Folk colloquial elements in the language of fables by I.A. Krylov. Analysis of the fable "Rooster and Pearly Grain"

The ignorant people judge like this: what they don’t understand is everything, then everything is a trifle for them

Ignorant - uneducated (ignorant)

Wed The ignoramuses judge exactly like this:

What is the point they do not understand, then everything is a trifle for them.

Krylov. Rooster and pearl grain.

Wed Wir sind gewohnt, dass die Menschen verhöhnen,

Was sie nicht verstehn.

Gothe. Faust. one.

Wed Les esprits médiocres condamnent d "ordinaire tout ce qui passe leur portée.

La Rochefoucauld. Max. 78. § 876.

Cm. no matter how useful .

Russian thought and speech. Yours and someone else's. Experience of Russian phraseology. Collection of figurative words and parables. T.T. 1-2. Walking and well-aimed words. Collection of Russian and foreign quotations, proverbs, sayings, proverbial expressions and individual words. SPb., type. Ak. Sciences.. M. I. Mikhelson. 1896-1912.

See what "ignoramuses judge like this: what's the point they don't understand, then everything is a trifle" in other dictionaries:

The ignorant people judge like this: what they don’t understand, then everything is a trifle with them. The ignoramuses are not educated (not knowing). Wed The ignorant people judge exactly this way: Whatever they don’t understand, then everything is a trifle with them. Krylov. Rooster and pearl grain. Explanatory (Here the word ... ...

No matter how useful a thing is, without knowing its price, Ignorance about it tends everything to the worst. Krylov. Monkey and Glasses. See The ignoramuses judge like this: what they don’t understand, then everything is a trifle for them ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Pig under the oak. Wed Let it dry, says the Pig: I see little use in it; Even though I don’t have him forever, I won’t regret it a bit; If only there were acorns: after all, I get fat from them. Krylov. Pig under the Oak. Wed The ignoramus is also in blindness To scold the sciences ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

See The ignoramuses judge like this: what they don’t understand, then everything is a trifle for them ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

1) a (y), m. 1. outdated. Explanation, interpretation of what. [Lisa:] Can't get up, can't sit down, can't go out, can't go in; You know how to find a different sense for everything. Griboyedov, Feigned infidelity. [Lizanka:] You needn't get angry and don't give such a good sense to my words... Small Academic Dictionary

Krylov I.A. Krylov Ivan Andreevich (1769-1844) Russian fabulist. Aphorisms, quotes Krylov I.A. biography It's your fault that I want to eat. Wolf and lamb (Wolf) What thieves get away with, thieves are beaten for. Crow Almost everyone in ... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Ignorant, ignorant, husband. and wives. 1. Rude, impolite person. "Ignorant is the one who allows himself to be rude." L. Tolstoy. "Ignorant! I don't want to talk to you." A. Ostrovsky. 2. The same as an ignoramus (colloquial obsolete). “The ignoramuses judge exactly like this: what’s the point ... ... Dictionary Ushakov

Vezha knowing, knowledgeable. Compare with the ignorant, which in the old days meant not only impolite, but also ignorant. Let us recall the moral of Krylov's fable The Rooster and the Pearly Grain: The ignoramuses judge exactly like this: what they don’t understand is everything is a trifle for them. ... ... Russian surnames

G.Ya. Salima

I. Vocabulary

1. Folk words without a special, stylistic function

Introducing folk vocabulary into literary speech, Krylov enriched this literary language. He boldly put a simple folk word next to its literary, bookish synonym. As a rule, in Krylov's constructions of this kind, a common word is explained, as if translated by a generally accepted word, a literary one; and thus is affirmed in the system of the literary language. These are:

“Our fellow is in trouble and in sorrow” (“Shepherd”); “Suddenly fell into disrepair, withered almost to half” (“Cornflower”); “He (the people) yawned at the squirrel in the wheel and wondered” (“Squirrel”); “So I crumble and regret ...” (“Chizh and Hedgehog”); “That one is always ... stubborn and absurd” (“Pike and Cat”); “I was rescued by a friend, delivered ...” (“Dog, Man, Cat and Falcon”); “The worse the temper of someone, the more he screams and grumbles at people” (“The Wolf and the Cuckoo”), etc.

Krylov includes in the structure of his literary speech a common word often and without being accompanied by its literary synonym: in these cases, for some reason, he prefers to use the common word rather than its literary synonym. Obviously, a simple, non-bookish word fits better into the colloquial-everyday style of a fable, while a bookish version would cause a violation of this style.

“The cheese spirit stopped the fox” (“The Crow and the Fox”); “He is a performance: he went playful” (“Horse and Rider”); “Try to poke your nose at friends” (“Peasant in trouble”); “We are reproachful to Fortune” (“Fortune is away”), etc.

At the time of Krylov, these words were common in normalized colloquial speech, within which they were stylistically more or less neutral, while their bookish synonyms were, belonging to the "high calm".

Enriches Krylov, the Russian literary language, with concrete everyday vocabulary, numerous words denoting the realities of folk life, inevitable in the fable genre. These are: a spade, an ax, a plow, a pail, etc. Examples:

“The better: to blow them up with a spade, with a plow or with a plow” (“The Gardener and the Philosopher”); “A peasant, starting a house committee, bought a pail and a cow at a fair (“Peasant and Robber”); “A peasant, chopping a hut, got angry at his ax” (“Peasant and Ax”).

“Tearing a heap of dung, the rooster found a pearl grain” (“Rooster and Pearl Grain”); “The pig ... around the stables there and the kitchens leaned over; in the litter, in the manure fell; in the slop up to the ears, I bathed to the full ... ”(“ Pig ”),

Krylov drew from the folk language and words to express abstract concepts. He boldly included these words in the literary and bookish context. Typically, this technique is observed in the texts of the author's (mainly moralizing) speech. Examples:

How many times have they told the world
That flattery is vile, harmful;
But everything is not for the future,
And in the heart the flatterer will always find a corner. ("A Crow and a fox".)

The word prok in the old days had a very specific meaning - the remainder. Later, this word was also used in a different meaning, but also specific: for the future, for the future - for the rest of the time, for the future, forever. Krylov used this word in a more abstract sense, also known in the folk language: not for future use - not for good. It is the same: “Whom the enemy praises us, it’s true, there’s no use” (“Lion and Bars”).

Choose your friends wisely.
When self-interest covers itself with the guise of friendship -
She's just digging a hole for you. ("Grove and Fire")

The word self-interest meant in the old days: extraction, acquisition. For Krylov, this word also sounds more abstract: self-interest here means the desire to “self-serve”, “profit”, and this abstraction is also created by the environment of other abstract concepts, such as: mask, friendship, etc.

The words sense, sense in the following examples also acquire a more abstract meaning:

Unfortunately, the same thing happens to people:
No matter how useful a thing is, without knowing its price, -
The ignoramus about her tends to get worse! ("The Monkey and Glasses.")

The word sense here is equal to the concept of "opinion", "judgment".

The ignoramuses judge exactly like this:

What's the point of not understanding, then everything is a trifle for them. ("The Rooster and the Pearl Seed.")

The word sense here means "meaning", "meaning".

And know, peoples, you
What imaginary wise men, blasphemy sense bold. ("Godless".)

The word gossip here is given in a relatively more specific meaning: gossip - “judgments”, “disputes”.

So in different shades of meanings, folk words are used by Krylov, the ambiguity of the word is used. With this, Krylov enriches the literary language, without depriving it of the necessary normalization.

2. Evaluative function of common words

Krylov often uses everyday colloquial vocabulary as a means of direct authorial assessment of certain phenomena. Krylov's ways of expressing the author's assessment are very diverse. He knew how to increase the expressive power of the word, using vocabulary of a different nature for this.

a) Familiar vocabulary, swear words express a direct assessment, the author's judgment. Examples:

Here, without a tail, my fool started off ("Fox"); Tear, but there is no sense ("Quartet"); It carries such game that the ears wither (“The Bag”); They climb out of their skin ("Swan, Pike and Cancer"); With an effort, it burst and died (“The Frog and the Ox”).

Sometimes, for example, in the fable "The Fly and the Travellers", a special injection is given evaluative vocabulary. Here everything is estimated: the servants talk nonsense and weave, but do not go; The teacher whispers, not talks. The evaluative function of everyday words is undeniable here.

An assessment is also expressed in the description of the stupid activity of the fly: it intercedes, well, buzzing at full speed, fussing around the wagon, then under the nose it wriggles at the root, then it bites the forehead with the attachment ... or, leaving the horses, and darting up and down between people ; Well, like a farmer at the fair, he's busy.

The same injection of evaluative everyday colloquial vocabulary in the fable "Pig": A pig once wormed its way into the manor's yard; around the stables there and the kitchens piled up; in the litter, in the manure fell; in the slop, she bathed to her fill ... This series of words of emotionally negative vocabulary ends with a folk ironic expression: And from the guests she came home a pig a pig, in which figurative meaning coincided with the straight line.

Thanks to this or another phenomenon, Krylov sometimes expresses, although with reduced vocabulary, but not direct abuse, as in some of the above examples, but thinner, more covered. From a number of synonyms available in the Russian language, Krylov chooses this particular, reduced word. These are:

But Vaska still cleans up the chicken (“The Cat and the Cook”); The lion cleaned the lamb at breakfast (“The Wolf and the Lion”); Our Fedyushka himself cleaned the chestnuts at the top (“Two Boys”); A lion snatched a piece from under its claws (“The Wolf and the Lion”); From the ram, the shepherds took him (the little crow) neatly, and so that he could not fly, all his wings were carnalized to him (“The Little Crow”); There is no peace for the old woman ("Mistress and two maids"); He said and dragged the lamb into the dark forest (“The Wolf and the Lamb”); The Hungry Wolf is dragging along ("The Wolf and the Fox"); From joy in the goiter breath stole ("Crow and Fox").

Krylov has a lot of examples of the use of this kind of emotional folk vocabulary. These are:

As usual, there were guesses about how the elephant got into mercy (“Elephant in the case”); In vain the shooter then dragged along the field (“Hunter”); And here, whatever he sells or buys, he makes a big profit on everything (“Fortuna is away”); What will give dinner, what goes to bow - il rank, or he grabs a place, you'll see, he has a village, a house and a dacha ("Fortune is visiting"),

In some cases, Krylov even more skillfully hides his assessment of events and phenomena. So, sometimes, under the guise of praise, the author gives a negative assessment, sly praise sounds ironic. For example: Oh, little Trishka is not simple! He cut off the tails and the floors, put up his sleeves, and my Trishka was cheerful. ("Trishkin caftan"); The beauties have gone, - says Krylov about the monkeys in the fable "Monkeys"; Where, smart, are you wandering, head? - it is said about the donkey ("The Fox and the Donkey"); My gray knight is about a wolf ("The Wolf and the Fox"); red-cunningly-woven word - an assessment of the eloquence of a donkey in the fable "Parnassus". In the same place: If there is no donkey pleasantness in someone's voice, do not take them to Parnassus.

d) Sometimes a colloquial synonym in Krylov's fables does not contain an assessment, but only enhances the emotionality of the presentation, emphasizes the liveliness of events. For example:

Then the king and the whole animal world gasped (“Education of the Lion”); The shoemaker fought, fought, and, finally, clutched at his mind: he runs with a bag to the farmer (“The Farmer and the Shoemaker”); There was no urine for the poor girls (“Mistress and two maids”); An, then quietly walk to the brahmin in the cell of the overseer (“Napraslina”); He is not gu-gu ... ("Three men").

3. Everyday colloquial vocabulary as a means of creating a comic

Krylov often uses one or another common word in a new function - ironic. This is observed mainly in the narrative genres. A rude common word is included by Krylov in an emphatically bookish text (“high calm”) and, as a result, is rethought, acts in a new stylistic function, becomes a means of creating irony, comic.

Krylov traces several methods of comparing bookish and everyday concepts in creating an ironic statement.

a) The ironic meaning of the word is created by the direct combination of vocabulary of different styles: a rude, familiar word is introduced into the book environment; the unexpectedness, unusualness of such a combination creates comedy, irony. For example:

The king flies to them with noise from heaven
And tightly so he cracked on the kingdom,
That the state went bogged down (“The Frogs Asking for the Tsar.”)

Here the bookish words king, kingdom, state, from heaven are combined with the common people cracked, walked, quagmire. Very unusual combinations are formed, since such completely different styles of words are placed in the immediate neighborhood, such as densely cracked on the kingdom, the quagmire state, the marsh power, etc. Here, these lowered everyday words sounded in a completely new way: they become an accessory of literary speech, a means of wit, and it seems that without these words, the speech in the fable would not have been so deadly mocking, scourging. These are the following examples:

Here is more than ever and croaking and groaning,
So that Jupiter again granted them a different king.
From morning to. in the evenings their king walks around the kingdom
And anyone he meets
That hour will sue and swallow.
A black year comes to the inhabitants of the swamps. ("Frogs asking for the king")

And the Donkey became a great beast
That my eared Hercules scared the whole forest (“Donkey”.)

But on purpose, or, having taken care of things, At such a troublesome time, the Cloudbreaker blundered (“Donkey”).

And you appoint a donkey: he is of a noble rank, And, by the way, to say here, Where is he an enviable cattle! (“Lion and Bars”).

b) The creation of the comic is achieved by a solemn, bookish description of small, everyday phenomena. Examples:

That the king was marvelously given to them: .
Not fussy, not helicopters.
Powerful, silent and important;
By virtue, growth - a giant.
Well, look, it's a miracle!
One thing in the king was only bad:
This king was an aspen block. ("Frogs; asking for a king.")

A bookish, verbose description of the merits of this king (cf. the Church Slavonic vertoprashen) ends with a lowered and even abusive aspen block. This stylized description of the “block-king” is reinforced by the subsequent use of archaic ones: at first, honoring his person highly, with devotion, etc.

In a fable “Raven”, the word feat is also called a reduced, stupid action of a greedy little raven: “Having exhausted himself, he descended on him (on a ram) and clung to his wool that he had strength ... And he ended the feat by falling into full.”

The reverse phenomenon is also observed: a reduced, realistic description of some high (apparently) events. This is, for example: "Is he afraid of God's judgment, or is he just a coward to go bankrupt." ("The Farmer and the Shoemaker"). Here, parallel rows of two different styles are compared: next to the high God's judgment, he is afraid - he is simply afraid to go broke.

From the above cursory sketch of the vocabulary of Krylov's fables, it can be seen that the use of words drawn from the folk language in his fables is functionally justified in almost all cases. It is significant that Krylov has relatively few words that do not fit into the norms of the then common language.

L.A. Bulakhovsky very rightly said about Krylov: “Krylov gave the first artistic Russian language a specific national orientation. He did not study Russian phraseological units, did not collect Russian idioms with the interest of a dialectologist or a purist stylist - he knew the Russian language from the most diverse life.

II. Composition. Style

In the methods of satirical speech, Krylov has a crafty wit that is deeply popular. How is it expressed?

Here, first of all, it should be noted the method of violation of logical correspondence, when the main, significant is presented as a trifle, as a trifle. For example: He would be glad to jump the gate first here, but it’s only grief that all the gates are locked (“The Wolf and the Cat”).

Krylov's favorite technique is opposition. This technique is varied by Krylov to infinity.

For example, separate words, antonyms are contrasted:

With the strong, the powerless is always to blame (“The Wolf and the Lamb”); In nature and in ranks, loftiness is good; but what is gained in it when the soul is low? ("A donkey"); And, having given only an empty brilliance, do not bring dishonor to them instead of glory ("Chervonets"); Listen, neighbor, you are gray, and I, friend, are gray, and I have long known your wolf nature (“Wolf in the kennel”); What gets away from the hands of a thief, for that they beat the thieves ("Raven").

In order to create a sharply ironic speech, satire Krylov. uses the same technique of opposition, but here it is no longer individual words that are opposed, but different styles of utterance, the “high style” is parodied. Naturally, this technique is observed only in relation to negative characters and phenomena. For example, in the fable "The Oak and the Cane" a negative character is introduced; - strong of the world of this, swaggering Oak. The entire description associated with it is given in a pompous, non-Krylovian speech: “Suddenly, a noisy aquilon rushes from the northern sides with hail and rain ... The wind is raging, it doubled its strength, roared and uprooted the one who heads heaven he touched his own and in the area of shadows he rested on his heel. Here we see a mythological aquilon, clearly alien to the fable language of Krylov, archaic versions of the words wind, head; the phraseology itself is also other-style: with the fifth rested in the area of shadows, touched the heavens with its head. Here even archaic unprepossessing control takes place: touched the heavens. The fact that we have a stylization in front of us, and not Krylov's language, can be seen from a comparison in the same fable with another style, simple, ordinary: along with suddenly rushing from the northern sides and with hail, and with rain, a noisy aquilon, we see Oak holding on to the ground Reed crouched.

In the fable "Convoy", the first character ("good horse") is described in ordinary language, not stylized, while the negative character is ironically, bookishly: Here, arching his spine and straining his chest ... You can see mockery in the excessive bookishness of the following verses: a red-cunningly woven word, and next to it, Krylov gives a comparison with his usual style: And the new choir of singers brought such game, as if a convoy had started, in which a thousand unoiled wheels ”(“ Parnassus ”). Wed in the fable "Sea of Beasts":

Oh others! - began Leo: - due to the multitude of sins, we fell under the strong wrath of the gods; So that of us, who is more guilty of all, Let him, of his own free will, Give himself up to be sacrificed to them! It may be that we will please the gods, And, the warm zeal of our faith Will soften the cruelty, their anger.

Other speeches at the council of animals are also sustained in a high style; Common and the speech of the ox: Feed us were thin.

There are grammatically formed oppositions in fables, logically, however, completely unjustified. For example:

Take the skin so be it; and don’t touch them (sheep!) with a hair (“Elephant in the Voivodeship”).

This part is mine by agreement, this part belongs to me, like a lion, without a dispute; this one is for me because I am stronger than all; and to this little one of you, only one who stretches his paw, he will not get up from his place alive (“Lion on the hunt”).

This is how irony is expressed, merciless mockery, evaluation of phenomena. So Krylov unmasks greedy and unscrupulous hypocrites, hypocrites, rogues.

In fables, plot plans are also contrasted, as if a compositional opposition is given.

Any fable, as you know, has two plans: a fable is an allegory, therefore, it has both a direct, private, and a figurative, more general (social) meaning. Usually this second plan is revealed in moralizing, in the author's explanation, maxim.

Krylov also has this kind of fable: they clearly contrast the fairy tale-allegory and the key to it (moralizing maxim). Such, for example, is the fable: "Passers-by and Dogs." But next to them, Krylov’s special glory is made up of fables without a moralizing conclusion, in which, however, the idea, the satire contained in them, is so transparent, so obvious that it is impossible not to unravel it.

Let's take the fable "The Wolf and the Lamb" as an example. The main theme is given in the title: "wolf" - an exponent of greed and violence, "lamb" - a symbol of defenselessness. Thus, already here the main collision is emphasized: the collision of the strong and the weak, in which the strong are always to blame. Its solution is expressed here with the utmost clarity of the opposition of plot parts, which is given in two ways: in images (two animals) and in generalization with the help of abstract vocabulary - strong and powerless.

The lexical feature of a specific, figurative plan given in the title is exceptionally expressive. The image of the wolf is usually always associated with greed: Everyone knows that wolves are greedy. A sheep (and, consequently, her lamb cub) is also considered to be a model of meekness, humility, helplessness (they have no fangs, no claws, no dexterity, no strength). Wolf and Sheep are even antonyms. (cf. wolf in sheepskin, Wolves and Sheep, etc.). In the second plan, abstract, the antonymy (opposite) of concepts is expressed by grammatical means, for example, the prefix without: strong and powerless.

The whole fable is written in the two plans outlined above, and the first plan (figurative) is, as it were, the form of the second. It's all specific. The image of a lamb, for example, is placed in the most familiar frame for him: summer, a hot day, a stream, a desire to get drunk, and a hungry Wolf prowled around those places.

If this technique were consistently carried out, then the generalization would not work. Concrete images, however, could cause the possibility of understanding, in a figurative sense, but there would be a lot of interpretations. Krylov, on the other hand, sought to not only contrast the two moral principles, but also interpret this opposition in a certain way, looking for parallel phenomena in society. The translation of specific images into public language begins with the use of bookish words in the fable, familiar only in speech about social relations: But at least give the case a legitimate look and sense, screams. The bookishness of this style is visible not only in the vocabulary, but also in the presence participle turnover. Here the image of the wolf is reincarnated: violence is covered by the desire to give the case a "legitimate look and sense" - the motive is already purely social. Then follows the direct speech of the wolf. A measured and rounded phrase is rhetorical question, more precisely, it orients in the recognition of this social type, the signs of which are self-confidence, arrogance, a completely obvious desire to make up for the lack of rightness by using swear words: How dare you, insolent, with an unclean snout muddy my drink here with sand and silt? The social image of the wolf is determined even more precisely in the speech of the lamb. It turns out that the wolf has the title of the brightest, his lordship. It is common for a lamb to use words and phrases from memos or from a circle of humiliated, obsequious language: When the brightest Wolf allows, I dare to convey that down the stream from the lordship of his steps I drink a hundred, and he deigns to be angry in vain: I can’t stir up his drink I can not.

When the original specific image is correlated with a social phenomenon, the author again uses the usual details: You yourself, your dogs and your shepherds, you all want me to harm. But now dogs and shepherds are perceived only figuratively, that is, as the social environment of the lamb. Only the last in the dark forest brings us back to the beginning of the fable, to a specific figurative situation (a wolf, a lamb, a forest, a stream, etc.). This is a necessary detail that localizes a specific action. Local elements are used here so that the second meaning (figurative) does not become too obvious, so that the specificity of the fable, its two-dimensionality, is not lost.

The fable by its nature belongs to the genre of moralizing literature. A fable without a tendency, without moralizing, is unthinkable, and it would seem that in this kind of literature it is difficult to be artistically objective, it is difficult to refrain from judgments. However, the great masters succeed. They know the measure. Thus, the reader's assessment of the wolf and the lamb was formed only on the basis of the depicted actions, the author's point of view was expressed in the skill with which the actions and speech of the animals are shown.

In the fable "Pike" there is absolutely no moralizing, author's commentary, maxim, but the point of view, the assessment of social phenomena is given here with no less force. Why is this fable possible without moralizing? Because in it the social plan is given in the narrative itself with the help of special vocabulary (court, judge, prosecutor, decree, denunciation, evidence, judicial archive) and phraseology ( for proper supervision in the order of affairs, they were given the Fox for the Prosecutor ...; there was no partiality in the judges ...; to bring the guilty to a shameful execution ...; on that everything was decided according to, etc.). "Animal props" are presented when these animals are already socially comprehended:

A denunciation was filed against Pike,
That life in the pond was gone from her;
The evidence is represented by a whole cart,
And guilty as it should be
They brought them to the court in a large tub.

In a large tub, this means with honors. Water in a tub for a pike - these are the minimum amenities that accompany an important criminal in a respectful, unfair trial.

Local elements (“animal props”) are necessary here, since if the pike came by itself (and would not bring it to the tub) and the judges would sit at the table (and not two nags would graze in the meadow, etc.), then the social plan would become predominant and the inner form would be forgotten. Then the fable would cease to be a fable, would turn into a pamphlet. Therefore, despite the social vocabulary, the fabled world of animals is depicted in the fable. And in the further presentation, the same two plans are given in parallel, two mutually connected planes:

The judges were gathering not far away;
They grazed in the nearby meadow;
However, their names remained in the archive:
They were two donkeys
Two old nags, and two or three goats;
For proper oversight
They were given the Fox for the Prosecutor.

So amazingly subtly and witty Krylov compares two contents in fables, and this comparison creates caustic satire, comic. No wonder many expressions have become proverbs, winged words”, a manifestation of national wit and denunciation. Such is Trishkin's caftan; And the casket just opened!; I didn't even notice the elephant! That your stigma is down; The tit has made glory, but the sea has not ignited; They sing, let many others fall behind.

Krylov's fables truly reflect the national Russian mindset and language, because they are based on the traditions of the folk language, folk art, and folk wisdom. This is what Krylov is great for, and for this all Russian people honor him. This love of the people for Krylov was foreseen by Belinsky: “The number of Krylov’s readers will continuously increase, as the number of literate people in Russia increases ... Over time, all the Russian people will read it. This is glory, this is triumph! Of all the kinds of glory, the most flattering, the greatest, the most incorruptible is the glory of the people!

L-ra: Russian language at school. - 1951. - No. 3. - S. 23-29.

Keywords: Ivan Krylov, criticism of Krylov's work, criticism of Krylov's fables, analysis of Krylov's fables, download criticism, download analysis, free download, language of Krylov's fables, Russian literature

Fable "Rooster and Pearl Grain' is very popular. It is interesting that a fable with this name exists in the interpretation of many famous fabulists, starting with the ancient Greek Aesop, whose fable was written in prose and ending with the famous Russian fabulist I.A. Krylov. It was he who translated this fable of La Fontaine into Russian.

Fable "Rooster and Pearly Grain"

I will dung up a bunch of tearing,
The Rooster Found the Pearly Seed
And he says: "Where is it,
What an empty thing!
Isn't it stupid that he is so highly valued?
And I would really be much more glad
Barley grain: it is not so visible,
Yes, it's satisfying."

The ignoramuses judge exactly like this:
What is the point they do not understand, then everything is a trifle for them.

Moral of the fable "Rooster and Pearly Seed"

The moral of the fable "The Rooster and the Pearly Grain" in accordance with the rules of the fable genre was deduced by the author at the end of the fable. It consists of two short lines: "The ignoramuses judge exactly in this way, what they don't understand, then everything is a trifle with them." An ignoramus is a poorly educated person with superficial judgments. La Fontaine ridicules the narrow-minded and limited people who look at everything in life through the prism of usefulness, do not strive to develop their mind, considering knowledge to be useless.

Analysis of the fable "Rooster and Pearly Grain"

The fable "The Rooster and the Pearly Seed" has a classical structure. A short allegorical story ends with an instructive conclusion. There is one character in the fable - the Rooster, which personifies the ignorant. The unusual find of the Rooster is a precious pearl. True connoisseurs would appreciate it. But the Rooster does not need a pearl, for him it is a trifle. He does not understand what a pearl grain can be valued for. He prefers barley grain, seeing more benefits in it. After all, it will fit for lunch.

This is how ignorant people, people far from knowledge, science, consider reading books, studying science as a waste of time. The author condemns the ignorant who do not strive for knowledge, and cover up their stupidity and ignorance with grandiloquent reasoning. Also, the moralizing of the fable can also apply to the inhabitants who live in their narrow world, in a circle of narrow, convenient for them, concepts and relationships. Such people understand only those similar to themselves, and everything that goes beyond their concepts and ideas - "then everything is a trifle for them."