In the comedy “The Minor,” Kuteikin acts as a teacher of Church Slavonic and Russian languages. Before the man entered Prostakova’s service, he studied at the seminary, but, fearing the “abyss of wisdom,” he abandoned his studies. The image of Kuteikin in “The Minor” is Fonvizin’s sharp satire on uneducated priests (after all, before that the man studied to become a clergyman). The character's speech is full of Church Slavonic phrases, but they, intertwined with colloquial expressions, look inappropriate and lack the original high style.
The surname “Kuteikin” comes from the ironic nickname of church ministers - “kuteyka”, associated with the name of the funeral dish kuti, which priests were often treated to. Greed, cunning, desire for profit are the main traits of the character. In “The Minor,” Kuteikin’s characterization is fully revealed at the end of the comedy, when the man demands more payment than he deserves.
The image of Kuteikin in the comedy personifies an entire social class of ignorant, greedy and self-interested half-educated priests who, knowing only the basics of literacy, took on the task of teaching young people. By introducing this character into the work, Fonvizin exposed outdated standards of education. The author emphasized that a strong, comprehensively developed personality of the Enlightenment should be taught by secular teachers using appropriate textbooks, and not by illiterate seminarians on the Psalter.
In the comedy “The Minor,” Kuteikin acts as a teacher of Church Slavonic and Russian languages. Before the man entered Prostakova’s service, he studied at the seminary, but, fearing the “abyss of wisdom,” he abandoned his studies. The image of Kuteikin in “The Minor” is Fonvizin’s sharp satire on uneducated priests (after all, before that the man studied to become a clergyman). The character's speech is full of Church Slavonic phrases, but they, intertwined with colloquial expressions, look inappropriate and lack the original high style.
The surname “Kuteikin” comes from the ironic nickname of church ministers - “kuteyka”, associated with the name of the funeral dish kuti, which priests were often treated to. Greed, cunning, desire for profit are the main traits of the character. In “The Minor,” Kuteikin’s characterization is fully revealed at the end of the comedy, when the man demands more payment than he deserves.
The image of Kuteikin in the comedy personifies an entire social class of ignorant, greedy and self-interested half-educated priests who, knowing only the basics of literacy, took on the task of teaching young people. By introducing this character into the work, Fonvizin exposed outdated standards of education. The author emphasized that a strong, comprehensively developed personality of the Enlightenment should be taught by secular teachers using appropriate textbooks, and not by illiterate seminarians on the Psalter.
", is one of the first-class works of Russian literature. The playwright depicted in it, firstly, the ignorant ancient education of noble children; secondly, the gross arbitrariness of the landowners, their inhumane treatment of the serfs.
About the main characters of the play, Mrs. Prostakova , and her son, Mitrofanushka , you can read in the articles especially dedicated to them on our website: Characteristics of Mrs. Prostakova in “The Minor” by Fonvizin and Characteristics of Mitrofan in “The Minor” by Fonvizin. Next we will outline the other characters in the play.
Heroes of Fonvizin's "Undergrowth"
Prostakova's husband , Mitrofan's father, is a timid and weak-willed man, so downtrodden and intimidated by his wife that he has neither his own desires nor his own opinions. “Before your eyes,” he says to his wife, “mine see nothing.”
Skotinin, Prostakova's brother , is a comic face. He is depicted a little caricaturedly with his exaggerated passion for pigs, which he himself innocently explains as follows: “People in front of me are smart, but among the pigs I myself am smarter than everyone else.” He received the same upbringing as his sister, and is just as rude as she: he treats pigs “infinitely better than people”; but in his whole figure there is some kind of comic good nature, which, however, stems from extraordinary stupidity. His name is the same as the names of others characters, selected by Fonvizin in accordance with the properties of their characters or occupations.
Fonvizin. Minor. Maly Theater performance
In a few strokes, but very vividly, Mitrofan’s teachers, retired sergeant Tsyfirkin and seminarian Kuteikin are depicted. Tsyfirkin teaches Mitrofan arithmetic, as his name hints at; this is an honest old soldier. Kuteikin says that he left the seminary without completing the course: “fearing the abyss of wisdom.” He is a completely ignorant person; the only thing that remained with him from his time in the seminary was his manner of often using Church Slavonic expressions; Moreover, Kuteikin is greedy and selfish, an “insatiable soul,” as Prostakova characterizes him.
The name of another teacher is German Vralman– very successfully composed of the Russian word “liar” and the German “mann” (man). In the person of Vralman, Fonvizin shows what kind of foreign teachers in those days taught noble children “all sciences.” Vralman for a long time was a coachman: having lost his job, he became a teacher, only so as not to die of hunger. In the Prostakovs' house, he, as a foreigner, is given special honor and preference over other teachers. He receives a salary of three hundred rubles a year, while honest Tsyfirkin should receive only ten. Prostakova lists all the benefits that Vralman receives in their house: “we seat you at the table with us; Our women wash his linen; where necessary - a horse; at the table - a glass of wine; at night – a tallow candle.” Prostakova is happy with the German: “he doesn’t force the child.” The cunning Vralman found a wonderful way to please his mistress, while at the same time hiding his ignorance: not only does he not teach Mitrofanushka anything, but he also prevents other teachers from studying with him, indulging Mitrofan’s laziness, praising him in every possible way before his adoring mother.
In the face Eremeevna, “mother” of Mitrofan, Fonvizin for the first time depicted the type of infinitely devoted, selfless serf servant, which in Russian literature was reflected in several images, male and female. Savelich, in “The Captain’s Daughter” by Pushkin, Evseich, in “Childhood of Bagrov the Grandson” by Aksakov, Natalya Savishna - in “Childhood and Adolescence” by Leo Tolstoy. In life, this type is known to everyone in the person of Pushkin’s nanny, Arina Rodionovna. Yes, how many of us have a dear, beloved face associated with the name “nanny”... It’s amazing that this very type is found only in Russian literature, among the Russian people!
But unlike other heroes and heroines of Russian writers similar to her, Eremeevna is a completely unhappy creature, not appreciated by anyone: it’s not for nothing that she serves in the Prostakovs’ house! For her faithful forty years of service and love, she receives only insults, abuse and beatings. “Am I not zealous for you, mother?” in tears she says to Prostakova, “you don’t know how to serve anymore... I would be glad not only that... you don’t regret your stomach... but everything is undesirable.” Tsyfirkin and Kuteikin ask her how much she receives for her service? “Five rubles a year, and five slaps a day,” Eremeevna answers sadly. Even her pet, Mitrofanushka, is rude to her and insults her.
All his thoughts and interests are connected only with his barnyard. Gogol says about him: “Pigs became for him the same as for an art lover Art Gallery! He only shows warmth and tenderness towards his pigs. Skotinin is a ferocious serf owner, a master of “ripping off” rent from the peasants. 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.
Eremeevna, Mitrofan’s nanny, is drawn with great artistic force. Fonvizin convincingly shows what corrupting influence had serfdom on the courtyard servants, how it disfigures, perverts their inherent good human qualities, develops and instills in them slavish humiliation. Eremeevna has served Prostakov-Skotinin for forty years. She is selflessly devoted to them, slavishly attached to her home, and has a highly developed sense of duty. Without sparing herself, she protects Mitrofan. When Skotinin wants to kill Mitrofan, Eremeevna, “shielding Mitrofan, going berserk and raising her fists,” as Fonvizin pointed out, shouts: “I’ll die on the spot, but I won’t give up the child. Show up, sir, just kindly show up. I’ll scratch out those thorns.” But this devotion and sense of duty acquires a distorted, slavish character in Eremeevna. She has no feeling human dignity. There is not only hatred for one’s inhuman oppressors, but even protest. Serving her tormentors, “without sparing her life,” Eremeevna lives in constant fear, trembling before her ferocious mistress. “Oh, he’s leaving him! Where should my head go? - 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!”
And for such selfless and faithful service, Eremeevna receives only beatings and hears only such appeals from Prostakova and Mitrofan as a beast, a dog’s daughter, an old witch, an old bastard. The fate of Eremeevna is difficult and tragic, forced to serve the monster landowners who are unable to appreciate her faithful service.
The images of Mitrofan’s home teachers: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman are truthful and vitally convincing in the comedy.
Retired soldier Tsyfirkin is a man with a number of good qualities. He is hardworking: “I don’t like to live idlely,” he says. In the city, he helps clerks “either check the meter or summarize the results,” and “teach the guys in his spare time.” (Fonvizin painted the image of Tsyfirkin with obvious sympathy. In a different light, Fonvizin gives the teacher of Russian and Church Slavonic languages Kuteikin. This is a half-educated seminarian who left the first classes of the theological seminary, “fearing the abyss of wisdom.” But he is not without cunning. Reading the Book of Hours with Mitrofan, he It is not without intention that he chooses the text: “I am a worm, not a man, a reproach of men,” and he also interprets the word worm as “an animal, a beast.” Like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna. But Kuteikin sharply. differs from Tsyfirkin in his greed for money. Kuteikin’s language strongly emphasizes Church Slavonicisms, which he brought from his spiritual environment and theological school.
The comedy portrays the German Vralman, a rogue teacher, a man with a lackey's soul, and Starodum's former coachman, in a satirical light. 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.
Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of 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 their spiritual squalor.
An equally destructive verdict on this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on stage, contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan’s parents. Dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin. which touch upon deep, sometimes national issues, are passionate journalistic speeches reflecting the author’s position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the exposure merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself.
Two problems that especially worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of “The Minor.” This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, was “buried with their ancestors,” in his reported observations from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society, he seeks the reasons for this decline.
Starodum’s final remark, which ends “”: “These are the worthy fruits of evil!” - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin’s treatise, gives the entire play a special political sound. Unlimited power of landowners over their peasants in the absence of proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities it became a source of arbitrariness, this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the ruling class. In the light of Fonvizin’s general moral and political concept, the exponents of which in the play are positive characters, the world of simpletons and brutes appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.
Another problem of "Undergrown" is the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of the thinkers of the 18th century was seen as the primary factor determining moral character person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education.
A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan’s teaching and most of Starodum’s moral teachings are subordinated to it. The culminating point in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in Act IV of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory and sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of simpletons and brutes. The passing of this verdict is ensured not only through the self-disclosure of Mitrofan’s ignorance, but also through the demonstration of examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milo. -
A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and the direction of his creative quest, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. Courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the serf owners were heard in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Fonvizin.