What compositional technique does the author use in the undergrowth? Features of the comedy composition D

A comedy by D. I. Fonvizin, in which, while maintaining a theatrically conventional plot collision, the everyday life of middle-income landowners, busy with concerns about their own prosperity, was depicted, the artistic content of which consisted in a new display of life on stage, and specifically Russian provincial, landowner life, and a new showing a person with more complex psychological characteristics and in more clarified specific social conditions, provided great influence on the subsequent development of the comedy genre.

The artistic method of “Minor” by D. I. Fonvizin is defined as early Russian realism of the Enlightenment era, which is based on existing literary traditions (classical), uses artistic techniques and visual arts previous literary trends, but updates them, subordinating them to his creative task.

Outwardly, the comedy is based on the traditional motive of matchmaking and the emerging struggle of suitors for the heroine. It respects all three unities - action, time, place. The action takes place in the village of Prostakova during the day. By the beginning of the events in Prostakova’s house, the fate of the heroes was determined as follows. Sophia and Milon love each other. They know each other from St. Petersburg. Milon's uncle Cheston was favorable towards the love of young people. On business, Milon travels with his team to one of the provinces. During his absence, Sophia's mother dies. A young girl is taken to the village by a distant relative. Here, after some time, the events narrated in the comedy unfold. They constitute the final stage and are completed within a day.

Prostakova decides to marry her poor relative Sophia to her brother, believing that Sophia as a bride is of no interest to her personally. Starodum's letter, from which everyone learns that she is a rich heiress, changes Prostakova's plans. A conflict arises between her and her brother.

The third “seeker” appears - Milo. Prostakova decides to stand her ground and organizes Sophia’s kidnapping. Sophia is saved from a very dramatic end to the matchmaking by the intervention of Milon, who takes his bride away from Prostakova’s “people.” This scene sets up the denouement. Comic heroes shamed, vice punished: the comedy has a moralizing ending. Prostakova was deprived of her rights over the peasants for abusing her power, and her estate was taken under guardianship.

Thus, Skotinin’s matchmaking, receipt of Starodum’s letter, the decision to marry Mitrofan to Sophia, the attempt to kidnap Sophia, Prostakova’s intention to deal with the servants, go through them “one by one” and find out “who let her out of their hands”, finally, Pravdin’s announcement of the decree on the capture Prostakova's houses and villages under her care are the key, central situations of the comedy.

In connection with the main theme of the comedy, the structure of “The Minor” includes scenes and persons that are not directly related to the development of the plot, but are somehow related to the content of the comedy. Some of them are imbued with true comedy. These are scenes with Mitrofan trying on a new dress and a discussion of Trishka’s work, Mitrofan’s lessons, a quarrel between sister and brother ending in a “brawl,” a quarrel between teachers, a comic dialogue during Mitrofan’s exam. All of them create an idea of the everyday life of an uncultured landowner family, the level of its demands, intra-family relationships, and convince the viewer of the verisimilitude and vitality of what is happening on stage.

Other scenes are in a different style. These are dialogues of positive heroes - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon, Starodum and Sophia, whose content echoes the dialogues of tragic heroes. In them we're talking about about an enlightened monarch, about the appointment of a nobleman, about marriage and family, about the education of young nobles, about “that it is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” These speeches, in essence, represent a presentation of the positive program of D. I. Fonvizin.

The action in the comedy unites all the characters and at the same time divides them into. evil and virtuous. The former seem to be concentrated around Prostakova, the latter - around Starodum. This also applies minor characters: teachers and servants. The nature of the characters' participation in events is not the same. In terms of the degree of activity among negative characters, Prostakova is rightly placed in first place, then Skotinin, Mitrofan. Prostakov essentially does not participate in the struggle. Of the positive characters, Sophia is passive. As for the rest, their participation in events manifests itself at the most decisive moments; Starodum announces his “will” to the suitors, predetermining the outcome; saves his bride from Milon's kidnappers with a weapon in his hands; announces a government decree on the guardianship of Pravdin.

It should be noted that, preserving the classicist tradition, D.I. Fonvizin gives the heroes of the comedy meaningful names and surnames. This corresponds to the one-line character of the heroes, whose characters have a certain dominant. What is new in the depiction of heroes are individual biographical factors in the formation of characters (Prostakov and Prostakova), - the presence of bright speech characteristics heroes, reflection in the comedy of the complexity of characters capable of self-development (images of Mitrofan, Prostakova, Eremeevna).

The difference between heroes is not limited to their moral qualities. The introduction of extra-plot scenes into the comedy expanded and deepened its content and determined the presence of other, deeper grounds for contrasting the nobles depicted in it. In accordance with this, the comedy has two endings. One concerns the relationship between Mitrofan, Skotinin, Milon and Sophia, whose fate was determined, on the one hand, by Prostakova, on the other, by Starodum; the second relates to the fate of Prostakova as an evil landowner and a bad mother. In the events of this denouement, social and moral ideals author, the ideological and ethical orientation of comedy as a whole is determined.

The history of the interpretation of the comedy “The Minor” over the past two centuries - from the first critical reviews XIX 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 cited 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 particularly productive method of destroying a phraseological unit is that it pits 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 “We cannot move Sofyushka’s real estate estate to ourselves” (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 condemnation of Skotinin’s mental abilities, 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! Everything is ready. I cleaned the room for you myself (III.5).

Compare with the speech of Pravdin and the dictionary of Starodum, Milon and Sophia, almost entirely consisting of similar abstract concepts, which, as a rule, relate to the sphere of spiritual life (education, teaching, heart, soul, mind, rules, respect, honor, position, virtue, happiness, sincerity, friendship, love, good behavior, calmness, courage and fearlessness), to make sure: synonymous relationships within this group of characters are also formed on the basis of the same level of mastery of the word and its meaning. This synonymy is supported by the idea not so much of blood as of spiritual and intellectual kinship, realized in the verbal motif of “way of thinking”, which connects virtuous heroes"Undergrowth": "Starodum" (reads). Take the trouble to find out his way of thinking” (IV, 4).

For the heroes of this series, the “way of thinking” becomes in the full sense of the word a way of action: since otherwise than in the process of speaking (or written message) it is impossible to recognize the way of thinking, the dialogues between Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia turn into full-fledged stage action, in which the act of speaking itself acquires dramatic meaning, since for these heroes it is speaking and verbal operations at the level general concepts have characterological functions.

And just as the blood relatives of the Prostakovs-Skotinins absorb strangers into their circle based on the level of proficiency with words in its material, objective sense (Kuteikin), so the circle of spiritual like-minded people Starodum-Pravdin-Milon-Sofya willingly opens up to meet their ideological brother Tsyfirkin, who is guided in his actions by the same concepts of honor and position:

Tsyfirkin. I took money for service, I didn’t take it in vain, and I won’t take it. Starodum. Here's the direct one kind person! ‹…› Tsyfirkin. Why, your honor, are you complaining? Pravdin. Because you are not like Kuteikin (V,6).

The semantic centers of character nomination also work on this same hierarchy of meanings. Their meaningful names and the surnames elevate one group to the material series - the Prostakovs and Skotinins are simple and bestial, and Kuteikin, who joined them, traces his personal genesis from the ritual dish kutya; while the names and surnames of their antagonists go back to conceptual and intellectual categories: Pravdin - truth, Starodum - thought, Milon - dear, Sophia - wisdom. But after all, Tsyfirkin owes his surname not only to his profession, but also to abstraction - a number. Thus, people-objects and people-concepts, united within a group by a synonymous connection, enter into intergroup antonymic relationships. So in comedy, it is precisely the punning word, which is itself a synonym and antonym, that forms two types of artistic imagery - everyday heroes and ideological heroes - going back to different literary traditions, equally one-sided and conceptual in the model of reality they create, but also equally to an artistic extent - the traditions of satirical and odic imagery.

Genre traditions of satire and ode in the comedy “Minor”

The doubling of the types of artistic imagery in "The Minor", due to the punningly doubling word, actualizes almost all the formative attitudes of the two older literary works. traditions of the XVIII V. (satires and odes) within the text of the comedy.

The very way of existence on stage of antagonistic comedy characters, which presupposes certain type the connection of man with the environment in its spatial-plastic and material incarnations, resurrects the traditional opposition of satirical and odic types of artistic imagery. The heroes of the comedy are clearly divided into satirical and everyday “homebodies” and odic “wanderers”.

The settledness of the Prostakov-Skotinins is emphasized by their constant attachment to the enclosed space of the house-estate, the image of which grows from the verbal background of their remarks in all its traditional components: a fortress village (“Mrs. Prostakova. ‹…› I was now looking for you throughout the village” - II,5), the manor's house with its living room, which is the stage area and the scene of action of "The Minor", outbuildings ("Mitrofan. Now let's run to the dovecote" - 1.4; "Skotinin. I was going for a walk on barnyard" – 1.8) – all this surrounds everyday characters“Undergrowth” with a plastically reliable living 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 of external force 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 came to her (III, 3); Starodum (pointing to Ms. Prostakova). These are the fruits worthy of evil! (V, is the last one).

Thus, and common feature type of stage plasticity separates the characters of “The Minor” into different genre associations: Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia are stage-like statuesque, 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 simple physical nature as objects; By absorbing simpleton’s soulless flesh into their circle, they aggravate the very property of the characters of this group, in which the literary tradition sees their “realism” and aesthetic advantage over ideological heroes - their extreme physical authenticity and, so to speak, material character. Whether it is so worthy, even if only with aesthetic point visually, this property looked like to 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 evokes a purely physiological thirst for possession, then for Starodum it is a means of acquiring spiritual independence from material conditions 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 the ideal content of which the way of thinking of each person is compared:

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'm 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 the 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 duality of the word into the objective and the conceptual, the system of images into everyday heroes and hero-ideologists, the world image of comedy becomes dual into flesh and spirit, 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, therefore 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 .; the ideas of Starodum and Co. possessing the highest reality? 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 is a paradoxical and absurd situation in the most precise way 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”, existing as a text, but not as legislative life and legal space), but in fact she 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 deep root, to put it mildly, the “peculiarities” of Russian reality of modern times - a catastrophic split between word and deed, which, each in itself, generate different realities, in no way compatible and absolutely opposite: the ideal reality of right, law, reason and virtue, existing as a pure existential idea outside of everyday life, and the everyday, unidealized reality of arbitrariness, lawlessness, stupidity and vice, existing as everyday everyday practice.

| | 3 | | | | | |

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 theater stage in 1872, according to the recollections of contemporaries, it caused “throwing of 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 classic 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... 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 lifeless cultural preparations,” the historian wrote about the comedy V. 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 meaningful 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... 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 Milon’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 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 his own character with his 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 features of pronunciation. 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 poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “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 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 heroes of 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 of bad upbringing or even the lack thereof, 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 dead cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the 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 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 Milon’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 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 his own character with his 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 features of pronunciation.

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.

Exam: Russian literature of the 18th century

"Nedorosl" is the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage.

The artistic originality of "The Minor" is determined by the fact that the play combines the features of classicism and realism. Formally, Fonvizin remained within the framework of classicism: observance of the unity of place, time and action, the conventional division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in the depiction of positive ones, " speaking names", features of reasoning in the image of Starodum, and so on. But, at the same time, he took a certain step towards realism. This is manifested in the accuracy of the reproduction of the provincial noble type, social relations in the fortress village, the fidelity of recreating the typical traits of negative characters, the life authenticity of images for the first time in the history of Russian drama. love affair was relegated to the background and acquired secondary importance.

Fonvizin's comedy is a new phenomenon, because it is written on the material of Russian reality. The author innovatively approached the problem of the character of the hero, the first of the Russian playwrights sought to psychologize him, to individualize the speech of the characters (here it is worth adding examples from the text!).

“Fonvizin introduces biographies of heroes into his work, takes a comprehensive approach to solving the problem of education, denoting the trinity of this problem: family, teachers, environment, that is, the problem of education is posed here as social problem. All this allows us to conclude that “The Minor” is a work of educational realism.

K.V. Pisarev: "<...>Fonvizin sought to generalize and typify reality. IN negative images he succeeded brilliantly in comedy.<...> Positive characters"The Minor" clearly lacks artistic and life-like persuasiveness.<...>The images he created were not clothed with living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and best representatives of his time"

Critics doubted Fonvizin's art of building dramatic action and they talked about the presence of “extra” scenes in it that do not fit into the action, which must certainly be unified:

P. A. Vyazemsky: “All the other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others only join in the action.<...>Of the forty phenomena, including several rather long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself."

A. N. Veselovsky: "<...>ineptitude in the structure of the play, which remains forever weak side Fonvizinsky writing, despite school European samples <...>"; "A widely developed desire to speak not in images, but in rhetoric<...>gives rise to stagnation, fading, and the viewer will then recognize Milo’s view of true fearlessness in war and in peaceful life, then sovereigns hear the unvarnished truth from virtuous people, or Starodum’s thoughts on the education of women..."

The word, the initial constructive material of the drama, emphatically appears in “Minor” in dual functions: in one case, the pictorial, plastic-figurative function of the word (negative characters) is emphasized, creating a model of the world of physical flesh, in the other - its self-valuable and independent ideal-conceptual nature (positive characters), for which human character needed only as an intermediary, translating an ethereal thought into the matter of a sounding word. Thus, the specificity of its dramaturgical word, which is initially and fundamentally two-valued and ambiguous, comes to the center of the aesthetics and poetics of “Minor.”

punning nature of the word

A technique for destroying a phraseological unit that pits the traditionally conventional figurative against the direct literal meaning of a word or phrase.

If your homework is on the topic: » Artistic originality of the comedy “Minor” Specifics artistic method Fonvizin the playwright If you find it useful, we will be grateful if you post a link to this message on your page on your social network.