Fonvizin's work in criticism and literary criticism. Fonvizin's works: list of works

SEI HPE "Udmurt State University"

Abstract on the topic:

"The work of D. I. Fonvizin"

Is done by a student

2nd course

Faculty of Journalism

Mukminova Svetlana.

Checked:

Doctor of Philology,

Associate Professor of the Department

Theories of literature

Zvereva T.V.

Izhevsk, 2008

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

2.1 Comprehension of the forms of national life in the comedy "The Brigadier" ... 9

2.2 Understanding Russian culture and Russian history

In the comedy "Undergrowth" ……………………………………………. 15

3. The language element of D. I. Fonvizin’s creativity ……………………….. 25

4. Crisis of world relations and change of ideological position

D. I. Fonvizina ………………………………………………………… 30

5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 32

6. Bibliography …………………………………………………………… 33

Introduction

“In the history of Russian literary satire of the 18th century, Fonvizin has a special place. If it were required to name a writer in whose works the depth of comprehension of the mores of the era would be commensurate with courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class and higher power, then Fonvizin should undoubtedly be called such a writer, ”says the well-known critic Yu. V. Stennik about Fonvizin, author of the book "Russian satire of the XVIII century" (9, 291).

In the 18th century, a satirical stream penetrated almost all types and forms of literature - dramaturgy, novel, story, poem and even ode. The development of satire was directly related to the development of all Russian social life and advanced social thought. Accordingly, the artistic and satirical coverage of reality by writers was expanding. The most acute problems of our time were brought to the fore - the struggle against serfdom, against autocracy.

In line with this satirical trend, the work of the young Fonvizin also unfolds. Being one of the most prominent figures of enlightenment humanism in Russia in the 18th century, Fonvizin embodied in his work the rise of national self-consciousness that marked this era. In the vast country awakened by Peter's reforms, the best representatives of the Russian nobility acted as spokesmen for this renewed self-consciousness. Fonvizin perceived the ideas of enlightenment humanism especially sharply, with pain of heart he observed the moral devastation of part of his estate. Fonvizin himself lived in the power of ideas about the high moral duties of a nobleman. In the oblivion of the nobles of their duty to society, he saw the cause of all public evils: “I happened to travel around my land. I saw what most of the noblemen who bear the name believe their piety. I saw many of those who serve, or, moreover, occupy I have seen many others who retired as soon as they won the right to harness quadruplets. broke my heart." So wrote Fonvizin in 1783 in a letter to the writer of "Tales and Tales", that is, to Empress Catherine II herself.

Fonvizin joined the literary life of Russia at the moment when Catherine II encouraged interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment: at first she flirted with the French enlighteners - Voltaire, Diderot, D "Alembert. But very soon there was no trace of Catherine's liberalism. By the will of circumstances Fonvizin found himself in the thick of the internal political struggle that flared up at court.In this struggle, gifted with brilliant creative abilities and sharp observation, Fonvizin took the place of a satirical writer who denounced venality and lawlessness in the courts, the baseness of the moral character of nobles close to the throne and favoritism encouraged by the highest authorities.

Fonvizin was born in Moscow on April 3 (14), 1745 (according to other sources - 1744) in a middle-class noble family. Already in his childhood, Denis Ivanovich received the first lessons of an uncompromising attitude towards cringing and bribery, evil and violence from his father, Ivan Andreevich Fonvizin. Later, some character traits of the writer's father will find their embodiment in the positive characters of his works. “Fonvizin’s life was not rich in external events. Studying at the noble academy of Moscow University, where he was determined as a ten-year-old boy and which he successfully completed in the spring of 1762. Service in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, first under the command of the State Councilor of the Palace Chancellery I.P. Elagin, then, from 1769, as one of the secretaries of the Chancellor Count N.I. Panin. And the resignation that followed in the spring of 1782. The beginning of Fonvizin's literary activity was marked by translations. While still a student at the university gymnasium, he, by order of the bookseller of the university bookstore, translated in 1761. Moral Fables by Ludovic Holbert. The fables had a prosaic form and were generally instructive in nature. Many of them were provided with didactic moralizing. However, there were fables that resembled a folk anecdote, a witty satirical miniature, which testified to the democratic sympathies of an enlightening author. In addition, the critical pathos of the fables gave them an acute social significance. It can be considered that the translation of the book by L. Golberg was the first school of educational humanism for the young Fonvizin, instilling in the soul of the future playwright an interest in social satire. The decisive factor for the further fate of Fonvizin as a writer was his sudden appointment to serve in a foreign collegium, which followed in 1763. moving together with the court to St. Petersburg. Yesterday's student is first used as a translator, and soon appointed secretary "for some cases" under the State Councilor I.P. Elagin. Fulfillment of small assignments, conducting official correspondence alternate with obligatory visits to official receptions at the court (kurtags), court masquerades. Fonvizin becomes close to the literary circles of St. Petersburg, very often attends the performances of various troupes at the court. (9.295) Court life, with all its outward splendor, weighs on Fonvizin. And in the mid-1760s. the writer becomes close to F. A. Kozlovsky, thanks to whom he enters the circle of St. Petersburg young freethinkers, admirers of Voltaire. In their society, Fonvizin receives the first lessons of religious freethinking. By the time of acquaintance with Kozlovsky, the composition of the famous satire "A Message to My Servants - Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka" dates back. The anti-clerical pathos of the satire brought the accusation of atheism on the author. Indeed, in the literature of the 18th century, there are few works where the greed of spiritual shepherds, who corrupt the people, would be so sharply denounced.

The eighteenth century in the history of Russian literature has left many remarkable names. But if it were required to name a writer, in whose works the depth of comprehension of the mores of his era would be commensurate with courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class, then, first of all, Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin should be mentioned.

Thus, the purpose of our work was to study and analyze critical literature about D. I. Fonvizin and his work, reflecting the educational credo of the writer.

Fonvizin entered the history of national literature as the author of the famous comedy "Undergrowth". But he was also a talented prose writer. The gift of a satirist was combined in him with the temperament of a born publicist. The scourging sarcasm of Fonvizin's satire was feared by Empress Catherine II. The unsurpassed artistic skill of Fonvizin was noted at the time by Pushkin. It afflicts us to this day.

Comedies by D. I. Fonvizin

“Comedy is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict or struggle of antagonistic characters is specifically resolved” - such a definition of comedy is given by the Big School Encyclopedia, M .: OLMA-PRESS, 2000. Qualitatively, the struggle in comedy is different in that it: 1) does not entail serious, disastrous consequences for the belligerents; 2) is aimed at "low", i.e. ordinary, goals; 3) is conducted by funny, amusing or ridiculous means. The task of comedy is to make a comic impression on the audience (readers), causing laughter with the help of a funny appearance (comic form), speeches (comic word) and actions (comic action of characters) that violate the socio-psychological norms and customs of a given social environment. All these types of comedy are intertwined in comedy, and outweigh one or the other. Fonvizin is dominated by the comedy of the word and the comedy of the actions of the characters, which are considered more developed forms.

"Russian comedy began long before Fonvizin, but started only from Fonvizin. His "Undergrowth" and "The Brigadier" made a terrible noise when they appeared and will forever remain in the history of Russian literature, if not art, as one of the most remarkable phenomena. In fact, these two comedies are the work of a strong, sharp mind, a gifted person ... ”- Fonvizin highly appreciates the comedic work.

“The comedy of the gifted Fonvizin will always be popular reading and will always hold an honorable place in the history of Russian literature. It is not a work of art, but a satire of manners, and a masterful satire. Its characters are fools and smart: the fools are all very nice, and the smart ones are all very vulgar; the first are caricatures written with great talent; second reasoners who bore you with their maxims. In a word, when Fonvizin's comedies, especially The Undergrowth, never cease to arouse laughter and, gradually losing readers in the higher circles of society, they will win them all the more in the lower ones and become popular reading ... "- says the same V. G. Belinsky.

Fonvizin's crushing, angry-destroying laughter, directed at the most disgusting aspects of the autocratic-feudal system, played a great creative role in the future fate of Russian literature.

In fact, direct threads run from Fonvizin's laughter to the sharp humor of Krylov's fables, to the subtle irony of Pushkin, to the "laughter through tears" of the author of "Dead Souls", and finally to the bitter and angry sarcasm of Saltykov-Shchedrin, the author of "Lord Golovlyov", mercilessly who completed the last act of the drama of the "spiritually ruined, degenerated and corrupted" by serfdom of the nobility.

"Undergrowth" conceives a glorious series of the greatest creations of Russian comedy, which in the next century will include Griboedov's "Woe from Wit", Gogol's "Inspector General", plays about Ostrovsky's "dark kingdom" (From the article by D. D. Blagoy "Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin ". In the book: "Classics of Russian Literature", Detgiz, M. - L., 1953).

Comprehension of forms of national life

In the comedy "The Brigadier"

All the characters in "The Brigadier" are Russian nobles. In the modest everyday atmosphere of middle-class life, the personality of each character is revealed as if gradually in conversations. The viewer learns about the propensity for extravagance of the coquette of the Counselor, and about the difficult fate of the Brigadier who spent his life on campaigns. The sanctimonious nature of the Counselor, who has profited from bribes, and the downtroddenness of the uncomplaining Brigadier, are being clarified.

Already from the lifting of the curtain, the viewer was immersed in an environment that struck with life's reality. This can be judged by the introductory remark to the first act of the comedy: Theater represents a room decorated in a rustic way. Brigadier , in a frock coat walks and smokes tobacco. Son him, in dezabile, squirming, drinking tea. Advisor in Cossack, looks at the calendar. On the other side is a table with a tea set, next to which sits advisor in dezabille and cornet, and, smirking, pours tea. Brigadier an odal sits and knits a stocking. Sofia the odal also sits and sews in the tambour.”

In this peaceful picture of home comfort, everything is significant and at the same time everything is natural: the rustic decoration of the room, the clothes of the characters, their activities, and even individual touches in the manner of behavior. In the presupposed remark, the author already outlines both the nature of the future relationship between the characters and the satirical task of the play. It is no coincidence that the son and the adviser appear on the stage, both “in dezabile” at tea, one “coying”, and the other “simply”.

“Ivan, who recently visited Paris, is full of contempt for everything that surrounds him in his homeland. “Everyone who has been in Paris,” he frankly, “has the right, speaking of Russians, not to include himself among those, because the op has already become more French than Russian.” In his contempt for his parents, whom he directly calls “animals,” Ivan finds the full support of the Counselor: “Ah, my joy! I love your sincerity. You do not spare your father! This is the direct virtue of our age.”

The absurd behavior of the newly-minted "Parisian" Ivan and the Counselor, who is delighted with him, suggests that the basis of the ideological plan of the comedy is the struggle against the vices of fashionable education, which gives rise to blind worship of everything French. Ivan's mannerisms and Counselor's affectation at first glance seem to be opposed to the arguments of parents wise by life experience. This pair of french freaks is really moving to the forefront of laughable denunciation. But the satirical pathos of "The Brigadier" is not limited only to the program of combating phranzoomania. (9, 307)

The following episode of the same first act is indicative, where those present on the stage have to express their opinions about grammar. Its usefulness is unanimously denied. “How many serviceable secretaries we have, who compose extracts without grammar, it’s a pleasure to watch! exclaims the Advisor. “I have one in mind who, when he writes, another scientist cannot understand it with grammar forever.” The Brigadier echoes him: “Why, matchmaker, grammar? Without her, I lived to be almost sixty years old, and raised children. The Brigadier does not lag behind her husband; “Of course, grammar is not needed. Before you begin to teach it, you still need to buy it. You pay eight hryvnias for it, and whether you learn it or not, God knows.” Nor do the Counselor and Son see any particular need for grammar. The first admits that only once she was useful to her "for papillots." As for Ivan, then, according to his confession, "my light, my soul, adieu, ma reine, one can say without looking at the grammar."

“This new chain of revelations, while laying bare the mental horizons of the main characters of the comedy, concretizes the previous sketches of their portrait self-characteristics, leading us to an understanding of the author's intention. In a society where mental apathy and lack of spirituality reign, familiarization with the European way of life is an evil caricature of enlightenment. The parents are to blame for the empty-headedness of children wandering abroad. The moral poverty of Ivan, who prides himself on his contempt for his compatriots, is a match for the ignorance and spiritual deformity of the rest. This idea is proved by the whole further course of events taking place on the stage. So Fonvizin puts the problem of true education at the center of the ideological content of his play. Of course, in comedy this idea is not affirmed declaratively, but by means of psychological self-disclosure of the characters. (9,308)

The play does not have a dedicated exposition - this traditional link in the compositional structure of the "comedy of intrigue", where the servants bring the audience up to date, acquainting them with the circumstances of the life of their masters. The identity of each is revealed during the exchange of remarks, and then implemented in actions.

“Fonvizin found an interesting and innovative way to enhance the satirical and accusatory pathos of comedy. In his "Brigadier", in essence, the content structure of the petty-bourgeois drama, from the traditions of which he objectively repelled, was travestyed in a peculiar way. Solid, burdened by families, fathers indulged in love affairs. The play was saturated with many comic, bordering on farce, scenes and dialogues. The everyday authenticity of the portrait characteristics grew into a comically pointed grotesque. (9.308-309)

The originality of the action in The Brigadier also consisted in the absence of servants in the comedy as engines of intrigue. There were no other traditional types with a comic role in it (pedants, scoundrels, etc.). And yet the comedy of the action grows from scene to scene. It arises due to the dynamic kaleidoscope of intertwining love episodes. The secular flirting of the coquette of the Counselor and the gallomantic Ivan is replaced by the confessions of the hypocritical saint of the Counselor, courting the Brigadier who does not understand anything, and then, like a soldier, is straightforwardly explained to the Counselor of the Brigadier.

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

So Ivan sees in his parents "animals", but for the Counsellor. suffering from village life, all the neighbors also "ignorant" "cattle". “They, my soul, do not think of anything but table supplies; straight pigs.” At the beginning, likening animals to “a donkey, a horse, a bear”, helping to explain to the father and son, are relatively innocent. But angry Ivan, in response to the reminder of the Brigadier, so that his son does not forget who his father is, resorts to a logical argument: “Very good; And when a puppy is not obliged to respect the dog who was his father, do I owe you even the slightest respect?

“The depth of Fonvizin's sarcasm and the accusatory effect achieved at the same time lies in the fact that the recognition of the qualities of the animal follows from the characters themselves. This is still the same method of comic self-characterization, when the ironic subtext hidden in the character's speech becomes a sentence for the speaker himself. This technique, varied in every way in the speeches of the characters, is intended not only to enhance the comedy of the action, but also to serve as a kind of standard for the spiritual qualities of the characters. (9,310)

Fonvizin, having the gift of a skilled satirist, finds a new method of self-exposing the characters, which achieves a comic effect. This trick will be used frequently along the way. For example, when the Counselor and the Son are left alone, they talk about fashionable hats. “In my opinion,” says Ivan, lace and blond hair make up the best decoration for the head. Pedants think that this is nonsense and that it is necessary to decorate the head from the inside, and not from the outside. What a void! The devil sees what is hidden, but everyone sees the outside.

Counseling. So, my soul: I myself have the same sentiments with you; I see that you have powder on your head, but if there is anything in your head, I can’t, damn it, notice it.

Son. Pardieu! Of course, no one can notice this.” “The lethality of such an exchange of pleasantries for the self-characterization of the moral character of both is obvious. But it is important that the comic subtext arising from the above dialogue, obvious to the viewer, but unconscious by the speaking character, is caused by the words of the speakers themselves. Satire is dissolved in the action of the comedy, and the condemnation of the moral ugliness of the characters is passed by their own speeches, and not introduced from outside. This was the fundamental innovation of the Fonvizin-satirist method, ”notes Yu. V. Stennik. (9.349) Thus, a kind of anti-psychologism is a distinctive feature of Fonvizin's comedy.

“Often in The Brigadier, the statements of the characters are direct authorial statements, only conditionally attached to this person. So, Ivanushka talks about education in completely different words: “A young man is like wax. If, malheureusment, I had fallen for a Russian who loved his nation, perhaps I would not have been like that. (8,243)

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

Thus, the characters' frequent judgments about each other, designed for an immediate, direct reaction of the audience, develop into sentence-replicas that allow them to look for applications outside the comedy's own plot. Thus, the author's voice sounds from the very essence of the disputes that arise between the characters of his comedy, from its general problems.

Laughter and the author in Fonvizin's comedy have not yet become identified, as happened with Griboyedov and especially with Gogol in The Inspector General, where the author does not speak for his characters at all, where they speak and act according to their comedic character, and laughter "i.e. e. the author's attitude to the characters" arises already from the collision of actions and thoughts with the ethical norm that inspired the author's laughter, the norm of humanism and deep regret for a person whose true essence is covered with the "rough crust of the earth."

In such a situation, the position of the reader and the viewer is also interesting. The text of the comedy is intended to interest the reader in "co-authorship", in the need to turn on the imagination and see reality and even themselves behind the artistic images. And besides, comedy should enlighten the reader, infecting him with the spirit of justice and humanism. That was the intention of the writer.

Understanding Russian culture and Russian history in the comedy "Undergrowth"

The pinnacle of the achievements of Fonvizin and all Russian literary satire in the comedy genre of the 18th century. became "Undergrowth". "Undergrowth" - the central work of Fonvizin, the pinnacle of Russian dramaturgy of the 18th century - is organically connected with the ideological issues of "Reasoning". For Pushkin, "Undergrowth" is a "folk comedy." Belinsky, who by the 1940s had developed a revolutionary-democratic understanding of nationality, declared that "Undergrowth", "Woe from Wit" and "Inspector General" "in a short time became popular dramatic plays."

To understand the ideological issues and, accordingly, the satirical pathos of the comedy, it is important to remember that more than ten years have passed between the creation of The Brigadier and the writing of The Undergrowth. During this time, Fonvizin's socio-political convictions strengthened and expanded, and his creative method as a satirist gained maturity.

Comedy is based on the principle of intersecting triads. The triad of negative characters: Mrs. Prostakova, Taras Skotinin, Mitrofanushka. The triad of positive characters: Starodum (the main ideologist of the play), Pravdin, Milon. A triad of heroes-adventurers who pretend not to be who they really are: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman. And, finally, service heroes: Eremeevna, Prostakov, Trishka. Only Sophia remains outside these triads. Both positive and negative characters are fighting for her hand, and since “Sophia” means “wisdom” in translation, the hero is actually fighting for wisdom, truth, the true idea.

Thus, the main conflict of the play unfolds between the positive characters, who represent a true aristocracy, and the triad of negative characters, ordinary people belonging to the "lower" society. Even more, A.S. Pushkin drew attention to the fact that the characters speak different languages. The speech of negative characters is dominated by rude common phraseology with the presence of vulgarisms, slang expressions and even abuse. At the same time, the speech of episodic characters - teachers Mitrofan and his mother Eremeevna - was marked with the greatest individualization. Elements of soldier jargon in Tsyfirkin's conversations, the flaunting of quotations from the Holy Scriptures by the former seminarian Kuteikin, and finally, the monstrous German accent of the illiterate coachman Vralman - all these are signs of a certain social environment. This is a style designed for comic effect, characteristic of magazine satire. But the style of speech of the Prostakova family is marked by special richness. Now bordering on abuse, now full of flattering ingratiation, the speech of the hostess of the house perfectly reflects her temper, in which despotic tyranny coexists with lackey servility. On the contrary, the language of the positive characters of the “undergrowth” appears to be cleansed of vernacular. Before us is a competent book speech, overflowing with the most complex syntactic constructions and abstract vocabulary. Positive characters in everyday life are almost not characterized. The psychology and spiritual world of these heroes are revealed not through everyday life, but in the course of conversations on political and moral topics. Their very form very often goes back to the manner of the dialogic philosophical treatises of the Enlightenment, who basically continued the traditions of moralistic dialogues of the era of humanism.

Thus, it can be seen that for all its "clumsiness" the speech of negative characters is lively, soiled, this colloquial speech, directly correlated with the plan of life and life. Whereas any phrase of positive characters turns into a moralizing sermon, which serves exclusively for spiritual education and is absolutely not adapted for everyday life. We see that the tragedy of the situation lies in the linguistic gap between the characters. The conflict lies, oddly enough, in the absence of conflict. It's just that the heroes initially belong to different planes and there are no and cannot be points of contact between them. And this is not even a literary problem, but a socio-political one. Since there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between the true aristocracy and the "lower" society, which will never understand each other, and the middle class, as a link, has not been formed.

Fonvizin, of course, wanted the positive heroes (and therefore the true aristocracy) to win this battle. But they lose, because their images are lifeless, their speech is boring. And besides this, both Starodum and Pravdin strive to change the world without accepting it as it is. And in this sense, they are also "undergrown", for an enlightened mature person is always ready to justify the world, and not to blame it. The ideology that the goodies preach is utopian because it doesn't fit with reality. Thus, the main conflict of comedy lies between ideology and everyday life.

The composition of "Undergrowth" consists of a combination of several relatively independent and at the same time inextricably linked structural levels. This was reflected especially well by the remarkable critic Yu. V. Stennik in his book “Russian Satire of the 18th Century”:

“Carefully peering into the plot of the play, we notice that it is woven from motifs typical of the structure of a “tearful” philistine drama: suffering virtue in the face of Sophia, who becomes the object of claims from ignorant and rude seekers of her hand; the sudden appearance of a rich uncle; attempted forced kidnapping and the final triumph of justice with the punishment of vice. And although such a scheme, in principle, was not contraindicated in the genre of comedy, there was practically no room for a comic beginning. This is the first, plot, level of structure that organizes the compositional framework of dramatic action.

Delving further into the study of the artistic system of the "Undergrowth", we discover its saturation with a comic element. There are many comic scenes in the play, in which a whole group of characters participate, who seem to have no direct relation to the development of the plot outlined above. Such are Mitrofan's teachers: the retired soldier Tsyfirkin, the half-educated seminarian Kuteikin, and the former coachman Vralman, who became the educator of the undergrowth of the nobility. Such is the tailor Trishka, partly mother Eremeevna. The connecting links between these persons and the plot of the play are the figure of Mitrofan with his relatives, mother and uncle. And all the most comical episodes of the play include these characters in one way or another. It is important, however, to remember that the object of comedy in them is not so much the servants as their masters.

From this point of view, the scene with Trishka, the scene of Skotinin's explanation with Mitrofan, the scene of Mitrofan's teachings, and, finally, the scene of Mitrofan's examination can be considered the most important episodes from this point of view. In these moralizing scenes, the everyday prose of the life of the local nobility, concrete in all its ugliness, is deployed. Swearing, fights, gluttony, canine devotion of servants and rude rudeness of masters, deceit and bestiality as the norm of relations with each other - this is the plot of this meaningful aspect of the comedy. Scenes that reveal the triumph of ignorance and malevolence create the everyday background of the plot, highlighting the characters of Prostakova's family members.

These scenes create the second, comedic-satirical, level of the artistic structure of The Undergrowth. Existing within the framework of the first, plot plan, this level, however, has its own logic of revealing life phenomena, the main principle of which will be grotesque-naturalistic satire.

Finally, in the course of the action of the comedy, a group of positive characters stands out. Their speeches and actions embody the author's ideas about an ideal person and a noble nobleman. This aspect of the artistic content of "Undergrowth" is most clearly revealed in the figures of Pravdin and Starodum. The key scenes, in which the ideological program of the ideal nobles is revealed, are also off-plot in their own way (it is not surprising that the practice of staging The Undergrowth knows the case of the removal of individual scenes considered “boring”).

This is how the third, ideally utopian level of the structure of the Undergrowth is established. It is characteristic that the circle of positive characters grouped around Pravdin is practically not implemented in everyday life. At this level of the compositional structure of the comedy, the comic element is completely absent. Scenes where positive characters act are devoid of dynamics and, with their static nature, approach philosophical and educational dialogues. (9, 319-320)

Thus, the ideological concept of the play is revealed through the combination and interaction of the satirical grotesque, sparkling with comedy, presented in moralistic scenes, and abstract utopia in scenes where ideal characters perform. The unity of these polar opposite worlds is the unique originality of comedy.

At each of these structural levels, two central ideas are solved in parallel, feeding the pathos of comedy. This is, firstly, the idea of ​​the true dignity of a nobleman, affirmed both by publicistic declarations in the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin, and by showing the moral decay of the nobility. Pictures of the degradation of the ruling class of the country were supposed to serve as a kind of illustration of the thesis about the need for a proper moral example from the highest authorities and the court. The absence of such became the cause of arbitrariness.

The second problem is the idea of ​​education in the broad sense of the word. In the minds of the thinkers of the XVIII century, education was considered as the primary factor that determines the moral character of a person. In the reposes of Fonvizin, the problem of education acquired state significance, because, in his opinion, the only possible source of salvation from the evil threatening society was rooted in proper education - the bribery of the Russian nobility.

“If the first idea was intended to awaken public thought, to draw the attention of compatriots to the impending danger, then the second, as it were, indicated the cause of this situation and suggested means of correcting it.” (9,321)

The significance of Fonvizin's comedy, therefore, consisted primarily in the fact that in it the edge of political satire was directed against the main social evil of the era - the complete lack of control of the highest power, which gave rise to the moral devastation of the ruling class and arbitrariness, as on the ground - in the relations of landowners with peasants, and at the highest levels of the social hierarchy. Considering that the play was created under the dominance of a monarchical system of government in Russia, one cannot but be amazed at the courage and foresight of the author of The Undergrowth.317, Stennik.

The main conflict in the socio-political life of Russia - the arbitrariness of the landlords, supported by the highest authority, and the serfs without rights - becomes the theme of a comedy. In a dramatic work, the theme is revealed with special power of persuasiveness in the development of the plot, in action, in the struggle. The only dramatic conflict of the "Undergrowth" is the struggle between the progressive-minded advanced nobles Pravdin and Starodum and the feudal lords - the Prostakovs and Skotinin.

In the comedy, Fonvizin shows the pernicious consequences of slavery, which should confirm to the viewer the moral correctness of Pravdin, the need to fight the Skotinins and Prostakovs. The consequences of slavery are truly terrible.

The peasants of the Prostakovs are completely ruined. Even Prostakova herself does not know what to do next: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear anything off. Such a disaster!

Slavery turns the peasants into slaves, completely killing in them all human traits, all the dignity of the individual. With special force it comes through in the courtyards. Fonvizin created an image of enormous power - the slaves of Eremeevna. An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings - that's what fell to her lot. She has long lost even a human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames: "beast", "old bastard", "dog's daughter", "scum". Outrages, reproach and humiliation have made Eremeevna a serf, a watchdog of his mistress, who humbly licks the hand of the owner who beat her.

In the person of Pravdin and Starodum, for the first time, positive heroes appeared on the scene, who act, putting their ideals into practice. Who are Pravdin and Starodum, who bravely fight against the feudal lords Prostakov and Skotinin? Why were they able to interfere not only in the course of the action of the comedy, but, in essence, in the political life of the autocratic state?

As a folk work, the comedy "Undergrowth" naturally reflected the most important and acute problems of Russian life. The lack of rights of the Russian serfs, reduced to the status of slaves, given into the full possession of the landowners, manifested itself with particular force precisely in the 80s. The complete, boundless, monstrous arbitrariness of the landlords could not but arouse feelings of protest among the advanced nobility. Not sympathizing with the revolutionary methods of action, moreover, rejecting them, at the same time they could not but protest against the slave-owning and despotic policy of Catherine II. That is why the response to the police regime established by Catherine and Potemkin was the intensification of social activity and the subordination of creativity to the tasks of political satire of such noble educators as Fonvizin, Novikov, Krylov, Krechetov. At the end of the decade, the revolutionary Radishchev will come out with his books, directly expressing the aspirations and moods of the serfs.

The second theme of "Undergrowth" 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 be limited to indignation, takes real steps to limit the power of the landlords and, as we know from the play's finale, achieves this. Pravdin acts in this way because he believes that his struggle against the slave-owners, supported by the governor, is "thereby fulfilling the philanthropic types of supreme power", that is, Pravdin is deeply convinced of the enlightened nature of Catherine's autocracy. He declares himself to be the executor of his will - this is the case at the beginning of the comedy. That is why Pravdin, knowing Starodum, demands from him that he go to serve at the court. “With your rules, people should not be let go 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 mistaken. It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick is incurable: here the doctor will not help, unless he himself becomes infected.

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

Pravdin and Starodum, in their worldview, are pupils of the Russian noble Enlightenment. Two major political issues determined the program of the noble educators at that time: a) the need to abolish serfdom by peaceful means (reform, education, etc.); b) Catherine is not an enlightened monarch, but a despot and inspirer of the policy of slavery, and therefore it is necessary to fight against her.

It was this political thought that laid the foundation for the "Undergrowth" - Catherine was to blame for the crimes of the Skotinins and Prostakovs. That is why the fight against the Prostakovs is carried out by private people, and not by the government (the fact that Pravdin is serving does not change things, since he acts according to his own convictions, and not on orders from his superiors). The Catherine's government blesses the feudal policy of the unbridled nobles.

"Undergrowth" was met 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 place it. A stubborn, dull struggle between Fonvizin and the government for staging a comedy began. Nikita Panin was involved in the struggle, who, using all his influence on the heir to Paul, finally achieved the production of a comedy through him. The court demonstrated its dislike for The Undergrowth, which was expressed, among other things, in the desire to prevent its production at the court theater. The premiere was dragged out in every possible way, and instead of May, as it was originally planned, it finally took place with difficulty on September 24, 1782 in a wooden theater on Tsaritsyn Meadow with the help of invited actors from both the court and private theaters.

Crisis of attitude and change

ideological position

“He was, of course, one of the smartest and noblest representatives of the true, sound trend of thought in Russia, especially during the first period of his literary activity, before his illness; but his ardent, disinterested aspirations were too impractical, too little promising of significant benefit before the court of the empress, so that she could encourage them. And she considered it better not to pay attention to him, showing him first that the path he is on will not lead to anything good ... ”says N. A. Dobrolyubov.

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

“Having lost his god, the ordinary Russian Voltairian not only left his temple as a person who had become superfluous in it, but, like a rebellious courtyard, strove to make a fuss before leaving, to kill everything, distort and soil it.”

"Courtyard" - such is the expressive name of this son of unfreedom. And his mode of action is its manifestation: even having rebelled, he behaves like a slave, ”says V. O. Klyuchevsky about the writer. And in this insulting expression there is some truth: in many ways, if not in everything, the outstanding, talented writer, Fonvizin, as a "Voltairian" is very ordinary.

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

As for Denis Ivanovich's horror before the youthful sin of Voltairianism and doubts about faith, everything is clear here. His mind, the then Russian mind, brought up in religion and very far from newfangled skepticism, easily overcame what was premature and unnecessary for him, but sharply and painfully remembered all this when the time came for painful leisure brought by illness, when he had to dig in himself, in order to find the causes of divine wrath, in the existence of which he believed, and also because the blows of fate were already very constant.

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

Interestingly, the "Universal Court Grammar" is a sharp allegorical satire on the court and its vices. And in “A sincere confession about my deeds and thoughts,” Fonvizin bitterly declares: “Young people! Do not think that your sharp words will be your true glory; stop the audacity of your mind and know that the praise attributed to you is a real poison for you; and especially if you feel a penchant for satire, tame it with all your strength: for you, too, will no doubt be subject to the same fate with me. I was soon feared, then hated; and I, instead of attracting people to me, drove them away from me both with words and with a pen. My writings were sharp curses: there was a lot of satirical salt in them, but not a drop of reason, so to speak.

Thus, there is a contradiction in Fonvizin's views. This is due to the fact that in connection with the disease, his last works, including “Frank-Hearted Confession”, are permeated with the motives of religious repentance and the horror of repression that fell upon his fellow enlighteners.

Conclusion

“A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and direction of creative quest, belongs to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who made up the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work was permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. A courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations of serf abuses sounded in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives of which was D. I. Fonvizin ”(12, 22).

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

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

Bibliography

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

The upbringing he received determined from the very beginning his free-thinking, dissatisfaction with despotism, bureaucratic monarchy. His father, a nobleman of an old family and a fair amount of wealth, was a man of the time of Peter the Great, alien to the predatory excitement that gripped the landlords by the middle of the century. Fonvizin studied first at the gymnasium at Moscow University, then at the university itself, and was immediately drawn into the sphere of influence of the Kheraskov group. At the age of sixteen, he appeared in print as a translator - a separate book published at the university, and an essay published in Kheraskov's journal "Useful Amusement". He became one of the young writers of the Sumarokov school. Personally, he was closely associated with Kheraskov, and then with Sumarokov. Thus, from his youth, Fonvizin was accustomed to feeling free from the ferula of despotism, accustomed to opposing his thought, his political line to the system of suppression of the autocratic police, which was not obligatory for him. Having then moved to St. Petersburg in 1762, Fonvizin was immediately assigned as a translator to the Foreign Collegium, led by N.I. Panin; here in the 1760s a certain circle of workers was selected, young writers associated with a group of noble liberals, selected, of course, not by chance; however, Fonvizin did not have time to personally meet the leader of the group, N. Panin, and the following year he moved to the service of the Cabinet Minister Yelagin, apparently in order to stand closer to the theater, which already then attracted his creative attention.

It was at this time that Fonvizin experienced the most significant impact of the ideas of bourgeois enlightenment coming from France. It was partly a fashion, partly a serious hobby of the advanced noble youth.

In 1762, Fonvizin translated Voltaire's tragedy "Alzira", one of the brightest monuments of the struggle of the great hater of fanaticism with "culture", which suppresses human freedom. In 1764, under the title "Korion", he remade Gresse's psychological drama "Sydney" and inserted into it the dialogue between Andrei's servant and the peasant, which was missing in the original. Around the same time, maybe in 1763, in St. Petersburg they went from hand to hand and made Fonvizin the reputation of a talented and courageous satirist-poet of his poetic works. Of these, only two have come down to us in full - the fable "The Fox Koznodey" and "The Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka." In the first of them, official praises of monarchs in speeches, odes, etc. are very witty and venomous. and a murderous characterization of the tyrannical activity of the king is given.

About Fonvizin's Message to the Servants, Belinsky said that it "outlasts all the thick poems of that time." Around 1766, Fonvizin made an attempt to reconsider his attitude to religion and abandon atheism and materialistic teachings in general. However, he did not return to churchliness, apparently settling on philosophical deism, which satisfied the majority of progressive people of the 18th century in Russia, just as he satisfied in the West such thinkers as Montesquieu and later even Mably. In 1766, Fonvizin, in an extremely witty letter to his sister, cheerfully and completely openly mocked church rituals, all kinds of church mysticism, and all this about the upcoming Easter. For contemporaries, Fonvizin remained an atheist forever. Noble satirist D.P. Gorchakov wrote disapprovingly that he was joking with "holy scripture." Yes, and Fonvizin himself, having already abandoned Helvetius, nevertheless published his anti-religious "Message to the Servants" in 1770.

The less Fonvizin could and wanted to give up his political freethinking. However, at that time it was quite clearly painted in noble tones, revealing its closest relationship with the worldview of Sumarokov.

Around 1764, Fonvizin began to write the comedy "Undergrowth", but did not finish it. It was a play about wild provincial nobles, completely ignorant, but very zealous in terms of church rituals. They ugly raise their son Ivanushka, who grows up to be a scoundrel. They are opposed by a cultured nobleman, who gave an exemplary metropolitan education to his son. The comedy was supposed to be quite lively and funny; her language - sharp and real - Fonvizinsky language; but she is still far from the future famous play by Fonvizin, which bears the same name.

In 1766, The Brigadier was written. Fonvizin, who, in addition to literary talent, also had an excellent talent as a reader-actor, read comedy at the palace and in the salons of noble nobles. The comedy was a big success. Nikita Panin caught notes in it that showed him that the young author of it was a man of views close to him. He met Fonvizin, caressed him, and “from that moment my heart became attached to him,” Fonvizin later recalled.

In fact, the Brigadier was associated with the ideology of noble liberalism, of which N. Panin was a political fighter. In this comedy, Fonvizin ridiculed the barbarism, stupidity, meanness of the nobility, not enlightened by the new noble culture, moreover, the provincial nobility and "fake", the noble mob. In addition, the comedy discredits the fashion for everything Western, gallomania, the contempt of young nobles for their homeland and their language. Basically, the task of comedy is educational; the political ideas of the author seem to fade into the background, Fonvizin fights for culture, for "the honor of his class." At the same time, the sharp satire on lack of culture, ignorance, and the low moral level of the nobility contained in The Brigadier has a broader meaning. Comedy is permeated by the idea of ​​national culture, the propaganda of genuine enlightenment, civic consciousness, and humanism.

In addition, by 1766, the publication of the translation of the political treatise of Abbé Coyet, “The Merchant Nobility, Opposite to the Military Nobility,” made by Fonvizin, also dates back to 1766, in which it is proved that trade is desirable for the nobles. The attitude of Fonvizin himself to Quayet's thesis is unclear; he was going to translate another treatise on the same subject, in which the opposite thesis was proved; in addition, Montesquieu, who had a huge influence on the political views of Fonvizin (like Panin), also believed that it was not the business of the nobles to trade. In any case, criticism of the French nobility, its idleness, given in Coyet's book, could interest Fonvizin and could be transferred by him to the Russian "noble" class.

DI. Fonvizin is a satirist poet.

Fonvizin's belonging to the educational camp can be traced in his earliest works, both translated and original. In the early 60s, he translated and published the fables of the Danish writer Golberg, Voltaire's anti-clerical tragedy Alzira, Terrason's didactic novel Heroic Virtue, or the Life of Seth, King of Egypt, and a number of other books. Among the original experiments is the "Message to my servants - Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka." The author later recalled that for this work he was known to many as an atheist. The "Message" combines two themes: the denial of the harmonious structure of the universe, which the clergy insisted on, and, as a confirmation of this idea, a satirical depiction of the life of Moscow and St. Petersburg. The poem displays the real servants of Fonvizin, whose names are mentioned in his letters. The writer addresses them with a philosophical question: “What was this light created for?”, i.e. what purpose did God pursue when creating man and human society. The task turns out to be too difficult for unprepared interlocutors, which Uncle Shumilov immediately admits. The coachman Vanka, an experienced man, can only say one thing: the world is based on self-interest and deceit:

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.

Footman Petrushka supplements Vanka's thought with a purely practical conclusion. If the world is so vicious, then you need to extract as much benefit from it as possible, not disdaining any means. However, why such a bad light was created, he does not know. Therefore, all three servants turn to the master for an answer. But he is unable to resolve this issue. The form of the "Message" approaches a small dramatic scene. The characters of each of the interlocutors are clearly outlined: the sedate uncle Shumilov, the lively, smart Vanka, who has seen the big world and made up his unflattering opinion about him, and, finally, Petrushka with his lackey, cynical outlook on life.

The fable "The Fox Treasurer" (i.e., the Fox Preacher) was written around 1785 and published anonymously in 1787. Its plot is borrowed from the prose fable of the German enlightener H.F.D. Schubart. At the funeral of Leo, the tombstone speech is delivered by the Fox, "with a humble hare, in a monastic outfit." She enumerates the "merits" and "virtues" of the late tsar, which gives Fonvizin the opportunity to parody the genre of praise. The problematic of the fable - the condemnation of despotism and servility - is a characteristic feature of Fonvizin's work, as well as the theme of "bestiality" (Lev "was a constant cattle", "He fed bestiality in his soul"), widely represented in his comedies.

Publicism and magazine satire by D.I. Fonvizin.

Fonvizin considered the current situation in Russia, and partly in Europe, to be an abnormal deviation from the right path; he distinctly felt the approach of catastrophe, saw profound shifts in social life and in public consciousness. The bourgeois revolution is hanging over Europe. A peasant uprising was being prepared when Fonvizin was writing The Brigadier, and had just filled the whole of noble Russia with horror at the time when The Undergrowth was being created. Utopia, which had a feudal shell, was a saving mirage for Fonvizin. He wanted to oppose it to the pressure of hostile forces, and he himself did not notice that his utopia was built not so much on the basis of knowledge of the facts of the past (this past did not at all resemble Fonvizin’s dream), but on the basis of ideas of the future, ideas that imperiously demanded the right to implementation of educational, new, advanced ideas.

This was also reflected in the fact that in Fonvizin's journalism, as well as in his artistic work, the concept of the nobility was increasingly losing its narrow-class and even narrow-class character, turning into the concept of the best people of the fatherland. From here there was one step to the recognition of noble privileges invalid. Fonvizin did not take this step, but he prepared it in the process of developing the worldview of the best people in his class. He tried to create a compromise between the rights of the landowners and the "natural law" of the enlighteners who were preparing the French Revolution. The compromise could not succeed; in the future, there were either the reaction of Paul I and his sons, or Decembrism. It was necessary either to abandon the idea of ​​the people's welfare, or to understand it in the way that Mirabeau understood it. Fonvizin could do neither one nor the other. But his path was the path that led to Mirabeau. The collapse of his utopian program revealed what was genuine in it: the fight against slavery, the fight against despotism. Nephew of D.I. Fonvizin, Decembrist M.A. Fonvizin, went further along his path. Fonvizin outlined his social program in a note “A Brief Explanation of the Liberty of the French Nobility and the Benefits of the Third Rank”, the first part of which is a translation, and the second is Fonvizin’s original work *. He calls for substantial reforms in this note. Its general result is as follows: “In a word, in Russia there should be 1) the nobility completely free, 2) the third rank completely freed and 3) the people practicing agriculture, although not completely free, but at least having the hope of being free when they are such farmers or such artists (i.e. artisans), so that in time they could bring to perfection the villages or manufactories of their masters. Fonvizin demands the restriction of serfdom, the granting of the right to be exempted from it both in education and in merchant and handicraft activities; he considers it necessary to provide the peasantry with broad rights to receive higher education (it was closed in the 18th century for peasants by law) and to engage in any activity. Fonvizin attaches great importance to the growth and freedom of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia that came out of their midst (in sum, this is the “third rank”), although he elevates the nobility above everything.

FRANCE IN THE LIFE OF FONVIZIN.

In 1777–1778 Fonvizin traveled around Europe and spent quite a long time in France. A revolutionary explosion was already brewing there. The bourgeoisie went to storm the power. Feudalism was falling apart before our eyes. And so, France made a painful impression on Fonvizin. He clearly saw the approach of the collapse of the old regime, he saw the triumph of Voltaire - a grandiose demonstration arranged by the French people for the great enemy of despotism and fanaticism; but he was not gripped by the pathos of the coming victories of the bourgeoisie, he grumbled, he was annoyed by what was the beginning of renewal in the country, especially since he could not grieve about the past either, in France he saw the remnants of the same tyranny that he hated in Russia . And the slavery of the feudal France of the past, and the capitalization of the "free" France of the past, and the caritization of the "free" France of the future arouse his indignation.

He ridicules the apparatus of sucking taxes out of the country, arbitrariness, injustice, debauchery of power and the "high society" of the old order. But with amazing vigilance he sees the lie of bourgeois "freedoms" while maintaining the power of money. “The first right of every Frenchman is liberty; but his true present condition is slavery; for a poor man cannot earn his livelihood except by slave labor; and if he wants to use his precious liberty, he will have to die of hunger. In a word, liberty is an empty name, and the right of the strong remains the right above all laws, ”wrote P.I. Fonvizin from France. Panin. A number of letters to the brother of his boss and teacher, extensive essay letters, carefully processed literary, was the fruit of Fonvizin's travel abroad; these were letters intended to play the role of journalistic articles known to the reader in the lists of a kind of latent journalism of the Panin circle. Belinsky wrote that these letters “in their content are incomparably longer and more important than the “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (Karamzin): reading them, you already feel the beginning of the French Revolution in this terrible picture of French society, so skillfully painted by our traveler.”

Fonvizin, even in France, remains an enemy of ecclesiastical fanaticism, of the church. He writes: “Priests, having education in their hands, instill in people, on the one hand, a slavish attachment to chimeras beneficial to the clergy, and on the other, a strong aversion to common sense.” But he is against atheism, against the emancipatory preaching of revolutionary thinkers. “However, those who succeeded in somehow overthrowing the yoke of superstition, almost all fell into the other extreme and became infected with the new philosophy. I rarely meet in whom one of the two extremes is not noticeable - either slavery or impudence of reason.

About philosophers, ideologists and leaders of the advanced bourgeoisie, Fonvizin writes with bitterness. “D” Alamberts, Diderots are in their own way the same charlatans that I saw every day on the boulevard; they all deceive the people for money, and the only difference between a charlatan and a philosopher is that the latter adds unparalleled vanity to avarice. " Or in another location:

“Of all the scientists, D'Alambert surprised me. I imagined an important, respectable face, but I found a pretentious figure and a petty physiognomy.” And here is the conclusion from observations of the life of an advanced country, from studies of its literature, its way of life: - this is the direct truth ”(Letter to sister).

Fonvizin is interested in France not only and not so much in itself, but because he hopes, having studied it, to better understand the ways of Russia. In the name of his homeland, he thinks and creates.

An ardent love for her leads him to seek cures for the ulcers that are eating away at her. And now he was convinced that the path of France does not give happiness to the people, health to the state. For Russia, he wants more than the development of capitalism; what exactly he wants - he himself clearly does not imagine. But he knows what is bad in Russia, and he knows what is bad in Russia first of all: slavery and autocratic bureaucratic despotism. As long as both exist, he suffocates in his homeland and rushes about in search of liberation. (this item is taken from Gukovsky's textbook)

Magazine satire. The success of the comedy "The Brigadier" put forward Fonvizin among the most famous writers of his time. The head of the educational camp of Russian literature of the 1760s, N. I. Novikov, praised the new comedy of the young author in his satirical magazine Truten. In collaboration with Novikov, Fonvizin finally determines his place in literature as a satirist and publicist. It is no coincidence that in his other magazine "The Painter" for 1772, Novikov will place Fonvizin's sharpest satirical essay "Letters to Falaley", as well as "A word for his recovery by them. Highness the Sovereign Tsarevich and Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich in 1771" - an essay in which within the genre of official panegyric addressed to the heir to the throne, the practice of favoritism and self-aggrandizement adopted by Catherine II was denounced.
In these works, the outlines of the ideological program and creative guidelines that determined the later artistic originality of The Undergrowth are already visible. On the one hand, in "Letters to Falaley" - this vivid picture of the wild ignorance and arbitrariness of the local nobles - Fonvizin for the first time finds and skillfully uses a special constructive method of satirical denunciation of the feudal lords. The immorality of the behavior of the characters denounced in the letters turns them, according to the satirist, into the likeness of cattle. Their loss of human form is emphasized by the blind passion that they have for animals, while at the same time not considering their serfs for people. Such, for example, is the structure of thoughts and feelings of Falaley's mother, for whom, after her son, the most beloved creature is the greyhound bitch Naletka. The good mother does not spare the rod in order to vent her vexation from the death of her beloved bitch on her peasants. The character of Falaley's mother directly leads us to the image of the main character of "Undergrowth" - Mrs. Prostakova. This method of psychological characterization of the heroes will be used most prominently in the grotesque figure of Uncle Mitrofan - Skotinin.
On the other hand, in the "Word for Recovery ..." the prerequisites for the political program that Fonvizin will later develop in the famous "Discourse on the indispensable state laws" are already stated: "The love of the people is the true glory of sovereigns. Be the master of your passions and remember that he cannot control others with glory, who cannot control himself ... "As we will see below, the pathos of reflections of the positive characters of the "Undergrowth" by Starodum and Pravdin is largely fed by the ideas captured in the above-mentioned works.
Fonvizin's interest in political journalism was not accidental. In December 1769, remaining an official of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, Fonvizin, at the suggestion of Count N.I. Panin, transferred to his service, becoming the chancellor's secretary. And for almost 13 years, until his retirement in 1782, Fonvizin remained Panin's closest assistant, enjoying his unlimited confidence.
In 1783, when the first publication of The Undergrowth appeared, Fonvizin published a number of satirical works in prose in the journal Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word. Most often, the author uses in them a form of parody of high literary genres or official documents. In "The Petition of the Russian Minerva from Russian Writers" the genre of petition is parodied. In the "Instruction spoken on Spirits Day by Priest Vasily in the village of P **" - the genre of church sermon.
The “Experience of the Russian Soslovnik” is interesting, that is, a dictionary of synonyms, where, as an explanation of words that are close in meaning, the author chooses examples on the topic of the day, drawn from the social and administrative field. So, to the words deceive, deceive, conduct, Fonvizin makes the following notes: “Deceit is an art of great boyars”, “Solictors usually carry out petitions.” About the word madcap it is said: "A madcap is very dangerous when in power." Synonyms low, vile are accompanied by a purely enlightening reflection: "In a low state, you can have a noble soul, just as a very big gentleman can be a very vile person." Regarding the word "rank" it is said: "There are great ranks in which there is no need to have great merits, but sometimes they reach them with one nobility of the breed, which is the least of human merits." Of the other satirical materials placed by Fonvizin in the "Interlocutor", one should name "Petition to the Russian Minerva from Russian Writers" - hidden behind the allegorical stylization of an official document, the denunciation of the ignorance of the nobles persecuting writers; "The Narrative of the Imaginary Deaf and Mute" - an attempt to use the structure of a picaresque European novel for satirical purposes, unfortunately, remained unfinished.
In 1783, Fonvizin anonymously sent twenty questions to the magazine Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word, which were actually addressed to Catherine II, who secretly headed this publication and published feuilletons under the title “There were also fables” in it. The questions turned out to be so bold and provocative that Catherine entered into a debate with the author, placing her own “answers” ​​against each of the “questions”. “Why,” Fonvizin asked, hinting at the removal of the Panin brothers from service, “we see many good people in retirement?” “Many good people,” answered Catherine, “retired the service, probably because they found it beneficial to be retired.” The objection of the empress was made not on the merits, since she perfectly understood that it was not about voluntary, but about forced resignation. Question number 13 was asked in connection with the moral and social degradation of the nobility: “How can the fallen souls of the nobility be elevated? How to drive out of the hearts insensitivity to the dignity of a noble title? In question 10, the author hinted at the despotic nature of government in Russia: “Why, in the legislative age, does no one think of distinguishing himself in this field?” “Because,” the empress answered irritably, “that this is not everyone’s business.” Fonvizin's discussion with Catherine II, as we see, is in many ways reminiscent of the controversy between Novikov's Drone and All Things, right up to its sad ending. Fonvizin perfectly caught the anger of his addressee and was forced to soften his impudent attacks. In the Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word, he places a letter “To Mr. the writer of “Tales and Fables” from the writer of “Questions”. Fonvizin compliments the literary and even administrative talents of Catherine II. At the same time, he explains that his criticisms of some nobles are dictated "not by the bile of malice", but by sincere concern for their fate. The accusation of "free speech" forced Fonvizin to refuse to continue the dangerous dispute, which he reports in his letter. “I confess,” he declares, “that your prudent answers convinced me inwardly ... This inner conviction of mine decided me to cancel the questions I had prepared yet ... so as not to give others a reason for impudent free speech, which I hate with all my heart.”
The popularity of "Undergrowth" inspired Fonvizin to attempt to publish the journal "Friend of honest people, or Starodum", which the writer intended to start in 1788. But the government banned the publication of the journal, and the materials prepared for it were published for the first time only in 1830. "Friend honest people ... ", not only in the name, but also in the problematics, was closely connected with the comedy "Undergrowth". The serfdom theme is presented in it by the "Letter from Taras Skotinin to his sister, Mrs. Prostakova." The author of the letter reports that after the death of his beloved pig Aksinya, he set out to “correct the manners of his peasants with a birch tree,” knowing “neither mercy nor pity.” Another work - "The General Court Grammar" - clearly echoes Starodum's impressions from his service in the palace. Starodum's reflections on the moral decline of the nobility are continued in "The Conversation at Princess Khaldina", highly appreciated by Pushkin. “The image of Sorvantsov,” Pushkin wrote, “is worthy of a brush that painted the Prostakov family. He signed up for the service to ride in a train. He spends his nights at cards and sleeps in a government office... He sells peasants into recruits and talks cleverly about enlightenment. He does not take bribes out of vanity, and cold-bloodedly excuses the poor bribers. In a word, he is a truly Russian nobleman of the last century, which nature and semi-enlightenment formed him to be.
The conceived magazine opened with a letter to Starodum from "the writer of The Undergrowth", in which the publisher turned to a "friend of honest people" with a request to help him by sending materials and thoughts, "which, with their importance and moralizing, no doubt, Russian readers will like." In response, Starodum not only approves the author's decision, but also immediately informs him of sending him letters received from "acquaintances", promising to continue to supply him with the necessary materials. Letter from Sophia to Starodum, his answer, as well as "Letter from Taras Skotinin to his native sister, Mrs. Prostakova" and, apparently, should have been the first issue of the magazine.
No less sharp were the subsequent materials, also "transferred" to the publisher of the magazine Starodum. This is, first of all, the "General Court Grammar" - a brilliant example of political satire that denounced court mores.
Both on duty and in personal communication, Fonvizin more than once had the opportunity to experience the true price of the nobility of noble nobles close to the throne, and to study the unwritten laws of court life. And now, when the already sick, retired writer turns to this topic in the satirical magazine he conceived, his own life observations will serve as material for him. "What is a court lie?" - the satirist will ask a question. And the answer will read: "There is an expression of a mean soul in front of an arrogant soul. It consists of shameless praise to a great gentleman for those services that he did not do, and for those dignity that he does not have."

Thus, the magazine conceived by Fonvizin was supposed to continue the best traditions of magazine Russian satire of the late 1760s. It is no coincidence that the subtitle of the magazine read: "Periodical essay dedicated to the truth." But it was useless to count on the consent of Catherine's censorship in issuing such a publication. By decision of the council of the deanery, it was forbidden to print the magazine. Some of its parts were distributed in handwritten lists. (Only in 1830, in the first collected works of the writer published by Beketov, most of the surviving materials of the Fonvizin journal were published.) The writer tries to organize the publication of another, now a collective journal, Moscow Works, in a year. But the ensuing period of political reaction in connection with the beginning of the Great Bourgeois Revolution in France made this publication impossible.
Fonvizin's political views are most clearly formulated by him in his work "Discourse on indispensable state laws." This work, written in the late 70s of the 18th century, was conceived as an introduction to the project “Fundamental Rights, indispensable for all time by any authority”, compiled by the brothers N.I. and P.I. Panin. Both works are combative, offensive in nature. They are talking about the need to limit autocratic power. N. I. Panin was one of the educators of the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, in whom he saw the executor of his ideas.
According to his public views, Fonvizin is a monarchist, but at the same time a fierce opponent of uncontrolled, autocratic power. He is deeply indignant at the despotism reigning in Russia. “... Where the arbitrariness of one,” he writes, “is the supreme law, there a strong common bond cannot exist; there is a state, but there is no fatherland, there are subjects, but there are no citizens ... ”Fonvizin considered favorites for Russia, or, as he calls them, “favorites of the sovereign”, who especially strengthened their influence at the court of Russian empresses. “Here the subjects,” he points out, “are enslaved to the sovereign, and the sovereign is usually his unworthy favorite ... In such a depraved situation, the abuse of autocracy rises to improbability, and any distinction between the state and the sovereign, between the sovereign and the favorite already ceases.” Some parts of the "Discourse" are aimed directly at Potemkin, who, according to Fonvizin, "hoisted the banner of lawlessness and wickedness in the very royal palaces ..."
The soul of the state, its best class, Fonvizin considered the nobility, “the most respectable of all states, obliged to defend the fatherland together with the sovereign ...” But the writer knew perfectly well that the overwhelming mass of the nobility absolutely did not resemble the ideal he created, that it only exists and “is sold to every scoundrel who has plundered the state.”
Without opposing serfdom, Fonvizin at the same time speaks bitterly about the plight of the serfs, about their complete lack of rights. Russia, he notes, is such a state “where people are the property of people, where a person of one state has the right to be both a plaintiff and a judge over a person of another state.
Not sympathizing with the Pugachev uprising, Fonvizin at the same time understands that the main culprits of the peasant indignation were the government and the nobles. Therefore, he considers it his duty to recall the possibility of its repetition. “A peasant,” he writes, “distinguished by one human species from cattle” can lead the state “in a few hours to the very edge of final destruction and death.” Fonvizin sees a way out of the plight in which society is in a voluntary restriction by the government of its own and noble arbitrariness and in fixing this decision in the relevant laws. "The enlightened and virtuous monarch ... - he declares - begins his great service by immediately protecting the communion of security by means of immutable laws." During the life of Fonvizin, his project was not published, but it was distributed in handwritten form and was very popular among the Decembrists, and in 1861 was published by Herzen in one of his foreign publications.

Innovation D.I. Fonvizin - comedian. "Brigadier".

Brigadier, Ivanushka, his son, Brigadier, Counselor, Counselor, his wife, Sofya, daughter of a counselor, Dobrolyubov, Counselor's servant.

In 1769, Fonvizin's first comedy "The Brigadier" was completed. This work was to some extent timed to the well-known events unfolding in the public life of that period. Active preparations were underway for the opening and work of the Commission for the drafting of a new code, which worried all the nobility. The main characters of the comedy are the nobles, moreover, almost all of them belong to the category of negative characters. In his work, Fonvizin, as it were, refutes those invaluable merits of the “noble class” before the fatherland, with which the landowners covered up their uncontrolled possession of serfs. Thus, a soldier, an official and a nobleman, stuffed with all sorts of French nonsense, turned out to be at the pillory in a comedy in an unsightly form.

The play fully fulfills Diderot's advice - "transfer the living room to the theater." All the characters are so natural that it seems as if they have just been pulled out of everyday life. Prior to this, not a single Russian play could boast of such a beginning. After the curtain was raised, the viewer seemed to be present at the continuation of the conversation that had begun even before the curtain opened. The action took place in the room of the village house of the Counselor. The brigadier paced at ease from corner to corner, the hostess treated the young guest to tea, who, breaking down, was sitting at the tea table. The adviser's daughter embroidered on a hoop. The play is subject to the basic rules of the high comedy of classicism.

Here, such features of classicism as static action and sketchy characters are clearly visible, but obvious deviations from traditional canons are also noticeable. For example, the son of the Brigadier Ivanushka, who is essentially incapable of serious feelings in his character, at the end of the work suddenly shows something sincere when parting. So Fonvizin tries to bring the scene closer to real life and show reality more believably and broadly than classicism allows. At the same time, the author tried not only to ridicule the vulgar, disgusting and absurd aspects of the life of the nobility of his time, but also to reveal their causes, to make public their social predetermination.

Why do people like this appear? The Brigadier himself answers this question, lamenting that he allowed his wife to spoil their son Ivanushka, and did not enroll him in the regiment, where he would be taught the mind. Despite his rudeness and ignorance, the Brigadier is aware of the perniciousness of the results of fashionable "education" and spoiled, because he fully felt them on himself. Ivanushka's attitude towards his own parents is fully manifested in his words: “So, you know that I am an unfortunate person. I have been living for twenty-five years and I also have a father and a mother. The Councilor and the Brigadier are typical representatives of the "noble class" of that time. In the middle of the century, according to Sumarokov, extortion was so rooted in the Russian bureaucratic and judicial apparatus that the empresses themselves had to speak out against it. Both Elizaveta Petrovna at the end of her reign, and Catherine II, who later came to power, drew attention to rampant bribery in state structures.

In his play, the author reveals the character of the Counselor both as a bribe-taker-philosopher and as a bribe-taker-practitioner. In a conversation with Sophia, he says that it is contrary to his nature, his “human nature ...” to solve a case for a salary alone ... For the first time in a classic comedy, the images of the characters are revealed with the help of information from the past lives of the characters. This helps to understand the essence of the artistic image even deeper, as well as to identify the causes, conditions that form the character.

In revealing the images of the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Counselor, the author goes far beyond traditional classicism, since he carefully analyzes the existing mores and creates a national typical character. According to Fonvizin's contemporaries, character and temper are two different concepts. If the character involves some kind of innate impulses for a certain action, then temper is the skills instilled in education. The well-known critic P. N. Berkov believed that in The Brigadier, morals significantly dominate over characters. Fonvizin's innovation in the play "The Brigadier" was also manifested in the masterful use of natural and witty language. Each character has a clearly recognizable vocabulary, which perfectly characterizes the hero from one side or another. So, for example, the Counselor deliberately uses Church Slavonic phrases in his speech, which only emphasizes the hypocrisy of this person. The Brigadier and the Brigadier, due to their ignorance, are distinguished by vernacular. Ivanushka and the Counselor use pasta jargon, close to the colloquial speech of dandies from the pages of satirical magazines. It is also surprising that even “about themselves” these people speak their own language. In Fonvizin's play, a new method of literature was born - realistic typification.

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

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

Initially, the future genius was educated at home, and after that he was enrolled in the lists of students of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University. After his merits in the literary sphere, he will be sent to St. Petersburg, where he met such iconic figures of the state as Lomonosov, Sumarokov.

Creative path: a success story

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

Like many writers, Fonvizin spent a lot of time abroad, in particular in France. His work as an adviser to the office is accompanied by the writing of a large number of journalistic texts, for example, "Discourse on the indispensable state laws", as well as work on translations that allowed the Russian reader to get acquainted with the works of Rousseau, Ovid and even Walter.

Personal life

Little is known about the writer's personal life. His wife's name was Katerina Ivanovna Rogovikova, she was from the family of a wealthy merchant. Children are not mentioned in his biography.

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

last years of life

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

The month of April is rich in memorable, significant and historical dates, such as:

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

DENIS IVANOVICH FONVIZIN

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

This side of Fonvizin's creative activity has not been studied enough, and therefore, first of all, that all original and translated works of Fonvizin have not yet been collected and published. Thus, the militant-enlightenment nature 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) has not been fully clarified.

Pushkin was the first to point out that Fonvizin was not only "a ripe ruler of satire", but also a "friend of freedom." This estimate refers to 1823. The poet at that time was in exile in the south. A hater of slavery, he was waiting for changes in the state, knowing full well that "our political freedom is inseparable from the emancipation of the peasants." For Pushkin, the concepts of enlightenment and freedom are equivalent. Only through enlightenment can real, and 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 activity of Russian writers-enlighteners of the 18th century was revealed to him.

Pushkin repeatedly urged the 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 resolutely 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. The advanced ideology determined his aesthetic searches, his artistic achievements, his decisive convergence of literature with reality.

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

the extraordinary art of denoting the whole subject with a few features: Pushkin's epithet is so clear and bold, he wrote, that sometimes one replaces the whole description.

Fonvizin's definition of "a friend of freedom" "meant the whole subject. It should serve as the basis for the "whole description" of his life, his work, his activities.

WRITER'S BIOGRAPHY

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. Fonvizin’s father, a middle-class landowner, was, according to the writer, “a virtuous man”, “loved the truth”, “did not tolerate lies”, “hated covetousness”, “no one saw him in the front nobles”. The mother “had a subtle mind and saw far with soulful eyes. Her heart was compassionate and contained no malice in itself; she was a virtuous wife, a loving mother, a prudent mistress, and a magnanimous mistress.”

Fonvizin spent the first ten years in the family. Here he learned to read and write. His mentor was his father, who "read all Russian books", "ancient and Roman history, opinions of Cicero and other good translations of 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 required by the noble fashion, took advantage of the opportunity to give his son a real education.

did not hesitate, one might say, not a day to send me and my brother to the university, as soon as it became established,

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

In his gymnasium years, Fonvizin began to engage in literary translations.

My inclination to writing was still in infancy, - the writer recalled, - and I, practicing translations into Russian, reached adolescence.

"Exercises in translations" took place under the guidance of Professor Reichel (he taught general history and German). "," Bargaining of the seven muses. By the same time, the beginning of work on the translation of Voltaire's tragedy "Alzira" also dates back.

YEARS IN PETERSBURG

In 1760, the director of the university took the best students to the capital to present them to the curator I. I. Shuvalov. Among the best was Fonvizin. During his stay in St. Petersburg, he got to the performance of the recently created Russian theater (in 1756). “The action produced in me by the theater is almost impossible to describe,” the writer later recalled. First impressions determined the fate of Fonvizin. Upon his return to Moscow, he attended with great interest the performances of the Locatelli Theater, in which the university troupe played. After moving to St. Petersburg in 1762, Fonvizin forever associates himself with the Russian theater.

On June 28, 1762, the wife of Peter III, Ekaterina Alekseevna, relying on the guards regiments, made a coup. The political inspirer of the coup was the tutor of Paul's heir, Nikita Panin. The demands of the noble liberals, led by Panin, boiled down to the establishment of a constitution.

It was at this time that the fate of Fonvizin suddenly changed, and he unexpectedly found himself close to political affairs in the state, to the court, to the struggle that was in full swing around the new empress. Vice-Chancellor Golitsyn decided to take the student Fonvizin, who was fluent in foreign languages, to be a translator in a foreign collegium. In October 1762, Fonvizin filed a petition in the name of Catherine. With a petition, he attaches samples of translations from three languages ​​- Latin, French and German. Noteworthy are translations from Latin - M. Tullius Cicero "Speech for Marcel" 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 translations testified to the political interests of the student.

Chancellor M. I. Vorontsov, who led the foreign collegium, noticed the talent of the young translator and brought him closer to himself. As Fonvizin later recalled, the chancellor "gave the most important papers to me for translation." Among the "most important" were various political writings. Having become acquainted with one of these French works, Fonvizin made a short essay, titled it "Abstract on the Liberty of the French Nobility and the Usefulness of the Third Rank."

Having outlined the content of the treatise, Fonvizin, deeply understanding the great 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." Further, he outlines his plan for the social revival of the fatherland. "The third rank is one with the people." It is necessary to encourage the activity of all those who "strive about manufactories, establish exchanges of things, evaluate goods", - all merchants, artists and artisans. They must all be given free will. Merchants and "glorious artists" "dismissal" to sell. The university accepts the children of peasants, and whoever learns the "higher sciences" must be freed from serfdom according to the certificate.

When, - says Fonvizin, - everyone is able to practice in what he has a talent for, they will all insensibly compose a body of the third rank with the rest of the liberated.

An important part of the plan for social transformation is the question of the peasantry. Fonvizin 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 the peasants (to allow them to study at universities, to allow them to engage in any business with the right to leave the countryside, etc.) and thereby gradually prepare for their complete emancipation. Fonvizin believes that a free peasant will be richer and will find more ways to pay dues. At the end of the article, Fonvizin succinctly outlined the swap plan:

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

The program of social transformations 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 give an answer to it in a few years.

In early October 1763, by decree of Ekaterina Fonvizin, "being listed with a foreign collegium", "to be for some cases with our state adviser Elagin." I.P. Yelagin 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 person, amateurishly engaged in poetry, dramaturgy, translations, history ....

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

Today there is a masquerade at the court, and I will drag myself there in my domino; … 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; ... from the kurtag came home embarrassed; ... there were an awful lot of people, but I swear to you that I, with all that, was in the desert. There was hardly a single person with whom I would consider talking even for a small pleasure.

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

In another letter, Fonvizin clarified his thought:

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

FEATURES OF FONVIZIN'S CREATIVITY

Despite the troublesome court service, Fonvizin worked hard 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 an educational ideology. Not the bourgeoisie, but the nobility put forward the first enlighteners from their midst. This Enlightenment was not bourgeois, but noble.

In the 60s of the XVIII century, at the time of intensified peasant protest, on the eve of the Pugachev uprising, the enlightenment ideology finally took shape. Enlighteners such as philosopher Yakov Kozelsky, writer and publisher Nikolai Novikov, popularizer of educational ideology, Professor Nikolai Kurganov appeared on the public arena. In the same decade, Fonvizin also took the position of enlightenment.

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

In The Brigadier, Fonvizin laughs merrily at the ugliness of life. Sometimes we smile when we see Frenchmania or the idiotically meaningless life of an idler. But in most cases, the behavior of Ivanushka, his speech causes indignation and indignation. When he, a "fool" according to his father, declares:

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

Or when he is engaged in dirty loving courtship of 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 built sharply satirically and accusatory. Ivans - the young generation of Russian noble serfs - are the enemies of Fonvizin.

The Brigadier is a comedy, and the first comedy is truly Russian, and the first comedy is truly merry. Pushkin highly valued gaiety and was extremely sorry that there were so few truly merry writings in Russian literature. That is why he lovingly noted this feature of Fonvizin's talent, pointing to the direct continuity of the dramaturgy of Fonvizin and Gogol. Speaking of Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Pushkin wrote:

How amazed we were at the Russian book that made us laugh, we who have 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 field of the comic. "The Brigadier" was written during the heyday of Russian noble classicism.

In 1777, Fonvizin publishes a translation of the political work of the French enlightener Tom, “Eulogy to Marcus Aurelius”, prepared by him.

In September 1777, Fonvizin went to France, upon his return from which Fonvizin began work on a new comedy, which he called "Undergrowth".

COMEDY "NEDOROSL"

"Undergrowth" - the central work of Fonvizin, the pinnacle of Russian dramaturgy of the 18th century - is organically connected with the ideological issues of "Reasoning".

For Pushkin, "Undergrowth" is a "folk comedy." Belinsky, who by the 1940s had developed a revolutionary-democratic understanding of nationality, declared that "Undergrowth", "Woe from Wit" and "Inspector General" "in a short time became popular dramatic plays."

The main conflict in the socio-political life of Russia - the arbitrariness of the landlords, supported by the highest authority, and the serfs without rights - becomes the theme of a comedy. In a dramatic work, the theme is revealed with special power of persuasiveness in the development of the plot, in action, in the struggle. The only dramatic conflict of the "Undergrowth" is the struggle between the progressive-minded advanced nobles Pravdin and Starodum and the feudal lords - the Prostakovs and Skotinin.

In the comedy, Fonvizin shows the pernicious consequences of slavery, which should confirm to the viewer the moral correctness of Pravdin, the need to fight the Skotinins and Prostakovs. The consequences of slavery are truly terrible.

The peasants of the Prostakovs are completely ruined. Even Prostakova herself does not know what to do next:

Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can no longer tear anything off. Such trouble!

Slavery turns the peasants into slaves, completely killing in them all human traits, all the dignity of the individual. With special force it comes through in the courtyards. Fonvizin created an image of enormous power - the slaves of Eremeevna.

An old woman, Mitrofan's nanny, she lives the life of a dog: insults, kicks and beatings - that's what befell her. She has long lost even a human name, she is called only by abusive nicknames: "beast", "old grunt", "dog's daughter", "scum". Outrages, reproach and humiliation made Yeremeevna a serf, a watchdog of his mistress, who humbly licks the hand of the owner who beat her.

In the person of Pravdin and Starodum, for the first time, positive heroes appeared on the scene, who act, putting their ideals into practice. Who are Pravdin and Starodum, who bravely fight against the feudal lords Prostakov and Skotinin? Why were they able to interfere not only in the course of the action of the comedy, but, in essence, in the political life of the state?

As a folk work, the comedy "Undergrowth" naturally reflected the most important and acute problems of Russian life. The lack of rights of the Russian serfs, reduced to the status of slaves, given into the full possession of the landowners, manifested itself with particular force precisely in the 80s. The complete, boundless, monstrous arbitrariness of the landlords could not but arouse feelings of protest among the progressive people of their era. Not sympathizing with the revolutionary methods of action, moreover, rejecting them, at the same time they could not 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 intensification 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 publish his books, directly expressing the aspirations and moods of the serfs.

The second theme of "Undergrowth" 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 be limited to indignation, takes real steps to limit the power of the landlords and, as we know from the play's finale, achieves this. Pravdin acts in this way because he believes that his struggle against the slave owners, supported by the governor, is “thereby fulfilling the philanthropic types of the supreme power,” that is, Pravdin is deeply convinced of the enlightened nature of Catherine’s autocracy. He declares himself to be the executor of his will - this is the case at the beginning of the comedy.

That is why Pravdin, knowing Starodum, demands from him that he go to serve at the court.

With your rules, people should not be let go from the court, but they must be called to the court.

The old man 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 is incurable: here the doctor will not help, unless he himself becomes infected.

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

Pravdin and Starodum, in their worldview, are pupils of the Russian Enlightenment. Two major political issues determined the program of the enlighteners at that time: a) the need to abolish serfdom by peaceful means (reform, education, etc.); b) Catherine is not an enlightened monarch, but a despot and inspirer of the policy of slavery, and therefore it is necessary to fight against her (although it must be said that supporting the second process, many worked for the revolutionaries).

"Undergrowth" was met 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 place it. A stubborn, dull struggle between Fonvizin and the government for staging a comedy began.

CREATIVITY IN RECENT YEARS

On March 7, 1782, Fonvizin filed a petition addressed to Catherine to be "dismissed from service." Three days later, the Empress signed a decree of resignation. Fonvizin defiantly refused to serve Catherine, deciding to devote all his strength to literary activity. After writing "Undergrowth", his attention is increasingly drawn to prose. He wants to write small satirical prose works. It would be best to print them in a periodical. This is how the idea of ​​own satirical magazine arises. Unexpected circumstances, which made it possible to take part in the newly opened magazine in the capital, forced us to postpone the plan of organizing our own magazine for a while.

Since May 1783, the magazine "Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word" began to appear. Its official editor was Princess E.R. Dashkov. Behind the scenes, Catherine herself was engaged in the magazine, publishing her historical and satirical writings in it. Fonvizin decided to take part in the magazine and publish anonymously several satirical works in it. The writer gave battle to the empress on her own foothold.

Of all the writings of Fonvizin, published in the "Interlocutor", the political satire, peculiar in form, had the greatest social significance: "Several questions that could arouse special attention in intelligent and honest people." "Nedorosl" has already put before smart and honest people several important questions 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 take cruel revenge on the impudent writer, and, having learned the name of the author of the “free-language” questions, she, as evidenced by the facts, instructed the police to no longer print Fonvizin’s new works.

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

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

A year later, the doctors demanded that Fonvizin leave for treatment in Karlsbad. Only in September 1787 Fonvizin returned to St. Petersburg. It was not possible to fully restore his health, but nevertheless, after a long treatment, the writer felt better - he began to walk, speech returned. Having rested after a tiring trip, Fonvizin set to work. He decided to publish his own satirical magazine, calling it "Friend of honest people, or Starodum." The roll call with the "Undergrowth" was not accidental: the sick writer was preparing for a new duel with the almighty empress.

Such a journal, of course, could not be printed. Presented to the police, he was banned. The name of the publisher was known - this is "the writer of the Undergrowth." After "Undergrowth" and "A Few Questions" published in "Interlocutor", after "The Life of N.I. Panin" Ekaterina decided to put an end to the activities of Fonvizin as a writer, forbidding him to publish. But the writer hated by Catherine did not let up and in the new magazine he bravely took on the mission of being "the guardian of the common good." Undoubtedly, the police were instructed not to allow Fonvizin's new writings to be printed anymore. That is why the "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 the reader. That is why, immediately after the magazine was banned, 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 banned 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 journal was to be called Moscow Works. Fonvizin had already worked out his program, but this magazine did not see the light either.

During 1791 he suffered four strokes of apoplexy.

At the same time, apparently, the last work was begun - the autobiographical story "Frank-hearted confessions in my deeds and thoughts." The example of the great Rousseau, who wrote his autobiography Confession, inspired him. The surviving fragments of the Sincere Confession testify that when a great writer began to describe in detail the affairs of his youth, a satirist woke up in him again, who maliciously and mercilessly ridiculed the mores of noble society.

Until his death, Fonvizin worked, lived actively, intensely, in close connection with contemporary writers. In the late 80s, he establishes a relationship with a young translator and publisher, Peter Bogdanovich. He agreed with him on the publication of a complete collection of his works. Despite his illness, the writer prepared 5 volumes of this collection, including again the forbidden articles from The 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 to fight Catherine and serve his fatherland with his satirical and political writings. When this edition, 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 trans-Russian Russian", according to Pushkin's definition, Fonvizin's talent manifested itself with the greatest force in the language. Fonvizin, a brilliant master of the language, with a great sense of the word, created figurative speech unparalleled before him in richness, freshness and courage, imbued with irony and gaiety. This skill was reflected in comedy, and in prose writings, 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 words 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 "mannership, timidity and pallor." And the dramatic and prose works of Fonvizin, and especially letters from abroad, played a huge, hitherto unappreciated role in the struggle for the “naked simplicity” of Russian prose.

It was here that, with amazing ease and skill, Fonvizin created turns of words to explain concepts, both the most ordinary and the most complex. Simply and businesslike, concretely 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 of Paris , and about roads, taverns and festivities, about museums, religious holidays and theatrical papal service. Belinsky rightly called these letters "efficient", testifying that Fonvizina:

Introduction. 3

1. General characteristics of the work of D. I. Fonvizin. 4

2. Artistic features. 8

3. The value of creativity D. I. Fonvizin. eleven

Conclusion. 15

Literature. 16

Introduction

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is a special name in Russian literature. He is an old ancestor of Russian comedy. “Russian comedy began long before Fonvizin, but began only with Fonvizin: his Brigadier and Undergrowth made a terrible noise when they appeared and will forever remain in the history of Russian literature as one of the most remarkable phenomena,” Belinsky wrote.

Pushkin highly valued gaiety and was extremely sorry that in Russian literature "there are so few truly merry writings." That is why he lovingly noted this feature of Fonvizin's talent, pointing to the direct continuity of the dramaturgy of Fonvizin and Gogol.

“In the works of this writer, for the first time, the demonic beginning of sarcasm and indignation was revealed, which was destined to permeate all Russian literature since then, becoming the dominant trend in it,” noted A. I. Herzen.

Speaking about the work of Fonvizin, the famous literary critic Belinsky wrote: “In general, for me, Kantemir and Fonvizin, especially the last one, are the most interesting writers of the first periods of our literature: they tell me not about transcendental primaries on the occasion of plate illuminations, but about living reality that historically existed, on the rights of society".

General characteristics of the work of D. I. Fonvizin

Fonvizin gave very vividly the types of contemporary noble society, gave vivid pictures of life, although the comedy "The Brigadier" was built according to old classical models (the unity of place, time, a sharp division of heroes into positive and negative, 5-act composition of the play).

In the development of the action, Fonvizin followed the French classical theory, he studied the characterization of Moliere, Golberg, Detouche, Scarron; The impetus for creating a comedy on national themes was given by Lukin (his comedy Mot, Corrected by Love and his critical remarks about the need to write comedies “in our manners”).

In 1882, Fonvizin's second comedy "Undergrowth" was written, and in 1883 it was published - the culminating point in the development of Fonvizin's work - "the work of a strong, sharp mind, a gifted man" (Belinsky). In his comedy, Fonvizin responded to all the questions that worried the most advanced people of that time. The state and social system, the civic obligations of a member of society, serfdom, the family, marriage, the upbringing of children - these are the range of questions posed in The Undergrowth. Fonvizin answered these questions from the most advanced positions for his time.

The clearly expressed individualization of the characters' language greatly contributed to the realistic depiction of the characters. The positive characters of the "Undergrowth", the reasoners, are sketchy, they are little individualized. However, in the remarks of the reasoners, we hear the voice of the most advanced people of the 18th century. In reasoners and virtuous people, we hear the voice of smart and well-meaning people of that time - their concepts and way of thinking.

When creating his comedy, F. used a huge number of sources: articles from the best satirical magazines of the 70s, and works of contemporary Russian literature (the works of Lukin, Chulkov, Emin, and others), and works of English and French literature of the 17th-18th centuries. (Voltaire, Rousseau, Duclos, La Bruyère, etc.), but at the same time, Fonvizin remained completely independent.

The best works of F. vividly and truthfully reflected life, woke up the minds and helped the people fight to change their plight.

Peru belongs to D. I. Fonvizin - the most famous to the modern reader are the comedies "Undergrowth" and "Foreman", "General Court Grammar", autobiography "Frankly confessed in my deeds and thoughts", "Choice of a tutor", "Conversation with Princess Khaldina". In addition, Fonvizin served as a translator in a foreign college, so he very willingly translated foreign authors, for example, Voltaire. Compiled “Discourse on absolutely every form of state government that has been exterminated in Russia, and from that on the unsteady state of both the empire and the sovereigns themselves,” where he criticized the picture of Catherine’s despotic regime. From journalism, one can name "Discourse on the indispensable state laws", where he proposed not to completely eradicate serfdom, but simply to alleviate the fate of the peasants.

Among the predecessors for Fonvizin was Lukin Vladimir Ignatievich. This is a playwright who prepared the appearance of "Undergrowth" with accusatory comedies. It should be noted that Lukin was accused of not praising the "glorious Russian writers", even the "Russian Voltaire" Sumarokov, and they found bad that which was the most original in his work - "new expressions", the desire for independence, to the simplicity of Russian speech, etc. In the latter respect, Lukin can be considered not only the predecessor of Fonvizin - who, as a rival, treated him hostilely, despite the huge difference in their talents - but even the forerunner of the so-called "natural school". Being a zealot of nationality in the then imitative literature, Lukin demanded a Russian content from comedy and understood the falsity of the direction taken by Russian drama.

Fonvizin also made a special contribution to the literary language of his era, which was adopted by his followers and actively used later in literary works. In the language of his prose, folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology are widely used; various non-free and semi-free colloquial phrases and stable turns act as the building material of sentences; there is a union of “simple Russian” and “Slavic” language resources, so important for the subsequent development of the Russian literary language.

He developed language techniques for reflecting reality in its most diverse manifestations; the principles of constructing linguistic structures that characterize the “image of the narrator” were outlined. Many important properties and tendencies were outlined and initially developed, which found their further development and were fully completed in Pushkin's reform of the Russian literary language.

Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who realized that by describing complex relationships and strong feelings of people simply, but accurately, one can achieve a greater effect than with the help of various verbal tricks. It is impossible not to note the merits of Fonvizin in the development of techniques for realistic depiction of complex human feelings and life conflicts.

In the comedy "Undergrowth" inversions are used: "a slave of his vile passions"; rhetorical questions and exclamations: “how can she teach them good manners?”; complicated syntax: an abundance of subordinate clauses, common definitions, participles and adverbs, and other characteristic means of book speech.

Uses words of emotional and evaluative meaning: sincere, cordial, depraved tyrant. Fonvizin avoids naturalistic extremes of low style, which many of today's outstanding comedians could not overcome. He refuses rude, non-literary speech means. At the same time, it constantly retains both in vocabulary and in syntax the features of colloquialism. The use of realistic typification techniques is also evidenced by colorful speech characteristics created by using words and expressions used in military life; and archaic vocabulary, quotations from spiritual books; and broken Russian vocabulary.

Meanwhile, the language of Fonvizin's comedies, despite its perfection, still did not go beyond the traditions of classicism and did not represent a fundamentally new stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In Fonvizin's comedies, a clear distinction was made between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in building the linguistic characteristics of negative characters on the traditional basis of using vernacular, the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, then the linguistic characteristics of positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, cut off from the living elements of the spoken language.

In contrast to the language of comedy, the language of Fonvizin's prose represents a significant step forward in the development of the Russian literary language, here the trends that have emerged in Novikov's prose are strengthened and further developed. The work that marked the decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to the new principles of constructing the language of prose in the work of Fonvizin was the famous “Letters from France”.

“Letters from France” rather richly presents folk-colloquial vocabulary and phraseology, especially those groups and categories that are devoid of sharp expressiveness and are more or less close to the “neutral” lexical-phraseological layer: “Since my arrival here, I I can not hear…"; “We are doing pretty well”; “Wherever you go, everywhere is full.”

There are also words and expressions that differ from those given above, they are endowed with that specific expressiveness that allows them to be qualified as colloquial: “I won’t take both of these places for nothing”; “At the entrance to the city, a vile stench knocked us down.”

The features of the literary language worked out in "Letters from France" were further developed in the artistic, scientific, journalistic and memoir prose of Fonvizin. But two points still deserve attention. First, the syntactic perfection of Fonvizin's prose should be emphasized. In Fonvizin, we find not separate well-constructed phrases, but extensive contexts that are distinguished by diversity, flexibility, harmony, logical consistency and clarity of syntactic constructions. Secondly, in Fonvizin's fiction, the method of narration on behalf of the narrator, the method of creating linguistic structures that serve as a means of revealing the image, is further developed. An analysis of the various works of D. I. Fonvizin allows us to speak of, of course, his important role in the formation and improvement of the Russian literary language.