Practical lesson No. 4. The poetics of D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Literature: 1) Fonvizin D. I. The Minor // Fonvizin D. I. Collection. Op.: In 2 vols. M.; L., 1959. T. 1.2) Makogonenko G.P. From Fonvizin to Pushkin. M., 1969. P. 336-367.3) Berkov P. N. History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977. Ch. 8 (§ 3).4)

Denis Davydov - poet

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin The Fox-Trickster In the Libyan side, a true rumor rushed that Leo, the king of animals, died in a large forest. Cattle flocked there from all sides to witness a huge funeral. The fox-schemer, in this gloomy ritual, With a humble hare,

The image of Prostakova “stands on the border between tragedy and comedy.” This ignorant and selfish “despicable fury”, a ruthless serf woman, is child-loving in her own way. In the final scene, having lost her power over the serfs, she, having been rejected by her son, becomes pitiful and humiliated.

Throughout the comedy, F. reveals their bestial essence: positive characters either directly denounce their actions or subtly ironize them. F. uses “zoologization” techniques. For example, Kuteikin forces Mitrofan to announce to the entire audience that he is “not a man” and even “not a worm,” but “cattle.” It always seems to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he lived “with the little horses.” Skotinin, having boasted of the antiquity of his family, falls into the trap of Starodum, agreeing with him that his ancestor was created by God somewhat earlier than Adam (i.e., when cattle were created). What is especially scary is that the bestial, ignorant, rude and cruel serf owners are preparing a “worthy” replacement for themselves. (Title of the comedy, image of Mitrofan)

Mitrofanushka’s actions and remarks, which showed his “knowledge” of Russian grammar, his desire not to study, but to get married, are ridiculous. But his attitude towards Eremeevna, his instant readiness to “take on people” (that is, to inflict reprisals on them), his disregard for his own mother in the final scene - no longer causes laughter: a despot, a cruel serf-owner, is growing before us.

Slavery turns peasants into slaves, completely killing in them all human traits, all personal dignity. This comes out with particular force in the courtyards. Fonvizin created the image of enormous power - slaves Eremeevna. Old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings - that's what befalls her. She has long lost even her human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames: “beast”, “old bastard”, “dog’s daughter”, “scum”. Abuse, slander and humiliation made Eremeevna a slave, she lost her human dignity and is so slavishly devoted to her masters that she forgets about the danger that threatens her while protecting Mitrofan from Skotinin.

The individualization of the characters is revealed by F. mainly in their language. All the qualities of Prostakova are reflected in her language. Her address to the servants: “dog’s daughter”, “beast”, “cattle”, “thief’s mug”, etc. Caring and affectionate speech in her address to Mitrofan: “Live forever, learn forever, my dear friend!”, “darling” . Her downtrodden husband was “born a weakling”, “nothing can get through him”, he walks “with his ears hanging.” Prostakova’s language changes not only depending on the addressee, but also on situations. A touch of “secularism” when meeting guests: “I recommend you a dear guest”, “You are welcome” and is close to folk speech in her humiliated lamentations when she begs for forgiveness: “Ah, my priests, the sword does not cut off a guilty head. My sin! Don't destroy me." The presence of vernacular and folk vocabulary in Prostakova’s speech is natural: the lack of education of the nobles and constant communication with the peasants erased the differences in the language between the “upper” and “lower” classes. The language of other negative characters also serves to reveal their socio-psychological essence; it is characteristic and individualized, although it is inferior to Prostakova’s language in diversity.

The basis of the language of positive characters is correct, bookish language. Starodum’s speech can be aphoristic (“impudence in a woman is a sign of vicious behavior”), it contains archaisms, and is close to the style of the articles and letters of the author himself. Because Starodum expresses the author's views. Pravdin is characterized by clericalism. In the language of the young people Milon and Sophia there are sentimental phrases (“the secret of my heart”, “the mystery of my soul”). Positive characters are perceived as less colorful than negative characters. But they also carried the truth of life.

In the persons of Pravdin and Starodum, for the first time positive heroes appeared on the stage who act, putting their ideals into practice. Pravdin, not wanting to limit himself to indignation, takes real steps to limit the power of the landowners and, as we know from the ending of the play, achieves this. Pravdin acts this way because he believes - his fight against the slave owners, supported by the governor, is “thereby fulfilling the philanthropic views of the highest power,” that is, Pravdin is deeply convinced of the enlightened nature of Catherine’s autocracy. He declares himself the executor of his will - this is how things stand at the beginning of the comedy. That is why Pravdin, knowing Starodum, demands that he go to serve at court. “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” Starodum is perplexed: “Summon? What for?" And Pravdin, true to his convictions, declares: “Then why call a doctor to the sick.” And then Starodum, a politician who has already realized that faith in Catherine is not only naive, but also destructive, explains to Pravdin: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing: here the doctor will not help unless he himself becomes infected.” Fonvizin forces Starodum to explain not only to Pravdina, but also to the audience that faith in Catherine is meaningless, that the legend about her enlightened reign is false, that Catherine established a despotic form of government, that it is thanks to her policies that slavery can flourish in Russia, that the cruel Skotinins and Prostakovs can rule , which directly refer to the royal decrees on the freedom of the nobility.

Pravdin and Starodum, in their worldview, are students of the Russian noble Enlightenment.

At the heart of “The Minor” is the political idea that Catherine is to blame for the crimes of the Skotinins and Prostakovs. This is why the fight against the Prostakovs is being led by private people, not the government.

Intraclass differentiation of character: before us are three characters from the people: Eremeevna, Trishka and Tsifirkin. The first turned into a slave both in position and in consciousness. Trishka has not yet been completely broken by serfdom and is trying to contradict Prostakova herself, knowing full well that reprisals await him for this. Having served the sovereign (fatherland), and not the masters, Tsifirkin retained human dignity and self-respect; he refuses remuneration for fruitless work (Mitrofan’s training).

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

federal state budgetary educational institution of higher education vocational education

"Volga Region State Social and Humanitarian Academy"

Faculty of Philological Education

Department of Russian Literature, foreign literature and methods of teaching them

The system of images in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin "Minor"

Course work

Dmitrieva Ksenia Andreevna

Scientific adviser:

Doctor of Philological Sciences, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Prof. Buranok O.M.

Coursework submitted:

" " __________ 2015

Scientific supervisor's signature:

________________

Coursework protected

" " __________ 2015

Grade:____________

Signatures of the commission members:

_________________________

Samara 2015

Content

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3

Chapter 1. Innovation in the work of D.I. Fonvizina…………………7

§1. Creativity D.I. Fonvizina……………………………………………………..7

§2. Traditions and innovation in the system of images of heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”………………………………………………………………………………..11

Chapter 2. Images of the main characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor.”14

§1. Images of the Prostakovs…………………………………………………………….14

§2. Image of Skotinin……………………………………………………….18

§3. The image of Mitrofan………………………………………………………20

§4. The image of Starodum……………………………………………………….22

§5. Images of Sophia and Milon…………………………………………………………24

§6. Image of Pravdin………………………………………………………29

Chapter 3. Images of minor characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”…………………………………………………………………………………30

§1. Images of servants and teachers…………………………………………..30

§2. Summarizing table of the image system of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”………………………………………………………………………………….33

Conclusion……………………………………………………………..36

List of references………………………………………………………38

Introduction

Comedy D.I. Fonvizin’s “Unorosl” is central to his work, the pinnacle of Russian drama.XVIIIcentury. “Fonvizin was a man with an extraordinary mind and talent; but whether he was born a comedian is difficult to answer in the affirmative...

The system of images in this work is not entirely traditional; it is more likely to be innovative, because Fonvizin introduces into the system of characters a number of minor persons who are neither positive nor negative (Eremeevna. Tsyfirkin, Vralman, Kuteikin, Trishka). All the names of the characters are telling.

For Fonvizin, unlike the classicists, it was important not only to identify the problem of education, but also to show how circumstances influence the development of an individual’s character. This is what distinguishes the comedy being studied from the works of classicism.

“In “Nedorosl” the foundations were laid for a realistic reflection of reality in Russian fiction. <…>In his comedy about education, he raises the problem of serfdom, its corrupting influence on both the people and the nobles." .

What was also new was Fonvizin’s attempt to give at least a brief background to the characters, to reveal the characters of some of them.

Fonvizin's innovation was also evident in the creation of the characters' speech. It is unique for each hero and serves as a means of characterizing them.

Fonvizin's innovation in this comedy lies in its departure from the principle of unity of action (two storylines); the fact that negative characters are interesting and ambiguous, causing different reader reactions; When creating the characters of the heroes, speech characteristics are used. Thus, the author departs from the rules of classicism in the direction of developing realistic tendencies.

Chapter 2. Images of the main characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”

§1. Images of Prostakovs

Russian writer and playwright D.I. Fonvizin lived during the reign of Catherine II. It was during her reign that the exploitation of serf labor was brought to the limit, and the peasants were almost ready to revolt. Catherine II wanted to stop the growth of popular anger.

Fonvizin himself was afraid of the complete freedom of the peasants, but, like all educators of that time, he was concerned about their unbearable situation. And in the comedy “The Minor,” the theme of the arbitrariness of the landowners was given first place. All actions take place on the estate of the Prostakov landowners.

Historian V.O. Klyuchevsky in his study describes the mistress of the house as follows:“Isn’t the mistress of the house herself, Mrs. Prostakova, née Skotinina, comical? This face in the comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically: throughout all five acts of the play, with strong-headed, truly bestial patience, she never once blinked from that cruel physiognomy that the ruthless artist ordered her to keep during the entire leisurely session while he was drawing with her portrait. But she is doubly uncomical: she is stupid and cowardly, that is, pitiful - in her husband, like Prostakova, she is godless and the modern viewer, protected from her, is not at all inclined to laugh; on the contrary, at the mere sight of this outrageous mischief, not only her downtrodden husband, but also the modern viewer, protected from her for a whole century, begins to blur in his eyes and his faith in man, in his neighbor, begins to waver.” .

Vyazemsky characterizes it as follows:“...All the scenes in which Prostakova appears are full of life and fidelity, because her character is maintained 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.” .

Mrs. Prostakova is the sovereign mistress of the house. Her power is not limited by anything. Prostakova is the only heroine in the comedy who is given the title of “madam”; the rest of the characters have only first and last names. Prostakova justifies her title of madam by the fact that she is despotic, arrogant and very confident in her impunity. She is the personification of “evil morality” and noble tyranny, the main object of Fonvizin’s satire.

Prostakova takes advantage of the fact that Sofia is an orphan, becomes the owner of her estate and independently decides to marry the girl off.

From the very morning, order in the estate is restored only by abuse and beatings:“From morning to evening,” Prostakova complains, “it’s like being hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, then I fight.” Humiliating the inhabitants of her house, her servants and peasants is what gives Prostakova true pleasure.

Prostakova is by nature a powerful person, but as soon as a stronger person is next to her, all her pride, despotism, and greed immediately disappear, and she appears before us as a cowardly woman. Prostakova is afraid of Starodum. At the sight of him, she immediately changes her tone in relation to the other heroes of the comedy, and falls at the feet of Pravdin, who was ready to put her on trial for her vile attitude towards the peasants.

Fonvizin became an innovator in the comedy genre. The incorrect language spoken by the characters in the play was preserved by the author, “kotora”, “goloushka”, and he also introduced proverbs and sayings into the work. He also left the characteristic swear words that belong to Mrs. Prostakova: “cattle”, “grunt”, “scum”, “... tore his snout up to his ears.”

When Prostakova talks with Starodum, we learn some biographical facts about her upbringing and Scottinin’s upbringing, as well as about the environment where they lived and where their character was formed. Prostakova’s speech looks like this: “The deceased father was a commander for fifteen years, and at the same time he deigned to die because he did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to make and save enough.<…>Ancient people, my father! This was not the century. We weren't taught anything. It used to be that kind people would approach the priest, please him, please him, so that he could at least send his brother to school. By the way, the dead man is light with both hands and feet, may he rest in heaven! It happened that he would deign to shout: I will curse the little boy who learns something from the infidels, and be it not Skotinin who wants to learn something (IV, 8).” .

The only feeling she is subject to is love for her son. But even this maternal feeling manifests itself in her in a distorted form.“This insane love for one’s child 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 do not eat her child" , - Gogol wrote about Prostakova. In order to ensure that her Mitrofanushka does not need anything, she is ready to fight with the person dear to her - her brother, she is ready to fight to the death with Milo. Even in a hopeless situation, Prostakova wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential people to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Mrs. Prostakova wants everyone to live according to her laws, according to her mind and according to her will:“Whatever you want, I’ll put it on mine” . The image of Mrs. Prostakova combines features of classicism and realism. She, unlike other heroes of the play, was formed in her environment.

The character of Terenty Prostakov, husband main character, is defined at the very beginning of the comedy by his own confession to his wife:“With your eyes, mine see nothing” . Reading the play further, the viewer is convinced of this more than once. Prostakov is under the thumb of his wife. His role in the house is emphasized by the author’s remark at Prostakov’s very first remark:“stammering out of timidity.” In the comedy, Prostakov plays an insignificant role; his character does not change and is not revealed as the action develops. Researcher V. O. Klyuchevsky described Prostakov as follows:“He is just a stupid, completely helpless poor fellow, not without the conscientious sensitivity and directness of a holy fool, but without a drop of will and with a pathetic excess of cowardice that makes him be mean even to his son.” .

§2. Image of Skotinin

Taras Skotinin is a typical representative of small feudal landowners. His presence in the play emphasizes the proliferation of nobles like Prostakova. This is a completely good-natured hero, even having a certain nice trait: he really loves pigs.

As mentioned above, the author uses telling surnames in the work. The surname Skotinin suggests that all the hero’s thoughts and interests are connected with the barnyard. Gogol says about him:“Pigs became for him what an art gallery is for an art lover!” Taras Skotinin himself is ready to compare himself to pigs:“I want to have my own piglets!” . the only problem is that he has no distinction between people and pigs: intending to marry Sophia, he promises her a separate “Klevok” (shed):“If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a light for my wife.” . A comic rivalry develops between him and Mitrofan, turning into a brawl. He speaks about himself with dignity:“I am Taras Skotinin, not the last of my kind. The Skotinins family is great and ancient. You won’t find our ancestor in any heraldry.” .

Skotinin, Prostakova’s brother, not only by blood, but also by spirit. He shows exactly the same attitude towards serfs as his sister:“If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. In this, sister, I have the same custom as you... and any loss... I’ll rip it off from my own peasants, and that’s it.” .

In relation to money, Skotinin is greedy. As soon as he finds out that Sophia can bring her husband a lot of income, he is ready to eliminate his rival - Mitrofan, who is his nephew.

Mr. Skotinin uses his words in a literal sense in his speech, and several puns are based on this :

“Pravdin: When only your cattle can be happy, then your wife will have bad peace from them and from you.

Skotinin: Bad peace? bah! bah! bah! Don't I have enough light rooms? I’ll give her a coal bed and a bed for her alone...”

Skotinin says without any intention that“We have such large pigs in our neighborhood 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.” . This expression is ambiguous and clearly characterizes Skotinin.

Taras Skotinin grew up in a family that was hostile to education. He is characterized as an ignorant, mentally undeveloped person. He understands words and phrases only in their literal meaning. Hidden meaning he doesn't understand.

§3. Image of Mitrofan

One of the main characters of the comedy, Mitrofanushka, Prostakova’s son, is depicted by Fonvizin as a lazy person. But the fact that Mitrofan is lazy is not the fault of the teachers who came to the house, but the upbringing of his parents. Fonvizin gave him such a name for a reason, because in translation from Greek the name Mitrofan means “revealed by the mother.” He really looks like his mother: he adopted from her traits such as contempt for work, knowledge and people, rudeness and rudeness in conversation and greed. This is exactly how Mitrofan was raised like a bestial by Mrs. Prostakova. This hero is also the object of the author's satire. He is rude, ignorant, limited. He has exceptional mental dullness; even passionate maternal love is unable to evoke reciprocal feelings in him.

The author did not choose the name of the hero by chance. From the very first scene of the work we see that Mitrofan is trying to please his mother in everything. Mitrofanushka is not a diligent boy. He is reluctant to take up teaching and is lazy about service. Mitrofan’s mood depends entirely on his mother:“While Mitrofanushka is still in his infancy,” she reasons, “let’s sweat and pamper him, and then in ten years, when he comes out, God forbid, into the service, he’ll suffer everything.” .

Mitrofan is an undergrowth because he is a complete ignorant, knowing neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun. But he is also immature morally, since he does not know how to respect the dignity of other people. He is rude and impudent to servants and teachers. He curries favor with his mother as long as he feels her strength.

Mitrofan is a minor in the civic sense, since he has not matured enough to understand his responsibilities to the state:“We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland?”

The lazy and arrogant Mitrofanushka is taught not sciences and moral rules, but deception, disrespect not only for the duty of a nobleman, but also for people. It trains a person who will be able to find benefits and circumvent all laws and regulations of the state.

The image of Mitrofanushka is created using realistic techniques. Skotinin’s roots have been evident in him since childhood; we learn about this from Mrs. Prostakova’s speech:“Our Mitrofanushka is just like his uncle. And he was a hunter of pigs, just like you. When I was still three years old, when I saw the back, I would tremble with joy.”

The character of the “minor” is revealed through speech. He learned his lessons from that. How to address servants:"old hrychovka, garrison rat" and others. But when he needs protection from the outside, he addresses Eremeevna like this:“Mommy! Shield me! In Mitrofan’s understanding, there is no respect for elders; there is rudeness in his addresses:“Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane?<…>Get out, uncle, get out." . His actions also show his cowardly nature.

Just like other members of his family, the abstract meaning of objects is inaccessible to him, which we see in the example of the explanation of the part of speech of the word “door”; he perceives only a specific object.

§4.Image of Starodum

Starodum is a nobleman by birth, raised in the era of Peter the Great. He highly valued the soul, honor and rules in a person. He hated and despised people who lied and fiercely strived for wealth and rank. In the comedy, Starodum acts as the author’s “confidant,” in other words, as a sounding board. It was in his mouth that Fonvizin put important words about the principles of “good morals.”

Starodum is a purposeful person by nature. He is characterized by nobility, honesty and good morals. He always tries to follow his rules and "from birth his tongue did not say yes, when his soul felt no.” .

Starodum, as an intelligent person, is characterized by his speech, which is full of aphorisms. He has nothing to be ashamed of, because he does not deviate from his rules.

He despises people like Mrs. Prostakova, her son Mitrofan, Skotinin. He believes that Prostakova is a rude, evil and ruthless serf landowner. Her husband, Prostakov, is a weak-willed man who is under the thumb of his wife. Mitrofanushka is a very lazy, illiterate and selfish idiot. Skotinin appears before us as cruel, ignorant and a landowner, befitting cattle.

They all want to look in the best light in front of Starodum, flattering him at every step. This behavior is due to the fact that they have a great desire to force Starodum’s niece Sofia, who is a rich heiress, into marriage.

Niece Sofia, her fiancé Milon and Mr. Pravdin are the only people whom Starodum respects in the comedy, because... They have a sense of responsibility, honor and duty to the Fatherland.

Starodum’s statements, which are an expression of the author’s point of view and pressing issues of our time:

1. The husband must submit to reason, the wife to her husband.

2. A thinking person even without a high rank is a noble person.

3. Without good behavior clever man a monster, it is immeasurably higher than all the fluency of the mind.

4. Rich is the one who takes away what he has in excess in order to help someone who does not have what he needs.

5. Conscience always warns before punishing as a judge.

6. Virtue has its envious people.

7. They never wish evil upon those whom they despise; they usually wish evil upon those who have the right to despise.

8.Cash is not cash worth.

9. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick who are incurable (about the yard).

10. It is much more honest to be treated without guilt than to be treated without merit.

§5.Images of Sophia and Milo

Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” was written during the reign of CatherineII, when issues of upbringing and education were the main ones not only among the older generation, but also among young people. In his play, the author not only examines the problems of contemporary society, but shows us a whole series of collective images that characterize the ideological concept of the work. One of these characters isSophia .

This comedy is a classic educational film. In the image of Sophia, the author showed us an example of a woman of the Enlightenment era - beautiful, intelligent, educated, kind and modest. Sophia respects her parents and honors her elders.

Sophia is the niece of Starodum, who is her guardian. Sophia is an orphan. At a young age, the girl’s father died, and six months before the events described in the work, her mother died. Sophia from ancient Greek means “wisdom, wisdom, wise.” In comedy, she is endowed with precisely such qualities.

While her uncle, Starodum, was serving in Siberia, Sophia found herself in the care of the stupid, cruel and uneducated Prostakova. She and her family managed the Starodum estate and rob the girl. As soon as they find out that Sophia is becoming the heiress of a good fortune, they immediately begin to fight for her hand and heart. But Sophia is in love with Milon, whom she considers her fiancé, and to whom she is already engaged. Sophia despises the Prostakov family, considers them uneducated and stupid. Sophie herself comes from honest nobles, where she received a good education and was brought up in positive manners. The girl believes that wealth must be earned through one’s own labor and must listen to elders, but love is the only feeling worth fighting for. Throughout the entire play, only positive characters revolve around Sophia. They help her survive Prostakova's humiliations and insults, escape from her care and reunite with Milon at the end of the comedy.

The issue of education is perhaps the most important in this play. It is to him that the author pays quite a lot of attention. When characterizing the characters, he does not forget to talk about the environment in which and how the characters were raised. When we analyze the image of Sophia and Milon, we see that their upbringing is correct, good, positive.

Let's compare the images of Sophia and Mitrofan. The girl was raised in an enlightened noble family, received a good education, she was instilled with positive behavior, both in the family and in society; the main value is love for parents, honesty, good behavior, justice and showing mercy to others. Her “fiancé”, Mitrofan, on the contrary, had no upbringing; he was a rude, ill-mannered person.

Sophia is contrasted in comedy with a female character - Prostakova. They personify two completely opposite views of the author on the role of women in the family and society. Mrs. Prostakova does not love or respect her husband, she is rude, cruel and despotic; she even planned the wedding of Sophia and Mitrofan in such a way as to gain possession of a large farm. Sophie considers marriage a serious step, the result of which is the reunion or union of two loving and self-respecting people. She has a lover, Milo, to whom she remains faithful no matter what. In marriage, Sophia considers the main thing not the financial situation, but family happiness and well-being.

Prostakova acts as a bearer of the values ​​and foundations of the long-outdated “Domostroy”, according to the norms of which a woman does not need to be educated, understand high matters and talk about serious things; instead, she should only deal with the housework and children, getting bogged down in the daily household routine. Her image is traditional for Russian literature. Sophia is an innovative image for literature, because... embodies educational views on the role of women in society. She is a symbol of wisdom, kindness, honesty, mercy and human warmth. The reader sees her not as a cook, but as a girl with her own views on life. The comparative and comparative characteristics of Sophia throughout the play are depicted by Fonvizin in such a way that we understand that she is the ideal of an enlightened personality.

Let's turn to another character who has a positive response in the play - Milo. This hero was introduced by the author into the comedy in order to show the contrast between the characters of Prostakov and Skotinin. Milon - officer; We first meet him in the comedy when he appears in the Prostakov village at the head of a detachment of soldiers. Milon, unlike Mitrofan, is an educated, noble man, who responsibly approaches not only public affairs, but also fulfills his duty to the Fatherland.

When Milon meets with his friend Pravdin, he tells him a story about his beloved girl, with whom he has been separated for a year now and does not know which village she is in. Milon was worried that during this year the girl had stopped loving him or was not faithful to him, but having learned the truth, he begins to worry about her fate:“Perhaps she is now in the hands of some selfish people who, taking advantage of her orphanhood, are keeping her in tyranny. This thought alone makes me beside myself.”

By a lucky chance, Milon’s beloved turns out to be Sophia, who lives with the Prostakovs, and they meet, explain their feelings and hope to be together. Sophia hopes that her uncle Starodum, whose arrival everyone is waiting for, will approve of their marriage. But before this, a conversation occurs, from which we learn between the lines some characteristics of Milo. When he accidentally decides that Sophia is ready to marry Mitrofan, Milo calls him a noble man and laments:"A! now I see my destruction. My opponent is happy! I do not deny all the merits in him. He may be reasonable, enlightened, kind; but so that you can compare with me in my love for you, so that...” But when Milon nevertheless finds out the truth, he calms down and gives himself a positive description:"How! such is my opponent! A! Dear Sophia! Why are you tormenting me with jokes? You know how easily a passionate person is upset by the slightest suspicion.”

Milon is indignant at the Prostakovs’ attitude towards his beloved Sophia, especially at the moment when Prostakova wants to marry Sophia to Mitrofan:"Unworthy people!" - that's what he says about them.

In the play we observe an episode when Mrs. Prostakova fights with Skotinin. At this time, Milon not only manages to separate them from each other, but also tries to guide them on the right path, make peace and be polite:“And you forgot that he is your brother!”, “Isn’t she your sister?”, “Didn’t she hurt you?”, “I won’t let you in, madam. Don't be angry! Milon is well-mannered, unobtrusive and will retain honor and face in all situations.

Starodum, Sophia's uncle, wants to marry her to a noble man, about whom he has a good impression in absentia:“A certain young man of great merit has been presented to me as her groom.” . Later we learn that he means Milo. At the moment of their acquaintance, Milon appears before Starodum as a modest young man, honoring and respecting his elders, as a responsible person:“At my age and in my position, it would be unforgivable arrogance to consider everything deserved with which worthy people encourage a young man.”

Since Milo is an officer, he believes that an officer’s duty is not only to die on the battlefield, but also the ability to properly manage family life, be noble, respect people older than his age, and understand the values ​​of life. Milon also believes that courage is needed in any life situation:“It seems to me that the courage of the heart is proven in the hour of battle, and the fearlessness of the soul in all trials, in all situations of life. And what is the difference between the fearlessness of a soldier who, in an attack, risks his life along with others, and between the fearlessness of a statesman who speaks the truth to the sovereign, daring to anger him. The judge who, fearing neither vengeance nor the threats of the strong, gave justice to the helpless, is a hero in my eyes. How small is the soul of the one who challenges him to a duel for a trifle, compared to the one who stands up for the absent, whose honor is tormented by slanderers in his presence! This is how I understand fearlessness.”

In the image of Milon, Fonvizin collected all the ideal qualities of a person: positivity, nobility, honesty, courage, bravery.

Sophia and Milon – lovers whose happiness is threatened as a result of Prostakova’s actions, the characters are simple and rather schematic, playing rather a supporting role .

§6. Image of Pravdin

Pravdin is one of the few characters in the play who is educated and knows how to read. He does not betray his moral principles, and he received his upbringing along with his education. It is characterized by fun and idleness. The beginning of the whole action occurs at the moment when Pravdin is asked to read a letter sent by Starodum, which says that Sophia is becoming a rich heiress.

Pravdin is a government official who was sent to the Prostakov estate to make ends meet and sort out the family’s affairs. He learns about Prostakova’s excesses, as well as the fact that she is robbing Sophia. The denouement of the comedy is the announcement by Pravdin, acting on behalf of the state, of a resolution to limit the rights of Mrs. Prostakova, allegedly based on the law of the Empress, - Fonvizin’s artistic “plan”. There was no such law. Thus, Fonvizin from the stage, through the lips of his heroes, gave “advice” to Empress Catherine, which was perceived by the authorities as insolence, and by the public as the beginning of the progress of reforms.

Chapter 3. Images of minor characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”

§1.Images of servants and teachers

In addition to the main characters in Fonvizin’s play, there are also secondary ones, which are also important for understanding the plot of the work. Among the minor characters we can include the servants Trushka and Eremeevna, the teachers Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman.

In the initial scenes of the comedy, we can observe Mrs. Prostakova’s boorish attitude towards her servants: she scolds Trishka for poorly sewing the caftan (note that he was not trained in the craft of a tailor); scolds Eremeevna for the fact that she has served decently for forty years, protects Mitrofan, and carries out her duties with special devotion and diligence. Prostakova does not believe that education is important, and therefore hires teachers for Mitrofanushka only because of the capital's fashion.

Eremeevna , Mitrofan's nanny, is depicted in the comedy by Fonvizin with the greatest artistry, in contrast to the other supporting characters. She has been faithfully serving the Prostakov family for forty years. She is devoted to them, tied to their home, and she also has a highly developed sense of duty - she protects Mitrofan in every possible way:

“Eremeevna (shielding Mitrofan, going berserk and raising her fists): I’ll die on the spot, but I won’t give up the child. Hoop down, sir, just be so kind as to put your head down. I'll scratch out those thorns.

Skotinin (trembling and threatening, moves away):. I'll get you there!

Eremeevna (trembling, following): I have my own hooks too sharp!”

But all these qualities are of a slavish nature. Her image is characterized by remarks:trembled, trembled, trembled, cried, in tears . Eremeevna serves the Prostakov family and lives in constant fear. Her speech is enriched with folk words and phrases:God forbid vain lies, the difficult one will not clean me up etc.

The most believable and truthful in the comedy are the images of Mitrofanushka’s teachers - Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman, who teach at home.

Tsyfirkin , a retired soldier, is portrayed with positive characterization. The description of his image contains such qualities as hard work and responsibility:“I don’t like to live idlely” . Most researchers, turning to the image of teacher Tsyfirkin, classify him as a hero-ideologist, because he is guided by the concept of feeling and duty:“I took money for service, I didn’t take it in vain and I won’t take it” . His last name is telling - it correlates with a number.

Teacher of Russian and Church SlavonicKuteikin is portrayed in the comedy by Fonvizin as a half-educated seminarian who graduated from the first classes of a theological seminary. Just like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna, but differs from him in his special cunning and greed for money. Kuteikin’s education is characterized by the Church Slavonicisms he uses in his speech:“I was called and came,” “fear and trembling will come upon you” . The surname Kuteikin comes from the ritual dish kutya.

The third teacher of Mitrofan is satirically depicted -Vralman . This is a rogue teacher, endowed with the soul of a lackey, Starodum's former coachman. He became a teacher after his master left for Siberia, which is why he can be considered a useless teacher, ignorant, who could not teach his student anything. Yielding to Mitrofan's laziness. Vralman doesn’t teach him anything, and in order to look like a good teacher, in front of Prostakova, he praises his student.

In his comedy, Fonvizin denounces the noble class, whose moral principles did not correspond to the principles of civil service to society. It is thanks to the secondary characters that the viewer can see the true essence of Prostakova. Each of the minor characters expresses the author's idea and his opinion.

§2. Summary table of the image system of Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”

Characteristic

Speech of heroes

Negative characters

Mrs. Prostakova

The central negative character of the work, depicted by the author as an uneducated, evil woman who feels complete power over her serfs and people close to her.

“cattle”, “fraudster”, “thief’s mug”, “blockhead”, “beast”, “rascal”, “dog’s daughter”, “benefactor”

Taras Skotinin

A negative character with the surname of cattle; loves pigs very much.

“I haven’t read anything since I was a child... God saved me from this boredom.” “I love pigs...” “Are there pigs in your villages?” “I want to have my own piglets”

Mitrofan

(Mitrofanushka)

A young character who grew up among ignorant and uneducated people. His image has become a household name.

“old bastard”, “Get out, uncle; get out”, “garrison rat”, “Get them shot and with Eremeevna”

Prostakov

Mrs. Prostakova's husband, a forced man, is not the head of the family. Doesn't have an opinion.

Positive characters

Pravdin

A government official sent on duty to the Prostakov estate.

“From the struggle of my heart, I do not fail to notice the malicious ignoramuses who, having power over their people, use it inhumanly for evil.”

Sophia

Starodum's niece, an intelligent and educated girl.

“I will use all my efforts to earn the good opinion of worthy people.”

Starodum

Sophia's uncle.

"Enlightenment exalts one virtuous soul." "Cash is not cash worth"

Milo

An officer who showed himself heroically in battle, Sophia's fiancé.

“I am in love and have the happiness of being loved”

Minor characters

Tsyfirkin

Formerly a soldier, currently a math teacher for Mitrofan.

“These gentlemen are good commanders!”

Kuteikin

A half-educated seminarian, a teacher of Church Slavonic for Mitrofan.

“utter darkness”, “woe is me a sinner”, “the call came”, “I came”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom”

Vralman

German by origin, teacher of Mitrofan.

“They want to kill the turnip!”

Eremeevna

Mitrofan, servant of Prostakova and her entire family.

“... I would have broken down with him... I wouldn’t have even taken care of my fangs.”

Conclusion

Comedy D.I. Fonvizin’s “Nedorosl” is of enduring value as an artistic monument of Russian literatureXVIIIcentury. In it, the author was able to reflect almost everything: starting with the reality of Catherine’s reignIIand raising the main issues (upbringing and education). It was in this work that people were able to see the vices not only of society as a whole, but also of each person individually.

Fonvizin's satirical comedy was included in curriculum on Russian literature. The play was part of theater repertoires for a long time. It was interesting not only for children, but also for adults, who watched the comedy on stage with great pleasure. After all, it was in it that Fonvizin showed ordinary life a person in a satirical manner, exposed the vices of people and showed their lack of education and ignorance, made people laugh at themselves.

“Undergrowth” has great educational significance. We see in the example of Mitrofanushka how his mind and soul were disfigured by his ignorant parents. Even if good teachers, and not ignoramuses, were hired to teach him, it would be of little use. More precisely, great harm would come from this.

The historian Klyuchevsky wrote that the comedy “Minor” shows“What concepts and habits fertilize the cultural soil on which we walk and the grains of which we eat. This historical interest could not be noticed in the comedy by its author’s contemporaries: while watching it, they did not see us, their grandchildren; through it we see them, our grandfathers" . Teachers, parents and educators of modern pre-teens can say about this play in the paraphrased words of Starodum:“Read it, read it! Whoever wrote “The Minor” will not corrupt morals with his pen.” .

In our work, we analyzed the character system of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” As a result of the study, we come to the following conclusions.

All the heroes of the play are divided into two groups: positive heroes, endowed with the features of classicism, and negative heroes, which reflect the innovative features of Fonvizin.

The comedy clearly and clearly shows the origin of one or another character in the play. Their characteristics are depicted both by speech features and descriptive qualities.

All comedy heroes are in motion. The play depicts fights between Mitrofanushka and Skotinin, Prostakova and Skotin. The main characters perform almost no actions; they are characterized only by words.

List of used literature

1. Aseev B.N. Russian drama theater from its origins to the end of the 19th century. M., 1977.

2. Belinsky V.G. Literary Dreams, 1834

3. Belinsky V.G. Full composition of writings. T. 5.//V.G. Belinsky - M.: Education, 1954. - 647 p.

4. Berkov P.N. History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977.

5. Buranok O.M. Methodology for studying Russian literature of the 18th century at a university: Recommended by the Ministry of General and Professional Education Russian Federation as teaching aid for students of higher pedagogical educational institutions. M., 1997. 224 p.

6. Buranok O.M. Russian literature of the 18th century: Training and metodology complex for students of philological specialties. Recommended by the Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Russian Federation / Ed. 2. M.: Nauka, Flinta, 2002. 392 p.

7. Russian literatureXVIIIcentury: Reader of memoirs, epistolary materials and literary critical articles: Approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation as a teaching aid for students of higher educational institutions studying in the specialty “Russian”I am students of higher educational institutions studying in the specialty "Russianlanguage and literature” / Ed. prof. O. M. Buranka.Ed. 2. – M.: Flinta. Science, 2008.368 pp.

8. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross V.N. Fonvizin-playwright. M., 1960.

9. Glukhov V.I. The formation of realism in Russian literature of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Volgograd, 1976.

10. Glukhov V.I. The method and figurative structure of D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”: On the debate about artistic nature plays // Interaction of genres, artistic movements and traditions in Russian drama of the 18th-19th centuries. Kuibyshev, 1988. P. 1935.

11. Gukovsky G.A. Essays on Russian literature of the 18th century. / G.A. Gukovsky – L.: Book, 1938. – 318 p.

12. Zolotareva I.V., Egorova N.V. Lesson developments in literature. 9th grade. – 4th ed., revised. And additional – M.: VAKO, 2015 – 416 p. (To help the school teacher)

13. Klyuchevsky V.O. “The Minor” by Fonvizin An experience of historical explanation of an educational play

14. Lebedeva O.B. History of Russian literature of the 18th century, M., 2000 – 257 p.

15. Lebedeva O.B. Russian high comedy of the 18th century: Genesis and poetics of the genre.//O.B. Lebedeva – Tomsk: Nauka, 1996. – 327 p.

16. Makogonenko G.P. Denis Fonvizin: Creative path. M.; L., 1961.

17. Moskvicheva G.V. Russian classicism. M., 1978.

18. Nesterova O. I. OGE. Literature: universal reference book/ O.I. Nesterova. Moscow: Eksmo, 2016-304 p.- (OGE. Universal reference book)

19. Pigarev K.V. Creativity of Fonvizin. - M.: Nauka, 1954. - P. 151 – 215

20. Rassadin S.V. Book about D.I. Fonvizine. Satires the brave ruler: M., 1985

21. Serman I.Z. Russian classicism: Poetry, drama, satire. L., 1973.

22. Stennik Yu.V. Russian satire of the 18th century. L., 1985. 16

Nesterova O.I. OGE. Literature: universal reference book//O.I. Nesterova. M., 2016-304 p.- (OGE. Universal reference book) p.57

Introduction

“Undergrowth” is the central work of D.I. Fonvizin, the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century. Fonvizin's plays continue the traditions of classicism. “For life,” G.A. pointed out. Gukovsky, - his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of this school” (6). But unlike the comedies of A.P. Sumarokov and V.I. Lukin, Fonvizin’s plays are a phenomenon of later, more mature Russian classicism, which was strongly influenced by Enlightenment ideology.

From classicism comes, first of all, the principle of the highest assessment of a person: serving the state, fulfilling his civic duty. In “Nedorosl” there is a contrast between two eras, characteristic of Russian classicism: Peter’s and the one to which the author belongs. The first acts as a model of civil behavior, the second as a deviation from it. This is how both Lomonosov and Sumarokov assessed modernity. Classicism is associated with a clear, mathematically thought-out system of images. In every play there are two camps - evil and virtuous heroes. Good and evil, light and shadows are sharply delineated. Positive heroes are only virtuous, negative ones are only vicious. However, in “Nedorosl” the system of images is expanded. There are three groups of characters, including three male and one female character: positive characters - Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia; malevolent ones - Prostakova, Prostakov, Skotinin and Mitrofan; Mitrofan’s educators are Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman and Eremeevna, endowed with both positive and negative qualities (11). In his comedies, among mask-caricatures and ideal schemes, real living people appear on the Russian stage for the first time, and this is one of Fonvizin’s greatest creative and even ideological victories.

In comparison with the classicism of previous decades, in Fonvizin’s comedies the object of ridicule is not the private life of the nobles, as was the case with Sumarokov and Lukin, but their social, official activities and serfdom practices.

Not content with just depicting noble “evil morality,” the writer strives to show its causes, which, again, was not observed in Sumarokov’s plays. In resolving this issue, enlightenment played a major role, explaining the vices of people by their “ignorance” and improper upbringing.

When studying the comedy “The Minor” (from the first critical reviews of the 19th century to the fundamental literary works of the 20th century), literary scholars addressed the problem of different aesthetic dignity of ethically polar characters (8). 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” (2; 537).

G.A. Gukovsky: “Milon, Pravdin, Starodum speak abstractly on an abstract stage, the Prostakovs, teachers, servants live everyday life in a real everyday environment" (5; 189).

K.V. Pigarev: “<…>Fonvizin sought to generalize and typify reality. In the negative images of comedy, he succeeded brilliantly.<…>The positive characters of "The Minor" clearly lack artistic and life-like persuasiveness.<…>The images he created did not take on living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and the best representatives of his time” (12).

The cited observations on the poetics of “The Minor” clearly reveal the aesthetic parameters of two antagonistic groups of comedy characters: on the one hand, verbal painting and “living life” in a plastically authentic everyday environment, on the other – oratory, rhetoric, reasoning, speaking. The role of everyday heroes in comedy causes a lot of controversy, and this is relevance this study.

Object research is the creativity of D.I. Fonvizin and his comedy “The Minor.” Item research - images of everyday comedy heroes.

Target research: to identify the artistic originality and role of everyday images of characters in the work. To achieve this goal, you must complete the following tasks :

1. Identify the features of tradition and innovation in the character system of the comedy “Minor.”

2. Analyze the images of everyday heroes, taking into account the methods of their creation.

3. Determine the meaning of images of everyday heroes in comedy.

Methods research: aspect analysis, genre-typological research.

Practical significance works: the materials of this study can be used in literature lessons when studying the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin "Minor" in 9th grade.

1. Traditions and innovation in the system of images of the heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”

In terms of plot and title, “The Minor” is a play about how poorly and incorrectly a young nobleman was taught, raising him as a “minor.” The problem of education is central to the works of the Enlightenment. But Fonvizin greatly expanded the formulation of this problem: we are talking about education in the broadest sense of the word. Mitrofan is the same ignoramus that the title of the play refers to. The story of his upbringing explains where the terrible world of the Skotinins and Prostakovs comes from. This means not just posing the problem of education, but considering the circumstances that influence the formation of personality, which corresponds to the tasks of realism.

Naturally, such a problem could not be solved only by means of classicism; it was necessary to find new approaches to depicting heroes. This is where a peculiar fusion of traditional and innovative elements in comedy arises.

Quite in accordance with the rules of three unities, the action of the play takes place in the estate of Mrs. Prostakova during one day, and all events are tied into one knot (unity of place, time and action). In terms of composition, the writer also quite clearly adheres to tradition: the characters are clearly divided into negative, unenlightened and positive, educated, grouping quite symmetrically: four by four. In the center of the group of negative characters is Mrs. Prostakova - all the other characters in this group in one way or another relate themselves to her: “my wife’s husband,” “sister’s brother,” “mother’s son.” At the head of the positive camp is Starodum, to whom Pravdin, Milon and Sophia listen. The difference between the system of images and the traditional one is manifested in the fact that Fonvizin introduces into the system characters and a number of minor persons who are difficult to classify as positive or negative (Eremeevna, Trishka, Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman).

Fonvizin also widely uses this technique of classicism, which helps reveal the characters of the characters, like telling names and surnames: Prostakova, Starodum, Skotinin, Pravdin and others. Everyday minor characters also have telling surnames: Tsifirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman.

In general, it should be noted that although Fonvizin’s heroes, as required in classicism, do not develop, in the living tissue of the work their characters often acquired a character unusual for the dramaturgy of classicism polysemy– this is a clear move towards realism. So, if the images of Skotinin, Vralman, Kuteikin are sharpened to the point of caricature, the images of Prostakova and Eremeevna are distinguished by great internal complexity. Eremeevna is a “slave,” but she retains a clear awareness of her position, knows the characters of her masters very well, and the soul is alive in her. Prostakova, an evil, cruel serf-owner, turns out to be at the same time a loving, caring mother, who in the finale, rejected by her own son, looks truly unhappy and even evokes our sympathy.

According to O.B. Lebedeva, observations of 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 (Prostakova, Prostakov, Mitrofan, Skotinin), on the other - oratory, rhetoric , reasoning, speaking (Pravdin, Milon, Starodum, Sophia). These two semantic centers very precisely define the nature of the artistic specificity of different groups of characters as different types of artistic imagery, and Russian literary tradition, to which these types go back (9).

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 Prostakovs-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" (1, 2, 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" (I, 4); “Skotinin. I wanted to go for a walk in the barnyard” (I, 8) - all this surrounds the everyday characters of “The Minor” with a plastically authentic environment of the home (9).

On the contrary, ideological heroes are completely homeless. They move through space with ease; they do not belong to the world of the simpleton’s estate, coming into it from the outside and for a while; their images are connected not with the house as a habitat, but with the city as a cultural category: as you know, Pravdin lives in Moscow, Starodum left Moscow, leaving for Siberia to work (I, 7), the mutual love of Milon and Sophia was born in Moscow ( IV, 6). And this Moscow genesis of hero-ideologists is far from accidental. Moscow, the original capital of Russia and the center of traditional Russian culture, emphasizes in the positive heroes of the comedy their national principle, which is so important for Fonvizin: Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia, despite their Westernized book culture, are as much Russian as the sedentary inhabitants of the provincial fields

Russian literature. 8th grade.

Topic: System of images and principles of creating characters. The main problems of comedy. The artistic originality of comedy: features of classicism and deviations from it.

Goals:

Educational - familiarity with the comedy genre; identifying the conflict on which the action in the play is based, its causes, connections with the era; consideration of comedy from the standpoint of the canons of classicism and deviations from them.

Developmental - creating conditions for the formation of analytical skills; express your point of view in a monologue, solve a problem situation

Educational - fostering the desire to be a truly moral, well-mannered, educated person who knows how to see and appreciate the personality in another person; formation of the need to live according to the law.

Lesson type: Lesson in the formation of new knowledge.

Basic method: analytical conversation with elements of problem search (text analysis). Forms: collective and individual.

Equipment: Portrait of D. I. Fonvizin, texts of the comedy “Minor”, ​​workbooks on literature,

Board design: portrait of the writer, topic of the lesson, problems, conflicts of comedy.

During the classes

straight from the whirlpool of everyday life...

with all their chaos

IN. Klyuchevsky

1. Organizational moment.

2. Announcing the topic of the lesson, goals, problems.

The subject of our conversation today will be the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin “Minor”,

And the goal is to resolve the problem “What a true nobleman should be and whether the Russian nobility corresponds to its purpose.”

3. Heuristic conversation before turning to text analysis, a message from a previously prepared student or teacher.

Let's remember what genre the classicists considered comedy? Low.

Why? Low heroes, living life (“low”), everyday, low passions.

In the 18th century, comedy was very popular. Of the 334 theatrical plays performed on the Russian stage in the 2nd-1st half of the 18th century, there were 188 comedies, 52 tragedies, 39 dramas, 32 comic operas. More than half were comedies.

Why? Comedy was more closely connected with life and could more realistically reflect socio-political problems. Living life penetrated more and more into the works.

A message from a trained student about the powerless situation of serfs, about the blatant abuses of the nobles, about arbitrariness.

Student message:

Fonvizin knew about these abuses and expressed his political views in “Discourses on Indispensable State Laws.” He is convinced that the country should be governed by enlightened sovereigns, that laws are needed that the kings would obey, reforms that would limit the arbitrariness of the nobles; the nobles need to be educated and educated. And these thoughts of Fonvizin brought him closer to the enlighteners.

So, what problems does Fonvizin address in his comedy?

problem of power problem of education

the problem of serfdom

(what a nobleman should be -

and does Russian respond?

nobility to its purpose?)

4. Analysis of comedy.

So here we have a comedy (genre).

Prove it. What are the goals of comedy?

1. Moral descriptive - a description of the mores of life of one’s time.

2. Showing the ideal of life and deviation from it, and this is funny, but also sad, so satire and humor are fused together here.

3. The conflict here is solvable. We see all this in the comedy “The Minor.”

But this is a classicist comedy, and among classicists, each genre obeys certain rules.

What signs of classicism do we see in Fonvizin’s comedy?

1. Maintaining the unity of time and place of action.

2. Dividing characters into high and low, vicious and virtuous.

3. Faith in reason, that law and education can correct the morals of society - a direct expression of the author's ideal.

Which canons of classicism does the writer depart from, and which should he?

Violation and adherence to the canons of classicism in the comedy “Minor”

Unity of tone (nothing funny in tragedy, nothing sad in comedy)

Comedy (mixing genres of satire and humor)

Unity of action (the plot develops strictly sequentially, without retreat, not confusing(love triangle))

The plot is multi-level, multi-structured. Love conflict (against the backdrop of Sophia’s misadventures, a socio-political conflict between serf owners and enlightened nobles plays out)

Unity of place

Unity of time

Educational function of literature

More than one lazy person was frightened by the prospect of becoming like Mitrofan

So, the plot turns out to be multi-level, multi-structured, hence severalstorylines:

1. Teachers, Trishka

Pre-prepared students talk about Vralman (D.3, Yan.3; D.5 Yan.6), about Tsifirkin (D.2 Yan.5; D.5 Yan.6), about Kuteikin (D.2 Yan.5 , d.5 yavl.6), about Trishka.

What is their role?

We find out who educates, who teaches what and what to noble children. They give the comedy a social resonance and highlight the problem of upbringing, education, and enlightenment of the nobles.

Yes! But he exposes them, despises them, is indignant, and also shows them satirically.

2. Comic scenes associated with the teachers and Trishka, which are of paramount importance in the play (1, 2,3,4; 2, 4,6; 4, 8).

Comic episodes bring together teachers, Trishka and the negative characters, create an everyday background against which the characters of the negative characters are revealed, and add concreteness and liveliness to the everyday life of the local nobility. But already in these scenes the comic and tragic are intertwined, and the problems of upbringing and education of the nobles are highlighted.

3. Negative heroes.

What do we learn from Prostakova and Skotinin about their relatives?

How does Prostakova feel about the education and upbringing of her son?

Madly in love with her son, she tries to protect him from studying so that Mitrofanushka does not overwork himself. In an effort to make a favorable impression on Starodum, she says to her child: “At least for the sake of appearance, study, so that it reaches his ears how you work, Mitrofanushka...” Mathematics for her is “emptiness”, “stupid science”; Geography is also not needed - “the coachman will take you where you need to go anyway...”. She is sincerely convinced that sciences are not needed, since “even without sciences people live and have lived...”.

What are the relationships between family members? (from a position of strength).

What is the purpose of negative heroes? Show what they can be and what they shouldn’t be.

“A nobleman is not worthy to be a nobleman!”

So, the negative heroes - the nobles - are one side of the socio-political conflict (here).

Conflict resolution occurs from the outside. It is impossible to educate people like Prostakova; they can only be punished, based on the law, deprived of power - such is the distortion of moral foundations in them.

4. Positive and negative heroes.

Positive

Negative

Pravdin

Starodum

Milo

Prostakova

Mitrofan teachers

These are enlightened, educated, noble, virtuous people, acting according to the law, at the behest of the heart and mind.

ignorance, bad manners, absence moral concepts, arbitrariness, unlimited power over serfs, impunity, callousness, evil behavior

V.G. Belinsky: “These honest people expressed the ideal to which society should strive...”

Who is capable of correcting the nobles corrupted by serfdom and resolving the urgent socio-political conflict?

What do Starodum and Pravdin say about this?

Both believe in an enlightened monarch, but Pravdin has not yet understood the true essence of Catherine’s reign, to whom Starodum makes a hopeless diagnosis of being “incurably ill.”

Homework: select material for an essay on the comedy “The Minor”: 1) Everyday life of the Prostakov family, 2) Mitrofanushka and his teachers, 3) Problems of education in the comedy “The Minor.”

What characterizes the life of Russian society in the 18th century?

Student message:

Fonvizin knew about the powerless situation of serfs, about the flagrant abuses of the nobles, about arbitrariness, and expressed his political views in “Discussions on indispensable state laws.” He is convinced that the country should be governed by enlightened sovereigns, that laws are needed that the kings would obey, reforms that would limit the arbitrariness of the nobles; the nobles need to be educated and educated. And these thoughts of Fonvizin brought him closer to the enlighteners.

- What were the enlighteners convinced of, what did they believe in?

The world can be changed, corrected with the help of enlightenment, education, upbringing and law, they believed in reason, and gave a big role to the word. Their beliefs formed the basis of classicism, a literary movement.

- What is the ideal person for classicists?

A virtuous, law-abiding, enlightened, educated, well-mannered citizen serving for the good of the Motherland.

These ideals of enlightenment formed the basis of comedy.

Problems in the comedy "Minor"

Problems in the comedy "Minor"

Problems in the comedy "Minor"

Problems in the comedy "Minor"

This comedy is an incomparable mirror.

Fonvizin took the heroes of “The Minor”

straight from the whirlpool of life...

yeah, I put them on stage

with all the turmoil of their relationship,

with all their chaos

untidy instincts and interests.

IN. Klyuchevsky

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin

(1745 – 1792)

V.G. Belinsky :

“These honest people expressed the ideal to which society should strive...”

Literary quiz. D. I. Fonvizin

1. How was the surname Fonvizin originally written?

2. What three languages ​​did Fonvizin learn at the gymnasium, which helped him? become a translator later?

3. How have the meanings of the words “foreman” and “minor” changed since Fonvizin times?

4. What does the name Mitrofan mean? What's so funny about his teachers' last names and nicknames?

6. Prostakovs and Skotinins are common nouns ("speaking") surnames, but at the same time natural for the Russian language and commonly used in everyday life. What are the names of the goodies? Do they have first or last names?

7. What is Prostakova’s maiden name?

8. What mocking phrase does Kuteikin dictate to his student? and he diligently writes down without understanding anything?

9. What sciences does Vralman teach? Who did he serve as?

10. Was Mitrofan a complete fool and a lazy bumpkin?

11. How, according to Mitrofan, differs a noun from an adjective? Does his answer make sense?

12. Prostakova’s answer to the question why geography is needed became a catchphrase, as did her son’s expression about studying. Quote them.

13. How does Skotinin justify his last name?

14. What is the final phrase that ends the comedy? Who pronounces it?