The poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “The Minor” ... A truly social comedy. N.V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor” The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw. Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays. What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom. Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of negative conversations and positive characters. This is the influence of the author’s contemporary European comedy; here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language. It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out... main idea the play is to show the fruits of bad education or even its absence, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer main role takes away goodies. “The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new good morality... Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations,” - historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about comedy. Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive heroes, the negative ones wear speaking names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows to a full name artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood we have 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.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait. “Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. . Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs? Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.” The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...” and Starodum interrupts him: “That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam.” Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milo’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, invests author's description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the Book of Hours: “I am cattle, not men, a reproach to men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature. “Prostakova. After all, I am also from the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; Yes, look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, won’t bark with you,” “Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! What have I done!". Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.” The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured pronunciation features. The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
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 reforms.
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 “Minor”, where the heroes will receive speaking names to better express the meaning of 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 the main theme of the 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, since serfdom has not yet been abolished, 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 in his comedy such artistic means as speaking surnames and first names, 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 nature. And in modern world comedy remains relevant: now it is also present in society a large number of“Mitrofanushki”, for whom the meaning of life lies in material wealth, and education is given a minimal place.
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:“In his [Fonvizin’s] comedy there is nothing ideal, and therefore nothing creative: 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 precisely define the nature 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 the designs of the artistic images of “The Minor” are determined by 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 the same way, Mr. Prostakov, declaring that “Sofyushkino’s real estate estate cannot be moved to us” (1.5), means real movement through physical space, and Mitrofan, answering Pravdin’s question: “Is it 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 pun word between characters of different groups takes on a characterological meaning artistic technique. 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! All 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” (is reading). 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 empty-handed, and I won’t take it. Starodum. Here's the direct one a 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 “Minor”, due to the punningly doubling word, actualizes almost all the formative attitudes of the two older literary traditions XVIII 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 have now been looking for you all over 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 embodiment 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 items; 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. This world is dominated by the admittedly tragic ideologies of virtue, honor and office, 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 both the dignity of an 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 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 punning word that covers the entire world image 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 - first discovered by Fonvizin and purely embodied artistic means the deep root, to put it mildly, of the “originality” of Russian reality of modern times is a catastrophic split between word and deed, which, each in itself, give rise to different realities that are incompatible 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, idealess reality of arbitrariness, lawlessness, stupidity and vice, existing as everyday everyday practice.
| | 3 | | | | | |
P. A. Vyazemsky, From the book “Fonvizin”
In the comedy “The Minor,” the author already had a most important goal: the disastrous fruits of ignorance, bad upbringing and abuses of domestic power were exposed by him with a bold hand and painted with the most hateful colors... In “The Minor” he no longer jokes, does not laugh, but is indignant at the vice and stigmatizes him without mercy: even if he makes the audience laugh with the picture of abuses and tomfoolery brought out, then even then the laughter he inspires does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions...
The ignorance in which Mitrofanushka grew up, and the examples at home should have prepared in him a monster, like his mother, Prostakova... All the scenes in which Prostakova appears are full of life and fidelity, because her character is sustained to the end with unflagging art, with unchanging truth. A mixture of arrogance and baseness, cowardice and malice, vile inhumanity towards everyone and tenderness, equally vile, towards her son, with all that ignorance, from which, like from a muddy source, all these properties flow, coordinated in her character by a sharp-witted and observant painter.
The success of the comedy "Minor" was decisive. Its moral action is undeniable. Some of the names characters became common nouns and are still used today popular appeal. There is so much reality in this comedy that provincial legends still name several persons who allegedly served as the author’s originals.
N.V. Gogol, From the article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry and what is its peculiarity”
Fonvizin's comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, which stems from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia. She exhibited such a terribly bark of coarseness that you could hardly recognize a Russian person in her. Who can recognize anything Russian in this evil creature, full of tyranny, such as Prostakova, the tormentor of peasants, husband and everything except her son... This insane love for her brainchild is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity was expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that is not her child. Then Skotinin’s character is a different type of coarseness. His clumsy nature, having not received any strong and violent passions, turned into something calmer, in its own way. artistic love to cattle, instead of man: pigs became for him the same as for an art lover Art Gallery. Then Prostakova’s husband - an unfortunate, murdered creature, in whom even those weak forces that were holding on were beaten down by his wife’s prodding - a complete dulling of everything! Finally, Mitrofan himself, who, having nothing evil in his nature, having no desire to cause misfortune to anyone, becomes insensitively, with the help of pleasing and self-indulgence, a tyrant of everyone, and most of all of those who love him most, that is, his mother and nannies, so that insulting them had already become a pleasure for him.
V. O. Klyuchevsky, From the article “Minor” by Fonvizin (Experience of historical explanation of an educational play)
In the comedy there is a group of figures led by Uncle Starodum. They stand out from the comic staff of the play: these are noble and enlightened reasoners, academicians of virtue. They are not so much the characters in the drama as its moral setting: they are placed near the characters in order to sharpen their dark faces with their light contrast... Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia... appeared as walking, but still lifeless, schemes of a new, good morality, which they put on themselves like a mask. Time, effort and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations...
“The Minor” is a comedy not of faces, but of situations. Her faces are comical, but not funny, comical as roles, but not at all funny as people. They can amuse you when you see them on stage, but they are disturbing and upsetting when you meet them outside the theater, at home or in society.
Yes, Mrs. Prostakova is a master at interpreting decrees. She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness. She said nonsense, and this nonsense is the whole point of “The Minor”; without it, it would have been a comedy of nonsense... The decree on the freedom of the nobility was given so that the nobleman was free to flog his servants whenever he wanted...
Mitrofan is a synonym for a stupid ignoramus and his mother’s favorite. The underage Fonvizin is a caricature, but not so much a stage caricature as an everyday one: his upbringing disfigured him more than the comedy made him laugh.
The poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “The Minor” ... A truly social comedy. N.V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor” The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw. Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokova. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays. What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom. Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence of the author’s contemporary European comedy; here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language. It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out... The main idea of the play is to show the fruits bad upbringing or even the absence of it, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and why he is bad, the writer assigns the main role to the positive characters. “The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless schemes of a new good morality... Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still lifeless cultural preparations,” the historian wrote about the comedy IN. O. Klyuchevsky. Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows into a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood we have 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.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait. “Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. . Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs? Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.” The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...", and Starodum interrupts him: "That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam." Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milo’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature. “Prostakova. After all, I am also from the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: "I, brother, will not bark with you," "Oh, I am a dog's daughter! What have I done!". Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.” The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured pronunciation features. The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.