Artistic method of fonvizin. Fonvizin, “Minor”: analysis of the work, characteristics of the characters

What is the composition of "Undergrowth"? First of all, it is worth saying that all the events of the comedy are grouped around one main intrigue: the struggle for Sophia by three contenders for her hand - Skotinin, Mitrofanushka and Milon.

Composition "Undergrowth"

The action of the comedy develops clearly and harmoniously. At the beginning of the play, in the scene with the fitting of a caftan, the author skillfully introduces the viewer to the everyday environment of a provincial estate. This episode immediately allows the author to introduce the viewer to most of the main characters of the play. This is the exposition of the play.

In the sixth and seventh scenes of the first act, around the scene with Starodum’s letter, a knot of comedy is tied. New characters appear: Sophia and Pravdin. This is the beginning of a comedy.

In the second and third acts, events develop and escalate. All the characters in the comedy are on stage. All three contenders enter the fight for Sophia. Characters are also revealed characters.
The highest moment of tension of the action falls at the end fourth act, when Prostakova decides to kidnap Sophia and forcefully marry Mitrofanushka.

In the fifth act, when the failure of Prostakova’s attempt is discovered, the action begins to decline. In the fourth scene, the denouement comes: Prostakova’s estate comes into trusteeship. The last phenomenon is the finale of the play. Exclamation of Starodum: “Here is evil worthy fruits!”—sums up Prostakova’s entire life and at the same time explains the idea of ​​comedy. This is the composition “Undergrowth”. Let us now move on to consider the realism in this work.

Realism in "Minor"

Despite the presence in "Minor" of the features of the dominant literary style- classicism (unity of place, time, action, division of characters into positive and negative, “significant” names and surnames that reveal the main features of the characters), “Minor” is a comedy of the new literary school, it contains obvious deviations from classicism. The rules of classicism did not allow the mixing of comic and tragic elements in drama.

Meanwhile, in Fonvizin’s comedy we see both funny scenes and sketches of the difficult, disgusting sides of serf life. Further, what attracts attention in the comedy is the breadth and versatility of the characters’ characteristics. Prostakova is both a cruel landowner, and an ignorant woman, and a person deceitful to the point of cynicism, and loving mother; Mitrofanushka is a stupid person, a glutton, an ignorant person, a cunning person, and an ungrateful son. These are not abstract images of classicism, but real, living people. The principle of dividing heroes into “positive” and “negative” did not prevent Fonvizin from giving a realistic interpretation of the images. In the comedy "The Minor" even the reasoners turned into living people. The names of some of the characters in the work (Mitrofanushka, Prostakova, Skotinin) therefore became household names because the very images of the heroes are distinguished by their vitality and truthfulness. In these images, Fonvizin achieved remarkable artistic typification. And this speaks of the unconditional realism of the comedy images.

The language of "Minor" is also realistic. Brightness speech characteristics We have already noted the characters. The sharpness and accuracy of the language of comedy is evidenced by the fact that many of its expressions entered Russian colloquial speech and turned into a kind of proverbs, for example: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married,” “But what about cabbies?”, “Skotinins are all strong-willed by birth”, “Wealth is no help to a stupid son”, “Here are the worthy fruits of evil”, etc. Even the Gallicisms of the comedy (“I rejoice having made your acquaintance”, “I did my duty”, etc.) reflect the true language of individual layers of Russian society of the Fonvizin era.

Finally, and ideological pathos plays go beyond ordinary tasks classic comedy- just to make the audience laugh.

Thus, comedy has become the first realistic work Russian literature. That is why Gorky called Fonvizin “the founder of realism” in Russian literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

P. A. Vyazemsky: “All 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 rather long ones, there is hardly a third in the entire drama, and even then short ones, that are part of the action itself.”
A. N. Veselovsky: “the ineptitude of the structure of the play, which remains forever weak side Fonvizin's writing, despite the school of European models"; “A widely developed desire to speak not in images, but in rhetoric<...>gives rise to stagnation, fading, and the viewer will then recognize Milo’s view of true fearlessness in war and in peaceful life, then the sovereigns hear the unvarnished truth from virtuous people, or Starodum’s thoughts on the education of women..."

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

punning nature of the word

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

Exam: Russian literature of the 18th century

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

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

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

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

K.V. Pisarev: "<...>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 were not clothed with living human flesh and, indeed, are a kind of mouthpiece for the “voice”, “concepts” and “way of thinking” of both Fonvizin himself and the best representatives of his time.”

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

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

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

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

punning nature of the word

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

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

• Latest news

• Categories

• News

• Essays on the topic

  Those important questions that Fonvizin posed and illuminated in the comedy “Minor” determined its great public importance First of all, in the modern ideological content of Fonfizin's comedy Nedorosol. The ideological content of comedy. The main themes of the comedy “The Minor” are the following four: the theme of serfdom and its corrupting influence. Among Russian writers who had the gift of seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Fonvizin. In his works he skillfully D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” is rightfully considered the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century. While maintaining some connection with traditional literary genres The topic involves revealing the personality of D. I. Fonvizin. In the process of studying the play “Minor”, ​​getting acquainted with the writer’s work, telling a story about his life

• Essay rating

  The shepherd by the Brook sang pitifully, in anguish, His misfortune and his irrevocable damage: His beloved lamb Recently drowned in

  Role-playing games for children. Game scenarios. “We go through life with imagination.” This game will reveal the most observant player and allow them

  Reversible and irreversible chemical reactions. Chemical balance. Shift of chemical equilibrium under the influence of various factors 1. Chemical equilibrium in the 2NO(g) system

  Niobium in its compact state is a lustrous silvery-white (or gray when powdered) paramagnetic metal with a body-centered cubic crystal lattice.

  Noun. Saturating the text with nouns can become a means of linguistic figurativeness. The text of A. A. Fet’s poem “Whisper, timid breathing...”, in his

The poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “The Minor” ... Truly social comedy. N. V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor” The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on theater stage in 1872, according to the recollections of contemporaries, it caused “throwing of wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw. Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokova. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays. What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the people's, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom. Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of negative conversations and positive characters. This is the influence of the modern author European comedy, here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language. It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the characters in the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out... main idea the play is to show the fruits of bad education or even its absence, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer main role takes away goodies. “The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more alive than their dramatic photographs... They were walking, but still lifeless schemes of a new good morality... Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still lifeless cultural preparations,” the historian wrote about the comedy V. O. Klyuchevsky. Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main thing artistic merit plays, Fonvizin's luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows to a full name artistic image . In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait. “Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. . Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs? Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.” The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...", and Starodum interrupts him: "That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam." Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milon’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature. “Prostakova. After all, I am also from the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children...” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, will not bark with you,” “Oh, I am a dog’s daughter! What have I done!". Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.” The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured features of pronunciation. The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.

The poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy “The Minor” ... A truly social comedy. N.V. Gogop about the comedy “The Minor” The first appearance of the comedy “The Minor” on the theater stage in 1872 caused, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, “throwing wallets” - the audience threw wallets filled with ducats onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw. Before D.I. Fonvizin, the public knew almost no Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, Moliere's plays were staged, and the emergence of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to rule the temper with mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays. What caused such a strong reaction from the viewer? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to the folk one, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of the sons of landowners, denunciation of serfdom. Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: while observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence of the author’s contemporary European comedy; here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good... There are great actors in comedy... when you look at them, you, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you are seeing a straight story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister while traveling around France. But Fonvizin can in no way be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language. It was from “The Minor” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin Kaftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the heroes of the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out... The main idea of ​​the play is show the fruits of bad upbringing or even the absence of it, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner evil. Contrasting “evil characters” taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author’s comments into the mouths of positive heroes, unusually virtuous people. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and why he is bad, the writer assigns the main role to the positive characters. “The truth is that Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but their actual originals were no more vivid than their dramatic photographs. .. They were walking, but still lifeless schemes of a new good morality... Time, intensification and experiments were needed to awaken organic life in these still lifeless cultural preparations,” historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about the comedy. Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin’s luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname “Skotinin” grows into a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised by his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head.” The author's ridicule is all the stronger because it is put into the mouth of the hero at whom we laugh. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait. “Prostakov. It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family! Our Mitrofanushka is just like our uncle - and he is as big a hunter as you are. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy. . Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, brother, let Mitrofan love pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: why am I so addicted to pigs? Prostakov. And there is some similarity here. That’s how I reason.” The author plays out the same motive in the remarks of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin’s words that his family is “great and ancient,” Pravdin ironically remarks: “This way you will convince us that he is older than Adam.” Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a few...” and Starodum interrupts him: “That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam.” Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God created first animals, then humans. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, coming from the same mouth of Skotinin, evokes Milon’s indignant remark: “What a bestial comparison!” Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author’s description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read from the book of hours: “I am cattle, not man, a reproach of men.” The representatives of the Skotinin family themselves speak with comical simplicity about their “bestial” nature. “Prostakova. After all, I am also from the Skotinins’ father. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed Priplodin. They had eighteen of us children. ..” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, there is only one litter; Yes, look how she squealed..." Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself: “I, brother, won’t bark with you,” “Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! What have I done!". Another special feature of the play “The Minor” is that each of the characters speaks their own language. This was appreciated by Fonvizin’s contemporaries: “everyone differs in their character with their sayings.” The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is filled with military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic phrases, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with his masters and arrogant with his servants, is filled with aptly captured features of pronunciation. The vivid typicality of the play's heroes - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its boundaries in time and space. And in A. S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, and in M. Yu. Lermontov in “Tambov Treasury”, and in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in “The Tashkent Gentlemen” we find references to them, still alive and carrying within themselves the essence of serf-owners, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.