To use the preview of presentations, create a Google account (account) and sign in: https://accounts.google.com
Slides captions:
Satyrs of a brave ruler ...
Fonvizin is the largest Russian playwright of the 18th century, the creator of Russian social comedy. The formation of Russian artistic prose is also associated with the name of Fonvizin. Great was the influence of the personality of Fonvizin on his contemporaries, leaders of the advanced culture XIX century. A.S. Pushkin, who saw in Fonvizin a champion of enlightenment, a fighter against serfdom, called him "a friend of freedom."
Born into a wealthy noble family. From 1755 to 1760 he studied at the gymnasium at Moscow University, and in 1761-1762 at the Faculty of Philosophy of the same university. In his student years he was engaged in translations. In 1762, Fonvizin decided to become a translator for the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and moved to St. Petersburg. The surname Von Wiesen (German von Wiesen) was written in the 18th century in two words or with a hyphen.
Fonvizin's literary activity begins in the 60s of the 18th century. Inquisitive and sharp clever man, he was created in order to become a satirist. And there were enough reasons for bitter laughter in the Russian reality of that time. Fonvizin saw that embezzlers, bribe-takers, careerists gathered around the throne of Catherine II, that waves of peasant uprisings were formidable signs of an impending popular storm. As a result of communication with a circle of young free-thinking officers, he created "Message to my servants ..." (1769) - a satirical work based on the traditions of Russian fable and satire. At the same time, the writer showed interest in drama, he had an idea for an original Russian satirical comedy. The first example of this kind was his "Brigadier" (1766-1769).
DI. Fonvizin reads "The Brigadier" in the salon of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich. From an engraving by P. Borel
In his most significant work - the comedy "Undergrowth" (1781) - Fonvizin points to the root of all Russia's troubles - serfdom. The author evaluates and judges not human vices in themselves, but, above all, social relations. Positive heroes - enlightened nobles - do not just condemn serfdom, but fight against it. Comedy is built on sharp social conflict. Life in the house of the Prostakovs is presented not as a summary of ridiculous customs, but as a system of relations based on serfdom.
Cover of the first edition of the comedy "Undergrowth".
The author creates multifaceted characters, exposing the inner drama of such negative characters as Yeremeevna and Prostakova. According to N.V. Gogol, "Undergrowth" is "... a truly social comedy." In 1782, Fonvizin resigned and was engaged only in literary activities. In 1783 he published a number of satirical works. The empress herself answered them with irritation.
Fonvizin was a living, secular person; educated, courageous, he stood above many prejudices of his time, believed that it was not shameful for a nobleman to engage in trade. He was friends with the actor Ivan Dmitrievsky, although the actors were, according to the concepts of that time, something like servants. Communicating with nobles in the court world, he married the daughter of a merchant, despite the obvious disapproval of his relatives.
The last years of his life, Fonvizin was seriously ill (paralysis), but continued to write until his death. In 1789, he began work on the autobiographical story "A sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts", but did not finish this work. The story is a remarkable work of Russian prose. Here, in the image of the author, the character of a person and a writer is recreated - Russian in mindset, humor, irony, shows the spiritual wealth of a person who knows how to rise above his weaknesses and fearlessly tell his compatriots about them.
With all his heart, Fonvizin loved his homeland and his people. The motto of his life were the words: You must dedicate your life to the Fatherland, If you want to be an honest person forever.
Addresses in St. Petersburg Summer 1773 - 11.1774 - Bolshaya Sadovaya Street, 26. His grave in a cast-iron fence is located at the Lazarevsky cemetery in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra next to the graves of architect I.E Starov, mathematician L. Euler and artist V.L. Borovikovsky.
Magic edge! There in the old days, Satyrs brave ruler, Fonvizin shone, a friend of freedom ... A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" Excellent satirist Ignorance was executed in the folk comedy A.S. Pushkin "Message to the Censor" Interesting Facts Fonvizin is mentioned: - ... Really, I really like this innocence! Here you are, - continued the Empress, fixing her eyes on a man with a full, but somewhat pale face, who was standing a little distance from other middle-aged people, whose modest caftan with large mother-of-pearl buttons showed that he did not belong to the number of courtiers, - an object worthy of your witty pen! “You, Your Imperial Majesty, are too merciful. At least La Fontaine is needed here! - answered, bowing, a man with mother-of-pearl buttons. N.V. Gogol "The Night Before Christmas"
Independent work with a textbook article What were the educational successes of D.I. Fonvizin? What did the memory of young Fonvizin keep forever from a trip to St. Petersburg? What is the focus of D.I. Fonvizin's work. List his first work. When was it created and where and when was the comedy "Undergrowth" staged? What creative plans did D.I. Fonvizin have but failed to realize?
Magic edge! There in the old days
Satyrs are a bold ruler,
Fonvizin shone, friend of freedom...
A. S. Pushkin
A bold lord of satire, a writer of great talent, an artist merciless in his truth, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was the founder of Russian realism. "He initiated the most magnificent and, perhaps, the most socially fruitful line of Russian literature - the accusatory-realistic line," wrote A. M. Gorky. In his works, Fonvizin skillfully exposed the vices of the ruling class, waged a struggle against the Russian autocracy, reflected the whole gamut of mores of his contemporary era, expressed a sharp rise in people's national self-consciousness. His sharp observant gaze noted all the unpleasant details of the surrounding reality: corruption and lawlessness of the courts, the baseness of the moral character of the nobles, favoritism encouraged by the highest authorities. All these vices of society were certainly subjected to his well-aimed satire.
Even at the beginning of his creative activity Fonvizin became close friends with young progressive writers and publishers. The result of communication with them was the poem "Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka", in which the foundations of church teaching and the defenders of religion who preach divine wisdom in the creation of the world and man. The author, with frank irony, exposed the lies and hypocrisy of the statutes of official morality:
Priests try to deceive people
Butler's servants, gentlemen's butlers,
Each other's gentlemen, and noble boyars
Often they want to deceive the sovereign;
And everyone, to fill his pocket tighter,
For good reason, I decided to take up deception.
Fonvizin was not interested in demonstrating abstract vices, but in revealing the real life of representatives of the "noble class". So, in the comedy "The Brigadier" he shows the mental apathy and lack of spirituality, stupidity and cruelty, selfishness and depravity that reign in society. Behind the external decency of the heroes lies the predatory appearance of the owners, ready to cut each other's throats. Both the foreman and the adviser were in the service in the past. But the service was for them only a means to achieve a single goal - career development, own benefit.
In the works of the satirist there is no artificial introduction of comic elements. Their object is real life, pure truth. The created images are typical, their language and behavior are fully consistent with the environment and era. A vivid picture of the wild ignorance and arbitrariness of the local nobles is presented in the Letters to Falaley. According to the author, the immoral behavior of the heroes turns them into the likeness of cattle, which is intensified by a blind passion for animals and, along with this, cruelty to serfs, whom they do not at all consider to be people.
The writer also presents a bold assessment of Catherine's reign, a denunciation of all his shortcomings in "Discourse on the indispensable state laws." Here the author touches upon the question of the relationship between the people and the sovereign. He expresses a deep conviction that "...he cannot rule others with glory who cannot rule himself...", thereby making it clear that he does not approve of the policy and behavior of the authorities. In his opinion, Catherine did not fulfill the main task of the ruler - "did not introduce indispensable rules in her state," without which there is no guarantee that she herself will not make her rule autocratic, tyrannical.
A true son of his time, D. I. Fonvizin belonged to the leading people of the 18th century. Throughout his career, he affirmed the high ideals of justice and humanism. In all his works, a courageous protest against the injustice of autocracy, an angry denunciation of feudal abuse is sure to sound. And his well-aimed and true weapon was a bold satire.
It seems to me that the great Russian writer and poet Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin called Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin not without reason - "The brave master of satire." It was Fonvizin who at one time founded such a trend in literature as Russian realism. In his work, the writer managed to raise the vices of society, especially the ruling classes of Russia, to the surface. He fought against injustice and arbitrariness of the state. Fonvizin was an amazingly observant writer, he managed to reflect in his work those problem areas of society that no one had spoken about before him. As soon as he saw any manifestation of lawlessness and injustice, a new and very accurate satire came out from under his pen, exposing this.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin did not have to invent the characters of his works - he observed their vices and themselves in his life. The writer tried to show his readers how the lack of concepts of morality and morality “brutes” a person, turns him into a stupid animal. It is from here, according to the author, that the unjustified cruelty of the landowners towards their serfs comes.
I really like the satire of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. He was honest with his readers, and was not afraid of responsibility for his works, he brought people the truth! And, in my humble opinion, he was absolutely right when he called Fonvizin "The Bold Master of Satire." It is impossible to describe it better!
Among the young men described in the famous Lomonosov ode of 1747, who love science and want to serve in this field of the new Russia, we see the Russian nobleman and descendant of the German knights Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792), a brilliant playwright and prose writer. He entered the gymnasium at Moscow University, and then, under the patronage of I.I. Shuvalov, became his student, played on the stage of the local amateur theater, began literary studies early, printing his translations from German. Young Fonvizin learned a lot from the intelligent and knowledgeable German professor I. Reichel and showed an extraordinary ability for foreign languages.
But no one in the 18th century wrote drama and prose in such a lively, organic folk language as this Russified German, whom Pushkin aptly called "from the Pere-Russian Russians." With Fonvizin, the general line of Russian satire begins, leading through his younger contemporary and worthy heir Krylov to Gogol, Shchedrin and Bulgakov. This playwright made his public comedy truly popular, laughter his main actor and a denouncer of national vices, and the Russian theater - the department with which they later turned to our audience and.
Fonvizin followed the path of enlightenment designated by Lomonosov, but chose one from his system of “three calms” - the element of the living Russian word, which the nobility, especially the provincial, clergy and educated raznochintsy, continued to speak. More precisely, the playwright created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of the word and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, but his heroes as positive characters. As a member Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in the study and improvement of his modern language.
Fonvizin's satire is directed both at people and at their language (this can already be seen in the early "Brigadier", where the ignorant and rude brigadier and brigadier with their archaic sayings, and their stupid, Frenchized son Ivanushka and the cutesy fashionista adviser are equally funny), moreover , she skillfully uses their language as an instrument of satirical characteristics. But the playwright wanted to portray, that is, to make his living contemporaries act and speak on the stage and their true oral language. And already in the "Brigadier" he succeeded completely. The enlightened boss and patron of Fonvizin, Count N.I. Panin, after reading the comedy at the court of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich, correctly remarked to the author: “You know our morals very well, for the Brigadier is your relatives to everyone ... This is the first comedy in our morals.”
The theater of classicism, where the French pseudo-historical tragedy in verse and Russian imitations of it reigned, could not embody the innovative ideas of Fonvizin the playwright, moreover, satire was then considered the lowest kind of literature. The writer knew new Russia and understood the nature of the theater as a public spectacle, among his friends were the best actors of that time F.G. Volkov and I.A. Dmitrevsky, the future performer of the role of Starodum. Fonvizin himself possessed an extraordinary gift as an actor and reader. Hence the huge success of his first comedy "The Brigadier" (1768-1769), which was read by the author to the Empress, Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich and many nobles and staged in the court theater.
A fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp retorts, bold comic situations, individualized colloquial speech of characters, an evil satire on the Russian nobility, mockery of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive and at the same time familiar, recognizable to the listeners and viewers of "The Brigadier ". The young Fonvizin attacked the noble society and its vices, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, the plague of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of heavy tyranny, everyday household cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. The theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language that were understandable to the audience, sharp actual problems, recognizable collisions. All this is in the famous comedy Fonvizin "Undergrowth", which is staged today.
The comedy was written in 1779-1781 and staged in 1782. By this time, Fonvizin had already completed his official and court career and was forced to retire in the no small rank of a state adviser, in fact, it was disgrace. While serving in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, he was the right hand of Vice-Chancellor N.I. Panin, that is, in fact, the first deputy minister of foreign affairs and largely determined the foreign policy of the Russian Empire. Fonvizin was appreciated and brought closer to himself by the intelligent and enlightened heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. At first, Empress Catherine, herself a writer and comedian, also favorably treated the witty author of The Brigadier.
But bold journal speeches, dangerous proximity to the disgraced heir to the throne, Princess E.R. Dashkova, Count G. Orlov and Panin, the head of the anti-Catherine opposition, the political and personal conflict with the all-powerful, interfered with Fonvizin’s court and literary career and finally quarreled him with the suspicious empress, who , as Pushkin rightly noted, she was afraid of his influence on state affairs and the merciless talent of a satirist. The sharp tongue of the mocking writer also helped.
The author of The Brigadier has also changed. His youthful fascination with the ideas of the French Enlightenment gave way to disillusionment and skepticism after a trip to France in 1777-1778. And, finally, the Pugachev uprising forced Fonvizin to reconsider a lot in his educational ideas and ideals, he doubted the Russian nobility as the foremost force of society, its very ability to enlighten and effectively manage its huge state - the military-feudal Russian Empire, their estates and peasants.
All this was reflected in the "folk" (Pushkin) comedy "Undergrowth". However, contemporaries, seeing her in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin's cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the then spectators: “My grandmother told me that in the performance of Undergrowth there was a crush in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who came to serve from the steppe villages, were present here - and, as a result, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy reflection upon leaving it,” historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about The Undergrowth. Such was precisely the impact on the public of Gogol's The Inspector General.
Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “Undergrowth” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy strikes the brutality of man, which has come from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwoods of Russia ... There is nothing caricature in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul. Realism and satire help the author of the comedy to talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education "the key to the welfare of the state." And all the comic and tragic circumstances described by him and the very characters of negative characters can be safely called the fruits of ignorance and malevolence.
For, having visited the landlord estate of the Prostakov nobles, the viewer saw the whole of noble Russia in its tyranny, disrespect for the law and the rights of other people, self-satisfied ignorance, self-interest, some kind of simple-hearted cruelty and worldly egoistic cunning. The “education” of the minor Mitrofan and his pseudo-teacher, the German coachman Vralman, the retired sergeant Tsifirkin and the seminarian Kuteikin, showed the entire decline of Russian education, which led to the moral decline of the nobles, their oblivion of their main, honorary position - service to the fatherland. The underage's father cannot read Starodum's letter, because he is illiterate. And the very name of Uncle Taras Skotinin and his boundless love for pigs clearly indicate the extreme limits of this moral coarsening and fall.
Note that "Undergrowth" directly begins with a witty outplaying folk saying about Trishkin's caftan to talk about teaching. Mrs. Prostakova seriously, with her characteristic ingenuous stubbornness, assures the negligent serf tailor Trishka that learning to sew caftans is not at all necessary. Already Peter the Great faced with severe distrust and dislike for any teaching, this national feature of his lazy subjects and, under pain of punishment, obliged them to study. It is known that this decree of his met with the hidden, but desperate resistance of the nobles, who, like Mitrofanushka, saw in the teaching only punishment, who considered science unnecessary, a non-noble affair.
In Fonvizin's comedy there are clear traces of this stubborn resistance: an illiterate bribe-taker, the father of Prostakova and Taras Skotinin, said: "I will curse a robin who takes something from the infidels." His daughter is more cunning, she understands that her spoiled and lazy son Mitrofanushka must somehow meet the formal requirements of the government for a nobleman, but she also teaches him formally, without bothering the overgrown "child" with a load of serious knowledge and giving him semi-literate "teachers", serfs uncles and nannies: "Without the sciences, people live and lived." According to Prostakova's resolute opinion, sciences are stupid and not of the nobility, the nobleman does not need and useless, like geography, the science of cabbies.
That is, the lazy and arrogant, but worldly, very smart Mitrofanushka is taught not the sciences and moral rules, but namely immorality, deceit, disrespect for his duty as a nobleman and his own father, the ability to bypass all the laws and rules of society and the state for his own convenience and benefit. This rude and loafer is very intelligent, also cunning, thinks practically, sees that the material well-being of the Prostakovs does not depend on their enlightenment and service zeal, but on the intrepid impudence of his mother, on the bribery of his father, on the deft robbing of a distant relative of Sophia and the merciless robbery of his peasants. Why should he diligently study and honestly serve the fatherland for many years, if he can immediately marry a rich heiress and, without serving, according to the famous decree on the freedom of the nobility, live freely on his estate and oppress the serfs?
Mitrofan, his illiterate father, downtrodden by an energetic wife, a criminal (because she easily commits criminal offenses) mother and her evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin make up a picturesque group of negative characters. These are the brightest representatives of the “wild nobility” (Pushkin), the fathers of the Griboedov bar and the grandfathers of the characters described with amazing realism. dead souls» Gogol. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and the law, they bow only to power and wealth, they are afraid only of material strength and they are cunning all the time, they achieve their benefits by all means, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morality, ideas, ideals, any moral principles, not to mention the knowledge and respect for laws.
Prostakova asks the honest official Pravdin, who took her estate into custody, a very important question for Russia: “Are all decrees being executed?” She and her relatives are well aware that not everyone believes that no one needs laws in real Russian life, they can always be successfully circumvented or turned in their favor, if there were money and connections in the spheres. Therefore, they always find themselves in comic situations that clearly reveal their gross tyranny, malice, ignorance, disrespect for other people and laws, self-interest. This revealing comedy is driven by the satire of Fonvizin, who managed to show the psychology and morality, or rather, the immorality of the whole class, the foundations of the empire, in the impudent and rude struggle of the feral landowners for the dowry of a rich bride.
The central figure of this group, the main character of Fonvizin's play, is the truly immortal Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the mainspring driving the stage action, because in this provincial noblewoman there is some kind of powerful vitality, which is not enough not only for positive characters, but also for her lazy egoistic son and pig-like brother. “This face in comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and excellently sustained dramatically,” said historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, a connoisseur of the era, about Prostakova. Yes, it is a character in the full sense of the negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin's comedy is that his Mrs. Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the prostakov ladies in real life and be defenseless.
From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, monitors, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, state official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot appease her. At the heart of this lively, strong, quite popular character is monstrous tyranny, fearless arrogance, greed for the material goods of life, the desire that everything be according to her liking and will. But this evil cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm.
This insane love for her offspring is our strong Russian love, which in a man who has lost his dignity is expressed in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that do not eat her child, ”Gogol wrote about Prostakova. For the sake of her son's material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with Milon armed with a sword, and even in a hopeless situation wants to buy time to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin, by bribery, threats and appeal to influential patrons. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some kind of laws and rules of education: “What I want, I will put on my own.”
It is clear that in this she stubbornly and consciously opposes Starodum and his like-minded people, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon. To all their eloquent sermons about the need to combine education with high morality, she responded with the famous phrase about stupid and "non-noble" sciences that are unnecessary and even harmful in real life. Son Prostakov teaches, as you know, immorality, the ability to serve only his own personal benefit and will.
Here, in Fonvizin's comedy, the key to understanding this entire era is the word "Liberty", which became the name of the famous odes of Radishchev and Pushkin. In the Russian political vocabulary, it is inextricably linked with the equally significant word "Law", which is also usually written with a capital letter. And there was a name connecting these two important words, which is also “Undergrowth”, to all the nobles and literate people of Russia famous name the famous decree of the good and unfortunate Emperor Peter III of 1762 - "The Law on the Liberty of the Nobility".
Prostakova, experienced in bribery and using personal connections, speaks about him, defending her innate cruelty, crimes and tyranny: “Am I not powerful in my people?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And here the mistress of everyday domestic lawlessness and violence suddenly refers to the law: “Not free! The nobleman, when he wants, and the servants are not free to flog; but why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The astonished Starodum and, together with him, the author exclaim only: “The master of interpreting decrees!”
Subsequently, Klyuchevsky correctly said: “It's all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they have the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama in them ... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness. Prostakova does not want to recognize any obligations of the nobility, calmly violates the law of Peter the Great on the compulsory education of the nobles, knows only her rights, interpreted by her very freely and always in her favor and from real laws, including the law on the freedom of the nobility, which have gone far . In her person, the whole service class refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and duties, the position of nobility, so valued by Fonvizin. There is no need to talk about some kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving the state interests.
Fonvizin saw what this led to in practice: to state collapse, immorality, lies and venality, favoritism, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. Therefore, he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “A state in which the most venerable of all states, which is supposed to defend the fatherland, together with the sovereign and its corps to represent the nation, guided by one honor, the nobility, already exists only in name and is sold to every scoundrel who robbed the fatherland.
This was said in the comedy by her positive characters. They were often called pale, sketchy, stilted, mouthpieces of author's ideas. Partly it is. Starodum and his associates speak and teach from the stage. But such were the laws of the then dramaturgy: in the "classicist" play, there were always reasoning heroes who delivered monologues-teachings "from the author." Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and the unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas in the highest spheres of immoral power.
But in the speeches of the Starodum, another view was expressed on the duty of an enlightened sovereign, the appointment of the nobility and education, arguing with the "ideas" of Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin's satire is not an end in itself, it opens the way for positive values and ideas, his political and educational views. And these are not only the views of the author, but also the political program of the entire anti-Catherine noble opposition, from N.I. Panin to, who sympathetically quoted "Undergrowth" and Fonvizin's handwritten "General Court Grammar" in "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow." No wonder later Fonvizin was going to publish the magazine "Friend of honest people, or Starodum." But the police in 1788 banned the printing of the magazine. This means that the writer and the character of his comedy had many like-minded people among enlightened, opposition-minded Russians.
Starodum, like Fonvizin himself, served at the court of the sovereign and was expelled for excessive frankness, honesty and loyalty to the idea of serving the nobleman to the fatherland. He tells Pravdin about the imperial court as a place of cynical struggle of personal interests, where people strive to destroy each other, they only care about themselves and the present hour, they don’t think about ancestors or descendants, but only about their own. material well-being and personal career. Selfless deeds, personal virtues, education, intelligence and nobility are not valued. Starodum does not say directly that this is the direct fault of the monarch who allows and encourages all these unworthy deeds and thoughts, but this was already clear to all viewers.
The Undergrowth contains a prophetic lesson to kings that sounds like a warning. The character of Fonvizin draws a portrait of an ideal enlightened monarch who does not allow court flatterers to deceive him, humiliate and humiliate others: “A great sovereign is a wise sovereign. His business is to show people their direct benefit ... A sovereign worthy of the throne seeks to elevate the souls of his subjects. Starodum also said about the ideal, honest and wise nobleman, who is distinguished by "the fearlessness of a statesman who tells the truth to the sovereign, daring to anger him."
An enlightened sovereign must govern enlightened subjects on the basis of a "firm statute." The very existence of simpletons and skotinins on the stage and in Russian life shows that this is not really the case. But the Russian educator and nobleman Fonvizin proves with all his comedy that everyone, and, above all, the enlightened sovereign (that is, Catherine II) and the nobility honestly fulfilling his position, must strive for this in all areas of imperfect Russian life.
The path to this is reasonable education, striving for good manners and virtue in the study of all sciences: “Believe me that science in a depraved person is a fierce weapon to do evil. Enlightenment elevates one virtuous soul.” Free and owning peasants can only be enlightened, highly moral, aware of their state position, the nobility. The example of Mitrofanushka clearly shows what wrong, purely formal education by ignorant teachers and upbringing by immoral parents can lead to: “We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. A nobleman, unworthy of being a nobleman! I don't know anything better than him." But the theme of the play is not only the improper upbringing and education of the landowner's son Mitrofanushka and the ignorance of his parents and "teachers".
"Undergrowth" was written in the age of Enlightenment, but it is in this comedy that the satire on false enlightenment and ignorance develops into disturbing doubts about the correctness of the most general idea of this century, the teachings of the Enlightenment philosophers whom Fonvizin met in Paris and other cities of Western Europe. Starodum says to the educated Sophia, who reads French books on education: “I am afraid for you of the current wise men. I happened to read from them everything that was translated into Russian. True, they strongly eradicate prejudices, but bring back virtue from the root.
These thoughts are developed by the writer in his famous essay "Letters from France" (1777-1778). It clearly indicates the movement of minds and ideas in Western Europe, which inevitably led from the age of the Enlightenment and the scholarly disputes of the encyclopedists to the bloody drama of the Great French Revolution: I have sincere respect for them… Arrogance, envy and deceit are their main character… Everyone lives for himself alone.”
Starodum speaks of French enlighteners personally known to Fonvizin, whose names and writings are unknown to Mitrofanushka and Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin in The Undergrowth clearly expresses his doubts about the most important idea of the Age of Enlightenment, he believes that this is false enlightenment, half-enlightenment, because in its egoism and arrogance it forgot about morality, about disinterested virtue, about service, loyalty and honor. The Age of Enlightenment called itself the age of reason and did not respect faith and morality. “With fugitive minds, we see bad husbands, bad fathers, bad citizens. Righteousness gives a direct price to the mind. Without it, a smart person is a monster. It is immeasurably higher than all the fluency of the mind, ”Starodum says about the main moral flaw of European education. It also gave birth to the self-satisfied "Russian Frenchman" Ivanushka from the "Brigadier" and Mitrofanushka, a worthy son of his illiterate, cruel and criminal mother.
And, finally, Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, not only answers Prostakova’s words about the decree on the freedom of the nobility, but also directly speaks about the main reason for the damage to the morals and the very existence of the Prostakovs, Skotinins and Mitrofanushki: “It is illegal to oppress your own kind with slavery.” When Prostakova is informed about the serious illness of the serf girl Palashka, she shouts in a rage: “Oh, she is a beast! Lies! As if noble! On such an inhuman psychology and tyranny, on such an “understanding” of the equality of people, an enlightened state cannot be based and reasonably and stably exist, and no enlightened monarch will make wild feudal lords and illiterate cruel oppressors law-abiding and noble noblemen, his reliable support: “On democracy and the land cannot be likened, where the people, groveling in the darkness of the deepest ignorance, silently bear the burden of cruel slavery.
Fonvizin predicts that such a despotic state, deprived of laws, genuine enlightenment, citizens and honest defenders, will inevitably collapse under the combined blows of various discontented classes, will come to confusion and a merciless Russian revolt, and through bloody chaos and anarchy will again return to the most cruel despotism. He rises in his noble revolutionary spirit to the idea of the right of the people to rise up against their oppressors.
Fonvizin, as a statesman, a politician with great experience and a brilliant writer, put a lot of his cherished and deep thoughts and very serious predictions into the cheerful comedy-satire "Undergrowth", but all of them are hidden in the depths of the artistic images of the play. His satire gives rise to laughter, replacing indignation and deep sadness. For the audience saw on the stage not Griboyedov's Frenchman from Bordeaux, but themselves, their loved ones, familiar types of Russian people. They suddenly realized that they were laughing at themselves.
Fonvizin's judgments about the Russian state, serfdom, nobility and enlightenment were truly revolutionary, for they passionately and convincingly demanded quick and decisive changes in all spheres of Russian life. Russian people were not familiar with most of these judgments, but every viewer and reader of The Undergrowth is familiar with the final conclusions of the great writer, who took the form of Prostakova, Mitrofanushka and Skotinin, from childhood. And this makes the truly artistic satire of Fonvizin a remarkable, in no way outdated literary document of a huge public and political significance, without which the entire 18th century, the Enlightenment, the history of Russia, its present and future are incomprehensible.
P.S. Since there are many historical details and obsolete words in Fonvizin's plays and prose, we advise you to read them only in an annotated edition intended for schoolchildren. See: Fonvizin D.I. Brigadier. Undergrowth. General Court Grammar. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. M., 2001.
Historical lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. Article "Fonvizin".
Klyuchevsky V.O. literary portraits. M., 1991. Chapter about the "Undergrowth" Fonvizin.
Makogonenko G.P. Denis Fonvizin. creative way. M.-L., 1961.
Pigarev K.V. Creativity Fonvizin. M., 1954.
Sakharov V.I. Russian freemasonry in portraits. M., 2004. Chapter "The way up".
Strichek A. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Age of Enlightenment. M., 1994.
© Vsevolod Sakharov . All rights reserved.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the most prominent literary figures of the 18th century. His love for the theater was born in his youth, and the talent of the future playwright was noticed by his gymnasium teachers.
Over time, Fonvizin's enlightening views deepened, his desire to intervene with his works in the thick of the events of Russian public life grew stronger. Fonvizin is rightfully considered the creator of Russian social and political comedy. His famous play "Undergrowth" turned the Prostakovs' estate into a center of vices, "malice of worthy fruits," which the playwright denounces with his usual slander, sarcasm, and irony. "Undergrowth" is a multi-dark work. Here questions are raised about the steady performance of the "position" by each citizen, about the nature of family relations in contemporary Russia, about the system of upbringing and education. But the main, undoubtedly, are the problems of serfdom and state power. In the very first act, we find ourselves in an atmosphere of landlord arbitrariness. Trishka sewed Mitrofan's caftan "quite a bit", but this does not save him from scolding and flogging. The old nanny Mitrofana Yeremeevna is immensely devoted to her masters, but receives from them "five rubles a year and five slaps a day." Prostakov is outraged that the serf girl Palashka, having fallen ill, lies, "as if noble." The arbitrariness of the landowners led to the complete impoverishment of the peasants. “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear anything off. Such a disaster! - Prostakova complains. But the landowners are firmly aware that they are protected by the entire system of state power. It was the social structure of Russia that allowed the Prostakovs and Skotinins to dispose of their estates in their own way.
Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin emphasizes the "bestial" essence of Prostakova and her brother. It even seems to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he is a "fairy with horses." Mitrofan will not be any better either. The author does not just make a mockery of his "knowledge" in the sciences, unwillingness to learn. Fonvizin sees that the same cruel serf-owner lives in him.
A huge influence on the formation of people like Mitrofan, according to the author, is exerted not only by the general situation in the noble estates, but also by the adopted system of education and upbringing. The upbringing of young nobles was carried out by ignorant foreigners. What could Mitrofan learn from the coachman Vralman? Could such nobles become the backbone of the state? The group of positive characters in the play is represented by the images of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia. It was extremely important for a classicist writer not only to show social vices, but also to identify the ideal to which one should strive. On the one hand, Fonvizin denounces the state order, on the other hand, the author gives a kind of instruction on what a ruler and society should be like. Starodum expounds the patriotic views of the best part of the nobility, expresses topical political thoughts. By introducing into the play the scene of the deprivation of Prostakova's master's rights, Fonvizin suggests to the audience and the government one of the possible ways to suppress the arbitrariness of the landowners. Note that this step of the writer was disapprovingly met by Catherine II, who directly let the writer feel it. The Empress could not help but see in the comedy "Undergrowth" a sharp satire on the most terrible vices of the empire. Fonvizin's sarcasm was also reflected in the work entitled "The General Court Grammar", compiled in the form of a textbook. The writer gives apt descriptions of court morals, reveals the vices of the representatives of the upper class. Calling his grammar "universal", Fonvizin emphasized that these features are characteristic of monarchical rule in general. He calls the courtiers flatterers, sycophants, scoundrels. The satirist divides the people living at the court into “vowels”, “vowelless” and “semivowels”, and considers the verb “to be due” to be the most common, although debts are not paid at court. Catherine never saw humility from Fonvizin, and therefore soon his works ceased to appear in print. But Russia knew them because they were on the lists. And the satirist entered the consciousness of his generation as a bold exposer of the vices of society. It is not for nothing that Pushkin called him “a friend of freedom”, and Herzen put the comedy “Undergrowth” on a par with “ Dead souls» Gogol.