The work of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, the creator of Russian everyday comedy in the 18th century. Fonvizin's works: list of works Fonvizin's artistic method

The remarkable Russian playwright Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1744/45-1792), author of the comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor,” began his creative career as a poet. He was born into a Russified German family that had long since taken root in Moscow. His father, an educated free-thinking man, carried throughout his life high concepts of honor, dignity and the social duty of a nobleman. Fonvizin, by his own admission, “copied” the old man from the comedy “The Minor” from his father. Decency and independence of judgment were the main qualities that the head of the family cultivated in his sons. Denis's younger brother Pavel, who later left a good mark as the director of Moscow University, also wrote poetry. But the brothers' poems were different. Pavel Ivanovich was attracted to elegiac poetry. Denis Ivanovich, distinguished by a mocking mentality, practiced parodies, satirical messages and fables.

After graduating from the gymnasium at Moscow University, both brothers became students of this university. Denis Ivanovich receives a philological and philosophical education and, upon completion of the course, is assigned to serve in St. Petersburg at the College of Foreign Affairs. Here he worked since 1762 as a translator, and then as a secretary for a major political figure of that time, N.I. Panin, sharing his oppositional views towards Catherine II, and on his instructions developed draft constitutional reforms in Russia, which were supposed to abolish serfdom, rid the country of the power of temporary workers, and provide political rights to all classes.

Very early, the young man showed the qualities that his father fostered in him: courage of judgment and independence of behavior. It is no coincidence that, in addition to famous comedies, he left to his descendants sharp political pamphlets and boldly and brilliantly written journalistic articles. He translated Voltaire's tragedy "Alzira", filled with daring attacks against the ruling power, into Russian.

Fonvizin’s most daring journalistic work was the so-called “Testament of N.I. Panin" (1783). An opposition-minded nobleman, to whose party Fonvizin belonged, shortly before his death asked the writer to draw up a political will for him. This was supposed to be a pamphlet addressed to the heir to the throne, Paul, and directed against the order established in Russia by his mother Catherine II. Fonvizin carried out the assignment brilliantly. Three decades will pass, and the formidable indictment document, written with a masterful hand, will be adopted by the Decembrists, creating secret political societies.

Having found out ideological position Fonvizin, let us turn to the analysis of two of his poetic works, which were distributed due to their daring content in lists and published only much later. Both of them were created in the early 1760s, when Fonvizin had already moved to St. Petersburg and served in the College of Foreign Affairs. Both have a strong satirical bent. One of them is the fable “Fox-Koznodey”, the second is “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka”.

In the fable genre, Fonvizin was a follower of Sumarokov. National morals and characters, precise details and signs of everyday life, colloquial speech with the frequent use of common words and expressions are found in his fables. Only Fonvizin is more daring and radical than his predecessor. The fable “The Fox-Koznodey” is aimed at clever and shameless sycophants-officials who support the powers that be with flattering speeches and servile behavior. And they have considerable personal benefit from this. The work is about a certain “Libyan side”, which, however, is very reminiscent of Russian reality. Not shy about outright lies, the Fox praises Leo:

In the Libyan side a true rumor rushed,

That Leo, the king of the beasts, died in the big forest,

Cattle flocked there from all directions

Witness a huge funeral.

Fox-Koznodey, during this gloomy ritual,

With a humble charea, in monastic attire,

Climbing up onto the pulpit, he cries out with delight:

“Oh rock! the fiercest rock! Who has the world lost?

Struck by the death of the meek ruler,

Weep and wail, venerable cathedral of beasts!

Behold the king, the wisest of all forest kings,

Worthy of eternal tears, worthy of altars,

Father to his slaves, terrible to his enemies,

Prostrate before us, insensitive and voiceless!

Whose mind could comprehend the number of his kindnesses?

The abyss of goodness, the greatness of generosity?

During his reign, innocence did not suffer

And truth fearlessly presided at the trial;

He nourished bestiality in his soul,

In it he respected the support of his throne;

There was a planter of order in his area,

He was a friend and patron of the arts and sciences.”

In addition to the Fox, there are two more characters in the fable: the Mole and the Dog. These are much more frank and honest in their assessments of the late king. However, they won’t tell the truth out loud; whisper in each other's ears.

Descriptions of the lion's rule are given in tones of invective, that is, angry denunciation. The king's throne was built "from the bones of torn animals." The inhabitants of the Libyan side are skinned by the royal favorites and nobles without trial or investigation. Out of fear and despair, the Elephant leaves the Libyan forest and hides in the steppe. The clever builder Beaver is ruined by taxes and falls into poverty. But the fate of the court artist is shown especially expressively and in detail. He is not only skilled in his craft, but also masters new painting techniques. Alfresco is painting with water paints on the damp plaster of the walls of dwellings. All his life, the court painter devotedly served the king and nobles with his talent. But he also dies in poverty, “from melancholy and hunger.”

“The Fox-Koznodey” is a bright and impressive work not only in terms of the bold ideas stated here, but also in terms of their artistic embodiment. The technique of antithesis works especially clearly: contrasting the flattering speeches of the Fox with the truthful and bitter assessments given by the Mole and the Dog. It is the antithesis that emphasizes and makes the author's sarcasm so deadly.

Let us recall the dialogue between Starodum and Pravdin from the third act of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” (1781). Starodum talks about the vile morals and orders that reign at court. An honest and decent person, he could not accept them, adapt to them. Pravdin is amazed: “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” "What for? “- Starodum is perplexed. “Then why do they call a doctor to a sick person,” Pravdin gets excited. Starodum cools his ardor with a reasonable remark: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing. The doctor won’t help here unless he gets infected himself.” Isn't it true that the ending of the fable resembles the quoted dialogue? The fable and the comedy were separated by a time period of almost twenty years. The thoughts expressed by the young poet Fonvizin will find development and completion in a different artistic form: dramatic, brought to the wide public stage.

The date of creation of another wonderful poetic work by Fonvizin, “Messages to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka,” has not been precisely established. Most likely it was written between 1762 and 1763. No less daring in content than “Fox-Koznodey,” “Message” also reached readers without the name of the author, in handwritten copies. In the poem, from the very first lines, it seems to be somewhat abstract, philosophical problem: why the “white light” was created and what place is assigned to man in it. However, for clarification, the author, who is also one of the heroes of the “Message,” turns not to learned men, but to his servants. To the middle-aged “uncle” (that is, the servant assigned to the master to “look after” him) Shumilov, who had already turned gray. The coachman Vanka, apparently, is a middle-aged man who has already seen a lot in his life. And Petrushka, the youngest and therefore the most frivolous of the trio of servants.

The judgments of the coachman Vanka are the central and most important part of the poem. Having chosen a common man from among the people as the conductor of his ideas, Fonvizin gives a sharp description of the order in the country. No church dogmas, no government regulations will explain or justify the social structure in which the system of universal hypocrisy, deception and theft triumphs:

The priests are trying to deceive the people,

Servants are the butler, butlers are the masters,

Each other are gentlemen, and noble boyars

Often they want to deceive the sovereign;

And everyone, in order to fill his pocket tighter,

For the sake of good, he decided to engage in deception.

Before money, the townsmen's delicacies, the nobles,

Judges, clerks, soldiers and peasants.

Humble are the shepherds of our souls and hearts

They deign to collect rent from their sheep.

Sheep marry, breed, die,

And the shepherds line their pockets,

For pure money they forgive every sin,

Money promises a lot of pleasures in paradise.

But if you can tell the truth in the world,

I will tell you my opinion truthfully:

For the money of the Most High Creator

Both the shepherd and the sheep are ready to deceive!

From an unassuming plot picture (three servants seem to be discussing an abstract topic) a large-scale picture of the life of Russian society emerges. It captures the life and morality of common people, church ministers, and “great gentlemen.” It includes the Creator himself in its orbit! The “Message” was a bold and risky challenge to both the politics and ideology of the ruling circles. That’s why it couldn’t have been published in those days; it was circulated in handwritten lists. “The light here” lives in untruth - this is the final conclusion of the work.

In 1769, twenty-four-year-old Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792) wrote the comedy “The Brigadier”. This is a cruel satire on young people who visited France, on the servile attitude towards them in Russia, on the disdain for everything domestic. Fonvizin himself, having been abroad several times, including in France, met European countries, but was not fascinated by them. The comedy “The Brigadier” did not have a stage adaptation for a long time, but was read by the author many times among friends and acquaintances. Listeners, and later spectators, enthusiastically accepted the comedy for its striking similarity, faithfulness of characters and typical images.

In 1782, Fonvizin wrote the comedy “The Minor.” The first production took place on September 24, 1782.V.O. Klyuchevsky called “Nedorosl” an “incomparable mirror” of Russian reality. Exposing the lordly tyranny, Fonvizin showed the corrupting effect of serfdom, which disfigured both peasants and landowners. The problem of educating the nobility, raised in “Brigadier,” received a social resonance in “Nedorosl.” Fonvizin adhered to the educational program of moral education of a citizen and patriot, a true son of the Fatherland.

In 1782 Fonvizin retired. Despite his serious illness, he continued to engage in literary work. He wrote “The Experience of a Russian Dictionary” (1783), “Several Questions That Can Arouse Smart and honest people special attention” (1783), which actually contained criticism domestic policy Catherine II, which displeased the Empress. Of great interest are his autobiographical notes “A sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts,” as well as Fonvizin’s extensive epistolary heritage.

What works of Fonvizin are known to modern readers? Of course, "Minor". After all, comedy is included in the school curriculum. It is known that the Russian writer wrote critical articles and translations of foreign authors. However, Fonvizin’s works are not limited to literary works and satirical essays about the ignorant Prostakov family.

What else did the creator of the domestic comedy write? And why, in his declining years, was it difficult for the author of “The Minor” to publish his creations?

Russian author of foreign origin

The writer lived and worked in Catherine's era. Fonvizin’s works would not have been created if one of the comedian’s ancestors had not once fallen into Russian captivity. The creator of such characters as Prostakov, Starodum and Mitrofanushka was of foreign origin, but was the most Russian of all Russian writers of the eighteenth century. At least that's what Pushkin said about him.

Translation activities

The writer studied at the gymnasium, then became a student at the Faculty of Philosophy. Fonvizin's works represent the pinnacle theatrical arts eighteenth century. However, before receiving recognition, the writer spent many years poring over translations of famous foreign and even ancient playwrights. And only after gaining experience, he began to write original essays.

The hero of this article began to engage in literary translation by accident. One day one of the St. Petersburg booksellers heard about his excellent knowledge of foreign languages. The entrepreneur suggested that the young man translate the works of Ludwig Holberg into Russian. Denis Fonvizin coped with the task. After which many offers from publishers poured in.

Literary creativity

When did Fonvizin’s original works begin to appear? The list of his works is small. Below is a list of dramatic works and publications on political topics. But first it’s worth saying a few words about the worldview of this author.

In the second half of the eighteenth century, educational thought was in fashion throughout Europe, one of the founders of which was Voltaire. The Russian writer gladly translated the works of the French satirist. The humor that distinguishes Fonvizin’s works in the style of classicism probably became a feature formed under the influence of Voltaire’s work. During the years when the writer was especially active in visiting circles of freethinkers, the first comedy was created.

"Brigadier"

Literary studies helped Fonvizin climb the career ladder in his youth, but had a detrimental effect on the writer’s work in his old age. The empress herself drew attention to the translation of the tragedy of the Aviary. The comedy “Brigadier” enjoyed particular success.

Journalism

In 1769, the writer entered the service of which prompted him to write a political treatise. The title of this work fully corresponds to the time in which the author lived: “Reflections on the completely destroyed form of government and on the precarious state of the empire and sovereigns.”

In Catherine’s era, educated people expressed themselves in a very florid way, even the empress herself, who, by the way, did not like the essay. The fact is that in this work the author criticized both Catherine and her favorites and demanded constitutional reform. At the same time, he even dared to threaten a coup.

In Paris

Fonvizin spent more than two years in France. From there he carried on regular correspondence with Panin and other like-minded people. Social problems have become main theme both letters and essays. Fonvizin's journalistic works, the list of which is little known to contemporaries, despite the absence of strict censorship in those years, were imbued with a thirst for change and a reformist spirit.

Political Views

After visiting France, Denis Fonvizin wrote new “Discourses”. This time they were dedicated to state laws. In this essay, the author raised the issue of serfdom. Convinced of the need to destroy it, he was still under the impression of the “Pugachevism”, and therefore proposed getting rid of serfdom moderately, without haste.

Fonvizin was engaged in literary creativity until the end of his days. But due to the disapproval of the empress, he was unable to publish a collection of his works. Finally, it is worth mentioning the works of Fonvizin.

List of books

1. "Brigadier."
2. "Undergrown."
3. "Discourses on indispensable state laws."
4. "Governor's Choice"
5. "Conversation with Princess Khaldina."
6. "Frank confession."
7. "Corion".

The writer created “A Sincere Confession” when he was in his old age. This work is autobiographical in nature. IN last years writer Fonvizin mainly wrote articles for magazines. Fonvizin entered the history of Russian literature as the author of comedies in the genre of classicism. What is this direction? What are its characteristic features?

Works by Fonvizin

Classicism is a movement based on the principles of rationalism. The works contain harmony and faith, and poetic norms are strictly observed. The heroes of the comedy “The Minor” are divided into positive and negative. There are no contradictory images here. And this is also characteristic feature classicism.

This trend originated in France. In Russia, classicism was distinguished by its satirical orientation. In the works of French playwrights, ancient themes came first. They are characterized by national-historical motives.

The main feature of the dramatic works of the eighteenth century is the unity of time and place. The events of “The Minor” take place in the house of the Prostakov family. Everything that is described in the comedy takes place within twenty-four hours. Fonvizin endowed his characters speaking names. Skotinin dreams of villages where many pigs graze. Vralman pretends to enlighten Mitrofanushka, while he introduces the undergrowth into even more terrible ignorance.

The comedy touches on the topic of education. Enlightenment thought had a significant influence on all of Fonvizin’s work. The writer dreamed of change political system. But he believed that without enlightenment, any changes would lead to rebellion, “Pugachevism” or other negative socio-political consequences.

1. The beginning of the journey: Fonvizin is a fable writer.
2. Comedy "Brigadier"
3. “The Minor” as a satire of its time.
4. Innovation of the writer.

D. I. Fonvizin is a writer in many ways iconic for the literature of the 1760s - 1780s. The originality and difference of Fonvizin’s work is determined primarily by the fact that the writer stands at the origins of a new stage in the development of Russian satire.

Fonvizin's work as a literary critic began with the translation of fables by the then famous Danish poet Golberg. Later, he himself began to write fables and parables that were still in many ways “raw,” but interesting for his time. However, being already known as a translator, Fonvizin more than once found himself in an awkward position - most of the fables he created were considered either elegant translations of foreign works into Russian, or outright plagiarism. Nevertheless, several fables are still known as the genuine work of Fonvizin and are of particular interest for revealing the initial stages of the master’s creative path. This is the political fable “The Fox the Executor” and the satire “Message to My Servants, Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka,” written in 1760.

The first named work was written shortly after the death of Empress Elizabeth and was an angry response to the church ceremony associated with her funeral. The writer ridiculed the sycophancy and sycophancy of the courtiers in his work and revealed to the reader true essence actions of the highest of this world. The Emperor “Lion King” is depicted as “desert cattle,” and his kingdom and leadership of the people are based on oppression and violence:

During his reign, favorites and nobles
They skinned innocent animals without rank.

The second work presents the reader with a conversation between the author and his servants. To the question: “Why was this light created? — the author was never able to get a clear answer. Shumilov believes that there is no point in the question, that the lot of the serf is eternal slavery and humiliation of the servant; he is simply not ready to express his thoughts, which most likely do not exist at all. Vanka expresses his opinion that “the world here” is bad, and talking about it is a trifle, a worthless conversation. Petrushka, the footman, also cannot answer the question, but proudly declares his intention to live for his own pleasure in this world. It becomes obvious to everyone that there is no higher divine plan, and that society and the division into classes are structured, at least, unreasonably. The writer’s first major satirical work was the comedy “The Brigadier,” written in 1763. The comedy brilliantly played out a plot common in the 18th century, while the hackneyed comedy theme received a new understanding and became almost an innovation in the theatrical tradition. Parents strive to profitably marry children who have long given their hearts to others. Two families - the Advisor and the Brigadier - decide to arrange a marriage between the brigadier’s son Ivan and the advisor’s daughter Sophia. At the same time, Fonvizin “twists” the affair that had begun to develop according to the standard in a completely different direction: the brigadier’s son begins to pursue the Advisor, while the Brigadier is ready to advance his son in the battle for the beautiful lady. The Advisor begins to hunt for the Brigadier, and the prudent Sophia is left alone, with the choice of her heart. It is not by chance that Fonvizin introduced such clashes of feelings and intrigue into the text. Thus, the author manages to demonstrate all the absurdity and vulgarity of the behavior of serf owners and gallomaniac dandies. In terms of the genre, “The Brigadier” is an unusual comedy for Russian literature. This is one of the first “comedy of manners” in the history of Russian satire and drama. The process of formation of this kind of characters has not yet been shown by the author, but an explanation of the behavior and impulses of each of the characters is already present in the text of the comedy. Many innovative techniques - self-exposure, outright buffoonery, grotesquery - make the comedy understandable and funny even for a modern reader.

Fonvizin’s next work is “The Minor,” a comedy written in 1781. It is the most important stage in the life and work of a writer. This work became a programmatic work and was the highest point in the development of Russian satire of the 18th century.

The main task that the author set for himself was to expose the rotten morals of that time, the formation of which was due to the established tradition of relationships between people within a notorious and conserved society.

The main theme of the comedy is the evil nature of the serf owners, which Fonvizin presents as the most terrible social evil. The main conflict of the era - the arbitrariness of the landowners and the lack of rights of the serfs - is the leitmotif of the entire work. The main subject of the image, therefore, is not the nobility itself, but the noble class shown in close interaction with the serfs.

The problem of comedy is the decomposition of the nobility as the main ruling class of the country. The author presents the viewer with an unusual, but easily imaginable world even for the modern reader, where some people own others. The ruling figure of this world is Mrs. Prostakova - “despicable fury” and “inhuman lady.” The sovereign mistress of this world, Prostakova subjugates both the slave-serfs (the old woman Eremeevna, Trishka, the girl Palashka), and her family and friends, in whom she can find neither support nor support.

The author seeks to reveal two problems of contemporary society. The fact is that the servility of the serf system not only kills everything human in the serfs, making them a soulless and uncomplaining herd, but also corrupts the serf owners themselves, allows them to revel in power over people and with each new obscene act pushes them down the inclined plane lower and lower.

For the first time in Russian drama, Fonvizin not only gave a high-quality and complete possible solution social issue, but also fully and voluminously described goodies. Before this, only evil was visible and significant, while positive heroes were perceived differently - their speeches and actions seemed too straightforward and feigned. Fonvizin also gave positive heroes the right to life. They felt, spoke and acted like living heroes, and not like machines programmed to do good.

It is difficult to create a work that would be relevant not only for the modern reader, but also for the coming generation. One topical topic is not enough; it also requires remarkable writing talent combined with pure and clear thought. However, talent is not such a simple thing. Even natural talent requires constant development and polishing.

Fonvizin went through a difficult creative path. Starting with quite “raw” and gray works, he was able to hone his gift of writing to such an extent that he became not only an outstanding writer of his time, but also an innovative author who opened the doors to a new stage of development for all Russian literature.

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 was aligned 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 feature of Fonvizin’s work is the organic combination in most of his works of satirical wit 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 does not 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 feudal-serf society of the second half of the 18th 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. The characters in “Nedorosl” each speak 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 makes extensive use of the richness of the living folk language. 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 richness of the linguistic means of the comedy “The Minor” suggests that Fonvizin had an excellent command of the dictionary of folk speech and was well acquainted with folk art.

Thus, the distinctive features of the comedy “The Minor” are the relevance of the topic and the denunciation of serfdom. The realism of the created picture of life and customs of the depicted era and living colloquial. 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.

State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Udmurt State University"

Abstract on the topic:

“Creativity of D. I. Fonvizin”

Is done by a student

2nd year

Faculty of Journalism

Mukminova Svetlana.

Checked:

Doctor of Philological Sciences,

Associate Professor of the Department

Literary theories

Zvereva T.V.

Izhevsk, 2008

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2. Comedies by D. I. Fonvizin ……………………………………………………………….. 7

2.1 Comprehension of the forms of national life in the comedy “Brigadier” ... 9

2.2 Understanding Russian culture and Russian history

In the comedy “Minor” ……………………………………………. 15

3. The linguistic element of creativity of D. I. Fonvizin ……………………….. 25

4. Crisis of world relations and change in ideological position

D. I. Fonvizina ……………………………………………………… 30

5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 32

6. Bibliography ……………………………………………………… 33

Introduction

“In the history of Russian literary satire of the 18th century, Fonvizin has a special place. If it were necessary to name a writer, in whose works the depth of comprehension of the morals of the era would be commensurate with the courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class and the highest authorities, then such a writer would undoubtedly be called Fonvizin,” - this is what the famous critic Yu. V. Stennik says about Fonvizin, author of the book “Russian Satire of the 18th Century” (9, 291).

The satirical current penetrated in the 18th century into almost all types and forms of literature - drama, novel, story, poem and even ode. The development of satire was directly related to the development of all Russian social life and advanced social thought. Accordingly, the artistic and satirical coverage of reality by writers expanded. The most pressing problems of our time came to the fore - the fight against serfdom, against autocracy.

The work of young Fonvizin also unfolds in line with this satirical trend. Being one of the most prominent figures of educational humanism in Russia in the 18th century, Fonvizin embodied in his work the rise of national self-awareness that marked this era. In the vast country awakened by Peter's reforms, the best representatives of the Russian nobility became the spokesmen for this renewed self-awareness. Fonvizin perceived the ideas of enlightenment humanism especially keenly; with pain in his heart he observed the moral devastation of part of his class. Fonvizin himself lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. In the nobles’ oblivion of their duty to society, he saw the cause of all public evils: “I happened to travel around my land. I saw in what most of those bearing the name of a nobleman put their curiosity. I saw many of them who serve, or, moreover, occupy positions in the service only because they ride a pair. I saw many others who immediately resigned as soon as they gained the right to harness fours. I saw contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw servile nobles, and that’s what. my heart was torn apart." This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the author of “Facts and Fables,” that is, to Empress Catherine II herself.

Fonvizin joined in literary life Russia at the moment when Catherine II encouraged interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment: at first she flirted with the French enlighteners - Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert. But very soon there was no trace left of Catherine's liberalism. By the will of circumstances, Fonvizin found himself in the thick of it internal political struggle that flared up at court. In this struggle, gifted with brilliant creative abilities and keen observation, Fonvizin took the place of a satirical writer who exposed corruption and lawlessness in the courts, the baseness of the moral character of nobles close to the throne and favoritism encouraged by the highest authorities.

Fonvizin was born in Moscow on April 3 (14), 1745 (according to other sources - 1744) into a middle-income noble family. Already in his childhood, Denis Ivanovich received the first lessons of an uncompromising attitude towards servility and bribery, evil and violence from his father, Ivan Andreevich Fonvizin. Later, some character traits of the writer's father will find their embodiment in the positive characters of his works. " External events Fonvizin's life was not rich. Studying at the noble academy of Moscow University, where he was assigned as a ten-year-old boy and which he successfully completed in the spring of 1762. Service in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, first under the command of the State Councilor of the Palace Chancellery I.P. Elagin, then, from 1769, as one of the secretaries of the Chancellor Count N.I. Panin. And the resignation that followed in the spring of 1782. The beginning of Fonvizin's literary activity was marked by translations. While still a student at the university gymnasium, he translated in 1761 by order of the bookseller of the university bookstore. "Moral Fables" by Louis Holbert. The fables had a prosaic form and were generally edifying in nature. Many of them were equipped with didactic moral teachings. However, there were fables that resembled a folk joke, a witty satirical miniature, which testified to the democratic sympathies of the educationally minded author. In addition, the critical pathos of the fables gave them an acute social meaning. It can be considered that the translation of L. Golberg’s book was the first school of educational humanism for young Fonvizin, instilling in the soul of the future playwright an interest in social satire. The decisive factor for the future fate of Fonvizin the writer was his sudden assignment to serve in a foreign collegium and the subsequent in 1763. moving with the court to St. Petersburg. Yesterday's student is first used as a translator, and is soon appointed secretary “for certain matters” under State Councilor I. P. Elagin. Carrying out small tasks and conducting official correspondence alternates with mandatory visits official receptions at the court (Kurtags), court masquerades. Fonvizin becomes close to the literary circles of St. Petersburg, very often attends performances of various troupes at court.” (9.295) Court life, with all its external splendor, weighs heavily on Fonvizin. And in the mid-1760s. the writer becomes close to F.A. Kozlovsky, thanks to whom he enters the circle of St. Petersburg young freethinkers, admirers of Voltaire. In their society, Fonvizin receives his first lessons in religious freethinking. The famous satire “Message to my servants – Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka” dates back to the time of his acquaintance with Kozlovsky. The anti-clerical pathos of the satire brought upon the author the accusation of atheism. Indeed, in the literature of the 18th century there are few works where the selfishness of spiritual shepherds corrupting the people would be so sharply exposed.

The eighteenth century left many remarkable names in the history of Russian literature. But if it were necessary to name a writer, in whose works the depth of comprehension of the morals of his era would be commensurate with the courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class, then, first of all, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin should be mentioned.

Thus, the purpose of our work was to study and analyze critical literature about D.I. Fonvizin and his work, thereby reflecting the writer’s educational credo.

Fonvizin went down in the history of national literature as the author of the famous comedy "The Minor." But he was also a talented prose writer. The gift of a satirist was combined in him with the temperament of a born publicist. Empress Catherine II feared the flagellating sarcasm of Fonvizin's satire. Fonvizin’s unsurpassed artistic skill was noted in his time by Pushkin. It still affects us today.

Comedies by D. I. Fonvizin

“Comedy is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict or struggle of antagonistic characters is specifically resolved” - this is the definition of comedy given by the “Big School Encyclopedia”, M.: OLMA-PRESS, 2000. Qualitatively, the struggle in comedy is different in that it: 1) does not entail serious, disastrous consequences for the fighting parties; 2) aimed at “base”, i.e. ordinary, goals; 3) is conducted by funny, amusing or absurd means. The task of comedy is to make a comic impression on the audience (readers), causing laughter with the help of a funny appearance (comic form), speeches (comical words) and actions (comical actions of characters) that violate the socio-psychological norms and customs of a given social environment. All these types of comedy are intertwined in comedy, and outweigh one or the other. In Fonvizin, the comic nature of words and the comic action of characters, which are considered more developed forms, predominate.

"Russian comedy" began long before Fonvizin, but started only from Fonvizin. His “Minor” and “Brigadier” made a terrible noise when they appeared and will forever remain in the history of Russian literature, if not art, as one of the most remarkable phenomena. In fact, these two comedies are the essence of the mind of a strong, sharp, gifted person...” - highly appreciates Fonvizin’s comedic creativity.

“The comedy of the gifted Fonvizin will always be popular reading and will always hold an honorable place in the history of Russian literature. She doesn't piece of art, but a satire on morals, and a masterful satire. Its characters are fools and smart ones: the fools are all very nice, and the smart ones are all very vulgar; the first are caricatures written with great talent; the second reasoners who bore you with their maxims. In a word, when Fonvizin’s comedies, especially “The Minor,” will never cease to excite laughter and, gradually losing readers in the highest circles of society, will all the more win them in the lower ones and become folk reading..." - says the same V. G. Belinsky.

“Fonvizin’s crushing, angry-destroying laughter, aimed at the most disgusting aspects of the autocratic-serf system, played a great creative role in the further destinies of Russian literature.

In fact, from Fonvizin’s laughter there are direct threads to the sharp humor of Krylov’s fables, to the subtle irony of Pushkin, to the “laughter through tears” of the author of “Dead Souls”, finally to the bitter and angry sarcasm of Saltykov-Shchedrin, the author of “The Golovlev Lords”, mercilessly who completed the drawing last act dramas of the nobility “spiritually destroyed, degenerated and corrupted” by serfdom.

"Minor" begins a glorious series greatest creatures Russian comedy, in which in the next century Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” Gogol’s “The Inspector General,” and plays about “ dark kingdom"Ostrovsky" (From the article by D. D. Blagoy "Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin". In the book: "Classics of Russian Literature", Detgiz, M. - L., 1953).

Understanding the forms of national life

In the comedy "Brigadier"

All the characters in The Brigadier are Russian nobles. In the modest everyday atmosphere of average local life, the personality of each character is revealed as if gradually in conversations. The viewer learns about the propensity for extravagance of the coquette Advisor, and about the difficult fate of the Brigadier, who spent his life on campaigns. The sanctimonious nature of the Advisor, who profited from bribes, and the downtrodden nature of the resigned Brigadier become clearer.

Already from the moment the curtain rose, the viewer found himself immersed in an environment that amazed with the reality of life. This can be judged by the introductory remark to the first act of the comedy: “ Theater represents a room decorated in a rustic style. Brigadier , walks around in a frock coat and smokes tobacco. Son him, in his desabilia, swearing, drinking tea. Advisor in Cossack, looking at the calendar. On the other side there is a table with a tea set, next to which sits Advisor in desabilles and cornets and, simpering, pours the tea. Brigadier sitting odal and knitting a stocking. Sophia Odal also sits and sews in the vestibule.”

In this peaceful picture of home comfort, everything is significant and at the same time everything is natural: the rustic decoration of the room, the clothes of the characters, their activities, and even individual touches in their behavior. In the prefatory remark, the author already outlines both the nature of the future relationships between the characters and the satirical task of the play. It is no coincidence that the son and the adviser appear on stage both “in disbelief” while having tea, one “swearing”, and the other “pretentious”.

“Having recently visited Paris, Ivan is full of contempt for everything that surrounds him in his homeland. “Anyone who has been to Paris,” he confesses, “has the right, when speaking about Russians, not to include himself among those, because he has already become more French than Russian.” In his contempt for his parents, whom he directly calls “animals,” Ivan finds the full support of the Advisor: “Ah, my joy! I love your sincerity. You do not spare your father! This is the direct virtue of our age.”

The absurd behavior of the newly minted “Parisian” Ivan and the Advisor, who is delighted with him, suggests that the basis of the ideological concept of the comedy is the fight against the vices of fashionable education, which gives rise to blind worship of everything French. At first glance, Ivan’s mannerisms and the Counselor’s affectation seem to be opposed to the reasoning of his parents, wise from life experience. This couple, obsessed with all things French, are truly at the forefront of the laugh-out-loud diatribe. But the satirical pathos of “The Brigadier” is not limited only to the program of combating Frenchmania.” (9, 307)

The following episode of the same first act is indicative, where those present on stage have to express their opinions about grammar. Its benefit is unanimously denied. “How many serviceable secretaries we have who compose extracts without grammar, it’s delightful to look at! – exclaims the Advisor. “I have one in mind who, when he writes, another scientist cannot understand it with grammar forever.” The Brigadier echoes him: “What is grammar for, matchmaker? I lived without her until I was almost sixty years old, and I also raised children.” The Brigadier does not lag behind her husband; “Of course, grammar is not needed. Before you begin to teach it, you still need to buy it. You’ll pay eight hryvnia for it, but whether you learn it or not, God knows.” Neither do the Counselor and her Son see any particular need for grammar. The first admits that only once did she need it “for papillotes.” As for Ivan, then, according to his confession, “my light, my soul, adieu, ma reine, one can say without looking at the grammar.”

“This new chain of revelations, revealing the mental horizons of the main characters of the comedy, concretizes the previous sketches of their portrait self-characteristics, leading us to an understanding of the author’s intention. In a society where mental apathy and lack of spirituality reign, familiarization with the European way of life is an evil caricature of enlightenment. Parents are to blame for the empty-headedness of children delirious abroad. The moral squalor of Ivan, proud of his contempt for his compatriots, matches the ignorance and spiritual ugliness of the rest. This idea is proven by the entire further course of events taking place on stage. So Fonvizin puts the problem of true education at the center of the ideological content of his play. Of course, in comedy this idea is not affirmed declaratively, but through the means of psychological self-disclosure of the characters.” (9,308)

The play does not have a dedicated exposition - this traditional element compositional structure“comedies of intrigue”, where servants bring the audience up to date, introducing them to the circumstances of the lives of their masters. The identity of each is revealed during the exchange of remarks, and then realized in actions.

“Fonvizin found an interesting and innovative way to enhance the satirical and accusatory pathos of comedy. In his “Brigadier”, in essence, the substantive structure of the bourgeois drama, from the traditions of which he objectively started, was travestyed in a unique way. Respectable fathers, burdened with families, indulged in love affairs. The play was filled with many comic, bordering on farce, scenes and dialogues. The everyday authenticity of the portrait characteristics grew into a comically pointed grotesque.” (9.308-309)

The originality of the action in “The Brigadier” also consisted in the absence in the comedy of servants as engines of intrigue. There were no other traditional types in it with a comic role (pedants, clerks, etc.). And yet the comedy of the action increases from scene to scene. It arises through a dynamic kaleidoscope of intertwining love episodes. The secular flirtation of the coquette Advisor and the gallomaniac Ivan gives way to the confessions of the hypocritical saintly Advisor, courting the incomprehensible Brigadier, and then the Brigadier explains himself in a soldierly manner to the Advisor.

“It is significant that already in this comedy Fonvizin finds one constructive technique of satirical denunciation, which later, in the comedy “The Minor,” will become almost the fundamental principle of typification negative characters. This refers to the motive of likening a person to an animal, due to which the qualities inherent in cattle become the measure of the moral merits of such a person.” (9.309-310)

So Ivan sees “animals” in his parents, but for the Advisor. suffering from village life, all the neighbors are also “ignorant” “cattle”. “They, my soul, think of nothing but table supplies; straight pigs.” At first, the likening to animals “donkey, horse, bear,” helping to explain to father and son, is of a relatively innocent nature. But the angry Ivan, in response to the Brigadier’s reminder that his son should not forget who his father is, resorts to a logical argument: “Very good; And when a puppy is not obliged to respect the dog who was his father, then do I owe you even the slightest respect?

“The depth of Fonvizin’s sarcasm and the accusatory effect achieved is that recognition of the animal’s qualities follows from the heroes themselves. This is the same technique of comic self-characterization, when the ironic subtext hidden in the character’s speech becomes a verdict on the speaker himself. This technique, varied in every way in the speeches of the characters, is intended not only to enhance the comedy of the action, but also to serve as a kind of standard for the spiritual qualities of the heroes.” (9,310)

Fonvizin, possessing the gift of a skilled satirist, finds a new method of self-exposure of characters, which achieves a comic effect. This technique will be used frequently as the action progresses. For example, the Advisor and the Son, left alone, talk about fashionable hats. “In my opinion,” says Ivan, lace and blonde hair make up the best decoration for the head. Pedants think that this is nonsense and that one should decorate the inside of the head, not the outside. What emptiness! The devil sees what is hidden, but everyone sees what is external.

S o v e t n i tsa. So, my soul: I myself share the same sentiments with you; I see that you have powder on your head, but damn if there’s anything in your head, I can’t tell.

Son. Pardieu! Of course, no one can notice this.” “The destructiveness of such an exchange of pleasantries for the self-characterization of the moral character of both is obvious. But it is important that the comic subtext arising from the above dialogue, obvious to the viewer, but unconscious by the speaking character, is caused by the words of the speakers themselves. Satire is dissolved in the action of comedy, and the indictment of the moral ugliness of the characters is made through their own speeches, and not introduced from the outside. This was the fundamental innovation of the method of Fonvizin the satirist,” notes Yu. V. Stennik. (9.349) Thus, a kind of antipsychologism - distinguishing feature comedy by Fonvizin.

“Often in The Brigadier, the characters’ statements are direct author’s statements, only conditionally attached to a given person. Thus, Ivanushka talks about education in completely different words: “A young man is like wax. If, malheureusment, I had fallen in with a Russian who loved his nation, I might not have been like that.” (8,243)

“The author’s “presence” in “The Brigadier” is manifested not only in each specific statement, but also in the appearance of themes common to all characters, in the discussion of which the essence of each of them is revealed. Such common theme statements in “The Brigadier” is the theme of intelligence and stupidity. Each comedy character is convinced of his undoubted mental superiority over others, while these others are inclined to consider him a fool.”(8, 244)

Thus, the characters’ frequent judgments about each other, designed for the immediate, direct reaction of the audience, develop into replicas-sentiments, which make it possible to seek applications for them outside the comedy’s own plot. Thus, the author’s voice sounds from the very essence of the disputes that arise between the characters of his comedy, from its general problems.

Laughter and the author in Fonvizin’s comedy have not yet been identified, as happened with Griboyedov and especially with Gogol in The Government Inspector, where the author does not speak for his characters at all, where they speak and act according to their comedic character, and laughter “i.e. e. author's attitude to the characters" arises from the collision of actions and thoughts with the ethical norm that inspires the author's laughter, the norm of humanism and deep regret for a person whose true essence is covered with a "rough crust of earthiness."

In such a situation, the position of the reader and viewer is also interesting. The text of the comedy is designed to interest the reader in “co-authorship”, in the need to turn on the imagination and see beyond artistic images reality and even ourselves. And, in addition, comedy should enlighten the reader, infecting him with the spirit of justice and humanism. This was precisely the writer’s intention.

Understanding Russian culture and Russian history in the comedy “Nedorosl”

The pinnacle of achievements of Fonvizin and all Russian literary satire in the comedy genre of the 18th century. became "Minor". "The Minor" - the central work of Fonvizin, the pinnacle of Russian drama of the 18th century - is organically connected with the ideological issues of the "Discourse". For Pushkin, “Nedorosl” is a “folk comedy.” Belinsky, who by the 1940s had developed a revolutionary-democratic understanding of nationality, stated that “The Minor,” “Woe from Wit” and “The Inspector General” “in a short time became folk dramatic plays."

To understand the ideological issues and, accordingly, the satirical pathos of the comedy, it is important to remember that more than ten years passed between the time of the creation of “The Brigadier” and the writing of “The Minor.” During this time, Fonvizin’s socio-political convictions strengthened and expanded, and his creative method the satirist has reached maturity.

Comedy is based on the principle of intersecting triads. Triad of negative heroes: Mrs. Prostakova, Taras Skotinin, Mitrofanushka. Triad positive characters: Starodum (the main ideologist of the play), Pravdin, Milon. A triad of heroic adventurers who pretend to be someone other than who they really are: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman. And finally, the service heroes: Eremeevna, Prostakov, Trishka. Only Sophia remains outside of these triads. Both positive and negative characters are fighting for her hand, and since “Sofia” means “wisdom” in translation, the hero is actually fighting for wisdom, truth, and a true idea.

Thus, the main conflict of the play unfolds between the positive characters, who represent the true aristocracy, and the triad of negative characters, ordinary people belonging to the “lower” society. A.S. Pushkin also drew attention to the fact that the characters speak different languages. The speech of the negative characters is dominated by rough, vernacular phraseology with the presence of vulgarisms, slang expressions and even swearing. At the same time, the speech of episodic characters – teachers Mitrofan and his mother Eremeevna – is marked by the greatest individualization. Elements of soldier’s jargon in Tsyfirkin’s conversations, former seminarian Kuteikin’s flaunting of quotes from the Holy Scriptures, and finally, the monstrous German accent of the illiterate coachman Vralman are all signs of a certain social environment. This is a style designed for comic effect, characteristic of magazine satire. But the style of speech of the Prostakova family is particularly rich. Either bordering on abuse, or filled with flattering ingratiation, the speech of the mistress of the house perfectly reflects her character, in which despotic tyranny coexists with lackey servility. On the contrary, the language of the positive characters of the “minor” appears cleared of vernacular. Before us is literate book speech, filled with the most complex syntactic structures and abstract vocabulary. Positive characters in everyday life are almost not characterized. Psychology and spiritual world These heroes are revealed not through everyday life, but during conversations on political and moral topics. Their very form very often goes back to the manner of dialogic philosophical treatises of the Enlightenment, who basically continued the tradition of moralizing dialogues of the era of humanism.

Thus, it can be noted that, for all its “unprepossessing”, the speech of the negative heroes is living, grounded, this colloquial speech is directly related to the plan of life and everyday life. Whereas any phrase of positive characters turns into a moralizing sermon, serving exclusively for spiritual education and absolutely not suitable for everyday life. We see that the tragedy of the situation lies in the language gap between the characters. The conflict lies, oddly enough, in the absence of conflict. It’s just that the heroes initially belong to different planes and there is and cannot be any common ground between them. And that's not even literary problem, but socio-political. Since there is a huge insurmountable gap between the true aristocracy and the “lower” society, which will never understand each other, and the middle class, as a connecting link, has not been formed.

Fonvizin, of course, wanted the positive heroes (and therefore the true aristocracy) to win this battle. But they lose because their images are lifeless and their speech is boring. And besides this, both Starodum and Pravdin strive to change the world without accepting it as it is. And in this sense, they are also “immature,” because an enlightened mature person is always ready to justify the world, and not to blame it. The ideology that the goodies preach is utopian because it is not consistent with reality. Thus, the main conflict of comedy is between ideology and everyday life.

The composition of “Minor” consists of a combination of several relatively independent and at the same time inextricably linked structural levels. This was reflected especially well by the wonderful critic Yu. V. Stennik in his book “Russian Satire of the 18th Century”:

“Looking carefully at the plot of the play, we notice that it is woven from motives typical of the structure of the “tearful” bourgeois drama: suffering virtue in the person of Sophia, who becomes the object of claims on the part of ignorant and rude seekers of her hand; the sudden appearance of a rich uncle; an attempted violent abduction and the ultimate triumph of justice with the punishment of vice. And although such a scheme, in principle, was not contraindicated in the comedy genre, there was practically no room left for a comic beginning. This is the first, plot level of structure, organizing the compositional framework of dramatic action.

Delving further into the study of the artistic system of "The Minor", we discover that it is rich in a comic element. The play contains many comic scenes in which a whole group of characters participate who do not seem to have a direct relationship to the development of the plot outlined above. These are Mitrofan’s teachers: the retired soldier Tsyfirkin, the half-educated seminarian Kuteikin and the former coachman Vralman, who became the educator of the noble youth. This is the tailor Trishka, partly mother Eremeevna. The connecting link between these persons and the plot of the play is the figure of Mitrofan with his relatives, mother and uncle. And all the most comic episodes of the play in one way or another include these characters. It is important, however, to remember that the object of comedy in them is not so much the servants as their masters.

The most important episodes from this point of view can be considered the scene with Trishka, the scene of Skotinin’s explanation with Mitrofan, the scene of Mitrofan’s teaching and, finally, the scene of Mitrofan’s examination. In these morally descriptive scenes, the everyday prose of life, concrete in all its ugliness, is unfolded. landed nobility. Swearing, fights, gluttony, canine devotion of servants and rude rudeness of masters, deception and bestiality as the norm of relationships among themselves - this is the plot of this meaningful aspect of the comedy. Scenes revealing the triumph of ignorance and evil nature create the everyday background of the plot, highlighting the characters of the members of the Prostakova family.

These scenes create the second, comedic-satirical, level of the artistic structure of The Minor. Existing within the framework of the first, plot plan, this level, however, has its own logic for revealing life phenomena, the main principle of which will be grotesque-naturalistic satire.

Finally, as the comedy progresses, a group of positive characters stands out. Their speeches and actions embody the author’s ideas about ideal person and a noble nobleman. This aspect of the artistic content of “The Minor” is most succinctly revealed in the figures of Pravdin and Starodum. The key scenes, in which the ideological program of the ideal nobles is revealed, are also extra-fabulous in their own way (it is not surprising that the practice of productions of “The Minor” knows the case of removing individual scenes considered “boring”).

This is how the third – ideal-utopian level of the structure of “Undergrowth” is established. It is characteristic that the circle of positive characters grouped around Pravdin is practically not realized in everyday life. At this level of the compositional structure of comedy, the comic element is completely absent. Scenes where positive characters act are devoid of dynamics and, in their static nature, approach philosophical and educational dialogues.” (9, 319-320)

Thus, ideological plan The play is revealed through the combination and interaction of a brilliantly comic satirical grotesque, presented in morally descriptive scenes, and abstract utopia in scenes where ideal characters appear. The unique originality of comedy lies in the unity of these polar opposite worlds.

At each of these structural levels, two central ideas that feed the pathos of comedy are resolved in parallel. This is, firstly, the idea of ​​the true dignity of a nobleman, affirmed both by journalistic declarations in the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin, and by the demonstration of the moral corruption of the nobility. Pictures of the degradation of the country's ruling class were supposed to serve as a kind of illustration of the thesis about the need for proper moral example from the highest authorities and the court. The absence of such became the cause of arbitrariness.

The second problem is the idea of ​​education in the broad sense of the word. In the minds of thinkers of the 18th century, education was seen as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s visions, the problem of education acquired national significance, because, in his opinion, the only possible source of salvation from the evil threatening society—the ossification of the Russian nobility—was rooted in correct education.

“If the first idea was intended to awaken public thought and draw the attention of compatriots to the impending danger, then the second seemed to indicate the reason for this situation and suggest means of correcting it.” (9.321)

The significance of Fonvizin’s comedy, therefore, consisted primarily in the fact that it had an edge political satire was directed against the main social evil of the era - the complete lack of control of the highest authorities, which gave rise to moral devastation of the ruling class and arbitrariness, both locally - in the relations of landowners with peasants, and at the highest levels of the social hierarchy. Considering that the play was created under the conditions of the dominance of the monarchical system of government in Russia, one cannot help but be amazed at the courage and insight of the author of “The Minor.”317, Stennik.

The main conflict in the socio-political life of Russia is the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported supreme authority, and the serfs without rights - becomes the theme of the comedy. In a dramatic essay, the theme is revealed with particular power of persuasiveness in the development of the plot, in action, in struggle. The only one dramatic conflict“Undergrowth” is the struggle of the progressive-minded progressive nobles Pravdin and Starodum with the serf owners - the Prostakovs and Skotinins.

In the comedy, Fonvizin shows the disastrous consequences of slavery, which should confirm to the viewer the moral correctness of Pravdin and the need to fight the Skotinins and Prostakovs. The consequences of slavery are truly terrible.

The Prostakov peasants are completely ruined. Even Prostakova herself doesn’t know what to do next: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t rip off anything. Such a disaster!

Slavery turns peasants into slaves, completely killing in them all human traits, all personal dignity. This comes out with particular force in the courtyards. Fonvizin created the image enormous power- Eremeevna's slaves. An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings are what befall her. She had long ago lost even human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames: “beast”, “old bastard”, “dog’s daughter”, “scum”. Abuse, slander and humiliation made Eremeevna a slave, his mistress’s chain dog, who humiliatingly licks the hand of the owner who beat her.

In the person of Pravdin and Starodum, for the first time positive heroes appeared on the stage who act, putting their ideals into practice. Who are Pravdin and Starodum, bravely leading the fight against the serf owners Prostakovs and Skotinin? Why were they able to intervene not only in the course of the comedy, but, in essence, in political life autocratic state?

As a folk work, the comedy “Minor” naturally reflected the most important and the most pressing problems Russian life. The lack of rights of Russian serfs, reduced to the status of slaves, given full ownership to the landowners, manifested itself with particular force in the 80s. The complete, boundless, monstrous arbitrariness of the landowners could not but arouse feelings of protest among the progressive nobility. Not sympathizing with revolutionary methods of action, moreover, rejecting them, at the same time they could not help but protest against the slaveholding and despotic policies of Catherine II. That is why the response to the police regime established by Catherine and Potemkin was the strengthening of public activity and the subordination of creativity to the tasks of political satire of such noble educators as Fonvizin, Novikov, Krylov, Krechetov. At the end of the decade, the revolutionary Radishchev came out with his books, directly expressing the aspirations and moods of the serfs.

The second theme of “The Minor” was the struggle of noble educators with slave owners and the despotic government of Catherine II after the defeat of the Pugachev uprising.

Pravdin, not wanting to limit himself to indignation, takes real steps to limit the power of the landowners and, as we know from the ending of the play, achieves this. Pravdin acts this way because he believes that his fight against slave owners, supported by the governor, is “thereby fulfilling the philanthropic views of the highest power,” that is, Pravdin is deeply convinced of the enlightened nature of Catherine’s autocracy. He declares himself the executor of his will - this is how things stand at the beginning of the comedy. That is why Pravdin, knowing Starodum, demands that he go to serve at court. “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” Starodum is perplexed: “Summon? What for?" And Pravdin, true to his convictions, declares: “Then why call a doctor to the sick.” And then Starodum, a politician who has already realized that faith in Catherine is not only naive, but also destructive, explains to Pravdin: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing: here the doctor will not help unless he himself becomes infected.”

Fonvizin forces Starodum to explain not only to Pravdina, but also to the audience that faith in Catherine is meaningless, that the legend about her enlightened reign is false, that Catherine established a despotic form of government, that it is thanks to her policies that slavery can flourish in Russia, that the cruel Skotinins and Prostakovs can rule , which directly refer to the royal decrees on the freedom of the nobility.

Pravdin and Starodum, in their worldview, are students of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Two most important political issues determined the program of noble enlighteners at this time: a) the need to abolish serfdom peacefully (reform, education, etc.); b) Catherine is not an enlightened monarch, but a despot and the inspirer of the policy of slavery, and therefore it is necessary to fight her.

It was this political idea that formed the basis of “Minor” - Ekaterina is to blame for the crimes of the Skotinins and Prostakovs. That is why the fight against the Prostakovs is being waged by private people, and not by the government (the fact that Pravdin serves does not change matters, since he acts according to his convictions, and not according to the orders of his superiors). Catherine’s government blesses the serfdom policy of the unruly nobles.

The “minor” was greeted with open hostility by the government and the ideologists of the nobility. The comedy was completed in 1781. It immediately became clear that it was almost impossible to install it. Fonvizin’s stubborn, silent struggle with the government over the production of the comedy began. Nikita Panin was involved in the struggle, who, using all his influence on the heir Pavel, finally achieved the production of the comedy through him. The court demonstrated its hostility towards The Minor, which was expressed, among other things, in the desire to prevent its production at the court theater. The premiere was delayed in every possible way, and instead of May, as originally planned, it finally took place with difficulty on September 24, 1782 in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow with the help of invited actors from both the court and private theaters.

Attitude crisis and change

Ideological position

“He was, of course, one of the smartest and noblest representatives of the true, sound school of thought in Russia, especially in the first time of his literary activity, before his illness; but his ardent, disinterested aspirations were too impractical, promised too little significant benefit before the court of the empress for her to encourage them. And she considered it best not to pay attention to him, having previously shown him that the path he was following would not lead to anything good...” says N. A. Dobrolyubov.

Indeed, Fonvizin was a fierce educator, but his ideas were only a theory; they did not imply any practical solutions. Two most important political issues determined the program of noble enlighteners at this time: a) the need to abolish serfdom peacefully (reform, education, etc.); b) Catherine is not an enlightened monarch, but a despot and the inspirer of the policy of slavery, and therefore it is necessary to fight her. And we have already said that the struggle and desire to change the world is, from the point of view of the Enlightenment, the work of “minors,” that is, not adults who are not able to accept this world. His passion for Voltaire led the still immature Fonvizin to deny God and religion.

“Having lost his god, the ordinary Russian Voltairean did not simply leave his temple as a person who had become superfluous in it, but, like a rebellious servant, before leaving he strove to riot, to interrupt everything, to distort and dirty it.”

“Dvorovy” is the expressive name of this son of unfreedom. And his mode of action is its manifestation: even when he rebels, he behaves like a slave,” this is what V. O. Klyuchevsky says about the writer. And there is some truth in this offensive expression: in many ways, if not in everything, an outstanding, talented writer, Fonvizin as a “Voltairian” is very ordinary.

But gradually, as he grows up and develops an ideological position, Fonvizin moves away from Voltairianism and later creativity has a distinct journalistic character.

As for Denis Ivanovich’s horror at the youthful sin of Voltairianism and doubt in faith, everything is clear here. His mind, the Russian mind of that time, brought up in religion and very far from the newfangled skepticism, easily overcame what was premature and unnecessary for him, but he remembered all this acutely and painfully when the time came for the painful leisure brought by the disease, when he had to dig in himself, in order to find the reasons for divine anger, the existence of which was believed also because the blows of fate were very constant.

It is very characteristic that one of the letters to Panin dated December 24, 1777 (January 4, 1778) says: “In a word, liberty is an empty name, and the right of the strong remains the right above all laws.” Thus, it is with “Letters from France” that the collapse of the Enlightenment faith begins.

It is interesting that “General Court Grammar” is a sharp allegorical satire on the court and its vices. And in “A sincere confession about my deeds and thoughts,” Fonvizin bitterly declares: “Young people! Do not think that your sharp words constitute your true glory; stop the insolence of your mind and know that the praise attributed to you is pure poison for you; and especially if you feel inclined to satire, tame it with all your strength: for you, without a doubt, will be subject to the same fate as me. They soon began to fear me, then to hate me; and instead of attracting people to me, I drove them away from me with words and pen. My writings were sharp curses: there was a lot of satirical salt in them, but, so to speak, not a drop of reason.”

Thus, there is a contradiction in Fonvizin’s views. This is due to the fact that, due to his illness, his last works, including “Frank Confession,” are permeated with motives of religious repentance and the horror of repression that befell his fellow educators.

Conclusion

“A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and the direction of his creative quest, belongs 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 was 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 feudal abuses 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 D. I. Fonvizin” (12, 22).

Thus, having studied Fonvizin’s work in this work, we are convinced of his undoubted talent as a satirist and innovator of words. It was Fonvizin who laid the foundations of the Russian literary language. It was Fonvizin who showed us the reality of Catherine’s era, depicting it in his comedies. Perhaps this is why M. Gorky calls Fonvizin the founder of critical realism: “The types of Skotinin, Prostakovs, Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin are true drawings of the characters of that time, a true reflection of the ignorance and rudeness of the commanding class.”

From all of the above, we can conclude that Fonvizin was truly a brilliant educator and, at the same time, he was the finalizer of the Russian Enlightenment of the 18th century.

Bibliography

1. Vinogradov, V.V. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th-18th centuries. / Rep. ed. E. S. Istrina. – M.: State educational and pedagogical publishing house, 1934. – 288 p.
2. Gorshkov, A. I. History of the Russian literary language, M.: Higher School, 1969. – 432 p.
3. Gorshkov, A.I. About the language of Fonvizin - a prose writer // Russian speech. – 1979. - No. 2.
4. Gorshkov, A. I. The language of pre-Pushkin prose / Rep. ed. F. P. Filin. – M.: Nauka, 1982. – 240 p.
5. Klyuchevsky, V. O. Literary portraits/ Comp., intro. Art. A. F. Smirnova. – M.: Sovremennik, 1991. – 463 pp., portrait. – (B-ka “For lovers of Russian literature.” From the literary heritage).
6. Rassadin, S. B. Satire is a brave ruler.
7. Pumpyansky, L.V. Classical tradition: Collection of works on the history of Russian literature / Rep. ed. A. P. Chudakov; Compiled by: E. M. Isserlin, N. I. Nikolaev; Entry Art., prepared. text and notes N. I. Nikolaeva. – M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 2000. – 864 p. – (Language. Semiotics. Culture).
8. Serman, I. Z. Russian classicism (Poetry. Drama. Satire) / Rep. ed. P. N. Berkov. – L.: Nauka, 1973. – 284 p.
9. Stennik, Yu. V. Russian satire of the 18th century / Rep. ed. N. A. Nikitina. – L.: Nauka, 1985. – 362 p.
10. Toporov, V. N. “Declensions on Russian customs” from a semiotic point of view // Works on sign systems. Tartu, 1993. Vol. 23.
11. Fonvizin in Russian criticism / Intro. Art. and note. P. E. Shames. – M.: State. educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1958. – 232 p.
12. Fonvizin, D. I. Favorites: Poems. Comedy. Satirical prose and journalism. Autobiographical prose. Letters / Comp., intro. Art. and note. Yu. V. Stennik; Artist P. Satsky. – M.: Sov. Russia, 1983. – 366 pp., 1 l. portrait, ill.
13. Fonvizin, D. I. Collection. Works: In 2 volumes - M.; L., 1959.
14. Az: lib.ru