The work of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, the creator of Russian everyday comedy in the 18th century. Fonvizin's life and creative path Fonvizin's artistic method

Introduction. 3

1. General characteristics of the work of D. I. Fonvizin. 4

2. Artistic features. 8

3. The significance of the work of D. I. Fonvizin. eleven

Conclusion. 15

Literature. 16

Introduction

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is a special name in Russian literature. He is an old founder of Russian comedy. “Russian comedy began long before Fonvizin, but began only with Fonvizin: his Brigadier and Minor made a terrible noise when they appeared and will forever remain in the history of Russian literature as one of the most remarkable phenomena,” wrote Belinsky.

Pushkin valued gaiety very highly and extremely regretted that in Russian literature “there are so few truly cheerful works.” That is why he lovingly noted this feature of Fonvizin’s talent, pointing out the direct continuity of the dramaturgy of Fonvizin and Gogol.

“In the works of this writer, the demonic principle of sarcasm and indignation was revealed for the first time, which was destined to permeate all Russian literature from then on, becoming the dominant tendency in it,” noted A. I. Herzen.

Speaking about the work of Fonvizin, the famous literary critic Belinsky wrote: “In general, for me, Kantemir and Fonvizin, especially the latter, are the most interesting writers of the first periods of our literature: they tell me not about transcendental priorities on the occasion of flat illuminations, but about living reality that historically existed, on the rights of society".

General characteristics of the work of D. I. Fonvizin

Fonvizin gave very vividly the types of contemporary noble society, gave vivid pictures of everyday life, although the comedy “The Brigadier” was built according to old classical models (the unity of place and time was observed, the sharp division of heroes into positive and negative, the 5-act composition of the play).

In the development of action, Fonvizin followed French classical theory; he studied character delineation from Moliere, Golberg, Detouches, and Scarron; The impetus for the creation of comedy on national themes was given by Lukin (his comedy “The Mot, Corrected by Love” and his critical remarks about the need to write comedies “in our customs”).

In 1882, Fonvizin’s second comedy “The Minor” was written and published in 1883 - the culmination of the development of Fonvizin’s work - “the work of a strong, sharp mind, a gifted person” (Belinsky). In his comedy, Fonvizin responded to all the questions that worried the most progressive people of that time. The state and social system, civic duties of a member of society, serfdom, family, marriage, raising children - these are the range of issues posed in “Nedorosl”. Fonvizin answered these questions from the most advanced positions for his time.

The realistic depiction of the characters was greatly facilitated by the clearly defined individualization of the characters' language. The positive heroes of “The Minor”, ​​the reasoners, are schematic, they are little individualized. However, in the remarks of the reasoners we hear the voice of the most advanced people of the 18th century. In reasoners and virtuous people we hear the voice of smart and well-intentioned people of that time - their concepts and way of thinking.

When creating his comedy, F. used a huge number of sources: articles from the best satirical magazines of the 70s, and works of contemporary Russian literature (works by Lukin, Chulkov, Emin, etc.), and works of English and French literature of the 17th-18th centuries. (Voltaire, Rousseau, Duclos, La Bruyère, etc.), but at the same time Fonvizin remained completely independent.

F.'s best works vividly and truthfully reflected life, awakened minds and helped the people fight to change their difficult situation.

D. I. Fonvizin’s pen includes the comedies “The Minor” and “The Brigadier”, the most famous to modern readers, “General Court Grammar”, the autobiography “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts”, “The choice of a tutor”, “Conversation with Princess Khaldina”. In addition, Fonvizin served as a translator in a foreign collegium, so he very willingly translated foreign authors, for example, Voltaire. He compiled a “Discourse on the extermination of every form of government in Russia and, therefore, on the precarious state of both the empire and the sovereigns themselves,” where he criticized the picture of Catherine’s despotic regime. From journalism, one can name “Discourse on the indispensable state laws,” where he proposed not to eradicate serfdom completely, but simply to alleviate the lot of peasants.

Among Fonvizin’s predecessors was Vladimir Ignatievich Lukin. This is a playwright who prepared the appearance of “The Minor” with accusatory comedies. It should be noted that Lukin was accused of not praising “glorious Russian writers”, even the “Russian Voltaire” Sumarokov himself, and they found bad what was most original in his work - “new expressions”, the desire for independence, to the simplicity of Russian speech, etc. In the latter respect, Lukin can be considered not only the predecessor of Fonvizin - who, as a rival, treated him with hostility, despite the huge difference in their talents - but even the forerunner of the so-called “natural school”. Being a zealot of nationality in the imitative literature of that time, Lukin demanded Russian content from comedy and understood the falsity of the direction taken by Russian drama.

Fonvizin made a special contribution to the literary language of his era, which was adopted by his followers and was actively used in the future in literary works. The language of his prose widely uses folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology; various non-free and semi-free colloquial phrases and stable expressions act as the building material of sentences; the unification of “simple Russian” and “Slavic” language resources, which is so important for the subsequent development of the Russian literary language, takes place.

He developed linguistic techniques for reflecting reality in its most diverse manifestations; principles for constructing linguistic structures characterizing the “image of a storyteller” were outlined. Many important properties and trends emerged and received initial development, which found their further development and were fully completed in Pushkin’s reform of the Russian literary language.

Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who understood that by describing complex relationships and strong feelings of people simply but accurately, one can achieve a greater effect than with the help of certain verbal tricks. It is impossible not to note Fonvizin’s merits in developing techniques for realistic depiction of complex human feelings and life conflicts.

In the comedy “The Minor” inversions are used: “the slave of his vile passions”; rhetorical questions and exclamations: “how can she teach them good behavior?”; complicated syntax: an abundance of subordinate clauses, common definitions, participial and participial phrases and other characteristic means of book speech.

Uses words of emotional and evaluative meaning: spiritual, heartfelt, depraved tyrant. Fonvizin avoids the naturalistic extremes of low style, which many contemporary outstanding comedians could not overcome. He refuses rude, unliterary speech means. At the same time, he constantly retains colloquial features in both vocabulary and syntax. The use of realistic typification techniques is also evidenced by colorful speech characteristics created by using words and expressions used in military life; and archaic vocabulary, quotes from spiritual books; and broken Russian vocabulary.

Meanwhile, the language of Fonvizin’s comedies, despite its perfection, still did not go beyond the traditions of classicism and did not represent a fundamentally new stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In Fonvizin's comedies, a clear distinction was maintained between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in constructing the linguistic characteristics of negative characters on the traditional basis of using vernacular the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, then the linguistic characteristics of positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, divorced from the living element of the spoken language.

In contrast to the language of comedy, the language of Fonvizin’s prose represents a significant step forward in the development of the Russian literary language; here the trends emerging in Novikov’s prose are strengthened and further developed. The work that marked a decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to new principles of constructing the language of prose in Fonvizin’s work was the famous “Letters from France.”

In “Letters from France,” folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology are quite richly presented, especially those groups and categories that are devoid of sharp expressiveness and are more or less close to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer: “Since I arrived here, I have been I can not hear…"; “We are doing pretty well”; “Wherever you go, it’s plump everywhere.”

There are also words and expressions that differ from those given above; they are endowed with that specific expressiveness that allows them to be classified as colloquial: “I won’t take both of these places for nothing”; “As we entered the city, we were overwhelmed by a disgusting stench.”

The literary language features developed in “Letters from France” were further developed in Fonvizin’s artistic, scientific, journalistic and memoir prose. But two points still deserve attention. Firstly, the syntactical perfection of Fonvizin’s prose should be emphasized. In Fonvizin we find not individual well-constructed phrases, but extensive contexts, distinguished by diversity, flexibility, harmony, logical consistency and clarity of syntactic structures. Secondly, in Fonvizin’s fiction, the technique of narration on behalf of the narrator, the technique of creating linguistic structures that serve as a means of revealing the image, is further developed. An analysis of various works by D.I. Fonvizin allows us to talk about his undoubtedly important role in the formation and improvement of the Russian literary language.

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 “raw” in many respects, 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 in his work the sycophancy and sycophancy of the courtiers and revealed to the reader the true essence of the actions of the highest of this world. The Emperor “Lion King” is depicted as a “desert beast,” 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 arranged, 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 to a social issue, but also fully and comprehensively described the positive characters. 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 rather “raw” and gray works, he was able to hone his writing talent 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.

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 became involved in the literary life of Russia at a time 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 not a trace remained of Catherine's liberalism. By the will of circumstances Fonvizin found himself in the thick of the 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, denouncing 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. “Fonvizin’s life was not rich in external events. 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. Fulfilling small assignments and conducting official correspondence alternate with obligatory visits to official receptions at the court (kurtags) and 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. It is not a work of fiction, 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 last act of the drama of the nobility “spiritually ruined, degenerated and corrupted” by serfdom.

“The Minor” begins a glorious series of the greatest creations of Russian comedy, in which in the next century there will be “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov, “The Inspector General” by Gogol, plays about the “dark kingdom” by 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 with 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 the Counselor and her Son see any special 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 link in the compositional structure of the “comedy of intrigue”, where the 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 method of satirical denunciation, which later, in the comedy “The Minor,” will become almost the fundamental principle of typing 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 anti-psychologism is a distinctive feature of Fonvizin’s comedy.

“Often in “The Brigadier” the statements of the characters 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 a common theme of 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 Griboedov 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. the author's attitude towards 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 earthliness."

In such a situation, the position of the reader and viewer is also interesting. The text of the comedy is intended to interest the reader in “co-authorship”, in the need to turn on the imagination and see reality and even oneself behind the artistic images. 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 as a satirist gained maturity.

Comedy is based on the principle of intersecting triads. Triad of negative heroes: Mrs. Prostakova, Taras Skotinin, Mitrofanushka. A triad of 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, 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 – Mitrofan’s teachers 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. The psychology and spiritual world of 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 dialogical 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 heroes. 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 this is not even a literary problem, but a socio-political one. 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 the life of the local nobility, concrete in all its ugliness, is unfolded. 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 emerges. Their speeches and actions embody the author’s ideas about an 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, the ideological concept of 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 a proper moral example on the part of 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, lay primarily in the fact that in it the edge of 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 - the arbitrariness of the landowners, supported by the highest authorities, 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 dramatic conflict in “The Minor” is the struggle between 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 of enormous power - slaves Eremeevna. An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings are what befall her. She has long lost even her 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 the political life of the autocratic state?

As a folk work, the comedy “Nedorosl” naturally reflected the most important and pressing problems of 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 social 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 sentiments 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 the slave owners, supported by the governor, is “thereby fulfilling the humane aspects 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 matures and develops an ideological position, Fonvizin moves away from Voltairianism and his later work has a pronounced 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

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is the author of the famous comedies “Minor”, ​​“Brigadier”, which still do not leave the 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. The minor 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 of lovers - Sophia and Milo. 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 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 the lively spoken language. In terms of the sharpness of its satirical teaching of the serfdom system, this comedy is rightfully considered

The most outstanding dramatic work of Russian literature of the second half of the 18th century.

Although the modern reader is separated from the era of Fonvizin by whole two centuries, it is difficult to find a person who would not know that a “junior” is an over-aged dropout, or would not have heard the remarks that have become proverbial: “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married,” “why geography?” “when there are cabbies” and other Fonvizin expressions.

Images, catchphrases and jokes from Fonvizin’s comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor” have become part of our vocabulary. In the same way, Fonvizin’s ideas, which played an important role in the history of the liberation movement, were passed on from generation to generation.

Fonvizin belonged to a generation of young nobles who were educated at Moscow University, created on the initiative of Lomonosov. In 1755, he was assigned to the university gymnasium, which prepared its students for transfer to students, and studied there until 1762.

The university was the center of literary life in Moscow. One of the first activities of the university was the publication of Lomonosov's works; his students taught here - the poet and translator N. N. Popovsky, the philologist A. A. Barsov, and M. M. Kheraskov was in charge of publishing.

There was a theater at the university, the repertoire of which included translations by students of the gymnasium. Their literary exercises were eagerly published in the university magazines “Useful Amusement” and “Collected Best Works.” It is not surprising that in addition to Fonvizin, many subsequently famous writers came out of the gymnasium - N. I. Novikov, F. A. Kozlovsky, the Karin brothers, A. A. Rzhevsky and others.

Fonvizin's first literary works were translations from German and French. He published translated articles in university journals and at the same time published as a separate book “Moral Fables” by the Danish educator and satirist L. Golberg (1761), and also began translating the multi-volume novel by J. Terrason “Heroic Virtue, or the Life of Seth, King of Egypt” (1762– 1768), whose hero was an ideal enlightened sovereign.

Terrason's educational and political ideas were positively assessed by French educators. Fonvizin also tries his hand at dramatic poetry, starting to translate Voltaire’s anti-clerical tragedy “Alzira”.

This list of works that interested the young writer testifies to his early interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment. The liberal beginning of the reign of Catherine II aroused hopes among the advanced part of the nobility for the establishment of an “enlightened” monarchy in Russia.

At the end of 1762, Fonvizin left the university and was appointed as a translator at the College of Foreign Affairs. He stayed directly at the Collegium for only a year, and then was seconded to the office of the Empress Secretary of State I.P. Elagin.

Fonvizin's serious political education began in the capital. He was aware of various opinions about the proposed reforms, those disputes that preceded such important events in the history of Russian social thought as the competition of the Free Economic Society on the condition of the serfs (1766) and the convening of the Commission to draw up the New Code (1767). In these disputes, the ideology of the Russian Enlightenment was formed. Fonvizin added his voice to those who demanded political freedoms and the abolition of serfdom.

His social views in these years are illustrated by the manuscript “Abridgement of the freedom of the French nobility and the benefits of the third rank” and the translation of “The Merchant Nobility” by G.-F. Quaye with a foreword by the German lawyer I.-G. Justi, published in 1766.

Quayer's goal was to indicate how the degrading nobility could once again become a prosperous class. But Fonvizin was apparently attracted to the book primarily by the sharp criticism it contained of the nobles, who, in the name of class prejudices, neglected the interests of the state and nation, as well as by the idea that maintaining rigid class barriers was not in the interests of society.

It was this idea that he developed in a handwritten discussion about the establishment of a “third rank” in Russia, which meant merchants, craftsmen and intelligentsia. The new “philistine” class was supposed to gradually be composed of serfs who had been freed and educated.

Thus, according to Fonvizin, gradually, peacefully, with the help of laws issued by an enlightened government, the abolition of serfdom, the enlightenment of society and the flourishing of civil life were achieved. Russia was becoming a country with a nobility “completely free”, a third rank, “completely liberated” and a people “practicing agriculture, although not completely free, but at least having the hope of being free.”

Fonvizin was an educator, but the stamp of noble narrow-mindedness marked both his faith in enlightened absolutism and in the primordial selectivity of his class. It should be noted, however, that Fonvizin’s early interest in class, and essentially in social issues, characteristic of his subsequent work, will allow him to more soberly than many of his contemporaries assess the political situation that developed during the reign of Catherine II .

Later, creating the image of the nobleman Starodum in “The Minor,” an image to which the author’s thoughts and sympathies are given in this play, he will note that his hero made his fortune and achieved independence as an honest industrialist, and not as a sycophantic courtier. Fonvizin was among the first Russian writers who began to consistently destroy the class barriers of feudal society.

Fonvizin knew the Russian nobility too well to expect support from them in implementing the educational program. But he believed in the effectiveness of the propaganda of educational ideas, under the influence of which a new generation of honest sons of the fatherland was to be formed. As he believed, they would become assistants and support for an enlightened sovereign, whose goal would be the good of the fatherland and the nation.

Therefore, Fonvizin, a satirist by the nature of his talent, starting from his early works, also promotes a positive ideal of social behavior. Already in the comedy “Corion” (1764) he attacked nobles who evade service, and in the words of one of the heroes declared:

Who has made every effort for the common good,

And he served for the glory of his fatherland,

He tasted direct joy in his life.

“Corion”, a free adaptation of the comedy by the French playwright J.-B. Gresse "Sydney", opens the St. Petersburg period of Fonvizin's work. The translation of Voltaire's tragedy "Alzira" (which was distributed in copies) created his reputation as a talented aspiring author. At the same time, he was accepted into a circle of young playwrights who grouped around his immediate superior I. P. Elagin, a famous translator and philanthropist.

In this circle, the theory of “declining” foreign works “to Russian customs” was developed. Elagin was the first to apply the principle of “declension” in the play “Jean de Molay, or the Russian Frenchman,” borrowed from Golberg, and V. I. Lukin consistently formulated it in the prefaces to his comedies.

Until this time, translated plays depicted life that was incomprehensible to the Russian audience, and foreign names were used. All this, as Lukin wrote, not only destroyed the theatrical illusion, but also reduced the educational impact of the theater. Therefore, the “remaking” of these plays in the Russian style began. With “Korion” Fonvizin declared himself as a supporter of national themes in drama and joined the fight against translators of entertainment plays.

In Elagin’s circle they showed a keen interest in the new genre of “serious comedy,” which received theoretical justification in Diderot’s articles and conquered European stages. An attempt, half-hearted and not entirely successful, to introduce the principles of moralizing dramaturgy into the Russian literary tradition was already made in Lukin’s plays.

But his comedies turned out to be devoid of a sense of the comic and, most importantly, resisted the growing penetration of satire into all areas of literature, which a few years later led to the emergence of satirical journalism. Such private themes as a touching depiction of suffering virtue or the correction of a vicious nobleman did not in any way correspond to the political goals of Russian enlighteners, who raised the question of transforming society as a whole.

Close attention to human behavior in society allowed Fonvizin to understand more deeply than his contemporaries the foundations of Diderot's educational aesthetics. The idea of ​​a satirical comedy about the Russian nobility took shape in an atmosphere of controversy surrounding the Commission for drawing up the New Code, where the majority of nobles came out in defense of serfdom. In 1769, “The Brigadier” was completed, and, turning to social satire, Fonvizin finally broke with the Elagin circle.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.