The role of Fonvizin as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as well as the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half XIX century. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770-1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of the Russian aesthetic worldview of that time, which prepared - at the first stage - for its future Pushkin stage. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, not to mention Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited to his satirical task. It was precisely the negative phenomena of reality that he was able to understand in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in this regard in the tradition of the “satirical trend,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature XVIII centuries. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style of critical realism. In itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with the specific forms that classicism acquired in Russia; it ultimately exploded the principles of classicism, but its origins from it are obvious.
Fonvizin grew up as a writer in the literary environment of Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in Fonvizin’s work. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individual as a unit in social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the social, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the writer’s mind the interests of the “too human” in a person, forced Fonvizin to see in his hero a pattern of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanistically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great advantages of the classicism of his century: clarity, precision of the analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis at the level of scientific achievements of his time, and the social principle of assessing human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin also had the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable “abilities,” the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social existence.
In Fonvizin, many characters are constructed not according to the law of individual character, but according to a pre-given and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Advisor; Gallomaniac Ivanushka - and the entire composition of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martinet, there is little in him characteristic features. This is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not everyday life, but a diagram of social relationships. Characters in comedies and satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them “meaningful” names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character’s characteristics primarily to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin appears, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. At the same time, the artist’s task includes not so much the depiction of individual people, but the depiction of social relations, and this task could and was performed brilliantly by Fonvizin. Social relations, understood as applied to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm. The subjectively noble character of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others.” The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; the same is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the corresponding works. On the contrary, “others”, “ignoble” are characterized primarily by their profession, class, place in the social system - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. Nobles for this system of thought are still people par excellence; or – according to Fonvizin – vice versa: the best people must be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
What is typical for a classicist writer is the very attitude towards tradition, towards the established roles-masks of a literary work, towards habitual and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, which represent the established collective experience of humanity (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made ones given to him ready-made tradition formulas and masks. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerical Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society as a classified “mind” that has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. A satirical article, a comedy, a solemn speech of praise in a high style (Fonvizin’s “Word for Paul’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to communicate to Russian literature the best achievements of world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin because he understood and felt the specific features of Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
Seeing a person not as an individual, but as a unit of the social or moral scheme of society, Fonvizin, in his classical manner, is antipsychological in the individual sense. He writes an obituary biography of his teacher and friend Nikita Panin; there is some hot stuff in this article political thought, the rise of political pathos; is in it and achievement list hero, there is also civil glorification of him; but there is no person, personality, environment, and, in the end, no biography in it. This is a “life”, a diagram of an ideal life, not of a saint, of course, but of a political figure, as Fonvizin understood him. Fonvizin’s anti-psychological manner is even more noticeable in his memoirs. They are called “Frank confession of my deeds and thoughts,” but the disclosure inner life there is almost nothing in these memoirs. Meanwhile, Fonvizin himself puts his memoirs in connection with Rousseau’s “Confession,” although he immediately characteristically contrasts his plan with the latter’s plan. In his memoirs, Fonvizin is a brilliant writer of everyday life and a satirist, first of all; individualistic self-revelation, brilliantly resolved by Rousseau's book, is alien to him. In his hands, the memoirs turn into a series of moralizing sketches, such as satirical letters-articles of journalism of the 1760-1780s. At the same time, they provide a picture of social life in its negative manifestations that is exceptional in its wealth of witty details, and this is their great merit. Fonvizin the classic's people are static. The Brigadier, the Advisor, Ivanushka, Julitta (in the early “Nedorosl”), etc. - they are all given from the very beginning and do not develop during the movement of the work. In the first act of “The Brigadier,” in the exposition, the heroes themselves directly and unambiguously define all the features of their character schemes, and in the future we see only comic combinations and collisions of the same features, and these collisions are not reflected in the internal structure of each role. Then, characteristic of Fonvizin is the verbal definition of masks. The soldier's speech of the Brigadier, the clerical speech of the Adviser, the petimetric speech of Ivanushka, in essence, exhausts the description. After subtracting the speech characteristics, no other individual human traits remain. And they will all make jokes: fools and smart ones, evil and good ones, because the heroes of “The Brigadier” are still heroes classic comedy, and everything in it should be funny and “intricate,” and Boileau himself demanded from the author of the comedy “that his words should be abundant in witticisms everywhere” (“Poetic Art”). It was a strong, powerful system of artistic thinking, which gave a significant aesthetic effect in its specific forms and superbly realized not only in “The Brigadier”, but also in Fonvizin’s satirical articles.
Fonvizin remains a classic in the genre that flourished in a different, pre-romantic literary and ideological environment, in artistic memoirs. He adheres to the external canons of classicism in his comedies. They basically follow the rules of the school. Fonvizin most often has no interest in the plot side of the work.
In a number of Fonvizin’s works: in the early “Minor”, in “The Governor’s Choice” and in “The Brigadier”, in the story “Kalisthenes” the plot is only a frame, more or less conventional. “The Brigadier,” for example, is structured as a series of comic scenes, and above all a series of declarations of love: Ivanushka and the Advisor, the Advisor and the Brigadier, the Brigadier and the Advisor, and all these couples are contrasted not so much in the movement of the plot, but in the plane of schematic contrast, a pair of exemplary lovers: Dobrolyubov and Sophia. There is almost no action in the comedy; In terms of construction, “The Brigadier” is very reminiscent of Sumarokov’s farces with a gallery of comic characters.
However, even the most convinced, most zealous classicist in Russian noble literature, Sumarokov, found it difficult, perhaps even impossible, not to see or depict specific features of reality at all, to remain only in the world created by reason and the laws of abstract art. To leave this world was obligated, first of all, by dissatisfaction with the real, real world. For the Russian noble classicist, the concrete individual reality of social reality, so different from the ideal norm, is evil; it invades, as a deviation from this norm, the world of the rationalistic ideal; it cannot be framed within reasonable, abstract forms. But it exists, both Sumarokov and Fonvizin know this. Society lives an abnormal, “unreasonable” life. We have to reckon with this and fight against it. Positive phenomena in public life for both Sumarokov and Fonvizin they are normal and reasonable. Negative ones fall out of the scheme and appear in all their painful individuality for the classicist. From here to satirical genres Even in Sumarokov’s Russian classicism, the desire to show concretely real features of reality is born. Thus, in Russian classicism the reality of the concrete fact of life arose as satirical theme, with a sign of a certain, condemning author's attitude.
Fonvizin’s position on this issue is more complicated. The tension of the political struggle pushed him to take more radical steps in relation to the perception and depiction of reality, hostile to him, surrounding him on all sides, threatening his entire worldview. The struggle activated his vigilance for life. He raises the question of the social activity of a citizen writer, of an impact on life that is more acute than noble writers could do before him. “At the court of a king, whose autocracy is not limited by anything... can the truth be freely expressed? “- writes Fonvizin in the story “Kalisthenes”. And now his task is to explain the truth. A new ideal of a writer-fighter is emerging, very reminiscent of the ideal of a leading figure in literature and journalism in the Western educational movement. Fonvizin draws closer to the bourgeois progressive thought of the West on the basis of his liberalism, rejection of tyranny and slavery, and the struggle for his social ideal.
Why is there almost no culture of eloquence in Russia? - Fonvizin poses the question in “Friend of Honest People” and answers that this does not come “from a lack of national talent, which is capable of everything great, but rather from a lack of the Russian language, the richness and beauty of which is convenient for everyone.” expression”, but from the lack of freedom, lack of public life, preventing citizens from participating in political life countries. Art and political activity are closely related to each other. For Fonvizin, the writer is “a guardian of the common good,” “a useful adviser to the sovereign, and sometimes the savior of his fellow citizens and the fatherland.”
In the early 1760s, in his youth, Fonvizin was fascinated by the ideas of bourgeois radical thinkers in France. In 1764, he remade Gresset’s “Sidney” into Russian, not quite a comedy, but not a tragedy either, a play similar in type to the psychological dramas of bourgeois literature of the 18th century. in France. In 1769, an English story, “Sidney and Scilly or Beneficence and Gratitude,” translated by Fonvizin from Arno, was published. This is a sentimental work, virtuous, sublime, but built on new principles of individual analysis. Fonvizin is looking for rapprochement with bourgeois French literature. The fight against reaction pushes him onto the path of interest in advanced Western thought. And in his literary work Fonvizin could not be only a follower of classicism.
Among the Russian writers who had a special gift for seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. And readers still feel the full extent of his wit, continuing to repeat the expressions: “Everything is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know,” “No I want to study, I want to get married” and others. But it is not so easy to see that Fonvizin’s witticisms were born not of a cheerful disposition, but of the deepest sadness due to the imperfection of man and society.
Fonvizin entered literature as one of the successors of Kantemir and Sumarokov. He was brought up in the belief that the nobility, to which he himself belonged, should be educated, humane, constantly concerned about the interests of the fatherland, and that the royal government should promote worthy nobles to high positions for the common benefit. But among the nobles he saw cruel ignoramuses, and at court - “nobles in the case” (to put it simply, the empress’s lovers) who ruled the state according to their whim.
From a long historical distance it is clear that the Fonvizin time, like any other, was neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad. But in Fonvizin’s eyes, evil overshadowed good. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. For a long time, the surname Fonvizin was written in the German manner: “Von Vizin,” and during his lifetime, sometimes even “von Wiesen.” The current form was one of the first to be used by Pushkin with the following comment: “What kind of infidel is he? He is Russian, a pre-Russian Russian.” The spelling “Fonvizin” was finally established only after 1917.
Family of Fonvizins German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He lived not at the royal court in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel wrote some good poetry in his youth and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement.”
The future writer received a fairly thorough education, although later in his memoirs he described his gymnasium at Moscow University unflatteringly. Nevertheless, he noted that he learned European languages and Latin there, “and most of all... got a taste for verbal science.”
While still at the gymnasium, Fonvizin translated from German one hundred and eighty-three fables of the once famous children's writer L. Golberg, to which he then added forty-two more. He translated a lot later - the translations amount to most all his works.
In 1762, Fonvizin became a student at Moscow University, but soon left it, moved to St. Petersburg and entered the service. Around the same time, his satirical poems began to circulate. Of these, two were later published and have come down to us: the fable “Fox-Koznodey” (preacher) and “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka.” Fonvizin’s fable is a vicious satire on court flatterers, and “The Message” is a wonderful work, rather unusual for its time.
Fonvizin addresses the most important philosophical question: “Why was this light created?” illiterate people of that time; It is immediately clear that they will not be able to answer it. This is what happens. Honest uncle Shumilov admits that he is not ready to judge such complex things:
I know that we must be servants forever
And we will work forever with our hands and feet.
The coachman Vanka exposes the general deception and in conclusion says:
Everyone understands that this world is bad,
But no one knows why it exists.
Lackey Petrushka is frank in his desire to live for his own pleasure:
The whole world, it seems to me, is a child's toy;
Just need to, believe me, find out
How best to play with that toy, tenacious.
The servants, and with them the reader, are waiting for a reasonable answer from an educated author. But he only says:
And you, my friends, listen to my answer: “And I myself do not know why this light was created!”
This means that the author has nothing to oppose to the opinion of the servants, although he himself does not share it. An enlightened nobleman knows no more about the meaning of life than a lackey. “Epistle to the Servants” sharply breaks out of the framework of the poetics of classicism, according to which it was required that the work clearly prove some very definite idea. The meaning of Fonvizin’s work is open to different interpretations.
Having moved to St. Petersburg, Fonvizin began composing comedies - the genre in which he became most famous. In 1764 he wrote the verse comedy Corion, adapted from a sentimental drama French writer L. Gresse "Sydney". Around the same time, an early edition of “Minor” was written, which remained unpublished. At the end of the sixties, the comedy “Brigadier” was created and was a huge success, which played an important role in the fate of Fonvizin himself.
Having heard “The Brigadier” performed by the author (Fonvizin was a wonderful reader), Count Nikita Ivanovich Panin noticed the writer. At this time he was the tutor of the heir to the throne, Paul, and a senior member of the board (in fact, minister) of foreign affairs. As a teacher, Panin developed an entire political program for his ward - essentially a project Russian constitution. Fonvizin became Panin's personal secretary. They became as close friends as possible between a nobleman and his subordinate.
The young writer found himself at the center of court intrigue and, at the same time, the most serious politics. He took a direct part in the constitutional plans of the Earl. Together they created a kind of “political testament” of Panin, written shortly before his death - “Discourse on the indispensable state laws" Most likely, Panin owns the main ideas of this work, and Fonvizin owns their design. In the "Discourse", full of formulations remarkable in wit, it is proved, first of all, that the sovereign does not have the right to rule the country according to his own arbitrariness. Without strong laws, Fonvizin believes, “heads are engaged in nothing but thinking about the means to get rich; those who can, rob, those who cannot, steal.”
This is exactly the picture Fonvizin saw in Russia at that time. But France, where the writer traveled in 1777-1778 (partly for treatment, partly on some diplomatic assignments), turned out to be no better. He expressed his joyless impressions in letters to his sister and to Field Marshal Pyotr Panin, Nikita Ivanovich’s brother. Here are some excerpts from these letters, which Fonvizin even intended to publish: “Money is the first deity of this land. The corruption of morals has reached such an extent that a vile act is no longer punished with contempt... “, “It’s rare that I meet someone in whom one of the two extremes is not noticeable: either slavery or insolence of reason.”
Much in Fonvizin’s letters seems to be simply the grumbling of a spoiled master. But in general, the picture he painted is scary precisely because it is true. He saw the state of society, which twelve years later was resolved by revolution.
During his years of service as a secretary, Fonvizin had almost no time left for literature. It appeared in the late seventies, when Panin was already ill and was in undeclared disgrace. Fonvizin, in 1781, completed his best work - the comedy "The Minor". The displeasure of high authorities delayed its production for several months.
In May 1782, after Panin's death, Fonvizin had to resign. In October of the same year, the premiere of “The Minor” finally took place - the greatest success in the author’s life. Some delighted spectators threw full wallets onto the stage - in those days a sign of the highest approval.
In retirement, Fonvizin devoted himself entirely to literature. He was a member Russian Academy, which united the best Russian writers. The Academy worked to create a dictionary of the Russian language, Fonvizin took upon himself the compilation of a dictionary of synonyms, which he, literally translating the word “synonym” from Greek, called “estates”. His “Experience of a Russian Estatesman” was a very serious linguistic work for its time, and not just a screen for satire on Catherine’s court and the Empress’s methods of governing the state (this is how this work is often interpreted). True, Fonvizin tried to come up with sharper examples for his “classes”: “Deception (promising and not doing. - Ed.) is the art of great boyars,” “A madman is very dangerous when in power,” and the like.
“Experience” was published in the literary magazine “Interlocutor of Lovers” Russian word", published by the Academy. In it, Catherine II herself published a series of morally descriptive essays, “Things and Fables.” Fonvizin published in the magazine (without a signature) bold, even daring “Questions to the author of “Facts and Fables,” and the Empress answered them. In the answers, irritation was barely contained. True, at that moment the queen did not know the name of the author of the questions, but soon, apparently, she found out.
Since then, Fonvizin’s works began to be banned one after another. In 1789, Fonvizin did not receive permission to publish the satirical magazine “Friend of Honest People, or Starodum.” The writer’s articles, already prepared for him, first saw the light only in 1830. The announced publication of his collected works was twice disrupted. During my lifetime I managed to print only one new work – detailed biography Panina.
All Fonvizin’s hopes were in vain. None of the previous political plans were implemented. The state of society only became worse over time, and the banned writer could no longer enlighten it. In addition, Fonvizin fell on terrible disease. The man, who was not at all old even at that time, turned into a decrepit wreck: half of his body was paralyzed. To add insult to injury, by the end of the writer’s life, almost nothing was left of his considerable wealth.
From a young age, Fonvizin was a freethinker. Now he became religious, but this did not save him from despair. He began to write memoirs entitled “A sincere confession of my deeds and thoughts,” in which he intended to repent of the sins of his youth. But he hardly writes about his inner life there, but again veers into satire, evilly depicting Moscow life in the early sixties of the 18th century. Fonvizin still managed to finish writing the comedy “The Tutor’s Choice,” which has not been completely preserved. The play seems rather boring, but the poet I. I. Dmitriev, who heard the author read the comedy out loud, recalls that he was able to convey the characters of the characters with extraordinary vividness. The day after this reading, December 1, 1792, Fonvizin died.
One of the writers who played a significant role in the development of Russian literary language at the new stage, there was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. In the second half of the 18th century. magnificent verbosity, rhetorical solemnity, metaphorical abstraction and obligatory decoration gradually gave way to brevity, simplicity, and accuracy.
The language of his prose widely uses folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology; various non-free and semi-free colloquial phrases and stable expressions act as the building material of sentences; the unification of “simple Russian” and “Slavic” linguistic resources, which is so important for the subsequent development of the Russian literary language, takes place.
He developed linguistic techniques for reflecting reality in its most diverse manifestations; principles for constructing linguistic structures characterizing the “image of a storyteller” were outlined. Many important properties and trends emerged and received initial development, which found their further development and were fully completed in Pushkin’s reform of the Russian literary language.
Fonvizin’s narrative language is not confined to the conversational sphere; in its expressive resources and techniques it is much broader and richer. Of course, focusing on colloquial, on “living use” as the basis of the narrative, Fonvizin freely uses “book” elements, and Western European borrowings, and philosophical and scientific vocabulary and phraseology. The wealth of linguistic means used and the variety of methods of their organization allow Fonvizin to create on a common conversational basis various options narratives.
Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who understood that by describing complex relationships and strong feelings of people simply but accurately, one can achieve a greater effect than with the help of certain verbal tricks. It is impossible not to note Fonvizin’s merits in developing techniques for realistic depiction of complex human feelings and life conflicts.
In the comedy “The Minor” inversions are used: “the slave of his vile passions”; rhetorical questions and exclamations: “How can she teach them good behavior?”; complicated syntax: abundance of subordinate clauses, common definitions, participial and participial phrases and other characteristic means of book speech.
Uses words of emotional and evaluative meaning: spiritual, heartfelt, depraved tyrant. Fonvizin avoids naturalistic extremes low style, which many modern outstanding comedians could not overcome. He refuses rude, unliterary speech means. At the same time, he constantly retains colloquial features in both vocabulary and syntax. 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, quotes 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 maintained between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in the construction of linguistic characteristics negative characters While on the traditional basis of using vernacular the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, the linguistic characteristics of the positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, divorced from the living element 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 emerging in Novikov’s prose are strengthened and further developed. The work that marked a decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to new principles of constructing the language of prose in Fonvizin’s work was the famous “Letters from France.”
In “Letters from France,” folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology are quite richly presented, especially those groups and categories that are devoid of sharp expressiveness and are more or less close to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer: “Since I arrived here, I have been I can not hear…"; “We are doing pretty well”; “Wherever you go, it’s plump everywhere.”
There are also words and expressions that differ from those given above; they are endowed with that specific expressiveness that allows them to be classified as colloquial: “I won’t take both of these places for nothing”; “As we entered the city, we were overwhelmed by a disgusting stench.”
Observations of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology in “Letters from France” make it possible to draw three main conclusions. Firstly, this vocabulary and phraseology, especially in that part that is closer to the “neutral” lexical-phraseological layer than to the vernacular, are freely and quite widely used in letters. Secondly, the use of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is distinguished by a careful selection that was amazing for that time. Even more important and significant is that the overwhelming majority of the colloquial words and expressions used by Fonvizin in “Letters from France” have found a permanent place in the literary language, and with one or another special stylistic “task”, and often simply along with the “neutral” lexical and phraseological material, these expressions were widely used in the literature of later times. Thirdly, the careful selection of colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is closely related to the change and transformation of the stylistic functions of this lexical and phraseological layer in the literary language.
The stylistically opposite colloquial lexical and phraseological layer - “Slavicisms” - is distinguished by the same main features of use. Firstly, they are also used in letters, secondly, they are subjected to a rather strict selection, and thirdly, their role in the language of “Letters from France” does not completely coincide with the role assigned to them by the theory of three styles. The selection was manifested in the fact that in “Letters from France” we will not find archaic, “dilapidated” “Slavicisms”. Slavicisms, contrary to the theory of three styles, are quite freely combined with “neutral” and colloquial elements, losing their to a large extent their “high” coloring, are “neutralized” and no longer appear as a specific sign of “high style”, but simply as elements of a bookish, literary language. Let's give examples: “what it was like for me to hear her exclamations”; “his wife is so greedy for money...”; “writhing, disturbing the human sense of smell in an unbearable way.”
Folk colloquial words and expressions are freely combined not only with “Slavicisms”, but also with “Europeanisms” and “metaphysical” vocabulary and phraseology: “here everyone is applauded for everything”; “In a word, although war has not been formally declared, this announcement is expected any hour now.” The literary language features developed in “Letters from France” were further developed in Fonvizin’s artistic, scientific, journalistic and memoir prose. But two points still deserve attention. Firstly, the syntactical perfection of Fonvizin’s prose should be emphasized. In Fonvizin we find not individual well-constructed phrases, but extensive contexts, distinguished by diversity, flexibility, harmony, logical consistency and clarity of syntactic structures. Secondly, in artistic prose Fonvizin further develops the technique of narration on behalf of the narrator, the technique of creating linguistic structures that serve as a means of revealing the image. Analysis various works D.I. Fonvizin allows us to talk about his undoubtedly important role in the formation and improvement of the Russian literary language.
on the topic: “Literature of the 18th century: M.V. Lomonosov, D.I. Fonvizin, A.N. Radishchev"
Literature of the 18th century was prepared by the entire previous history of Russian literature, the course of development of Russian society and Russian culture. She is connected with the best traditions ancient Russian literature(idea about the important role of literature in the life of society, its patriotic orientation). Reform activities of Peter I, renewal and Europeanization of Russia, wide state building, the transformation of the country into a strong world power under the cruelty of the serfdom system - all this was reflected in the literature of that time. Leading literary movement XVIII century became classicism.
Classicism is a pan-European phenomenon. But in different countries it had its own characteristics and a certain degree of development (depending on specific historical circumstances, customs, traditions, problems). Classicism reached its heyday in France in the second half of the 17th century. The works of classic writers reflected the ideas of a strong independent state with the absolute power of the monarch. Therefore, the main conflict in the works of classicism is the conflict between duty and feeling. At the center of these works is a person who has subordinated the personal to the public. For him, above all else is the duty of a citizen, serving the interests of the homeland and the state. Such a citizen must first of all be the monarch himself. The classicists considered reason to be the highest criterion of the true and beautiful. They believed that the mind remained unchanged at all times, that the types and qualities human character eternal. Therefore, the artistic images of classic works are ahistorical and extremely generalized: in the character of the hero, one leading feature (stupidity, cunning, nobility) was highlighted and emphasized. Important issues of their era, classicist writers decided on examples from the distant past (usually antiquity). They sought to educate a citizen through their works, appealing primarily to his mind. This was done through persuasion, ridicule of false opinions, with the help of positive and negative examples. (Typical of this trend are the comedies of J.-B. Moliere.)
Works of classicism are characterized by a strict division into genres, indicating which heroes to depict in what literary language, as well as an appeal to works of antiquity as examples of harmony and beauty.
In Russian literature, classicism appeared later than in Western European literature, but was caused by similar historical conditions - the emergence of a strong autocratic state. He was closely associated with the ideas of the European Enlightenment, such as: the establishment of firm and fair laws binding on everyone, the enlightenment and education of the nation, the desire to penetrate the secrets of the universe, the affirmation of the natural equality of people of all classes (morally), the recognition of the value of the human person regardless from position in society.
Russian classicism is also characterized by a strict system of genres, rationality (appeal to the human mind), and conventionality of artistic images. It was important to recognize the crucial role of an enlightened monarch in establishing a just and prosperous society. The ideal of such a monarch for Russian classicists was Peter I - a specific personality, “a worker on the throne.” This was due to the fact that the formation of Russian classicism occurred in the period after the death of Peter I, when there was a threat of a return to the pre-Petrine order. Everything that constituted the future of Russia was at risk: science, education, the duty of a citizen. That is why Russian classicism is especially characterized by a satirical orientation and a close connection with modernity. They ridiculed not just universal human vices, but the shortcomings of contemporary society for writers. The desire to educate a person as a true citizen is very clearly manifested in the works of Russian classic writers.
Writers believed in the need for an enlightened monarch, but did not find one in reality. Therefore, for Russian literature of the 18th century. works that served the public education of autocrats were traditional. Writers explained (in their works) to kings their duties towards their subjects, reminding them that the monarch is the same person as his subjects, but only fulfilling the greatest duty to the state.
Unlike European classicism, Russian classicism is more closely related to folk traditions and oral folk art. He often uses material from Russian history (and not from antiquity, like European).
The ideal of classic writers is a citizen and patriot who strives to work for the good of the fatherland. It should become active creative personality, fight social vices, all manifestations of “evil morality and tyranny.” Such a person needs to give up the desire for personal happiness and subordinate his feelings to duty.
During the second half of the 18th century. Along with classicism, other literary movements were also formed. They reflected the process of changing the worldview and self-awareness of society and individual person in him. During the period when classicism was the leading literary movement, personality manifested itself primarily in public service. By the end of the century, a view on the value of the individual himself had been formed. “Man is great by his feelings” (J.-J. Rousseau).
Since the 60s XVIII century something new is emerging in Russian literature literary direction, called sentimentalism. (Initially, this trend took hold in England, France, Germany and, of course, influenced the formation of Russian sentimentalism.) Like the classicists, sentimentalist writers relied on the ideas of the Enlightenment that the value of a person does not depend on his belonging to upper classes, but from his personal merits. But, relatively speaking, if for the classicists the state and public interests came first, then for the sentimentalists it was a specific person with his individual feelings and experiences. The classicists subordinated everything to reason, the sentimentalists to feelings, all kinds of shades of mood. The language of their works becomes melodious and emphatically emotional. The heroes of most of the creations of sentimentalists are representatives of the middle and lower classes. Accordingly, the circle of readers is expanding. The process of democratization of literature begins.
Examples of works of sentimentalism in the West: “Clarissa” by S. Richardson, “Suffering young Werther» J. V. Goethe, “New Heloise” by J.-J. Rousseau. N.M. Karamzin is considered to be the head of Russian sentimentalism. He “was the first in Rus' to write stories in which people acted, the life of the heart and passions was depicted in the midst of ordinary life” (V. G. Belinsky). In the story “Poor Liza” Karamzin first discovered the world of human feelings, the depth and power of the love of a simple peasant woman. Property wealth and noble origin were contrasted with a wealth of feelings. Revealing the world of feelings, the literature of sentimentalism cultivated in a person dignity and respect for his strengths, abilities, and experiences, regardless of his position in society.
M. V. LOMONOSOV
“Our literature begins with Lomonosov... he was its father, its Peter the Great.” This is how V. G. Belinsky defined the place and significance of Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov’s work for Russian literature.
"Arkhangelsk peasant", the first of the Russian cultural figures to conquer world fame, one of the outstanding educators and the most enlightened person of his time, one of the greatest scientists of the 18th century, a wonderful poet, Lomonosov became a reformer of Russian versification. He divided language into “three kinds of sayings.” The first included Church Slavonic and commonly used words; to the second - rarely used, but known to literate people; to the third - words of lively colloquial speech. This is how the “three calms” of Russian poetry emerged - “high”, “mediocre” and “low”. Lomonosov streamlined the use of words different styles depending on the topic and genre of the work.
Thus, “Ode on the Day of the Accession to the Throne of Empress Elisaveta Petrovna, 1747” was written in “high calm” and glorifies the daughter of Peter I. Paying tribute to the virtues of the Empress, her “meek voice”, “kind and beautiful face”, the desire to “expand science” , the poet starts talking about her father, whom he calls “a man such as has not been heard of since ages.” Peter I is the ideal of an enlightened monarch who devotes all his strength to his people and state. Lomonosov's ode gives an image of Russia with its vast expanses and enormous riches. This is how the theme of the homeland and serving it arises - the leading one in Lomonosov’s work. The theme of science and knowledge of nature is closely related to this topic. It ends with a hymn to science, a call to young men to dare for the glory of the Russian land. Thus, in the “Ode of 1747” the poet’s educational ideals found expression.
belief human mind, the desire to know the “secrets of many worlds”, to get to the essence of phenomena through a “small sign of things” - these are the themes of the poems “Evening Reflection”, “Two astronomers happened together at a feast ...”, etc. In order to bring benefit to the country, it is necessary not only hard work, but also enlightenment, says Lomonosov. He writes about the “beauty and importance” of teaching, which makes a person a creator, a spiritually active person. “Use your own reason,” he urges in the poem “Listen, please...”.
D. I. FONVIZIN
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin gained fame from the comedy “The Minor,” staged in 1782, on which he worked for many years.
Fonvizin was born and raised in Moscow, then moved to St. Petersburg, where he served in the Foreign Collegium, was a diplomat, worked with Secretary of State I. P. Elagin, and with the educator of the future Emperor Paul I, N. I. Panin. He passionately loved Russia, served its interests, its people. He considered the basis of contemporary society - serfdom, the unlimited power of some people over others - to be a huge evil that cripples the souls of both. Very educated person, translator, author of poems and fables, talented satirist and playwright, in his works Fonvizin ridiculed the cruelty, rudeness, ignorance of landowners, their hypocrisy and base interests.
Fonvizin wrote his first comedy “Brigadier” when he was 25 years old. The young playwright ridiculed not only the inertia and lack of culture of the provincial nobility, but also their thoughtless imitation of everything French.
The comedy “Minor” is rightly considered the pinnacle of Fonvizin’s creativity and the entire Russian dramaturgy XVIII V. While maintaining connections with the worldview of classicism, comedy became deeply innovative work.
How does the comedy “The Minor” correspond to the provisions of Russian classicism? First of all, the author retains all the signs of the “low” genre.
The play ridicules vices (rudeness, cruelty, stupidity, lack of education, greed), which, according to the author, require immediate correction. The problem of education is central to the ideas of the Enlightenment and is also the main one in Fonvizin’s comedy, which is emphasized by its name. (A minor is a young nobleman, a teenager who received a home education.) The language of the work also corresponds to the specificity of the depicted reality (one of the rules of classicism). For example, Prostakova’s speech: rude in addressing the servants (“fraudster,” “cattle,” “thief’s mug” - tailor Trishka; “beast,” “runaway” - nanny Ermeevna), caring and affectionate in conversation with her son Mitrofanushka (“century live and learn, my dear friend,” “darling”). The “correct” bookish language forms the basis of the speech of the positive characters: it is spoken by Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia. Thus, the speech of the heroes seems to divide the characters into negative and positive (one of the rules of classicism).
The rule of three unities is also observed in comedy. The action of the play takes place in the estate of Mrs. Prostakova (unity of place). The unity of time also seems to be present. Unity of action presupposes the subordination of the action of the play to the author's task, in this case - the solution to the problem of true education. In the comedy, unenlightened characters (Prostakova, Skotinin, Prostakov, Mitrofanushka) are contrasted with educated characters (Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin, Milon).
This completes the adherence to the traditions of classicism. What was the innovation of comedy? For Fonvizin, unlike the classicists, it was important not only to pose the problem of education, but also to show how circumstances (conditions) influence the formation of an individual’s character. This significantly distinguishes comedy from works of classicism. In “Nedorosl” the foundations were laid for a realistic reflection of reality in Russian fiction. The author reproduces the atmosphere of landowner tyranny, exposes the greed and cruelty of the Prostakovs, the impunity and ignorance of the Skotins of others. In his comedy about education, he raises the problem of serfdom, its corrupting influence on both the people and the nobles.
Unlike the works of classicism, where the action developed in accordance with the solution of one problem, “The Minor” is a multi-themed work. Its main problems are closely related to each other: the problem of education - with the problems of serfdom and state power. To expose vices, the author uses such techniques as speaking surnames, self-exposure of negative characters, and subtle irony on the part of positive characters. In the mouths of positive heroes, Fonvizin puts criticism of the “corrupt age,” idle nobles and ignorant landowners. The theme of service to the fatherland, the triumph of justice is also carried out through positive images.
The common meaning of the surname Starodum (Fonvizin’s favorite hero) emphasizes his commitment to the ideals of the old, Peter the Great times. Starodum's monologues are aimed (in accordance with the tradition of classicism) at educating those in power, including the empress. Thus, the scope of reality in comedy is unusually wide compared to strictly classic works.
The system of comedy images is also innovative. Characters However, they are traditionally divided into positive and negative. But Fonvizin goes beyond classicism, introducing characters from the lower class into the play. These are serfs, slaves (Eremeevna, Trishka, teachers Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin).
What was also new was Fonvizin’s attempt to give at least a brief background characters, to reveal different facets of the characters of some of them. Thus, the evil, cruel serfwoman Prostakova in the finale becomes an unhappy mother, rejected by her own son. She even evokes our sympathy.
Fonvizin's innovation was also evident in the creation of the characters' speech. It is clearly individualized and serves as a means of characterizing them. Thus, formally following the rules of classicism, Fonvizin’s comedy turns out to be a deeply innovative work. This was the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage, and Fonvizin was the first playwright to present a character not prescribed by the laws of classicism, but a living one. human image.
A. N. RADISHCHEV
Alexander Nikolaevich Radishchev was born into the family of a Saratov landowner, received an excellent education, first in the Corps of Pages, in St. Petersburg, then at the University of Leipzig. Even in his youth, Radishchev determined main goal serving your life for the good of the Fatherland. Being an official of the Commerce Collegium and then deputy manager of the St. Petersburg Customs, he proved himself, according to contemporaries, to be a talented lawyer, a brave and incorruptible person. At the same time, Radishchev was also engaged in literary creativity. He wrote “The Life of Fyodor Ushakov”, “A Conversation about the Son of the Fatherland”, and the ode “Liberty”. In his works, the writer opposed autocracy (“autocracy is the state most contrary to human nature”), tried to answer the question of what a true citizen should be, what circumstances contribute and what hinder the education of a true patriot. Logical and artistic conclusion literary creativity Radishchev became “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” - a book about contemporary Russia, about the situation of its people, about their future.
Consistently and with bright artistic expression Radishchev conveys in this work the idea that liberation Russian people from autocracy and serfdom is inevitable and it will happen in a revolutionary way. Such a statement about the need for a complete change in the social structure was first heard in Russian literature. Catherine II wrote in the margins of the book: “Rebel, worse than Pugachev.”
“Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” was banned from the time of its publication (1790) until 1905. A. N. Radishchev was exiled to Siberia. He was allowed to return to St. Petersburg only ten years later, with the accession of Alexander I (1801). The former disgraced writer and talented lawyer was even allowed to work on the Law Drafting Commission, where he tried to implement his democratic views. Realizing the impossibility of realizing his ideals in practice, A. N. Radishchev committed suicide by taking poison.
"Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow."
In the epigraph to “The Journey...” - “The monster is loud, mischievous, huge, loud and barking” - Radishchev defines the main enemy, the main misfortune of Russia and the Russian people - autocracy and serfdom associated with it. Most of the chapters of this work are devoted to exposing the essence of this “monster”, its cruelty and inhumanity, corrupting the souls of people, ruining the country. The writer paints pictures of lawlessness and incredible exploitation to which peasants are subjected. Radishchev reveals the “true face” of autocracy (autocracy) in a satirical “dream” (chapter “Spasskaya Flattery”), showing the illegality and anti-nationality of any monarchy.
Reflecting on how to rid the country of the “monster” - autocracy and serfdom, the writer comes to the conclusion that neither individual “humane” landowners nor “sterile sympathy” for enslaved peasants can change the situation. The situation of the Russian people is so difficult that “freedom must be expected from the very severity of enslavement.” Radishchev writes about the human right to fight for his freedom, about the inevitability of a people's revolution. The main character of “The Journey...” is the Russian people, the peasants (serfs primarily). And they are not pitiable “victims”, but people of high moral qualities, talented, with self-esteem. And although Radishchev does not idealize the people and speaks of the corrupting influence of serfdom on both landowners and peasants, who often turn into slaves both in position and in spirit, in general the images of peasants in “The Journey...” contrast with the images of landowners. Radishchev contrasts the moral purity and physical health of people from the people with the moral and physical degradation of the nobles, and this artistic technique also serves the task of exposing the “monster.”
Speaking about the Russian national character, the writer emphasizes not “humility”, which was so valued by the official authorities, but “impetuousness, courage, unembodied talents and capabilities of the Russian people. Radishchev is confident that when the circumstances of the people’s life change, many talented people will emerge from its ranks who will help big influence on “Russian history”. Therefore, the logical conclusion of “The Journey...” is “The Tale of Lomonosov,” which expresses the author’s confidence in the great future of Russia and its people. “A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” is presented in the form of a traveler’s notes, where works of other genres are skillfully introduced: a satirical “dream” (chapter “Spasskaya Polest”), an ode to “Liberty,” journalistic articles (for example, “...On the Origin of Censorship” , chapter “Torzhok”). This form of literary work was innovative for Russian literature of the 18th century. and gave Radishchev the opportunity to talk deeply and multifacetedly about the social and spiritual life of the nation.
Radishchev outlined ways for the development of the literary language. The writer used all lexical layers of the Russian language from Slavicisms to vernacular, depending on the subject of the story. “The Journey...” contains:
high vocabulary, Slavicisms, which serve both to achieve a pathetic sound (“greedy animals, insatiable leeches!”), and as a satirical device of incongruity: “Blessed are... those who have an appearance that attracts everyone to reverence”;
sentimental phrases, for example, “a light veil of sadness”, “he had a very sensitive soul and a humane heart”;
colloquialisms, proverbs, sayings such as “turn the shafts”, “open your mouth to your ears”, “everyone dances, but not like a buffoon.”
Radishchev in his narration is guided not only by reason, but also by feeling. He is emotional, openly sympathizes and is indignant: “Be afraid, cruel landowner!” The writer sought to create a new civil style of literature that united social sound and manifestation of the personality of a particular author. But he did not achieve an organic style; he only outlined a trend. “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” is too archaic, overloaded with words of “high” style. The task of a harmonious combination of pathos, irony and lyricism found a brilliant solution and embodiment in the poem “Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol.
Under King Pea..." -: beginning +: saying -: prologue -: chorus -: outcome I: ((74)) TK 1.3. CT = A; T =; S: Russian folk tale– this is: -: an action-packed story with fantastic content -: historical story+: oral genre folk art-: Children's legend literature XV-XVIII V. I: ((75)) TK 1.4. CT = A; T =; S: Folkloristics was formed during: -: XII century. -: ...
nom security trade routes. Service people: boyar children, nobles, servants saw in single state a power capable of giving them a livelihood in exchange for military and government service. The most important political prerequisite was the need to overthrow the Mongol-Tatar yoke and protect the western borders of Rus'. Of course, the unification of military forces...
Among the Russian writers who had a special gift for seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. And readers still feel the full extent of his wit, continuing to repeat the expressions: “Everything is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know,” “No I want, I want to get married” and others. But it is not so easy to see that Fonvizin’s witticisms were born not of a cheerful disposition, but of the deepest sadness due to the imperfection of man and society.
Fonvizin entered literature as one of the successors of Kantemir and Sumarokov. He was brought up in the belief that the nobility, to which he himself belonged, should be educated, humane, constantly concerned about the interests of the fatherland, and that the royal government should promote worthy nobles to high positions for the common benefit. But among the nobles he saw cruel ignoramuses, and at court - “nobles in the case” (simply put, the empress’s lovers) who ruled the state according to their whim.
From a long historical distance, it is clear that the von-Visin time, like any other, was neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad. But in Fonvizin’s eyes, evil overshadowed him.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 174 5. For a long time, the surname Fonvizin was written in the German manner: “Von Vizin,” and during his lifetime, sometimes even “von Wiesen.” The current form was one of the first to be used by Pushkin with the following comment: “What kind of infidel is he? He is Russian, one of the pre-Russian Russians.” The spelling “Fonvizin” was finally established only after 1917.
The Fonvizin family is of German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He lived not at the royal court in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel in his youth wrote good poetry and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement”.
