The Monkey and the Bear have a casual conversation in Krylov's fable The Mirror and the Monkey. Children love to read Krylov's fable by roles or memorize it - it is short and not at all complicated.

Fable Mirror and monkey read

Monkey, in the Mirror seeing his image,
Quietly Bear's foot:
“Look,” he says, “my dear godfather!
What kind of a face is that?
What antics and jumps she has!
I would choke myself with longing,
If only she looked a little like her.
But, admit it, there is
Of my gossips, there are five or six such wimps:
I can even count them on my fingers."
"What gossips consider to work,
Isn't it better to turn on yourself, godfather?" -
Mishka answered her.
But Mishen'kin's advice just disappeared in vain.

There are many such examples in the world:

I even saw this yesterday:
That Klimych is unclean at hand, everyone knows this;
They read about bribes to Klimych.
And he furtively nods at Peter.

Moral of the fable The mirror and the monkey

Nobody likes to recognize himself in satire.

The moral of the fable The Mirror and the Monkey Krylov described at the end of the work according to all the rules of the fable genre. The Bear pointed out to the Monkey her ignorance, but she is ready to see the shortcomings of all her "girlfriends", but not her own.

Fable The Mirror and the Monkey - analysis

The Monkey from this fable is very similar to the Monkey from the fable "The Monkey and Glasses" in its ignorance, which Krylov loves to make fun of in people, considering this vice very unpleasant. People tend to see the shortcomings of others, but not to notice their own. So the Monkey sees in the mirror a real wimp - herself, but is not able to admit it. Advice of the Bear “What are gossips to consider working, isn’t it better to turn around for yourself, godfather?” she misses her ears.

Many of us from childhood remember lines from rhyming stories about various animals. The author of these works, Ivan Andreevich Krylov, is a famous Russian fabulist, the fame of whose poems has long gone beyond the borders of his homeland. It's no secret that by ridiculing the actions of animals, this author revealed various things for which he was repeatedly condemned by critics, and the fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" is just such a work. Let's take a closer look at this fascinating story and try to understand its meaning.

The fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" has a fascinating plot, the action of which begins with the fact that the monkey accidentally notices himself in the mirror and stops his eyes on this. The poem very accurately describes all the emotions that she experiences at the same time: contempt and disgust, because the monkey does not know that she herself is looking at her. Along the way, pushing the bear sitting next to him, the main character of the plot begins to share with him her thoughts about the person who looks at her from the reflection, calling her a wimp and comparing her with her gossips-girlfriends, to which the bear did not begin to explain to the monkey that her own muzzle is looking at her that way, but only hinted at this fact, which remained completely incomprehensible to the monkey.

"Mirror and Monkey" - Krylov's fable, ridiculing vile people

The comparison of a man with a monkey is given in this work for a reason. The example of such an animal shows the behavior of vile people who notice the shortcomings of others, but do not want to see their own flaws. The main moral of the fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" is concentrated in the last lines of the work, and it is there that the exact analogy of a monkey with a man is drawn. Krylov even indicated his name. This poem certainly made those people who love to collect gossip worry, because they were literally compared to an ordinary monkey, and only a child can fail to notice such an allegory.

The heavy meaning of poems that are not studied by schoolchildren

The most interesting thing is that in the disclosure of morality, the author indicated a direct situation - bribery, which has become widespread since the time of Krylov's life. The fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" was written by Ivan Andreevich, as they say, on the topic of the day, so it began to be actively discussed by the inhabitants of Russia immediately after publication.

To date, the rhymed stories of this author are studied by schoolchildren from grades 3-5, however, their hidden meaning is not available to every student. That is why teachers prefer to focus their attention on a simpler interpretation of the semantic load, rather than go deeper. Ivan Krylov surprisingly combined in his fables an instructive meaning for children and deep morality, which for the most part was oriented towards the holders of power: unclean officials and illiterate managers, among whom the author constantly rotated. The fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" became a kind of slap in the face to some of them.

The fabulist Krylov was always able to clearly and clearly show the shortcomings of people using the example of animals, ridiculing their vices, and the author has many such works, among them Krylov's fable Mirror and a monkey, and in order to understand the essence of the fable, we suggest getting acquainted with its text.

Krylov Mirror and Monkey

It all starts with the fact that the monkey accidentally saw his reflection in the mirror, but the whole point is that the monkey does not understand only one thing, she sees herself, therefore she criticizes the “face” with such ease, and even shares her observations with the bear that was near. The monkey tells him that if she had such an erysipelas, with some kind of "antics", "grimaces", she would "strangle herself with longing." At the same time, she tells the bear that she has such gossips. To which the clubfoot advised her not to count other monkeys, but to look at herself. But since the bear did not directly tell the monkey that it was her reflection in the mirror, the advice went unnoticed.

Krylov Mirror and monkey main idea

The moral of Krylov's fable is: "No one likes to recognize himself in satire." Krylov in the fable The Mirror and the Monkey managed to show us the ignorance of people, people who tend to see the shortcomings of others, but they don’t notice their own, they don’t even notice that they act in exactly the same way, or even worse. Probably, in Krylov's fable "The Mirror and the Monkey" this is the main idea.

Listen to Krylov's fable

Monkey, in the Mirror seeing his image,
Quietly Bear's foot:
“Look,” he says, “my dear godfather!
What kind of a face is that?
What antics and jumps she has!
I would choke myself with longing,
If only she looked a little like her.
But, admit it, there is
Of my gossips, there are five or six such wimps:
I can even count them on my fingers."
"What gossips consider to work,
Isn't it better to turn on yourself, godfather?" -
Mishka answered her.
But Mishen'kin's advice just disappeared in vain.

There are many such examples in the world:
Nobody likes to recognize himself in satire.
I even saw this yesterday:
That Klimych is unclean at hand, everyone knows this;
They read about bribes to Klimych.
And he furtively nods at Peter.

Moral of the fable "The Mirror and the Monkey"

The moral of the fable about the monkey, who condemned his own reflection, seen in the mirror, but did not recognize himself, is contained in the lines of creation that "No one likes to recognize himself in satire."

Indeed, many of us very clearly distinguish other people's shortcomings, and can talk about what is "good" and what is "bad", about right or wrong actions when it comes to other people.

But few of us are able to admit our own shortcomings and mistakes.

With this fable, Ivan Krylov teaches us, before condemning bad habits or the wrong behavior of another person, first analyze our own behavior and correct the mistakes made.

Bullies from the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, unsure representatives of other faiths on the one hand, and dystrophics from science and pedagogy, on the other hand, shout together and impudently about the need to let the Law of God into school under the name of “alternative points of view”. And all this under the slogans of either democracy, or pluralism, or scientific creationism, or the eternal incompleteness and defectiveness of scientific knowledge. From the polyphonic choir of defenders of ignorance and preachers of obscurantism, the public's ears were blocked, their heads were spinning, and common sense was dulled. Well, let's try to reason sensibly.

If we begin to put into the minds of schoolchildren not only the truths established by science, but also the content of those countless misconceptions about these truths that have existed in the scientific and near-scientific environment for at least two or three thousand years, then what will the matured students who graduate from such a school know? After all, thousands of erroneous truths were expressed by the same scientists on behalf of science on any modern scientific reliable truth. Tens, hundreds and even thousands of assumptions, hypotheses, and only one of them later turned out to be true. Moreover, one and the same truth in content was expressed in dozens and hundreds of competing variants. So, several hundred proofs of the Pythagorean theorem have been recorded in the scientific world. But in order to know that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs, one convincing proof is enough. A hundred other variants of proofs will add nothing to the knowledge of this theorem. On the contrary, if one more, second, proof strengthens the knowledge of the first version of the truth, then the third will already leave the student indifferent, the fourth will get bored, and the hundredth may cause disgust for the theorem itself. And the presentation of alternative, even if essentially fair, points of view on the same truth will not leave a place in the mind of the student for this truth at all. And if the scientific truth of evolutionary doctrine is opposed to theological creationism, then the student will cease to believe not only in science, but also in creationism.

Of course, in science there have been and will be alternative points of view, alternative explanations of the same natural processes in nature, society and in the spiritual world of man. This is especially true of those problems that are still little accessible to practical and evidence-based comprehension of their essence. But these questions are meant to be solved by scientists. A student is not a scientist. He, in the words of the Boy from the movie "Cinderella": "I'm not a wizard / scientist yet. I'm still learning."

Consequently, even from a pedagogical point of view, creationism and other types of alternative anti-scientific concepts will bring undoubted harm to the fragile consciousness of students.

Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev, Archpriest Vsevodod Chaplin and Chief Priest Kirill Gundyaev himself persistently with numerous “arguments” prove the necessity and usefulness of teaching at school in parallel with the Law of God called “Orthodox Culture”, an alternative course of creationism to evolutionary teaching. The arguments of these God-bearing shepherds and their followers have stuck in their teeth and have long been known to everyone. I will not repeat them. Boring and useless. But in line with the speeches of the "guardians" about the school and the younger generation, I can share good advice with all the vocal attackers on the school.

Fathers, holy and not saints! Why are you so unseemly trying to put things in order in a school that is not yours, secular and state? Religion, according to the Constitution, is separated from the state, and the school is separated from the church. Why are you climbing over the fence separating you from the school with your "good advice"? Do you have little worries of your own? Do you have your own schools? There are plenty!

For the benefit of your own business, first read the fable of Ivan Andreevich Krylov “The Mirror and the Monkey. In the monkey mirror you will see yourself. See:

The monkey, seeing his image in the Mirror, Quietly Bear with his foot: “Look,” he says, “my dear godfather! What kind of mug is there? What antics and jumps she has! I was a little like. But, admit it, there are five or six such gossips of my gossips: I can even count them on my fingers. - "?" - Mishka answered her. But Mishen'kin's advice just disappeared in vain.

Than climbing over the fence into secular schools, wouldn't it be better for you, priests, to turn to your schools. In your schools, you all in groups and one by one teach listeners and students only your own creed. But the belief that you teach your own, in the world there are dozens and hundreds of more powerful beliefs to your belief. You interpret your own, for example, that the Bible is the only absolutely holy and absolutely infallible teaching of the Lord God Himself - Hosts/Jehovah. There is no evidence for your assertion. An objective, without any prejudice, analysis shows that the Bible is a contradictory, ignorant and inconsistent source. This, as they say, goes without saying. But besides this, the Bible has many alternative sources of doctrine. For Muslims, the Koran is no less than your Bible - the only absolutely holy and absolutely infallible teaching of the very Lord God - Allah. Compared to the Bible, the Qur'an has far fewer internal contradictions, although the absurdities there are to match the biblical. For Buddhists, the Tripitaka is infallible and absolutely true, for Hindus - the Vedas, for Mormons - the Book of Mormon ... All these sources of the "only true" religious teaching have three to four times more admirers than there are Bible admirers in the world. Why don't you introduce in your educational institutions the study of these alternative Bible sacred books? Ah, is that how?! You study the creeds of other religions and their holy books! Perfectly! But how do you study them? - Oh, that's how! - Critical. So, in our secular schools, both your sacred writings and the same creationism are critically studied. And how many good words you say to your teachings about other religions, so many good things are said about creationism in schools. We are not opposed to what you say about other religions and about other sacred books that are not yours. So you do not oppose what we in our secular schools say about your creationism. Would you like to discuss with us publicly? Please invite us to your radio and TV shows. We, and I personally, agree to speak with you at least in your seminaries, even in your theological academies. Invite. If you want, I'll read you a course on atheism. From me, seminarians will hear what atheism says about itself, and not what you tell them about atheism. Doesn't it suit you? In that case, why should we accept the utter nonsense that you are trying to smuggle into our school?