The life and creative path of Fonvizin. To help a schoolchild

Denis Fonvizin is a great Russian writer, playwright, publicist, translator and creator of Russian everyday comedy.

In addition to writing, Fonvizin was involved in politics. He was a state councilor and secretary of the head of Russian diplomacy N.I. Panin.

Fonvizin’s biography is studied not only by 9th grade students, but also by college students. Schoolchildren know him mainly by famous work"Undergrown."

There are many interesting details in Fonvizina, which you can familiarize yourself with right now.

So, in front of you short biography Denis Fonvizin.

Brief biography of Fonvizin

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745 in. His ancestors were nobles who came from a Livonian knightly family.

Fonvizin's ancestor was captured by Russians during (1558-1583) and was baptized into Orthodoxy.

Education

During the period of biography 1755-1760. Denis Fonvizin studied at the noble gymnasium at Moscow University, then for a year at the university’s Faculty of Philosophy.

In 1760, among the best high school students, Fonvizin and his brother Pavel arrived in. Here he met the first director of the Russian theater, Sumarokov.

In 1761, by order of one of the Moscow booksellers, Fonvizin translated Holberg's fable from German.

A year later, he was already translating the novel by the French writer Abbot Terrason “Heroic Virtue or the Life of Seth, King of Egypt,” Voltaire’s tragedy “Alzira or the Americans” and Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.”

Simultaneously with the translations, Fonvizin’s original works began to appear, painted in sharply satirical tones.

Creation

According to the official biography of Fonvizin, presumably by 1760 a play was written that was not published during the author’s lifetime, the so-called early"Undergrown."

However, there is a version that the early “Nedorosl” did not belong to the pen of Denis Ivanovich at all.

It should be noted that Fonvizin was strongly influenced by French educational thought from Voltaire to Helvetius.

He became a permanent member of the circle of Russian freethinkers who gathered in the house of Prince Kozlovsky.

Fonvizin's literary studies also helped him in his career.

When he translated Voltaire’s tragedy, he was appointed to serve under the then already well-known cabinet minister Elagin.

His comedy “The Brigadier” was also a great success. An interesting fact is that Fonvizin was even specially invited to Peterhof to read this work to the empress herself.

As a result, he became close to the tutor of Pavel Petrovich (the future Russian emperor), Count Nikita Ivanovich Panin.

In 1769, Fonvizin went into the service of Panin, becoming, as his secretary, one of his closest and most trusted persons.

Before Panin’s death, Fonvizin, on his direct instructions, 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.”

This work contains an exceptionally harsh picture of the despotic regime of Catherine and her favorites, demands constitutional reforms and directly threatens a violent coup otherwise.

Civil service

During the period of biography 1777-1778. Fonvizin travels abroad and stays in France for quite a long time. From here he writes letters to his sister F.I. Argamakova, P.I. Panin (brother of N.I. Panin) and Ya.I. Bulgakov.

These letters had a pronounced public-social character. Fonvizin's keen mind, observation, and ability to understand the economic, social and political problems of French society allowed him to paint a historically accurate picture of France.

Studying French reality, Fonvizin wanted to better understand the processes taking place not only in France, but also in France, and to find ways to improve the socio-political order in his homeland.

Speaking about serfdom, Fonvizin considers it necessary not to destroy it, but to introduce it into the “limits of moderation.”

He was frightened by the possibility of a new Pugachevism, and he believed that it was necessary to make concessions in order to avoid further shocks.

Hence the main requirement is the introduction of “fundamental laws,” the observance of which is necessary not only for ordinary citizens, but also for the monarch.

The most impressive is the picture of contemporary reality drawn by the satirical writer, namely, the boundless arbitrariness that has gripped all government bodies.

Mature creativity

After retiring, Fonvizin, despite a serious illness (paralysis), was engaged in literary work until the end of his life.

At the same time, sharp disapproval awaited him in the person of Empress Catherine II, who forbade Fonvizin to publish a five-volume collected works.

The literary heritage of the last period of the writer’s life consists mainly of articles for the magazine and dramatic works: the comedy “The Tutor’s Choice” and the dramatic feuilleton “Conversation with Princess Khaldina.”

Besides, in last years During his life, Fonvizin worked on his autobiography “Frank Confession”.

Personal life

In the biography of Denis Fonvizin there was only one wife. In 1774, the writer married the daughter of a wealthy merchant, Ekaterina Rogovikova. She was the widow of Count Chernyshev’s adjutant, A. A. Khlopov.

After Khlopov’s death, Ekaterina received a huge fortune to manage, and, having married Fonvizin at the age of 27, she fully provided for it.

They had no children in this marriage.

Death of Fonvizin

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin died in December 1792. He was only 47 years old.

He was buried at the Lazarevskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

Brilliant talent, great intelligence and broad erudition give every right to consider Fonvizin one of the outstanding people of Catherine’s era.

Even though he was characteristic representative Russian noble intelligentsia of his time, he entered as outstanding man of his era.

Three years after the death of Fonvizin, another was born in Russia great writer-, whose biography is in many ways similar to the biography of Fonvizin.

In Fonvizin's biography there was a lot interesting facts. Here are just a few of them.

Denis Fonvizin's favorite writer was Russo
When the premiere of the play “The Minor” took place, its success was so enormous that the audience threw wallets full of money on the stage.
An interesting fact is that Denis Fonvizin was a real dandy. He, unlike his slovenly contemporary, paid great attention to appearance. His clothes were always clean and ironed, and his shoes were decorated with large buckles.
Having visited St. Petersburg for the first time, Fonvizin saw a theatrical performance - a production of the play “Henry and Pernille” by the Danish writer Ludwig Holberg. This made such a deep impression on him that he retained his love for theater throughout his life.

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

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
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 the entire Russian public 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 XVIII century, Fonvizin embodied in his work that rise national identity how this era was marked. 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. “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 the 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 history 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 (comical 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 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” at tea, one “coarsing”, 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. Ivan’s mannerisms and the Counselor’s affectation at first glance seem to be opposed to the reasoning of the wise life experience parents. 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 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 content structure of the bourgeois drama, from the traditions of which he objectively started, was travestiized 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. Everyday authenticity portrait characteristics developed 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 qualities of the animal 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 new trick 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 talking 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 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 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. 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 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 a “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 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 goodies(and therefore the true aristocracy) won 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, for comic beginning there was practically no space left here. This is the first, plot level, level of structure that organizes the compositional frame 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 has many comic scenes in which the whole group participates characters, who seem to have no 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 plays include these characters in one way or another. 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, 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 - 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 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. 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 political life 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.

The linguistic element of D. I. Fonvizin’s creativity.

A.I. Gorshkov, the author of books about Fonvizin, examining the writer’s speech and critical literature on this topic, notes that critics underestimate the satirist’s artistic style, considering it as “intermediate” between “Lomonosov’s” and Karamzin’s style. Some authors of literary studies about Fonvizin tend to qualify his entire works within the framework of the doctrine of three styles: high (“A Word for the Recovery of Paul”), medium (letters to Panin) and low (comedy and letters to his sister). This approach, according to Gorshkov, ignores the specific diversity of linguistic differences and similarities between letters to his sister and letters to Panin, and does not take into account general development Russian literary language in the second half of the 18th century. and the evolution of the Fonvizin language. In his book “The Language of Pre-Pushkin Prose,” the critic especially highlights the prose works of the 80s, finding in them the already formed style of the writer and new strategy artistic speech. “Fonvizin 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,” says Gorshkov. In the second half of the 18th century. magnificent verbosity, rhetorical solemnity, metaphorical abstraction and obligatory decoration gradually gave way to brevity, simplicity, and accuracy. 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.

Fonvizin’s narrative language is not confined to the conversational sphere; in its expressive resources and techniques it is much broader and richer. Definitely focusing on colloquial, on “living use” as the basis of the narrative, Fonvizin freely uses “book” elements, Western European borrowings, and philosophical and scientific vocabulary and phraseology. The wealth of linguistic means used and the variety of methods of their organization allow Fonvizin to create various narrative options on a common conversational basis. Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who understood, describing the complex relationships and strong feelings people simply, but you can definitely achieve a greater effect than with the help of certain verbal tricks. This is how his comedies are structured. For example, in the comedy “Minor” inversions are used: “slave of his vile passions"; rhetorical questions and exclamations: “How can she teach them good manners?; complicated syntax: abundance of subordinate clauses, common definitions, participial and participial phrases and other characteristic means of book speech. There are also words of emotional and evaluative meaning: soulful, heartfelt, depraved tyrant. But 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.” “Letters from France” quite richly presents folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology, especially those groups and categories that are devoid of sharp expressiveness and are more or less close to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer: “I haven’t heard my feet since I came here...”; « We're doing pretty well."; « Wherever you go, it’s full”. 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.”; « When entering the city, we were mistaken by a disgusting stench.”. Observations of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology in “Letters from France” make it possible to draw three main conclusions. Firstly, this vocabulary and phraseology, especially in that part that is closer to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer than to the vernacular, are freely and quite widely used in letters. Secondly, the use of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is distinguished by a careful selection that was amazing for that time. Even more important and significant is that the vast majority of the colloquial words and expressions used by Fonvizin in “Letters from France” found their way into permanent place in the literary language, and with one or another special stylistic “task”, and often simply along with “neutral” lexical and phraseological material, these expressions were widely used in the literature of later times. Thirdly, the careful selection of colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is closely related to the change and transformation of the stylistic functions of this lexical and phraseological layer in the literary language. Stylistically opposite to the colloquial lexical-phraseological layer, it is distinguished by the same main features of use. Firstly, they are also used in letters, secondly, they are subjected to a rather strict selection, and thirdly, their role in the language of “Letters from France” does not completely coincide with the role assigned to them by the theory of three styles. The selection was manifested in the fact that in “Letters from France” we will not find archaic, “dilapidated” “Slavicisms”. Slavicisms, contrary to the theory of three styles, are quite freely combined with “neutral” and colloquial elements, lose to a large extent their “high” coloring, are “neutralized” and no longer act as a specific sign of “high style”, but simply as elements of bookish, literary language. Here are some examples: “what it was like for me to hear her exclamations"; « his wife is so greedy for money..."; « writhing, disturbing the human sense of smell in an unbearable way". Folk colloquial words and expressions are freely combined not only with “Slavicisms”, but also with “Europeanisms” and “metaphysical” vocabulary and phraseology: “here they applaud for everything about everything"; « In a word, although war has not been formally declared, this announcement is expected any hour.”.

The features of the literary language 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.

Thus, let us note the main points of the above. 1. Fonvizin became the continuer of Novikov’s traditions. He was engaged in the further development of the first-person narration technique. 2. He made a decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to new principles for constructing the language of prose. 3. He did great job on the introduction of colloquial vocabulary and phraseology into the literary language. Almost all the words he used found their permanent place in the literary language. 4. He makes extensive use of word puns. 5. Made an attempt to normalize the use of “Slavicisms” in the language. But, despite all Fonvizin’s linguistic innovation, some archaic elements still appear in his prose and some unbroken threads remain that connect him with the previous era.

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, unselfish 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

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.
Gorshkov, A. I. History of the Russian literary language, M.: Higher School, 1969. – 432 p.
Gorshkov, A.I. About the language of Fonvizin - a prose writer // Russian speech. – 1979. - No. 2.
Gorshkov, A. I. The language of pre-Pushkin prose / Rep. ed. F. P. Filin. – M.: Nauka, 1982. – 240 p.
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).
Rassadin, S. B. Satire is a brave ruler.
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).
Serman, I. Z. Russian classicism (Poetry. Drama. Satire) / Rep. ed. P. N. Berkov. – L.: Nauka, 1973. – 284 p.
Stennik, Yu. V. Russian satire of the 18th century / Rep. ed. N. A. Nikitina. – L.: Nauka, 1985. – 362 p.
Toporov, V. N. “Declensions on Russian customs” from a semiotic point of view // Proceedings on sign systems. Tartu, 1993. Vol. 23.
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.
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.
Fonvizin, D. I. Collection. Works: In 2 volumes - M.; L., 1959.
Az: lib.ru

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

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 of theatrical art of the 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. In the years when the writer was especially active in visiting circles of freethinkers, the first comedy was created.

"Brigadier"

Literary studies helped Fonvizin rise through career ladder in his youth, but had a detrimental influence 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 became the main theme of 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 “Pugachevism,” and therefore proposed getting rid of serfdom moderately, without haste.

Fonvizin was studying literary creativity till the end of one's 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

"Brigadier."
"Undergrown."
"Discourses on indispensable state laws."
"Governor's Choice"
"Conversation with Princess Khaldina."
"Frank confession."
"Corion".

The writer created “A Sincere Confession” when he was in his old age. This work is autobiographical in nature. In recent years, the 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 a characteristic feature of classicism.

This trend originated in France. In Russia, classicism was distinguished by its satirical orientation. In works French playwrights Antique 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 gave his characters meaningful 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 changing the political system. But he believed that without enlightenment, any changes would lead to rebellion, “Pugachevism” or other negative socio-political consequences.