Fonvizin’s most important achievement, as already noted, was an understanding of character that was new to Russian literature. True, even his entire complexity of character is limited to one or two traits. But the playwright motivates and explains these character traits with biographical circumstances and class affiliation.
Pushkin, having read “A Conversation with Princess Khaldina,” a scene from Fonvizin’s unfinished play, admired how vividly the writer was able to portray a person as nature and the Russian “half-education” of the 18th century made him. Later researchers, regardless of whether we are talking about elements of realism in Fonvizin’s work or about his belonging to “enlightenment realism,” noted the literally historical accuracy of his works. Fonvizin was able to paint a reliable picture of the morals of his time, since he was guided not only by the enlightenment idea of human nature, but also realized that specific character bears the imprint of social and political existence.
Showing this connection between man and society, he made his images, conflicts, and plots an expression of social patterns. Demonstrated with the brilliance of talent, this discovery of Fonvizin in practice became one of the basic principles of mature realism.
After “Minor” and his retirement, Fonvizin intended to devote himself entirely to literary activity. In 1783 he anonymously sent a number satirical works in "Interlocutor of Lovers" Russian word" The most harsh of them, “Several questions that can arouse special attention in intelligent and honest people,” veiledly addressed directly to the empress, was regarded by her as impermissible insolence on the part of a subject. When Fonvizin’s authorship became known, he practically lost the opportunity to publish.
The brochure “The Life of Count N.I. Panin” (1784) was published abroad without the author’s name. The name of Fonvizin was not mentioned in the Russian translations that appeared. A translation of I. G. Zimmerman’s essay “On National Curiosity” (1785) and the story “Callisthenes” (1786) also appeared anonymously.
Meanwhile, Fonvizin tried with all his might to restore contact with the reader. By the 1780s refers to the program he compiled for the journal “Moscow Works”; in 1788, he unsuccessfully tried to obtain permission to publish the sole journal “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum.”
What was already announced by subscription did not come true Complete collection works and translations" by Fonvizin in 5 volumes. But, like many other unpublished authors, Fonvizin found his way to the reader in the manuscript, continuing to denounce the Russian autocracy even under the ban.
History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is the author of the famous comedies “Minor”, “Brigadier”, which are still popular theater stage, and many other satirical works. According to his convictions, Fonvizin aligned himself with the educational movement, so noble evil was the leading theme of his drama. Fonvizin managed to create a vivid and surprisingly true picture of the moral degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century and sharply condemned the reign of Catherine P. The role of the writer as a playwright and author of satirical essays is enormous.
Fonvizin’s special Russian style of humor, the special Russian bitterness of laughter, sounding in his works and born of the socio-political conditions of feudal Russia, were understandable and dear to those who traced their literary ancestry to the author of “The Minor.” A. I. Herzen, a passionate and tireless fighter against autocracy and serfdom, believed that Fonvizin’s laughter “resonated far and woke up a whole phalanx of great mockers.”
A special feature of Fonvizin’s work is the organic combination in most of his works of satirical sharpness with a socio-political orientation. Fonvizin's strength lies in his literary and civic honesty and directness. He courageously and directly spoke out against social injustice, ignorance and prejudices of his class and his era, exposed the landowners and autocratic bureaucratic tyranny.
Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” is directed against “those moral ignoramuses who, having their full power over people, use it for evil inhumanely.” From the first to the last days of the scene, this comedy is structured in such a way that it is clear to the viewer or reader: unlimited power over the peasants is a source of parasitism, a tyrant
And, abnormal relationships in the family, moral ugliness, ugly upbringing and ignorance. Little Mitrofanushka has no need to study or prepare himself for public service, because he has hundreds of serfs who will provide him with a well-fed life. This is how his grandfather lived, this is how his parents live, so why shouldn’t he spend his life in idleness and pleasure?
Without doubting the power of laughter, Fonvizin turned it into a formidable weapon. But he also introduced the features of the “serious genre” into the comedy “The Minor”, introducing the images of “carriers of virtue”: Starodum and Pravdin. He also complicated the traditional positive images lovers - Sophia and Milon. They are entrusted with the thoughts and feelings of the playwright himself and people close to him. They talk about what is dear to the author himself: the need to instill in a person from childhood a sense of duty, love of the fatherland, honesty, truthfulness, self-esteem, respect for people, contempt for baseness, flattery, and inhumanity.
The playwright managed to outline all the essential aspects of life and morals of the feudal-serf society of the second half of the XVIII century. He created expressive portraits of representatives of the serf owners, contrasting them, on the one hand, with the progressive nobility, and on the other, with representatives of the people.
Trying to give brightness and persuasiveness to the characters, Fonvizin endowed his heroes, especially the negative ones, with an individualized language. Characters in “Nedorosl” everyone speaks in their own way, their speech is different both in lexical composition and intonation. Such a careful selection of linguistic means for each of the characters helps the author to reveal their appearance more fully and more reliably. Fonvizin widely uses the wealth of living things vernacular. Proverbs and sayings that are used in the play give its language a special simplicity and expressiveness: “Every guilt is to blame”, “Live forever, learn forever”, “Guilty without guilt”, “Good luck”, “Ends in the water”, etc. The author also uses colloquial and even swear words and expressions, particles and adverbs: “until tomorrow”, “uncle”, “first”, “whatever”, etc.
The wealth of linguistic means of the comedy “The Minor” suggests that Fonvizin had an excellent command of the dictionary folk speech and is well acquainted with folk art.
Thus, distinctive features The comedy "Minor" is the relevance of the topic, denouncing serfdom. The realism of the created picture of life and customs of the depicted era and the lively spoken language. According to the severity of satirical teaching serfdom this comedy is rightfully considered
More outstanding dramatic work Russian literature of the second half of the 18th century.
Creativity of D.I. Fonvizin
1. Biography and personality of the writer.
2. Beginning creative path. Translations and original works.
3. The comedy “Nedorosl” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century. Genre, issues, plot and conflict, features of composition, language and style. Problem creative method.
4. Fonvizin – publicist.
5. Master class “Genres and forms of youth culture in working with the classical heritage (based on the play “The Minor”)”
Literature
Fonvizin D.I. Collection Works: In 2 vols. M., L., 1959
Pigarev K.V. Creativity of Fonvizin. M., 1954.
Makogonenko G.P. From Fonvizin to Pushkin. M., 1969. pp. 336-367.
Berkov P.N. History of Russian comedy of the 18th century. L., 1977.
History of Russian drama: XVII - first half of the XIX century. L., 1982.
Moiseeva G.N. Ways of development of Russian drama of the 18th century. M., 1986.
Strichek A. Denis Fonvizin: Russia of the Enlightenment. M., 1994.
Lebedeva O.B. Russian high comedy of the 18th century: Genesis and poetics of the genre. Tomsk, 1996. Ch. 1 (§ 5), 2 (§ 2, 3), 4, 5 (§ 4).
1. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the remarkable representatives of the century, who shared with him its ups and downs, hopes and disappointments.
On the one hand, he is a secular man who has made an excellent career (personal secretary of I. Elagin and N. Panin, after Panin’s resignation, he headed the postal department), quite rich, one of the first in Russia to begin to deal with the acquisition of art objects abroad, on the other hand - “The Satires of the Brave Lord” and “Friend of Freedom”, the author of “The Minor”, “Court Grammar”, who compiled the famous “Testament of Panin” (certain provisions of this document were used by the Decembrists in their political platforms), a man who was suspected of conspiracy against Catherine.
The personality is lively and captivating. A.S. Pushkin wrote about him:
It was a famous writer,
Famous Russian merry fellow,
The mocker with his laurels
Denis, the ignorant are scourged and afraid.
He was an unusually witty person. From memoirs: “Very early on, a penchant for satire appeared in me... my sharp words rushed around Moscow, and as they were caustic for many, those offended denounced me as an evil and dangerous boy. … They soon began to fear me, then hate me.” Fonvizin had the gift of a parodist and also had undoubted artistic abilities. In a home performance in the Apraksins' house, he played the role of Taras Skotinin (!). From the memoirs of contemporaries (about reading the comedy “The Brigadier” in the Hermitage for Catherine and her entourage): “... showed his talent in all its brilliance. ... he depicted the most noble nobles in their faces, engaged in an argument while playing whist, so skillfully, as if they themselves were here.”
Coming from a German aristocratic family (which had become fairly Russified by the 18th century), he received a good education, expert European languages, Fonvizin, in the words of A.S. Pushkin, was “from the Per-Russian Russians.” From the writer’s letter: “If any of my young fellow citizens who have a sound mind become indignant, seeing abuses and disorder in Russia, and begin to alienate themselves from it in their hearts, then to convert to proper love for the fatherland there is no better way than to send him as soon as possible.” To France. Here, of course, he will learn very soon by experience that all the stories about local perfection are a complete lie, that a truly intelligent and worthy person is rare everywhere, and that in our fatherland, no matter how bad things sometimes happen in it, you can, however, be just as much as happy as in any other country.” Looking ahead a little, I would like to note the following. In 1785, he translated Zimmermann’s book “Discourse on National Curiosity” into Russian. In this translation, he expressed and at the same time deepened his understanding of the essence and nature of patriotism - “love of the fatherland, civic virtue, which is associated with love of freedom.”
2.Early work of D.I. Fonvizin associated with the ideas of the French and German enlightenment. Thus, he translated into Russian the Moral Fables of the Danish Enlightenment and Satirist L. Golberg, the novel Heroic Virtue, or the Life of Seth, King of Egypt by J. Terrason, and the anticlerical drama Alzira by Voltaire.
He also wrote satires. One of them has reached our time: “Message to my servants, Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka” (1760).
The next important period of his literary activity is associated with the circle of I.P. Elagin. The circle, along with Fonvizin (then still von Vizin), included talented representatives of the golden youth of St. Petersburg: Vladimir Lukin, Fyodor Kozlovsky, Bogdan Elchaninov. They began to “inflect the texts of foreign plays into Russian morals”: they moved the scene of action to Russia, gave the characters Russian names, and introduced some features of Russian life. This is how the well-known comedies of the 18th century by I. Elagin “The Russian Frenchman” (an adaptation of Golberg’s play), Vl. Lukin’s “Mot corrected by love” (an adaptation of Detouche’s play), and D. Fonvizin’s “Corion” (an adaptation of a play by Gresse) appeared.
2. Original comedy creativity of D.I. Fonvizin is connected with the history of the creation and production of his famous plays “The Brigadier” and “The Minor.” Fonvizin worked on the comedy “The Brigadier” in 1768-1769. According to contemporaries: “This is the first comedy in our morals.” Its themes: 1) education of nobles; 2) extortion and bribery; 3) the emergence of new people. The genre of “Brigadier” is comedy of manners with elements of slapstick comedy. For the first time in the history of Russian comedy, it presents such techniques as 1) travesty of the structure of bourgeois drama (respectable fathers of families embark on love affairs) 2) the technique of self-exposure of the character; 3) verbal techniques of the comic (use of macaroonisms, puns).
3. The comedy “The Minor” is the pinnacle of the playwright’s creativity. He worked on it starting in the 1770s. Its premiere took place on September 24, 1782 in St. Petersburg on the Field of Mars. The most famous Russian actors took part in the production: Dmitrevsky, Plavilshchikov, Mikhailova, Shumsky.
Ivan Dmitrevsky, who played Starodum, chose the play for his benefit performance. At this time, he returned from a brilliant tour of Europe, thanks to which, in fact, the production of “The Minor” became possible; Catherine was afraid of publicity. Subsequently, the play was removed from the repertoire, but its premieres still took place in a number of provincial theaters. The play was a stunning success; it was celebrated by throwing purses onto the stage. G. Potemkin is credited famous phrase: “Die Denis or don’t write anything else, your name known from this one play!”
Comedy genre research literature is not defined unambiguously: it is called popular, political, and high.
The issue is also multifaceted: 1) the hidden anti-Catherine orientation is palpable in it: “the edge political satire was directed against the main social evil era - complete lack of control supreme authority, which gave rise to moral devastation and arbitrariness” (P.N. Berkov). Interesting materials, in our opinion, confirming this point of view are available in the book by Yu.V. Stennik “Russian satire of the 18th century. L., 1985, pp. 316-337). In particular, this is an analysis undertaken by the scientist of the plays of the empress herself, the scene of trying on a caftan in the first act of Fonvizin’s play, a comparison of the dialogues of Starodum and Pravdin in the third act of the comedy with Fonvizin’s text “Discourses on the indispensable state laws” 2) the problem of the true dignity of a nobleman; 3) education in in a broad sense this word.
The comedy is masterfully constructed. Three levels of structure are noteworthy: 1) plot; 2) comedic-satirical, 3) ideal-utopian. Basic compositional technique- contrast. The climax can be considered a kind of examination of Mitrofan in the fourth act of the play.
Moreover, each level of the structure has its own style dominant: compositional-satirical - superbly written morally descriptive satire; ideal-utopian - the dialogue manner of philosophical treatises (for more details, see: Stennik Yu.V. Op. cit.).
The question of the similarities and differences between this comedy and classic comedies also seems important. Western Europe. As a rule, such comedies did not allow 1) mixing of the serious and the comic; 2) the images-characters became carriers of one character property; 3) consisted of five acts, with the climax necessarily occurring in the third act; 4) demonstrated the rules of three unities; 5) comedies were written in free verse.
On this basis, the following classicistic features can be identified in Fonvizin’s comedy:
1) it also demonstrated the author’s rationalistic interpretation of reality (low reality was displayed in a low genre);
2) her images became bearers of certain advantages and disadvantages, which was secured by the presence of meaningful/speaking surnames/nicknames;
3) consisted of five actions;
4) demonstrated the rule of three unities.
There were also serious differences. They can be boiled down to the following points:
1) there was a mixture of the serious and the comic in it;
2) a description of everyday life has been introduced;
3) there was some individualization of the characters and their linguistic manner;
4) the climax is attributed to the fourth act;
5) the comedy is written in prose.
We will clarify all these points in detail during the practical lesson.
In the 80s, D.I. Fonvizin became the author of remarkable publications in the “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” (“Several questions that can arouse special attention in smart and honest people”, “The Experience of a Russian Estatesman”, “A Petition to the Russian Minerva from Russian writers, “The Narrative of the Imaginary Deaf and Mute”); participated in the compilation of the “Dictionary Russian language"(he compiled dictionary entries for the letters “K” and “L”); translated Zimmerman’s book “Discourses on National Curiosity”, Schubart’s fable “The Fox the Executor”, wrote the story “Callisthenes”, attempted to publish a new magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” and even prepared several original materials for it, unfortunately, the magazine was banned by censorship; compiled “Court Grammar”, performed in the genre of confession (“ Sincere confession in my deeds and actions") two books out of four were completed.
On November 30, in the Derzhavins’ house, already seriously ill, the writer read his new play"Governor's Choice" And on December 1, 1792 he was gone.
The famous writer of Catherine's era D.I. Fonvizin was born on April 3 (14), 1745 in Moscow, into a wealthy noble family. He came from a Livonian knightly family, completely Russified (until mid-19th century, the surname was spelled Von-Wiesen). He received his primary education under the guidance of his father, Ivan Andreevich. In 1755-1760, Fonvizin studied at the newly opened gymnasium at Moscow University; in 1760 he was “promoted to student” at the Faculty of Philosophy, but stayed at the university for only 2 years.
A special place in the dramaturgy of this time is occupied by the work of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792), which was the pinnacle of theatrical XVIII culture century. Inheriting the traditions of classicist comedy, Fonvizin goes far ahead, essentially being the founder critical realism in Russian drama. A. S. Pushkin called the great playwright “a brave ruler of satire,” “a friend of freedom.” M. Gorky argued that Fonvizin began the most magnificent and, perhaps, the most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realist line. Fonvizin's work had a tremendous influence on contemporary and subsequent writers and playwrights. D.I. Fonvizin joined the theater early. Theatrical impressions were the strongest in his youth: “... nothing in St. Petersburg delighted me so much as the theater, which I saw for the first time when I was a child. The effect the theater produced in me is almost impossible to describe.” While still a student, Fonvizin took part in the life of the Moscow University Theater. In the future, Denis Ivanovich maintains contacts with the largest figures of the Russian theater - playwrights and actors: A. P. Sumarokov, I. A. Dmitrevsky and others, performs with theatrical articles in satirical magazines. These magazines had a great influence on Fonvizin's work. From them he sometimes drew motives for his comedies. Fonvizin's dramatic activity began in the 60s. At first, he translates foreign plays and “transposes” them into the Russian style. But this was only a test of the pen. Fonvizin dreamed of creating a national comedy. "Brigadier" is Fonvizin's first original play. It was written in the late 60s. The simplicity of the plot did not prevent Fonvizin from creating a sharply satirical work, showing the morals and character of his narrow-minded heroes. Contemporaries called the play “The Brigadier” “a comedy about our morals.” This comedy was written under the influence of advanced satirical magazines and satirical comedies Russian classicism and is imbued with the author’s concern for the education of youth. “The Brigadier” is the first dramatic work in Russia, endowed with all the features of national originality, and in no way reminiscent of comedies created according to foreign standards. The language of comedy contains many popular expressions, aphorisms, and apt comparisons. This dignity of the “Brigadier” was immediately noticed by contemporaries, and the best of Fonvizin’s verbal turns were transferred to daily life, have become proverbial. The comedy “The Brigadier” was staged in 1780 at the St. Petersburg Theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow. The second comedy “The Minor” was written by D. I. Fonvizin in 1782. It brought the author long-lasting fame and placed him in the forefront of the fight against serfdom. The play explores the most important issues of the era. It talks about the education of underage noble sons and the morals of court society. But the problem of serfdom, evil and unpunished cruelty of landowners is posed more acutely than others. “The Minor” was created by the hand of a mature master, who managed to populate the play with living characters and build the action according to the signs of not only external, but also internal dynamics. The comedy “The Minor” absolutely did not meet the requirements of Catherine II, who ordered the writers to “only occasionally touch upon vices” and to conduct criticism without fail “in a smiling spirit.” On September 24, 1782, “The Minor” was staged by Fonvizin and Dmitrevsky at the theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow. The performance was a great success among the general public. On May 14, 1783, the premiere of “The Minor” took place on the stage of the Petrovsky Theater in Moscow. The premiere and subsequent performances were a huge success. “The Tutor's Choice” - a comedy written by Fonvizin in 1790, was dedicated to the burning topic of educating young people in aristocratic noble houses. The pathos of the comedy is directed against foreign adventurers-pseudo-teachers in favor of enlightened Russian nobles.
The role of Fonvizin as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as well as the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half of the 19th century centuries. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770-1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of Russian aesthetic worldview of this time, which prepared - at the first stage - the future Pushkin stage of it. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, not to mention Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited to his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in this regard in the tradition of the “satirical trend,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature XVIII century. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style of critical realism. In itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with the specific forms that classicism acquired in Russia; it ultimately exploded the principles of classicism, but its origins from it are obvious.
Fonvizin grew up as a writer in the literary environment of Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in Fonvizin’s work. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individual as a unit in a social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the social, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the writer’s mind the interests of the “too human” in a person, forced Fonvizin to see in his hero a pattern of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanistically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great advantages of the classicism of his century: clarity, precision of the analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis is at the level scientific achievements of his time, and the social principle of evaluating human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin also had the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable “abilities,” the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social existence.
In Fonvizin, many characters are constructed not according to the law of individual character, but according to a pre-given and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Advisor; Gallomaniac Ivanushka - and the entire composition of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martinet, there is little in him characteristic features. This is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not everyday life, but a diagram of social relationships. Characters in comedies and satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them “meaningful” names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character’s characteristics primarily to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin appears, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. At the same time, the artist’s task includes not so much the depiction of individual people, but the depiction of social relations, and this task could and was performed brilliantly by Fonvizin. Social relations, understood as applied to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm. The subjectively noble character of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others.” The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; the same is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the corresponding works. On the contrary, “others”, “ignoble” are characterized primarily by their profession, class, place in the social system - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. Nobles for this system of thought are still people par excellence; or – according to Fonvizin – vice versa: the best people must be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
It is typical for a classicist writer to have the same attitude towards tradition, towards established mask roles literary work, to familiar and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, representing the established collective experience of humanity (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerical Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society - a classified “mind” that has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. A satirical article, a comedy, a solemn speech of praise in a high style (Fonvizin’s “Word for Pavel’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to communicate to Russian literature the best achievements of world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin, since he understood and felt specific features Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; this article contains a hot political thought, a rise in political pathos; It also contains the hero’s track record, and there is also his civil glorification; but there is no person, personality, environment, and, in the end, no biography in it. This is a “life”, a diagram ideal life, not a saint, of course, but a political figure, as Fonvizin understood him. Fonvizin’s anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. They are called “Frank confession of my deeds and thoughts,” but the disclosure inner life there is almost nothing in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with Rousseau’s “Confession,” although he immediately characteristically contrasts his plan with the latter’s plan. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, first of all; individualistic self-revelation, brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book, is alien to him. In his hands, the memoirs turn into a series of moralizing sketches, such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760-1780s. At the same time, they provide a picture of social life in its negative manifestations that is exceptional in its wealth of witty details, and this is their great merit. Fonvizin the classic's people are static. The Brigadier, the Advisor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early “Nedorosl”), etc. - they are all given from the very beginning and do not develop during the movement of the work. In the first act of "The Brigadier", in the exposition, the heroes themselves directly and unambiguously define all the features of their character schemes, and in the future we see only comic combinations and collisions of the same features, and these collisions do not affect the internal structure of each role. Then, characteristic of Fonvizin is the verbal definition of masks. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerical speech of the Adviser, the petimetric speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhausts the description. After subtracting the speech characteristics, no other individual human traits remain. And they will all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and good will make jokes, because the heroes of “The Brigadier” are still heroes of a classical comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate,” and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that he the words were everywhere full of witticisms" (" Poetic art"). It was a strong, powerful system of artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and was superbly implemented not only in “The Brigadier”, but also in Fonvizin’s satirical articles.
Fonvizin remains a classic in the genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin most often has no interest in the plot side of the work.
In a number of Fonvizin’s works: in the early “Minor”, in “The Governor’s Choice” and in “The Brigadier”, in the story “Kalisthenes” the plot is only a frame, more or less conventional. “The Brigadier,” for example, is structured as a series of comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushka and the Advisor, the Advisor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Advisor, and all these couples are contrasted not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane of schematic contrast, a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in the comedy; In terms of construction, “The Brigadier” is very reminiscent of Sumarokov’s farces with a gallery of comic characters.
However, even the most convinced, most zealous classicist in Russian noble literature, Sumarokov, found it difficult, perhaps even impossible, not to see or depict specific features of reality at all, to remain only in the world created by reason and the laws of abstract art. To leave this world was obligated, first of all, by dissatisfaction with the real, real world. For the Russian noble classicist, the concrete individual reality of social reality, so different from the ideal norm, is evil; it invades, as a deviation from this norm, the world of the rationalistic ideal; it cannot be framed in reasonable, abstract forms. But it exists, both Sumarokov and Fonvizin know this. Society lives an abnormal, “unreasonable” life. We have to reckon with this and fight against it. Positive phenomena in public life for both Sumarokov and Fonvizin they are normal and reasonable. Negative ones fall out of the scheme and appear in all their painful individuality for the classicist. Hence, in the satirical genres of Sumarokov in Russian classicism, the desire to show concretely real features of reality is born. Thus, in Russian classicism, the reality of a specific fact of life arose as a satirical theme, with a sign of a certain, condemning author’s attitude.
Fonvizin’s position on this issue is more complicated. Tension political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of real reality, hostile to him, surrounding him on all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vigilance for life. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of an impact on life that is more acute than noble writers could do before him. “At the court of a king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything... can the truth be freely expressed? “- writes Fonvizin in the story “Kalisthenes”. And now his task is to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter is emerging, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism in the Western educational movement. Fonvizin draws closer to the bourgeois progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.
Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia? - Fonvizin poses the question in “Friend of Honest People” and answers that this does not come “from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, but from a lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for everyone.” expression”, but from the lack of freedom, lack of public life, preventing citizens from participating in political life countries. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, the writer is “a guardian of the common good,” “a useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes the savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland.”
In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of bourgeois radical thinkers in France. In 1764, he remade Gresset’s “Sidney” into Russian, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of bourgeois literature XVIII V. in France. In 1769, an English story, “Sidney and Scilly or Beneficence and Gratitude,” translated by Fonvizin from Arno, was published. This - sentimental piece, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with bourgeois French literature. The fight against reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in his literary work Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.