Who is the obolduev in the poem. A satirical depiction of landowners in Nekrasov's poem who lives well in Russia

03.11.2019

Read also

The art of ancient greece

Legendary Greek statues

The Ugliest Man in the World

The Tale of the Priest and His Worker

The latest technology for kids

The pinnacle of N.A. Nekrasov is the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia". All his life Nekrasov nurtured the idea of a work that would become a folk book, that is, a book "useful, understandable to the people and truthful", reflecting the most important aspects of his life. Nekrasov gave the poem many years of his life, having put into it all the information about the Russian people, accumulated, as the poet said, "by word" over twenty years. Serious illness and death interrupted Nekrasov's work, but what he managed to create puts the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia" on a par with the most remarkable creations of Russian literature.

With all the variety of types deduced in the poem, its main character is the people. “The people have been liberated. But are the people happy? " - this main question, which worried the poet all his life, stood before him when creating the poem. Truthfully portraying the painful situation of the people in post-reform Russia, Nekrasov posed and resolved the most important questions of his time: who is to blame for the people's grief, what should be done to make the people free and happy? The reform of 1861 did not improve the situation of the people, and it is not for nothing that the peasants talk about it:

Good you, royal letter,

Yes, you are not writing about us ...

Some kind of round gentleman;

Mustache, pot-bellied,

With a cigar in your mouth ...

Diminutive-affectionate suffixes, traditional in folk poetry, here enhance the ironic sound of the story, emphasize the insignificance of the "round" man. He speaks with pride about the antiquity of his kind. The landowner recalls the blessed old times, when "not only Russian people, Russian nature itself conquered us." Recalling his life under serfdom - "like Christ in the bosom", he proudly says:

You used to be in a circle

Alone like the sun in the sky

Your villages are humble

Your forests are dense

Your fields are all around!

The inhabitants of the "modest villages" fed and watered the master, provided his wild life with their labor, "holidays, not a day, not two - for a month," and he, with unlimited power, established his own laws:

Whom I want - have mercy,

Whom I want - execution.

The landowner Obolt-Obolduv recalls his paradise life: luxurious feasts, fat turkeys, juicy liqueurs, his own actors and "a whole regiment of servants." According to the landowner, the peasants from everywhere brought them "voluntary gifts." Now everything has fallen into decay - "the noble class seems to have hidden everything, died out!" Landowners' houses are dismantled into bricks, gardens are cut down, forests are stolen:

The fields are incomplete,

The crops are undersowed,

There is no trace of order!

The peasants greeted the boastful story of Obolt-Obolduev about the antiquity of his family with frank mockery. He himself is not suitable for anything. The irony of Nekrasov sounds with particular force when he forces Obolt-Obolduev to admit his complete inability to work:

I smoked the heaven of God,

He wore the royal livery.

Wasted the people's treasury

And I thought to live like this for a century ...

The peasants sympathize with the landlord and think to themselves:

The great chain has broken,

Torn - jumped:

One end for the master,

The other for the man! ..

Contempt is caused by the feeble-minded "last-born" Prince Utyatin. The very title of the chapter "The Last One" has a deep meaning. This is not only about Prince Utyatin, but also the last landowner-serf-owner. Before us is a slave owner who has gone out of his mind, and little human remains even in his appearance:

Nose with a beak like a hawk,

Mustache gray, long

And different eyes:

One healthy one - glows,

And the left one is cloudy, cloudy,

Like a pewter penny!

The mayor Vlas tells about the landowner Utyatin. He says that their landowner is "special" - "he has been weird and fooled the whole century, but suddenly a thunderstorm burst out." When he learned about the abolition of serfdom, at first he did not believe it, and then he fell ill with grief - his left half of his body was taken away from him. The heirs, fearing that he would not deprive them of their inheritance, begin to indulge him in everything. When the old man got better, he was told that the peasants had been ordered to return to the landowner. The old man was delighted, ordered to serve a prayer service, ring the bells. Since then, the peasants have begun to break the comedy: to pretend that serfdom has not been abolished. In the estate, the old order has gone: the prince gives stupid orders, gives orders, gives the order to marry a widow of seventy years to his neighbor Gavril, who has just turned six years old. The peasants laugh at the prince behind his back. Only one peasant, Agap Petrov, did not want to obey the old order, and when his landowner found him stealing a forest, he told Utyatin everything directly, calling him a pea buffoon. The duck got the second blow. The old master can no longer walk - he is sitting in an armchair on the porch. But he still shows his arrogance of the nobility. After a hearty meal, Utyatin dies. The latter is not only scary, but also ridiculous. After all, he has already been deprived of his former power over peasant souls. The peasants agreed only to "play at the serfs" until the "last son" dies. Agap Petrov, the uncompromising peasant, was right when he revealed the truth to Prince Utyatin:

... You are the last! By grace

Our peasant stupidity

Today you are in charge

And tomorrow we will have the last

Kick - and the ball is over!

Reflections on what a person should be and what true human happiness should consist of, the first four chapters psychologically prepare the reader for a meeting with Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev. In the chapter "Landowner", which returns the development of the plot to the narrative scheme outlined by "Prologue", in sharp contrast to the high moral ideals of the people (the image of Yermil), the life of one of those who turned Russian villages into Razutovo and Neyelovo appears before the court of truth seekers. to the peasant to breathe ("Nedykhaniev uyezd"), I saw in him working cattle, "horse".

As we remember, already in the 40s the landowner and the peasant appeared to Nekrasov as two polar values, antagonists, whose interests were incompatible. In "Who Lives Well in Russia," he pushed landlord and peasant Russia against their heads and, with his author's will, forced Obolt to "confess" to the peasants, to talk about his life, submitting it to the people's judgment.

The satirically drawn image of a landowner - a lover of hunting for dogs - runs through many of Nekrasov's works of the 40s (vaudeville "An awl in a sack cannot be hidden ...", "Usurer", poems "Hound hunting", "Homeland"). It has long been established that the image of the "gloomy ignoramus" in "Rodina" goes back to the real personality of the poet's father. Alexei Sergeevich Nekrasov was a very typical and colorful figure of the era of serfdom, and researchers (A.V. Popov, V.A. ”, And in the image of Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev. Obolt has in common with AS Nekrasov the fist method of reprisals against serfs, passion for hunting, arrogance of the nobility. But, as you know, the type is never equal to the prototype. Obolt-Obolduev is a landowner, an image synthesizing in himself the features observed by Nekrasov not only in his father, but also in other landowners of the post-reform era.

The image of Obolt is drawn satirically. This determines the author's choice of the hero's surname, the peculiarities of his portrait characteristics, the meaning and tone of the landowner's story. The author's work on the hero's name is very curious. In the Vladimir province there were landowners Abolduevs and Obolduevs. At the time of Nekrasov, the word "stunned" meant: "ignorant, uncouth, fool." This satirical shade in the real surname of an old noble family attracted Nekrasov's attention. And then the poet, again using the real surnames of the Yaroslavl nobles, saturates the Obolduev surname with an additional satirical meaning: Brykovo-Obalduev (= a fool with a temper), Dolgovo-Obalduev (= a bankrupt fool) and, finally, constructed on the model of real double surnames - Obolt -Bolduev (= twice fool, because “fool” is a synonym for the word “fool”).

The image of the landowner Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev is built by the author on the identification of a constant discrepancy between what the hero thinks about himself, what meaning he puts into his words, and the impression he and his story make on the listeners - men and on the reader. And this impression of insignificance, insignificance, self-righteousness, arrogance and comicity of the hero is created already by the first lines that depict Obolt's appearance. Before the pilgrims appeared “some round gentleman. / Mustached, pot-bellied "," rosy. / Dignified, stocky. " In his mouth is not a cigar, but a "cigar", he drew not a pistol, but a "pistol", the same as the master himself, "plump." In this context, the mention of "the tricks of the brave" acquires an ironic connotation, especially since the hero is clearly not a brave ten

And a six-barreled barrel

I brought the pilgrims:

- Don `t move! If you move,

Rogues! robbers!

I'll put it on the spot! ..

Obolt's belligerent cowardice is so discordant with the intentions of truth-seekers that it involuntarily provokes their laughter.

The obolt is ridiculous. It’s funny when he talks with pathos about the “exploits” of his ancestors, who amused the empress with bears, who tried to set fire to Moscow and rob the treasury, when he boasts of his “family tree”. It’s funny when, forgetting about the “glass of sherry,” “jumping off the Persian carpet,” in front of seven keen observers, in the excitement of hunting, he waves his arms, jumps up and shouts in a wild voice “Hey! hoo-hoo! a-tu! ", imagining that he is poisoning the fox.

But Obolt-Obolduev is not only ridiculous to the peasants. Inner hostility and mistrust towards the landowner is evident in every word, in every remark of the pilgrims. They do not believe the "honest, noble" word, opposing it to the "Christian", since the word

Noble with a curse,

With a push and a jaw,

hateful to a man who is beginning to realize his human and civil rights.

In the remarks exchanged between the landlord and the peasants, there is mutual contempt, mockery, poorly hidden in Obolt:

Sit down, LORD! ...

Please sit down, CITIZENS! -

hidden in a crafty irony - among the men. With ironic remarks, they reveal the absurdity of Obolt's estate arrogance:

The bone is white, the bone is black,

And look, so different ...

They assess the "exploits" of his ancestors:

Not a few of them stagger

Scoundrels and now ...

According to the proverb "an apple does not fall far from an apple tree", Gavrila Afanasyevich himself is assessed:

And you are, roughly, a bull's-eye

Are you coming out of that tree?

The hidden, but every now and then bursting hostility of the peasants to the landowner is justified by the whole meaning of his story about a free life in pre-reform times, when landowners in Russia lived "like Christ's in the bosom."

The basis for the feeling of happiness in life for Obolt is the consciousness of owning property: “your villages”, “your forests”, “your fields”, “your turkeys are fat”, “your liqueurs are juicy”, “your actors, music”, each grass whispers the word “ yours. " This smug ecstasy of happiness is not only insignificant in comparison with the "care" of truth seekers, but infinitely cynical, for it is affirmed "from the standpoint of strength":

No contradiction

Whom I want - have mercy,

Whoever I want - execution.

And although Obolt immediately tries to present his relations with the serfs in patriarchal-idyllic tones (joint prayers in the master's house, Christianity on Easter), the peasants, not believing a single word of him, ironically think:

Colom knocked them down or something, you

Praying to a manor house?

Before those who are straining from immeasurable labor ("the peasant navel is bursting"), Obolt proudly declares his inability and unwillingness to work, his contempt for work:

Noble estates

We don't learn to work ...

I smoked heaven of God ...

But the "landlord's chest" breathed "freely and easily" during the times of serfdom, until "the great chain was broken" ... At the moment of meeting with the truth-seekers, Obolt-Obolduev is filled with bitterness:

And it's all gone! all is over!

Chu! Death knell! ..

... Through life as a landlord

Call! ..

Gavrila Afanasevich notices the changes that have taken place in the social life of Russia. This is the decline of the landlord's economy ("the estates are being translated", "dismantled brick by brick / Beautiful landlord's house", "the fields are unfinished", the "robber" peasant's ax sounds in the master's forest), this is the growth of bourgeois entrepreneurship ("drinking houses are falling apart") ... But most of all, Obolt-Obolduev is angered by the peasants, in whom there is no former deference, who "play pranks" in the landlord's forests, and even worse - rise to revolt. The landowner perceives these changes with a feeling of bitter hostility, since they are associated with the destruction of patriarchal landlord Russia, so dear to his heart.

With all the certainty of the satirical coloring of the image of Obolt, however, not a mask, but a living person. The author does not deprive his story of subjective lyricism. Gavrila Afanasyevich paints pictures of hunting dogs, family life of "noble nests" almost with inspiration. Pictures of Russian nature appear in his speech, high vocabulary, lyrical images appear:

Oh mother, oh motherland!

We are not grieving about ourselves,

Sorry for you, dear.

Obolt repeats the words twice: "We are not grieving about ourselves." In his upset feelings, perhaps, he really believes that he is not grieving about himself, but about the fate of his homeland. But too often the pronouns "I" and "mine" sounded in the landowner's speech so that one could believe even for a minute in his filial love for the Motherland. Obolt-Obolduev is bitter for himself, he weeps because the disintegrated chain of serfdom hit him and the reform ushered in the beginning of the landlord's end.

Once, Marx wrote that "humankind laughingly says goodbye to its past, to obsolete forms of life." Obolt just embodies those outdated forms of life with which Russia was saying goodbye. And although Gavrila Afanasyevich is going through difficult moments, his subjective drama is not an objective historical drama. And Nekrasov, whose gaze is directed to the Russia of the future, teaches laughing to part with the ghosts of the past, which is what the satirical and humorous coloring of the chapter "Landowner" serves.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Transbaikal State Humanitarian Pedagogical University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky

Faculty of Philology

Department of Literature

COURSE WORK

"Reception of self-disclosure of heroes in the comedies of D.I.Fonvizin"

Chita - 2011

NSlahn

Introduction

Chapter 1. The way of strengthening satirical and accusatory pathos on the example of the comedy "Brigadier"

1.1 The main idea of the comedy "Brigadier"

1.2 Fonvizin's satire in the comedy "Brigadier"

Chapter 2. Comedy "Minor" - a masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century

2.1 Problems reflected in Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor"

2.2 Innovation of the comedy "The Minor"

2.3 Construction and artistic style of the comedy "The Minor"

2.4 Speech characteristics of the heroes of the comedy "Minor"

2.5 Fonvizin's satire in the comedy "Minor"

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The eighteenth century left many remarkable names in the history of Russian literature. 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 the courage and skill in exposing the vices of the ruling class, then first of all it would be necessary to mention Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792), a genius playwright and prose writer.

Fonvizin's verse is full of comic power; his unhurried, free stanza with polished aphorisms, philosophical acuteness, subtle characterization of the characters makes one recall not only Krylov's fables and Pushkin's epigrams, but also Griboyedov's immortal comedy “Woe from Wit”. Belinsky said that Fonvizin's "Message" "will outlive all the thick poems of that time."

Fonvizin went down in the history of Russian literature as the author of the comedies "Minor" and "Brigadier". This is the best that the writer has created. The gift of a satirist was combined in him with the temperament of a born publicist. Even Empress Catherine II feared the scourging sarcasm of the Fonvizin satire. Fonvizin's unsurpassed artistic skill, noted by his contemporaries, amazes us to this day.

As one of the most prominent figures of educational humanism in Russia in the 18th century, Fonvizin embodied in his work the rise of national consciousness that marked this era. In the vast country awakened by the reforms of Peter the Great, the best representatives of the Russian nobility acted as the exponents of this renewed self-awareness. Fonvizin perceived the ideas of enlightenment humanism especially sharply, with a pain of his heart he observed the moral devastation of a part of his class. Fonvizin himself lived in the grip of ideas about the high moral obligations of a nobleman. In oblivion by the nobles of their duty to society, he saw the cause of all public evils: “I happened to travel around my land. in the service just to ride a couple. I saw many others who immediately resigned, as soon as they achieved the right to harness a quadruple. I saw contemptuous descendants from the most respectable ancestors. In a word, I saw servile nobles. I am a nobleman, and this is what tore my heart to pieces. " This is what Fonvizin wrote in 1783 in a letter to the composer of Bylei and Fables, that is, to the Empress Catherine II herself.

Fonvizin joined the literary life of Russia at a time when Catherine II encouraged interest in the ideas of the European Enlightenment: at first she flirted with the French enlighteners - Voltaire, Diderot, D. Alambert.But very soon there was no trace of Catherine's liberalism.

By force of circumstances, Fonvizin found himself in the midst of the internal political struggle that flared up at court. In this struggle, gifted with brilliant creativity and keen observation, Fonvizin took the place of a satirist who denounced corruption and lawlessness in the courts, the low morality of the nobles close to the throne and favoritism encouraged by the higher authorities.

N.I. Novikov with his satirical magazines "Truten" and "Zhivopisets", Fonvizin with his publicistic speeches and the immortal "Minor" and, finally, AN Radishchev with the famous "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" - these are the milestones in the formation of the tradition of the most radical line of the Russian noble Enlightenment, and it is no coincidence that each of the three outstanding writers of the era was persecuted by the government. In the activities of these writers, the prerequisites for that first wave of the anti-autocratic liberation movement, which were later called the stage in the development of noble revolutionary thought, ripened.

The topic of this term paper is "Reception of self-disclosure of heroes in DI Fonvizin's comedies."

The purpose and tasks of our work is to trace in the works of DI Fonvizin how skillfully the author, using the technique of self-disclosure of characters, creates a number of expressive satirical types.

For research, we will take two of the most famous comedies of DI Fonvizin - "Brigadier" and "Minor".

Chapter 1. The way of strengthening satirical and accusatory pathoson the example of the comedy "Brigadier"

1.1 The main idea of the comedy "Brigadier"

Fonvizin's satirical and dramatic successes are closely related to his social and political activities "Life teaches only those who study it," V. Klyuchevsky wrote and was absolutely right. First life teaches us, then we teach others.

Real recognition of his dramatic talent came to Fonvizin with the creation of the comedy "Brigadier" in 1768-1769. the whole. Proclaimed in France in the theoretical treatises of Diderot, these principles contributed to the rapprochement of theater with reality.

As soon as the curtain was raised, the viewer found himself immersed in an environment that was striking with life's reality. In the peaceful picture of home comfort, everything is significant and at the same time everything is natural - both the rustic decoration of the room, and the clothes of the characters, and their occupations, and even individual strokes of behavior. All this was in keeping with the stage innovations of the Diderot Theater.

But there was one significant point that separated the creative positions of the two playwrights. Diderot's theory of theater, which was born on the eve of the French bourgeois revolution, reflected the tastes and needs of the third-class viewer, affirming in its own way the significance of the average person, those moral ideals that were generated by the modest way of life of the common worker. This was an innovative step, entailing a revision of many traditional, previously considered unshakable, ideas about the function of the theater and the boundaries of artistry.

Fonvizin, naturally, could not mechanically follow the program of Diderot's plays for the reason that the moral collisions of Diderot's drama were not supported by the real conditions of Russian social life.He took Diderot's demand for loyalty to nature, but subordinated this artistic principle to other tasks. The center of gravity of ideological problems in Fonvizin's comedy shifted to the satirical and accusatory plane.

A retired Brigadier arrives at the Counselor's house with his wife and son Ivan, whom his parents are wooing the owner's daughter Sophia. Sophia herself loves the poor nobleman Dobrolyubov, but no one considers her feelings. "So if God bless, then the twenty-sixth will be a wedding" - these words of Father Sophia begin the play.

All the characters in the "Brigadier" are Russian noblemen. In the modest, everyday atmosphere of life in the middle of Moscow, the personality of each character appears as if gradually in conversations. Gradually, from action to action, the spiritual interests of the characters are revealed from different sides, and step by step the originality of the artistic solutions found by Fonvizin in his innovative play is revealed.

The traditional comedy conflict between a virtuous, intelligent girl and a stupid groom is complicated by one circumstance. He recently visited Paris and is full of contempt for everything that surrounds him at home, including his parents. “Anyone who has been to Paris,” he says frankly, “already has the right, speaking of Russians, not to include himself and the number of those, since he has already become more French than Russian.” Ivan's speech is replete with appropriately and incoherently pronounced French words. The only person with whom he finds a common language is the Counselor, who grew up reading romance novels and goes crazy with everything French.

The absurd behavior of the newly-minted "Parisian" and the Counselor who is delighted with him suggests that the basis of the ideological plan in the comedy is the denunciation of Gallomania. With their windbag and newfangled demeanor, they seem to be opposed to Ivan's parents and the Counselor, who were wise from life experience. However, the fight against Gallomania is only part of the accusatory program that feeds the satirical pathos of The Brigadier.

Ivan's kinship to all the other characters is revealed by the playwright in the first act, where they speak out about the dangers of grammar: each of them considers the study of grammar an unnecessary matter, it adds nothing to the ability to achieve ranks and wealth.

This new chain of revelations, revealing the intellectual horizons of the main characters of the comedy, brings us to an understanding of the main idea of the play. In an environment where mental apathy and lack of spirituality reign, exposure to European culture turns out to be an evil caricature of enlightenment. The moral squalor of Ivan, who is proud of his contempt for his compatriots, matches the spiritual deformity of the others, for their morals and way of thinking are, in essence, just as low.

And what is important, in comedy this idea is revealed not declaratively, but by means of psychological self-disclosure of the characters. If earlier the tasks of comedy satire were conceived mainly in terms of bringing to the stage a personified vice, for example, "stinginess," "evil-speaking," "bragging," now, under the pen of Fonvizin, the content of vices is socially concretized. The satirical pamphlet of Sumarokov's "comedy of characters" gives way to a comically sharpened study of the mores of society. And this is the main significance of the Fonvizin "Brigadier".

Fonvizin found an interesting way to enhance the satirical and accusatory pathos of comedy. In The Brigadier, the everyday reliability of the portraits of the characters grows into a comically caricatured grotesque. The comic of the action grows from scene to scene thanks to a dynamic kaleidoscope of intertwining love episodes. The vulgar flirtation in the secular manner of the Gallomaniac Ivan and the Counselor is replaced by the Counselor’s hypocritical courtship of the Brigadier who does not understand anything, and immediately the Brigadier himself storms the Counselor’s heart with a soldier’s straightforwardness. The rivalry between father and son threatens a scuffle, and only general exposure calms all unlucky "lovers".

The success of the "Brigadier" put Fonvizin among the most famous writers of his time. The head of the educational camp of Russian literature of the 1760s, NI Novikov, praised the young author's new comedy in his satirical journal "Truten". In collaboration with Novikov, Fonvizin finally defines his place in literature as a satirist and publicist.

1.2 Fonvizin's satire in the comedy "Brigadier"

Fonvizin's satire is directed at both people and their language, this is already evident in his early "Brigadier", where the ignorant and rude foreman and foreman are equally ridiculous with their archaic sayings, and their stupid French son Ivanushka and the cutesy fashionista-advisor, more Moreover, she skillfully uses their language as a tool of satirical characteristics. But the playwright wanted to portray, that is, to force to act and speak on the stage of his living contemporaries and their authentic oral language. And already in the "Brigadier" he succeeded completely.

After reading a comedy at the court of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich, the enlightened chief and patron of Fonvizin, Count NI Panin, after reading a comedy at the court of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich, correctly remarked to the author: "You know our manners very well, for the Brigadier is your kin to everyone ... This is the first comedy in our customs."

The theater of classicism, where the French pseudo-historical tragedy in verse and Russian imitations of it reigned, could not embody the innovative ideas of Fonvizin the playwright, moreover, satire was then considered the lowest kind of literature. The writer knew the new Russia and understood the nature of the theater as a public spectacle, among his friends were the best actors of that time F.G. Volkov and I.A. Dmitrevsky. Fonvizin himself possessed an extraordinary gift of an actor and a reader. Hence the huge success of his first comedy "Brigadier", which was read by the author to the Empress, Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich and many nobles and was staged at the court theater.

A fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp remarks, bold comic positions, individualized colloquial speech of characters, evil satire on the Russian nobility, mockery of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive and at the same time familiar, recognizable for the listeners and viewers of "Brigadier ". Young Fonvizin attacked the noble society and its vices, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, the ulcer of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of heavy tyranny, everyday domestic cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. Theater as a means of social public satire demanded characters and language understandable for the audience, acute urgent problems, recognizable collisions.

Chapter 2. Comedy "Minor" - a masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century

2.1 Problems reflected in Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor"

The comedy "The Minor" has absorbed all the experience accumulated by Fonvizin, and in terms of the depth of ideological problems, in the boldness and originality of the artistic solutions found, it remains an unsurpassed masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century.

Fonvizin is rightfully considered the creator of the Russian socio-political comedy. His famous play "The Minor" turned the Prostakovs' estate into a center of vices, "evil worthy fruits", which the playwright denounces with his characteristic slander, sarcasm, and irony.

“The Minor” is a multi-dark work. It raises questions about the unswerving fulfillment of "office" by each citizen, about the nature of family relations in contemporary Russia, about the system of upbringing and education. But the main problems are undoubtedly the problems of serfdom and state power.

In the very first act, we find ourselves in an atmosphere of tyranny of the landlords. Trishka sewed a caftan for Mitrofan “pretty good,” but this does not save him from abuse and flogging. The old nurse Mitrofana Eremeevna is immensely devoted to her masters, but receives from them "five rubles a year and five slaps in the face a day." Prostakova is outraged by the fact that the serf girl Palashka, falling ill, lies "as if she were noble." The arbitrariness of the landowners led to the complete impoverishment of the peasants. “Since we have taken away everything that the peasants had, we cannot rip anything off. Such a disaster! " - complains Prostakova. But the landlords know for sure that they are protected by the entire system of state power. It was the social structure of Russia that allowed the Prostakovs and Skotinins to dispose of their estates in their own way.

Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin emphasizes the “bestial” nature of Prostakova and her brother. Even Vralman thinks that, living with the gentlemen Prostakovs, he is a “fairy with horses”. Mitrofan will be no better. The author does not simply ridicule his “knowledge” in the sciences, his unwillingness to learn. Fonvizin sees that the same cruel serf-owner lives in him.

A huge influence on the formation of people like Mitrofan, in the author's opinion, is exerted not only by the general situation in the noble estates, but also by the adopted system of education and upbringing. Ignorant foreigners were involved in the upbringing of young nobles. What could Mitrofan learn from the coachman Vralman? Could such nobles become the mainstay of the state?

The group of positive characters in the play is represented by the images of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia. For a writer of the era of classicism, it was extremely important not only to show social vices, but also to identify the ideal to which one should strive. On the one hand, Fonvizin denounces the state order, on the other, the author gives a kind of instruction on what a ruler and society should be. Starodum expounds the patriotic views of the best part of the nobility, expresses topical political thoughts. Introducing into the play the scene of Prostakova's deprivation of his master's rights, Fonvizin suggests to the audience and the government one of the possible ways to suppress the tyranny of the landowners. Note that this step of the writer was disapprovingly received by Catherine II, who directly made the writer feel it. The Empress could not help but see in the comedy "The Minor" a sharp satire on the most terrible vices of the empire.

The accusatory pathos of "The Little Growth" is nourished by two powerful sources, equally dissolved in the structure of the dramatic action. Lacquered are satire and journalism.

Destructive and merciless satire fills all scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teachings, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual squalor.

A group of positive noblemen present on the stage, in contrast to the bestial existence of Mitrofan's parents, pronounces a no less destructive sentence to this world. The dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin, which touch upon deep, sometimes state problems, are passionate publicistic speeches reflecting the author's position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here denunciation merges with the affirmation of the author's own positive ideals.

Two problems, especially worried about Fonvizin, lie at the heart of the "Minor". This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum, indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom the nobility, one might say, “was buried with their ancestors,” in the observations reported from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society - he looks for the reasons for this decline.

The concluding remark of Starodum, which ends with the "Minor": "Here is evil worthy fruits!" - in the context of the ideological provisions of the Fonvizin treatise, it gives the whole play a special political meaning. The unlimited power of the landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example on the part of the higher authorities, became a source of arbitrariness, this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of estate honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the ruling class.

In the light of the general moral and political concept of Fonvizin, which are expressed in the play by positive characters, the world of simpletons and bastards appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.

Another problem of the "Minor" is the problem of education. Understood broadly enough, education in the minds of the thinkers of the 18th century was viewed as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin's ideas, the problem of education acquired a state significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education.

A significant part of the dramatic action in Nedorosl is to one degree or another subordinated to the problems of upbringing. Both the scenes of the teachings of Mitrofan and most of the teachings of Starodum are subordinate to her. The culminating point in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of the exam of Mitrophone in Act IV of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in the force of the incriminating sarcasm contained in it, serves as a sentence to the system of education of simpletons and bastards. The passing of this sentence is ensured not only through self-disclosure of Mitrofan's ignorance, but also through the demonstration of examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milon.

fonvizin comedy ignoramus paphos

2.2 Innovation of the comedy "The Minor"

The comedy "The Minor" is rightly considered the pinnacle of Fonvizin's work and of all Russian drama of the 18th century. Maintaining a connection with the worldview of classicism, the comedy has become a deeply innovative work.

How does the comedy "The Minor" correspond to the provisions of Russian classicism? First of all, the author retains all the features of the "low" genre. The play makes fun of vices (rudeness, cruelty, stupidity, ignorance, greed), which, according to the author, require immediate correction. The problem of upbringing is central to the ideas of the Enlightenment, it is also fundamental in Fonvizin's comedy, which is emphasized by its title. (A minor is a young nobleman, a teenager, who was educated at home.) The language of the work (one of the rules of classicism) also corresponds to the concreteness of the reality depicted. For example, Prostakova's speech: rude in addressing servants ("swindler", "cattle", "thieves' harya" - tailor Trishka; "beast", "kanalya" - nanny Eremeevna), caring and affectionate in conversation with her son Mitrofanushka ("century live, learn, my dear friend "," darling "). The "correct", bookish language forms the basis of the speech of positive characters: Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia speak it. Thus, the speech of the heroes, as it were, divides the characters into negative and positive (one of the rules of classicism). The rule of three unity is also observed in comedy. The play takes place in the estate of Mrs. Prostakova (unity of place). The unity of time seems to be present too. The unity of action presupposes the subordination of the action of the play to the author's task, in this case - the solution of the problem of true education. In the comedy, the unenlightened (Prostakova, Skotinin, Prostakov, Mitrofanushka) are opposed to the educated (Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin, Milon) characters.

This completes the adherence to the traditions of classicism.

Where did comedy's innovation come about? For Fonvizin, in contrast to the classicists, it was important not only to pose the problem of upbringing, but also to show how circumstances (conditions) affect the formation of the character of a person. This significantly distinguishes comedy from the works of classicism. The Nedorosl laid the foundations for a realistic reflection of reality in Russian fiction. The author reproduces the atmosphere of landlord tyranny, exposes the greed and cruelty of the Prostakovs, the impunity and ignorance of the Skotinins. In his comedy about education, he raises the problem of serfdom, its corrupting influence on both the people and the nobility.

In contrast to the works of classicism, where the action developed in accordance with the solution of one problem, "The Minor" is a multi-dark work. Its main problems are closely related to each other: the problem of education - with the problems of serfdom and state power. To expose the vices, the author uses such techniques as speaking surnames, self-exposure of negative characters, subtle irony on the part of positive heroes. Fonvizin puts into the mouths of positive heroes criticism of the "depraved century", idlers-nobles and ignorant landowners. The theme of serving the fatherland, the triumph of justice is also carried out through positive images

The common sense of the surname Starodum (favorite hero of Fonvizin) emphasizes his adherence to the ideals of the old, Peter's times. Starodum's monologues are directed (in accordance with the tradition of classicism) to the education of those in power, including the empress.

Thus, the scope of reality in comedy is unusually wide compared to strictly classic works.

The system of images of comedy is also innovative. The characters, however, are traditionally divided into positive and negative. But Fonvizin goes beyond the framework of classicism, introducing heroes from the lower class into the play. These are serfs, serfs (Eremeevna, Trishka, teachers Kuteikin and Tsyferkin). Fonvizin's attempt to give at least a brief prehistory of the characters, to reveal the different boundaries of the characters of some of them, was also new. So, the vicious, cruel serf woman Prostakova in the finale becomes an unhappy mother, rejected by her own son. She even evokes our sympathy.

Fonvizin's innovation manifested itself in the creation of the characters' speech. It is highly 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. It was the first socio-political comedy on the Russian stage, and Fonvizin was the first playwright who presented not a character prescribed by the laws of classicism, but a living human image.

2.3 Construction and artistic style of the comedy "The Minor"

The rich ideological and thematic content of the comedy "The Minor" is embodied in a masterfully developed art form. Fonvizin managed to create a harmonious plan for a comedy, skillfully intertwining pictures of everyday life with the disclosure of the views of the heroes. With great care and breadth, Fonvizin described not only the main characters, but also minor ones, like Eremeevna, teachers and even Trishka's tailor, revealing in each of them some new side of reality, not repeating anywhere.

All the heroes of his comedy are drawn not by an indifferent contemplator of life, but by a citizen writer who clearly shows his attitude towards the people he portrays. He executes some with angry indignation and caustic, killing laughter, treats others with cheerful derision, and draws others with great sympathy. Fonvizin proved to be a deep connoisseur of the human heart, human character. He skillfully reveals the spiritual life of the heroes, their attitude to people, their actions. The same purpose is served in comedy and stage directions, i.e., author's instructions to actors. For example: "stumbling from timidity", "with annoyance", "frightened, with anger", "delighted", "impatiently", "trembling and threatening", etc. Such remarks were news in Russian dramatic works of the 18th century ...

In the artistic style of comedy, the struggle between classicism and realism is noticeable, that is, the desire for the most truthful depiction of life. The first is clearly on the side of realism.

This is manifested mainly in the depiction of characters, especially negative ones. They are typical representatives of their class, widely and versatile shown. These are living people, and not the personification of any one quality, which was characteristic of the works of classicism. Even positive images are not devoid of vitality. And Prostakova, Skotinin, especially Mitrofanushka are so vital, typical that their names have become common nouns.

The rules of classicism are violated in the very construction of the comedy. These rules forbade mixing the comic and the dramatic, the funny and the sad in the play. In comedy, it was supposed to correct morals with laughter. In "Minor", in addition to funny (comic), there are also dramatic scenes (the drama of Prostakova at the end of the work). Along with comic pictures, there are scenes that reveal the difficult aspects of serf life. In addition, the comedy introduces scenes that are only indirectly related to the main action (for example, the scene with Trishka and a number of others), but the author needed them for a broad and truthful sketch of everyday life pictures.

The language of comedy is so bright and well-marked that some expressions passed from it into life as proverbs: "I don't want to study - I want to get married"; "Riches cannot help a foolish son", "Here are worthy fruits of evil", etc.

This victory of realism in the most important area - in the depiction of a person - constitutes the most valuable side of Fonvizin, the artist of the word. The truthfulness in the depiction of life is closely connected with the advanced views of Fonvizin, with his struggle against the main evils of his time, so vividly revealed by him in the comedy "The Minor".

The important questions that Fonvizin raised and highlighted in the comedy "The Minor" determined its great social significance, primarily in his contemporary era. From the pages of the comedy, from the stage of the theater, the bold voice of the leading writer sounded, who angrily denounced the ulcers and shortcomings of the life of that time, called for a fight against them. Comedy painted true pictures of life; showed live people, good and bad, urged to imitate the former and fight the latter. She enlightened the consciousness, brought up civil feelings, called for action.

The significance of "The Little Ones" is also great in the history of the development of Russian drama. It is not for nothing that Pushkin called "The Minor" "a people's comedy". Fonvizin's comedy has remained on the stage of the theater up to the present day. The vitality of the images, the historically correct depiction of people and the life of the 18th century, the natural spoken language, the skillful construction of the plot - all this explains the lively interest that comedy arouses in our days.

The "undersized" Fonvizin is the ancestor of the Russian (in the words of Gorky) "accusatory-realistic" comedy, a socio-political comedy. Continuing this line, such wonderful comedies as "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov and "The Inspector General" by Gogol appeared in the 19th century.

2.4 Speech characteristics of the heroes of the comedy "Minor"

The first thing that a modern reader of the comedy "The Minor" pays attention to is the names of the characters. “Speaking” surnames immediately lay the reader's (viewer's) attitude towards their owners. He ceases to be a more or less objective witness of the unfolding action; psychologically he is already becoming a participant in it. He was deprived of the opportunity to evaluate the heroes and their actions for himself. From the very beginning, from the names of the characters, the reader was told where the negative characters are and where the positive ones. And the role of the reader is reduced to seeing and remembering the ideal to which one must strive.

The characters can be divided into three groups: negative (Prostakovs, Mitrofan, Skotinin), positive (Pravdin, Milon, Sophia, Starodum), the third group includes all the other characters - these are mainly servants and teachers. Negative characters and their servants have a common spoken language. The Skotinins' vocabulary consists mainly of words used in the barnyard. This is well illustrated by the speech of Skotinin, Mitrofan's uncle. She is all overflowing with words: pig, piglets, barn. The concept of life also begins and ends with the barnyard. He compares his life with the life of his pigs. For example: “I want to have my own piglets”, “if I have a special barn for each pig, then I’ll find a light for my wife”. And he is proud of it: “Well, be I a pig's son, if ...” The vocabulary of his sister, Mrs. Prostakova, is a little more diverse due to the fact that her husband is “an innumerable fool” and she has to do everything herself. But Skotin's roots are also manifested in her speech. Favorite swear word - "cattle". To show that Prostakova is not far from her brother in development, Fonvizin sometimes refuses to her in elementary logic. For example, such phrases: “Since we have taken away everything that the peasants had, we cannot rip anything off”, “Is it really necessary to be like a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well?” And, drawing conclusions from what has been said, Prostakova finishes the phrase: "What a bestial reasoning."

Regarding her husband, we can only say that he is laconic and does not open his mouth without instructions from his wife. But this also characterizes him as an “uncountable fool,” a weak-willed husband who has fallen under the heel of his wife. Mitrofanushka is also laconic, although, unlike his father, he has freedom of speech. Skotin's roots are manifested in him in the ingenuity of swear words: "old hrychovka", "garrison rat".

Servants and teachers have in their speech the characteristic features of the estates and parts of society to which they belong. Eremeevna's speech is a constant excuse and desire to please. Teachers: Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant, Kuteikin is a deacon from the Intercession. And by their speech they show belonging: one to the military, the other to church ministers.

Greet:

Kuteikin: "Peace to the house of the ruler and many years from children and households."

Tsyfirkin: "We wish your honor to live a hundred years, but twenty ..."

Forgiven:

Kuteikin: "Will you command us on our way?"

Tsyfirkin: "Where are we going, your honor?"

Swear:

Kuteikin: "At least now you are whispering to me, if only I can sin by nagging me!"

Tsyfirkin: “I would give myself an ear to carry it, if only I could beat this parasite like a soldier! .. Eka an ugly woman!”

All the characters, except for the positive ones, have very colorful, emotionally charged speech. You may not understand the meaning of words, but the meaning of what is said is always clear.

For example:

I will finish you

I have my hooks too

The speech of the goodies is not so bright. All four of them lack colloquial, colloquial phrases in their speech. This is a bookish speech, the speech of educated people of that time, which practically does not express emotions. You understand the meaning of what has been said from the direct meaning of the words. For the rest of the characters, the meaning can be grasped in the very dynamics of speech.

It is almost impossible to distinguish Milo's speech from Pravdin's speech. It is also very difficult to say anything about Sophia from her speech. An educated, well-behaved young lady, as Starodum would call her, sensitive to the advice and instructions of her beloved uncle. Starodum's speech is completely determined by the fact that the author has put his moral program into the mouth of this hero: the rules, principles, moral laws by which a "loving person" must live. Starodum's monologues are structured in this way: Starodum first tells a story from his life, and then deduces morality. Such, for example, is Starodum's conversation with the Truthful. And Starodum's conversation with Sophia is a set of rules, and "... every word will be embedded in the heart."

As a result, it turns out that the speech of the negative character characterizes him, and the speech of the positive character is used by the author to express his thoughts. The person is portrayed in three dimensions, the ideal in the plane.

2.5 Fonvizin's satire in the comedy "Minor"

In the comedy "Minor" Fonvizin depicts the vices of contemporary society. His heroes are representatives of different social strata: statesmen, nobles, servants, self-appointed teachers. This is the first socio-political comedy in the history of Russian drama.

The central heroine of the play is Mrs. Prostakova. She manages the household, beats her husband, keeps the servants in horror, brings up the son of Mitrofan. "I scold, then I fight, so the house holds on." No one dares to oppose her power: "Am I not powerful in my people." But there are tragic elements in the image of Prostakova. This ignorant and selfish “contemptuous fury” loves and sincerely cares about her son. At the end of the play, rejected by Mitrofan, she becomes humiliated and pitiful:

You alone stayed with me.

Let go ...

I have no son ...

The idea of upbringing, which is very important for educational literature, is connected with the image of Mitrofan in the play. Mitrofan is an ignoramus, a loafer, a favorite of his mother. From his parent, he inherited arrogance and rudeness. To Eremeevna, devoted to him, he addresses himself: "an old hrychovka." The upbringing and education of Mitrofan corresponds to the “fashion” of that time and the understanding of his parents. He is taught French by the German Vralman, the exact sciences by the retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, who “maracutes a little bit of arichmetic”, grammar by the seminarian Kuteikin, dismissed from “any teaching”. Mitrofanushka's “knowledge” in grammar, his desire not to study, but to marry, are ridiculous. But his attitude towards Eremeevna, his readiness to “take people for himself,” his mother's betrayal already evokes different feelings. Mitrofanushka becomes an ignorant and cruel despot.

The main technique for creating satirical characters in the play is “zoologization”. Getting ready to marry, Skotinin declares that he wants to have his own piglets. It seems to Vralman that, while living with the Prostakovs, he lived “a fairy with little horses”. Thus, the author emphasizes the idea of the "animal" lowland of the surrounding world.

The comic of the "Minor" is not only in the fact that Prostakova scolds like a street vendor, is touched by her son's gluttony. There is a deeper meaning in comedy. She sarcastically ridicules rudeness, which wants to look amiable, greed, hiding behind generosity, ignorance, pretending to be educated. According to the playwright, serfdom is destructive not only for the peasants, since it makes them obedient, wordless slaves, but also for the landowners, turning them into tyrants, tyrants and ignoramuses. Cruelty and violence are becoming the most convenient and familiar weapon for the feudal landlords. Therefore, the first impulse of Skotinin, and then of Prostakova, was to force Sophia to marry. And only realizing that Sophia has strong defenders, Prostakova begins to fawn and tries to imitate the tone of noble people. But is Prostakova capable of wearing a mask of nobility for a long time? Seeing that Sophia is slipping out of her hands, the landowner resorts to the usual action - violence.

In the finale of the comedy, we are not only funny, but also scared. A mixture of arrogance and servility, rudeness and confusion makes Prostakova so pathetic that Sophia and Starodum are ready to forgive her. Impunity and permissiveness taught Prostakov to the idea that there are no insurmountable obstacles in front of her. She becomes a plaything of her own passions. And thoughtless motherly love turns against herself. Mitrofan refuses his mother at the most difficult moment of her life. He does not need a mother who has lost money and power. He will be looking for new influential patrons. His phrase: "Let go, mother, how imposed ..." became winged. But this did not change its ominous meaning, but rather intensified.

Fonvizin's crushing, angry satirical laughter, directed at the most disgusting aspects of the autocratic serf system, played a great creative role in the further destinies of Russian literature.

Despite the fact that the genre of the play "The Minor" is a comedy, Fonvizin is not limited to exposing social vices and creating satirical characters. Positive characters openly express the views of an “honest” person on noble morality, family relations, and even civil organization. This dramatic technique truly means a revolution in Russian educational literature - from criticism of the negative aspects of reality to the search for ways to change the existing system.

Reflecting the actual problems of his time, Fonvizin was a talented psychologist, thinker, artist. His comedy has universal human significance, it lives for centuries, does not leave the stages of modern theaters.

In The Minor, according to the remarks of the first biographer Fonvizin, the author “no longer jokes, does not laugh, but is indignant at vice and stigmatizes it without mercy, if he laughs, then the laughter inspired by him does not entertain from deeper and more deplorable impressions." The object of ridicule in Fonvizin's comedy is not the private life of the nobles, but their social, official activities and serfdom practice.

Not content with one depiction of the nobility's "ill will," the writer seeks to show its reasons as well. The author explains the vices of people by their wrong upbringing and dense ignorance, presented in the play in its various manifestations.

The genre originality of the work lies in the fact that "Minor", according to GA Gukovsky, is "half-comedy, half-drama." Indeed, the basis, the backbone of Fonvizin's play is a classic comedy, but serious and even touching scenes are introduced into it. These include the conversation between Pravdin and Starodum, the touching and edifying conversations between Starodum and Sophia and Milon. A tearful drama suggested the image of a noble reasoner in the person of Starodum, as well as a "suffering virtue" in the person of Sophia. The ending of the play also combines touching and deeply moralistic principles.

DI Fonvizin managed to create a vivid, strikingly true picture of the moral and social degradation of the nobility at the end of the 18th century. The playwright uses all means of satire, denounces and criticizes, ridicules and condemns, but his attitude to the "noble" estate is far from the gaze of an outsider: "I saw," he wrote, "from the most respectable ancestors of despicable descendants ... I am a nobleman, and that's what tore my heart to pieces. "

Fonvizin's comedy is an extremely important milestone in the history of our drama. The next ones are "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov and "The Inspector General" by Gogol. "... Everything turned pale," wrote Gogol, "before two striking works: before Fonvizin's comedy" The Minor "and Griboyedov's" Woe from Wit "... They no longer contain light mockery of the funny sides of society, but wounds and diseases our society ... Both comedies took on two different eras. One struck illnesses from lack of enlightenment, the other from ill-understood enlightenment. "

Written more than two hundred years ago, the comedy "Minor" has not lost its relevance for us. The problems posed and solved by Fonvizin are just as acute and relevant today. Questions of upbringing, serving the Fatherland, moral principles of a person, probably belong to the category of "eternal". And each generation will solve them in its own way, but will never abandon them, will not dismiss them as insignificant, having lost their urgent need.

The comedy "The Nedorosl" not only took its rightful place in classical literature, but also replenished the golden fund of the Russian theater. Its significance is enormous in the formation and establishment of the Russian national theater. Already Gogol noted that "The Minor", in which the traditional love intrigue is pushed far into the background, laid the foundation for the original Russian genre of "truly social comedy." This is the secret to the comedy's long stage life.

Conclusion

If it were required to name a writer in whose works the vices and mores of the ruling class were boldly exposed, then first of all we would name D.I.Fonvizin.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the most prominent figures in the literature of the 18th century. His love for the theater originated in his youth, and the talent of the future playwright was noticed by his gymnasium teachers. Over time, Fonvizin's enlightenment views deepened, his desire to intervene with his works in the very thick of events of Russian public life grew stronger.

But no one in the 18th century wrote dramas and prose in such a living, organic folk language as this Russified German, whom Pushkin aptly called "from the Pere-Russian Russians." The general line of Russian satire begins with Fonvizin, leading through his younger contemporary and worthy heir Krylov to Gogol, Shchedrin and Bulgakov. This playwright made his public comedy truly popular, laughter - his main character and denouncer of national vices, and the Russian theater - the chair from which Griboyedov and Gogol later turned to our audience.

Fonvizin followed the path of enlightenment outlined by Lomonosov, but chose one from his system of "three calmness" - the element of the living Russian word, which the nobility continued to use, especially the provincial, spiritual class and educated commoners. More precisely, the playwright created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of speech and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, and his heroes as positive characters. As a member of the Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in the study and improvement of his contemporary language.

Reading the comedies "Brigadier" and "Minor", evaluating speech statements, we begin to evaluate the characters themselves in a completely different way. It may seem that we are only dealing with an artistic trick, but in reality it is not. The author understood all too well that the effect does not depend on the events themselves, but on the atmosphere in which they unfold. And he recreated this atmosphere with all the necessary thoroughness - with the help of those very little things, subtle details, shades of intonation that Fonvizin so masterly mastered. The hero's involuntary self-exposure was prepared not by the logic of the plot, but by the logic of all existence in the philistine world with its interests that do not extend beyond adultery, which is fueled by the rivalry of insignificant pride. The poetics of the final chord serves not for amusement, but for a serious artistic generalization.

Thus, the method of self-disclosure of heroes in D.I. Fonvizin's comedies is a skillfully selected method of satirical pathos, which helps the author to portray his characters brighter and more truthfully.

The son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and direction of creative searches, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century, who made up the camp of the enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. A courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the serf-owners 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 Fonvizin.

Bibliography

1. Vetlovskaya V.A. Satire in Russian Literature. M., Education, 1985.

2. Vyazemsky L. A. Fon-Vizin. SPb., 2009, p. 244.

3. Gorshkov AI History of the Russian literary language. M .: Higher school, - 1969.

4. Zhukov D.A., Pushkarev L.N. Russian writers of the 18th century. M., 1972.

5. Historical lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. Article "Fonvizin".

6. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. / Ed. A.N.Sokolov. - M., 1970.

7. Klyuchevsky V.O. Literary portraits. M., 1991. The chapter about the "Minor" Fonvizin.

8. Brief literary encyclopedia / ed. Surkova A.A. - M., 2010.

9. Lukin. V.I. and Elchaninov B.E. Compositions and translations, St. Petersburg, 1968.

11. Makogonenko G.P. Denis Fonvizin. Creative way. M.-L., 1961.

12. Nikolaev D.N. Creativity of D.I.Fonvizin. M., Fiction, 1970.

13. Pigarev K.V. Creativity of Fonvizin. M., 1954.

14. Russian literature of the 18th century. 1700-1775 / Reader. - M .: Education, 1979.

15. Sakharov V.I. Russian Freemasonry in Portraits. M., 2004. Chapter "The way up".

16. Skatov N.N. Russian literature in the first half of the 18th century // Literature at school. - 2009. - No. 1.

17. Strichek A. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Age of Enlightenment. M., 1994.

18. Timofeev A.I. Dictionary of literary terms. - M., 1974.

19. Fonvizin D.I. - M., 1983 .-- S. 5-22.

20. Khoruzhenko K.M. Culturology. Encyclopedic Dictionary. - Rostov-on-Don, 2010.

21. Reader of critical materials: Russian literature of the 18th century / Comp. L.Yu.Aliyeva, T.V. Torkunova. - M, 1998.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Who is the obolduev in the poem. A satirical depiction of landowners in Nekrasov's poem who lives well in Russia

Read also

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents