Having studied jurisprudence and philosophy in France, familiarizing himself with the advanced educational doctrines of classicism, Denis Fonvizin returned to Russia at the end of 1778 and poured all his impressions into a comedy that he had been working on for about three years - âUndergrowthâ. This work began to receive reviews instantly, and not all of them brought goodness to the author. However, for more than two hundred years, "Undergrowth" has been a storehouse of aphorisms for each new generation, and reviews about it are still varied - from genuine admiration to complete misunderstanding.
Who is the undergrowth
The word itself - "undergrowth" - is currently used with exactly this meaning: ignoramus, ignoramus, idler. And in the eighteenth century, a nobleman who did not receive a written diploma (certificate) from his home teacher about his studies - this was a young man. Public reviews of such people were basically negative, they were not accepted into the public service even by adults.
They could not marry, because they could receive special permits - a crown memory - only when they reached adulthood. "I do not want to study, but I want to get married!" - declared Mitrofanushka. Fonvizin collected in his comedy a whole panopticon of exceptionally funny heroes who belonged to the most diverse social layers of society.
Comedy heroes
The civil servants, nobles, and servants, and serfs, and fashionable teachers were deduced by the author to everyoneâs surprise. Mother Mitrofanushkaâs mother is especially convex â the strict lady, even a cruel serfwoman, Mrs. Prostakova. But most interesting of all, of course, is Mitrofanushka himself (also a household name) - that same undergrowth. Reviews about the skill of Fonvizin left all the great writers of the future, including Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky, Herzen.
Prostakova managed everything and everything: an economy with domestic servants, whom she did not consider people to be, her own husband, whom she even beat, and the formation of Mitrofanushka, her undersized son. Reviews of modern schoolchildren say that this woman is simply wicked by nature. She is not only evil by nature. She is cruel because she considered scolding and fighting to be her duty: "That is how the house is held." Moreover, extremely stupid and ignorant. She allowed her son to know nothing. The main thing is that the appetite does not disappear.
Issue
Like almost all plays written in the era of classicism, and this one is fairly straightforward in terms of issues, it condemns the traditions of noble education, maliciousness, savagery. As in the works of the French classics of that time, it is very easy to divide the characters into negative and positive ones, without even starting to read the play itself, since the reader is told about everything by âspeakingâ names and surnames: Sophia - wisdom, Mitrofan - the appearance of the mother, Pravdin and Skotinin, Prostakov, Kuteikin, Vralman, Tsyfirkin, Milon and Starodum.
Moreover, the negative characters turned out to be particularly bright, convex and memorable, this is the whole performance of "Undergrowth". The reviews noted their incomparable popularity among the public, while positive characters became, rather, a mouthpiece for the author's participation and his point of view. However, liveliness of dialogues, humor, analysis of the text into quotes that quickly became proverbs, Fonvizinâs comedy âUndergrowthâ was not equal. Reviews of the work by the authorities, however, were not favorable.
Repression
Fonvizin was forever forbidden to publish his notes. Even scientific works relating to antiquity were not allowed to be printed, so this "Little Growth" frightened the nobility. The review of the book (translations of Tacitus) was given by Catherine the Second unequivocally - the book was banned, as was the magazine Starodum, which Fonvizin later wanted to publish. How he managed to achieve the production of this comedy in theaters is amazing. Of course, this was associated with huge and many difficulties. In 1782, a decisive refusal was received in St. Petersburg.
In the same year in Moscow, too. Theater censors were afraid of the courage of many remarks. Honestly, even now they would be scared if any author would have obtained a work of such revealing power as Fonvizinâs comedy âUndergrowthâ appeared. The recall would surely be the same. However, by hook or by crook, the production was possible to break through first in St. Petersburg, in the Free Russian Theater of Karl Knipper, then in the next year - in Moscow.
Theater in Petersburg
In the eighteenth century, PR also existed in its own way. The artists who read the play spoke about it everywhere, without touching the action, but with such enthusiasm that the very first production gathered simply never-before-seen crowds of people. The theater was crowded. Staroduma was performed by Dmitrievsky himself, who took an active part in advertising this comedy.
Other celebrities participated - Gamburov, Krutitsky, Rakhmanov. From the very first remarks, the audience began to laugh, applaud and throw purses on the stage. None of the plays that have been staged here have been as successful as Undergrowth. The review of the work was unanimous - this is a masterpiece. But the theater was almost immediately closed by imperial command.
Theater in Moscow
In Moscow, comedy was played at the Medox Theater, and success was just as huge. Then the delighted Moscow students embodied on their stage the comedy of D. I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". Feedback on the constantly repeating and still causing a laugh performance was constantly spreading. There are many amateur productions.
The fame of the author quickly reached the empress herself in his misfortune. Catherine the Great, as subsequently Gogol (who, incidentally, once played the role of Madame Prostakova in this performance), considered this work a caricature of Russian life. The reaction was stated above: to forbid to print everything from Fonvizin. And forever. The theater in St. Petersburg, which dared to stage the play first, was immediately closed.
Descendants
This comedy was studied in all subsequent times. Even historical anecdotes related to her productions have been compiled, a whole book has been compiled. For example, after the premiere, Prince Potemkin (according to another version Derzhavin himself) approaches the author and says: âDie, but you wonât write better than yourâ Undergrowth! â Reviews of the book with the play of Fonvizin are left by our contemporaries.
Eighteenth-century comedy language at its core, of course, seems archaic, but quotes that have become proverbs still delight. And this play will never come off the stage, since human vices that Fonvizin so skillfully ridiculed will always be relevant.
About proper education
He even called this comedy in connection with a special decree of Peter the Great, which ordered all noble children to be educated, otherwise they cannot serve, because they are not ready for adult and conscious activity. It is the viciousness of the upbringing of the noble children under serfdom that is the main problem raised by the author in the comedy "The Undergrowth".
A brief review can be made in this vein: education is the key to the moral image of the young generation. You canât trust the education of children to anybody: serf nannies, undereachable clerks, foreign impostors and ignoramuses. And the Prostakovs and the Skotinins can give society only Mitrofanushek, which is exactly what Fonvizinâs comedy âThe Youngerâ says.
Reviews
Reviews were written about the book by all the brightest minds of Russia. Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin called comedy the only monument to popular satire in the article "Refutation of Criticism." He admired Fonvizin and placed his literary skill very high. Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol says that what is written in a comedy only seems like a monstrous caricature of everything Russian, but in fact there is nothing caricatured there, since it was taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.
Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky wrote that "Undergrowth" will forever remain in the history of Russian literature and in the libraries of decent people. He did not consider this play a comedy in artistic significance (in classic comedies the intrigue usually did not concern social protests, it was usually a love line, everything was much easier to plot, and Fonvizin, despite the sparkling humor, the theme looms too serious). Belinsky believed that such beautiful works are precious evidence of the social life of his time.
Oh funny
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky wrote a lot about the comedy of Fonvizin, always with enthusiasm. He called this play an incomparable mirror of Russian reality, where everything is shown simply and directly, point blank, without glasses and even more than binoculars, without a look refracted by the points of view, and the artistic understanding completely reproduced without accountability. The heroes of the play were taken from everyday life, and Fonvizin did not cover them with literature, he didnât cultivate, he showed what he took, with troubles of relations, with untidy instincts and interests, as if he had released him from police supervision for a while, and returned them there too at the end of the work.
This is not a comedy of persons, this is a comedy of positions, according to Klyuchevsky. Because all the characters are comic, but not at all funny. That is, they are comical as roles, but as people they are not at all. On stage, such characters are amusing, but very upset and worried if you meet them outside the theater, in society or at home. This ignorance, this superficiality of education, this noble laziness and other qualities shown and ridiculous in comedy can never be ridiculous in life.
Writers about the author
Alexander Petrovich Pyatkovsky wrote in an article included in the book about Fonvizin that one of the characters in the play - Starodum - seems to him to be Fonvizin himself. In fact, he is not a retrograde, reveling in the memories of the good old days, and not a bruiser who looks with horror at the development of the thought of his century. Starodum (aka Fonvizin) admires the pets of Peter's time, who were able to raise their country to new heights.
In this, the influence of the ideas of contemporary authors of French writers, who did not like to invent some kind of artificial images, is clearly visible to them, life itself prompted them, she also directed the talent of Fonvizin. The fact that Fonvizin wrote an undisguised truth, not embellishing anything, not hyperbolizing, is also evident from other sources. The morals of the Russian nobility of the eighteenth century are confirmed in dozens of such directions - these are memoirs, these are satirical magazines of that time. There are a lot of evidence. But no one could make them so brilliantly intelligible.
Circle of questions
Fonvizin in his comedy answered all the questions that denoted his time, which worried advanced people. This is a social system and a state, this is the civic duties of every member of society, this is serfdom, this is raising children and, in fact, marriage and family. The closest of the predecessors of Pushkin and Gogol was able to raise the literary language to an unprecedented height, diversify it, equip its heroes with each intonation and its own vocabulary.
Let the positive characters in him turn out to be somewhat sketchy and not as individualized as the negative ones - they also convey very well the way of thinking and concepts of well-meaning people. Starodum directly sets forth the most cherished ideas of the author, positions himself as the enemy of the venality of the Catherine nobles, who received the ranks and estates for bootlicking and flattery. For the first time on the stage, it is shown how ordinary industriousness differs from such parasitism.
Social and Art
Serfdom is not directly condemned by the author, but violence and oppression are shown to them, that is, serfdom is already denied. People from the lower classes are also represented in a varied and interesting way - not according to the tradition of the French (their simpletons go on stage only for the amusement of the public, here they are unusually lively and cause either sympathy or indignation).
In a word, the artistic merits of Fonvizinâs comedy âUndergrowthâ are undeniable, they will have no less value in the most distant future times. A brilliant and bold satirist, the creator of "The Little Man" will remain one of the founders of Russian literature, a remarkable political writer and a truly great Russian enlightener.