What artistic techniques help create images of undergrowth. Coursework: Images of everyday heroes in D.I.’s comedy

16.01.2024

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. An 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 expressions (“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 person 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).

Fonvizin's contemporaries highly valued The Minor; he delighted them not only with his amazing language, the clarity of the author's civic position, and the innovation of form and content.

Features of the genre

According to the genre, this work is a classic comedy, it complies with the requirements of “three unities” (place, time, action) inherent in classicism; the heroes are divided into positive and negative, each of the heroes has its own role (“reasoner”, “villain”, etc.). etc.), however, there are also deviations from the requirements of classicist aesthetics, and serious deviations.So, the comedy was only supposed to amuse, it could not be interpreted in multiple meanings, there could be no ambiguity in it - and if we remember “The Minor”, then we cannot help but admit that, raising in the work the most important social issues of his time, the author resolves them by means far from comic: for example, at the end of the work, when, it would seem, “the vice is punished,” the viewer cannot help but sympathize with Mrs. Prostakova, who is rudely and cruelly pushed away by the ungrateful Mitrofanushka, preoccupied with his own fate: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself. .." - and the tragic element powerfully invades the comedy, which was unacceptable.. And with the “unity of action” everything is also not so simple in comedy, it has too many storylines that do not “work” in any way to resolve the main conflict , but create a broad social background that determines the characters of the characters. Finally, Fonvizin’s innovation was reflected in the language of the comedy “The Minor”; the speech of the characters is very highly individualized, it contains folklorisms, vernacular, and high style (Starodum, Pravdin), which also violates the classic canons of creating speech characteristics of characters. We can, summing up, conclude that Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” became a truly innovative work for its time; the author pushed the boundaries of the aesthetics of classicism, subordinating it to the solution of the task set for himself: to angrily ridicule the vices of his contemporary society, to rid it of “evil morals.” ", capable of destroying both the human soul and public morality.

Image system

Let us analyze the system of images of the comedy "The Minor", which, as required by the aesthetics of classicism, represents two directly opposite "camps" - positive and negative heroes. Here you can also notice a certain deviation from the canons; it manifests itself in the fact that it carries duality; it is almost impossible to classify them as purely positive or purely negative heroes. Let us remember one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers, Kuteikin. On the one hand, he suffers humiliation from Mrs. Prostakova and his student, on the other hand, he is not averse, if the opportunity arises, to “snatch his piece,” for which he is ridiculed. Or “Mitrofan’s mother” Eremeevna: she is reviled and humiliated by her mistress in every possible way, she humbly endures, but, forgetting herself, rushes to protect Mitrofanushka from her uncle, and does this not only out of fear of punishment...

The image of Prostakova in the comedy "Minor"

As already noted, Fonvizin innovatively portrays his main character, Mrs. Prostakova. From the very first scenes of the comedy, we are faced with a despot who does not want to reckon with anyone or anything. She rudely imposes her will on everyone, suppresses and humiliates not only the serfs, but also her husband (how can one not recall Mitrofan’s “dream in hand” about how “mother” beats “father”?..), she tyrannizes Sophia, she wants to force her to marry first her brother Taras Skotinin, and then, when it turns out that Sophia is now a rich bride, her son. Being herself an ignorant and uncultured person (with what pride she declares: “Read it yourself! No, madam, thank God, I was not brought up like that. I can receive letters, but I always tell someone else to read them!”), she despises education, although he tries to teach his son, he does this only because he wants to ensure his future, and what is Mitrofan’s “training” worth, as it is presented in the comedy? True, his mother is convinced: “Believe me, father, that, of course, it’s nonsense that Mitrofanushka doesn’t know”...

Mrs. Prostakova is characterized by cunning and resourcefulness, she stubbornly stands her ground and is convinced that “we will take ours” - and is ready to commit a crime, kidnap Sophia and, against her will, marry her to a man from the “Skotinin family.” When she meets resistance, she simultaneously tries to beg for forgiveness and promises punishment to those of her people, due to whose oversight the “enterprise” failed, in which Mitrofanushka is ready to actively support her: “Take it for people?” The “transformation” of Mrs. Prostakova is striking, who just on her knees humbly begged to forgive her, and, having received the petition, “jumping up from her knees”, fervently promises: “Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. I'll go through them one by one. Now I'll find out who let her out of their hands. No, swindlers! No, thieves! I won't forgive a century, I won't forgive this ridicule." There is so much voluptuousness in this triple “now”, and how truly scary it becomes from her request: “Give me at least three days (Aside) I would make myself known...”.

However, as already noted, there is a certain duality in the image of Prostakova. She deeply and devotedly loves her son and is ready to do anything for him. Is she guilty of comparing her love for him to the love of a dog for puppies: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?”? We must not forget that she is from the Skotinin-Priplodin family, where such half-animal love was the only possible one, how could she be different? So she disfigures Mitrofan’s soul with her blind love, her son pleases her in every possible way, and she is happy because he “loves” her... Until he throws her away from him, because now he doesn’t need her, and even those people who just condemned Mrs. Prostakova sympathize with her in her maternal grief...

Image of Mitrofan

The image of Mitrofan was also created by Fonvizin in a non-traditional way. The “minor” who likes to be “small” and who diligently takes advantage of his mother’s attitude toward him is not as simple and stupid as it might seem at first glance. He has learned to use his parents' love for himself for his own benefit, he knows well how to achieve his goal, he is convinced that he has the right to everything he wants. Mitrofanushka’s selfishness is the driving force behind his actions, but the hero also has cruelty (remember his remark about “people”), resourcefulness (what is his discussion about the “door”), and lordly contempt for people, including his mother, from whom he, on occasion, seeks help and protection. And his attitude towards education is so dismissive only because he does not see any real benefit from it. Probably, when he “serves”, he - if it is beneficial - will change his attitude towards education, potentially he is ready for anything: “For me, where they tell me.” Consequently, the image of Mitrofan in the comedy “Minor” is also characterized by a certain psychologism, as is the image of Prostakova, which is Fonvizin’s innovative approach to creating negative images that were only supposed to be “villains”.

Positive images

The playwright is more traditional in creating positive images. Each of them is an expression of a certain idea, and as part of the statement of this idea, an image-character is created. Almost positive images are devoid of individual traits; they are images-ideas inherent in classicism; Sophia, Milon, Starodum, Pravdin are not living people, but exponents of a “certain type of consciousness”; they represent a system of views that was advanced for their time on the relationship between spouses, the social structure, the essence of the human personality and human dignity.

Image of Starodum

During the time of Fonvizin, the image of Starodum in the comedy “The Minor” aroused special sympathy among the audience. Already in the very “talking” surname of the character, the author emphasized the contrast between “the present century and the past century”: in Starodum they saw a man of the era of Peter I, when “In that century, courtiers were warriors, but warriors were not courtiers.” Starodum’s thoughts on education, on the ways in which a person can achieve fame and prosperity, about what a sovereign should be evoked a warm response from a significant part of the audience who shared the progressive beliefs of the author of the comedy, while special sympathy for the image of the hero was caused by the fact that he did not just proclaim these progressive ideas - according to the play It turned out that with his own life he proved that such behavior was correct and beneficial for a person. The image of Starodum was the ideological center around which the positive heroes of the comedy united, opposing the dominance of the morality of the Skotinins and Prostakovs.

Image of Pravdin

Pravdin, a government official, embodies the idea of statehood, which protects the interests of education and the people, which seeks to actively change life for the better. Guardianship of Prostakova's estate, which Pravdin appoints by the will of the empress, gives hope that the ruler of Russia is able to stand up for the protection of those of her subjects who most need this protection, and the determination with which Pravdin carries out the reforms should have convinced the viewer, that the highest authorities are interested in improving the lives of the people. But how then can we understand Starodum’s words in response to Pravdin’s call to serve at court: “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”? It is likely that behind Pravdin stood the System, which confirmed its reluctance and inability to carry out real reforms, and Starodum represented himself, an individual person, in the play, and explained why the image of Starodum was perceived by the audience with much more sympathy than the image of the “ideal official” .

Milon and Sophia

The love story of Milon and Sophia is a typically classic love story of two noble heroes, each of whom is distinguished by high moral qualities, which is why their relationship looks so artificial, although, against the backdrop of Skotinin’s attitude towards the same Sophia (“You are my dear friend! If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife”) she really is an example of the high feeling of moral, educated, worthy young people, contrasted with the “fertility” of negative heroes.

The meaning of the comedy "Minor"

Pushkin called Fonvizin “a brave ruler of satire,” and the comedy “Minor,” which we analyzed, fully confirms this assessment of the writer’s work. In it, Fonvizin’s author’s position is expressed quite unambiguously, the writer defends the ideas of enlightened absolutism, he does this with extreme talent, creating convincing artistic images, significantly expanding the scope of the aesthetics of classicism, taking an innovative approach to the plot of the work, to the creation of character images, some of which are not It simply represents the expression of certain socio-political ideas, but has a pronounced psychological individuality and expresses the inconsistency of human nature. All this explains the enormous importance of Fonvizin’s work and the comedy “Nedorosl” for Russian literature of the 18th century, the success of the work among his contemporaries and its significant influence on the subsequent development of Russian drama.

The history of the interpretation of the comedy “The Minor” over the past two centuries - from the first critical reviews of the 19th century. to the fundamental literary works of the 20th century. - strictly returns any researcher to the same observation of the poetics of Fonvizin’s masterpiece, a kind of aesthetic paradox of comedy, the essence of which the literary tradition sees in the different aesthetic dignity of ethically polar characters. The tradition considers the criterion of this dignity to be nothing more than life-likeness: a bright, reliable, plastic image of vice is recognized as more artistically valuable than pale, ideological virtue:

V. G. Belinsky:“There is nothing ideal and, therefore, creative in his [Fonvizin’s] comedy: the characters of fools in it are faithful and clever lists from caricatures of the reality of that time; the characters of the intelligent and virtuous are rhetorical maxims, images without faces.”

P. A. Vyazemsky: “All other [except Prostakova] persons are secondary; some of them are completely extraneous, others are only adjacent to the action. ‹…› Of the forty phenomena, including several quite long ones, there is hardly a third in the whole drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”

The cited observations on the poetics of “The Minor” clearly reveal the aesthetic parameters of two antagonistic groups of comedy characters: on the one hand, verbal painting and “living life” in a plastically authentic everyday environment, on the other – oratory, rhetoric, reasoning, speaking. These two semantic centers very precisely define the nature of the artistic specificity of different groups of characters as different types of artistic imagery, and the Russian literary tradition to which these types go back. Needless to say, the general principles of the construction of artistic images of “The Minor” are determined by the same value orientations and aesthetic attitudes of pictorial plastic satire (comedy) and ideologically ethereal ode (tragedy)!

The specificity of his dramatic word, which is initially and fundamentally two-valued and ambiguous, is brought to the center of the aesthetics and poetics of “Minor.”

The first property that the dramatic word comedy offers its researcher is its obvious punning nature. The speech element of “Nedoroslya” is a stream of voluntary and involuntary puns, among which the technique of destroying phraseological units is especially productive, pitting the traditionally conventional figurative against the direct literal meaning of a word or phrase:

Skotinin. ‹…› and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head (I, 5); Skotinin. ‹…› Yes, listen, I’ll do it so that everyone will blow the trumpet: in this little neighborhood there are only pigs to live (II, 3).

Playing with meanings is inaccessible to Skotinin: moreover, that the pigs are very tall, and the forehead of Uncle Vavila Falaleich is incredibly strong to break, he does not want and cannot say. In the same way, Mr. Prostakov, declaring that “Sofyushkino’s real estate estate cannot be moved to us” (1.5), means real movement through physical space, and Mitrofan, answering Pravdin’s question: “Is it far are you in history? a very precise indication of a specific distance: “In another you will fly to distant lands, to a kingdom of thirty” (IV, 8), does not intend to make jokes at all, playing with the meanings of the words “history” (an academic discipline and a genre of popular literature) and “far” (the amount of knowledge and the extent of space).

Milon, Pravdin and Starodum are a different matter. In their mouths, the word “strong-browed” sounds like a condemnation of Skotinin’s mental abilities, and the question “How far are you in history?” suggests an answer that outlines the scope of knowledge. And this division of the meanings of a punning word between characters of different groups takes on the meaning of a characterological artistic device. The level of meaning that a character uses begins to serve as his aesthetic characteristic:

Pravdin. When only your cattle can be happy, then your wife will have bad peace from them and from you. Skotinin. Thin peace? bah! bah! bah! Don't I have enough light rooms? For her alone I will give a coal stove with a stove-bed (II,3); Mrs. Prostakova. I cleaned the chambers for your dear uncle (II.5); Pravdin. ‹…› your guest has just arrived from Moscow and that he needs peace much more than your son’s praises. ‹…› Ms. Prostakova. Ah, my father! All is ready. I cleaned the room for you myself (III.5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The doubling of the types of artistic imagery in “The Minor,” due to the punningly doubling word, actualizes almost all the formative attitudes of the two older literary traditions of the 18th century. (satires and odes) within the text of the comedy.

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

The settledness of the Prostakov-Skotinins is emphasized by their constant attachment to the enclosed space of the house-estate, the image of which grows from the verbal background of their remarks in all its traditional components: a fortress village (“Mrs. Prostakova. ‹…› I have now been looking for you all over the village” - II,5), the manor's house with its living room, which is the stage area and the scene of action of "The Minor", outbuildings ("Mitrofan. Now let's run to the dovecote" - 1.4; "Skotinin. I was going for a walk in the barnyard "- 1.8) - all this surrounds the everyday characters of “The Minor” with a plastically authentic home environment.

The dynamism of Starodum’s image makes him a genuine human generator and the root cause of all the incidents of “The Minor.” And along this line, quite dramatic associations arise: in tragedy, the troublemaker also came from outside; in the pre-Fonvizin comedy, the function of external force was, on the contrary, the harmonization of a world that had deviated from the norm. The function of Starodum is both; he not only disturbs the tranquility of the simpleton’s monastery, but also contributes to the resolution of the conflict of the comedy, in which Pravdin also takes an active part.

It is curious that the satirical spatial statics of everyday life and the odic dynamics of the ideologized heroes of “The Minor” are complemented by a picture of the inheritance of odo-satirical figurative structures and, as far as their stage plasticity is concerned, only with a mirror exchange of the categories of dynamics and statics. In the camp of the denounced homebodies, intense physical action reigns, most evident in the external plastic drawing of the roles of Mitrofan and Mrs. Prostakova, who every now and then run somewhere and fight with someone (in this regard, it is appropriate to recall two stage fights, Mitrofan and Eremeevna with Skotinin and Prostakova with Skotinin):

Mitrofan. Now I’ll run to the dovecote (I,4); (Mitrofan, standing still, turns over.) Vralman. Utalets! He won’t stand still like a ticking horse! Go! Fort! (Mitrofan runs away.)(III.8); Mrs. Prostakova. From morning to evening, like someone hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight (I.5); Ms. Prostakova (running around the theater in anger and in thoughts)(IV,9).

Not at all the same - virtuous wanderers, of whom Milo shows the greatest plastic activity, twice intervening in the fight (“separates Ms. Prostakova from Skotinin” - III,3 and “pushing away from Sophia Eremeevna, who was clinging to her, she shouts to the people, having a naked sword in her hand” - V,2), and even Sophia, several times making explosive, impulsive movements on stage: “Sophia (throwing herself into his arms). Uncle! (II,2); “(Seeing Starodum, he runs up to him"(IV,1) and "rushes" to him with the words: “Oh, uncle! Protect me!" (V.2). Otherwise, they are in a state of complete stage static: standing or sitting, they conduct a dialogue - just like “two jury speakers.” Apart from a few remarks marking entrances and exits, the performance of Pravdin and Starodum is practically not characterized in any way, and their actions on stage are reduced to speaking or reading aloud, accompanied by typically oratorical gestures:

Starodum (pointing to Sophia). Her uncle Starodum (III.3) came to her; Starodum (pointing to Ms. Prostakova). These are the fruits worthy of evil! (V, is the last one).

Thus, the general feature of the type of stage plasticity divides the characters of “The Minor” into different genre associations: Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia are stage statues, like images of a solemn ode or heroes of a tragedy; their plasticity is completely subordinated to the act of speaking, which has to be recognized as the only form of stage action characteristic of them. The Prostakov-Skotinin family is active and lively, like characters in satire and comedy; their stage performance is dynamic and has the character of a physical action, which is only accompanied by the word that names it.

The same complexity of genre associations, oscillation on the brink of types of odic and satirical imagery can be noted in the material attributes of “The Minor,” which completes the transition of different types of artistic imagery in their human embodiment to the world image of comedy as a whole. Food, clothes and money accompany every step of the Prostakov-Skotinins in the comedy:

Eremeevna. ‹…› I deigned to eat five buns. Mitrofan. What! Three slices of corned beef, but I don’t remember the hearth slices, five, I don’t remember, six (I,4); Ms. Prostakova (examining the caftan on Mitrofan). The caftan is all ruined (I,1); Prostakov. We ‹…› took her to our village and look after her estate as if it were our own (I.5); Skotinin and both Prostakovs. Ten thousand! (I,7); Mrs. Prostakova. This is three hundred rubles a year. We seat you at the table with us. Our women wash his linen. (I,6); Mrs. Prostakova. I'll knit a wallet for you, my friend! There would be somewhere to put Sophia’s money (III.6).

Food, clothing and money appear in their simple physical nature as objects; By absorbing simpleton’s soulless flesh into their circle, they aggravate the very property of the characters of this group, in which the literary tradition sees their “realism” and aesthetic advantage over ideological heroes - their extreme physical authenticity and, so to speak, material character. Another thing is whether this property looked so worthy, even if only from an aesthetic point of view, for the 18th century viewer, for whom such materiality was not only a secondary image, but also undoubtedly an undeniable reality.

As for the material halos of characters of another series, here the situation is more complicated. Letters pass through the hands of all the hero-ideologists, introducing them to the substantial, existential level of dramatic action. Their ability to read (i.e., engage in spiritual activity) is one way or another actualized in the stage action of the comedy with the help of those being read on stage (Sophia reading Fenelon’s treatise “On the Education of Girls”) or behind the stage (“Sofyushka! My glasses are on the table, in book” – IV,3) books. So it turns out that it is precisely things - letters, glasses and books, mainly associated with the images of heroic ideologists, that take them out of the confines of everyday life into the existential realm of spiritual and intellectual life. The same applies to other objects that appear in their hands, which in this position strive to renounce their material nature as soon as possible and move into the allegorical, symbolic and moral spheres, as was characteristic of the few material attributes of the tragic action before Fonvizin:

Pravdin. So, you left the yard empty-handed? (opens his snuff box). Starodum (takes tobacco from Pravdin). How about nothing? The snuff box costs five hundred rubles. Two people came to the merchant. One, having paid money, brought home a snuff box ‹…›. And you think that the other one came home with nothing? You're wrong. He brought his five hundred rubles intact. I left the court without villages, without a ribbon, without ranks, but I brought what was mine home intact: my soul, my honor, my rules (III, 1).

And if money for Prostakovs and Skotinin has the meaning of a goal and causes a purely physiological thirst for possession, then for Starodum it is a means of acquiring spiritual independence from the material conditions of life: “Starodum. I have gained so much that at your marriage the poverty of a worthy groom will not stop us (III, 2).”

If the members of the Prostakov family in their material world eat corned beef and hearth pies, drink kvass, try on caftans and chase pigeons, fight, count once on their fingers and move a pointer through the pages of an incomprehensible book, look after other people’s villages as if they were their own, knit wallets for strangers money and try to kidnap other people's brides; if this dense material environment, into which a person enters as a homogeneous element, rejects any spiritual act as alien, then the world of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia is emphatically ideal, spiritual, immaterial. In this world, the way of communication between people is not family resemblance, as between Mitrofan, Skotinin and the pig, but like-mindedness, the fact of which is established in the dialogical act of communicating one’s opinions. This world is dominated by the admittedly tragic ideologies of virtue, honor and office, with the ideal content of which the way of thinking of each person is compared:

Pravdin. You make one feel the true essence of the position of a nobleman (III.1); Sophia. I now vividly feel both the dignity of an honest man and his position (IV, 2); Starodum. I see in him the heart of an honest man (IV, 2); Starodum. I am a friend of honest people. This feeling is ingrained in my upbringing. In yours I see and honor virtue, adorned with enlightened reason (IV, 6); Pravdin. I will not step down from my position in any way (V,5).

Among the hero-ideologists, the spiritual improvement of people is constantly carried out: Pravdin gets rid of his political illusions, a well-bred girl, in front of the audience, reads a book about her upbringing, drawing the appropriate conclusions from it, and even Starodum - albeit in an off-stage act, which he only narrates , – is still represented in the process of spiritual growth:

Starodum. The experiences of my life have taught me this. Oh, if I had previously been able to control myself, I would have had the pleasure of serving my fatherland longer. ‹…› Then I saw that between casual people and respectable people there is sometimes an immeasurable difference ‹…› (III, 1).

The only action of the people inhabiting this world - reading and speaking, perceiving and communicating thoughts - replaces all possible actions of dramatic characters. Thus, the world of thought, concept, ideal is, as it were, humanized on the stage of “The Minor” in the figures of private people, whose bodily forms are completely optional, since they serve only as conductors of the act of thinking and its translation into the matter of the sounding word. So, following the dichotomy of the word into the objective and the conceptual, the system of images into everyday heroes and hero-ideologists, the world image of comedy is divided into flesh and spirit, but the comedy continues to remain the same. And this brings us to the problem of the structural originality of that general, holistic world image that takes shape in a single text of the dual imagery of “The Minor.”

A pun word is funny because of its vibration, combining incompatible meanings at one common point, the awareness of which gives rise to a grotesque picture of absurdity, nonsense and illogicality: when there is no definite, unambiguous meaning, ambiguity arises, leaving the reader inclined to accept one or the other of the meanings; but the point at which they meet is nonsense: if not yes and not no (and yes and no), then what? This relativity of meaning is one of the most universal verbal leitmotifs of “The Minor.” We can say that all comedy is located at this point of intersection of meanings and the absurd, but extremely life-like image of reality it generates, which is equally determined not by one, but by two, and, moreover, opposing world images. This grotesque flickering of the action of “The Minor” on the verge of reliable reality and absurd alogism finds itself in the comedy, at its very beginning, a peculiar embodiment in an object: the famous caftan of Mitrofan. In the comedy, it remains unclear what this caftan actually is: is it narrow (“Mrs. Prostakova. He, the thief, burdened him everywhere” - I,1), is it wide (“Prostakov (stammering out of timidity). Me... a little baggy..." - I, 3), or, finally, it fits Mitrofan (“Skotinin. Kaftan, brother, well sewn” - I, 4).

In this aspect, the name of comedy acquires fundamental significance. “The Minor” is a multi-figure composition, and Mitrofan is by no means its main character, therefore the text does not give any reason to attribute the title only and exclusively to him. Minor is another punning word that covers the entire world image of the comedy with its dual meaning: in relation to Mitrofan, the word “minor” appears in its objective terminological sense, since it actualizes a physiological quantitative characteristic - age. But in its conceptual meaning it qualitatively characterizes another version of the world image: the young shoots of the Russian “new people” are also undergrowth; flesh without soul and spirit without flesh are equally imperfect.

The confrontation and juxtaposition of two groups of characters in the comedy emphasizes one of their common properties: both of them are located, as it were, on the verge of being and existence: the physically existing Prostakov-Skotinins are spiritless - and, therefore, they do not exist from the point of view of the consciousness of the 18th century devoted to the existential idea .; the ideas of Starodum and Co. possessing the highest reality? deprived of flesh and life - and, therefore, in some sense they also do not exist: virtue, which does not live in the flesh, and vice, deprived of being, turn out to be equally a mirage life.

This paradoxical and absurd situation most accurately reproduces the general state of Russian reality of the 1760-1780s, when Russia seemed to have an enlightened monarchy (“Order of the Commission on the drafting of a New Code”, which exists as a text, but not as legislative life and legal space), but in reality it was not there; as if there were laws and freedom (the decree on guardianship, the decree on bribes, the decree on noble freedom), but in reality they did not exist either, since some decrees did not work in practice, and in the name of others the greatest lawlessness was committed.

Here is the deep root, to put it mildly, of the “originality” of Russian reality of modern times, discovered for the first time by Fonvizin and embodied by purely artistic means - a catastrophic split between word and deed, which, each in itself, give rise to different realities, in no way compatible and absolutely opposite : the ideal reality of right, law, reason and virtue, existing as a pure existential idea outside of everyday life, and the everyday, unidealized reality of arbitrariness, lawlessness, stupidity and vice, existing as everyday everyday practice.

| | 3 | | | | | |

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 “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.

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, lack of 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"

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?

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 abstractly speak 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).

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 "Undergrown" in 9th grade.

1. Traditions and innovations in the system of images of heroes of Fonvizin’s comedy “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 the Russian literary tradition to which these types go back (9).

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 was going 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

However, the space of hero-ideologists is incomparably more permeable, and they themselves are incredibly mobile in it. If the idea of stagnation and immobility is associated with the sedentary nature of the Prostakovs-Skotinins, then the ease of movement in space naturally presupposes the ability for spiritual evolution in the heroes of the alternative series (9).

In the camp of the denounced homebodies, intense physical action reigns, most evident in the external plastic drawing of the roles of Mitrofan and Mrs. Prostakova, who every now and then run somewhere and fight with someone (in this regard, it is appropriate to recall two stage fights, Mitrofan and Eremeevna with Skotinin and Prostakova with Skotinin): “Mitrofan. Now I’ll run to the dovecote (I, 4); (Mitrofan, standing still, turns over.) Vralman. Utalets! He won’t stand still like a ticking horse! Go! Fort! (Mitrofan runs away.) (III, 8)"

Not at all the same - virtuous wanderers, of whom Milon shows the greatest plastic activity, twice interfering in the fight (“separates Mrs. Prostakova from Skotinin” and “pushing away from Sofya Eremeevna, who was clinging to her, shouts to people, having a naked sword” - V, 2), and even Sophia, several times making explosive, impulsive movements on stage: “Sophia (throwing herself into his arms). Uncle! (II, 2); “(Seeing Starodum, he runs up to him" (IV, 1) and “rushes” to him with the words: “Oh, uncle! Protect me!” (V.2). Otherwise, they are in a state of complete stage static: standing or sitting and conducting a dialogue - just like “two sworn speakers.” Apart from a few remarks marking entrances and exits, the performance of Pravdin and Starodum is practically not characterized in any way, and their actions on stage are reduced to speaking or reading aloud, accompanied by typically oratorical gestures .

Food, clothes and money accompany every step of the Prostakov-Skotinins in the comedy:

“Eremeevna.<…>deigned to eat five buns (I, 4).

Mitrofan. What! Three slices of corned beef, but I don’t remember the hearth slices, five, I don’t remember, six (I, 4);

Mrs. Prostakova (examining the caftan on Mitrofan). The caftan is all ruined (I, 1);

Prostakov. We<…>we took her to our village and looked after her estate as if it were our own (I, 5);

Skotinin and both Prostakovs. Ten thousand! (I, 7);

Mrs. Prostakova. This is three hundred rubles a year. We seat you at the table with us. Our women wash his linen (I, 6);

Mrs. Prostakova. I'll knit a wallet for you, my friend! There would be somewhere to put Sophia’s money (III, 6).”

Unlike everyday heroes, letters pass through the hands of all ideological heroes, introducing them to the substantial, existential level of dramatic action. Their ability to read (i.e. engage in spiritual activity) is one way or another actualized in the stage action of the comedy with the help of those read on stage (Sophia reading Fenelon’s treatise “On the Education of Girls”) or behind the stage (“Sofyushka! My glasses are on the table, in book" (IV, 3) books. So it turns out that it is precisely things - letters, glasses and books, mainly associated with the images of heroic ideologists, that take them out of the confines of everyday life into the existential realm of spiritual and intellectual life (9).

And finally, the innovation of “The Minor” was manifested in the fact that while maintaining one line of development of the intrigue (several contenders are fighting for Sophia’s hand and heart: Milon, who sincerely loves her and is loved by her, as well as Skotinin and Mitrofan, who have learned about the rich dowry, or rather, his mother, trying to ensure her son’s happiness), Fonvizin includes several interrelated problems in the play. The main ones are the problems of serfdom, education and the form of state power, which in comedy, as in reality, are interdependent. The author also raises questions about the strict performance of “duties” by each citizen, about the nature of family relationships, about the education of nobles, and others.

In the “Minor” conflict, constant “deceptive movements” and substitutions occur. Like any dramatic text, Fonvizin’s comedy should have outlined its conflict sphere from the very beginning. However, the line of political confrontation that is outlined in the first five phenomena (the dispute about the caftan, Mrs. Prostakova and Trishka, the serf woman and the serf) does not find development in the action of the comedy. The conflict, therefore, moves to the level of everyday moral description (the struggle of Mitrofan and Skotinin for the right to appropriate Sophia’s money - I, 4; II, 3). The appearance on the stage of Pravdiv and Starodum, immediately marked by a dialogue about the incurable disease of Russian power (III, 1), transfers it to the ideological sphere (9).

Of these three possibilities for realizing the conflict in the action of the comedy, only two are actualized: family and everyday rivalry for the hand of a rich bride, giving rise to a love affair, which is crowned by the engagement of Milo and Sophia, and the ideological conflict of ideal concepts about the nature and character of power, which categorically do not coincide with its practical household contents. This conflict produces a moral and ideological confrontation between the real ruler-tyrant Mrs. Prostakova and the bearers of the ideal concept of power Starodum and Pravdin, which is crowned by the deprivation of Mrs. Prostakova of her political rights. So the work as a whole does not look unilinear, but multifaceted and multifaceted. And this also showed Fonvizin’s innovation.

2. Images of everyday heroes in comedy

ABOUT. Lebedeva argues that in comedy two types of artistic imagery are formed - everyday heroes and ideological heroes, dating back to different literary traditions (9). The first group includes Prostakov, Mrs. Prostakova, Skotinin, Mitrofan and Mitrofan’s teachers. These heroes are closely connected with everyday life, in contrast to the heroes of ideologists - Sophia, Milon, Pravdin, Starodum. Unlike everyday ones, hero-ideologists mainly talk about abstract concepts (upbringing, teaching, heart, soul, mind, rules, respect, honor, position, virtue, happiness, sincerity, friendship, love, good behavior, calmness, courage and fearlessness ). Let's take a closer look at the images of everyday heroes.

2.1 Images Prostakov

“An innumerable fool” and “a despicable fury whose hellish disposition brings misfortune to their entire house” - this is the image Pravdin formed about the Prostakov husband and wife during the three days of his stay under their roof.

The character of Terenty Prostakov is determined at the very beginning of the comedy by his own confession to his wife: “Before your eyes, mine see nothing” (I, 3). Throughout the rest of the play, the viewer is convinced of this more than once. Simpletons are completely 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” (I, 3). This “timidity” or, as Pravdin characterizes it, “extreme weak-mindedness” leads to the fact that Prostakova’s “inhumanity” does not meet any restrictions from her husband and at the end of the comedy Prostakov himself turns out, by his own admission, “guilty without guilt” (V, 3). In the comedy he plays an insignificant role; his character does not change with the development of the action and is not revealed more widely. All we know about his upbringing is that he was raised, in Prostakova’s words, “like a pretty maiden,” and he doesn’t even know how to read. Also from Prostakova’s speech we learn that he is “humble, like a calf” (II, 5) and “He doesn’t understand for himself what is wide and what is narrow” (I, 3).

Fonvizin outlined the character of the “despicable fury” - Mrs. Prostakova, née Skotinina, using much more complex visual means. “...All the scenes in which Prostakova appears,” wrote Vyazemsky, “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 this ignorance, from which, like from a muddy source, all these properties flow, coordinated in her character by a sharp-witted and observant painter" ( 9).

In depicting Prostakova’s character, Fonvizin deviates from the straightforwardness and schematism characteristic of classicism. If the image of her husband remains unchanged from the first to the last act of the comedy, then the character of Prostakova herself is gradually revealed throughout the play. For all her cunning, Prostakova is stupid, and therefore constantly gives herself away (12). “The Minor” begins directly with a conversation about teaching, a witty play on the folk saying about Trishkin’s caftan. Mrs. Prostakova seriously, with her characteristic ingenuous stubbornness, assures the careless serf tailor Trishka that learning to sew caftans is not at all necessary. With the same innocence, she herself talks about how she manages the house: “I manage everything myself, father. From morning to evening, like someone hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight; That’s how the house holds together, my father!” (II, 5). This is confirmed in the speech of other characters: Mitrofan says to Eremeevna: “I’ll finish them off; I’ll complain to my mother again, so she’ll deign to give you a task like yesterday” (II, 4), and from Skotinin’s monologue we learn that his sister brought him to get married, and then wants to send him back. In her house she is the sovereign mistress, but she tries to bring the law to her side, asking: “A nobleman, when he wants, is not free to flog his servants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? (V, 4)"

From Prostakova’s conversation with Starodum, we learn some facts about the upbringing of Prostakova and Skotinin herself, about the environment that shaped them. Prostakova says: “The deceased father was a commander for fifteen years, and 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).” She cares about Mitrofan’s education not because she understands the benefits of education, but in order to keep up with fashion: “Little child, without studying, go to the same Petersburg; they'll say you're a fool. There are a lot of smart people these days” (III, 8).

All individual and typical qualities of Prostakova are reflected in her language. She addresses the serfs rudely, using abusive language (“dog’s daughter”, “nasty mug”, “beast”), and her mother’s affectionate, caring speech is addressed to her son Mitrofan (“darling”, “my dear friend”). With Prostakova’s guests, she is a society lady (“I recommend you a dear guest” (I, 7), and when she humbly laments, begging for forgiveness, folk expressions appear in her speech (“you are my dear mother, forgive me”, “guilty head sword doesn’t flog” (V, 3).

Prostakova's primitive nature is especially clearly revealed in the sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. She is rude to Sophia while she feels her power over her, but upon learning of Starodum’s return, she instantly changes her tone and behavior. When Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakova on trial for inhumane treatment of the peasants, she humiliatingly lies at his feet. But having begged for forgiveness, he immediately hurries to deal with the sluggish servants who let Sophia go: “I forgive you! Ah, father! Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. Now I’ll take them all one by one” (V, 4)

Only one human feeling, it would seem, remains accessible to this terrible woman - love for her son, but the wonderful feeling of maternal love 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 don’t eat her child,” Gogol wrote about Prostakova. (9) For the sake of her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milo, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own” (13).

Prostakova herself involuntarily exposes the animal essence of her love for her son: “I have a mother’s heart. Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” (III, 3). As soon as Prostakova is deprived of power in the house, he also loses his son. In this scene, Prostakova evokes pity and even sympathy in the reader.

Thus, the image of Prostakova combines features of both classicism and realism: on the one hand, this is a character that is certainly negative, with many vices, on the other hand, Prostakova looks lifelike, because unlike the ideal hero-schemes, she connected with its environment, shaped by it.

2.2 Image of Skotinin

Taras Skotinin, Prostakova’s brother, is a typical representative of small feudal landowners. The presence of Skotinin in the play emphasizes the wide distribution of nobles like Prostakova and gives it a typical character. It is not for nothing that at the end of the play Pravdin advises to warn the other Skotinins about what happened on the Prostakov estate. The vitality and indestructibility of the Skotinins family was accurately noted by Pushkin, who named among the Larins’ guests “the gray-haired Skotinins couple... with children of all ages” (11)

His very name suggests that all his thoughts and interests are connected only with his barnyard. Gogol says about him: “Pigs became for him what an art gallery is for an art lover!” He is ready to identify himself with pigs (“I want to have my own piglets!” (II, 3), and about his future family life he says: “if now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I will find a wife light." He shows warmth and tenderness only to his pigs. He speaks about himself with great dignity: “I am Taras Skotinin, not the last of my kind. The Skotinin family is great and ancient. You will not find our ancestor in any heraldry" (IV, 7) and immediately falls for Starodum’s trick, claiming that his ancestor was created “a little earlier than Adam,” that is, together with animals.

Prostakova's brother Skotinin is related to her not only by blood, but also by spirit. He exactly repeats the serfdom practice of 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 will rip off from my own peasants, and so will the ends in the water” (I, 5).

Skotinin is greedy. Having learned that Sophia will bring her husband a fortune that will give him ten thousand in income, he is ready to destroy his rival, Mitrofan.

In Skotinin’s speech, words are used in a literal meaning, and several puns are based on this (9):

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

Skotinin. Thin peace? bah! bah! bah! Don't I have enough light rooms? For her alone, I’ll give her a coal bed and a bed...” (IV, 7)

Differentiated into the objective (peace - room, small room) and the ideal-transferable (peace - calmness, state of mind), the word "Undergrowth" differentiates the bearers of its different meanings, establishing punning synonymous-antonymic relationships between them based on the level of meaning it uses this or that character.

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" is an ambiguous expression, which, however, very clearly defines the essence of Skotinin.

Having grown up in a family that was extremely hostile to education (“I haven’t read anything since I was a child. God saved me from this boredom”), he is distinguished by ignorance and mental retardation. His attitude to teaching is very clearly revealed in the story about Uncle Vavil Faleleich: “No one had heard of literacy from him, nor did he want to hear from anyone: what a head he was! ... I would like to know if there is a learned forehead in the world that would not fall apart from such a blow; and my uncle, eternal memory to him, having sobered up, only asked if the gate was intact? (IV, 8) He can understand the strength of the forehead only in the literal sense; playing with meanings is inaccessible to him. The vitality of Skotinin’s language is facilitated by the folk proverbs he uses: “Every fault is to blame”; “You can’t beat your betrothed with a horse.”

Having heard about the taking into custody of the Prostakovs’ estate, Skotinin says: “Yes, they’ll get to me that way. Yes, and any Skotinin can fall under guardianship... I’ll get out of here as quickly as possible” (V, 6).

2.3 Image of Mitrofan

The name for Prostakova’s son was not chosen by chance. “Mitrofan” in Greek means “like a mother.” From the very first scene we see that Mitrofan is trying to get along with his mother in everything. Talking about his dream, he says that he felt very sorry for his mother, who was tired of beating the priest. Mitrofan is not eager to study or serve and prefers the position of a “minor.” Mitrofanushka’s sentiments are completely shared by his mother. “While Mitrofanushka is still in his infancy,” she reasons, “let him sweat and pamper him, and then in ten years, when he comes out, God forbid, into the service, he will suffer everything” (I, 4).

Before Fonvizin, the word “minor” did not have a condemnatory meaning. Children of the nobility who were under 15 years of age were called minors, i.e. age prescribed by Peter I for entering the service. In Fonvizin it received a mocking, ironic meaning. Mitrofan is already sixteen years old. Consequently, Prostakova plans to keep him with her until she is twenty-six years old. However, she also cherishes the following thought: “How is happiness destined for anyone, brother. From our family of Prostakovs, look, lying on their sides, they are flying to their ranks. Why is their Mitrofanushka worse? (I, 4) And, hearing such reasoning, the viewer is convinced that with such a mother, Mitrofan Prostakov will not disgrace his “surname.”

Mitrofan is an undergrowth, first of all, 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 ingratiates himself with his mother as long as he feels her strength. But as soon as she lost power in the house, Mitrofan sharply pushed Prostakova away from him. And finally, 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? (V, 1)

Lazy and arrogant, but very smart in everyday life, Mitrofanushka is taught not sciences and moral rules, but immorality, deception, disrespect for his duty as a nobleman and for his own father, the ability to bypass all the laws and rules of society and the state for the sake of his own convenience and benefit. This rude and lazy man is not stupid, he is also cunning, he thinks practically, he sees that the material well-being of the Prostakovs depends not on their enlightenment and official zeal, but on the intrepid impudence of his mother, the clever robbing of his distant relative Sophia and the merciless robbery of his peasants.

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, it used to be that when I saw the back, I would tremble with joy” (I, 7).

His character is clearly revealed through speech. He has already learned the addresses to servants that are customary in his family: “old khrychovka, garrison rat” and others, however, when he needs protection, he turns to Eremeevna: “Mommy! Shield me! (II, 4) He has no respect for his elders, he addresses them rudely, for example: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane?<…>Get out, uncle, get out" (II, 4). His actions also serve to reveal his character: he cowardly hides from Skotinin behind Eremeevna’s back, complains to Prostakova, threatening to commit suicide, willingly takes part in the abduction of Sophia and immediately meekly agrees with the decision of his own fate: “For me, where they tell me to…” (V, 7).

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.

2.4 Images of minor characters

Mitrofan's teachers - Eremeevna, Kuteikin, Vralman - join the camp of everyday heroes.

Eremeevna, Mitrofan's nanny is drawn with the greatest artistic force of all the minor characters. Fonvizin convincingly shows what a corrupting influence serfdom had on domestic servants, how it disfigures and perverts their inherent good human qualities, develops and fosters slavish humiliation in them. Eremeevna has served Prostakov-Skotinin for forty years. She is selflessly devoted to them, slavishly attached to home, and has a highly developed sense of duty. Without sparing herself, she protects Mitrofan.

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

Skotinin (trembling and threatening, he leaves). I'll get you there!

Eremeevna (trembling, following). I’ve got my own hooks sharp!” (II, 4)

But this devotion and sense of duty acquires a distorted, slavish character in Eremeevna. The image of Eremeevna is most often accompanied by remarks: trembled, trembled, trembled, cried, in tears and the like. She has no sense of human dignity. There is not only hatred for one’s inhuman oppressors, but even protest. Serving her tormentors, “without sparing her stomach,” Eremeevna lives in constant fear, trembling before her ferocious mistress. Her speech perfectly reflects the slave psychology of a serf mother and at the same time is rich in truly folk words and phrases: God forbid vain lies, the difficult one will not clean me up etc.

« Oh, he's leaving! Where should my head go?? (II, 4) - she screams with despair and fear, seeing how Skotinin approaches Mitrofan with threats. And when Milon pushes Eremeevna away from Sofia, Eremeevna screams: “ My little head is gone! (V, 2). Kuteikin, who witnessed the conversation between Eremeevna and Mrs. Prostakova, evaluates the life of nanny Mitrofan as follows: “Your life, Eremeevna, is like pitch darkness.” The payment for Eremeevna’s faithful service is “five rubles per year, and five slaps per day” (II, 4).

Prostakova addresses her exclusively with the following words: beast, you dog's daughter, old witch etc. Mitrofan himself has already firmly learned that Eremeevna is not a person, but old hrychovka, which you can always complain to your mother about.

Mitrofan's teachers: Kuteikin And Vralman– also join the camp of everyday heroes. Most researchers still place the image of Tsyfirkin closer to the camp of hero-ideologists, since Tsyfirkin in his actions is guided by the concepts of honor and duty: “I took money for service, I didn’t take it in vain and I won’t take it” (V, 6). His surname also goes back to abstraction - a number, which distinguishes him from the camp of everyday heroes.

Kuteikin is a half-educated seminarian who left the first classes of theological seminary, “fearing the abyss of wisdom.” But he is not without cunning. Reading the Book of Hours with Mitrofan, he deliberately chooses the text: “I am a seven-worm, and not a man, a reproach to men” (III, 7), and he also interprets the word worm - “that is, animal, cattle.” Like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna. But Kuteikin differs sharply from Tsyfirkin in his greed for money. Kuteikin’s language strongly emphasizes Church Slavonicisms, which he brought from the spiritual environment and theological school: “he was called and came,” “fear and trembling will come upon you,” etc. The surname Kuteikin traces its personal genesis to the ritual dish kutya, which brings him closer to the camp of everyday heroes.

The German Vralman is a rogue teacher, a man with a lackey's soul, Starodum's former coachman. Having lost his job as a result of Starodum's departure to Siberia, he became a teacher because he could not find a position as a coachman. Naturally, such an ignorant “teacher” could not teach his student anything. He did not teach, indulging Mitrofan’s laziness and taking advantage of Prostakova’s complete ignorance. He is the only one of all the teachers who praises Mitrofan, trying to please Prostakova, but, returning to Starodum, he states: “Shit with the best hosts, it concerned me that I am all with the horses” (V, 7). Such obsequiousness brings him closer to the camp of everyday heroes.

We can conclude that the images of everyday heroes contain realistic features, which makes them much more believable than ideological heroes. All everyday characters are closely connected with the environment that influenced them; their speech is individualized.

Conclusion

In this work, we analyzed the character system of the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

All comedy characters can be clearly divided into two camps: ideologue heroes - positive heroes, depicted schematically, traditionally, in accordance with the rules of classicism, and negative or minor everyday heroes, in the depiction of which Fonvizin’s innovation was manifested.

Everyday characters are depicted in close connection with their environment. In connection with their life, the comedy mentions many everyday details: we see a landowner’s house, buildings, a yard, rooms, and household items are mentioned. Heroic ideologists exist outside the environment, they are surrounded by objects associated only with the spiritual world: a letter, a book, glasses, etc.

From the comedy we know what the origin and conditions of education of everyday heroes are: Prostakova talks about her family, we know why Skotinin remained unlearned, and the “upbringing” and training of Mitrofanushka is directly depicted in the play. The upbringing of the ideological heroes remains unknown: we do not know in what environment Sophia was brought up, what made Milo an ideal officer, etc.

Everyday characters in comedy are constantly in motion: fights between Mitrofan and Skotinin, Prostakova and Skotinin take place on stage, Prostakova herself says: “I scold, then I fight” (II, 5), etc. Everyday heroes hardly commit actions; their actions are words.

Everyday characters have clearly individualized speech: the Prostakovs and Skotinin use a lot of colloquialisms, rude expressions, Eremeevna - folk expressions, Kuteikin - Church Slavonicisms, Vralman speaks with a German accent. It can be easily explained why this or that everyday hero speaks in this way. The speech of the hero-ideologists is of the same type, contains mainly abstract vocabulary, and is very sublime.

The connection of everyday heroes with the environment and dependence on it, the influence of upbringing and living conditions on the formation of character, the depiction of everyday details, the active actions of heroes on stage, the individualization of speech of heroes - all these features introduce elements of realism into classic comedy and are, of course, innovative in creativity DI. Fonvizina. The use of realistic elements allowed Fonvizin to portray everyday characters much more life-like, which made the comedy acutely social and enhanced the satirical sound of the work. The comedy remains interesting to this day.

Bibliography

1. Fonvizin, D.I. Minor. / D.I. Fonvizin – [Electronic resource]. – http://ilibrary.ru/text/1098/p. 5/index.html

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

3. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, V.N. Fonvizin-playwright. / V.N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross – M.: Prosveshchnie, 1960. – 141 p.

4. Glukhov, V.I. The formation of realism in Russian literature of the 18th – early 19th centuries. / IN AND. Glukhov – Volgograd: Nauka, 1976. – 167 p.

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

6. Gukovsky, G.A. Russian literature of the 18th century. / G.A. Gukovsky – [Electronic resource]. – http://obuk.ru/science/39261-gukovskijj-g.a.-russkaja-literatura.html

7. Klyuchevsky, V.O. Literary portraits. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - M.: Education, 1991. - 256 p.

8. Lebedeva, O.B. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. / ABOUT. Lebedeva – [Electronic resource]. – http://www.infoliolib.info/philol/lebedeva/fonv.html#4

9. Lebedeva, O.B. Russian high comedy of the 18th century: Genesis and poetics of the genre. / ABOUT. Lebedeva – Tomsk: Nauka, 1996. – 327 p. – ISBN 978–5–98916–018–1

10. Makogonenko, G.P. From Fonvizin to Pushkin. / G.P. Makogonenko – [Electronic resource]. – http://www.repetitor.org/materials/fonvizin1.html

11. Orlov, P.A. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. / P.A. Orlov – [Electronic resource]. – http://www.twirpx.com/file/71847/