What are the main themes of Fonvizin's works? Brief biography of D

The month of April is rich in memorable, significant and historical dates like this:

In our article we will talk about the wonderful writer D.I. Fonvizin, his work, including the comedy “The Minor,” which is modern and relevant to this day.

DENIS IVANOVICH FONVIZIN

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

This side of Fonvizin’s creative activity has not been sufficiently studied, and therefore, first of all, all of Fonvizin’s original and translated works have not yet been collected and published. Thus, the militant-educational character of his works of art, their place in the public life of Russia on the eve of the appearance of Radishchev’s book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790).

Pushkin was the first to point out that Fonvizin is not only “a ripe ruler of satire,” but also a “friend of freedom.” This estimate dates back to 1823. The poet was in exile in the south at that time. A hater of slavery, he waited for changes in the state, knowing full well that “our political freedom is inseparable from the liberation of the peasants.” For Pushkin, the concepts of enlightenment and freedom are equivalent. Only through enlightenment can real, not paper, freedom be achieved. Pushkin wrote down these thoughts in 1822 in “Notes on Russian History of the 18th Century.”

At the same time, the noble activities of Russian enlightenment writers of the 18th century were revealed to him.

Pushkin repeatedly called on participants in the Decembrist movement to remember their predecessors - to remember in order to feel support and draw strength from the living, long-begun struggle for the freedom of the fatherland, not by the methods of revolution, but by the methods of enlightenment, but they did not come to their senses.

Having decisively taken the position of enlightenment already in the 60s, Fonvizin subordinated all his talent as an artist to the service of a great goal. The ideology of enlightenment raised him to the crest of the indomitably emerging Russian liberation movement. Advanced ideology determined his aesthetic quest, his artistic achievements, his decisive rapprochement of literature with reality.

Pushkin's assessment is surprisingly laconic, historically specific and accurate. Gogol noted this feature of Pushkin’s artistic talent, his

an extraordinary art of expressing an entire subject with a few features: Pushkin’s epithet is so clear and bold,” he wrote, “that sometimes one alone replaces a whole description.

The definition of Fonvizin as a “friend of freedom” “meant the whole subject. It should serve as the basis for a “whole description” of his life, his creativity, his activities.

BIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITER

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. Fonvizin’s father, a landowner of average income, was, according to the writer, “a virtuous man,” “loved the truth,” “did not tolerate lies,” “hated covetousness,” “no one saw him among the leading nobles.” The mother “had a subtle mind and saw far with the eyes of her soul. Her heart was compassionate and did not contain any malice; “She was a virtuous wife, a child-loving mother, a prudent housewife and a generous lady.”

Fonvizin spent the first ten years with his family. Here he learned to read and write. His mentor was his father, who “read all Russian books,” “ancient and Roman history, the opinions of Cicero and others good translations moral books."

The opening of the first Russian university in 1755 changed the fate of Fonvizin. The writer's father, not being able to hire foreign language teachers, as was required by noble fashion, took advantage of the opportunity to give his son a real education.

he didn’t hesitate, one might say, even a day in sending me and my brother to the university, as soon as it was established,

The writer testifies. Fonvizin was enrolled in the Latin school of the noble gymnasium, which prepared him for admission to the university. After graduating from the gymnasium in the spring of 1762, he was promoted to student.

During his high school years, Fonvizin began to study literary translations.

My penchant for writing appeared in infancy, the writer recalled, and I, practicing translations into Russian, reached adolescence.

“Exercises in Translations” were conducted under the guidance of Professor Reichel (he taught general history And German), In 1762, in the university magazine “Collection best essays to the dissemination of knowledge and to the production of pleasure" some translations were published: "Mr. Menander's research on the mirrors of the ancients", "The Bargaining of the Seven Muses". The beginning of work on the translation of Voltaire’s tragedy “Alzira” dates back to the same time.

YEARS IN ST. PETERSBURG

In 1760, the director of the university took the best students to the capital to present them to the curator I. I. Shuvalov. Fonvizin was among the best. While staying in St. Petersburg, he attended a performance of a recently created Russian theater (in 1756). “The effect produced in me by the theater is almost impossible to describe,” the writer later recalled. First impressions determined Fonvizin's fate. Upon returning to Moscow, he attended with great interest the performances of the Locatelli Theater, in which the university troupe performed. After moving to St. Petersburg in 1762, Fonvizin forever associated himself with the Russian theater.

On June 28, 1762, the wife of Peter III, Ekaterina Alekseevna, relying on the guards regiments, carried out a coup. The political inspirer of the coup was the teacher of Paul’s heir, Nikita Panin. The demands of the noble liberals, whose leader was Panin, boiled down to the establishment of a constitution.

It was at this time that Fonvizin’s fate suddenly changed, and he unexpectedly found himself close to political affairs in the state, to the court, to the struggle that was seething around the new empress. Vice-Chancellor Golitsyn decided on the student Fonvizin, who was fluent in foreign languages, hire a translator for a foreign collegium. In October 1762, Fonvizin filed a petition addressed to Catherine. When petitioning, the op encloses samples of translations from three languages - Latin, French and German. Noteworthy are the translations from Latin - M. Tullius Cicero's “Speech for Marcellus” and from French - “Political Discourse on the Number of Inhabitants of Some Ancient Nations.” Fonvizin passed the test not only as a translator. The “materials” he chose for translation testified to the student’s political interests.

Chancellor M.I. Vorontsov, who headed the foreign collegium, noticed the talent of the young translator and brought him closer to him. As Fonvizin, the chancellor, later recalled, “ important papers gave it to me specifically for translation.” Among the “most important” were various political works. Having become acquainted with one of these French works, Fonvizin made short summary, entitled "An abbreviation on the liberty of the French nobility and the benefits of the third rank."

Having outlined the contents of the treatise, Fonvizin, deeply understanding the enormous importance of the “third rank” in the economic and social life of the country, writes that “this third rank is not difficult to establish in Russia.” Next, he sets out his plan for the social revival of the fatherland. “The third rank is one with the people.” It is necessary to encourage the activities of all those who “strive for manufactures, establish exchanges for things, evaluate goods” - all merchants, artists and artisans. They all must be given freedom. Merchants and “glorious artists” are “dismissed” from selling. The children of peasants can be admitted to the university, and those who study the “higher sciences” must be freed from serfdom based on a certificate.

When,” Fonvizin asserts, “everyone is able to exercise in what he has a talent for, everyone will insensitively form a third-rank corps with the rest of the liberated.

An important part of the plan for social transformation is the question of the peasantry. Fonvizin is against slavery. But he believes that it is impossible to free the serfs immediately. Now it is necessary to limit serfdom, increase the rights of peasants (allow them to study at universities, allow them to engage in any business with the right to leave the village, etc.) and thereby gradually prepare for their complete liberation. Fonvizin believes that a free peasant will be richer and will find more ways for payment of rent. At the end of the article, Fonvizin succinctly outlined the swap plan:

In a word, in Russia there should be: 1) a nobility, completely free, 2) a third rank, completely freed, and 3) a people practicing agriculture - although not completely free, but at least having the hope of being free when they are so farmers or such artists (craftsmen) so that over time they could bring to perfection the villages or manufactories of their masters.

The program of social reforms developed by Fonvizin was of a bourgeois liberation character. As an educator, he believes in the possibility of its peaceful implementation. The question of who and how can implement this program has not yet been resolved. Fonvizin will answer this in a few years.

At the beginning of October 1763, by decree of Catherine, Fonvizin was ordered, “as a member of the foreign collegium,” to “be with our State Councilor Elagin for certain matters.” I.P. Elagin was in the empress’s office “to accept petitions.” In addition, he was in charge of theaters. Elagin was not only a dignitary, but also an educated man who amateurishly studied poetry, drama, translations, history...

But court life weighed heavily on Fonvizin. His letters to his sister in Moscow are filled with complaints:

Today there is a masquerade at court, and I will trudge there in my domina; … boring; ... yesterday I was at the kurtag, and, I don’t know what, I felt so sad that I left without waiting for the end; ...I came home from Kurtag, embarrassed; ... there was an awful lot of people, but I swear to you that I, with all that, was in the desert. There was almost not a single person with whom I would consider talking even if it was a small pleasure.

It is almost impossible to live in the world, and in St. Petersburg it is completely impossible.

In another letter, Fonvizin clarified his idea:

An honest person cannot live in circumstances that are not based on honor.

FEATURES OF FONVIZIN'S CREATIVITY

Despite the busyness of court service, Fonvizin worked a lot and hard during these years. The main thing was translations.

The most important feature of the development of Russian social thought in the 18th century was the formation of enlightenment ideology. It was not the bourgeoisie, but the nobility that brought forward the first enlighteners from among themselves. This Enlightenment was not bourgeois, but noble.

In the 60s of the 18th century, at a time of intensified peasant protest, on the eve of the Pugachev uprising, the enlightenment ideology finally took shape. Such educators as philosopher Yakov Kozelsky, writer and publisher Nikolai Novikov, and popularizer of educational ideology, professor Nikolai Kurganov, entered the public arena. In the same decade, Fonvizin also took the position of enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, as an anti-feudal ideology, has certain characteristic and unique features. Hostility to serfdom and all its products in the economic, social and legal fields, defense of education, freedom and, finally, defense of the interests of the people - these are the main features of the Enlightenment.

In "The Brigadier" Fonvizin laughs cheerfully at the ugliness of life. Sometimes we smile when we see Frenchmania or the idiotically meaningless life of a slacker. But in most cases, Ivanushka’s behavior and speech cause indignation and indignation. When he, a “fool” according to his father, declares:

I owe... the French coachman for my love for France and for my coldness towards the Russians,... or: my body was born in Russia, this is true, but my spirit belongs to the French crown,... or: I am an extremely unhappy person. I have been living for twenty-five years and still have a father and mother.

Or when he engages in dirty, loving courtship with someone else’s wife, not a smile, but anger arises in the soul of the viewer and reader. And this is the merit of the playwright - the image of Ivan is constructed in a sharply satirical and accusatory manner. The Ivans - the young generation of Russian serf-owning nobles - are the enemies of Fonvizin.

Brigadier" is a comedy, and the first comedy is truly Russian, and the first comedy is truly funny. Pushkin valued gaiety very highly and extremely regretted that there were so few truly cheerful works in Russian literature. That is why he lovingly noted this feature of Fonvizin’s talent, pointing out the direct continuity of the dramaturgy of Fonvizin and Gogol. Speaking about Gogol’s “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka,” Pushkin wrote:

How amazed we were at the Russian book, which made us laugh, we, who had not laughed since the time of Fonvizin.

Pushkin’s comparison of Gogol and Fonvizin is not accidental. Gogol, the creator of Russian realistic comedy, is closely associated with Fonvizin. Fonvizin began what Gogol completed. In particular, Fonvizin was the first to take a decisive step towards realism and in the comic field. “The Brigadier” was written during the heyday of Russian noble classicism.

In 1777, Fonvizin published his translation of the political work of the French educator Thomas, “A Word of Eulogy to Marcus Aurelius.”

In September 1777, Fonvizin went to France, upon his return from which Fonvizin began work on a new comedy, which he called “The Minor.”

COMEDY “UNDERGROUND”

"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.”

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 the peasants had, we can’t take anything back. Such a disaster!

Slavery turns peasants into slaves, completely killing everything in them human traits, all the dignity of the individual. This comes out with particular force in the courtyards. Fonvizin created the image enormous power- Eremeevna's slaves.

An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings - that's what befalls her. She had long ago lost even human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames: “beast”, “old bastard”, “dog’s daughter”, “scum”. Abuse, slander and humiliation made Eremeevna a slave, his mistress’s chain dog, who humiliatingly licks the hand of the owner who beat her.

Pravdin and Starodum appeared on stage for the first time goodies who act by 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 states?

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 people of their era. Not sympathizing with revolutionary methods of action, moreover, rejecting them, at the same time they could not help but protest against the slave-owning and despotic regime of Catherine II in relation to the common people. 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, Radishchev will come 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 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 do they 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 wrong. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing: the doctor will not help unless he himself becomes infected.

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

Pravdin and Starodum, in their worldview, are students of the Russian Enlightenment. Two most important political issues determined the program of the 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 (although it must be said that while supporting the second process, many worked for the revolutionaries).

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.

CREATIVITY IN RECENT YEARS

On March 7, 1782, Fonvizin submitted a petition to Catherine to be “dismissed from service.” Three days later, the empress signed a decree of resignation. Fonvizin pointedly refused to serve Catherine, deciding to devote all his strength to literary activity. After writing “The Minor,” his attention was increasingly attracted by prose. He wants to write small-sized satirical prose works. It would be best to print them in periodical. This is how the idea of owning a satirical magazine arises. Unexpected circumstances that provided the opportunity to take part in a newly opened magazine in the capital forced us to temporarily postpone the plan of organizing our own magazine.

In May 1783, the magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” began to be published. Its official editor was Princess E.R. Dashkova. Behind the scenes, Catherine herself was involved in the magazine, publishing her historical and satirical works in it. Fonvizin decided to take part in the magazine and publish in it anonymously several satirical works. The writer gave battle to the empress on her own bridgehead.

Of all the works of Fonvizin published in Sobesednik, the greatest public importance had a unique form of political satire: “Several questions that can arouse smart and honest people special attention." “Nedorosl” has already set several challenges for smart and honest people. important issues concerning the life of the Russian state.

In 1783, Fonvizin won the battle with Catherine, which he fought on the pages of the Interlocutor. The defeated empress decided to brutally take revenge on the daring writer, and, having learned the name of the author of the “free-language” questions, she, as facts show, instructed the police not to print any more new works by Fonvizin.

In the summer of 1784, Fonvizin left for Italy. Visiting Florence, Livorno, Rome, Fonvizin studied Italian theater, music and especially the famous painting of Italy. As during his travels in France, he keeps a journal, which he still sends in the form of letters to his sister in Moscow.

The return to Russia in August 1785 was overshadowed serious illness. Having reached Moscow, Fonvizin went to bed for a long time - he was overcome by paralysis.

A year later, doctors demanded that Fonvizin leave for treatment in Carlsbad. Only in September 1787 did Fonvizin return to St. Petersburg. It was not possible to completely restore his health, but still, after a long treatment, the writer felt better - he began to walk, his speech returned. Having rested after a tiring trip, Fonvizin got to work. He decided to publish his own satirical magazine, calling it “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum.” The overlap with “The Minor” was not accidental: the sick writer was preparing for a new duel with the almighty empress.

Such a magazine, of course, could not be published. Presented to the police, he was banned. The name of the publisher was known - this is “the author of “The Minor.” After “The Minor” and “Several Questions” published in “Interlocutor”, after “The Life of N.I. Panin” Catherine decided to put an end to the activities of Fonvizin the writer, forbidding him to publish. But the writer hated by Catherine did not let up and in the new magazine he bravely took upon himself the mission of being a “guardian of the common good.” There is no doubt that the police received instructions not to allow any more new works by Fonvizin to be published. That is why “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum” was banned.

The last years of Fonvizin's life were spent in a cruel and tragic struggle with the empress. He selflessly and inventively searched for ways to reach the reader. That is why, immediately after the banning of the magazine, Fonvizin decides to publish a complete collection of his works, which would include all the works intended for the “Friend of Honest People.” But the collected works were also prohibited in the same 1788. Then Fonvizin decided to publish a new magazine, already in Moscow, and not alone, but in collaboration with other writers. The magazine was to be called “Moscow Works”. Fonvizin had already developed his program, but this magazine did not see the light of day either.

During 1791 he was struck down by apoplexy four times.

At the same time, apparently, it began last piece - autobiographical story“Frank confessions of my deeds and thoughts.” The example of the great Rousseau, who wrote his autobiography “Confessions,” inspired him. The surviving fragments of “A Sincere Confession” indicate that when the great writer began to describe in detail the affairs of his youth, the satirist awakened in him again, who angrily and mercilessly ridiculed the morals of noble society.

Until his death, Fonvizin worked and lived actively, intensely, in close connection with the writers of his time. At the end of the 80s, he established a connection with the young translator and publisher Peter Bogdanovich. He agreed with him to publish the complete collection of his works. Despite his illness, the writer prepared 5 volumes of this collection, again including forbidden articles from “Friend of Honest People.” This is the best evidence that Fonvizin did not repent of anything at the end of his life and still wanted with his satirical and political writings fight Catherine and serve your fatherland. When this publication, almost completed, was banned, Fonvizin, realizing that his days were numbered, handed over all the manuscripts to Pyotr Bogdanovich for publication in the future.

CONCLUSION

Bright, deeply original, “from the Russian over-Russians,” according to Pushkin’s definition, Fonvizin’s talent manifested itself most forcefully in the language. Fonvizin, a brilliant master of language with a great sense of words, created figurative speech unparalleled in richness, freshness and courage, imbued with irony and gaiety. This skill was reflected in comedy, and in prose works, and in many letters from France and Italy.

Speaking about the state of young Russian prose literature at the beginning of the 19th century, Pushkin wrote that it was still forced “to create turns of phrase to explain the most ordinary concepts.” On this path, it was absolutely necessary to overcome the influence of Karamzin and his school, which left a legacy of “mannerness, timidity and pallor.” And in the struggle for the “naked simplicity” of Russian prose, both dramatic and prose works of Fonvizin, and especially letters from abroad, played a huge, still unappreciated role.

It was here that, with amazing ease and skill, Fonvizin created turns of phrase to explain concepts, both the most ordinary and the most complex. Simply and efficiently, specifically and vividly, in a truly Russian style, Fonvizin wrote about the life of foreign peoples, about “political matters”, about art and economics, about Russian nobles abroad - their behavior, actions, characters, and about European philosophy, theatrical life Paris, and about the roads, inns and folk festivals, about museums, religious holidays and theatrical papal services. Belinsky rightly called these letters “sensible,” testifying that Fonvizina:

Although modern reader 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 proverbs: “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married,” “Why geography when cab drivers there is" 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 were passed on from generation to generation, which played important role in the history of the liberation movement.

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 Amusement” and “Collected Best Works.” 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.

Fonvizin's first literary works were 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 interested young writer works 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, such as the competition of the Free Economic Society on the condition of the serfs (1766) and the convening of the Commission to draw up the 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 the “third rank” in Russia, which meant the merchants, craftsmen and intelligentsia. The new “philistine” class was supposed to gradually 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 at least having 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 selectivity of his class. It should be noted, however, that Fonvizin’s early interest in class, and essentially in social issues, characteristic of his subsequent work, will allow him to more soberly than many of his contemporaries 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 the Russian nobility too well to expect support from them 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 his 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. Concept 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.

The remarkable Russian playwright Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1744/45-1792), author of the comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor,” began his creative career as a poet. He was born into a Russified German family that had long since taken root in Moscow. His father, educated freethinker, carried throughout his life high concepts of honor, dignity and social duty of a nobleman. Fonvizin, by his own admission, “copied” the old man from the comedy “The Minor” from his father. Decency and independence of judgment were the main qualities that the head of the family cultivated in his sons. Younger brother Denisa Pavel, who later left a good mark as the director of Moscow University, also wrote poetry. But the brothers' poems were different. Pavel Ivanovich was attracted to elegiac poetry. Denis Ivanovich, distinguished by a mocking mentality, practiced parodies, satirical messages and fables.

After graduating from the gymnasium at Moscow University, both brothers became students of this university. Denis Ivanovich receives a philological and philosophical education and, upon completion of the course, is assigned to serve in St. Petersburg at the College of Foreign Affairs. Here he worked since 1762 as a translator, and then as a secretary for a major political figure of that time, N.I. Panin, sharing his opposition views towards Catherine II, and on his instructions developed draft constitutional reforms in Russia, which were supposed to abolish serfdom, rid the country of the power of temporary workers, and provide political rights to all classes.

Very early, the young man showed the qualities that his father fostered in him: courage of judgment and independence of behavior. It is no coincidence that, in addition to famous comedies, he left to his descendants sharp political pamphlets and boldly and brilliantly written journalistic articles. He translated Voltaire's tragedy "Alzira", filled with daring attacks against the ruling power, into Russian.

The bravest journalistic work Fonvizin had the so-called “Testament of N.I. Panin" (1783). An opposition-minded nobleman, to whose party Fonvizin belonged, shortly before his death asked the writer to draw up a political will for him. This was supposed to be a pamphlet addressed to the heir to the throne, Paul, and directed against the order established in Russia by his mother Catherine II. Fonvizin carried out the assignment brilliantly. Three decades will pass, and the formidable indictment document, written with a masterful hand, will be adopted by the Decembrists, creating secret political societies.

Having clarified Fonvizin’s ideological position, let us turn to the analysis of two of his poetic works, which were distributed due to their daring content in lists and published only much later. Both of them were created in the early 1760s, when Fonvizin had already moved to St. Petersburg and served in the College of Foreign Affairs. Both have a strong satirical bent. One of them is the fable “Fox-Koznodey”, the second is “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka”.

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 the Libyan side a true rumor rushed,

That Leo, the king of the beasts, big forest died,

Cattle flocked there from all directions

Witness a huge funeral.

Fox-Koznodey, during this gloomy ritual,

With a humble charea, in monastic attire,

Climbing up onto the pulpit, he cries out with delight:

“Oh rock! the fiercest rock! Who has the world lost?

Struck by the death of the meek ruler,

Weep and wail, venerable cathedral of beasts!

Behold the king, the wisest of all forest kings,

Worthy of eternal tears, worthy of altars,

Father to his slaves, terrible to his enemies,

Prostrate before us, insensitive and voiceless!

Whose mind could comprehend the number of his kindnesses?

The abyss of goodness, the greatness of generosity?

During his reign, innocence did not suffer

And truth fearlessly presided at the trial;

He nourished bestiality in his soul,

In it he respected the support of his throne;

There was a planter of order in his area,

He was a friend and patron of the arts and sciences.”

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; 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.

Let us recall the dialogue between Starodum and Pravdin from the third act of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” (1781). Starodum talks about the vile morals and orders that reign at court. An honest and decent person, he could not accept them, adapt to them. Pravdin is amazed: “With your rules, people should not be released from the court, but they must be called to the court.” "What for? “- Starodum is perplexed. “Then why do they call a doctor to a sick person,” Pravdin gets excited. Starodum cools his ardor with a reasonable remark: “My friend, you are mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing. The doctor won’t help here unless he gets infected himself.” Isn't it true that the ending of the fable resembles the quoted dialogue? The fable and the comedy were separated by a time period of almost twenty years. The thoughts expressed by the young poet Fonvizin will find development and completion in another artistic form: dramatic, brought to the wide public stage.

Date of creation of another wonderful poetic work Fonvizin’s “Messages to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka” has not been precisely established. Most likely it was written between 1762 and 1763. No less daring in content than “Fox-Koznodey,” “Message” also reached readers without the name of the author, in handwritten copies. In the poem, from the very first lines, it seems to be somewhat abstract, philosophical problem: what is it created for? White light"and what place is assigned to man in it. However, for clarification, the author, who is also one of the heroes of the “Message,” turns not to learned men, but to his servants. To the middle-aged “uncle” (that is, the servant assigned to the master to “look after” him) Shumilov, who had already turned gray. The coachman Vanka, apparently, is a middle-aged man who has already seen a lot in his life. And Petrushka, the youngest and therefore the most frivolous of the trio of servants.

The judgments of the coachman Vanka are the central and most important part of the poem. Having chosen the conductor of your ideas common man from the people, Fonvizin gives a sharp description of the order in the country. No church dogmas, no government regulations will explain or justify social order, in which the system of universal hypocrisy, deception and theft triumphs:

The priests are trying to deceive the people,

Servants are the butler, butlers are the masters,

Each other are gentlemen, and noble boyars

Often they want to deceive the sovereign;

And everyone, in order to fill his pocket tighter,

For the sake of good, he decided to engage in deception.

Before money, the townsmen's delicacies, the nobles,

Judges, clerks, soldiers and peasants.

Humble are the shepherds of our souls and hearts

They deign to collect rent from their sheep.

Sheep marry, breed, die,

And the shepherds line their pockets,

For pure money they forgive every sin,

Money promises a lot of pleasures in paradise.

But if you can tell the truth in the world,

I will tell you my opinion truthfully:

For the money of the Most High Creator

Both the shepherd and the sheep are ready to deceive!

From an unassuming plot picture (three servants seem to be discussing an abstract topic) a large-scale picture of the life of Russian society emerges. It captures the life and morality of common people, church ministers, and “great gentlemen.” It includes the Creator himself in its orbit! The “Message” was a bold and risky challenge to both the politics and ideology of the ruling circles. That’s why it couldn’t have been published in those days; it was circulated in handwritten lists. “The light here” lives by untruth - this is the final conclusion of the work.

In 1769, twenty-four-year-old Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792) wrote the comedy “The Brigadier.” This is a cruel satire on young people who visited France, on the servile attitude towards them in Russia, on the disdain for everything domestic. Fonvizin himself, having been abroad several times, including in France, became acquainted with European countries, but was not fascinated by them. The comedy “The Brigadier” did not have a stage adaptation for a long time, but was read by the author many times among friends and acquaintances. Listeners, and later spectators, enthusiastically accepted the comedy for its striking similarity, faithfulness of characters and typical images.

In 1782, Fonvizin wrote the comedy “The Minor.” The first production took place on September 24, 1782.V.O. Klyuchevsky called “Nedorosl” an “incomparable mirror” of Russian reality. Exposing the lordly tyranny, Fonvizin showed the corrupting effect of serfdom, which disfigured both peasants and landowners. The problem of educating the nobility, raised in “Brigadier,” received a social resonance in “Nedorosl.” Fonvizin adhered to the educational program moral education citizen and patriot, true son of the Fatherland.

In 1782 Fonvizin retired. Despite serious illness, he continued to study literary creativity. He wrote “The Experience of a Russian Dictionary” (1783), “Several Questions That Can Arouse Special Attention in Smart and Honest People” (1783), which actually contained criticism domestic policy Catherine II, which displeased the Empress. Of great interest are his autobiographical notes “A sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts,” as well as Fonvizin’s extensive epistolary heritage.

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 Western European culture, but at the same time struggling with blind imitation of foreign things. Fonvizin knew perfectly well folk speech and used it skillfully: Russian vernacular, 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 “Epistle 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, 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 morals and characters, precise details and signs of everyday life, colloquial speech with the frequent use of common words and expressions are found in his fables. 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 the powers that be with flattering speeches and servile behavior. 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; whisper in each other's ears.

Brigadier

Denis Fonvizin began writing the five-act comedy “Brigadier” in the first days of his stay in Moscow in the winter of 1768. In the spring of 1769, Denis Ivanovich mentioned her in his letter to the Russian statesman, poet and historian Ivan Elagin: “I’ve 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, with the help of “righteous speeches,” to show a picture of Russian life. At the same time, the comedy raised the question of the method of creating a national comedy, posed in Elagin’s circle, in a new way.

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, both in the depth of ideological issues, in the courage and originality of the ideas found. artistic solutions remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century. The accusatory pathos of “The Minor” is fed by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. Satire and journalism are lame.

Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of 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 issues, 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 especially 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. The unlimited power of landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities, became a source of arbitrariness; this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the 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 thinkers of the 18th century was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national 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 the direction of his creative quest, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work 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 of 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 the palace coup that brought 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 high-ranking 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 own style, which became an example of philosophical lyrics: the ode “On the Death of Prince Meshchersky” (1799), the 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'm 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 last years During 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 was formed into a government-approved literary society“Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”, in which Derzhavin took 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.