Life and creative path of D. Fonvizin’s comedy “Brigadier”: issues, images, composition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FONVIZIN Denis Ivanovich - the famous Russian writer - came from the Russified Baltic nobles (von-Vizin). F. spent his childhood in a patriarchal environment in the house of his father, an official of the revision board. He received his education at the university gymnasium and at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University. After graduating from university, F. entered a foreign college as a translator, but already in 1763 he began serving as an official under the cabinet minister Elagin. From 1769 to 1783 F. served with gr. Panina P.I., in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs as a secretary. In 1785 F. suffered from paralysis.

F. was an educational humanist of the second half of the 18th century. An admirer of Voltaire, Rousseau, F. was an enemy of autocratic despotism. F. rose to the idea that “it is illegal to oppress one’s own kind through slavery.” Throughout his life, F. carried hostility towards the secular society, the royal court, court nobles, and temporary workers. F. was an enemy of ignorance, a fighter for culture, an admirer of Peter’s reforms, who advocated the assimilation of Western European culture, but at the same time fought against blind imitation of foreign things. Fonvizin knew very well purely folk speech and skillfully used it: the Russian folk language, sharp folk words, sayings gave strength the best works Fonvizina.

F.'s literary activity began when he was still a student at Moscow University. In 1761, he translated Golberg's fables from German, then a number of moralizing satirical works by Voltaire and others. In 1762, F. moved to St. Petersburg and here he developed intensive literary activity. He was a regular guest of Kozlovsky's circle. As a result of his rapprochement with this circle, F. wrote the “Message to the Servants,” in which he revealed religious skepticism and gave a sharp characterization of the clergy. Although F.'s departure from atheistic views was later noticed, he forever remained an enemy of clericalism, religious obscurantism, and all kinds of superstition. In 1764 F. made his first independent dramatic work, with the comedy "Corion". A few years after “Corion,” the social comedy “Brigadier” appears.

Fox-schemer

In the fable genre, Fonvizin was a follower of Sumarokov. National mores and characters, precise details and signs of everyday life, colloquial speech with the frequent use of common words and expressions are found in his fable works. Only Fonvizin is more daring and radical than his predecessor. The fable “The Fox-Koznodey” is aimed at clever and shameless sycophants-officials who support with flattering speeches and obsequious behavior powerful of the world this. And they have considerable personal benefit from this. The work is about a certain “Libyan side”, which, however, is very reminiscent of Russian reality. Not shy about outright lies, the Fox praises Leo. In 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 invective, that is, angry denunciation. The king's throne was built "from the bones of torn animals." The inhabitants of the Libyan side are skinned by the royal favorites and nobles without trial or investigation. Out of fear and despair, the Elephant leaves the Libyan forest and hides in the steppe. The clever builder Beaver is ruined by taxes and falls into poverty. But the fate of the court artist is shown especially expressively and in detail. He is not only skilled in his craft, but also masters new painting techniques. Alfresco is painting with water paints on the damp plaster of the walls of dwellings. All his life, the court painter devotedly served the king and nobles with his talent. But he also dies in poverty, “from melancholy and hunger.”

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

Brigadier

Denis Fonvizin began writing the comedy in five acts “The Brigadier” in the first days of his stay in Moscow in the winter of 1768. In the spring of 1769, Denis Ivanovich mentioned it in his letter to the Russian statesman, poet and historian Ivan Elagin: “I almost finished my comedy.” In his next letter to the same addressee, Ivan Perfilyevich, Fonvizin again mentions the comedy, which in all likelihood has already been written to the final page.

All the playwright’s work on the comedy was related to the issues raised during the convening of the Commission for the drafting of the New Code. Denis Fonvizin was a supporter of those who, like the Russian philosopher and public figure Yakov Kozelsky, believed it was necessary to show a picture of Russian life with the help of “righteous speeches.” At the same time, the question of the method of creating national comedy, posed in Elagin’s circle, was heard in a new way in comedy.

Be that as it may, the first Russian national comedy “Brigadier” by Fonvizin is considered a literary monument, which reflected the struggle of advanced Russian minds of the 18th century for the national originality of Russian culture. Denis Fonvizin in his comedy “The Brigadier” harshly ridiculed the servility of the contemporary Russian noble class to the French aristocracy.

Minor

The comedy “Minor” absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in depth ideological issues, by the courage and originality found artistic solutions remains an unsurpassed masterpiece Russian dramaturgy XVIII century. The accusatory pathos of “Undergrowth” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure dramatic action. Satire and journalism are lame.

Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teaching, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual squalor.

An equally destructive verdict on this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on stage, contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan’s parents. Dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin. which touch upon deep, sometimes national problems, are passionate journalistic speeches reflecting the author’s position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the exposure merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself.

Two problems that particularly worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of “The Minor.” This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, was “buried with their ancestors,” in his reported observations from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society, he seeks the reasons for this decline. Unlimited power of landowners over their peasants in the absence of proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities became a source of arbitrariness, this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and principles of class honor, i.e. to spiritual degeneration ruling class. In the light of Fonvizin’s general moral and political concept, the exponents of which in the play are positive characters, the world of simpletons and brutes appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.

Another problem of “Minor” is the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of the thinkers of the 18th century was seen as the primary factor determining moral character person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education. A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education.

A son of his time, Fonvizin with all his appearance and direction creative quests belonged to that circle of advanced Russians people XVIII centuries that formed the camp of the enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is 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 the serf owners were heard in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives which was Fonvizin.

Question No. 6. Odes of Derzhavin

Born on July 3 (14 NS) in the village of Karmachi, Kazan province in a poor noble family. He studied at the Kazan gymnasium for three years (1759 - 62). From 1762 he served as a soldier in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, which took part in palace coup, who elevated Catherine II to the throne.

In 1772 he was promoted to officer and took part in the suppression of the Pugachev uprising. Offended that his service was not appreciated and passed over with awards, he left for the civil service. He served briefly in the Senate, where he came to the conviction that “he couldn’t get along there, where they didn’t like the truth.”

In 1782 he wrote “Ode to Felitsa,” addressed to the Empress, for which he received a reward from Catherine II - appointment as governor of Olonetsky (from 1784) and Tambovsky (1785 - 88). He made a lot of efforts to educate the Tambov region, tried to fight the bureaucracy, and defend justice.

Energetic, independent and direct, Derzhavin could not “get along” with the highest nobles, so his places of service often changed. In 1791 - 1793 he was the cabinet secretary of Catherine II, but, not pleasing her, he was dismissed from service; appointed senator, made many enemies because of his love of truth. In 1802 - 1803 he was Minister of Justice. At the age of sixty he retired.

Derzhavin began publishing in 1773, trying to follow the traditions of Lomonosov and Sumarokov, but from 1779 he “chose a completely different path.” He created his own style, which became a model philosophical lyrics: ode “On the death of Prince Meshchersky” (1799), ode “God” (1784) about the greatness of the universe and its Creator, about the place and purpose of man: “I am a king, I am a slave, I am a worm, I am god” ; "Autumn during the siege of Ochakov" (1788), "Waterfall" (1791 - 94), etc.

In the 1790s, Derzhavin created lyrical works"To the Lyre", "Praise of Rural Life". Derzhavin's aesthetic views are expressed in the treatise "Discourse on Lyric Poetry or Ode" (1811 - 15).

In the last years of his life, Derzhavin turned to drama, writing several tragedies: “Dobrynya”, “Pozharsky”, “Herod and Mariamne” and others.

St. Petersburg writers gathered in his house, and in 1811 the circle formed into the government-approved literary society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word,” in which Derzhavin held a special position. He treated Zhukovsky favorably and “noticed” young Pushkin. Derzhavin’s work prepared the ground for the poetry of Batyushkov, Pushkin, and the Decembrist poets.

Ode "On the death of Prince Meshchersky"(1779) brought Derzhavin fame. The poem is emotional, the mood of confusion and horror set in the first stanza is intensified by the end of the poem. The main thing in the poem: life and death, time and eternity. For example, time, inexorably bringing a person closer to death, is depicted in in the form of a clock. Death is an old woman with a scythe.

The tragic experience of death. It has plot contours. Prince Meshchersky, a close friend of the poet, died. His death was all the more striking because the whole life of the prince, “the son of luxury and bliss,” was “a holiday of beauty and contentment.” The drama of the death is greatly enhanced by the opposition of these poles. everything is conflicting figurative system works. And this artistic conflict, underlying the structure of the ode, leads the reader to the idea of a contradictory dialectical essence of the universe that cannot be reduced to unity.

Among the young men described in the famous Lomonosov ode of 1747, who love science and want to serve the new Russia in this field, we see the Russian nobleman and descendant of the German knights Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792), a brilliant playwright and prose writer. He entered the gymnasium at Moscow University, and then, under the patronage of I.I. Shuvalov, became his student, played on the stage of the local amateur theater, started early literary studies, printing his translations from German. Young Fonvizin learned a lot from the smart and knowledgeable German professor I. Reichel and showed an extraordinary ability for foreign languages.

But no one in XVIII century I did not write drama and prose in such a living, organic folk language as this Russified German, whom Pushkin accurately called “from the Per-Russians to the Russians.” The general line of Russian satire begins with Fonvizin, leading through his younger contemporary and worthy heir Krylov to Gogol, Shchedrin and Bulgakov. This playwright made his social comedy truly popular, laughter - his main character and exposer of national vices, and the Russian theater - the pulpit from which he later addressed our audience.

Fonvizin followed the path of enlightenment outlined by Lomonosov, but chose one from his system of “three calms” - the element of the living Russian word, which the nobility, especially the provincial, clergy and educated commoners continued to speak. More precisely, the playwright created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of words and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, or his heroes as positive characters. Being a member Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in studying and improving his contemporary language.

Fonvizin’s satire is directed both at people and at their language (this can be seen already in the early “Brigadier”, where the ignorant and rude foreman and foreman with their archaic sayings, and their stupid Frenchized son Ivanushka and the cutesy fashionista-adviser are equally funny), moreover , she skillfully uses their language as a tool of satirical characterization. But the playwright wanted to portray, that is, to force his living contemporaries and their authentic oral language to act and speak on stage. And already in “Brigadier” he succeeded completely. The enlightened boss and patron of Fonvizin, Count N.I. Panin, after reading a comedy at the court of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich, correctly remarked to the author: “You know our morals very well, for the Brigadier is your relative to everyone... This is the first comedy in our morals.”

The theater of classicism, where French pseudo-historical tragedy in verse and Russian imitations of it reigned, could not embody the innovative ideas of Fonvizin the playwright; moreover, satire was then considered the lowest kind of literature. The writer knew the new Russia and understood the nature of theater as a public spectacle; among his friends were the best actors of that time F.G. Volkov and I.A. Dmitrevsky, the future performer of the role of Starodum. Fonvizin himself had an extraordinary gift as an actor and reader. Hence the huge success of his first comedy, “The Brigadier” (1768-1769), which was read by the author to the Empress, Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich and many nobles and staged at the court theater.

A fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic situations, individualized spoken language of the characters, a vicious satire on the Russian nobility, ridicule of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive and at the same time familiar, recognizable to the listeners and viewers of "The Brigadier" " Young Fonvizin attacked noble society and its vices, the fruits of half-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's minds and souls. He showed it dark kingdom as a stronghold of severe tyranny, everyday everyday cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language that were understandable to the audience, pressing current problems, and recognizable conflicts. All this is in Fonvizin’s famous comedy “The Minor,” which is still staged today.

The comedy was written in 1779-1781 and staged in 1782. By this time, Fonvizin had already completed his official and court career and was forced to resign with the considerable rank of state councilor; in fact, it was disgrace. While serving in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, he was the right hand of Vice-Chancellor N.I. Panin, that is, in fact, the first deputy minister of foreign affairs and largely determined foreign policy Russian Empire. Fonvizin was appreciated and brought closer to himself by the intelligent and enlightened heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. At first, Empress Catherine, herself a writer and comedian, was favorably disposed towards the witty author of “The Brigadier”.

But bold magazine appearances, dangerous closeness to the disgraced heir to the throne, Princess E.R. Dashkova, Count G. Orlov and the head of the anti-Catherine opposition Panin, a political and personal conflict with the omnipotent prevented the court and literary career Fonvizin and finally put him at odds with the suspicious empress, who, as Pushkin correctly noted, was afraid of his influence on state affairs and his merciless talent as a satirist. This was also helped by the sharp tongue of the mocking writer.

The author of “The Brigadier” himself has also changed. His young hobby the ideas of the French enlighteners gave way to disappointment and skepticism after traveling to France in 1777-1778. And finally, Pugachev’s uprising forced Fonvizin to reconsider a lot in his educational ideas and ideals; he doubted the Russian nobility as the progressive force of society, its very ability to enlighten and effectively manage its huge state - the military-feudal Russian Empire, its estates and peasants.

All this was reflected in the “folk” (Pushkin) comedy “Minor”. However, contemporaries, seeing it in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin’s cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the audience of that time: “My grandmother told me that during Nedoroslya’s performance there was a crush in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who had come to the service from the steppe villages, were present here - and, as a result, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy thought upon leaving it,” historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about “The Minor.” This was exactly the impact of Gogol’s “The Inspector General” on the public.

Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “The Minor” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy amazes the brutal brutality of man, resulting from a long, insensitive, shocking stagnation in the remote corners and backwaters of Russia... There is nothing caricatured in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul." Realism and satire help the author of the comedy talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education “the key to the well-being of the state.” And all the comic and tragic circumstances and the characters themselves negative characters can safely be called the fruits of ignorance and evil.

For, having visited the estate of the noble Prostakovs, the viewer saw the whole noble Russia in her tyranny, disrespect for the law and the rights of other people, smug ignorance, greed, some kind of simple-minded cruelty and everyday selfish cunning. The “training” of the undergrown Mitrofan and his pseudo-teacher, the German coachman Vralman, the retired sergeant Tsifirkin and the seminarian Kuteikin, showed the entire decline of Russian education, which led to the moral decline of the nobles, their oblivion of their main, honorable position - service to the fatherland. The little boy's father cannot read Starodum's letter because he is illiterate. And the very name of Uncle Taras Skotinin and his boundless love for pigs clearly indicate the extreme limits of this moral coarsening and degradation.

Let us note that “The Minor” directly begins with a witty play on folk saying talking about Trishka's caftan about teaching. Mrs. Prostakova seriously, with her characteristic ingenuous stubbornness, assures the careless serf tailor Trishka that learning to sew caftans is not at all necessary. Already Peter the Great was faced with severe distrust and dislike for any teaching, this national peculiarity of his lazy subjects, and under pain of punishment he obliged them to study. It is known that this decree of his met with hidden but desperate resistance from the nobles, who, like Mitrofanushka, saw only punishment in teaching, who considered science unnecessary, a non-noble matter.

In Fonvizin’s comedy there are clear traces of this stubborn resistance: the illiterate bribe-taker, the father of Prostakova and Taras Skotinin, said: “I will curse the little boy who takes over anything from the infidels.” His daughter is more cunning, she understands that her spoiled and lazy son Mitrofanushka must at least somehow meet the formal requirements of the government for a nobleman, but she also teaches him formally, without bothering the over-aged “child” with the burden of serious knowledge and giving him semi-literate “teachers”, serfs uncles and nannies: “People live and have lived without science.” In Prostakova’s decisive opinion, there are sciences that are stupid and not noble, unnecessary and useless for a nobleman, such as geography, the science of cab drivers.

That is, the lazy and arrogant, but worldly very smart Mitrofanushka is taught not sciences and moral rules, but immorality, deception, disrespect for his duty as a nobleman and for his own father, the ability to bypass all the laws and rules of society and the state for the sake of his own convenience and benefit. This rude and lazy man is not stupid, he is also cunning, he thinks practically, he sees that the Prostakovs’ material well-being depends not on their enlightenment and official zeal, but on the intrepid impudence of his mother, on his father’s bribery, the clever robbing of his distant relative Sophia and the merciless robbery of his peasants. Why should he study diligently and honestly serve his fatherland for many years, if he can immediately marry a rich heiress and, without serving, according to the famous decree on the freedom of the nobility, live freely on his estate and oppress the serfs?

Mitrofan, his illiterate father, beaten down by his energetic wife, his criminal (for she easily commits criminal offenses) mother and her evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin make up a picturesque group of negative characters. These are the brightest representatives of the “wild nobility” (Pushkin), the fathers of Griboyedov’s bar and the grandfathers of the characters in Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” described with amazing realism. 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.

Prostakova asks the honest official Pravdin, who took custody of her estate, a very important question for Russia: “Are all decrees being executed?” She and her relatives know well that not everyone believes that no one needs laws in real Russian life, they can always be successfully circumvented or turned in their favor, if only there was money and connections in the spheres. Therefore, they always find themselves in comic situations that clearly reveal their gross tyranny, anger, ignorance, disrespect for other people and laws, and self-interest. This revealing comedy is what drives Fonvizin’s satire, who managed to show the psychology and morality, or rather, the immorality of an entire class, the foundations of the empire, in the brazen and brutal struggle of wild landowners for the dowry of a rich bride.

The central figure of this group, the main character of Fonvizin’s play, is the truly immortal 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 person in the comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and superbly sustained dramatically,” historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, an expert on the era, said about Prostakova. Yes, this character is completely negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin’s comedy is that his mistress 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 mistress Prostakova in real life and would be defenseless.

From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, spies, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, government official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot calm her down. At the heart of this living, strong, completely folk character- monstrous tyranny, intrepid impudence, greed for the material goods of life, the desire for everything to be according to her liking and will. But this evil, cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm.

“This insane love for one’s child is our strong Russian love, which in a person who has lost his dignity was expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that don’t eat her child,” Gogol wrote about Prostakova. For the sake of her son’s material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with the sword-wielding Milo, and even in a hopeless situation wants to gain time to use bribery, threats and appeals to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.”

It is clear that in this she stubbornly and consciously opposes Starodum and his like-minded people, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon. She responded to all their eloquent sermons about the need to combine education with high morality with the famous phrase about stupid and “non-noble” sciences, unnecessary and even harmful in real life. Prostakov’s son is taught, as you know, immorality, the ability to serve only his own personal benefit and will.

Here, in Fonvizin’s comedy, the key word for understanding this entire era appears, “Liberty,” which became the name of the famous odes of Radishchev and Pushkin. In Russian political dictionary it is inextricably linked with the equally meaningful word“Law”, which was also usually written with a capital letter. And there was a name connecting these two important words, which is also “Nedorosle”, known to all nobles and literate people of Russia as the name of the famous decree of the good and unfortunate Emperor Peter III of 1762 - “The Law on the Liberty of the Nobility.”

Prostakova, experienced in bribery and using personal connections, speaks about him, defending her innate cruelty, crimes and tyranny: “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 the mistress of everyday everyday lawlessness and violence suddenly refers to the law: “I am 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, Klyuchevsky correctly said: “It’s all about last words 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, which she interprets very freely and always in her favor and from real laws, including the law on the freedom of the nobility, which are far removed . In her person, the entire service class refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and responsibilities, the position of nobility so valued by Fonvizin. 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, favoritism, 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.”

Its positive characters said this in the comedy. They were often called pale, sketchy, stilted, mouthpieces of the author's ideas. This is partly true. Starodum and his like-minded people speak and teach from the stage. But these were the laws of the dramaturgy of that time: in a “classicist” play there were always resonating 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 in the highest spheres of immoral power.

But in Starodum’s speeches, another view was expressed on the duty of an enlightened sovereign, the purpose of the nobility and on enlightenment, arguing with the “ideas” of Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin's satire is not an end in itself; it opens the way to positive values and ideas, his political and educational views. And these are not only the views of the author, but also political program the entire anti-Catherine noble opposition, from N.I. Panin to, who sympathetically quoted “The Minor” and Fonvizin’s handwritten “General Court Grammar” in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” It was not for nothing that Fonvizin subsequently intended to publish the magazine “Friend” honest people, or Starodum." But the police banned the publication of the magazine in 1788. This means that the writer and the character in his comedy had many like-minded people among enlightened, opposition-minded Russians.

Starodum, like Fonvizin himself, served at the court of the sovereign and was expelled for excessive directness, honesty and loyalty to the idea of serving a nobleman to the fatherland. He tells Pravdin about imperial court as a place of cynical struggle of personal interests, where people strive to destroy each other, care only about themselves and the present hour, do not think about their ancestors or descendants, but only about their own material well-being and personal career. Selfless deeds, personal merits, education, intelligence and nobility are not valued. Starodum does not say directly that this is the direct fault of the monarch who allows and encourages all these unworthy deeds and thoughts, but this was already clear to all viewers.

“The Minor” contains a prophetic lesson for kings, sounding like a warning. Fonvizin’s character paints a portrait of an ideal enlightened monarch who does not allow court flatterers to deceive him, humiliate him and humiliate others: “A great sovereign is a wise sovereign. His job is to show people their direct good... A sovereign worthy of the throne strives to elevate the souls of his subjects.” Starodum also spoke about an ideal, honest and wise nobleman, distinguished by “the fearlessness of a statesman who speaks the truth to the sovereign, daring to anger him.”

An enlightened sovereign must govern enlightened subjects on the basis of “firm law.” The very existence of simpletons and brutes on stage and in Russian life shows that this actually does not exist. But the Russian educator and nobleman Fonvizin, with all his comedy, proves that everyone, and, first of all, the enlightened sovereign (that is, Catherine II) and the nobility honestly performing their position, must strive for this in all spheres of imperfect Russian life.

The path to this is reasonable education, the desire for good morals and virtue in the study of all sciences: “Believe me, that science in a depraved person is a fierce weapon to do evil. Enlightenment elevates one virtuous soul.” Only an enlightened, highly moral nobility, aware of its public position, can be free and own peasants. The example of Mitrofanushka clearly shows what wrong, purely formal education by ignorant teachers and upbringing by immoral parents can lead to: “We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. A nobleman unworthy of being a nobleman! I don’t know anything more vile than him in the world.” But the theme of the play is not only the improper upbringing and training of the landowner’s son Mitrofanushka and the ignorance of his parents and “teachers”.

“The Minor” was written in the Age of Enlightenment, but it is in this comedy that the satire on false enlightenment and ignorance develops into disturbing doubts about the correctness of the general idea this century, the teachings of enlightenment philosophers with whom Fonvizin met in Paris and other cities of Western Europe. Starodum says to the educated Sophia, who is reading French books about education: “I fear for you the sages of today. I happened to read from them everything that was translated into Russian. True, they strongly eradicate prejudices and uproot virtue.”

These thoughts were developed by the writer in his famous essay “Letters from France” (1777-1778). It clearly indicates the movement of minds and ideas in Western Europe, which inevitably led from the age of Enlightenment and the scientific debates of encyclopedists to the bloody drama of the Great french revolution: “I cannot sufficiently explain to you how stingy I found in the nature of those people whose writings instilled in me spiritual respect for them... Arrogance, envy and deceit constitute them main character...Everyone lives for himself alone.”

Starodum speaks of French educators personally known to Fonvizin, whose names and works are unknown to Mitrofanushka and Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin in “The Minor” clearly expresses his doubts about the most important idea of the Age of Enlightenment, believes that this is false enlightenment, half-enlightenment, because in its selfishness and arrogance it forgot about morality, about selfless virtue, about service, loyalty and honor. The Age of Enlightenment called itself the Age of Reason and did not respect faith and morality. “With runaway minds we see bad husbands, bad fathers, bad citizens. Good behavior gives direct value to the mind. Without him smart man- a monster. It is immeasurably higher than all mental fluency,” says Starodum about the main moral flaw of European enlightenment. It gave birth to the smug “Russian Frenchman” Ivanushka from “The Brigadier” and Mitrofanushka, worthy son his illiterate, cruel and criminal mother.

And finally, Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, not only responds to Prostakova’s words about the decree on the freedom of the nobility, but also directly speaks about the main reason for the damage to the morals and the very existence of the Prostakovs, Skotinins and Mitrofanushki: “It is unlawful to oppress your own kind with slavery.” When Prostakova is informed about the serious illness of the serf girl Palashka, she shouts in rage: “Oh, she’s a beast! Lying down! As if noble!” An enlightened state cannot be based on such inhuman psychology and tyranny, on such an “understanding” of the equality of people and cannot exist rationally and stably, and no enlightened monarch will make wild serf-owners and illiterate cruel oppressors law-abiding and noble nobles, their reliable support: “On democracy and the land cannot walk where the people, groveling in the darkness of the deepest ignorance, silently bear the burden of cruel slavery.”

Fonvizin prophetically predicts that such a despotic state, devoid of laws, genuine enlightenment, citizens and honest defenders, will inevitably collapse under the combined blows of various disgruntled classes, will come to unrest and a merciless Russian rebellion, and through bloody chaos and anarchy will again return to the most cruel despotism. He rises in his noble revolutionary spirit to the thought of the right of the people to rebel against their oppressors.

Fonvizin as statesman, a politician with extensive experience and brilliant writer put a lot of his cherished and deep thoughts and very serious predictions into the funny comedy-satire “The Minor”, but all of them are hidden in the depths of the artistic images of the play. His satire generates laughter, which is replaced by indignation and deep sadness. For the audience saw on stage not Griboyedov’s Frenchman from Bordeaux, but themselves, their loved ones, familiar types of Russian people. They suddenly realized that they were laughing at themselves.

Fonvizin’s judgments about the Russian state, serfdom, nobility and enlightenment were truly revolutionary, for they passionately and convincingly demanded quick and decisive changes in all spheres of Russian life. Russian people were not familiar with most of these judgments, but every viewer and reader of “The Minor” has been familiar with the final conclusions of the great writer, which took the form of Prostakova, Mitrofanushka and Skotinin. And this makes Fonvizin’s truly artistic satire a wonderful, in no way outdated literary document of enormous social and political significance, without which the entire 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment, the history of Russia, its present and future are incomprehensible.

P.S. Since in Fonvizin’s plays and prose there are many that require clarification historical details and outdated words, we advise you to read them only in a commented edition intended for schoolchildren. See: Fonvizin D.I. Brigadier. Minor. General Court Grammar. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. M., 2001.

Historical lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. Article “Fonvizin”.
Klyuchevsky V.O. Literary portraits. M., 1991. Chapter about “The Minor” by Fonvizin.
Makogonenko G.P. Denis Fonvizin. Creative path. M.-L., 1961.
Pigarev K.V. Creativity of Fonvizin. M., 1954.
Sakharov V.I. Russian Freemasonry in portraits. M., 2004. Chapter “The Way Up”.
Strichek A. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Enlightenment. M., 1994.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is the author of the famous comedies "Minor", "Brigadier", which are still popular theater stage, and many other satirical works. According to his convictions, Fonvizin 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 late XVIII century and sharply condemn the reign of Catherine II. 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 malicious ignoramuses who, having complete power over people, use it for evil inhumanly." From the first to the last scene, this comedy is structured in such a way that it is clear to the viewer or reader: unlimited power over the peasants is the source of parasitism, tyranny, abnormal family relationships, moral ugliness, ugly upbringing and ignorance. Little Mitrofanushka has no 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 features of the “serious genre” into the comedy “Undergrowth”, introducing the images of “carriers of virtue”: Staro-Duma and Pravdina. He also complicated the traditional positive images lovers - Sophia and Milon. They are entrusted with the thoughts and feelings of the playwright himself and people close to him. They talk about what is dear to the author himself: the need to instill in a person from childhood a sense of duty, love of the fatherland, honesty, truthfulness, self-esteem, respect for people, contempt for baseness, flattery, and inhumanity.

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

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

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

Thus, the distinctive features of the comedy \"Minor\" are the relevance of the topic, the denunciation of serfdom, the realistic picture of the life and customs of the depicted era and the lively spoken language. In terms of the sharpness of its satirical denunciation 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.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1744-1792) - writer, dramatist, educator, who went down in the history of Russian literature as the creator of Russian social comedy. “Satire is a brave ruler” - that’s what Pushkin called him. Already in his first original comedy “The Brigadier” (1769), Fonvizin showed his bright satirical gift, ridiculing ignorance, bribery, bigotry and passion for everything French, so characteristic of the Russian nobility of the second half of the 18th century. But true and lasting fame came to Fonvizin when he created the comedy “Undergrown” (1782). Gogol put it on a par with “Woe from Wit”

A.S. Griboyedov and called it a truly “social comedy”. "Un-adult" is satirical comedy, in which, according to N.V. Gogol, the writer revealed “the wounds and illnesses of our society, severe internal abuses, which are exposed in stunning obviousness by the merciless power of irony.”

The comedian focuses on an entire class - the Russian nobility, not in itself, but in close connection with what the system of serfdom brings with it, which determines the life of the entire country. The theme of the comedy is landowner arbitrariness and its disastrous consequences, the system of noble education, legislation, social and family relations V Russia XVIII century.

According to the plot and title, “The Minor” is a play about how badly and incorrectly a young nobleman was taught, raising him as a “minor.” But we're talking about not about learning, but about education in the broadest sense. On stage, Mitrofan is a minor character, but the story of his upbringing explains where he comes from scary world Skotinnykh and Prostakov, what should be changed so that the ideals of goodness, reason and justice reign in it.

Thus, the idea of comedy is the exposure and condemnation of the world of ignorant, cruel and self-loving landowners who want to subjugate all life to themselves, to arrogate to themselves the right of unlimited power over both serfs and noble people; affirmation of the ideals of humanity, progress, enlightenment, expressed through goodies(Sofia, Starodum, Milon, Pravdin).

Among the positive heroes of the play, Starodum stands out. This is the hero-reasoner, the second “I” of the author himself. Through his lips, Fonvizin pronounces a verdict on the world of tyranny and slavery, and he pins his hopes on good beginnings human soul, on reasonable education, on the strength of conscience. “Have a heart, have a soul, and you will be a man at all times,” Starodum says to Sophia. This is the author's ideal. In many ways, it is associated with the educational illusions of Fonvizin, but the scale of satirical exposure in the comedy takes it beyond the narrow framework of the educational positions of classicism and allows us to talk about clearly expressed realistic principles.

The features of Fonvizin’s artistic method lie in a combination of classicism features (the division of characters into positive and negative, schematism in their depiction, “three unities” in the composition, “speaking” names, features of reasoning in the image of Starodum, etc.) and realistic tendencies (life-like authenticity of images, images of noble life and social relations in the fortress village). The playwright's innovation was reflected primarily in a more complex understanding of character. Although the heroes of the comedy are static, in the living tissue of the work their characters acquired a multiplicity of meaning unusual for the dramaturgy of classicism. If the images of Skotinin, Vralman, Kuteikin are sharpened to the point of caricature, then the images of Prostakova and Eremeevna are distinguished by great internal complexity. Eremeevna is a “slave,” but she retains a clear awareness of her position, knows the characters of her masters very well, and the soul is alive in her. Prostakova, an evil, cruel serf-wife, turns out to be at the same time a loving, caring mother, who in the finale, rejected by her own son, looks truly unhappy and even evokes the sympathy of the audience.

The creation of realistic authenticity of images is largely facilitated by the language of comedy heroes, which becomes a means of their individualization and helps to reveal the socio-psychological essence of the character. Starodum, as befits a traditional hero-reasoner, speaks in correct, bookish language. But Fonvizin introduces other—individual—features into the hero’s speech: aphorism, saturation with archaisms. All individual and typical qualities of Prostakova are also reflected in her language. She addresses the serfs rudely, using abusive language (“dog’s daughter”, “nasty mug”, “beast”), and her son Mitrofan is addressed with the affectionate, caring speech of her mother (“darling”, “my dear friend”). . With Prostakov's guests - socialite(“I recommend you my dear guest”), and when she humbly laments, begging for forgiveness, folk expressions appear in her speech (“you are my dear mother, forgive me,” “the sword does not cut off a guilty head”). Material from the site

All this makes Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” formally created according to the rules of classicism, a truly innovative work that had a huge impact on the formation of realism in Russian literature. According to A.I. Herzen, “Fonvizin managed to stage his barnyard wild landowners, and Gogol to publish his cemetery of “Dead Souls”. The continuity of Fonvizin’s dramaturgy with Ostrovsky’s theater was noted by Goncharov, and Saltykov-Shchedrin brought out a number of Fonvizin’s characters in his works.

Enlightenment tendencies characteristic of Russian XVIII literature centuries, manifested themselves not only within the framework of classicism, which in the last quarter of the century was already clearly losing ground, but also in the works of a new trend for that time - sentimentalism. It was also based on the ideas of the Enlightenment, but in the first place it put a specific person with his feelings and experiences. Feelings and experiences in sentimentalism replace the dominance of reason in classicism, and representatives of the middle and lower classes become heroes. Although in Russian literature sentimentalism has not received such wide development as in Western Europe, in the works of N.M. Karamzin, poems by the young V.A. Zhukovsky, prose by A.N. Radishchev's sentimentalism is noticeable.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

Fonvizin creator of Russian comedy
Starodum - hero reasoner
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin Nedorosl summary
ideals of humanity and progress in the comedy ignorant