Fonvizin Denis Ivanovich. Essay “Satirical skill D

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 all Russian social life and advanced social thought. Accordingly, the artistic and satirical coverage of reality by writers expanded. The most pressing problems of our time came to the fore - the fight against serfdom, against autocracy.

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

Fonvizin became involved in the literary life of Russia at a time when Catherine II encouraged interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment: at first she flirted with the French enlighteners - Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert. But very soon not a trace remained of Catherine's liberalism. By the will of circumstances Fonvizin found himself in the thick of the internal political struggle that flared up at court.In this struggle, gifted with brilliant creative abilities and keen observation, Fonvizin took the place of a satirical writer, exposing 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 the history of national literature as the author of the famous comedy "The Minor". But he was also a talented prose writer. The gift of a satirist was combined in him with the temperament of a born publicist. Empress Catherine II feared the flagellating sarcasm of Fonvizin's satire. Fonvizin’s unsurpassed artistic skill was noted in his time by Pushkin. It still affects us today.

Comedies by D. I. Fonvizin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding the forms of national life

In the comedy "Brigadier"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 in letters to his sister and letters to Panin, and does not take into account the general development of the 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 writer’s already formed style and a new strategy of 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” linguistic 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. 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 various narrative options on a common conversational basis. 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. 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: an 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, 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 overwhelming majority of the colloquial words and expressions used by Fonvizin in “Letters from France” have found a permanent place in the literary language, and with one or another special stylistic “task”, and often simply along with the “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 a great job of introducing 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, disinterested aspirations were too impractical, promised too little significant benefit before the court of the empress for her to encourage them. And she considered it best not to pay attention to him, having previously shown him that the path he was following would not lead to anything good...” says N. A. Dobrolyubov.

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

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

The author of the famous comedies “The Minor”, “The Brigadier”, which still do not leave the theater stage, and many other satirical works. According to his convictions, Fonvizin aligned himself with the educational movement, so noble evil was the leading theme of his drama. Fonvizin managed to create a vivid and surprisingly true picture of the moral degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century and sharply condemned the reign of Catherine P. The role of the writer as a playwright and author of satirical essays is enormous.

Fonvizin’s special Russian style of humor, the special Russian bitterness of laughter, sounding in his works and born of the socio-political conditions of feudal Russia, were understandable and dear to those who traced their literary ancestry to the author of “The Minor.” A. I. Herzen, a passionate and tireless fighter against autocracy and serfdom, believed that Fonvizin’s laughter “resonated far and woke up a whole phalanx of great mockers.”

A feature of Fonvizin’s work is the organic combination in most of his works of satirical wit with a socio-political orientation. Fonvizin's strength lies in his literary and civic honesty and directness. He courageously and directly spoke out against social injustice, ignorance and prejudices of his class and his era, exposed the landowners and autocratic bureaucratic tyranny.

Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” is directed against “those moral ignoramuses who, having their full power over people, use it for evil inhumanely.” From the first to the last days of the scene, this comedy is structured in such a way that it is clear to the viewer or reader: unlimited power over the peasants is a source of parasitism, a tyrant

And, abnormal relationships in the family, moral ugliness, ugly upbringing and ignorance. Little Mitrofanushka does not need to study or prepare himself for public service, because he has hundreds of serfs who will provide him with a well-fed life. This is how his grandfather lived, this is how his parents live, so why shouldn’t he spend his life in idleness and pleasure?

Without doubting the power of laughter, Fonvizin turned it into a formidable weapon. But he also introduced the features of the “serious genre” into the comedy “The Minor”, introducing the images of “carriers of virtue”: Starodum and Pravdin. He also complicated the traditional positive images of lovers - Sophia and Milo. They are entrusted with the thoughts and feelings of the playwright himself and people close to him. They talk about what is dear to the author himself: the need to instill in a person from childhood a sense of duty, love of the fatherland, honesty, truthfulness, self-esteem, respect for people, contempt for baseness, flattery, and inhumanity.

The playwright managed to outline all the essential aspects of life and morals of the feudal-serf society of the second half of the 18th century. He created expressive portraits of representatives of the serf owners, contrasting them, on the one hand, with the progressive nobility, and on the other, with representatives of the people.

Trying to give brightness and persuasiveness to the characters, Fonvizin endowed his heroes, especially the negative ones, with an individualized language. The characters in “Nedorosl” each speak in their own way; their speech is different both in lexical composition and intonation. Such a careful selection of linguistic means for each of the characters helps the author to reveal their appearance more fully and reliably. Fonvizin makes extensive use of the richness of the living folk language. Proverbs and sayings that are used in the play give its language a special simplicity and expressiveness: “Every guilt is to blame”, “Live forever, learn forever”, “Guilty without guilt”, “Good luck”, “Ends in the water”, etc. The author also uses colloquial and even swear words and expressions, particles and adverbs: “until tomorrow”, “uncle”, “first”, “whatever”, etc.

The richness of the linguistic means of the comedy “The Minor” suggests that Fonvizin had an excellent command of the dictionary of folk speech and was well acquainted with folk art.

Thus, the distinctive features of the comedy “The Minor” are the relevance of the topic and the denunciation of serfdom. The realism of the created picture of life and customs of the depicted era and the lively spoken language. In terms of the sharpness of its satirical teaching of the serfdom system, this comedy is rightfully considered

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

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

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

By the will of circumstances, Fonvizin found himself in the thick of the internal political struggle that flared up at court. In this struggle, Fonvizin, gifted with brilliant creative abilities and keen observation, took the place of a satirical writer who denounced 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.

N. I. Novikov with his satirical magazines “Drone” and “Painter”, Fonvizin with his journalistic speeches and the immortal “Nedorosl” and, finally, A. N. Radishchev with the famous “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” - these are the milestones in the formation of the tradition the most radical line of the Russian noble Enlightenment, and it is no coincidence that each of the three outstanding writers of the era was persecuted by the government. In the activities of these writers, the prerequisites for that first wave of the anti-autocratic liberation movement, which was later called the stage in the development of noble revolutionary thought, matured.

Need to download an essay? Click and save - » Example of an essay: The satirical skill of D. I. Fonvizin. And the finished essay appeared in my bookmarks.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the most prominent literary figures of the 18th century. His love for theater began in his youth, and the talent of the future playwright was noticed by his high school teachers. Over time, Fonvizin’s educational views deepened, and his desire to intervene with his works in the very thick of events in Russian public life grew stronger. Fonvizin is rightfully considered the creator of Russian socio-political comedy. His famous play “The Minor” turned the Prostakovs’ estate into a center of vices, “the evil of worthy fruits,” which the playwright denounces with his characteristic slander, sarcasm, and irony.
“Minor” is a multi-themed work. Here questions are raised about the unwavering fulfillment of “duty” by every citizen, about the nature of family relationships in the author’s contemporary Russia, about the system of upbringing and education. But the main ones, undoubtedly, are the problems of serfdom and state power.
In the very first act we find ourselves in an atmosphere of landowner tyranny. Trishka sewed Mitrofan’s caftan “pretty well,” but this does not save him from scolding and flogging. The old nanny Mitrofana Eremeevna is immensely devoted to her masters, but receives from them “five rubles a year and five slaps a day.” Prostakova is outraged by the fact that the serf girl Palashka, having fallen ill, lies there “as if she were noble.” The arbitrariness of the landowners led to the complete impoverishment of the peasants. “Since we took away everything the peasants had, we can’t take anything back. Such a disaster!” - Prostakova complains. But the landowners know for sure that they are protected by the entire system of state power. It was the social structure of Russia that allowed the Prostakovs and Skotinins to dispose of their estates in their own way.
Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin emphasizes the “bestial” essence of Prostakova and her brother. Even Vralman thinks that, living with the Prostakovs, he is “a fairy with horses.” Mitrofan will be no better. The author does not simply expose his “knowledge” in the sciences and his reluctance to learn to ridicule. Fonvizin sees that the same cruel serf owner lives inside him.
A huge influence on the formation of people like Mitrofan, according to the author, is exerted not only by the general situation in noble estates, but also by the adopted system of education and upbringing. The education of young nobles was carried out by ignorant foreigners. What could Mitrofan learn from the coachman Vralman? Could such nobles become the backbone of the state?
The group of positive heroes in the play is represented by the images of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia. For a writer of the era of classicism, it was extremely important not only to show social vices, but also to identify the ideal to which one should strive. On the one hand, Fonvizin denounces the state order, on the other, the author gives a kind of instruction on what a ruler and society should be. Starodum expounds the patriotic views of the best part of the nobility and expresses topical political thoughts. By introducing into the play the scene of Prostakova’s deprivation of her master’s rights, Fonvizin suggests to the audience and the government one of the possible ways to suppress the arbitrariness of the landowners. Let us note that this step of the writer was met with disapproval by Catherine II, who directly made the writer feel this. The Empress could not help but see in the comedy “The Minor” a sharp satire on the most terrible vices of the empire.
Fonvizin’s sarcasm was also reflected in the work entitled “General Court Grammar,” compiled in the form of a textbook. The writer gives apt descriptions of court morals and reveals the vices of representatives of the upper class. Calling his grammar “universal,” Fonvizin emphasized that these features are characteristic of monarchical rule in general. He calls the courtiers flatterers, sycophants, and scoundrels. The satirist divides people living at court into “vowels,” “voiceless,” and “semi-vowels,” and considers the verb “to owe” to be the most common, although debts are not paid at court.
Catherine never saw submission from Fonvizin, and therefore his works soon ceased to appear in print. But Russia knew them because they were on the lists. And the satirist entered the consciousness of his generation as a bold exposer of the vices of society. It is not for nothing that Pushkin called him a “friend of freedom,” and Herzen put the comedy “The Minor” on a par with Gogol’s “Dead Souls.”

(No ratings yet)

Other writings:

(based on the work of D.I. Fonvizin) Magic land! There, in the old days, the brave ruler of Satire, Fonvizin, friend of freedom, shone. A. S. Pushkin The brave master of satire, a writer of great talent, an artist merciless in his truth, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was the founder of Russian realism. “They Read More......
Magic speck! din in old age. Satires of a brave ruler. Fonvizin, a friend of freedom, shone... A. Pushkin Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born in Moscow into a noble family. He studied at the gymnasium at Moscow University, and then at the Faculty of Philosophy of the same university. Entered Read More......
Magic land! there in the old days, Satire was a brave ruler, Fonvizin, a friend of freedom, shone... A. Pushkin The eighteenth century in the history of Russian literature left many wonderful names. But if it were necessary to name a writer, in whose works the depth of comprehension of the morals of his era was Read More......
I want to tell you how the outstanding comedy writer Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born and raised. The future playwright was born in one thousand seven hundred and forty-five in the family of a poor nobleman. Having successfully completed high school, Fonvizin entered the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow University; without completing the course, the future writer Read More ......
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is a famous Russian satirist. He wrote the comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor.” The comedy “The Minor” was written in the era of the autocratic-serf system. In it, Fonvizin denounces the system of noble upbringing and education. He creates typical images of feudal landowners, narcissistic and ignorant. The writer is worried about Read More......
Korovin V.L. 1745-1762: Moscow University The Fonvizin family went back to the Livonian knights: in the 16th century, under Ivan the Terrible, the sword-bearing knight von Vizin was captured and began to serve the Russian Tsar. The playwright’s father, Ivan Andreevich, “was a virtuous man and a true Christian, he loved Read More ......
Mitrofanushka Characteristics of the literary hero Mitrofanushka (Prostakov Mitrofan) is the son of the landowners Prostakovs. He is considered a minor because he is 16 years old and has not reached the age of majority. Following the tsar's decree, Mitrofanushka studies. But he does this with great reluctance. He is characterized by stupidity, ignorance and Read More......
Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; this article contains a hot political thought, a rise in political pathos; Read More......

“Friend of Freedom”, “Satires of the Brave Lord” Fonvizin

Fonvizin is widely known as the author of the comedy “The Minor”, as a brave and brilliant satirist. But the creator of “The Minor” was not only a major and talented playwright of the 18th century. He is one of the founders of Russian prose, a wonderful political writer, a truly great Russian educator, who fearlessly fought against the autocracy of Catherine II for a quarter of a century.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born in Moscow on April 14 (April 3, O.S.), 1745, and was the successor of a knightly family that was of Livonian origin and finally Russified. Denis received his primary education thanks to his father, who held an official position in the audit board; At home, a patriarchal atmosphere reigned.

Education was continued at the gymnasium at Moscow University, and then at the University itself: Fonvizin during 1759-1762. was a student at the Philosophical University. From 1756 to 1759 he was a member of the troupe of the amateur university theater of M. Kheraskov, and later he played in the professional Public Theater. During his student days, Fonvizin made his debut in the literary field - with translation work. He took up this closely upon his arrival in St. Petersburg in 1760: Fonvizin and his brother arrived in the capital as one of the best high school students.

Fulfilling an order from one of the booksellers, Fonvizin in 1761 translated into Russian the fables of Ludwig Holberg, who wrote in German. In total, he translated more than 200 fables, a novel by the Frenchman Terrason, Voltaire’s tragedy, Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”, etc. Fonvizin considered J.-J. to be his favorite writer. Rousseau. In parallel with his translation work, he began to write essays of a satirical nature.

After graduating from the university, D.I. Fonvizin became a translator in a foreign collegium, and from 1763 he was transferred to the service of the State Councilor of the Palace Chancellery I.P. Elagin. By the way, this appointment was facilitated by his pursuit of literature: his translation of Voltaire’s tragedy did not go unnoticed. While working under Elagin, Fonvizin did not give up his translation activities. Having become close to Kozlovsky’s literary circle, he created his debut independent work - “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka”; in 1764 his first comedy play, Corion, appeared. During 1766-1769. The comedy “The Brigadier” was written and published in 1786. She marked the beginning of the comedy of manners genre, because... The overwhelming majority of Russian authors created comedies of characters.

The biography period from 1769 to 1782 was associated with the service of Count N.I. Panina; Fonvizin worked as his secretary, and later became his confidant. While in this position, he found himself in the world of big politics and behind-the-scenes games. In 1777, Fonvizin left Russia, lived for quite a long time in France, where he tried to delve into the processes taking place in this state, while simultaneously thinking about the fate of his homeland, trying to see a path that would allow him to take socio-political life to a new level.

In 1782, Fonvizin had to resign due to the fact that Count Panin fell into disgrace. Based on his ideas, Fonvizin wrote “Discourse on Indispensable State Laws” (1782-1783). This work was intended for the count's pupil, who in the future was to become Emperor Paul, and is considered one of the best works of national journalism.

The peak of Denis Ivanovich’s creative achievements was the comedy “The Minor,” written in 1882 and published in 1883, which, like “The Brigadier,” caused a huge public outcry. Belinsky at one time noted that Russian comedy began only with Fonvizin, and his plays are one of the “remarkable phenomena” in the history of Russian literature.

After leaving public service, Fonvizin devoted himself to literature, although his health left much to be desired (the writer had partial paralysis). Catherine the Second in many ways prevented the implementation of his creative plans, in particular, by imposing a ban on the publication of the magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum,” a collection of works in 5 volumes. During this period of creative activity, he created several dramatic works, magazine articles and an autobiography (remained unfinished). In 1784 and 1785, Fonvizin went to Italy for treatment, and in 1787 he recovered his noticeably deteriorating health in Vienna. The Fonvizin couple also experienced financial difficulties at this time. Literature classes were actually curtailed. The writer died on December 12, 1792.

In "The Brigadier" Fonvizin laughs cheerfully at the ugliness of life. Sometimes we smile when we see Frenchmania or the idiotically meaningless life of a slacker. But in most cases, Ivanushka’s behavior and speech cause indignation and indignation. When he, a “fool” in the words of his father, declares: “I owe... the French coachman for my love for France and for my coldness towards the Russians,” or: “my body was born in Russia, this is true, but my spirit belongs to the French crown ", or: "I am a very unhappy person. I’ve been living for twenty-five years and still have a father and a mother,” or when he engages in dirty, loving courtship of someone else’s wife, not a smile, but anger arises in the soul of the viewer and reader. And this is the merit of the playwright - the image of Ivan is constructed in a sharply satirical and accusatory manner. The Ivans - the young generation of Russian serf-owning nobles - are the enemies of Fonvizin.

Fonvizin's social experience helped deepen the characterization of other characters. The writer was not interested in demonstrating abstract vices, understood as deviations from ideal norms of human behavior, but in revealing real practice, the living everyday life of ordinary representatives of the “noble class”. Both the foreman and the adviser are landowners. The housekeeping in the foreman's house is run by his wife. Stupid and ignorant, she controls both the courtyard and village serfs. The advisor keeps everything in his hands. Both are stingy, domineering and greedy for money. Behind the external decency lies the predatory appearance of the owners, ready to gnaw each other's throats.

Both the foreman and the adviser served in the past. The brigadier, having served for decades, finally reached a more or less significant rank and immediately retired. The only purpose of service was self-interest. Having received the rank, he never tires of boasting in front of his wife, adviser, and son. A military man called upon to defend his fatherland, he never remembers a single campaign where he distinguished himself, where he really showed that he served the fatherland, and not his own self-interest. From the foreman there is a direct lineage to Skalozub, a colonel who deftly carries out his “parquet” career.

The adviser is related to Famusov. A noble official, a bribe-taker, an insolent person, a hypocrite, he, without shame, admits that the purpose of his service was acquisition and personal enrichment. “God blessed me with wealth, which I acquired by virtue of decrees.” In a conversation with his daughter, the adviser openly declares that the meaning of the royal service is profit. “I myself have been a judge: the guilty used to pay for his guilt, and the right - for his truth, and so in my time everyone was happy: the judge, the plaintiff, and the defendant.”

The action in "The Brigadier" takes place mainly in the camp of those exposed. They are all connected by a love story. But their love is “ridiculous, shameful and brings dishonor to them.” The adviser and the foreman, Ivanushka and the adviser have long lost their human appearance, the sense of personality has been erased from them by animal egoism and bestial complacency. They are not capable of true human feeling, in particular love.

The true nobles in the comedy are Dobrolyubov and Sophia. They are distinguished by intelligence, education, humanity, love for the fatherland, respect for their native culture, language, high morality, and consciousness of their duty. In this respect, they were close to the noble heroes of high tragedy. They appeared before the audience not just as lovers and suffering from the evil of others, but as people concerned about the fate of their class.

“The Brigadier” is a comedy, and the first comedy is truly Russian, and the first comedy is truly funny. Pushkin valued gaiety very highly and extremely regretted that there were so few truly cheerful works in Russian literature. That is why he lovingly noted this feature of Fonvizin’s talent, pointing out the direct continuity of the dramaturgy of Fonvizin and Gogol. Pushkin’s comparison of Gogol and Fonvizin is not accidental. Gogol, the creator of Russian realistic comedy, is closely associated with Fonvizin. Fonvizin began what Gogol completed. In particular, Fonvizin was the first to take a decisive step towards realism and in the comic field. “The Brigadier” was written during the heyday of Russian noble classicism.

At the center of the play is the problem of education. Education, according to Fonvizin, is the remedy that can cure all social ills, therefore it is the education of a true nobleman that is the primary problem of our time.

In relation to dramatic composition, Fonvizin follows in the five-act “Brigadier” the principles that Sumarokov had previously used for his small (no more than three acts) comedies. In The Brigadier there is no single plot movement that covers all the positions of the play and through them all its characters. It breaks up into a number of episodes more or less independent from each other. The love affair of the virtuous heroes, which should seem to connect these episodes, fades into the background and only occasionally emerges in the comedy. In this regard, in “The Brigadier”, in fact, there are no main, central characters (Dobrolyubov and Sophia play too small a role in the play). Groups of characters pass before the viewer, each with its own limited plot core; each of them carries its own "dramatic interest". This is how the plan for this comedy was created, where one pair of lovers is followed by another, and all the threads of these novels are pulled together only in the final scenes, which bring out the love affairs of all the characters. This is a comedy technique in which almost all scenes are a departure from the almost fictitious main intrigue, elevating comic situations to an end in themselves.

Comedy by D.I. Fonvizin “The Minor.” Development of the main social conflict and composition. Techniques of satirical ridicule of social vices and the creation of image-types by Fonvizin. Positive characters of "Minor" and their role in the comedy.

Second half of the 18th century. - the heyday of theatrical classicism in Russia. It is the comedy genre that is becoming the most important and widespread in stage and dramatic art. The best comedies of this time are part of social and literary life, are associated with satire and often have a political orientation. The popularity of comedy lay in its direct connection with life. “The Minor” was created within the framework of the rules of classicism: the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, the rule of three unities in composition, “speaking names.” However, realistic features are also visible in the comedy: the authenticity of the images, the depiction of noble life and social relations.

The famous creativity researcher D.I. Fonvizina G.A. Gukovsky believed that “in Nedorosl two literary styles are fighting among themselves, and classicism is defeated. Classical rules prohibited mixing sad, funny and serious motives. “In Fonvizin’s comedy there are elements of drama, there are motives that were supposed to touch and touch the viewer. In “The Minor,” Fonvizin not only laughs at vices, but also glorifies virtue. “The Minor” is half-comedy, half-drama. In this regard, Fonvizin, breaking the tradition of classicism, took advantage of the lessons of the new bourgeois drama of the West.” (G.A. Gukovsky. Russian literature of the 18th century. M., 1939).

By making both negative and positive characters life-like, Fonvizin managed to create a new type of realistic comedy.

The accusatory pathos of the content of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. These are satire and journalism. Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. Starodum’s final remark, which ends “The Minor”: “These are the fruits of evil!” - gives the whole play a special sound.

The comedy “Minor” is based on two problems that especially worried the writer. This is the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national importance, since proper education could save noble society from degradation.

The comedy “Nedorosl” (1782) became a landmark event in the development of Russian comedy. It represents a complex, well-thought-out system in which every line, every character, every word is subordinated to the identification of the author's intention. Having started the play as an everyday comedy of manners, Fonvizin does not stop there, but boldly goes further, to the root cause of “evil morals,” the fruits of which are known and strictly condemned by the author. The reason for the vicious education of the nobility in feudal and autocratic Russia is the established state system, which gives rise to arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, the problem of education turns out to be inextricably linked with the entire life and political structure of the state in which people live and act from top to bottom. The Skotinins and Prostakovs, ignorant, limited in mind, but not limited in their power, can only educate their own kind. Their characters are drawn by the author especially carefully and fully, with all the authenticity of life. Fonvizin significantly expanded the scope of classicism’s requirements for the comedy genre here. The author completely overcomes the schematism inherent in his earlier heroes, and the characters in “The Minor” become not only real persons, but also household figures.

Defending her cruelty, crimes and tyranny, Prostakova says: “Am I not powerful in my people too?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And then she unexpectedly refers to the law: “I’m not free! A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants; But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The amazed Starodum and together with him the author exclaim only: “She is a master at interpreting decrees!”

Subsequently, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky rightly said: “It’s all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they contain the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama is in them... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness.” Prostakova does not want to recognize any duties of the nobility, she calmly violates Peter the Great’s law on the compulsory education of nobles, she knows only her rights. In her person, a certain part of the nobles refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities. There is no need to talk about any kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving state interests. Fonvizin saw what this actually led to: state collapse, immorality, lies and corruption, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. That’s why he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “The state in which the most honorable of all states, which must defend the fatherland together with the sovereign and its corps and represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name only and is sold to every scoundrel who has robbed the fatherland.”

The conflict of the comedy lies in the clash of two opposing views on the role of the nobility in the public life of the country. Mrs. Prostakova states that the decree “on noble freedom” (which freed the nobleman from compulsory service to the state established by Peter I) made him “free” primarily in relation to serfs, freeing him from all burdensome human and moral responsibilities to society. Fonvizin puts a different view on the role and responsibilities of a nobleman in the mouth of Starodum, the person closest to the author. In terms of political and moral ideals, Starodum is a man of the Peter the Great era, which is contrasted in the comedy with the era of Catherine.

The audience in the comedy “Undergrown” was attracted, first of all, by the positive characters. The serious scenes in which Starodum and Pravdin performed were received with great enthusiasm. Thanks to Starodum, performances turned into a kind of public demonstration. “At the end of the play,” recalls one of his contemporaries, “the audience threw a wallet filled with gold and silver onto Mr. Dmitrevsky’s stage... Mr. Dmitrevsky, picking it up, made a speech to the audience and said goodbye to her” (“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”, 1840, No. 5.).

One of the main characters of Fonvizin's play is Starodum. In his worldview, he is a bearer of the ideas of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Starodum served in the army, fought bravely, was wounded, but was not rewarded. It was received by his former friend, the count, who refused to go to the active army. Having retired, Starodum tries to serve at court. Disappointed, he leaves for Siberia, but remains true to his ideals. He is the ideological inspirer of the fight against Prostakova. In reality, Starodum’s like-minded official Pravdin acts on the Prostakovs’ estate not on behalf of the government, but “out of his own deed of heart.” The success of Starodum determined Fonvizin’s decision to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” in 1788.

The positive characters are depicted by the playwright somewhat palely and schematically. Starodum and his associates teach from the stage throughout the entire play. But these were the laws of dramaturgy of that time: classicism presupposed the depiction of heroes who delivered monologues and teachings “from the author.” Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas.

Fonvizin presents negative characters with amazing realism: Mrs. Prostakova, her husband and son Mitrofan, Prostakova’s evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and law, they bow only to power and wealth, they fear only material force and are always cunning, using all means to achieve their benefits, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morals, ideas, ideals, or any moral principles, not to mention knowledge and respect for laws.

The central figure of this group, one of the significant characters in Fonvizin’s play, is Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the main spring driving the stage action, for in this provincial noblewoman there is some powerful vital force that is lacking not only in the positive characters, but also in her lazy, selfish son and pig-like brother. “This face in a comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically,” historian V.O., an expert on the era, said about Prostakova. Klyuchevsky. Yes, this character is completely negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin’s comedy is that his Mrs. Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the Mrs. Prostakovs in real life and would be defenseless.

The plot of Fonvizin's comedy is simple. In the family of provincial landowners the Prostakovs, their distant relative lives - Sophia, who remained an orphan. Mrs. Prostakova’s brother, Taras Skotinin, and the Prostakovs’ son, Mitrofan, would like to marry Sophia. At a critical moment for the girl, when she is desperately divided by her uncle and nephew, another uncle appears - Starodum. He becomes convinced of the evil nature of the Prostakov family with the help of the progressive official Pravdin. Sophia marries the man she loves - officer Milon. The Prostakovs' estate is taken into state custody for cruel treatment of serfs. Mitrofan is sent to military service.

The plot of Fonvizin's comedy was based on the conflict of the era, the socio-political life of the 70s - early 80s of the 18th century. This is a struggle with the serf woman Prostakova, depriving her of the right to own her estate. At the same time, other storylines are traced in the comedy: the struggle for Sofya Prostakova, Skotinin and Milon, the story of the union of Sophia and Milon who love each other. Although they do not form the main plot.

"The Minor" is a comedy in five acts. Events take place on the Prostakov estate. A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is devoted to solving the problem of education. These are scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, the vast majority of Starodum's moral teachings. The culminating point in the development of this theme, undoubtedly, is the scene of Mitrofan’s examination in the 4th act of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of the Prostakovs and Skotinins.

Other characters also act on the stage: Prostakova’s downtrodden and intimidated husband, and her brother Taras Skotinin, who loves his pigs more than anything in the world, and the noble “minor” - his mother’s favorite, the Prostakovs’ son Mitrofan, who does not want to learn anything, spoiled and corrupted by his mother’s upbringing. Next to them are the following: the Prostakovs' servant - the tailor Trishka, the serf nanny, the former nurse Mitrofana Eremeevna, his teacher - the village sexton Kuteikin, the retired soldier Tsifirkin, the cunning rogue German coachman Vralman. In addition, the remarks and speeches of Prostakova, Skotinin and other characters - positive and negative - constantly remind the viewer of the peasants of the Russian serf village, invisibly present behind the scenes, given by Catherine II to full and uncontrolled power by Skotinin and Prostakov. It is they, remaining behind the stage, who actually become the main suffering face of the comedy; their fate casts a menacing, tragic reflection on the fate of its noble characters. The names of Prostakova, Mitrofan, Skotinin, Kuteikin, Vralman became household names.

23. Small genres of satire by D.I. Fonvizin. “The Fox-Executor”, “Message to My Servants...”, “The Experience of the Russian Estates”, “General Court Grammar”, “A Few Questions...” and “Answers” by Catherine II.

In Fonvizin’s satires, two main qualities of this writer are clearly reflected: “the gift of laughing together cheerfully and poisonously,” which was aptly pointed out by the great Russian democratic critic Belinsky, and keen observation, the ability to grasp and vividly show the typical characters of his contemporaries.

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

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

During his reign, favorites and nobles

They skinned innocent animals without rank.

The fable “The Fox-Koznodey” is aimed at clever and shameless sycophants-officials who support the powers that be with flattering speeches and obsequious behavior. (Koznodey - plotter.) ;.The work is about a certain “Libyan side”, which, however, is very reminiscent of Russian reality. Not shy about outright lies, the Fox praises Leo. In addition to the Fox, there are two more characters in the fable: the Mole and the Dog. These are much more frank and honest in their assessments of the late king. However, they won’t tell the truth out loud; they whisper in each other's ears. Descriptions of the lion's rule are given in tones of angry denunciation. The king's throne was built "from the bones of torn animals." The inhabitants of the Libyan side are skinned by the royal favorites and nobles without trial or investigation. Fox-Koznodey; - a bright and impressive work not only in terms of the bold ideas stated here, but also in terms of their implementation. The technique of antithesis works especially clearly: countering the flattering speeches of the Fox with the truthful and bitter assessments given by the Mole and the Dog.

The second work presents the reader with a conversation between the author and his servants. To the question: “Why was this light created? - the author was never able to get a clear answer. Shumilov believes that there is no point in the question, that the lot of the serf is eternal slavery and humiliation of the servant; he is simply not ready to express his thoughts, which most likely do not exist at all. Vanka expresses his opinion that “the world here” is bad, and talking about it is a trifle, a worthless conversation. Vanka’s judgments are the central and most important part of the poem. Having chosen a common man from among the people as the conductor of his ideas, Fonvizin gives a sharp description of the order in the country. No church dogmas, no government regulations can explain or justify a social system in which the system of universal hypocrisy, deceit and theft triumphs. Petrushka, the footman, also cannot answer the question, but proudly declares his intention to live for his own pleasure in this light. It becomes obvious to everyone that there is no higher divine plan, and that society and the division into classes are arranged, at least, unreasonably.

Later, Fonvizin moved from poetic satire to satire in prose. One of the most daring and witty examples of satirical literature of the 18th century. - “General Court Grammar” written by him. Here, in the form of an explanation in answers to questions about basic grammatical definitions and a statement of grammatical rules, exceptionally sharp criticism is given of the court of Catherine II, which Fonvizin considered the most contaminated place in the entire state, corrupt flatterers and odopists, etc. To the first question: “What is court grammar? - the answer follows: “Court grammar is the science of cunningly flattering with tongue and pen.” - “What does it mean to cunningly flatter?” - “It means telling and writing lies that would be pleasant to a noble and useful to a flatterer.” - “What is a court lie?” - “There is an expression of a vile soul before an arrogant soul.” To the question: “What is a number?” - the answer follows: “The number at the court means the count: for how many meannesses - how many favors you can get.” - “What is the court case?” - “The court case is the inclination of the strong to impudence, and the powerless to meanness. However, most of the boyars think that everyone is in the accusative case before them, but they usually win their favor and patronage with the dative case.” In this way, the following is an explanation of verb forms - moods, conjugations.

Having been engaged in translations for a number of years, Fonvizin showed interest in language problems back in the 70s, participating in the compilation of a French-Russian dictionary (see notes to the letter to Ya. I. Bulgakov from Montpellier). “The Experience of a Russian Estates Member” is a unique work in genre, where, under the pretext of philological research, the reader was presented with political satire. When preparing the “Experience”, Fonvizin used the “Dictionary of Synonyms” by the French Abbot Girard. Of the one hundred and five words explained by Fonvizin, he almost literally translated the following from Girard’s dictionary: timid, cowardly, complete, enough, misconduct, guilt, help, abet, commit, rightness, always, in love, peace, silence, peace. The translation of these neutral words seemed to cover up groups of synonyms that quite clearly interpreted political themes, illustrated with satirical examples. First published in the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” for 1783 (parts I, IV, X).

In 1783, State Councilor Fonvizin, who retired and was attracted by E.R. Dashkova to participate in the new magazine, publishes article after article2. Among other works, he sends to “Interlocutor” “Several questions that can arouse special attention in intelligent and honest people.” Taking advantage of the printing platform of the new magazine, Fonvizin intended to open a discussion about the Russian political system, or rather, about its absence, which is fraught with instability and precariousness of power. The writer was worried about the lack of “fundamental laws” in the country, determined according to the scale of Sh.L., who inspired him. Montesquieu. There are no laws - there is no “spirit” of civilization, that is, an established system of institutions, habits, norms of life, paradigms for the development of society. The best and most honest nobles find themselves in retirement, the moral degradation of the nobility, busy educating not people, but non-commissioned officers, corrupts society, and the government itself welcomes the most insignificant. This point about the exaltation of “clowns” (the allegory clearly extended further to the favorites) became the focus of controversy and caused a stormy rebuke from the empress. Fonvizin touched upon a painful and extremely important aspect of the political system, reproaching Catherine for the absence of the core of the monarchical type of government - honor, which sets in motion all parts of the political body, according to Montesquieu.

This 14th “question” about the “clowns” close to power especially irritated the empress: it was about her favorite Lev Aleksandrovich Naryshkin, chief of horsemen, a court wit who regularly received ranks and awards. To her answer, Catherine added the characteristic note “NB”, containing the reproach that the very possibility of such a daring conversation with the monarch is generated by freedom of speech (“freedom of speech”), established by her:

14. Why in former times jesters, shpyny and jokers did not have ranks, but now they have very high ones?

On 14. Our ancestors were not all able to read and write. N.B. This question was born from freedom of speech, which our ancestors did not have; if they had, they would begin on the present one with ten former ones.

The general conclusion of researchers (primarily of the Soviet era) was the thesis that the brave writer Denis Fonvizin was rudely reprimanded by the empress, who was slipping into repression.

Catherine demanded that the questions and her answers to them be printed together as a single text. In this form, in two columns, with the new title “Questions and Answers with the Introduction of the Preface,” this essay was placed on the pages of the “Interlocutor”, and not as a separate publication of two authors, but inside the humorous essay of the Empress “Were and fables." The complex interference of “three” authors (Catherine acted in two guises at once - as the author of an essay and as the author of “Answers”) was combined in a magazine publication with a very whimsical system of “storytellers”, on whose behalf the empress also commented on the “Questions” of the anonymous author and her own “Answers.”

Thus, from its very appearance, the text of Fonvizin’s article was surrounded by a contradictory and multi-referential context, oriented towards completely different socio-political and aesthetic expectations. Fonvizin himself offered readers a serious conversation about a free, civil society. “Questions” appealed to something that did not exist in Russia - to “public opinion.” The article outlined the space for free discussions, criticism of the government and political disputes not under the control of state power.

The Empress, who started a magazine and filled her “Fales and Fables” with jokes addressed to her courtiers, was busy creating a gallant court society according to the latest French models. She needed not denunciations and satires, but the development of a new cultural paradigm, a new cultural language, which was designed to unite court society and represent power in a new way. Added to the political and stylistic dissonance that arose in connection with the reception of this article was the fact that Catherine did not know who its true author was.