
The author innovatively shows the life of the landowners of that time, the relationship between the owners and ordinary peasant people. The complex psychological characteristics of the characters gave impetus to the subsequent development of Russian everyday comedy as a theatrical and literary genre of the era of classicism.
Hero Quotes
Mitrofanushka- “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”;
— “The direct dignity in man is the soul” and many others.
Prostakova — « People live and lived without sciences"
Final conclusion
Fonvizin's comedy became a unique iconic work for his contemporaries. In the play there is a vivid contrast between high moral principles, real education and laziness, ignorance and waywardness. In the socio-political comedy “The Minor,” three themes rise to the surface:
- the topic of education and upbringing;
- theme of serfdom;
- the theme of condemnation of despotic autocratic power.
The purpose of writing this brilliant work is clear - the eradication of ignorance, the cultivation of virtues, the fight against the vices that have afflicted Russian society and the state.
Outwardly remaining within the confines of an everyday comedy, offering the viewer a number of everyday scenes, Fonvizin in “The Minor” 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 teaching, but about “education” in the broad sense of the word that is usual for Fonvizin. 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 other characters and demonstrate that during this time nothing has changed in the world of the Prostakovs. The story of Mitrofan’s upbringing explains where the Skotinins come from and what needs to be changed so that they do not appear in the future: to destroy slavery and overcome the “bestial” vices of human nature with moral education.
In "The Minor" not only the positive characters outlined in "The Brigadier" are developed, but also a deeper image of social evil is 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 conveyed 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 of the dark sides of reality to the 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 participate 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 general feature of his dramaturgy - 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 of generalization, 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, empiricism, which Fonvizin resorted to, is not an 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 confidante. Most often, individualizing traits are manifested not in stage behavior, but in Fonvizin’s favorite linguistic characteristic. Fonvizin's negative characters usually speak professional and secular jargon or crude 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 in the subsequent literary tradition were similar. 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 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. New plays are composed from Fonvizin’s images; in the form of reminiscences, they end up in a variety of works, right up to “Eugene Onegin” or Shchedrin’s satires. The long stage history of 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. An even stronger similar stage technique - assessing the character from different points of view - was carried out in the denouement of "The Minor".
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 hand, with the last scene Fonvizin 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.
According to genre criteria, “The Minor” is a comedy. The theory of classicism argued that comedy should not have serious or sad content: it should only be funny and “intricate”, for which Boileau demanded: “Let the actor always joke nobly in it.” Already in his “Brigadier” Fonvizin does not fully comply with these rules. Thus, in the conversation between the Brigadier and Dobrolyubov and Sofia, the difficult and gloomy story of Captain Gvozdilova is conveyed.
The comedy “The Minor” is even more serious, although everyone in it tries to be funny, even the good characters.
Laughter in "Nedorosl"
Firstly, Fonvizin departs from classicism in that the negative faces of comedy, according to Klyuchevsky, “are comical, but not funny - comical as roles, and not at all funny as people.” Fonvizin’s laughter in “The Minor” is varied in shades. The play contains scenes of the simplest, purely external comedy, which is used by farces. These are, for example, the places where Vralman appears with his broken tongue. Quite often, the laughter in “The Minor” has the character of humor, when the funny is combined with sadness or pity. So, in the “trying on a caftan” scene, the tailor Trishka gives Prostakova a smart answer; however, for the lady, this capable guy is a slave and therefore only a “blockhead.” In relation to Prostakova, Skotinin, Mitrofan, Fonvizin’s laughter sounds accusatory, satirical, evoking a burning feeling of indignation against these stupid and ignorant, vile and inhumanly cruel gentlemen of the life of that time. Thus, the impact of “The Minor” on the audience “is made up of two opposing elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy reflection upon leaving it.”
The presence of goodies
Secondly, Fonvizin introduced positive characters into the comedy. In "The Minor" not only vices are exposed, but virtue is also praised. Moreover, its bearers (Starodum and others) are just as ordinary people as Prostakova, only good people. At the same time, the scenes of Starodum’s meetings with Sophia and Milon are also designed to create a touching impression. In all this, Fonvizin departs from the examples of classic comedy.
Using "low and dirty words"
Thirdly, the “noble tone” of jokes and witticisms, which is obligatory for the comedies of classicism, is not observed in “The Minor” (as before in Sumarokov’s comedies). Fonvizin is not afraid of “low and dirty words”, rude and even vulgar scenes. Prostakova’s comparison of her love for her son with the affection of a “bitch” for “puppies” or the scene of an altercation and fight between teachers would have horrified Boileau. But the rude words and scenes in “The Minor” are a realistic reflection of the rudeness and ignorance of the depicted environment, and this alone justifies their presence. In addition, they bring Fonvizin’s comedy closer to the “area” ones, i.e. folk, performances and take her out of the circle of the noble-class theater.
Character Revealing
Fonvizin the satirist and Fonvizin the moralist in “The Minor” are united by Fonvizin the artist, which is especially clear in the way character is revealed in his comedy. Techniques for revealing character in “The Minor” formally come from classicism. The division of heroes into positive and negative is schematic. The one-sidedness of the characters is emphasized by “meaningful” names. The names of the nobles indicate their moral qualities: Prostakovs, Skotinins, Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia (in Greek - wisdom); the surnames of the remaining persons, not nobles, hint at their social status or profession: Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin. Characters are unchanged: a negative face cannot become positive and vice versa, which gives the comedy faces a certain “mask-like” quality.
However, Fonvizin is not limited to such a conditionally generalized image of people. He strives to show them as living, “acting”, and not just speaking persons. The playwright achieves this: 1) by depicting everyday life, 2) by deepening psychology and 3) by natural speech.
Depiction of everyday life in "Nedorosl"
1) The depiction of everyday life begins with the first scene of “The Minor” (trying on a caftan), and throughout the play unfolds as a true everyday picture of a landowner’s family: Mitrofan’s lesson, family scandal, etc. This picture does not include only positive faces, but they are placed next to it and, as it were, explain it. A wide everyday background gives the author the opportunity to show people in various relationships, from different sides, at different moments in life. People are revealed along with the social environment that gave birth to them. In Prostakova’s reminiscences about “father” and “uncle,” even the past of this environment is outlined - a realistic technique later developed by Pushkin, who showed Onegin’s father, Tatyana’s parents, etc.
Deepening Psychology
2) The deepening of psychology in Fonvizin is expressed, first of all, in the development of details that emphasize the main feature of a particular person, i.e. along the lines of the principles of classicism. For example, at the end of the play, Prostakova begged for forgiveness on her knees, but, true to her “evil nature,” she herself cannot forgive the servants for the failure of Sophia’s abduction: “I forgave! Ah, father!.. Well! now I’ll give the dawn to my people.” But besides this, the image of Prostakova, as we have seen, is psychologically complicated by a new feature: love for her son. In the finale, she is a suffering mother (and not just an “inhuman madam”), she even evokes sympathy, i.e. ceases to be only a negative character in the eyes of the viewer.
The schematic division of characters into “positive” and “negative” did not extend to the image of Eremeevna; It is no coincidence that her common Russian name does not have a “meaningful” meaning in itself.
Using stage directions
One of the means of psychological characterization is Fonvizin's stage directions. Typically, in classicist plays, stage directions only indicated the arrival or departure of a character. The stage directions in “Nedorosl” mark the psychological state of the person at the moment. For example, the pale image of Sophia is somewhat enlivened by the explanations “holding a letter in her hand and looking cheerful,” “throwing herself into his arms,” “quietly to Starodum and in great timidity,” etc. The remarks relating to Prostakova are extremely varied.
Speech of the characters
3) The speech of characters in a dramatic work, as is known, is one of the most important means of characterization. The naturalness of the speech of the characters in “The Minor” (its correspondence with the social status of the speakers, their characters and experiences) has long been rightly recognized as amazing. In connection with the basic “classical” division of persons into negative and positive, in the language of “Nedoroslya” two speech streams are clearly distinguished: colloquial and bookish.
The colloquial speech of the Prostakovs, Skotinins and other “comical persons” is sharply individualized. Almost every phrase emphasizes the main features of the speaker. For example, Skotinin explains to his sister the need for his marriage: “I want to have my own piglets.” Kuteikin’s speech, peppered with Slavicisms and quotations from the Bible, reveals at every step that this is a former seminarian: “You have been put to shame, you damned one.” Tsyfirkin is a retired soldier, and speaks like a soldier: “The gentlemen here are good commanders.” Vralman's language is an example of an even more specific speech mask. Such direct correspondence of speech to the character or social status of the character did not in itself contradict the rational principles of classicism. But since the consequence of this was the dismemberment and individualization of the characters, this technique contained the possibilities of realistic display, and Fonvizin masterfully used these opportunities.
The tone of the speakers depends on the psychological circumstances of the speech. Prostakova's tone is especially varied. She speaks rudely to everyone at home, but gently to Mitrofan, ingratiatingly to Starodum, etc. This is how, for example, Prostakova addresses Sophia before the news of wealth: “No, madam, these are your inventions.” After Sophia became a rich bride, Prostakova talks to her differently: “Congratulations, Sophia, congratulations, my soul.”
The vitality of the language of the negative persons of “Undergrowth” appears in the abundance of proverbs and sayings, etc.: “mama’s boy,” “the dog barks, the wind blows.” In more cases, Fonvizin even conveys the phonetic features of colloquial speech: “looking for” instead of “more”, “those” instead of “you”, etc.
The bookish language spoken by the positive faces of the Minor is less individualized. However, here too the author’s desire to bring cultural speech closer to a conversational tone is noticeable. Starodum, for example, speaks completely differently from Prostakova and Skotinin, but in accordance with his character: abruptly and harshly, interrupting his interlocutors, using conversational intonations (appeals, interjections, etc.).
In constructing a comedy, Fonvizin discovered the high skill of a playwright. Descriptive scenes do not prevent the audience from following with intense attention the struggle of the characters, worrying about Sophia’s fate and looking forward to the denouement. Interest in the play is maintained by the fact that the outcome of the struggle between “negative” and “positive” persons is determined only at the very end of the play: the penultimate, fourth, act ends with the words of Prostakova: “and we will take what is ours.”
Denis Fonvizin’s immortal comedy “The Minor” is an outstanding work of Russian literature of the 18th century. Bold satire and truthfully described reality are the main components of this writer’s skill. Centuries later, every now and then in modern society heated debates arise about the main character of the play, Mitrofanushka. Who is he: a victim of improper upbringing or a vivid example of the moral decay of society?
The comedy “Brigadier” written by Fonvizin, which had a stunning success in St. Petersburg, became the basis of one of the world’s greatest literary monuments. After its publication, the writer did not return to drama for more than ten years, devoting himself more and more to state issues and tasks. However, the thought of creating a new book excited the author’s imagination. Let’s not hide the fact that, according to scientists, the first note related to “The Minor” was started back in the 1770s, long before its publication.
After a trip to France in 1778. The playwright had an exact plan for writing the future work. An interesting fact is that initially Mitrofanushka was Ivanushka, which naturally speaks to the similarity of the two comedies (Ivan was a character in “The Brigadier”). In 1781 the play was completed. Of course, a production of this type meant coverage of one of the most problematic issues of the noble society of that time. However, despite the risk, Fonvizin became the direct “instigator” of the literary revolution. The premiere was postponed due to the empress's hostility to any kind of satire, but it still took place on September 24, 1782.
Genre of the work
COMEDY is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict is specifically resolved. It has a number of signs:
- does not entail the death of one representative of the warring parties;
- aimed at “nothing” goals;
- the narrative is lively and vivid.
Also in Fonvizin’s work, a satirical orientation is obvious. This means that the author set himself the task of ridiculing social vices. This is an attempt to veil life's problems under the guise of a smile.
“Minor” is a work built according to the laws of classicism. One storyline, one location, and all events take place within 24 hours. However, this concept is also consistent with realism, as evidenced by individual objects and places of action. In addition, the characters are very reminiscent of real landowners from the outback, ridiculed and condemned by the playwright. Fonvizin added something new to classicism - merciless and sharp humor.
What is the work about?
The plot of Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” revolves around a family of landowners who are completely mired in immorality and tyranny. Children became like their rude and narrow-minded parents, and their sense of morality suffered as a result. Sixteen-year-old Mitrofanushka is trying his best to finish his studies, but he lacks the desire and ability. The mother looks at this carelessly, she does not care whether her son will develop. She prefers that everything remain as it is; any progress is alien to her.
The Prostakovs “sheltered” a distant relative, the orphan Sophia, who differs from the rest of the family not only in her outlook on life, but also in her good manners. Sophia is the heiress of a large estate, which Mitrofanushka’s uncle, Skotinin, who is a great hunter, “looks” at. Marriage is the only available way to take over Sophia’s household, so the relatives around her are trying to persuade her into a profitable marriage.
Starodum, Sophia’s uncle, sends his niece a letter. Prostakova is terribly dissatisfied with this “trick” of her relative, who was considered dead in Siberia. The deceit and arrogance inherent in her nature is manifested in the accusation of a “deceptive” letter, supposedly “amorous”. Illiterate landowners will soon learn the true content of the message, resorting to the help of the guest Pravdin. He reveals to the whole family the truth about the Siberian inheritance he left, which gives him as much as ten thousand in annual income.
It was then that Prostakova came up with an idea - to marry Sophia to Mitrofanushka in order to appropriate the inheritance for herself. However, officer Milon, walking through the village with soldiers, “bursts” into her plans. He met with his old friend Pravdin, who, as it turned out, is a member of the vicegerental board. His plans include observing landowners mistreating their people.
Milon speaks of his long-standing love for a sweet person who was transported to an unknown place due to the death of a relative. Suddenly he meets Sophia - she is that same girl. The heroine talks about her future marriage to the undersized Mitrofanushka, from which the groom “flashes up” like a spark, but then gradually “weaken” with a detailed story about his “betrothed.”
Sophia's uncle has arrived. Having met Milon, he accepts Sophia’s choice, while inquiring about the “correctness” of her decision. At the same time, the Prostakovs' estate was transferred to state custody due to cruel treatment of the peasants. Seeking support, the mother hugs Mitrofanushka. But the Son did not intend to be polite and polite, he was rude, causing the venerable matron to faint. Waking up, she laments: “I am completely lost.” And Starodum, pointing at her, says, “These are the fruits worthy of evil!”
The main characters and their characteristics
Pravdin, Sophia, Starodum and Milon are representatives of the so-called “new” time, the Age of Enlightenment. The moral components of their souls are nothing more than goodness, love, thirst for knowledge and compassion. The Prostakovs, Skotinin and Mitrofan are representatives of the “old” nobility, where the cult of material well-being, rudeness and ignorance flourish.
- The minor Mitrofan is a young man whose ignorance, stupidity and inability to adequately analyze the situation do not allow him to become an active and reasonable representative of the noble community. “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” is a life motto that fully reflects the character of a young man who does not take anything seriously.
- Sophia is an educated, kind girl who becomes a black sheep in a society of envious and greedy people.
- Prostakova is a cunning, careless, rude woman with many shortcomings and a lack of love and respect for all living things, except for her beloved son Mitrofanushka. Prostakova’s upbringing is only a confirmation of the persistence of conservatism, which does not allow the Russian nobility to develop.
- Starodum raises “his little blood” in a different way - for him Sophia is no longer a small child, but a mature member of society. He gives the girl freedom of choice, thereby teaching her the correct fundamentals of life. In it, Fonvizin portrays the type of personality that has gone through all the “ups” and downs,” becoming not only a “worthy parent,” but also an undoubted example for the future generation.
- Skotinin, just like everyone else, is an example of a “talking surname.” A person whose inner essence is more similar to some kind of rude, uncouth cattle than to a well-bred person.
- The education of the “new” nobility is the main theme of the comedy. “Undergrowth” is a kind of allusion to the “disappearing” moral principles in people who are afraid of transformations. Landowners raise their offspring the old fashioned way, without paying due attention to their education. But those who were not taught, but were only spoiled or intimidated, will not be able to take care of either their family or Russia.
- Family theme. The family is a social institution on which the development of the individual depends. Despite Prostakova’s rudeness and disrespect towards all residents, she cherishes her beloved son, who does not at all appreciate her care or her love. This behavior is a typical example of ingratitude, which is a consequence of spoiling and parental adoration. The landowner does not understand that her son sees her treatment of other people and repeats it. Thus, the weather in the house determines the character of the young man and his shortcomings. Fonvizin emphasizes the importance of maintaining warmth, tenderness and respect in the family towards all its members. Only then will children be respectful and parents worthy of respect.
- The theme of freedom of choice. The “new” stage is Starodum’s relationship with Sophia. Starodum gives her freedom of choice, without limiting her with his beliefs, which can affect her worldview, thereby cultivating in her the ideal of a noble future.
- The main problem of the work is the consequences of improper upbringing. The Prostakov family is a family tree that has its roots in the distant past of the nobility. This is what the landowners boast about, not realizing that the glory of their ancestors does not add to their dignity. But class pride has clouded their minds, they do not want to move forward and achieve new achievements, they think that everything will always be as before. That’s why they don’t realize the need for education; in their world, enslaved by stereotypes, it really isn’t needed. Mitrofanushka will also sit in the village all her life and live off the labor of her serfs.
- The problem of serfdom. The moral and intellectual decay of the nobility under serfdom is an absolutely logical result of the tsar’s unjust policies. The landowners have become completely lazy; they don’t need to work to support themselves. The managers and peasants will do everything for them. With such a social system, the nobles have no incentive to work and get an education.
- The problem of greed. The thirst for material well-being blocks access to morality. Prostakovs are fixated on money and power, it doesn’t matter to them whether their child will be happy, for them happiness is synonymous with wealth.
- The problem of ignorance. Stupidity deprives the heroes of spirituality; their world is too limited and tied to the material side of life. They are not interested in anything other than primitive physical pleasures, because they don’t know anything else at all. Fonvizin saw the true “human appearance” only in that person who was raised by literate people, and not by half-educated sextons.
Theme of the work
Main problems
Comedy idea
Fonvizin was a person, so he did not accept rudeness, ignorance and cruelty. He professed the belief that a person is born a “blank slate”, therefore only upbringing and education can make him a moral, virtuous and intelligent citizen who will benefit the fatherland. Thus, the glorification of the ideals of humanism is the main idea of “Minor.” A young man who obeys the call of goodness, intelligence and justice is a true nobleman! If he is brought up in the spirit of Prostakova, then he will never go beyond the narrow confines of his limitations and will not understand the beauty and versatility of the world in which he lives. He will not be able to work for the good of society and will not leave anything significant behind.
At the end of the comedy, the author speaks of the triumph of “retribution”: Prostakova loses the estate and the respect of her own son, raised in accordance with her spiritual and physical ideals. This is the price to pay for miseducation and ignorance.
What does it teach?
Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” first of all, teaches respect for one’s neighbors. The sixteen-year-old young man Mitrofanushka did not perceive the care of either his mother or his uncle at all; he took it for granted as a fact: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane? Yes, I don’t know why you deigned to attack me.” The natural result of rough treatment in the home is the ending where the son pushes away his loving mother.
The lessons of the comedy “Minor” do not end there. It is not so much respect as ignorance that shows people in the position they are carefully trying to hide. Stupidity and ignorance hover in the comedy like a bird over a nest, they envelop the village, thereby not letting the residents out of their own shackles. The author cruelly punishes the Prostakovs for their narrow-mindedness, depriving them of their property and the very opportunity to continue their idle lifestyle. Thus, everyone needs to learn, because even the most stable position in society can easily be lost if you are an uneducated person.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!Comedy idea "Undergrown" originated with Denis Fonvizin in 1778, and four years later he presented the play to his friends. But the path of the work to the stage turned out to be thorny. In St. Petersburg and Moscow they immediately refused to stage the comedy. The censors were afraid of some of the bold lines.
In September 1782, the Free Russian Theater took the risk of staging the play on Tsaritsyn Meadow. The success was stunning. True, this courage cost the theater its closure, but it was too late - Fonvizin’s comedy gained enormous popularity. Since then, the play has not left the stage.
The “minor” caused serious dissatisfaction with Catherine II. Fonvizin was not allowed to publish any more works, not even a translation into Russian of the works of the Roman historian Tacitus.
The name of the comedy is associated with the decree of Peter I, according to which the children of nobles who have not received an education do not have the right to serve or marry. Such young people were called “minors.” It was believed that they were not ready for adult conscious life.
Main problems that the author raises in the comedy: the vicious education and decay of the nobility under serfdom. Education, according to Fonvizin, determines the moral character of the younger generation. Entrusting their children to illiterate serf nannies, half-educated sextons and dubious foreigners, the noble class plunges into the abyss of ignorance, stupidity, money-grubbing and immorality. The Skotinins and Prostakovs are only capable of raising Mitrofanushek.
Using simple examples, Fonvizin shows that the majority of landowners forgot not only about noble honor, but even about human dignity. Instead of serving the interests of the country, they do not comply with either moral or state laws.
The occasional victory of the forces of good gives the comedy a special edge. If Pravdin had not received an order to take custody of the Prostakovs’ property, and if Starodum had not returned from Siberia on time, everything might not have ended so well.
The comedy "Minor" is built according to the laws classicism. There is only one storyline, one location and all events take place within 24 hours. But the play also shows some features realism: a reliable depiction of everyday life, characters that are far from sketchy, individual elements of drama. Fonvizin created a new genre- a socio-political comedy. In the center of the plot, contrary to the canons of classicism, is not a love affair, but an acute social conflict.
The play consists of five acts. In the first, the author introduces us to the main characters, the plot begins - a letter from Starodum, in which Sophia is named a rich heiress. The climax comes in the fifth act, when Pravdin reads a letter about the transfer of the Prostakov estate to his care. The final words of Starodum become the denouement: “These are the worthy fruits of evil!”
In “Minor” almost all classes of the Russian state are shown. There are serfs Trishka, Palashka and Eremeevna, landowners Prostakovs and Skotinin, officer Milon and retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, official Pravdin, clergyman Kuteikin. According to the traditions of classicism, all characters are clearly divided into negative and positive, and their names indicate the main character traits. Pravdin personifies justice, Starodum - wisdom and morality, and the surnames Vralman and Skotinin are understandable even to a child.
The negative and positive characters of the comedy are created by pairs of antagonists: “children” – Mitrofan and Sophia, “grooms” – Skotinin and Milon, “main” – Prostakova and Starodum, “main assistants” – Prostakov and Pravdin, “teachers” – the disinterested Tsyfirkin and greedy Kuteikin.
Mrs. Prostakova is the most striking comedic image. An evil, cunning, impudent and extremely active landowner constantly swears and beats her servants. Prostakova strives to take everything into her hands and has absolute control over not only the serfs, but also her relatives. Her husband is a powerless creature who does not dare take a single step without his wife’s order. Prostakova extends her power to everyone who does not have the strength to fight back: Sophia, Skotinin, teachers. The main motto of the landowner: “Whatever you want, I’ll put it on mine”.
The heroine blindly loves her only son and is ready to do anything for his good. Prostakova throws her fists at her brother, defending Mitrofanushka, making sure that the “child” eats well and does not bother himself with science. She makes all decisions for her son, protects him from the slightest trouble, crippling the young man’s fate.
With such an upbringing, it is absolutely not surprising that the son grows up to be a coward, a slacker, a glutton and a boor. Mitrofan’s ignorance and stupidity make me horrified through laughter: what is the future of the country where such a generation is growing up? At the same time, the “minor” is smart enough to manipulate his tyrannical mother and evoke tenderness from his father. He, like his mother, understands only the power of the strong; he can pretend to be kind, well-mannered, loving, and grateful. But as soon as Prostakova loses her power, her beloved son rudely pushes her away.
Against the background of bright images of negative characters, positive Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Sophia look pale and expressionless. But they are necessary for the development of the plot and the dynamics of events. At the same time, these characters speak on behalf of the author himself. Their instructive conversations show the right path of an honest person, explain the true duties of a nobleman and the rules of family morality.
The contrast between the worlds of Prostakova and Starodum is most clearly visible in their attitude to education. The landowner herself does not know how to read and says to her son: “Don’t learn this stupid science!” Starodum received an excellent education and calls his upbringing "the guarantee of the state's welfare".
Fonvizin is a great master of words. Each of his characters has his own linguistic characteristics. Prostakova spouts rude and common expressions. Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin speak freely and beautifully. The speech of Mitrofan and Skotinin, like the speech of the serfs, is poor and primitive. Kuteikin's vocabulary is rich in Church Slavonic words, and retired sergeant Tsyfirkin flaunts military jargon. The illiteracy of the German Vralman is conveyed by his characteristic tongue-tiedness.