Satyrs bold ruler summary. Y. Stennik. Satyrs bold lord

Andrey RUMYANTSEV

"SATIRES OF THE BOLD LORD..."

Fonvizin and Russian literature

Before the comedy "Undergrowth", its author Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was already a well-known writer in Russia. He translated poetry and prose, and wrote the satirical play Brigadier. But "Undergrowth", speaking in the present, became his stellar work. It combined the most attractive and characteristic features of Fonvizin's talent: his rare knowledge of "rough" provincial life for that time, a pure moral ideal, a caustic satirical word, and a social temperament.

Written in 1781 and played in the theater the following autumn, the play became a favorite comedy of several Russian generations, reached the time of the mature Pushkin and was called by him "folk". And this is a high and rare assessment in the mouth of the poet: from the works of the previous era, he called only the fables of Ivan Krylov popular.

Magic edge! there in the old days,

Satyrs bold ruler,

Fonvizin shone, friend of freedom...

And a few more Pushkin's words - about the former popularity of Fonvizin's comedy:

“My grandmother told me that there was a crush in the theater during the performance of “Undergrowth” - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who came to serve from the steppe villages, were present here and consequently saw their relatives, acquaintances and their family in front of them.”

V. Belinsky, among many of his remarks about Fonvizin's plays, remarks scattered in various critical articles, reviews and reviews, once dropped characteristic words: the comedies of this classic for the first time "acquainted Russians with their own way of life." "For the first time" is always key concept; a work that has opened something new to the reader bears the stamp of literary primogeniture. The comedy "Undergrowth" became such an essay.

Even during the reign of Peter I, a decree was issued according to which young noblemen could not enter the service without education and even marry. Out of the habit of accuracy, the tsar also determined the amount of knowledge that each "undergrowth" should have had by a certain age: by the age of seven, read "according to the rumors", that is, fluently, and write cleanly, by fifteen - know mathematics, one foreign language and the law of God, by twenty - to acquire skills in military affairs, to study history and geography.

The landowners Prostakovs fulfill the royal decree: they hired three teachers for their only son Mitrofan. The law of God, for example, is taught by Kuteikin, who was expelled from the seminary. He himself "feared the abyss of wisdom" and tried to free himself from mental labor. The seminary parted with him without regret, the spiritual authorities remembered the biblical commandment: "Do not throw pearls before swine."

Kuteikin also teaches Mitrofan how to read and calligraphy. He tells about the successes of Prostakov Jr.: “For the fourth year I have been torturing my stomach. Sit down for an hour, except for backs, he won’t make out a new line; yes, and the backs mumble, God forgive me, without a warehouse in warehouses, to no avail in rumors. Both the teacher and the student are worth each other: both are big idlers.

Retired sergeant Tsyfirkin undertook to explain the "arithmetic" to the young oaf. This one feeds on his meager knowledge in a nearby city, and serves as a visiting teacher for the Prostakovs. About his ordeals here and there he says: “... whoever does not understand himself, then the counter hires me to believe, then to sum up the results. That's what I eat ... At my leisure, I teach the guys. Here, for the third year, their nobility and the guy have been fighting over broken lines, but something doesn’t stick well ... In ten years you can’t hammer into another stump what another catches in flight.

The main pride of the Prostakov spouses is the third teacher, Adam Adamych Vralman. He was found already in Moscow itself: “... they accepted a foreigner for five years,” Prostakova boasts to Pravdina, “and, so as not to be lured, the police announced the contract. He agreed to teach what we want, but teach us what you yourself know how to teach. We have fulfilled all our parental duty, we have accepted the German and pay him a third of the money in advance.”

In the course of the comedy, it turns out that Vralman served in Moscow with Starodum, a wealthy relative of the Prostakovs, as a coachman. And not for his work, he took from hunger. “What to tell, my father? - this overseas seeker of happiness, of which hundreds and thousands lived on the estates of ignorant Russian bar, sadly justifies himself before Starodum in an alien Russian language. - I'm not the first, I'm not the last. For three months in Moscow, he staggered around from place to place, the Kutcher is not good at all. It came to me to die with lipo, lipo suture ... "

“Yes, you, Vralman, I have tea, lagged behind the horses too?” - asks him Starodum.

"Hey, no, my darling! - answers the "scientist" German. “Shiuchi with stench masters, it concerned me that I am a fse with horses.”

In Fonvizin's comedy, humor became related to the "home", everyday life of Russia. For the first time, satire gained a popular voice, as a little later, Krylov's Russian fable merged with a peasant cunning, caustic folk joke, and colloquial language. It seems that the author of The Undergrowth, a court dignitary (Fonvizin was an employee of the Cabinet Minister I. Elagin, then the secretary of Chancellor N. Panin), somehow miraculously entered the environment of the provincial landed nobility and from the inside saw his dense, outrageously stupid way of life . At the same time, the comedian's brush attracts not only with the accuracy and truthfulness of the image, but also with the memorable juiciness of the paintings, a biting mockery of his little respected heroes.

Let's write out one piece from the play. "Mathematician" Tsyfirkin gives another lesson to Mitrofan in the presence of his mother. In order for a dumb student to better understand the essence of the task, the mentor invents life examples:

"Tsyfirkin. You deigned, on the butt, to go along the road with me. Well, at least we'll take Sidorych with us. We found three...

Mitrofan (writes). Three.

Tsyfirkin. On the road, on the butt, three hundred rubles.

Mitrofan (writes). Three hundred.

Tsyfirkin. It came to division. Smekni-tko, why on a brother?

Mitrofan (calculating, whispering). Once three - three. Once zero is zero. Once zero is zero.

Ms Prostakova. What, what about the division?

Mitrofan. Look, three hundred rubles that they found, three to share.

Ms Prostakova. He's lying, my dear friend! Found money, didn't share it with anyone. Take everything for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don't study this stupid science.

Mitrofan. Hey, Pafnutich, ask another.

Tsyfirkin. Write, your honor. For learning, you give me ten rubles a year.

Mitrofan. Ten.

Tsyfirkin. Now, it’s true, it’s not for anything, but if you, sir, had adopted something from me, it wouldn’t be a sin then to add ten more.

Mitrofan (writes). Well, well, ten.

Tsyfirkin. How much for a year?

Mitrofan (calculating, whispering). Zero yes zero - zero. One yes one... (Thinking.)

Ms Prostakova. Do not work in vain, my friend! I will not add a penny; and for nothing. Science is not like that. Only you are tormented, and everything, I see, is emptiness. No money - what to count? There is money - we will consider it good even without Pafnutich.

Involuntarily, you will remember that Pushkin testified half a century later (the entry was made in his notes in French): “The ignorance of Russian bars ... They don’t know how to write in our bar.” About them, about the Prostakovs of the nineteenth century, the poet sarcastically remarked that they “do not care about either the glory or the disasters of the fatherland, its history has been known only since the time of Prince. Potemkin, have some understanding of the statistics of only the province in which their estates are located, with all that they consider themselves patriots, because they love botvinya and that their children run around in a red shirt.

The authenticity of Fonvizin's observations was undeniable for contemporaries. A scattering of humorously colored details formed a picture of life that turned out to be familiar to compatriots, and only smashing laughter made me see such life again and be indignant at its absurdity, vulgarity, and rudeness.

The caressed son says in the face of his mother:

"Mitrofan. All night long such rubbish climbed into the face.

Ms Prostakova. What rubbish, Mitrofanushka?

Mitrofan. Yes, then you, mother, then father.

Ms Prostakova. How is it?

Mitrofan. As soon as I begin to fall asleep, then I see that you, mother, deign to beat the father.

Prostakov (to the side). Well, my trouble! Dream in hand!

Mitrofan (spreading out). So I felt sorry.

Ms. Prostakova (with annoyance). Who, Mitrofanushka?

Mitrofan. You, mother: you are so tired, beating the father.

Ms Prostakova. Embrace me, my friend of the heart! Here, son, is my only consolation.

Prostakova's husband, a henpecked man, doesn't even look like a man: wordless and stupid, he seems to have been created only for wife's cuffs. “On him, my father,” Prostakova complains to Pravdin, “he finds such ... tetanus. Sometimes, bulging eyes, stands dead for an hour as if rooted to the spot. I didn't do anything with him; What could he not stand for me! You won't get through anything. If the tetanus goes away, then, my father, it will bring such a game that you ask God for tetanus again ... It doesn’t make sense for him to have strictness in the house to punish the guilty by way. I manage everything myself, father. From morning to evening, as if hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay my hands on it: either I scold, or I fight; That's how the house is kept, my father!

Brother Prostakova importantly declares: “I am Taras Skotinin, not the last of my kind. The Skotinins are a great and ancient family. You will not find our ancestor in any heraldry. To this, Pravdin, laughing, says: “That way you will assure us that he is older than Adam.” But Skotinin does not perceive humor. He loves pigs, he breeds them, and it is better for him to deal with pigs than with people. He confesses to Starodum: “At home, when I go into the bite (i.e. into the barn - A.R.) Yes, if I find them out of order, annoyance will take them. And you, without saying a word, having stopped by here, found your sister's house no better than nibbles, and you are annoyed. “You are happier than me,” says Starodum. “People touch me.” And he hears in response: "And I'm so pigs." And in fact: all Skotinin's conversations are about pigs; he, having decided to marry Sofya, promises her a house no worse than for pigs: “If I now ... have a special peck for each pig, then I will find a litter box for my wife; for her alone I will give coal, with a stove bench. He already disposed of the inheritance of his future wife in his dreams: “Eco happiness has come; yes, I was born so much and did not see; yes, I will redeem all the pigs from the world for them; Yes, I, you hear, I will make everyone trumpet: in the local neighborhood, and only pigs live.

To match Skotinin and his sister. This one, too, is rude, ignorant, and looks after her petty, pitiful interest with all her might. “We were not taught anything,” she says with pleasure about life in her parents' house. - It used to be that kind people would come to the priest, appease, appease, so that they could at least send their brother to school ... It used to be deigning to shout: I’ll curse the child who learns something from the Busurmans, and if it wasn’t for Skotinin, who wants to learn something ". Prostakova also advises her son: “Mitrofanushka, my friend, if learning is so dangerous for your little head, then stop for me.”

It is no coincidence that the comedy has the name "Undergrowth". All the events of the play are connected with its main character; he embodied all the characteristic features of relatives. Mitrofan prepared to serve the fatherland in the same way as his entourage. All the sciences for this have already been passed.

“Door, for example, what is the name: a noun or an adjective?” they ask him.

"Mitrofan. Door, which door?

Pravdin. Which door! This one.

Mitrofan. This? Adjective.

Pravdin. Why?

Mitrofan. Because it is attached to its place. Over there, by the closet, the door has not been hung for six weeks: so that one is still a noun.

In the same way, undergrowth is strong in other sciences.

"Pravdin (to Mitrofan). How far are you in history?

Mitrofan. Is it far? What's the story. In another you will fly to distant lands, to thirty kingdoms.

Pravdin. BUT! so Vralman teaches you this story?

Mitrofan. No, our Adam Adamych does not tell stories; he, what am I, himself a hunter to listen.

Ms Prostakova. Both of them force themselves to tell stories to the cowgirl Khavronya.

Mitrofan had never heard of the science of geography.

"Oh my God! They stuck with a knife to the throat, ”he gets angry at the elders. And when Pravdin reveals to the Prostakovs that geography is a “description of the earth” and it is useful to study it at least in order to know where you are going, mother is immensely surprised: “Oh, my father! Yes, cabbies, what are they for? It's their business. This is not a noble science either. Gentleman, just say: take me there, they will take me wherever you please. Believe me, father, that, of course, that is nonsense, which Mitrofanushka does not know.

You can't break simpletons. Teaching is a burden for them, the benefit of the fatherland is an empty phrase, there is only their own benefit; to acquire wealth and rank, all means are good; don’t mess with the smart ones, “your brother is always better.” These rules of life were inherited by the owners of the house. “Without science, people live and lived,” says Prostakova. - The deceased father voivode was fifteen years old, and with that he deigned to die because he did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to earn and save enough. He always received petitions, sometimes sitting on an iron chest. After every chest will open and put something. That was the economy! He did not spare his life, so as not to take anything out of the chest. I won’t boast before another, I won’t hide from you: the dead light, lying on a chest with money, died, so to speak, of hunger. BUT! What is it like?

And with all the ignorance, stinginess, spiritual emptiness - what family arrogance, arrogance, complacency live in the Prostakovs and Skotinins!

“From our surname Prostakovs,” the owner of the estate says proudly, “look, lying on your side, they fly to their ranks. Why is their Mitrofanushka worse?

Satisfied with life and Skotinin. Starodum, Sophia's uncle, he impudently advises:

"Skotinin. Embracing me tighter, say: Sofyushka is yours.

Starodum. Do you want to start something empty? Think well.

Skotinin. I never think and am sure in advance that if you don’t think, then my Sofyushka is mine.

Eager to get rid of studies, even if this is a parody of her, Mitrofan. To throw off this burden, and with it the guardianship of the parent, to live for his own pleasure: to sleep, eat and mess around is his sweet dream. “The hour of my will has come,” he announces to his mother. “I don’t want to study, I want to get married.”

The whole family, of course, well learned the rights of the nobility - to rule over the peasants and domestic servants, tear three skins from one and push others around. How to manage is a simple science for the Skotinins and Prostakovs, just according to their mind.

"Skotinin. ... I don't like to bother, and I'm afraid. No matter how much the neighbors offended me, no matter how much damage they did, I didn’t hit anyone with my forehead, and any loss, than to go after him, I’ll tear off my own peasants, and the ends are in the water.

Prostakov. That's true, brother: the whole neighborhood says that you are a masterful collector of dues.

Ms Prostakova. At least you taught us, brother father; and we can't. Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can no longer tear anything off. Such a disaster!

The yard servants on the estate are not at all considered people. To scold a servant, to give a thrashing, to arrange a scolding, to leave him starving - everything is in the will of the masters. The old nanny Mitrofana Eremeevna complains about her share:

“Not easy will not clean me up! I have been serving for forty years, but the mercy is still the same ... ”And to Kuteikin’s question:“ Is goodness great? - replies: "Five rubles a year, and five slaps a day ...".

Actually, the entire action of the play is a series of stupid conversations between Prostakovs and Skotinin, curses that they bring down on the heads of their slaves, and cruel antics. When the mistress of the estate fails to forcefully marry Sophia with her son, she threatens:

“Mrs. Prostakova. Well! Now I will let the canals open to my people. Now I'm going to take them all one by one. Now I'm trying to figure out who let her out of her hands. No, scammers! No, thieves! I will not forgive a century, I will not forgive this ridicule.

Pravdin. And why do you want to punish your people?

Ms Prostakova. Ah, father, what is this question? Am I not powerful in my people too?

Pravdin. Do you think you have the right to fight when you want?

Skotinin. Isn't a nobleman free to beat a servant whenever he wants?

Pravdin. When he wants! So what is hunting? You are direct Skotinin. No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.

Ms Prostakova. Not free! The nobleman, when he wants, and the servants are not free to flog; Yes, why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?

Starodum. A master at interpreting decrees!

Ms Prostakova. If you please, mock, but now I'm all head to head ... ".

Mitrofan learned the same habits and words from childhood. To the nanny, who asks him, an overgrown lazy person, to learn more "at least a little bit", he threatens to throw:

“Well, say another word, you old bastard! I'll finish them off; I will again complain to my mother, so she will deign to give you a task in yesterday's way.

In a word, the author of "Undergrowth" presented to his contemporaries images drawn with a satirical pen and at the same time very lively and typical. Such people could not see themselves in the Fonvizin mirror, since they were not interested in the theater and did not read books, but the educated, and even more so the upper circle of the nobility, recognized the vices of their class in comedy.

Belinsky was probably right when, looking back at the past century, he wrote:

“Fonvizin is the first gifted comedian in Russian literature ... In his person, Russian literature seemed to have taken a huge step closer to reality prematurely: his writings are a living chronicle of that era.”

And yet - in another article: “In general, for me Kantemir and Fonvizin, especially the last one, are the most interesting writers of the first periods of our literature: they tell me not about sky-high exaggerations on the occasion of flat illuminations, but about living reality that historically existed, about the mores of society , which is so unlike our society, but which was his own grandfather ... "

But in addition to a correct view of "living reality", the writers of the eighteenth century sought to establish in Russian literature the "social direction". As Belinsky's contemporary, critic K. Aksakov, noted, “the subject of Russian comedy is not an individual, but society, public evil, public lies. These are "Undergrowth" and "Foreman", "Sneak", "Woe from Wit", "Inspector", "Players". This is a purely Aristophanean quality of comedy.

It was not enough for Fonvizin to “execute the ignorance” of the local nobility, he needed to express his ideal of Russian life, his idea of ​​how to serve the fatherland, manage the household, teach and educate children, treat people of the lower classes. The comedian makes the spokesmen for his views enlightened people close to him in position and upbringing - the official Pravdin, the rich and honest nobleman Starodum, the officer Milon. All of them, by coincidence, find themselves in the village of the Prostakovs, watching the life of the inhabitants of the estate. Their trial of ignorance, stupidity, bar cruelty is the trial of the author himself. But if the Prostakovs and Skotinin are drawn with artistic expressiveness, with memorable characters, then Starodum, Pravdin and Milon are perceived as abstract heroes, designed to show the reader and viewer the author's attitude to what is moral and what is immoral. The topics of their monologues are very diverse - from family rules to the state system, from the generosity of the rich to the modesty and obedience of the poor, from the benefits of good manners to the disastrous debauchery. They vied with each other to give “lessons of good manners”:

"Pravdin. Human misfortunes, of course, are caused by their own corruption; but ways to make people kind...

Starodum. They are in the hands of the sovereign. How soon everyone sees that without good manners no one can go out into the world; that neither vile service nor any amount of money can buy that which rewards merit; that people are chosen for places, and not places are stolen by people - then everyone finds his own advantage in being well-behaved and everyone becomes good.

And then about home teaching and education:

"Starodum. We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad education. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? How many noble fathers who entrust the moral upbringing of their son to their serf slave! Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out, an old uncle and a young master.

Pravdin. But persons of a higher state enlighten their children...

Starodum. So, my friend; yes, I would like that in all sciences the main goal of all human knowledge, morality, is not forgotten. Believe me that science in a depraved person is a fierce weapon to do evil. Enlightenment elevates one virtuous soul. I would like, for example, that when educating the son of a noble gentleman, his mentor every day unfolded History for him and showed him two places in it: in one, how great people contributed to the good of their fatherland; in another, like an unworthy nobleman, who used his power of attorney and power for evil, from the height of his magnificent nobility fell into the abyss of contempt and reproach.

Each of these characters touches on one side of public morality that is close to him. Pravdin, as a representative of the governor, a high-ranking official, speaks of the need to “destroy rooted prejudices” that harm the fatherland, about contempt for flatterers who seek benefits from the throne, etc.

Starodum, who served at the court and retired, according to his story, retired to Siberia, "where they get money without vile length of service, without robbing the fatherland"; he made capital there and now passes it on to his niece Sofya, an orphan.

This one devotes his monologues to honest nobility and unbought ranks, depravity and virtue, family strife and love in marriage; it seems that there is no such moral question on which he would not express his opinion. Most of the aphorisms in the comedy belong to him: “Only those who are in ranks not according to money, but in nobility not according to ranks are worthy of sincere respect”; “... virtue replaces everything, and nothing can replace virtue”; the flatterer strives “first to blind the mind of a person, and then to make of it what he needs. He is a night thief who first extinguishes the candle, and then begins to steal”; “... people are chosen for places, and not places are stolen by people”, etc., etc.

Officer Milon, of course, talks about military topics and also smartly, morally, instructing young men: a man in uniform "for the benefit and glory of the fatherland is not afraid to forget his own glory"; “... the courage of the heart is proved in the hour of battle, and the fearlessness of the soul in all trials, in all situations of life”; there is no difference "between the fearlessness of a soldier who, on an attack, dares his life along with others, and between the fearlessness of a statesman who tells the truth to the sovereign, daring to anger him."

Reading The Undergrowth, you see two features of this comedy, perhaps sharply different from each other, but bizarrely combined in it: the authenticity of its everyday pictures, its types, snatched from Russian life, and the artificiality of the reasoners, their puppet figures and didactic speeches. A bold, witty satirist and a well-intentioned dignitary close to the court came together in the author. His Pravdin, for example, was generally suggested by one of Catherine's innovations of the time.

Six years before the publication of Fonvizin's comedy, the empress established a governorship. Every two or three provinces began to be ruled by governors in addition to governors; these senior officials represented the royal power in their territory. The governor was supposed to be "the guardian of the issued legalization, the intercessor for the common good and the state, the intercessor of the oppressed." The duty of the new administration, supervising the provinces and their officials, was charged with "suppressing all kinds of abuses, and most of all, immeasurable and ruinous luxury, curbing excesses, debauchery, extravagance, tyranny and cruelty." (Note in brackets that those that appeared in modern Russia federal districts- this is not an invention of the current government.)

Pravdin is the official of the new tsarist administration; the author of the comedy, so to speak, clearly shows the crowned reformer and her court how beneficently her appointees began to act. Pravdin energetically used his powers when, at the end of the play, he declared to Prostakov: “In the name of the government, I order you to immediately gather your people and peasants to announce to them a decree that for the inhumanity of your wife, to which your extreme weak-mindedness allowed her, the government orders me to take in guardianship of your house and villages. The tyrants-bars were removed from the management of their estate, Mitrofan was sent to serve, Sophia was transferred to the beneficent groom Milon ...

Denis Fonvizin presented Russian life in a satirical mirror. The author's gaze was poisonously mocking, bitterly watching the stupid and senseless existence of the estate, which was considered the hope of the state. So far, this has been an appeal to the most educated and understanding of the author's contemporaries. There was no sharpness of the rebel in the comedy, because this trait seemed to the perspicacious person dangerous for the people's existence. But in his writing there was a rejection of the state of affairs that had developed in the fatherland, the courage with which the bitter truth was expressed. And this, combined with a brilliant satirical talent, with the artistic talent of the author, made Fonvizin one of the first classics of Russian literature.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is one of the most prominent literary figures of the 18th century. His love for the theater was born in his youth, and the talent of the future playwright was noticed by his gymnasium teachers.

Over time, Fonvizin's enlightening views deepened, his desire to intervene with his works in the thick of Russian events grew stronger. public life. Fonvizin is rightfully considered the creator of Russian social and political comedy. His famous play "Undergrowth" turned the Prostakovs' estate into a center of vices, "malice of worthy fruits," which the playwright denounces with his usual slander, sarcasm, and irony. "Undergrowth" is a multi-dark work. Here questions are raised about the steady performance of the "position" by each citizen, about the nature family relations in contemporary Russian author, about the system of upbringing and education. But the main ones, undoubtedly, are the problems of serfdom and state power. In the very first act, we find ourselves in an atmosphere of landlord arbitrariness. Trishka sewed Mitrofan's caftan "quite a bit", but this does not save him from scolding and flogging. The old nanny Mitrofana Yeremeevna is immensely devoted to her masters, but receives from them "five rubles a year and five slaps a day." Prostakov is outraged that the serf girl Palashka, having fallen ill, lies, "as if noble." The arbitrariness of the landowners led to the complete impoverishment of the peasants. “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear anything off. Such a disaster! - Prostakova complains. But the landowners are firmly aware that they are protected by the entire system of state power. It was the social structure of Russia that allowed the Prostakovs and Skotinins to dispose of their estates in their own way.

Throughout the comedy, Fonvizin emphasizes the "bestial" essence of Prostakova and her brother. It even seems to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he is a "fairy with horses." Mitrofan will not be any better either. The author does not just make a mockery of his "knowledge" in the sciences, unwillingness to learn. Fonvizin sees that the same cruel serf-owner lives in him.

A huge influence on the formation of people like Mitrofan, according to the author, is exerted not only by the general situation in the noble estates, but also by the adopted system of education and upbringing. The upbringing of young nobles was carried out by ignorant foreigners. What could Mitrofan learn from the coachman Vralman? Could such nobles become the backbone of the state? The group of positive characters in the play is represented by the images of Pravdin, Starodum, Milon and Sophia. It was extremely important for a classicist writer not only to show social vices, but also to identify the ideal to which one should strive. On the one hand, Fonvizin denounces the state order, on the other hand, the author gives a kind of instruction on what a ruler and society should be like. Starodum expounds the patriotic views of the best part of the nobility, expresses topical political thoughts. By introducing into the play the scene of the deprivation of Prostakova's master's rights, Fonvizin suggests to the audience and the government one of the possible ways to suppress the arbitrariness of the landowners. Note that this step of the writer was disapprovingly met by Catherine II, who directly let the writer feel it. The Empress could not help but see in the comedy "Undergrowth" a sharp satire on the most terrible vices of the empire. Fonvizin's sarcasm was also reflected in the work entitled "The General Court Grammar", compiled in the form of a textbook. The writer gives apt descriptions of court morals, reveals the vices of the representatives of the upper class. Calling his grammar "universal", Fonvizin emphasized that these features are characteristic of monarchical rule in general. He calls the courtiers flatterers, sycophants, scoundrels. The satirist divides the people living at the court into “vowels”, “vowelless” and “semivowels”, and considers the verb “to be due” to be the most common, although debts are not paid at court. Catherine never saw humility from Fonvizin, and therefore soon his works ceased to appear in print. But Russia knew them because they were on the lists. And the satirist entered the consciousness of his generation as a bold exposer of the vices of society. Not without reason Pushkin called him "a friend of freedom", and Herzen put the comedy "Undergrowth" on a par with Gogol's "Dead Souls".

It seems to me that the great Russian writer and poet Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin called Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin not without reason - "The brave master of satire." It was Fonvizin who at one time founded such a trend in literature as Russian realism. In his work, the writer managed to raise the vices of society, especially the ruling classes of Russia, to the surface. He fought against injustice and arbitrariness of the state. Fonvizin was an amazingly observant writer, he managed to reflect in his work those problem areas of society that no one had spoken about before him. As soon as he saw any manifestation of lawlessness and injustice, a new and very accurate satire came out from under his pen, exposing this.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin did not have to invent the characters of his works - he observed their vices and themselves in his life. The writer tried to show his readers how the lack of concepts of morality and morality “brutes” a person, turns him into a stupid animal. It is from here, according to the author, that the unjustified cruelty of the landowners towards their serfs comes.

I really like the satire of Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. He was honest with his readers, and was not afraid of responsibility for his works, he brought people the truth! And, in my humble opinion, he was absolutely right when he called Fonvizin "The Bold Master of Satire." It is impossible to describe it better!

Among the young men described in the famous Lomonosov ode of 1747, who love science and want to serve in this field of the new Russia, we see the Russian nobleman and descendant of the German knights Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745-1792), a brilliant playwright and prose writer. He entered the gymnasium at Moscow University, and then, under the patronage of I.I. Shuvalov, became his student, played on the stage of the local amateur theater, began literary studies early, printing his translations from German. Young Fonvizin learned a lot from the intelligent and knowledgeable German professor I. Reichel and showed an extraordinary ability for foreign languages.

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

Fonvizin followed the path of enlightenment designated by Lomonosov, but chose one from his system of “three calms” - the element of the living Russian word, which the nobility, especially the provincial, clergy and educated raznochintsy, continued to speak. More precisely, the playwright created the language of Russian drama, correctly understanding it as the art of the word and a mirror of society and man. He did not at all consider this language ideal and final, but his heroes as positive characters. As a member of the Russian Academy, the writer was seriously engaged in the study and improvement of his modern language.

Fonvizin's satire is directed both at people and at their language (this can already be seen in the early Brigadier, where the ignorant and rude brigadier and brigadier with their archaic sayings, and their stupid, Frenchized son Ivanushka and the cutesy fashionista adviser are equally funny), moreover , she skillfully uses their language as an instrument of satirical characteristics. But the playwright wanted to portray, that is, to make his living contemporaries act and speak on the stage and their true oral language. And already in the "Brigadier" he succeeded completely. The enlightened boss and patron of Fonvizin, Count N.I. Panin, after reading the comedy at the court of Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich, correctly remarked to the author: “You know our morals very well, for your Brigadier is your relatives to everyone ... This is the first comedy in our morals.”

The theater of classicism, where the French pseudo-historical tragedy in verse and Russian imitations of it reigned, could not embody the innovative ideas of Fonvizin the playwright, moreover, satire was then considered the lowest kind of literature. The writer knew new Russia and understood the nature of the theater as a public spectacle, among his friends were the best actors of that time F.G. Volkov and I.A. Dmitrevsky, the future performer of the role of Starodum. Fonvizin himself possessed an extraordinary gift as an actor and reader. Hence the huge success of his first comedy "The Brigadier" (1768-1769), which was read by the author to the Empress, Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich and many nobles and staged in the court theater.

A fascinating, rapidly developing plot, sharp retorts, bold comic positions, individualized colloquial speech of characters, an evil satire on the Russian nobility, mockery of the fruits of the French enlightenment - all this was new and attractive and at the same time familiar, recognizable to the listeners and viewers of "The Brigadier ". The young Fonvizin attacked the noble society and its vices, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, the plague of ignorance and serfdom that struck people's minds and souls. He showed this dark kingdom as a stronghold of heavy tyranny, everyday household cruelty, immorality and lack of culture. The theater as a means of social public satire required characters and language understandable to the audience, acute topical problems, recognizable conflicts. All this is in the famous comedy Fonvizin "Undergrowth", which is staged today.

The comedy was written in 1779-1781 and staged in 1782. By this time, Fonvizin had already completed his official and court career and was forced to retire in the no small rank of a state adviser, in fact, it was disgrace. In the service of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, he was the right hand of Vice-Chancellor N.I. Panin, that is, in fact, the first deputy minister of foreign affairs and largely determined foreign policy Russian Empire. Fonvizin was appreciated and brought closer to himself by the intelligent and enlightened heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. At first, Empress Catherine, herself a writer and comedian, also favorably treated the witty author of The Brigadier.

But bold journal speeches, dangerous proximity to the disgraced heir to the throne, Princess E.R. Dashkova, Count G. Orlov and Panin, the head of the anti-Catherine opposition, the political and personal conflict with the all-powerful, interfered with Fonvizin’s court and literary career and finally quarreled him with the suspicious empress, who , as Pushkin rightly noted, she was afraid of his influence on state affairs and the merciless talent of a satirist. The sharp tongue of the mocking writer also helped.

The author of The Brigadier has also changed. His youthful fascination with the ideas of the French Enlightenment gave way to disillusionment and skepticism after a trip to France in 1777-1778. And, finally, the Pugachev uprising forced Fonvizin to reconsider a lot in his educational ideas and ideals, he doubted the Russian nobility as the foremost force of society, its very ability to enlighten and effectively manage its vast state - the military-feudal Russian Empire, its estates and peasants.

All this was reflected in the "folk" (Pushkin) comedy "Undergrowth". However, contemporaries, seeing her in the theater, at first laughed heartily, but then they were horrified, experienced deep sadness and called Fonvizin's cheerful play a modern Russian tragedy. Pushkin left for us the most valuable testimony about the then spectators: “My grandmother told me that in the performance of Undergrowth there was a stampede in the theater - the sons of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, who came to serve from the steppe villages, were present here - and, consequently, they saw relatives and friends in front of them , your family." Fonvizin's comedy was a faithful satirical mirror, for which there is nothing to blame. “The strength of the impression is that it is made up of two opposite elements: laughter in the theater is replaced by heavy reflection upon leaving it,” historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about The Undergrowth. Such was precisely the impact on the public of Gogol's The Inspector General.

Gogol, Fonvizin’s student and heir, aptly called “Undergrowth” a truly social comedy: “Fonvizin’s comedy strikes the coarse brutality of a person that came from a long, insensitive, unshakable stagnation in the remote corners and backwoods of Russia ... There is nothing caricature in it: everything is taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul. Realism and satire help the author of the comedy to talk about the fate of education in Russia. Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, called education "the key to the welfare of the state." And all the comic and tragic circumstances described by him and the very characters of negative characters can be safely called the fruits of ignorance and malevolence.

For, having visited the landlord estate of the Prostakov nobles, the viewer saw the whole of noble Russia in its tyranny, disrespect for the law and the rights of other people, self-satisfied ignorance, self-interest, some kind of simple-hearted cruelty and worldly egoistic cunning. The “education” of the minor Mitrofan and his pseudo-teacher, the German coachman Vralman, the retired sergeant Tsifirkin and the seminarian Kuteikin, showed the entire decline of Russian education, which led to the moral decline of the nobles, their oblivion of their main, honorary position - service to the fatherland. The underage's father cannot read Starodum's letter, because he is illiterate. And the very name of Uncle Taras Skotinin and his boundless love for pigs clearly indicate the extreme limits of this moral coarsening and fall.

It should be noted that the “Undergrowth” directly begins with a conversation about teaching, witty playing on the folk saying about Trishkin’s caftan. Mrs. Prostakova seriously, with her characteristic ingenuous stubbornness, assures the negligent serf tailor Trishka that learning to sew caftans is not at all necessary. Already Peter the Great was faced with severe distrust and dislike for any teaching, this national feature his lazy subjects and, under pain of punishment, obliged them to study. It is known that this decree of his met with the hidden, but desperate resistance of the nobles, who, like Mitrofanushka, saw in the teaching only punishment, who considered science unnecessary, a non-noble affair.

In Fonvizin's comedy there are clear traces of this stubborn resistance: an illiterate bribe-taker, the father of Prostakova and Taras Skotinin, said: "I'll curse a robin who takes something from the infidels." His daughter is more cunning, she understands that her spoiled and lazy son Mitrofanushka must somehow meet the formal requirements of the government for a nobleman, but she also teaches him formally, without bothering the overgrown "child" with a load of serious knowledge and giving him semi-literate "teachers", serfs uncles and nannies: "Without the sciences, people live and lived." According to Prostakova's resolute opinion, sciences are stupid and not of the nobility, the nobleman does not need and useless, like geography, the science of cabbies.

That is, the lazy and arrogant, but worldly very smart Mitrofanushka is taught not the sciences and moral rules, but namely immorality, deceit, disrespect for his duty as a nobleman and his own father, the ability to bypass all the laws and rules of society and the state for his own convenience and benefit. This rude and idler is not stupid, he is also cunning, he thinks practically, he sees that material well-being Prostakov does not depend on their enlightenment and official zeal, but on the intrepid impudence of his mother, on the bribery of his father, on the deft robbing of a distant relative of Sophia and the merciless robbery of his peasants. Why should he diligently study and honestly serve the fatherland for many years, if he can immediately marry a rich heiress and, without serving, according to the famous decree on the freedom of the nobility, live freely on his estate and oppress the serfs?

Mitrofan, his illiterate father, downtrodden by an energetic wife, a criminal (because she easily commits criminal offenses) mother and her evil and greedy brother Taras Skotinin make up a picturesque group of negative characters. These are the brightest representatives of the “wild nobility” (Pushkin), described with amazing realism, the fathers of Griboyedov’s bars and the grandfathers of the characters in Gogol’s Dead Souls. All of them are enemies of enlightenment and the law, they bow only to power and wealth, they are afraid only of material strength and they are cunning all the time, they achieve their benefits by all means, guided only by their practical mind and their own interest. They simply do not have morality, ideas, ideals, any moral foundations, not to mention the knowledge and respect for laws.

Prostakova asks the honest official Pravdin, who took her estate into custody, a very important question for Russia: “Are all decrees being executed?” She and her relatives are well aware that not everyone believes that no one needs laws in real Russian life, they can always be successfully circumvented or turned in their favor, if there were money and connections in the spheres. Therefore, they always find themselves in comic situations that clearly reveal their gross tyranny, malice, ignorance, disrespect for other people and laws, self-interest. This revealing comedy is driven by the satire of Fonvizin, who managed to show the psychology and morality, or rather, the immorality of the whole class, the foundations of the empire, in the impudent and rude struggle of the feral landowners for the dowry of a rich bride.

The central figure of this group, the main character of Fonvizin's play, is the truly immortal Mrs. Prostakova. She immediately becomes the mainspring driving the stage action, because in this provincial noblewoman there is some kind of powerful vitality, which is not enough not only for positive characters, but also for her lazy egoistic son and pig-like brother. “This face in comedy is unusually well conceived psychologically and excellently sustained dramatically,” said historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, a connoisseur of the era, about Prostakova. Yes, it is a character in the full sense of the negative. But the whole point of Fonvizin's comedy is that his lady Prostakova is a living person, a purely Russian type, and that all the spectators knew this type personally and understood that, leaving the theater, they would inevitably meet with the prostakov ladies in real life and will be defenseless.

From morning to evening, this woman fights, puts pressure on everyone, oppresses, orders, monitors, cunning, lies, swears, robs, beats, even the rich and influential Starodum, state official Pravdin and officer Milon with a military team cannot appease her. At the heart of this living, strong, quite popular character is monstrous tyranny, fearless arrogance, greed for the material goods of life, the desire that everything be according to her liking and will. But this evil cunning creature is a mother, she selflessly loves her Mitrofanushka and does all this for the sake of her son, causing him terrible moral harm.

“This insane love for her offspring is our strong Russian love, which in a man who has lost his dignity has expressed itself in such a perverted form, in such a wonderful combination with tyranny, so that the more she loves her child, the more she hates everything that do not eat her child, ”Gogol wrote about Prostakova. For the sake of her son's material well-being, she throws her fists at her brother, is ready to grapple with Milon armed with a sword, and even in a hopeless situation wants to buy time to bribe, threaten and appeal to influential patrons to change the official court verdict on the guardianship of her estate, announced by Pravdin. Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some kind of laws and rules of education: “What I want, I will put on my own.”

It is clear that in this she stubbornly and consciously opposes Starodum and his like-minded people, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon. To all their eloquent sermons about the need to combine education with high morality, she responded with the famous phrase about stupid and "non-noble" sciences that are unnecessary and even harmful in real life. Son Prostakov teaches, as you know, immorality, the ability to serve only his own personal benefit and will.

Here, in Fonvizin's comedy, the key to understanding this entire era is the word "Liberty", which became the name of the famous odes of Radishchev and Pushkin. In the Russian political vocabulary, it is inextricably linked with the equally significant word "Law", which is also usually written with a capital letter. And there was a name connecting these two important words, which is also “Undergrowth”, all the nobles and literate people of Russia know the name of the famous decree of the good and unfortunate Emperor Peter III of 1762 - “The Law on the Liberty of the Nobility”.

Prostakova, experienced in bribery and using personal connections, speaks about him, defending her innate cruelty, crimes and tyranny: “Am I not powerful in my people?” The noble but naive Pravdin objects to her: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize.” And here the mistress of everyday domestic lawlessness and violence suddenly refers to the law: “Not free! The nobleman, when he wants, and the servants are not free to flog; but why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility? The astonished Starodum and, together with him, the author exclaim only: “The master of interpreting decrees!”

Subsequently, Klyuchevsky correctly said: “It's all about the last words of Mrs. Prostakova; they have the whole meaning of the drama and the whole drama in them ... She wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness. Prostakova does not want to recognize any obligations of the nobility, calmly violates the law of Peter the Great on the compulsory education of the nobles, knows only her rights, interpreted by her very freely and always in her favor and from real laws, including the law on the freedom of the nobility, which have gone far . In her person, the whole service class refuses to fulfill the laws of their country, their duty and duties, the position of nobility, so valued by Fonvizin. There is no need to talk about some kind of noble honor, personal dignity, faith and loyalty, mutual respect, serving the state interests.

Fonvizin saw what this led to in practice: to state collapse, immorality, lies and venality, favoritism, ruthless oppression of serfs, general theft and the Pugachev uprising. Therefore, he wrote about Catherine’s Russia: “A state in which the most respectable of all states, which is supposed to defend the fatherland, together with the sovereign and its corps to represent the nation, guided by honor alone, the nobility, already exists in name and is sold to every scoundrel who robbed the fatherland.

This was said in the comedy by its positive characters. They were often called pale, sketchy, stilted, mouthpieces of author's ideas. Partly it is. Starodum and his associates speak and teach from the stage. But such were the laws of the then dramaturgy: in the "classic" play there were always reasoning heroes who delivered monologues-teachings "from the author." Behind Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia and Milon stands, of course, Fonvizin himself with his rich experience of state and court service and the unsuccessful struggle for his noble educational ideas in the highest spheres of immoral power.

But in the speeches of the Starodum, another view was expressed on the duty of an enlightened sovereign, the appointment of the nobility and on education, arguing with the "ideas" of Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin's satire is not an end in itself, it opens the way for positive values ​​and ideas, his political and educational views. And these are not only the views of the author, but also the political program of the entire anti-Catherine noble opposition, from N.I. Panin to, who sympathetically quoted "Undergrowth" and Fonvizin's handwritten "General Court Grammar" in "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow." No wonder later Fonvizin was going to publish the magazine "Friend of honest people, or Starodum." But the police in 1788 banned the printing of the magazine. This means that the writer and the character of his comedy had many like-minded people among enlightened, opposition-minded Russians.

Starodum, like Fonvizin himself, served at the court of the sovereign and was expelled for excessive frankness, honesty and loyalty to the idea of ​​serving the nobleman to the fatherland. He tells Pravdin about the imperial court as a place of a cynical struggle of personal interests, where people strive to destroy each other, they only care about themselves and the present hour, they don’t think about their ancestors or descendants, but only about their own material well-being and personal career. Disinterested deeds, personal virtues, education, intelligence and nobility are not valued. Starodum does not say directly that this is the direct fault of the monarch who allows and encourages all these unworthy deeds and thoughts, but this was already clear to all viewers.

The Undergrowth contains a prophetic lesson to kings that sounds like a warning. The character of Fonvizin paints a portrait of an ideal enlightened monarch who does not allow court flatterers to deceive him, humiliate and humiliate others: “A great sovereign is a wise sovereign. His business is to show people their direct benefit ... A sovereign worthy of the throne seeks to elevate the souls of his subjects. Starodum also said about the ideal, honest and wise nobleman, who is distinguished by "the fearlessness of a statesman who tells the truth to the sovereign, daring to anger him."

An enlightened sovereign must govern enlightened subjects on the basis of a "firm statute." The very existence of simpletons and skotinins on the stage and in Russian life shows that this is not really the case. But the Russian educator and nobleman Fonvizin proves with all his comedy that everyone, and, above all, the enlightened sovereign (that is, Catherine II) and the nobility honestly fulfilling their position, must strive for this in all areas of imperfect Russian life.

The path to this is reasonable education, striving for good manners and virtue in the study of all sciences: “Believe me that science in a depraved person is a fierce weapon to do evil. Enlightenment elevates one virtuous soul.” Free and owning peasants can only be enlightened, highly moral, aware of their state position, the nobility. The example of Mitrofanushka clearly shows what wrong, purely formal education by ignorant teachers and upbringing by immoral parents can lead to: “We see all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. A nobleman, unworthy of being a nobleman! I don't know anything better than him." But the theme of the play is not only the improper upbringing and education of the landowner's son Mitrofanushka and the ignorance of his parents and "teachers".

"Undergrowth" was written in the Age of Enlightenment, but it is in this comedy that the satire on false enlightenment and ignorance develops into disturbing doubts about the correctness of the most general idea of ​​this century, the teachings of the Enlightenment philosophers whom Fonvizin met in Paris and other cities of Western Europe. Starodum says to the educated Sophia, who reads French books on education: “I am afraid for you of the current wise men. I happened to read from them everything that was translated into Russian. True, they strongly eradicate prejudices, but bring back virtue from the root.

These thoughts are developed by the writer in his famous essay "Letters from France" (1777-1778). It clearly indicates the movement of minds and ideas in Western Europe, which inevitably led from the age of the Enlightenment and the scholarly disputes of the encyclopedists to the bloody drama of the Great French Revolution: I have sincere respect for them… Arrogance, envy and deceit are their main character… Everyone lives for himself alone.”

Starodum speaks of French enlighteners personally known to Fonvizin, whose names and writings are unknown to Mitrofanushka and Mrs. Prostakova. Fonvizin in The Undergrowth clearly expresses his doubts about the most important idea of ​​the Age of Enlightenment, he believes that this is false enlightenment, half-enlightenment, because in its egoism and arrogance it forgot about morality, selfless virtue, service, loyalty and honor. The Age of Enlightenment called itself the age of reason and did not respect faith and morality. “With fugitive minds, we see bad husbands, bad fathers, bad citizens. Righteousness gives a direct price to the mind. Without it, a smart person is a monster. It is immeasurably higher than all the fluency of the mind, ”Starodum says about the main moral flaw of European education. It also gave birth to the self-satisfied "Russian Frenchman" Ivanushka from the "Brigadier" and Mitrofanushka, a worthy son of his illiterate, cruel and criminal mother.

And, finally, Fonvizin, through the mouth of Starodum, not only answers Prostakova’s words about the decree on the freedom of the nobility, but also directly speaks about the main reason for the damage to the morals and the very existence of the Prostakovs, Skotinins and Mitrofanushki: “It is illegal to oppress your own kind with slavery.” When Prostakova is informed about the serious illness of the serf girl Palashka, she shouts in a rage: “Oh, she is a beast! Lies! As if noble! On such an inhuman psychology and tyranny, on such an “understanding” of the equality of people, an enlightened state cannot be based and reasonably and stably exist, and no enlightened monarch will make wild feudal lords and illiterate cruel oppressors law-abiding and noble nobles, his reliable support: “On democracy and the land cannot be likened, where the people, groveling in the darkness of the deepest ignorance, silently bear the burden of cruel slavery.

Fonvizin predicts that such a despotic state, deprived of laws, genuine enlightenment, citizens and honest defenders, will inevitably collapse under the combined blows of various discontented classes, will come to confusion and a merciless Russian revolt, and through bloody chaos and anarchy will again return to the most cruel despotism. He rises in his noble revolutionary spirit to the idea of ​​the right of the people to rise up against their oppressors.

Fonvizin, as a statesman, a politician with great experience and a brilliant writer, put a lot of his cherished and deep thoughts and very serious predictions into the cheerful satire comedy "Undergrowth", but all of them are hidden in the depths of the artistic images of the play. His satire gives rise to laughter, replacing indignation and deep sadness. For the audience saw on the stage not Griboyedov's Frenchman from Bordeaux, but themselves, their loved ones, familiar types of Russian people. They suddenly realized that they were laughing at themselves.

Fonvizin's judgments about the Russian state, serfdom, nobility and enlightenment were truly revolutionary, for they passionately and convincingly demanded quick and decisive changes in all spheres of Russian life. Russian people were not familiar with most of these judgments, but every viewer and reader of The Undergrowth is familiar with the final conclusions of the great writer, who took the form of Prostakova, Mitrofanushka and Skotinin, from childhood. And this makes Fonvizin's truly artistic satire a remarkable, in no way obsolete literary document of great social and political significance, without which the entire 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment, the history of Russia, its present and future are incomprehensible.

P.S. Since there are many historical details and obsolete words in Fonvizin's plays and prose, we advise you to read them only in an annotated edition intended for schoolchildren. See: Fonvizin D.I. Brigadier. Undergrowth. General Court Grammar. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. M., 2001.

Historical lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. Article "Fonvizin".
Klyuchevsky V.O. literary portraits. M., 1991. Chapter about the "Undergrowth" Fonvizin.
Makogonenko G.P. Denis Fonvizin. Creative way. M.-L., 1961.
Pigarev K.V. Creativity Fonvizin. M., 1954.
Sakharov V.I. Russian freemasonry in portraits. M., 2004. Chapter "The way up".
Strichek A. Denis Fonvizin. Russia of the Age of Enlightenment. M., 1994.

© Vsevolod Sakharov . All rights reserved.