Minor - analysis of the work. Pun word and the nature of artistic imagery in the comedy “Minor”
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, had big 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 means of previous literary trends, but updates them, subordinating them to his creative task.
Externally, the comedy is based on traditional motif 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, sort them out “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 a 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 everyday life, Everyday life uncultured landowner family, the level of its demands, intra-family relationships, 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. According to the degree of activity among negative characters Prostakova is rightly put 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 classic tradition, D. I. Fonvizin gives the heroes of comedy speaking names and last names. This corresponds to the one-line character of the heroes, whose characters have a certain dominant. What’s 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 poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “The Minor” ... 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 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 contemporary author European comedy, here he goes further than Sumarokov. " French comedy 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 telling 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 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.” 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, invests 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 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 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 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.
Let's look at the features of the comedy created by Fonvizin ("The Minor"). Analysis of this work is the topic of this article. This play is a masterpiece Russian literature 18th century. This work is now included in the Russian fund classical literature. It affects whole line "eternal problems". And the beauty of the high style still attracts many readers today. The name of this play is associated with the decree issued by Peter I, according to which “minors” (young nobles) are prohibited from entering the service and getting married without education.
History of the play
Back in 1778, the idea of this comedy arose from its author, who was Fonvizin. “The Minor,” the analysis of which interests us, was written in 1782 and presented to the public in the same year. We should briefly highlight the time of creation of the play that interests us.
During the reign of Catherine II, Fonvizin wrote "The Minor". The analysis of the heroes presented below proves that they were heroes of their time. The period in the development of our country is associated with the dominance of ideas. They were borrowed by the Russians from the French enlighteners. The dissemination of these ideas and their great popularity among the educated philistines and nobility was largely facilitated by the empress herself. She is known to have corresponded with Diderot, Voltaire, and d'Alembert. In addition, Catherine II opened libraries and schools, and supported the development of art and culture in Russia through various means.
Continuing to describe the comedy created by D.I. Fonvizin (“The Minor”), analyzing its features, it should be noted that, as a representative of his era, the author certainly shared the ideas that dominated the noble society at that time. He tried to reflect them in his work, exposing not only the positive aspects to readers and viewers, but also pointing out misconceptions and shortcomings.
"Minor" - an example of classicism
An analysis of Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" requires considering this play as part of a cultural era and literary tradition. This work is considered one of the best examples of classicism. There is unity of action in the play (there are no secondary plot lines in it, only the struggle for Sophia’s hand and her property is described), place (the characters do not move long distances, all events take place either near the Prostakovs’ house or inside it), and time ( All events take no more than a day). In addition, he used “speaking” surnames, which are traditional for the classic play, Fonvizin (“Minor”). Analysis shows that, following tradition, he divided his characters into positive and negative. The positive ones are Pravdin, Starodum, Milon, Sophia. They are contrasted with Prostakov, Mitrofan, Skotinin by D.I. Fonvizin (play "The Minor"). An analysis of their names shows that they make it clear to the reader which features in the image of a particular character are prevalent. For example, Pravdin is the personification of morality and truth in the work.
A new genre of comedy, its features
At the time of its creation, “Minor” became an important step forward in the development of literature in our country, in particular drama. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin created a new socio-political. It harmoniously combines a number of realistic scenes depicted with sarcasm, irony, and laughter from the life of some ordinary representatives of high society (nobility) with sermons about morality, virtue, and the need for education human qualities, which were characteristic of the Enlightenment. Instructive monologues do not burden the perception of the play. They complement this work, as a result of which it becomes deeper.
First action
The play, the author of which is Fonvizin (“Minor”), is divided into 5 acts. Analysis of a work involves a description of the organization of the text. In the first act we meet the Prostakovs, Pravdin, Sophia, Mitrofan, Skotinin. The characters' personalities emerge immediately, and the reader understands that Skotinin and the Prostakovs - and Sophia and Pravdin - are positive. In the first act there is an exposition and plot of this work. In the exhibition we get to know the characters, we learn that Sophia lives in the care of the Prostakovs, who is going to be married off to Skotinin. Reading the letter from Starodum is the beginning of the play. Sophia now turns out to be a rich heiress. Any day now, her uncle is returning to take the girl to his place.
Development of events in the play created by Fonvizin (“Minor”)
We will continue the analysis of the work with a description of how events developed. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th acts are their development. We meet Starodum and Milon. Prostakova and Skotinin are trying to please Starodum, but their flattery, falsity, lack of education and enormous thirst for profit only repels them. They look stupid and funny. The funniest scene of this work is the questioning of Mitrofan, during which the stupidity of not only this young man, but also his mother is revealed.
Climax and denouement
Act 5 - climax and denouement. It should be noted that researchers have different opinions about what moment should be considered the climax. There are 3 most popular versions. According to the first, this is the kidnapping of Sophia Prostakova, according to the second, Pravdin’s reading of a letter, which says that Prostakova’s estate is coming under his care, and, finally, the third version is Prostakova’s rage after she realizes her own powerlessness and tries to “get back "on his servants. Each of these versions is fair, since it examines the work of interest to us from different points of view. The first, for example, highlights storyline, dedicated to Sophia’s marriage. An analysis of the episode of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” connected with marriage, indeed allows us to consider it key in the work. The second version examines the play from a socio-political point of view, highlighting the moment when justice prevails on the estate. The third focuses on the historical one, according to which Prostakova is the personification of the weakened principles and ideals of the old nobility that have become a thing of the past, who, however, do not yet believe in their own defeat. This nobility, according to the author, is based on lack of enlightenment, lack of education, as well as low moral principles. During the denouement, everyone leaves Prostakova. She had nothing left. Pointing to it, Starodum says that these are “worthy fruits” of “evil morality.”
Negative characters
As we have already noted, the main characters are clearly divided into negative and positive. Mitrofan, Skotinin and Prostakovs - negative heroes. Prostakova is a woman seeking profit, uneducated, rude, and domineering. She knows how to flatter to gain benefits. However, Prostakova loves her son. Prostakov appears as the “shadow” of his wife. This is a weak-willed character. His word means little. Skotinin is the brother of Mrs. Prostakova. This is equally uneducated and foolish man, quite cruel, like his sister, greedy for money. For him, going to the pigs in the barnyard is the best thing to do. Mitrofan is a typical son of his mother. This is a spoiled young man of 16 who inherited a love of pigs from his uncle.
Issues and heredity
In the play, it should be noted important place addresses the issue of family ties and heredity by Fonvizin (“The Minor”). Analyzing this question, let's say, for example, that Prostakova is only married to her husband (a “simple” man who does not want much). However, she is actually Skotinina, akin to her brother. Her son absorbed the qualities of both his parents - “animal” qualities and stupidity from his mother and weak-willedness from his father.
Similar family ties can be traced between Sophia and Starodum. Both of them are honest, virtuous, educated. The girl listens to her uncle attentively, respects him, and “absorbs” science. Pairs of opposites are created by negative and positive heroes. Children - spoiled, stupid Mitrofan and meek smart Sophia. Parents love their children, but they approach their upbringing in different ways - Starodub talks about truth, honor, morality, and Prostakova only pampers Mitrofan and says that he will not need education. A pair of suitors - Milon, who sees an ideal and his friend in Sophia, who loves her, and Skotinin, who calculates the fortune that he will receive after marrying this girl. At the same time, he is not interested in Sophia as a person. Skotinin does not even try to provide his bride with comfortable housing. Prostakov and Pravdin are in fact the “voice of truth”, a kind of “auditors”. But in the person of the official we find active strength, help and real action, while Prostakov is a passive character. The only thing this hero could say was to reproach Mitrofan at the end of the play.
Issues raised by the author
Analyzing, it becomes clear that each of the above-described pairs of characters reflects a separate problem that is revealed in the work. This is a problem of education (which is complemented by the example of half-educated teachers like Kuteikin, as well as impostors such as Vralman), upbringing, fathers and children, family life, relationships between spouses, relations of nobles to servants. Each of these problems is examined through the prism of educational ideas. Fonvizin, sharpening his attention to the shortcomings of the era through the use of comic techniques, places emphasis on the need to change outdated, traditional foundations that have become irrelevant. They drag people into the swamp of stupidity and evil, and liken people to animals.
As our analysis of Fonvizin’s play “The Minor” showed, the main idea and theme of the work is the need to educate the nobility in accordance with educational ideals, the fundamentals of which are still relevant today.
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 memoirs 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 show the fruits of 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 vivid 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,” 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 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.” 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 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 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 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 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 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.” 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 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 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.
