The work of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin, the creator of Russian everyday comedy in the 18th century. What is the role of positive characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”

Khakass State University

them. N.F. Katanova

Institute of Philology (Russian language and literature)

ABSTRACT

Subject: Prose D.I. Fonvizin in Russian history literary language

You completed: Feskov K.V.

group 4b

Contribution of D.I. Fonvizin in the development of Russian literature

native language ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 03

Peculiarities of the language of D.I.’s comedies Fonvizin at the

comedy "Minor" ………………………………………….……………………… 04

Prose language D.I. Fonvizina ……………………………………………………………… 05

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 08

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 09

CONTRIBUTION D.I. FONVIZIN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN

LITERARY LANGUAGE

One of the writers who played a significant role in the development of the Russian literary language at a new stage was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin.

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; as building material sentences include various non-free and semi-free colloquial phrases and stable expressions; is happening so important for the subsequent development of the Russian literary language combining “simple Russian” and “Slavonic” language resources.

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’s narrative language is not confined to the conversational sphere; in its expressive resources and techniques it is much broader and richer. Of course, focusing on the spoken language, on “living usage” 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 on a common conversational basis various options narratives.

Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who understood that by describing complex relationships and strong feelings of people simply, but definitely, you 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.

FEATURES OF THE LANGUAGE OF D.I.’S COMEDIES FONVIZINA

ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE COMEDY “UNDERGROUND”

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 subordinate clauses, common definitions involved and participial phrases and other characteristic means of book speech. Uses words of emotional and evaluative meaning: soulful, cordial, corrupt 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.

About using techniques realistic typification The colorful speech characteristics created by using words and expressions used in military life are also evidenced; 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 between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in the construction of linguistic characteristics negative characters While on the traditional basis of using vernacular the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, the linguistic characteristics of the positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, divorced from the living element of the spoken language.

PROSE LANGUAGE D.I. FONVIZINA

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.

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 largely or to a lesser extent close to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer: “ Since I arrived here I haven’t heard my feet...»; « We're doing pretty well»; « Wherever you go, everything is 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.

The stylistically opposite colloquial lexical and phraseological layer - “Slavicisms” - 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.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of various works by D.I. Fonvizin’s works allow us to talk about his undoubtedly important role in the formation and improvement of the Russian literary language.

Let's note the main points.

1. Became a successor to Novikov’s traditions. I was studying further development first-person narration.

2. Made a decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to new principles for constructing the language of prose.

3. Did a lot of work on introducing colloquial vocabulary and phraseology into the literary language. Almost all the words he used found their permanent place in the literary language.

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.

1. Gorshkov A.I. “About the language of Fonvizin - a prose writer” // Russian speech. – 1979. - No. 2.

2. Gorshkov A.I. “History of the Russian literary language”, M.: Higher School, - 1969.

Fonvizin's artistic method. The role of Fonvizin as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, similar to the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half XIX century. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.

Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770-1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of the Russian aesthetic worldview of that time, preparing - at the first stage - for its future Pushkin stage. But Fonvizin did in this direction more than others, if we don’t talk about Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.

On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited by his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in in this regard into the tradition of the “satirical direction,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes characteristic phenomenon specifically Russian literature XVIII centuries. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style critical realism. In itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with the specific forms that classicism acquired in Russia; it ultimately exploded the principles of classicism, but its origins from it are obvious.

Fonvizin grew up as a writer in the literary environment of Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in Fonvizin’s work. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individual as a unit in a social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the social, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the writer’s mind the interests of the “too human” in a person, forced Fonvizin to see in his hero a pattern of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanistically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great advantages of the classicism of his century: clarity, precision of the analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis is at the level of scientific achievements of his time, and social principle assessments of human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin also had the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable “abilities”, the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social existence.

In Fonvizin, many characters are constructed not according to the law of individual character, but according to a pre-given and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Advisor; Gallomaniac Ivanushka - and the entire cast of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martinet, there is little in him characteristic features. This is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not everyday life, but a diagram of social relationships. Characters in comedies and satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them “meaningful” names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character’s characteristics primarily to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. appear. At the same time, the artist’s task is not so much the image individuals, as much as a depiction of social relations, and this task could and was carried out by Fonvizin brilliantly. Social relations, understood as applied to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm. The subjectively noble character of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others”. The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; the same is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the corresponding works. On the contrary, “others”, “ignoble” are characterized primarily by their profession, class, place in the social system - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. For this system of thought, nobles are still people par excellence; or - in Fonvizin - vice versa: the best people must be nobles, and the Fools are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively based on the relationship of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.

It is typical for a classicist writer to have the same attitude towards tradition, towards established mask roles literary work, to familiar and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, representing the established collective experience of humanity (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerk Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, is not looking for new individual topics. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society - classified by “mind”, which has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. A satirical article, a comedy, a solemn speech of praise in a high style (in Fonvizin - “A word for Pavel’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to communicate to Russian literature the best achievements of world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin, since he understood and felt specific features Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.

Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; there is some hot stuff in this article political thought, the rise of political pathos; It also contains the hero’s track record, and there is also his civil glorification; but there is no person, personality, environment in it, and, in the end, no biography. This is a “life”, a diagram ideal life, not a saint, of course, but politician, as Fonvizin understood him. Fonvizin’s anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. Οʜᴎ are called ʼʼPurely heartfelt confession in my deeds and thoughts', but there is almost no disclosure of inner life in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with ʼʼConfession' of Rousseau, although he immediately characteristically contrasts his plan with the latter's plan. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, above all; individualistic self-revelation, brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book, is alien to him. The memoirs in his hands turn into a series of moralizing sketches such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760-1780s. At the same time, they give a picture of social life in its negative manifestations that is exceptional in its wealth of witty details, and this is their great merit. Fonvizin the classic's people are static. Brigadier, Advisor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early ʼʼNedoroslʼʼ), etc. - they are all given from the very beginning and do not develop during the movement of the work. In the first act of “The Brigadier,” in the exposition, the heroes themselves directly and unambiguously define all the traits of their character schemes, and in the future we see only comic combinations and collisions of the same traits, and these collisions do not affect the internal structure of each role. Further characteristic of Fonvizin is the verbal definition of masks. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerical speech of the Advisor, the petimetric speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhausts the description. After subtracting the speech characteristics, no other individual human traits remain. And they will all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and good, because the heroes of “The Brigadier” are still heroes classic comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate”, and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that his words be everywhere replete with witticisms” (“Poetic art”). It was a strong, powerful system artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and was superbly realized not only in “The Brigadier,” but also in Fonvizin’s satirical articles.

Fonvizin remains a classic in the genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin most often has no interest in the plot side of the work.

In a number of works by Fonvizin: in the early “Minor”, in “The Choice of a Tutor” and in “The Brigadier”, in the story “Kalisthenes” the plot is only a frame, more or less conventional. “The Brigadier,” for example, is structured as a series of comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushka and the Advisor, the Advisor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Advisor, and all these couples are contrasted not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane schematic contrast: a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in the comedy; “The Brigadier” is very reminiscent in terms of construction of Sumarokov’s farces with a gallery of comic characters.

At the same time, even the most convinced, most zealous classicist in Russian noble literature, Sumarokov, found it difficult, perhaps even impossible, not to see at all and not to depict specific features of reality, to remain only in the world created by reason and the laws of abstract art. To leave this world was obligated, first of all, by dissatisfaction with the real, real world. For the Russian noble classicist, the concrete individual reality of social reality, so different from the ideal norm, is evil; it invades, as a deviation from this norm, the world of the rationalistic ideal; it should not be framed in reasonable, abstract forms. But it exists, both Sumarokov and Fonvizin know this. Society lives an abnormal, “unreasonable” life. We have to reckon with this and fight against it. Positive phenomena in public life for both Sumarokov and Fonvizin they are normal and reasonable. Negative ones fall out of the scheme and appear in all their painful individuality for the classicist. Hence, in the satirical genres of Sumarokov in Russian classicism, the desire to show concretely real features of reality is born. However, in Russian classicism the reality of a specific fact of life arose as satirical theme, with a sign of a certain, condemning author's attitude.

Fonvizin’s position on this issue is more complicated. The intensity of the political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of reality, hostile to him, surrounding him on all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vigilance for life. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of an impact on life that is more acute than noble writers could do before him. ʼʼAt the court of the king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything... can the truth be freely expressed? ʼʼ - writes Fonvizin in the story ʼʼKalisthenʼʼ. And now the task before him is to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter is emerging, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism of the Western educational movement. Fonvizin draws closer to the bourgeois progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.

Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia, asks Fonvizin in “Friend” honest peopleʼʼ and answers that this does not come ʼfrom a lack of national talent, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ is capable of everything great, below from the lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for any expressionʼʼ, but from the lack of freedom, the lack of public life, the exclusion of citizens from participating in political life countries. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, a writer is a “guardian of the common good,” a “useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes a savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland.” In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of bourgeois radical thinkers in France. In 1764, he remade “Sydney” by Gresse into Russian, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of bourgeois literature of the 18th century. in France. In 1769 ᴦ. An English story, “Sidney and Scilly or Beneficence and Gratitude,” translated by Fonvizin from Arno, was published. This - sentimental piece, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with bourgeois French literature. The fight against reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in his literary work, Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.

2). Kheraskov ʼʼRossiyadaʼʼ

Mikhail Matveevich Kheraskov (1733-1807). The son of a Wallachian boyar who moved to Russia at the same time as Cantemir.

Kheraskov owns a number of major works, among which stands out heroic poem“Rossiyada” (1779).

M. M. Kheraskov, a poet highly valued by his contemporaries and almost half-forgotten by his descendants, entered Russian culture primarily as the author of large-scale epic poems on national heroic themes (in the 18th century, everyone set themselves the task of creating such works European literatures). In addition to such poems as "The Battle of Chesmes" and "Rossiada", Kheraskov owns a significant number lyric poems different genres, tragedy, comedy, drama, several stories and novels. The most complete collection of Kheraskov's works ("Creations" in 12 parts) was released at the end of the poet's life (1796-1803) and republished shortly after his death. Since then, Kheraskov has hardly been published.

Kheraskov worked on “Rossiyada” for 8 years. This work, grandiose in size, was the first completed example of a Russian epic poem, for which admiring contemporaries hastened to declare the author the “Russian Homer”.

Kheraskov’s best work is the epic poem “Rossiyada” (1779). It was preceded by another, smaller poem ʼʼ Chesme fightʼʼ, dedicated to the victory of the Russian fleet over the Turkish in 1770. in Chesme Bay.

Unlike "Tilemakhida", the plot of "Rossiyada" is not mythological, but truly historical - the conquest of the Kazan kingdom by Ivan the Terrible in 1552. Kheraskov considered this event to be the final deliverance of Rus' from Tatar yoke. Military actions against Kazan are conceptualized in the poem in several ways: as the struggle of the Russian people against their oppressors, as a dispute between Christianity and. Mohammedanism and, finally, as a duel between enlightened absolutism and Eastern despotism. Ivan the Terrible appears in the poem not as an autocratic ruler of the 16th century, but as a monarch, presented by the author in the spirit of educational ideas of the 18th century. Before starting the campaign, he meets with the boyar duma and listens to various opinions about his decision. An argument breaks out.
Posted on ref.rf
The crafty courtier Boyar Glinsky hypocritically advises the Tsar not to. risk your life. Kurbsky and Adashev give a decisive rebuff to Glinsky. Feeling the support of smart and honest associates, Grozny opens military actions. The rulers of Kazan appear in a completely different light. Ruling the Tatars despotically, they treated the enslaved peoples even more cruelly. “Kazan,” writes Kheraskov, “carries a sword with one hand, and a sounding chain with the other.”

In terms of genre, “Rossiyada” is a typical epic, heroic poem of the 18th century. The plot for it is an event of state and even national historical significance. The poem begins with the traditional phrase: “I sing Russia freed from the barbarians...” A large place in it is occupied by the description of battles, which are depicted either as a grandiose battle, or as a single combat between two warriors. The symmetry of the composition is achieved by constantly transferring the action either to the Russian or to the Tatar camp, headed by the Tatar queen Sumbek. Ivan IV and Sumbek are surrounded by nobles, military leaders, and clergy. The helpers of the Russians are angels, the Tatars are wizards and mythological monsters.

The heroism in each of the warring camps is depicted in contrast. For Russians, it is devoid of an egoistic principle and is entirely subordinated to a common, national purpose. In the Tatar camp, personal, selfish motives are woven into it: the struggle for power, love rivalry (for example, three knights in love with the Persian Ramida and sent by her father to help the Kazan people). Parallels with ancient examples are abundantly presented in the poem. The vengeful Sumbek is compared either to Medea or to Circe. Ivan the Terrible’s farewell to his wife is reminiscent of the scene of Hector’s separation from Andromache. Scene transferred from ʼʼAeneidʼ wonderful vision, revealing to the hero the future of his fatherland. In the sacred book, the Russian Tsar sees ʼʼ Time of Troublesʼʼ, and Minin and Pozharsky, and Peter I, and his successors, right up to Catherine II.

And yet, despite foreign sources, we have before us a work of Russian classicism, which has roots in national literature. Among the Russian sources ʼʼRossiyadyʼʼ the first place is ʼʼKazan Chroniclerʼʼ. The traditional image of the “mortal cup” is transferred from the military story to the poem. From historical song about Ivan the Terrible, the author took the scene of digging under the Kazan walls. Epic poems suggested the image of a fire-breathing serpent, personifying the Tatar camp. Ivan the Terrible and his associates resemble Prince Vladimir and his heroes. The literary glory of “Rossiyady” turned out to be short-lived. Greeted by the admiration of her contemporaries, she was already in early XIX V. was criticized and gradually lost its authority among readers.

The main events are the capture of Kazan. The idyllic relationship between the tsar and the boyars (before the oprichnina). The king is first among equals. Prince Kurbsky is the main character of the poem. The idea is that Orthodoxy triumphs over Mohammedanism. The fight with Turkey is taking place at this time. Volume – 10,000 verses (can be in excerpts). ʼʼRossiyadaʼʼ. Epic poem.

Ivan Vasilyevich II is attacked by the Tatar horde and the Kazan queen Sumbek. Alexander Tverskoy descends from heaven to the young king resting in sleep. The king is ashamed and calls Adashev to himself. Adashev and John go to Sergius at the Trinity Lavra to ask for a blessing. Convenes the elected Rada.

They talk about the brave deeds of their ancestors and ask for advice. Metropolitan Daniel blesses. Prince Kubinski is trying to ward off. Prince Glinsky (has power due to the Tsar’s minority) advises to abstain. Prince Kurbsky exhorts not to listen to the words of the treacherous nobleman. He is supported by Adashev and Khilkov. Prince Glinsky angrily leaves the Duma. He did not heed the queen’s prayer and ordered the army to take the path to Kolomna. Cavalry - Prince Pronsky archers - Paletsky guardsmen - Tsar. Metropolitan Daniel blesses.

The Tatars are scared. Sumbek - the widow of the last king Safgirey (fell in love with Osman - the Taurian prince) is going to choose the high priest of her husband Seit - Osman's enemy. The high priest foreshadows the dangers predicted by the spirits on the Kama banks (by the will of the queen). Warns the queen about the undesirability of marrying Osman (allegedly predicted by the shadow). The Kazan prince Sagrun and the knight Astolon are trying to win the love of Sumbeki. Osman loves another, is in chains. Sumbek asks the spirits, they are silent, and goes to the coffin of her husband.

Cemetery: Batu, Sartan, Mengu-Temir, Uzben, Nagai, Zanibek, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
Tomb of Safgirey. The appearance of the husband in the form of smoke. Advises you to marry the former Kazan king Alna, an ally of the Russians. Sees a phenomenon foreshadowing the kingdom of Christians. He asks to burn the tombs, which the queen does.

Alei goes to find out about the fortifications of Kazan, sees Sumbek in the forest, and falls in love. Sumbek makes him king and releases Osman. People and nobles are advancing on Alei. Sagrun weaves intrigues on the love of Sumbeki and Osman.

Kolomna. The fugitive Safgir says that Iskanor, the king of the Crimean and filthy hordes, is going to Russia (approaching Tula), on the advice of the teacher of the law Seit. A third of John’s army, led by Kurbsky, defeats Iskanar. Iskanar's wife kills herself and Seit. Kurbsky asks for rewards for wars.

From Kolomna the army is divided into two parts: Morozov - by sea, the Tsar - by land. The old man advises to postpone the campaign, but the cries and tears of the ruined people interfere. The king gives him a shield, the surface of which darkens when the soul leaves. In the Kazan region it suffers a lot from heat, hunger, lack of water and spirits. He advises timid warriors to return back. Warriors: “We are ready to die for the faith and for you.”

Dream. Dragon (misfortune in the form of Mohammed) – shield – serpent – Alei – desert elder. The book of the future is a temple.

The heat of the sun ceases. Everyone is looking for the king. He comes out of the forest with Aley. Annexation of Komoyts, Mordvins, etc. Sagrun advises killing Aley so that he will always remain in Kazan, and thus save it. Alei is running. Giray is thrown into chains. Astalon saves Giray from death. Astalon argues with Osman (betrothed spouse - Osman's death). Sumbeka wants to kill herself. Sagrun steals Astalon's sword. The horse is wounded, Astalon grabs Sagrun by the hair. The horse carries both of them into the river, both drown. Ambassadors in peace. The Kazan people agree to give three days to think and hand over the queen as collateral.

An angel appears to Sumbek in a dream (he initiated her suicide). Orders to go with Girey and his son to Sviyazhsk. Alei and Sumbek. The Kazan people elected Ediger as king and are preparing to fight back from the Russians. Persian Ramida is running. Paletsky is captured.

Instruments of Death - a girl with Alnorat Paletsky attacks Gidromir - Ramida's lover. Saves Paletsky - “Heroes are not executed”: wants to fight in Field Three Russian heroes against three followers of Ramida. Ships are wrecked. Hydromir defeats Mirsed and Brazil for Ramida. Ramida stabs Gidomir and herself for Mirsed. Kazan residents are in despair. Ramidin's father, the sorcerer Nigrin, reinforces them.

Nigrin on the dragon leads cold winter from Mount Caucasus. The banner is erected, the magical powers pass through. Another peace offering. Refusal. Victory for Russia. “I sing Russia liberated from the barbarians, I will trample the power of the Tatars and conquer pride.” “But no matter how hard the Russian Herakles fought, the heads of the evil hydra were constantly being born again.” Borey.

Innovation in Fonvizin's dramaturgy (Minor). - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Innovation of Fonvizin's dramaturgy (Minor)." 2017, 2018.

The comedy “The Minor” is recognized as the best work of the outstanding Russian playwright D. I. Fonvizin. In it, the writer truthfully depicted Russian feudal reality, exposed it, in the words of V. G. Belinsky, “as if to shame, in all its nakedness, in all its terrifying ugliness.”

The cruelty and arbitrariness of the landowners declare themselves in Fonvizin’s comedy “at the top of his voice.” Serf owners like Prostakova and Skotinin commit their lawlessness in full confidence in their own rightness. The local nobility completely forgot about honor, conscience, and civic duty. Landowners have a stupid disregard for culture and education, interpret laws based only on their own benefit, at their own discretion and understanding. And it is simply not possible for ignorant, illiterate serf owners to understand these laws: for example, in the Decree on the freedom of the nobility, Prostakova sees only confirmation of the right of a nobleman to flog his servant “whenever he wants.” The only thing that upsets her about her peasants is “injustice.” “Since we took away everything the peasants had, we can’t take anything back. Such a disaster! - Prostakova complains to her brother.

Trying to give brightness and persuasiveness to the images, Fonvizin reveals the features of their character not only with the help of depicting behavior, actions, outlook on life, but also with the help of well-aimed speech characteristics. The characters of the comedy, primarily negative ones, are endowed with a mark, deeply individualized speech, sharply distinguishing each of them from the other characters and emphasizing the main features, main shortcomings and vices of this or that person.

Everyone's speech characters in “Nedorosl” differs both in lexical composition and intonation. Creating your heroes, giving them bright linguistic features, Fonvizin makes extensive use of all the richness of living folk speech. He introduces numerous folk proverbs and sayings, widely uses common and swear words and expressions.

The most striking and expressive are the linguistic characteristics landed nobility. Reading the words spoken by these characters, it is simply impossible not to guess who they belong to. The speech of the characters is impossible to confuse, just as it is impossible to confuse the characters themselves with someone - they are such bright, colorful figures. So, Prostakova is a powerful, despotic, cruel, vile landowner. At the same time, she is incredibly hypocritical, capable of adapting to situations, changing her views solely for the purpose of her own benefit. This greedy, cunning lady actually turns out to be cowardly and helpless.

All of the above features of Prostakova are clearly illustrated by her speech - rude and angry, full of swear words, swearing and threats, emphasizing the despotism and ignorance of the landowner, her soulless attitude towards the peasants, whom she does not consider to be people, from whom she tears off “three skins” and He is indignant at this and reproaches them. “Five rubles a year and five slaps a day” is received from her by Eremeevna, Mitrofan’s faithful and devoted servant and nanny (“mother”), whom Prostakova calls “an old bastard”, “a nasty mug”, “a dog’s daughter”, “ beast", "canals". Prostakova is also outraged by the girl Palashka, who lies and raves, vabolev, “as if she were noble.” “Fraud”, “cattle”, “thief’s mug” - these words are brought down by Prostakov on the head of the serf Trishka, who sewed a “pretty good” caftan for the “child” Mitrofan. In this, Prostakova herself is confident that she is right; due to ignorance, she is simply not able to understand that peasants should be treated differently, that they are also people and deserve appropriate treatment. “I manage everything myself, father. From morning to evening, as if suspended by the tongue, I don’t report my hands: I scold, I fight; That’s how the house holds together, my father!” - the landowner confidentially informs the official Pravdin.

It is characteristic that the speech of this hypocritical lady is capable of completely changing its color in conversations with people on whom she depends: here her language acquires flattering, cunning intonations, she alternates the conversation with constant ingratiation and laudatory words. When meeting guests, Prostakova’s speech acquires a touch of secularism” (“I recommend you dear guest,” “You are welcome”), and in her humiliated lamentations, when after the failed abduction of Sophia she begs for forgiveness for herself, her speech is close to the people’s (“Oh, my priests ", the sword does not cut off a guilty head. My sin! Do not destroy me. (To Sophia.). You are my dear mother, forgive me. Have mercy on me (pointing to my husband and son) and on the poor orphans."

Prostakova’s speech also changes in those moments when she communicates with her son, Mitrofanushka: “Live forever, learn forever, my dear friend!”, “darling.” This despotic landowner loves her son and therefore addresses him affectionately, at times naively and even humiliatingly: “Don’t be stubborn, darling. Now it’s time to show yourself,” “Thanks to God, you already understand so much that you’ll raise the kids yourself.” But even in this case, Prostakova, whose maiden name was Sktinina, shows an animal nature: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” In her rough, often primitive speech, there are also apt proverbial expressions (“as if the tongue is punished”, “where there is anger, there is mercy”, “the sword does not cut off a guilty head”). But the main thing distinguishing feature Prostakova's speeches - frequent use vernacular (“pervoet”, “deushka”, “arihmeti-ka”, “child”, “sweat him and pamper”) and vulgarisms (“... and you, beast, were dumbfounded, and you didn’t bite your brother’s mug, but you didn’t tear his snout up to his ears...").

In the image of another landowner, Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin, everything speaks of his “animal” essence, starting with his last name and ending with the hero’s own confessions that he loves pigs more than people. It’s about people like this that even ten years before the appearance of “The Minor,” the poet A.P. Sumarokov said: “Oh, should cattle have people? “Skotinin is even more cruel in his treatment of serfs than his sister; he is a resourceful, calculating and cunning owner, who does not miss his benefit in anything and uses people solely for the purpose of profit. “If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. In this, sister, I have the same custom as you... and any loss... I will rip off from my own peasants, and so will the ends in the water.” The speech of landowners like Skotinin reveals confidence not only in their own rightness, but also in absolute permissiveness and impunity.

The speech of other negative characters also serves to reveal their socio-psychological essence; it is characteristic and quite individualized, although it is inferior to Prostakova’s language in diversity. Thus, Mitrofanushka’s father, Prostakov, in the scene of meeting Starodum introduces himself: “I am my wife’s husband,” thereby emphasizing his complete dependence on his wife, the absence own opinion, own life position. He has absolutely no independent meaning. Like his wife, he is ignorant, as evidenced by his illiterate speech. Downtrodden by his formidable wife, Prostakov enthusiastically speaks of his son: “this is a smart child, this is a reasonable child.” But we understand that there is no need to even talk about the mind of Mitrofanushka, who has absorbed all the ugly features of his parents. He is not even able to distinguish true words from outright mockery. So, reading the Church Slavonic text offered to him by his teacher, Kuteikin, Mitrofan reads: “I am a worm.” And after the teacher’s comment: “A worm, that is, an animal, a cattle,” he humbly says: “I am a cattle,” and repeats after Kuteikin: “And not a man.”

The language of Mitrofan’s teachers is just as bright and individualized: the soldier’s jargon in Tsyfirkin’s speech, Kuteikin’s quotes (often inappropriate) from the Holy Scriptures, the monstrous German accent of the former coachman Vralman. The peculiarities of their speech make it possible to accurately judge both the social environment from which these teachers came and cultural level those who are entrusted with the upbringing of Mitrofan. It is not surprising that Mitrofanushka remained a minor, having received neither useful knowledge nor a decent upbringing during his studies.

The main words of the positive characters are “rubbish”, book turns. Starodum often uses aphorisms (“it is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”, “arrogance in a woman is a sign of vicious behavior”, etc.) and archaisms. Researchers also note direct “borrowings” in Starodum’s speech from the prose works of Fonvizin himself, and this is quite natural, because it is Starodum who expresses in comedy author's position. Pravdin is characterized by clericalism, and in the language of the young people Milon and Sophia there are sentimental expressions (“the secret of my heart”, “the mystery of my soul”, “touches my heart”).

Speaking about the peculiarities of the language of Fonvizin’s heroes, one cannot fail to mention the maid and nanny Mitrofan Eremeevna. This is a bright individual character, determined by certain social and historical circumstances. By belonging to the lower class, Eremeevna is illiterate, but her speech is deeply folk, having absorbed the best features of the simple Russian language - sincere, open, figurative. In her sorrowful statements, the humiliated position of the servant in the Prostakovs’ house is especially clearly felt. “I’ve been serving for forty years, but the mercy is still the same...” she complains. “...Five rubles a year and five slaps a day.” However, despite such injustice, she remains faithful and devoted to her masters.

The speech of each comedy hero is unique. This particularly clearly demonstrated the amazing skill of the satirical writer. Wealth linguistic means, used in the comedy “The Minor,” suggests that Fonvizin had an excellent command of the dictionary of folk speech and was well acquainted with folk art. This helped him, according to the rightful assertion of the critic P. N. Berkov, to create truthful, life-like images.

Among the Russian writers who had a special gift for seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. And readers still feel the full extent of his wit, continuing to repeat the expressions: “Everything is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know,” “No I want to study, I want to get married” and others. But it is not so easy to see that Fonvizin’s witticisms were born not of a cheerful disposition, but of the deepest sadness due to the imperfection of man and society.

Fonvizin entered literature as one of the successors of Kantemir and Sumarokov. He was brought up in the belief that the nobility, to which he himself belonged, should be educated, humane, constantly concerned about the interests of the fatherland, and that the royal government should promote worthy nobles to high positions for the common benefit. But among the nobles he saw cruel ignoramuses, and at court - “nobles in the case” (to put it simply, the empress’s lovers) who ruled the state according to their whim.

From a long historical distance it is clear that the Fonvizin time, like any other, was neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad. But in Fonvizin’s eyes, evil overshadowed good. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. For a long time, the surname Fonvizin was written in the German manner: “Von Vizin,” and during his lifetime, sometimes even “von Wiesen.” The current form was one of the first to be used by Pushkin with the following comment: “What kind of infidel is he? He is Russian, a pre-Russian Russian.” The spelling “Fonvizin” was finally established only after 1917.

Family of Fonvizins German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He didn't live with royal court in St. Petersburg, and in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel wrote some good poetry in his youth and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement.”

Education future writer received quite a thorough education, although later in his memoirs he described his gymnasium at Moscow University unflatteringly. Nevertheless, he noted that he learned European languages and Latin there, “and most of all... gained a taste for verbal science.”

While still at the gymnasium, Fonvizin translated from German one hundred and eighty-three fables by the once famous children's writer L. Golberg, to which he then added forty-two more. He translated a lot later - the translations amount to most all his works.

In 1762, Fonvizin became a student at Moscow University, but soon left it, moved to St. Petersburg and entered the service. Around the same time, his satirical poems began to circulate. Of these, two were later published and have come down to us: the fable “Fox-Koznodey” (preacher) and “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka.” Fonvizin's fable is a vicious satire on court flatterers, and "The Message" is a wonderful work, rather unusual for its time.

Fonvizin addresses the most important philosophical question: “Why was this light created?” illiterate people of that time; It is immediately clear that they will not be able to answer it. This is what happens. Honest uncle Shumilov admits that he is not ready to judge such complex things:

I know that we must be servants forever

And we will work forever with our hands and feet.

The coachman Vanka exposes the general deception and in conclusion says:

Everyone understands that this world is bad,

But no one knows why it exists.

Lackey Petrushka is frank in his desire to live for his own pleasure:

The whole world, it seems to me, is a child's toy;

Just need to, believe me, find out

How best to play with that toy, tenacious.

The servants, and with them the reader, are waiting for a reasonable answer from an educated author. But he only says:

And you, my friends, listen to my answer: “And I myself do not know why this light was created!”

This means that the author has nothing to oppose to the opinion of the servants, although he himself does not share it. An enlightened nobleman knows no more about the meaning of life than a lackey. “Epistle to the Servants” sharply breaks out of the framework of the poetics of classicism, according to which it was required that the work clearly prove some very definite idea. The meaning of Fonvizin’s work is open to different interpretations.

Having moved to St. Petersburg, Fonvizin began composing comedies - the genre in which he became most famous. In 1764, he wrote the poetic comedy “Corion”, adapted from the sentimental drama “Sydney” by the French writer L. Gresset. Around the same time, an early edition of “Minor” was written, which remained unpublished. At the end of the sixties, the comedy “Brigadier” was created and was a huge success, playing important role in the fate of Fonvizin himself.

Having heard “The Brigadier” performed by the author (Fonvizin was a wonderful reader), Count Nikita Ivanovich Panin noticed the writer. At this time he was the tutor of the heir to the throne, Paul, and a senior member of the board (in fact, minister) of foreign affairs. As a teacher, Panin developed an entire political program for his ward - essentially, a draft of the Russian constitution. Fonvizin became Panin's personal secretary. They became as close friends as possible between a nobleman and his subordinate.

The young writer found himself at the center of court intrigue and, at the same time, the most serious politics. He took a direct part in the constitutional plans of the Earl. Together they created a kind of “political testament” of Panin, written shortly before his death - “Discourse on the indispensable state laws" Most likely, Panin owns the main ideas of this work, and Fonvizin owns their design. In the "Discourse", full of formulations remarkable in wit, it is proved, first of all, that the sovereign does not have the right to rule the country according to his own arbitrariness. Without strong laws, Fonvizin believes, “heads are engaged in nothing but thinking about the means to get rich; those who can rob, those who cannot, steal.”

This is exactly the picture Fonvizin saw in Russia at that time. But France, where the writer traveled in 1777-1778 (partly for treatment, partly on some diplomatic assignments), turned out to be no better. He expressed his joyless impressions in letters to his sister and to Field Marshal Pyotr Panin, Nikita Ivanovich’s brother. Here are some excerpts from these letters, which Fonvizin was even going to publish: “Money is the first deity of this land. The corruption of morals has reached such an extent that a vile act is no longer punished with contempt...”, “It’s rare that I meet someone in whom I would be inconspicuous.” one of two extremes: either slavery or insolence of reason.”

Much in Fonvizin’s letters seems to be simply the grumbling of a spoiled master. But in general, the picture he painted is scary precisely because it is true. He saw the state of society, which twelve years later was resolved by revolution.

During his years of service as a secretary, Fonvizin had almost no time left for literature. It appeared in the late seventies, when Panin was already ill and was in undeclared disgrace. Fonvizin, in 1781, completed his best work - the comedy “The Minor”. The displeasure of high authorities delayed its production for several months.

In May 1782, after Panin's death, Fonvizin had to resign. In October of the same year, the premiere of “The Minor” finally took place - the greatest success in the author’s life. Some delighted spectators threw full wallets onto the stage - in those days a sign of the highest approval.

In retirement, Fonvizin devoted himself entirely to literature. He was a member of the Russian Academy, which united the best Russian writers. The Academy worked to create a dictionary of the Russian language; Fonvizin took upon himself the compilation of a dictionary of synonyms, which he, literally translating the word “synonym” from Greek, called “estates”. His “Experience of a Russian Estatesman” was a very serious linguistic work for its time, and not just a screen for satire on Catherine’s court and the Empress’s methods of governing the state (this is how this work is often interpreted). True, Fonvizin tried to come up with sharper examples for his “classes”: “Deception (promising and not doing. - Ed.) is the art of great boyars,” “A madman is very dangerous when in power,” and the like.

“Experience” was published in the literary magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word,” published at the Academy. In it, Catherine II herself published a series of morally descriptive essays, “Things and Fables.” Fonvizin published in the magazine (without a signature) bold, even daring “Questions to the author of “Facts and Fables,” and the Empress answered them. In the answers, irritation was barely contained. True, at that moment the queen did not know the name of the author of the questions, but soon, apparently, she found out.

Since then, Fonvizin’s works began to be banned one after another. In 1789, Fonvizin did not receive permission to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum.” The writer’s articles, already prepared for him, first saw the light only in 1830. The announced publication of his collected works was twice disrupted. During his lifetime he managed to publish only one new work - detailed biography Panina.

All Fonvizin’s hopes were in vain. None of the previous political plans were implemented. The state of society only became worse over time,

And now the banned writer could not enlighten him. In addition, Fonvizin suffered from a terrible illness. The man, who was not at all old even at that time, turned into a decrepit wreck: half of his body was paralyzed. To add insult to injury, by the end of the writer’s life, almost nothing was left of his considerable wealth.

From a young age, Fonvizin was a freethinker. Now he became religious, but this did not save him from despair. He began writing memoirs entitled " Sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts", in which he intended to repent of the sins of his youth. But he hardly writes about his inner life there, but again strays into satire, evilly depicting Moscow life in the early sixties of the 18th century. Fonvizin also managed to finish the comedy "The Tutor's Choice ", which has not survived completely. The play seems rather boring, but the poet I. I. Dmitriev, who heard the author read the comedy out loud, recalls that he was able to convey the characters of the characters with extraordinary vividness. The day after this reading, December 1, 1792 year, Fonvizin died.

Speaking about the historical and literary significance of Fonvizin, we should especially emphasize the large role he played in the development of the literary language. It is not without reason that Batyushkov associates the “education” of our prose with him. In this regard great importance have not only Fonvizin’s comedies, but also the beginning of his confessional memoirs “A sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts” and even his private letters from abroad, the language of which is distinguished by remarkable clarity, conciseness and simplicity, significantly ahead in this regard even of “Letters Russian traveler" Karamzin.

The Fonvizin family is of German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He lived not at the royal court in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel wrote some good poetry in his youth and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement.”

The future writer received a fairly thorough education, although later in his memoirs he described his gymnasium at Moscow University unflatteringly. Nevertheless, he noted that he learned European languages and Latin there, “and most of all... gained a taste for verbal science.”

I know that we must be servants forever

And we will work forever with our hands and feet.

The coachman Vanka exposes the general deception and in conclusion says:

Everyone understands that this world is bad,

But no one knows why it exists.

Lackey Petrushka is frank in his desire to live for his own pleasure:

The whole world, it seems to me, is a child's toy;

Just need to, believe me, find out

How best to play with that toy, tenacious.

The servants, and with them the reader, are waiting for a reasonable answer from an educated author. But he only says:

And you, my friends, listen to my answer: “And I myself do not know why this light was created!”

Having moved to St. Petersburg, Fonvizin began composing comedies - the genre in which he became most famous. In 1764, he wrote the poetic comedy “Corion”, adapted from the sentimental drama “Sydney” by the French writer L. Gresset. Around the same time, an early edition of “Minor” was written, which remained unpublished. At the end of the sixties, the comedy “Brigadier” was created and was a huge success, which played an important role in the fate of Fonvizin himself.

The young writer found himself at the center of court intrigue and, at the same time, the most serious politics. He took a direct part in the constitutional plans of the Earl. Together they created a kind of “political testament” of Panin, written shortly before his death - “Discourse on the indispensable state laws.” Most likely, Panin owns the main ideas of this work, and Fonvizin owns their design. In the "Discourse", full of formulations remarkable in wit, it is proved, first of all, that the sovereign does not have the right to rule the country according to his own arbitrariness. Without strong laws, Fonvizin believes, “heads are engaged in nothing but thinking about the means to get rich; those who can rob, those who cannot, steal.”

Since then, Fonvizin’s works began to be banned one after another. In 1789, Fonvizin did not receive permission to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum.” The writer’s articles, already prepared for him, first saw the light only in 1830. The announced publication of his collected works was twice disrupted. During his lifetime, he managed to publish only one new work - a detailed biography of Panin.

All Fonvizin’s hopes were in vain. None of the previous political plans were implemented. The state of society only became worse over time,

From a young age, Fonvizin was a freethinker. Now he became religious, but this did not save him from despair. He began to write memoirs entitled “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts,” in which he intended to repent of the sins of his youth. But he hardly writes about his inner life there, but again veers into satire, evilly depicting Moscow life in the early sixties of the 18th century. Fonvizin still managed to finish writing the comedy “The Tutor’s Choice,” which has not been completely preserved. The play seems rather boring, but the poet I. I. Dmitriev, who heard the author read the comedy out loud, recalls that he was able to convey the characters of the characters with extraordinary vividness. The day after this reading, December 1, 1792, Fonvizin died.

Speaking about the historical and literary significance of Fonvizin, we should especially emphasize the large role he played in the development of the literary language. It is not without reason that Batyushkov associates the “education” of our prose with him. In this regard, not only Fonvizin’s comedies are of great importance, but also the beginning of his confessional memoirs “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts” and even his private letters from abroad, the language of which is distinguished by remarkable clarity, conciseness and simplicity, significantly ahead of in this regard, even “Letters of a Russian Traveler” by Karamzin.