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

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin - Russian writer and publicist, playwright and translator during the reign of Catherine the Great, founder domestic comedy, who worked in such a literary direction as classicism. The life and work of this man made an invaluable contribution to the development of Russian literature.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745 and grew up in a noble family in Moscow. His family went back to German roots, so his surname is a Russian variation of the German name Von Wisin.

Initially, the future genius was educated at home, and then was enrolled in the list of students of the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow University. Afterwards, for his services in the literary field, he will be sent to St. Petersburg, where he met such iconic figures of the state as Lomonosov and Sumarokov.

Creative path: a success story

The first works began to appear already in 1760. The writer began with translations, which were published periodically. The first landmark publication was in the form of an early version of the famous play “The Minor.” Later, by 1781, the completed play will be staged on the stage of St. Petersburg, and two years later it will occupy the stages of Moscow. 8 years later, from the pen of the classicist, a comedy with a satirical orientation called “The Brigadier” came out, which elevated Fonvizin as a writer and was honored to be read before the empress herself in her Peterhof summer house.

Like many writers, Fonvizin spent a lot of time abroad, in particular in France. His work as an adviser to the chancellery was accompanied by the writing of a large number of journalistic texts, for example, “Discourse on the Indispensable Laws of State,” as well as work on translations that allowed the Russian reader to become acquainted with the works of Rousseau, Ovid and even Walter.

Personal life

Little is known about the writer’s personal life. His wife's name was Katerina Ivanovna Rogovikova, she was from the family of a wealthy merchant. There is no mention of children in his biography.

It is only known that he was an exemplary family man, therefore all his works are edifying in nature. In matters of family and marriage, he was categorical: a woman is decorated with fidelity, piety and education, and a man is decorated with virtue, strength and wisdom.

last years of life

IN last years life, spending time traveling abroad in Europe, the writer will encounter a disease that is too tough for the medicine of those years. The first apoplectic gift will suffice him, because of which he will be forced to return to Russia.

Suffering from paralysis, the author will continue to study creative activity. The main work left by him and written in the last days of his life is autobiographical work"Frank confession." The writer died on December 1, 1792 in St. Petersburg and was buried at the Lazarevskoye cemetery.

State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Udmurt State University"

Abstract on the topic:

“Creativity of D. I. Fonvizin”

Is done by a student

2nd year

Faculty of Journalism

Mukminova Svetlana.

Checked:

Doctor of Philological Sciences,

Associate Professor of the Department

Literary theories

Zvereva T.V.

Izhevsk, 2008

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
2. Comedies by D. I. Fonvizin ……………………………………………………………….. 7

2.1 Comprehension of forms 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. Attitude crisis and change 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 belongs special place. If it were necessary to name a writer, in whose works the depth of comprehension of the morals of the era would be commensurate with the courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class and the highest authorities, then such a writer would undoubtedly be called Fonvizin,” - this is what the famous critic Yu. V. Stennik says about Fonvizin, author of the book “Russian Satire of the 18th Century” (9, 291).

The satirical current penetrated in the 18th century into almost all types and forms of literature - drama, novel, story, poem and even ode. The development of satire was directly related to the development of all Russian social life and advanced social thought. Accordingly, the artistic and satirical coverage of reality by writers expanded. The most pressing problems of our time came to the fore - the fight against serfdom, against autocracy.

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

Fonvizin became involved in the literary life of Russia at a time when Catherine II encouraged interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment: at first she flirted with the French enlighteners - Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert. But very soon not a trace remained of Catherine's liberalism. By the will of circumstances Fonvizin found himself in the thick of the internal political struggle that flared up at court. In this struggle, he was gifted with brilliance. creative abilities and with his keen observation, Fonvizin 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.

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 significance. It can be considered that the translation of L. Golberg’s book was the first school of educational humanism for young Fonvizin, instilling in the soul of the future playwright an interest in social satire. The decisive factor for the future fate of Fonvizin the writer was his sudden appointment 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. Carrying out small assignments, conducting official correspondence alternates with mandatory visits official receptions at court (kurtags), 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 XVIII literature 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 between 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. Fonvizin’s work is dominated by the comedy of words and the comedy of actions of characters, which are considered more developed forms.

"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 comedy creativity Fonvizina.

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

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

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

"Minor" begins a glorious series greatest creatures Russian comedy, in which in the next century Griboedov's "Woe from Wit", Gogol's "The Inspector General", plays about " dark kingdom"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. Ivan’s mannerisms and the Counselor’s affectation at first glance seem to be opposed to the reasoning of the wise life experience parents. This couple, obsessed with all things French, are truly at the forefront of the laugh-out-loud diatribe. But the satirical pathos of “The Brigadier” is not limited only to the program of combating Frenchmania.” (9, 307)

The following episode of the same first act is indicative, where those present on stage have to express their opinions about grammar. Its benefit is unanimously denied. “How many serviceable secretaries we have who compose extracts without grammar, it’s delightful to look at! – exclaims the Advisor. “I have one in mind who, when he writes, another scientist cannot understand it with grammar forever.” The Brigadier echoes him: “What is grammar for, matchmaker? I lived without her until I was almost sixty years old, and I also raised children.” The Brigadier does not lag behind her husband; “Of course, grammar is not needed. Before you begin to teach it, you still need to buy it. You’ll pay eight hryvnia for it, but whether you learn it or not, God knows.” Neither 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 element compositional structure“comedies of intrigue”, where 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. Everyday authenticity portrait characteristics developed into a comically pointed grotesque.” (9.308-309)

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

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

So Ivan sees “animals” in his parents, but for the Advisor. suffering from village life, all the neighbors are also “ignorant” “cattle”. “They, my soul, think of nothing but table supplies; straight pigs.” At first, the likening to animals “donkey, horse, bear,” helping to explain to father and son, is of a relatively innocent nature. But the angry Ivan, in response to the Brigadier’s reminder that his son should not forget who his father is, resorts to 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 talking character, is caused by the words of the speakers themselves. Satire is dissolved in the action of comedy, and the indictment of the moral ugliness of the characters is made through their own speeches, and not introduced from the outside. This was the fundamental innovation of the method of Fonvizin the satirist,” notes Yu. V. Stennik. (9.349) Thus, a kind of antipsychologism - distinguishing feature comedy by Fonvizin.

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

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

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

Laughter and the author in Fonvizin’s comedy have not yet been identified, as happened with Griboedov and especially with Gogol in The Government Inspector, where the author does not speak for his characters at all, where they speak and act according to their comedic character, and laughter “i.e. e. 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 beyond artistic images reality and even ourselves. 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 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, speech is marked by the greatest individualization episodic characters- teachers of Mitrofan and his mother Eremeevna. 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. Sometimes bordering on abuse, sometimes 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 Speaking, directly correlated with 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 “Undergrowth” 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 research artistic system“Undergrowth”, we discover its saturation with 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 life, concrete in all its ugliness, is unfolded. landed nobility. 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 a second, comedic-satirical level artistic structure"Undergrown." 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 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. In the unity of these polarities opposite worlds and is the unique originality of comedy.

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, watchdog his mistress, who humiliatingly licks the hand of the owner who beat her.

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

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

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

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

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

Attitude crisis and change

Ideological position

“He was, of course, one of the smartest and noblest representatives of the true, sound school of thought in Russia, especially in the first time of his literary activity, before his illness; but his ardent, disinterested aspirations were too impractical, promised too little significant benefit before the court of the empress for her to encourage them. And she considered it best not to pay attention to him, having previously shown him that the path he was following would not lead to anything good...” says N. A. Dobrolyubov.

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

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

“Dvorovy” is the expressive name of this son of unfreedom. And his mode of action is its manifestation: even when he rebels, he behaves like a slave,” this is what V. O. Klyuchevsky says about the writer. And there is some truth in this offensive expression: in many ways, if not in everything, an outstanding, talented writer, Fonvizin as a “Voltairian” is very ordinary.

But gradually, as he matures and develops an ideological position, Fonvizin moves away from Voltairianism and his later work has a pronounced journalistic character.

As for Denis Ivanovich’s horror at the youthful sin of Voltairianism and doubt in faith, everything is clear here. His mind, the Russian mind of that time, brought up in religion and very far from the newfangled skepticism, easily overcame what was premature and unnecessary for him, but he remembered all this acutely and painfully when the time came for the painful leisure brought by the disease, when he had to dig in himself, in order to find the reasons for divine anger, the existence of which was believed also because the blows of fate were very constant.

It is very characteristic that one of the letters to Panin dated December 24, 1777 (January 4, 1778) says: “In a word, liberty is an empty name, and the right of the strong remains the right above all laws.” Thus, it is with “Letters from France” that the collapse of the Enlightenment faith begins.

It is interesting that “General Court Grammar” is a sharp allegorical satire on the court and its vices. And in “A sincere confession about my deeds and thoughts,” Fonvizin bitterly declares: “Young people! Do not think that your sharp words constitute your true glory; stop the insolence of your mind and know that the praise attributed to you is pure poison for you; and especially if you feel inclined to satire, tame it with all your strength: for you, without a doubt, will be subject to the same fate as me. They soon began to fear me, then to hate me; and instead of attracting people to me, I drove them away from me with words and pen. My writings were sharp curses: there was a lot of satirical salt in them, but, so to speak, not a drop of reason.”

Thus, there is a contradiction in Fonvizin’s views. This is due to the fact that, due to his illness, his last works, including “Frank Confession,” are permeated with motives of religious repentance and the horror of repression that befell his fellow educators.

Conclusion

“The son of his time, Fonvizin with all his appearance and direction creative quests belongs to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of the 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 which was D.I. Fonvizin" (12, 22).

Thus, having studied Fonvizin’s creativity in this work, we are convinced of his undoubted talent satirist and innovator of words. It was Fonvizin who laid the foundations of the Russian literary language. It was Fonvizin who showed us the reality of Catherine’s era, depicting it in his comedies. Perhaps this is why M. Gorky calls Fonvizin the founder of critical realism: “The types of Skotinin, Prostakovs, Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin are true drawings of the characters of that time, a true reflection of the ignorance and rudeness of the commanding class.”

From all of the above, we can conclude that Fonvizin was truly a brilliant educator and, at the same time, he was the finalizer of the Russian Enlightenment of the 18th century.

Bibliography

1. Vinogradov, V.V. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th-18th centuries. / Rep. ed. E. S. Istrina. – M.: State educational and pedagogical publishing house, 1934. – 288 p.
2. Gorshkov, A. I. History of the Russian literary language, M.: Higher School, 1969. – 432 p.
3. Gorshkov, A.I. About the language of Fonvizin - a prose writer // Russian speech. – 1979. - No. 2.
4. Gorshkov, A. I. The language of pre-Pushkin prose / Rep. ed. F. P. Filin. – M.: Nauka, 1982. – 240 p.
5. Klyuchevsky, V. O. Literary portraits / Comp., intro. Art. A. F. Smirnova. – M.: Sovremennik, 1991. – 463 pp., portrait. – (B-ka “For lovers of Russian literature.” From the literary heritage).
6. Rassadin, S. B. Satire is a brave ruler.
7. Pumpyansky, L.V. Classical tradition: Collection of works on the history of Russian literature / Rep. ed. A. P. Chudakov; Compiled by: E. M. Isserlin, N. I. Nikolaev; Entry Art., prepared. text and notes N. I. Nikolaeva. – M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 2000. – 864 p. – (Language. Semiotics. Culture).
8. Serman, I. Z. Russian classicism (Poetry. Drama. Satire) / Rep. ed. P. N. Berkov. – L.: Nauka, 1973. – 284 p.
9. Stennik, Yu. V. Russian satire of the 18th century / Rep. ed. N. A. Nikitina. – L.: Nauka, 1985. – 362 p.
10. Toporov, V. N. “Declensions on Russian customs” from a semiotic point of view // Works on sign systems. Tartu, 1993. Vol. 23.
11. Fonvizin in Russian criticism / Intro. Art. and note P. E. Shames. – M.: State. educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1958. – 232 p.
12. Fonvizin, D. I. Favorites: Poems. Comedy. Satirical prose and journalism. Autobiographical prose. Letters / Comp., intro. Art. and note Yu. V. Stennik; Artist P. Satsky. – M.: Sov. Russia, 1983. – 366 pp., 1 l. portrait, ill.
13. Fonvizin, D. I. Collection. Works: In 2 volumes - M.; L., 1959.
14. Az: lib.ru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has made every effort for the common good,

And he served for the glory of his fatherland,

He tasted direct joy in his life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D.I. Fonvizin is a great and famous Russian writer, a wonderful playwright, an amazing publicist, and an excellent translator. It is this man who is rightfully considered the master and main creator of classicism. It was Fonvizin who created the national comedy of everyday life. He is the man who wrote the play “Minor”, ​​beloved by all schoolchildren.

Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. His hometown was Moscow. The family bore the title of nobility. Of course, like many other noble children of that time, Denis was educated at home.

Their family had a patriarchal atmosphere.

Since 1755, the boy began to receive education in one of the noble gymnasiums located at Moscow University. After this, the boy entered the Faculty of Philosophy. In 1760, he became one of the chosen ones and went to St. Petersburg, where he met such famous people, like Lomonosov and Sumarokov.

The first works of the future great man appeared in the 1760s. His earlier work contained a sharp satirical orientation. In 1760 his famous “Minor” went into print. Along with creativity, Denis was closely involved in translations. In 1761, he translated Holberg's famous fables into Russian.

Since 1762, the young man has held the position of translator. From 1763 - Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers of Elagin himself. 1769 brings him the position of personal secretary of Count Panin himself.

In 1768, one of the satirical comedies called "Brigadier". After writing it, Fonvizin was invited to read the masterpiece to Empress Catherine II herself.

Since 1783, the writer has been actively traveling throughout Europe. Already in 1785, his first apoplexy occurred, and in 1787 he decided to return to his native Russia.

7th, 9th grade by year

Biography of Denis Fonvizin

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born in 1745 into a family of representatives of the middle nobility. His father, who retired from military service as a major, had a modest civil position in Moscow; Fonvizin's mother was from a more noble family. The Fonvizin family arrived in Russia from Germany in the mid-sixteenth century. At this time, Denis did not know a single language other than Russian. He had to learn German at school. Unlike many Russian nobles, he studied French when he was quite old.

When he was ten years old, Fonvizin was one of the first to be admitted to the newly opened Moscow University, apparently in preparation for university education. During his studies, he developed a strong desire for literature. An early trip to St. Petersburg (1760) took him to the imperial theater, where he saw a play by the Danish playwright Ludwig Hallberg. From this moment on, he begins to develop an interest in drama; in 1761 he published a translation of Hallberg's moral fables. The writer improved his Russian literary language and thoroughly mastered the French and German languages ​​while translating various articles for university magazines.

At seventeen, Fonvizin found his first job. He started working for public service the recently crowned Empress Catherine. During this period, he read the work of the satirist Antioch Cantemir, whose work, although written earlier, was published only in 1762. Impressed by this work, Fonvizin decided to write a humorous letter to his three servants, which was called “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka” . This work contained a satire on the realities of that period.

In October 1763, Fonvizin found a patron in Ivan Perfilyevich Elagin, a supporter of Catherine and a man with literary and theatrical interests. With Elagin's help, Fonvizin began to compete with Vladimir Lukin, a playwright of enormous talent. Fonvizin's collaboration with Elagin allowed him to experiment with literary translations in the 1760s. He made a poetic translation of Voltaire's Alzire, but did not publish it, realizing that although he wanted to write tragedy, his natural talent was for wit and satire.

At this time, the young man saw productions of neoclassical tragedies and comedies by Sumarokov, as well as numerous productions French comedies, translated by young nobles of the capital. Fonvizin also translated a play, Sidney, written by Jean-Baptiste Gresset; Fonvizin gave the name "Korion" to the Russian version. Despite the fact that the play was translated into Russian, the characters retained their French names. The play was staged in November 1764 at the court theater, but was not successful.

Fonvizin's life in fashionable St. Petersburg was later fully reflected in his plays. Fonvizin hated hypocrisy and pretense, and he did not like the St. Petersburg dudes, with their blind love for the French language and fashion and their contempt for anything Russian. Fonvizin was more inclined towards Russian life. His father's influence gave him strong feeling duty to his country. Inspired by the theatrical interests of his patron, Elagin, he decided to thoroughly write satirical works and comedies.

He added new figures that had not yet appeared on any Russian stage, for example, rude and petty noblewomen who lived in small towns and on their own lands, poorly educated people who recklessly served in tightly disciplined military units until they left the post of brigadier, for example. Their wives, barely literate, who knew nothing but housekeeping. Fonvizin added bribe-taking judges to his satires, about whom he learned a lot from his father. The result of all this was the comedy “Brigadier”. Fonvizin read the play at Elagin's house, and then in June 1769 in Peterhof for the Empress, who enjoyed the play. Twenty-four-year-old Fonvizin...

7th, 9th grade for children

Interesting facts and dates from life