Fonvizin's satire in the comedy "Minor"
In the comedy “The Minor,” Fonvizin depicts the vices of his contemporary society. His heroes are representatives of different social strata: statesmen, nobles, servants, self-proclaimed teachers. This is the first socio-political comedy in the history of Russian drama.
The central character of the play is Mrs. Prostakova. She manages the household, beats her husband, keeps the servants in terror, and raises her son Mitrofan. “Now I scold, now I fight, and that’s how the house holds together.” No one dares to resist her power: “Am I not powerful in my people.” But there are also tragic elements in the image of Prostakova. This ignorant and selfish “despicable fury” loves and sincerely cares for her son. At the end of the play, rejected by Mitrofan, she becomes humiliated and pitiful:
- - You are the only one left with me.
- - Let it go...
- - I don’t have a son...
The image of Mitrofan in the play is associated with the idea of education, which is very important for educational literature. Mitrofan is an ignoramus, a slacker, his mother's favorite. He inherited arrogance and rudeness from his mother. He addresses Eremeevna, who is sacredly devoted to him: “old Khrychovka.” Mitrofan's upbringing and education corresponds to the “fashion” of that time and the understanding of his parents. French language he is taught by the German Vralman, the exact sciences by the retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, who “speaks a little of arithmetic,” and grammar by the seminarian Kuteikin, who was dismissed from “all teaching.” Mitrofanushka’s “knowledge” in grammar, his desire not to study, but to get married, are ridiculous. But his attitude towards Eremeevna, his readiness to “take people for granted”, his betrayal of his mother evokes different feelings. Mitrofanushka becomes an ignorant and cruel despot.
The main technique for creating satirical characters in a play is “zoologization.” Getting ready to get married, Skotinin declares that he wants to have his own piglets. It seems to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he lived like a “fairy with little horses.” Thus, the author emphasizes the idea of the “animal” lowland of the surrounding world.
The comedy of “The Minor” is not only that Prostakova scolds like a street vendor and is touched by her son’s gluttony. There is a deeper meaning to comedy. She sarcastically ridicules rudeness that wants to look amiable, greed hiding behind generosity, ignorance pretending to be educated. According to the playwright, serfdom is destructive not only for peasants, as it turns them into obedient, dumb slaves, but also for landowners, turning them into tyrants, tyrants and ignoramuses. Cruelty and violence become the most convenient and familiar weapon for serf owners. Therefore, the first impulse of Skotinin, and then of Prostakova, is to force Sophia into marriage. And only after realizing that Sophia has strong defenders, Prostakova begins to fawn and tries to imitate the tone of noble people. But is Prostakova capable of wearing a mask of nobility for a long time? Seeing that Sophia is slipping out of her hands, the landowner resorts to the usual action - violence.
At the end of the comedy we are not only funny, but also scared. The mixture of arrogance and servility, rudeness and confusion makes Prostakova so pathetic that Sophia and Starodum are ready to forgive her. Impunity and permissiveness taught Prostakova to the idea that there were no insurmountable obstacles before her. She becomes the toy of her own passions. And thoughtless motherly love turns against herself. Mitrofan abandons his mother at the most difficult moment of her life. He does not need a mother who has lost money and power. He will be looking for new influential patrons. His phrase: “Get off me, mother, I imposed myself...” became popular. But this did not change its ominous meaning, but rather intensified.
Fonvizin’s crushing, angry-satirical laughter, aimed at the most disgusting aspects of the autocratic serfdom, played a great creative role in the future destinies of Russian literature.
Despite the fact that the genre of the play “Minor” is a comedy, Fonvizin is not limited to exposing social vices and creating satirical characters. Positive characters openly express the views of an “honest” person on noble morality, family relationships and even civil structure. This dramatic technique truly signifies a revolution in Russian educational literature - from criticism of the negative aspects of reality to the search for ways to change the existing system.
Reflecting current problems of his time, Fonvizin was a talented psychologist, thinker, and artist. His comedy has universal significance, it lives on for centuries and does not leave the stages of modern theaters.
In “The Minor,” as the first biographer Fonvizin noted, the author “no longer jokes, no longer laughs, but is indignant at vice and brands it without mercy, and even if it makes you laugh, then the laughter it inspires does not distract from deeper and more regrettable impressions.” The object of ridicule in Fonvizin’s comedy is not the private life of the nobles, but their public, official activities and serfdom.
Not content with just depicting noble “evil morality,” the writer strives to show its causes. The author explains the vices of people by their improper upbringing and dense ignorance, presented in the play in its various manifestations.
The genre uniqueness of the work lies in the fact that “The Minor,” according to G. A. Gukovsky, is “half comedy, half drama.” Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin’s play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes are introduced into it. These include Pravdin’s conversation with Starodum, Starodum’s touching and edifying conversations with Sophia and Milon. The tearful drama suggests the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as of “suffering virtue” in the person of Sophia. The finale of the play also combines touching and deeply moralistic principles.
D.I. Fonvizin managed to create a vivid, strikingly true picture of the moral and social degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century. The playwright uses all the means of satire, denounces and criticizes, ridicules and condemns, but his attitude towards the “noble” class is far from the view of an outsider: “I saw,” he wrote, “from the most respectable ancestors of despised descendants... I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart apart."
Fonvizin's comedy is an extremely important milestone in the history of our drama. Following it are “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov and “The Inspector General” by Gogol. “...Everything turned pale,” Gogol wrote, “before two bright works: before Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” and Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit” ... They no longer contain light ridicule of the funny sides of society, but wounds and illnesses our society... Both comedies took place in two different eras. One was struck by diseases from lack of enlightenment, the other from a poorly understood enlightenment.”
Written more than two hundred years ago, the comedy “The Minor” has not lost its relevance for us. The problems posed and solved by Fonvizin are just as acute and relevant today. Issues of education, service to the Fatherland, and moral principles of a person probably belong to the category of “eternal”. And each generation will solve them in its own way, but will never give up on them, will not brush them aside as unimportant, no longer urgently needed.
The comedy “Nedorosl” not only took its rightful place in classical literature, but also replenished the golden fund of the Russian theater. Its significance is enormous in the formation and establishment of the Russian national theater. Gogol already noted that “The Minor,” in which the traditional love affair is pushed far into the background, laid the foundation for the original Russian genre of “truly social comedy.” This is the secret of comedy's long stage life.
“Nedorosl” is the first Russian socio-political comedy. For more than two hundred years it has not left the stages of Russian theaters, remaining interesting and relevant to new and new generations of viewers. The comedy was written at the end of the 18th century. Fonvizin depicts the vices of his contemporary society: masters who rule unjustly, nobles who are not worthy of being nobles, “accidental” statesmen, self-proclaimed teachers. Today is the 21st century, and many of its problems are relevant, the images are still alive.
What is the secret of comedy's permanence? The work attracts attention, first of all, with its gallery of negative characters. Positive characters are less expressive, but without them there would be no movement, confrontation between good and evil, baseness and nobility, sincerity and hypocrisy, animality and high spirituality. After all, the comedy Minor is built on the fact that the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins wants to suppress, subjugate life, arrogate to itself the right to dispose of not only serfs, but also free people. So, for example, they are trying to decide the fate of Sophia and Milon, Roughly, primitively, resorting to violence, but that’s what they know how to do. Such is their arsenal of weapons. In a comedy two worlds collide different needs, lifestyles, speech patterns, ideals. Let’s remember Mrs. Prostakova in Mitrofanushka’s lesson: “It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward…. He's lying, my dear friend. Found the money - doesn’t share it with anyone... Take it all for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don’t study this stupid science!”
Fonvizin depicts the vices of his contemporary society: masters who rule unjustly, nobles who are not worthy of being nobles, “accidental” statesmen, self-proclaimed teachers. Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teaching, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of its spiritual squalor. One of the main problems raised by the play is the writer’s thoughts about the legacy that the Prostakovs and Skotinins are preparing for Russia. Serfdom is a disaster for the landowners themselves. Accustomed to treating everyone rudely, Prostakova does not spare her relatives. The basis of her nature will stop. Landowners' self-confidence. Accustomed to treating everyone rudely, Prostakova does not spare her relatives. The basis of her nature will stop. Self-confidence is heard in every remark of Skotinin, devoid of any merits.
Rigidity and violence become the most convenient and familiar weapon of the serf owners. Serfdom was sharply condemned. At that time this was unheard of audacity, and only a very brave person could write such a thing. However, today the assertion that slavery is evil is accepted without evidence.
Skotinin and Mrs. Prostakova are very realistic images. The entire household structure of the Prostakovs is based on the unlimited power of serfdom. The pretender and tyrant Prostakova does not evoke any sympathy with her complaints about the power taken from her.
In 1783, after a sensational controversy with Catherine in the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word,” literary activity Fonvizina encountered stubborn resistance from the authorities. The magazine he conceived in 1788, “Starodum, or Friend of Honest People,” was banned, and he was not allowed to translate the ancient Roman historian Tacitus. All this undoubtedly had a heavy impact on him. state of mind and perhaps hastened his death.
Fonvizin’s poetic works were created by him at the beginning of his creative career. As he later recalled: “Very early I developed a penchant for satire. My sharp words rushed around Moscow; and as they were caustic for many, the offended declared me to be an evil and dangerous boy... My writings were sharp curses: there was a lot of satirical salt in them...”
It was in St. Petersburg, as a result of rapprochement with a circle of young freethinkers and atheists, that one of the best works of Russian poetic satire, “Message to My Servants,” was written.
The appearance of this satire in print allowed Novikov in 1770 to express the opinion that “if circumstances allow this author to practice verbal science, then it is not unreasonable and fair that many expect to see in him the Russian Boalo.”
However, by the end of the 1760s, Fonvizin almost ceased his poetic activity. The rejection of satire, according to the writer’s own later explanation, was the result of a rejection of religious free-thinking.
Fonvizin's poetic satires were widely distributed in lists and aroused hostility towards their author. Some part of his poetic heritage has not reached us and is known only by name.
Two satirical works by the young Fonvizin have reached us - “The Fox the Executor” and “Message to My Servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka.”
In the sharply satirical “Message to my servants...”, through the mouth of the intelligent and observant groom Vanka, who has seen a lot from his horse, traveled “the length and breadth” of both capitals and even visited the palace, a picture is given of the general trickery and deception that flourishes under autocratic rule. serfdom (“Priests try to deceive the people, Servants try to deceive the butler, butlers try to deceive the masters”). The creation of this message was associated with Fonvizin’s participation in Kozlovsky’s circle, where the spirit of freethinking reigned. The content and accusatory pathos reflected the observations and thoughts of its author on growing up. orders protected by autocratic serfdom. power, in alliance with the church. The questions posed about the meaning of the universe and the purpose of life (“Why was this light created? And how can I live in it?”) testified to F.’s distrust of religious dogmas, which asserted that everything in the created world is purposeful.
The courage and innovation of Fonvizin is that he addressed the servants, the serfs, discarding class prejudices and genre etiquette (the messages were usually addressed to persons of a noble family). True, none of the servants gave an answer, but the master himself could not do this. But a bright, sharply satirical picture of Russian society was given. The groom Vanka turned out to be observant and intelligent, able to identify “this world”: it is dominated by universal deception and greed, the power of money subjugates all classes (“Priests try to deceive the people, Servants - the butler, butlers - the masters... they often want to deceive the sovereign ). Vanka concludes that this world is bad. Parsley compares the world to a child's toy, and the people in it to dolls. Parsley is not very depressed, because you can live cheerfully in such a world, you just need not to feel sorry for anyone (“take, catch, grab everything that comes your way”). Such an everyday philosophy indicates the absence of any strong moral values in Catherine’s state. The three servants have different attitudes towards religion. Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka are real persons, but F. did not limit himself to simply copying nature.
F. used the traditional meter of the high genres of classicism - iambic hexameter with paired rhymes, but managed to give ease to colloquial speech.
In the exceptionally bold fable “The Fox-Executor” (preacher), written, apparently, in connection with the death of Tsarina Elizabeth Petrovna, it is indignantly told how the deceased lion was a “noble cattle”, during whose reign his “favorites and nobles tore off without rank the skins of innocent beasts,” the court sycophants, “vile brutes,” flatter. Their enthusiastic praise, of course, is completely false and hypocritical (“Oh, the most despicable flattery!” the Mole whispered to the Dog, “I knew Leo briefly: he was a brute”). The fable is an exposure of deceit and hypocrisy in spiritual sermons and laudatory words of church and secular rhetoricians. Here the fox is an enlightened, humane ruler, the Mole is a tyrant and despot. The artistic features of this fable are the speech characteristics of the characters.
Topic: D.I. Fonvizin "Minor". Satirical
comedy focus. Negative characters
comedies.
Goals: 1. Educational. Continue analysis of comedy action
DI. Fonvizin "Undergrowth".
2. Developmental. Consider issues of upbringing and education in
comedies.
3. Educating: develop a moral reading position
students, interest in Russian classical literature.
Progress of the lesson.
I . Checking homework.
II . Work on the topic of the lesson.
Teacher's word.
- Remember what satire is?
Satire (from lat.size- mixture, mishmash) - a type of comic that most mercilessly ridicules human imperfection; sharp condemnation through ridicule of human vices.
We have already said that the comedy “The Minor” was written according to the laws of classicism. So in a classic comedy we can easily recognize the “positive” and “negative” characters even before reading the comedy.
Look at the names and surnames of the characters in the play. Do they tell us anything? Can we characterize the characters in the play based on their names?
(Yes. Mitrofan - like a mother; Prostakov - simple and stupid; Skotinin - from the word “cattle”; Sophia - Sophia - wisdom; Milon (root “mil”) - cute, etc. Names in the comedy are “speaking”.)
Now let’s take a closer look at the heroes of the comedy.
What can you say about Mitrofan's parents? What kind of father and mother are they?
(The father is stupid, he obeys his wife in everything, he tries to look at everything through her eyes. The mother (nee Skotinina) is power-hungry, rude, insolent, a “contemptible fury”; she doesn’t give in to those who are weaker, she loves her son.)
Do you think this is the image of a typical landowner?
What kind of son grew up with such parents?
(Mitrofan is stupid, lazy, glutton, rude, doesn’t love anyone).
How does he feel about his wet nurse?
(He is rude to her, she is only a servant for him. But this woman did not just feed Mitrofan, she loves him).
Remember how Mitrofanushka’s peculiar “smartness” manifests itself?
Reading the action I , phenomenon IV – Mitrofanushka tells her dream.
(Mitrofan is not so stupid, seeing that his mother is puzzled, he deftly gets out of a difficult situation, knowing on whose side the power is, for which he is rewarded with his mother’s hugs).
What do the last scenes of the comedy show us? How does Mitrofanushka’s attitude towards her mother change?
Let's read the last phenomenon.
What is to blame for the fact that Mitrofan does not even know the feeling of attachment to his mother? (A mother’s blind love for her son, Mitrofanushka’s spoiled behavior).
Did his mother’s attitude towards the serfs, towards Mitrofanushka’s nurse, play a role? Remember how Trishka scolds Prostakov because he sewed the caftan poorly? (Fraud, cattle, thief's mug). And how he honors his son’s wet nurse (a dog’s daughter, a nasty mug, an old witch). It is not surprising that Mitrofanushka, following her mother, shouts at Eremeevna: “Old Khrychovka.”
And Prostakova does not have the intelligence to understand that Mitrofan’s attitude towards the woman who fed him does not bode well for her, her own mother.
What kind of education is Mrs. Prostakova trying to give her son? Who teaches Mitrofanushka?
(Kuteikin is a half-educated seminarian, greedy, stupid. Coachman Vralman is an ignorant foreigner who wants to be a teacher - a picture that is not uncommon in RussiaXVIIIc., especially in the provinces).
What does Vralman teach Mitrofanushka? (Stories and foreign languages. But he is unable to teach anything, so he wins Prostakova’s sympathy by talking about the dangers of science.)
Reading the action III , phenomenon VIII with the words “...reason my mother... The only teacher who is worthy of attention as a person is Tsyfirkin. Remember, he doesn't charge for what he didn't do.
What answers does Mitrofanushka give in the exam before Pravdin and Starodum?
Reading the action IV , phenomenon VIII from the words “I would be curious to hear what the German taught him...”
Is Mitrofanushka, in his ignorance, similar to Uncle Skotinin? What is Skotinin interested in? How does he treat people?
(Worse than with pigs. He even says about his future wife that if each pig has its own peck, then he will find a sweet spot for his wife.
How does Skotinin relate to his peasants?
Action I , phenomenon V . (“...every loss, before going after it, I’ll rip it off from my own peasants, and it’ll be a waste.” Skotinin is not afraid of anything, because according to the law of 1767, peasants were sentenced to hard labor for complaining about their landowner).
We looked at the negative characters of the comedy, in the next lesson we will turn to the virtuous heroes. But first, let us remember once again, according to what laws was this comedy written? (According to the laws of classicism).
Name three unities according to which classic works were written? (Unity of action, time, place).
As you remember, classicism was characterized by a sharp division of heroes into positive and negative. There was no middle ground. This clearly appears in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizina.
In Skotinin, in Prostakova, in Mitrofanushka we will not see a single bright spot, while the images of positive heroes are crystal clear. For example, Sophia, what do we know about her? (An orphan, she lives in the house of Prostakova, who robs her. We first hear about her when Skotinin talks about the conspiracy. He is going to marry Sophia.)
Why is this marriage attractive to him? (Because there are pigs in the bride's villages.)
What event changes Sophia's life? (She receives a letter from her uncle, whom everyone thought was long dead.)
Why does Prostakova change her attitude towards Sophia? (Because her uncle assigned her a large inheritance.)
What happens because of this between uncle and nephew? Who protects Mitrofan?
What gratitude does Eremeevna receive for her loyalty? (Five rubles a year, and five slaps a day)
Do you think Eremeevna is a positive character? Why? (Negative. She is a person with the psychology of a slave. Remember how she calls Mitrofanushka’s teachers after they consoled her? (That’s all our bastard for you, father.)
Lesson summary.
Conclusion: By creating the images of the Skotinins and Prostakovs, Fonvizin shows how deep the roots of everything that happens in comedy are. The entire play is aimed at proving that serfdom is detrimental to both “slaves” and masters.
By drawing Mrs. Prostakova, Fonvizin slightly violates the laws of classicism. After all, in the finale this “despicable fury” suffers, her beloved son turns away from her. And the reader, even for a split second, feels sympathy for her.
Homework. Prepare for a conversation on questions on the topic “The problem of educating a true citizen.”
Fonvizin’s work “The Minor” is presented as a comedy. But it affects important and even partly terrible life phenomena. The play becomes a comedy largely due to the presence of satire in it. In Fonvizin’s work “The Minor,” satire plays an important role, showing and exposing the vices of society.
The essence of the concept of “satire”
In literature, satire is a technique in which vices are ridiculed using humor. When life-threatening phenomena are at the peak of popularity, authors can express their attitude towards them not only through pain, tragedy and dire consequences in their works, but also through ridicule. The reader has the opportunity through laughter to look at the vices of society, to think whether he himself is as funny as the heroes of a literary work.
Satire in the image of Prostakova
The main character of the work is Mrs. Prostakova. She considers herself the mistress of the situation, beats everyone who comes to hand, considers herself smart and well-mannered. But in reality this is not at all the case, because she is the most striking example of the ignorance of despotism. This makes her funny. After all, the main thing that makes a person beautiful is his upbringing. Having power, it is necessary to help people, and the way Prostakova behaves is stupid and therefore funny
Satire in the image of Mitrofanushka
Mitrofanushka is the most satirical of all the heroes of the work. He doesn’t imagine anything, completely relying on his mother’s opinion. But when he is faced with a choice, he immediately refuses it. Mitrofanushka is funny because he is stupid and weak-willed. He doesn’t want to study, but wants to get married, understanding absolutely nothing in life. This makes his image satirical and funny.
Satire in the images of other heroes
Some other characters also contain a lot of satire. What are Mitrofanushka's teachers worth - trying to teach him, they themselves are absolutely nothing, especially Prostakova's favorite Vralman. Skotinin, having a telling surname, compares his future children to piglets. The communication between positive characters and negative ones also looks funny. Listening to smart speeches, ignorant Prostakova, currying favor with Starodum, exposes herself in an ugly light, shows herself to be funny, trying to argue with him and prove her ideology. Fonvizin's entire comedy is imbued with satire and open-minded humor, which is expressed in the details and even the plot itself.
Satire in the plot
Following the twists and turns of the plot, the reader sees humor in how several ignorant fans fight for the girl, in how the negative heroes curry favor with each other and with the significant positive heroes. The plot itself contains satire, because this phenomenon is also ridiculed by the author.
The essence of satire is to ridicule phenomena that are actually scary. Smart man, reading the work, laughs bitterly, because you can’t really laugh at such phenomena. Fonvizin shows situations so ridiculous that they cause laughter. But we must understand that satire is humor built on the terrible phenomena of human life, humor, thanks to which we can see the vices in ourselves, and not mindlessly mock the heroes.
This article will help you write an essay “Satire in the comedy “Minor.”
Work test
