The poster itself explains the characters.
P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy "Undergrowth"
Truly public comedy.
N. V. Gogop about the comedy "Undergrowth"
The first appearance of the comedy "Undergrowth" on the stage in 1872 caused, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, "throwing wallets" - the audience threw wallets filled with gold pieces onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw.
Before D. I. Fonvizin, the public almost did not know Russian comedy. In the first public theater, organized by Peter I, plays by Moliere were staged, and the appearance of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to correct temper with a mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays.
What caused such a violent reaction from the audience? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to folk, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of landlord offspring, denunciation of serfdom.
Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. There is virtually no plot development in the play, it consists of negative and negative conversations. positive characters. This is the influence modern author European comedy, here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good ... There are great actors in comedy ... when you look at them, you will, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you see a direct story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister, traveling around France. But Fonvizin can by no means be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language.
It was from the “Undergrowth” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin’s caftan” grew, it was from the speeches of the heroes of the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out ...
main idea plays - to show the fruits of bad education, or even its absence, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner malevolence. Contrasting "evil characters" taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author's comments into the mouths of positive characters, unusually virtuous persons. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer leading role assigns goodies.
“True - Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but even their actual originals were no more lively than their dramatic shots... They were walking, but still lifeless schemes of a new good morality...
Time was needed, intensified and experiments, to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations, ”wrote the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky about the comedy.
Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin's luck. Like the goodies, the bad ones wear talking names, and the surname "Skotinin" grows to a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised at his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and we have such large pigs in the neighborhood that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us with a whole head. The author's mockery is all the more powerful because it is put into the mouth of the hero we are laughing at. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait.
“Prostakov. It's strange, brother, how relatives can resemble relatives! Our Mitrofanushka is all like an uncle - and he has grown up to pigs as much a hunter as you are. As he was still three years old, so, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy. .
Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, let, brother, Mitrofan loves pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: but why am I so addicted to pigs?
Prostakov. And there are some similarities. That's how I talk."
The same motif is played up by the author in the replicas of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin's words that his family is "great and ancient," Pravdin ironically remarks: "That way you will assure us that he is older than Adam." Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a little ... ", and Starodum interrupts him:" That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam. Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God first created animals, then man. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, sounding from the lips of the same Skotinin, evokes Milon's indignant remark: "What a bestial comparison!" Kuteikin, the cunning churchman, invests author's description in the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read according to the hour book: "I am cattle, and not a man, a reproach to people." The representatives of the Skotinins themselves, with comical innocence, repeat about their "bestial" nature.
"Prostakov. After all, I am the father of the Skotinins. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed the Priplodins. They had eighteen of us children…” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, one litter; Yes, you see how she squealed ... "Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself:" I, brother, will not bark with you, "Ah, I'm a dog's daughter! What have I done!". The peculiarity of the play "Undergrowth" is also that each of the characters speaks his own language. This was duly appreciated by Fonvizin's contemporaries: "everyone is different in his character sayings."
The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is full of military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic turns, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with the owners and arrogant with the servants, is filled with aptly grasped peculiarities of pronunciation.
The bright typicality of the heroes of the play - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its limits in time and space. And in A.S. Pushkin in "Eugene Onegin", and in M.Yu. Lermontov in "The Tambov Treasurer", and in M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in "Lords of Tashkent" we find references to them, still alive and bearing the essence of the feudal lords, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
What is the composition "Undergrowth"? First of all, it is worth saying that all the events of the comedy are grouped around one main intrigue: the struggle for Sophia of three contenders for her hand - Skotinin, Mitrofanushka and Milon.
Composition "Undergrowth"
The action of the comedy develops clearly and harmoniously. At the beginning of the play, in the scene with the fitting of the caftan, the author skillfully introduces the viewer into the everyday atmosphere of a provincial estate. This episode immediately allows the author to introduce the viewer to most of the main characters of the play. This is the exposition of the play.
In the sixth or seventh scenes of the first act, around the scene with Starodum's letter, a comedy knot is tied. New characters appear: Sophia and Pravdin. This is the plot of a comedy.
In the second and third acts, events develop and grow. On the stage are all the actors of the comedy. All three contenders enter the fight for Sophia. The characters are revealed actors.
The supreme moment of tension of action falls at the end fourth act when Prostakova decides to kidnap Sophia and forcibly marry Mitrofanushka.
In the fifth act, when the failure of Prostakova's attempt is discovered, the decrease in action begins. In the fourth phenomenon, the denouement comes: the estate of Prostakova goes into custody. Last appearance- the end of the play. The exclamation of the Starodum: “Here are the wickedness worthy fruits!” sums up the whole life of Prostakova and at the same time explains the idea of comedy. Such is the composition "Undergrowth". Let us now turn to the consideration of realism in this work.
Realism in "Undergrowth"
Despite the presence in the "Undergrowth" of the features of the dominant literary style- classicism (the unity of place, time, action, the division of characters into positive and negative, "significant" names and surnames that reveal the main features of the characters), "Undergrowth" - a comedy of the new literary school, in it there are obvious deviations from classicism. The rules of classicism did not allow mixing elements of the comic and the tragic in the drama.
Meanwhile, in Fonvizin's comedy we have both funny scenes and sketches of the difficult, disgusting aspects of serf life. Further, the breadth and versatility in the characteristics of the characters attracts attention in the comedy. Prostakova is both a cruel landowner, and an ignorant woman, and a deceitful person to the point of cynicism, and loving mother; Mitrofanushka is both a dumbass, and a glutton, and an ignoramus, and a cunning, and an ungrateful son. These are not abstract images of classicism, but real, living people. The principle of dividing heroes into "positive" and "negative" did not prevent, therefore, Fonvizin from giving a realistic interpretation of the images. In the comedy "Undergrowth" even reasoners turned into living people. The names of some of the characters in the work (Mitrofanushka, Prostakova, Skotinin) therefore became common nouns, because the very images of the characters are distinguished by their vitality and truthfulness. In these images, Fonvizin achieved a remarkable artistic typification. And this speaks of the unconditional realism of the images of the comedy.
The language of "Undergrowth" is also realistic. We have already noted the brightness of the speech characteristics of the characters. The sharpness and accuracy of the language of comedy is evidenced by the fact that many of its expressions have entered Russian colloquial speech and turned into a kind of proverb, for example: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “Yes, what are cab drivers for?” Silly son wealth does not help”, “Here are worthy fruits of malevolence”, etc. Even the gallicisms of comedy (“I am glad to have made your acquaintance”, “I did my job”, etc.) reflect the true language of individual sections of Russian society of the Fonvizin era.
Finally, and ideological pathos The play goes beyond the usual tasks of classic comedy—only to make the audience laugh.
Thus, the comedy turned into the first time realistic work Russian literature. That is why Gorky called Fonvizin "the founder of realism" in Russian literature.
The poster itself explains the characters. P. A. Vyazemsky about the comedy "Undergrowth" ... A truly social comedy. N.V. Gogop about the comedy "Undergrowth" The first appearance of the comedy "Undergrowth" on the stage in 1872 caused, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, "throwing wallets" - the audience threw wallets filled with gold pieces onto the stage, such was their admiration for what they saw. Before D. I. Fonvizin, the public almost did not know Russian comedy. In the first public theater organized by Peter I, plays by Moliere were staged, and the appearance of Russian comedy is associated with the name of A.P. Sumarokov. “The property of comedy is to correct temper with a mockery” - Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin embodied these words of A.P. Sumarokov in his plays. What caused such a violent reaction from the audience? The liveliness of the characters, especially the negative ones, their figurative speech, the author's humor, so close to folk, the theme of the play is a satire on the principles of life and education of landlord offspring, denunciation of serfdom. Fonvizin departs from one of the golden rules of classical comedy: observing the unity of place and time, he omits the unity of action. In the play, there is actually no plot development; it consists of conversations between negative and positive characters. This is the influence of contemporary European comedy to the author, here he goes further than Sumarokov. “French comedy is absolutely good ... There are great actors in comedy ... when you look at them, you will, of course, forget that they are playing a comedy, but it seems that you see a direct story,” Fonvizin writes to his sister, traveling around France. But Fonvizin can by no means be called an imitator. His plays are filled with a truly Russian spirit, written in a truly Russian language. It was from the “Undergrowth” that I. A. Krylov’s fable “Trishkin’s caftan” grew up, it was from the speeches of the heroes of the play that the aphorisms “mother’s son”, “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”, “fearing the abyss of wisdom” came out ... The main idea of the play is to show the fruits bad upbringing, or even its absence, and it grows into a frightening picture of wild landowner malevolence. Contrasting "evil characters" taken from reality, presenting them in a funny way, Fonvizin puts the author's comments into the mouths of positive characters, unusually virtuous persons. As if not hoping that the reader himself will figure out who is bad and what is bad, the writer assigns the main role to positive characters. “True - Starodum, Milon, Pravdin, Sophia are not so much living faces as moralistic dummies; but after all, their real originals were no more lively than their dramatic shots ... They were walking, but still lifeless schemes of a new good morality ... It took time, intensification and experiments, to awaken organic life in these still dead cultural preparations, ”the historian wrote about the comedy IN. O. Klyuchevsky. Negative characters appear completely alive before the viewer. And this is the main artistic merit of the play, Fonvizin's luck. Like the positive characters, the negative ones have telling names, and the surname "Skotinin" grows into a full-fledged artistic image. In the very first act, Skotinin is naively surprised at his special love for pigs: “I love pigs, sister; and we have such large pigs in the neighborhood that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us with a whole head. The author's mockery is all the more powerful because it is put into the mouth of the hero we are laughing at. It turns out that love for pigs is a family trait. “Prostakov. It's strange, brother, how relatives can resemble relatives! Our Mitrofanushka is all like an uncle - and he has grown up to pigs as much a hunter as you are. As he was still three years old, so, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy. . Skotinin. This is truly a curiosity! Well, let, brother, Mitrofan loves pigs because he is my nephew. There is some similarity here: but why am I so addicted to pigs? Prostakov. And there are some similarities. That's how I talk." The same motif is played up by the author in the replicas of other characters. In the fourth act, in response to Skotinin's words that his family is "great and ancient," Pravdin ironically remarks: "That way you will assure us that he is older than Adam." Unsuspecting Skotinin falls into a trap, readily confirming this: “What do you think? At least a little ... ", and Starodum interrupts him:" That is, your ancestor was created even on the sixth day, but a little earlier than Adam. Starodum directly refers to the Bible - on the sixth day, God first created animals, then man. The comparison of caring for pigs with caring for a wife, sounding from the lips of the same Skotinin, evokes Milon's indignant remark: "What a bestial comparison!" Kuteikin, a cunning churchman, puts the author's description into the mouth of Mitrofanushka himself, forcing him to read according to the hour book: "I am cattle, not a man, a reproach to people." The representatives of the Skotinins themselves, with comical innocence, repeat about their "bestial" nature. "Prostakov. After all, I am the father of the Skotinins. The deceased father married the deceased mother; she was nicknamed the Priplodins. They had eighteen of us children…” Skotinin speaks about his sister in the same terms as about his “cute pigs”: “To be honest, one litter; Yes, you see how she screamed ... ”Prostakova herself likens her love for her son to the affection of a dog for her puppies, and says about herself:“ I, brother, will not bark with you, ”“ Oh, I’m a dog’s daughter! What have I done!". The peculiarity of the play "Undergrowth" is also that each of the characters speaks his own language. This was duly appreciated by Fonvizin's contemporaries: "everyone is different in his character sayings." The speech of the retired soldier Tsyfirkin is full of military terms, the speech of Kuteikin is built on Church Slavonic turns, the speech of Vralman, a Russian German, obsequious with the owners and arrogant with the servants, is filled with aptly grasped peculiarities of pronunciation. The bright typicality of the heroes of the play - Prostakov, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin - goes far beyond its limits in time and space. And in A.S. Pushkin in "Eugene Onegin", and in M.Yu. Lermontov in "The Tambov Treasurer", and in M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in "Lords of Tashkent" we find references to them, still alive and bearing the essence of the feudal lords, so talentedly revealed by Fonvizin.
The role of Fonvizin as a playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, just like the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers, not only of the XVIII, but also of the first half of XIX centuries. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin's work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770s-1790s simultaneously in its various sections and different ways. Such was the main trend in the development of the Russian aesthetic worldview of that time, which prepared - at the first stage - its future Pushkin stage. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, if not to talk about Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in the work of Fonvizin were most often limited to his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic way, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics embodied by him in a new manner discovered by him, but also narrowed the very principledness of his posing the question. Fonvizin is included in this respect in the tradition of the "satirical trend", as Belinsky called it, which is a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature. XVIII century. This direction is peculiar and almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of a style critical realism. By itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with the specific forms that classicism acquired in Russia; it eventually exploded the principles of classicism, but its origin from it is obvious.
Fonvizin grew up as a writer in the literary environment of Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in the work of Fonvizin. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individuality as a unit in social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the public, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the mind of the writer interests to the “too human” in a person, and Fonvizin forced him to see in his hero a scheme of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great virtues of the classicism of his century: and clarity, clarity of analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis at the level of the scientific achievements of his time, and the social principle of evaluating human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin was also characterized by the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable "abilities", the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social life.
In Fonvizin, many characters are built not according to the law of an individual character, but according to a predetermined and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Counsellor; gallomaniac Ivanushka, - and the whole composition of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martial arts, there is little in him characteristic features. Such is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not life, but a scheme of social relationships. Characters in comedies, in satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them "meaningful" names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character's characteristic mainly to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin appears, the fool Slaboumov, the “Khalda” Khaldin, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-seeker Pravdin, etc. At the same time, the task of the artist is not so much the image individual people how much the image of social relations, and this task could be performed and performed brilliantly by Fonvizin. social relations, understood in relation to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm. The subjectively noble nature of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others”. The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; such is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the respective works. On the contrary, the “other”, “non-noble” are characterized primarily by their profession, estate, place in the system of society - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. Nobles for this system of thought are still people par excellence; or - for Fonvizin - vice versa: the best people should be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features their social affiliation, evaluated positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
For a classicist writer, the very attitude to tradition, to settled roles-masks is typical. literary work, to habitual and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, which represent the settled collective experience of mankind (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by a ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in "The Brigadier" repeats Sumarokov's ideal love comedies, the clerk's adviser came to Fonvizin from satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petitress-Counselor had already figured in plays and articles before Fonvizin's comedy. Fonvizin, within his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him long ago dissected, decomposed into typical features, society - a classified “reason”, predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The very genres have stood their ground, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. Satiric article, comedy, solemn eulogy high style(in Fonvizin - "Word for Paul's recovery"), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the invention of the author, his task in this direction is to inform Russian literature best achievements world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved more successfully by Fonvizin, because he understood and felt specific features Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
Seeing in a person not a personality, but a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in an individual sense. He writes an obituary-biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; in this article there is a hot political thought, the rise of political pathos; there is also a track record of the hero in it, there is also a civil glorification of him; but there is no person, personality, environment in it, in the end - a biography. This is a "life", a scheme ideal life, not a saint, of course, but politician as Fonvizin understood it. Fonvizin's anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. They are named " sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts", but disclosure inner life almost none in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with Rousseau's "Confession", although he immediately characteristically opposes his plan to the plan of the latter. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, first of all; the individualistic autodiscovery brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book is alien to him. Memoirs in his hands turn into a series of moralizing sketches such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760s-1780s. At the same time, they give an exceptional picture of social life in its negative manifestations in terms of the richness of witty details, and this is their great merit. The people of Fonvizin-classic are static. Brigadier, Counsellor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early "Undergrowth"), etc. - all of them are given from the very beginning and do not develop in the course of the movement of the work. In the first act of The Brigadier, in the exposition, the characters themselves directly and unambiguously determine all the traits of their schema-characters, and in the future we see only comic combinations and clashes of the same traits, and these clashes are not reflected in internal structure every role. Then the verbal definition of masks is characteristic of Fonvizin. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerk's speech of the Counselor, the petimeter speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhaust the characterization. With the deduction of speech characteristics, there are no other individual human traits. And they all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and kind, because the heroes of The Brigadier are still the heroes of a classic comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate”, and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that he words were everywhere abounding in witticisms” (“Poetic Art”). It was a strong, powerful system artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and superbly realized not only in The Brigadier, but also in Fonvizin's satirical articles.
Fonvizin remains a classic in a genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin is most often alien and interested in the plot side of the work.
In Fonvizin, in a number of works: in the early "Undergrowth", in "The Choice of a Tutor" and in "The Brigadier", in the story "Calisthenes" the plot is only a frame, more or less conditional. "Foreman", for example, is built as a row comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushki and the Counselor, the Counselor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Counselor - and all these pairs are opposed not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane of schematic contrast, a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in comedy; "The Brigadier" is very reminiscent in terms of construction of Sumarokov's farces with a gallery of comic characters.
However, even the most convinced, most zealous classicist in Russian noble literature, Sumarokov, it was difficult, perhaps even impossible, not to see at all and not to depict the specific features of reality, to remain only in the world created by reason and the laws of abstract art. First of all, dissatisfaction with the real, real world obliged us to leave this world. For the Russian noble classicist, the concrete individual reality of social reality, which is so different from the ideal norm, is evil; it invades, as a deviation from this norm, the world of the rationalistic ideal; it cannot be framed in reasonable, abstract forms. But it exists - both Sumarokov and Fonvizin know this. Society lives an abnormal, "irrational" life. This has to be dealt with and fought. positive developments in public life both for Sumarokov and Fonvizin they are normal and reasonable. Negative ones fall out of the scheme and appear in all their individuality, painful for a classicist. From here to satirical genres Even in Sumarokov, in Russian classicism, the desire is born to show the concrete-real features of reality. Thus, in Russian classicism, the reality of the concrete life fact emerged as satirical theme, with a sign of a certain, condemning author's attitude.
Fonvizin's position on this issue is more complicated. The intensity of the political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of reality, hostile to him, surrounding him from all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vital vigilance. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of the impact on life, more acute than noble writers before him could do. “In the court of the king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything ... can the truth be freely expressed? "- writes Fonvizin in the story" Calisthenes ". And here is the task before him - to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter arises, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism of the Western enlightenment movement. Fonvizin approaches the bourgeois-progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.
Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia, - Fonvizin poses the question in "Friend honest people”and answers that this does not happen“ from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, lower from a lack of Russian language whose wealth and beauty are convenient for any expression, "but from the lack of freedom, the lack of social life, the prevention of citizens from participating in political life countries. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, the writer is "the guardian of the common good", "a useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes the savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland."
In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of the bourgeois-radical thinkers of France. In 1764, he remade Gresse's Sydney, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, into Russian, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of the bourgeois literature XVIII V. in France. In 1769, an English story was published, "Sidney and Scilly, or beneficence and gratitude", translated by Fonvizin from Arno. This is a sentimental work, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with the bourgeois French literature. The struggle with the reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in my literary work Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.
The originality of the comedy D. I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". Fonvizin executed in his comedies the wild ignorance of the old generation and the rough polish of the superficial and external European semi-education of the new generations. The comedy "Undergrowth" was written by D. I. Fonvizin in 1782 and still does not leave the stage. She is one of best comedies author. M. Gorky wrote: “In The Undergrowth, for the first time, the corrupting significance of serfdom and its influence on the nobility, spiritually ruined, degenerated and corrupted precisely by the slavery of the peasantry, was brought to light and onto the stage.”
All the heroes of Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" are conditionally divided into positive and negative. The Prostakov family is negative. Moral, positive people are represented by Pravdin, Starodum, Sofya and Milon.
Some literary critics believed that goodies"Undergrowth" is too ideal that in fact there were no such people and they were simply invented by the author. However, documents and letters of the 18th century confirm the existence real prototypes heroes of Fonvizin's comedy. And about negative characters, such as the Prostakovs and Skotinins, it is safe to say that, despite the unconditional generalization, they were often found among the Russian provincial nobility of that time. There are two conflicts in the work. The main one is love, since it is he who develops the action of the comedy. Sophia, Mitrofanushka, Milon and Skotinin participate in it. The characters have different attitudes to the issues of love, family, marriage. Starodum wants to see Sophia married to a worthy man, wishes her mutual love. Prostakova wants to marry Mitrofan profitably, to rake in Sophia's money. Mitrofan's motto: "I don't want to study, I want to get married." This phrase from the comedy "Undergrowth" has become winged. Overgrown people who do not want to do anything, do not want to study and dream only of pleasures, are called Mitrof-1 noushki.
Another comedy conflict is socio-political. It affects very important questions upbringing and education, morality. If Starodum believes that education comes from the family and the main thing in a person is honesty and good manners, then Prostakova is convinced that it is more important for the child to be fed, dressed and live for pleasure. The comedy "Undergrowth" was written in the traditions of Russian classicism. Almost all the main features of classicism are observed in it. literary direction. There is also a strict division of heroes into positive and negative, the use speaking names and the application of the rule of three unities (the unity of place, time, and action). The unity of the place is observed, since all the action of the comedy takes place in the village of Prostakovs. Since it lasts for 24 hours, the unity of time is observed. However, the presence of two conflicts in comedy violates the unity of action.
In contrast to Western European, Russian classicism has a connection with Russian folklore, civic patriotism and a satirical orientation. All this takes place in the Undergrowth. The satirical bias of the comedy does not cause any doubts. Proverbs and sayings that are often found in the text of a comedy make it true folk comedy(“A golden caftan, but a lead head”, “Courage of the heart is proved in the hour of battle”, “Wealth does not help a stupid son”, “The one who is in rank beyond money, but in nobility beyond rank is worthy of respect”), Pushkin called "Undergrowth" "the only monument of folk satire." She is imbued with the spirit of civic patriotism, since her goal is to educate a citizen of her fatherland. One of the main virtues of comedy is its language. To create the characters of his heroes, Fonvizin uses speech characteristics. Lexicon Skotinin and Mitrofan is significantly limited. Sofya, Pravdin and Starodum speak correctly and very convincingly. Their speech is somewhat schematic and seems to be enclosed in a strict framework.
Negative characters, in my opinion, turned out to be more alive with Fonvizin. They speak plain spoken language, in which there is sometimes even abusive vocabulary. Prostakova's language does not differ from the language of serfs; there are many harsh words and common expressions. Tsyfirkin in his speech uses expressions that were used in military life, and Vralman speaks in broken Russian. In modern Fonvizin society, admiration for abroad and contempt for their Russian reigned. The upbringing of the nobles wanted much better. Often the younger generation found itself in the hands of ignorant foreigners who, apart from backward views on science and bad qualities, could instill nothing in their wards. Well, what could the German coachman Vralman Mitrofanushka teach? What knowledge could an overage child acquire in order to become an officer or official? In The Undergrowth, Fonvizin expressed his protest against the Skotinins and Prostakovs and showed how it is impossible to educate young people, how spoiled they can grow up in an environment corrupted by the landowners' power, obsequiously bowing to foreign culture. Comedy is instructive, has a great educational value. It makes you think about moral ideals, about the attitude towards the family, love for one's fatherland, raises questions of education, landlord arbitrariness.
