The comedy “Minor” is a brilliant work by Fonvizin, in which the playwright portrayed bright, memorable characters whose names are in modern literature and the era have become household names. One of the main characters of the play is the mother of the undergrown Mitrofanushka - Mrs. Prostakova. According to the plot of the work, the heroine belongs to the negative characters. A rude, uneducated, cruel and selfish woman from the first scene evokes a negative attitude, and in some places even ridicule from readers. However, the image itself is subtly psychological and requires detailed analysis.
The fate of Prostakova
In the play, upbringing and heredity almost completely determine the future character and inclinations of the individual. And the image of Prostakova in the comedy “Minor” is no exception. The woman was raised in a family of uneducated landowners, whose main value was material wealth - her father even died on a chest of money. Prostakova inherited disrespect for others, cruelty towards peasants and the willingness to do anything for profit from her parents. And the fact that there were eighteen children in the family and only two of them survived - the rest died due to oversight - causes real horror.
Perhaps, if Prostakova had married an educated and more active man, the shortcomings of her upbringing would become less noticeable over time. However, she got a passive, stupid Prostakov as her husband, for whom it is easier to hide behind the skirt of an active wife than to solve economic issues himself. The need to manage an entire village herself and the old landowner's upbringing made the woman even more cruel, despotic and rude, strengthening everything negative qualities her character.
Considering the life story of the heroine, the ambiguous characterization of Prostakova in “The Minor” becomes clear to the reader. Mitrofan is the woman’s son, her only consolation and joy. However, neither he nor her husband appreciates the effort Prostakova expends on managing the village. It is enough to recall the well-known scene when, at the end of the play, Mitrofan abandons his mother, and the husband is only able to reproach his son - Prostakov also remains on the sidelines of her grief, not trying to console the woman. Even with all her grumpy character, Prostakova feels sorry for her, because her closest people abandon her.
Mitrofan's ingratitude: who is to blame?
As mentioned above, Mitrofan was Prostakova’s only joy. The woman’s excessive love turned him into a “mama’s boy.” Mitrofan is just as rude, cruel, stupid and greedy. At sixteen years old, he still resembles a small child who is naughty and runs around chasing pigeons instead of studying. On the one hand, excessive care and protecting the son from any worries real world may be connected with the tragic history of Prostakova’s own family - one child is not eighteen. However, on the other hand, it was simply convenient for Prostakova for Mitrofan to remain a big, weak-minded child.
As it becomes clear from the scene of the arithmetic lesson, when a woman solves the problems proposed by Tsyfirkin in her own way, the owner’s “own” landowner wisdom is the main one for her. Without any education, Prostakova resolves any situation by searching for personal gain. Obedient Mitrofan, who obeyed his mother in everything, should also have been a profitable investment. Prostakova doesn’t even spend money on his education - after all, firstly, she herself has lived well without burdensome knowledge, and, secondly, she knows better what her son needs. Even marrying Sophia would, first of all, replenish the coffers of the Prostakov village (remember that the young man does not even fully understand the essence of marriage - he is simply not yet mature enough to understand it mentally and morally).
In that in final scene Mitrofan’s refusal of his mother is undoubtedly Prostakova’s own fault. The young man learned from her disrespect for relatives and the need to stick to those who have money and power. That is why Mitrofan, without hesitation, agrees to serve with the new owner of the village of Pravdin. However, the main reason still lies in the general “evil nature” of the entire Skotinin family, as well as the stupidity and passivity of Prostakov, who could not become a worthy authority for his son.
Prostakova as a bearer of outdated morality
In "The Minor" Mrs. Prostakova is contrasted with two characters - Starodum and Pravdin. Both men are bearers of humane educational ideas, contrasting with outdated, landowner foundations.
According to the plot of the play, Starodum and Prostakova are parents of young people, but their approach to education is completely different. The woman, as mentioned earlier, pampers her son and treats him like a child. She doesn’t try to teach him anything; on the contrary, even during the lesson she says that he won’t need the knowledge. Starodum communicates with Sophia on equal terms, shares with her own experience, conveys her own knowledge and, most importantly, respects the individual in her.
Prostakova and Pravdin are contrasted as landowners, owners of large estates. The woman believes that beating her peasants, taking their last money, treating them like animals is quite normal. For her, the inability to punish the servants is as terrible as the fact that she lost her village. Pravdin is guided by new, educational ideas. He came to the village specifically to stop Prostakova’s cruelty and let people work in peace. By comparing two ideological directions, Fonvizin wanted to show how important and necessary educational reforms are Russian society that era.
Fonvizin's innovation in the portrayal of Prostakova
In "The Minor" Prostakova appears as an ambiguous character. On the one hand, she appears as a cruel, stupid, selfish representative of the old nobility and landowner principles. On the other hand, in front of us is a woman with difficult fate who suddenly loses everything that was valuable to her.
According to the canons of classic works, exposure and punishment negative characters in the final scene of the play should be fair and not cause sympathy. However, when at the end the woman loses absolutely everything, the reader feels sorry for her. The image of Prostakova in “The Minor” does not fit into the templates and framework of classic heroes. Psychologism and non-standard depiction of an essentially composite image (Prostakova is a reflection of an entire social layer of serf Russia in the 18th century) make it innovative and interesting even for modern readers.
The given description of Prostakova will help students in grades 8 and 9 to reveal the image of Mitrofan’s mother in their essay on the topic “Characterization of Prostakova in the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin”
Work test
What can you say about the methods of education in the Prostakov family?
A person is not born good or bad; moral qualities, character, interests and inclinations are formed in the family. Much depends on the parents, on the atmosphere that reigns in the house. Truly, education is “a great thing: it decides the fate of a person...”.
The comedy by D.I. is dedicated to the problem of education in the family of a Russian landowner. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". From the very first remark, the author introduces us to the atmosphere of a Russian landowner's estate. We meet Mrs. Prostakova, her husband, son Mitrofanushka. “Matriarchy” reigns in this family. Mrs. Prostakova, not being particularly intelligent or educated, keeps her entire family subordinate. Both the servants and Mitrofan’s nurse, old Eremeevna, get it from the wayward landowner. Prostakova's speech is dominated by abusive expressions; she treats her servants rudely, thereby setting a negative example for her own son. So, Eremeevna for her is a “beast”, the tailor Trishka is a “cattle”. The only person to whom her love is directed is her son Mitrofanushka.
This is a runt, a lazy, clumsy fellow who is not yet sixteen years old. Favorite activity his - to chase pigeons. Mitrofan is not particularly fond of science; he is not very successful in it. His speech contains colloquial expressions: “such rubbish”, “maybe”. Mrs. Prostakova, loving her son with all her heart, does not bother him with his studies and pampers him in every possible way. She is unable to instill in Mitrofan any positive qualities or concepts of morality, since she herself is deprived of them. The results of such an upbringing are deplorable: Mitrofanushka is not only ignorant, but also malicious and cunning. In this scene we see that he knows how to flatter his mother, skillfully playing on her feelings.
The hero appears in this scene as the favorite of his entire family. For his father, he is a “funny man” and an “entertainer”; his uncle characterizes Mitrofanushka as “mother’s son.” In fact, he is a slacker and a lazy person, a spoiled brat, accustomed to idleness, who quickly learned the customs of the family.
The hero-reasoner in the comedy is Sophia's uncle, Starodum, a character who is not present in this scene. However, we consider it necessary to mention it, revealing the author’s position in the comedy. “These are the fruits worthy of evil!” - he exclaims in the finale. This character expresses the author’s views in the play, arguing that a decent upbringing should be the key to the well-being of the state. Education should be high level, however, education has no value in itself. The main goal of all human knowledge is “good behavior”, “enlightenment elevates one virtuous soul.”
The tyrant landowner, Mrs. Prostakova, her brother Skotinin, who loves pigs, the lazy Mitrofanushka - everything is in this comedy, as N.V. notes. Gogol, “seems like a monstrous caricature of the Russian. And yet there is nothing caricatured in it: everything was taken alive from nature and verified by the knowledge of the soul.”
To be honest, one litter.
D. Fonvizin. Minor
D. I. Fonvizin - not only great playwright, but also advanced man of his century. He was the first in the history of drama to speak out against the brutal oppression of the masses and sharply denounced the autocracy and the reactionary policies of Empress Catherine II. “Satire is a brave ruler,” Pushkin called Fonvizin, and today we consider the author immortal comedy"Nedorosl" by one of the most progressive writers of the "satirical direction" of Russian literature XVIII century.
In the images of the Skotinin-Prostakov family, Fonvizin very expressively depicted the rudeness, cruelty, ignorance of the serf-owners, and the unlimited arbitrariness of the landowners' power.
Taras Skotinin is proud to belong to a “great and ancient family.” Why is he so great? Stupidity, stinginess, stubbornness. It’s scary that out of the “eighteen people” children of the Skotinin parents, only two remained, while the rest “by the power of God died.” And this was at a time when the father of the family saved money all his life, but was so stingy that he died of starvation without touching his wealth. The main distinguishing feature of the family, according to Prostakova (nee Skotinina): “We were not taught anything... and it wouldn’t be Skotinin who would want to learn something.” Brother and sister Taras Skotinin and Mrs. Prostakova faithfully fulfill this covenant.
Skotinin “hasn’t read anything in my life.” He is afraid of science and is glad that “God has saved me from this boredom.” Cruel, cowardly, narcissistic and self-confident, Skotinin does not notice his vices. It is easy for him to live in the world, since there is a science that he himself can teach anyone: he is a master of oppression, of collecting rent from peasants who are already robbed to the bone. Skotinin has a “death hunt” in his life - he loves pigs. The landowner's pigs have a free life, because he treats them “much better than people.” Skotinin even intends to get married at first not out of love for the girl and not because of the “orphan’s” dubious wealth, but because there are large pigs in her village. The landowner’s limitations are boundless, and he himself admits the reason for his strange attachment: “People in front of me are smart, but among the pigs I myself am smarter than everyone else.”
Is Mrs. Prostakova very different from her brother? One of the heroes calls her “a despicable fury,” “an inhuman mistress.” She is despotic and power-hungry, life is hard for the serfs in her house. She complains to her brother that “we took away everything that the peasants had, and we can no longer collect anything.” However, Prostakova does not treat her family much better than her serfs. Everyone gets it: the husband, the brother, and the teachers of Mitrofanushka’s beloved son. Prostakova is ignorant and uneducated, she doesn’t even know how to read letters: “Thank God, I’m not brought up like that. I can receive letters, but I always tell someone else to read them.” But, unlike her rather simple-minded brother, Prostakova perfectly knows how to be a hypocrite; she will never miss her benefit: she disposes of the estate of her sister-in-law Sophia, who was left an orphan, as her own, and is looking for a richer bride for her stupid son. Seeing that her plans are crumbling, she is even ready to use brute force against a weak girl and force her to marry her son. However, having met Sophia’s defenders who are stronger than her, Prostakova readily throws herself on her knees and begs for forgiveness. Flattery, hypocrisy, rudeness and arrogance in the landowner are not only funny, but also scary at times. “Both the crime and the repentance of contempt for her are sufficient.”
Prostakov - ideal husband for such a despotic wife as his wife. This man is timid and unsure, has no opinion on anything, “a wife’s husband,” as he says about himself. His life was not in vain, because he learned to obey Prostakov unquestioningly and even say what she thinks. “My mother,” he calls his wife. “Freak” and “weeper,” Prostakov calls her husband. Such is the family idyll. Material from the site
And here is Prostakov-Skotinin, the youngest: Mitrofa-nushka, a runt. That's it worthy son your parents! An infinitely lazy liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a rude person, an ignorant person - these are the distinctive qualities of a sixteen-year-old blockhead. “Mother’s son,” he went even further than his parents in his ability to not give a damn about others. Mitro-fanushka is a spiritually devastated person. All his interests in life are to eat well and sleep. He does not know how to think for himself, despite the fact that he is the only “scientific” person in the family. However, the “brilliance” of the knowledge he acquired is so dim that it becomes funny.
Fonvizin touches on a lot of problems in his comedy, asks many questions that have not lost their relevance even now. How do we treat other people? How do we behave in the family? What is more important for a person: pedigree, good education or kind heart? How to behave when meeting with simpletons, mitrofanushki, and cattle? There are a lot of questions, and it is very important that a person learns to answer them on his own, so as not to be like the ignorant heroes of D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.”
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
- essay on the topic of undergrowth Prostakova
- Are Prostakova and Skotinin literate with examples?
- ideals of the family of simpletons and brute
- portrait of heroes by Nedrosl
- message relationship in the simpleton family
The main theme of the comedy "The Minor" (1782) is the tyranny of the landowners, and the main parameter for assessing the characters is their attitude towards the serfs.
The action takes place on the Prostakov estate, the undivided mistress of which is Mrs. Prostakova - in the list of names the author only calls her “Mrs.,” already showing her character: she really dominates her house, brazenly and despotic, confident in her impunity, convinced of her right dispose of peasants as if they were things.
From the very beginning of the play, the atmosphere of the Prostakovs’ house is immediately created: she constantly beats and insults the servants, thus achieving obedience: “From morning to evening,” Prostakova complains, “it’s like being hanged by the tongue, I don’t give up: I scold, then I fight.” Prostakova’s tongue in conversation with the servants never leaves rude words: cattle, mug, rascal, old witch. Eremeevna, when asked how much salary she is entitled to, replies with tears: “Five rubles a year, up to five slaps a day.” Hearing that the yard girl Palashka is sick, she is indignant: “Oh, she’s a beast! She’s lying there. As if she were noble!”
Prostakova treats the servants as nonentities, but she herself behaves like a nonentity as soon as she feels danger: when Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakova on trial for her attitude towards the peasants, she humiliatingly lies at his feet. It is clear that she does not feel any remorse, and, as soon as the danger has passed, she becomes the same again: “I forgive you! Oh, father! Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. Now I will sort them all out one by one.”
“A nobleman,” she is indignant, “is not free to whip his servants whenever he wants! But why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?” - she talks about the Decree on the freedom of the nobility, which dealt with the release of nobles from compulsory service, understanding it as the freedom to do whatever they want.
Prostakova has a brother, Skotinin, but it’s clear that there are still a lot of such “Skotinins” in Russia: “If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. I have the same custom in this, sister.” by you... and any loss... I will rip off my own peasants, and so will the ends in the water" - it is no coincidence that among the guests of the Larins in "Eugene Onegin" Pushkin brings out "the Skotinins' gray-haired couple... with children of all ages."
Before Fonvizin, the word “minor” did not have a condemnatory meaning - this was the name given to noble children who had not reached 15 years of age - the age appointed by Peter I for entering the service. After Fonvizin’s comedy it took on a different meaning.
Mitrofan is an imbecile not even because he is a complete ignorant, knowing neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun, not because he is uneducated - but because he does not want to learn, because he is completely correct in that that his servants will do everything that is required for him, and that what he needs to achieve himself, he received either by force or by sycophancy; he is unaware of the existence of any duties, including duty to the state. “We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of a bad upbringing. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland?..”.
Fonvizin contrasts negative heroes positive, corresponding to his model of an ideal citizen: Starodum, Pravdin, Milon and Sophia. “It is unlawful to oppress one’s own kind through slavery,” says Starodum. It should be noted here that we are not talking about the abolition of serfdom, but only about preventing its abuse.
Pravdin takes an even more decisive position in relation to the arbitrariness of the nobles. He serves as an official in the viceroyalty, an institution created in 1775 by Catherine II in each province to oversee the local implementation of government decrees. Pravdin considers his main task, not only in his position, but also “out of his own feat of heart,” to be monitoring those landowners who, “having complete power over their people, use it inhumanly for evil.” Having learned about Prostakova’s cruelties and outrages, Pravdin, on behalf of the government, takes custody of her estate, depriving the landowner of the right to arbitrarily dispose of the peasants. In his actions, Pravdin relies on the decree of Peter I of 1722, directed against tyrant landowners.
It should be noted that in reality this law was applied extremely rarely - the denouement of Fonvizin’s comedy looks like a kind of instruction to the government of Catherine II.
Mitrofan is not eager to study or serve and prefers to them the position of a “minor” - after the decree on the freedom of the nobles, many of them preferred to avoid service in a legal position. Mitrofan's sentiments are completely shared by his mother. “While Mitrofanushka is still in his infancy,” she reasons, “it’s time to pamper him, and then in ten years, when, God forbid, he goes into service, he’ll suffer everything.” Mitrofanushka is contrasted with Milon - an exemplary officer who, despite his youth, had already participated in military operations and at the same time showed “fearlessness”.
Starodum expresses the author's point of view. The very name of this hero indicates that his ideals belong to the era of Peter the Great, when every nobleman had to confirm his class rights through service. Starodum remembers the duty of the nobles, or, as they said in the 18th century, “position,” with particular fervor. “Position!.. How this word is on everyone’s tongue, and how little they understand it!.. This is the sacred vow that we owe to all those with whom we live... If only the office was fulfilled as they say about it... A nobleman, for example, would consider it the first dishonor to do nothing when he has so much to do: there are people to help; there is a fatherland to serve... A nobleman unworthy of being a nobleman, I don’t know anything more vile than him.”
A satirical depiction of the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”
One respect should be flattering to a person - spiritual, and only those who are in ranks not according to money, and in the nobility not according to ranks, are worthy of spiritual respect. DI. Fonvizin
At this time, in all corners of the country, there were many nobles on estates who did not want to bother themselves with anything and lived like their ancestors hundreds of years ago. Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” is about such gentlemen. Main her characters- the Prostakov family and the brother of Mrs. Prostakova Skotinin. All landowners lived at the expense of the peasants and were, therefore, exploiters. But some became rich because their peasants lived prosperously, while others - because they flayed the last skin from the serfs. But what are the Prostakovs and Skotinins like? What are these people doing, what are their interests, habits, attachments?
In the spotlight - family relationships Prostakov. From the very beginning it becomes clear that the mistress is in Prostakov’s house. The character of Terenty Prostakov is determined at the very beginning of the comedy by his own confession to his wife: “Before your eyes, mine see nothing.” Pushing around her obedient husband, Prostakova turned him into a weak-willed rag. His main occupation and purpose of existence is to please his wife. Prostakov’s unconditional helplessness before the will, energy, and power of his wife, without his own opinion, in unconditional submission, trepidation, to the point of weakness and trembling in his legs. However, the punishment of everyone leads to the execution of it. Orders to the executor go through him, as a formal owner. Simpletons are completely under the thumb of his wife. His role in the house is emphasized at Prostakov’s very first remark: “stammering out of timidity.” This “timidity” or, as Pravdin characterizes it, “extreme weak-mindedness” leads to the fact that Prostakova’s “inhumanity” does not meet any restrictions from her husband and at the end of the comedy Prostakov himself turns out, by his own admission, “guilty without guilt” . In the comedy he plays an insignificant role; his character does not change with the development of the action and is not revealed more widely. All we know about his upbringing is that he was raised, in Prostakova’s words, “like a pretty maiden,” and he doesn’t even know how to read. Also from Prostakova’s speech we learn that he is “humble, like a calf” and “He doesn’t understand for himself what is wide and what is narrow.” For for many years living together he got used to beatings and insults, he learned to say what his wife thinks. That's all he achieved. But, in essence, it is very profitable to be Prostakov or pretend to be one, to live under the motto: “I have nothing to do with it.”
Much more complex visual means Fonvizin outlined the character of the “despicable fury” - Mrs. Prostakova, née Skotinina. If the image of her husband remains unchanged from the first to the last act of the comedy, then the character of Prostakova herself is gradually revealed throughout the play. For all her cunning, Prostakova is stupid, and therefore constantly gives herself away. Prostakova seriously, with her characteristic ingenuous stubbornness, assures the careless serf tailor Trishka that learning to sew caftans is not at all necessary.
The details of Prostakova’s biography are very interesting. We learn that her father was a commander for fifteen years. And although “he didn’t know how to read and write, he knew how to make and save enough.” From here it is clear that he was an embezzler and a bribe-taker, an extremely stingy person: “lying on a chest of money, he died, so to speak, of hunger.” Her mother's surname - Priplodina - speaks for itself.
Prostakova is presented as a domineering, uneducated Russian woman. She is very greedy and in order to grab more of someone else’s things, she often flatters and “puts on” a mask of nobility, but from under the mask every now and then an animalistic grin peeks out, which looks funny and absurd. Prostakova is a tyrant, despotic and at the same time cowardly, greedy and vile, representing the brightest type of Russian landowner, at the same time revealed as an individual character - the cunning and cruel sister of Skotinin, a power-hungry, calculating wife who tyrannizes her husband, a mother who loves madly his Mitrofanushka.
“This is a “despicable fury, whose hellish disposition brings misfortune to their entire house.” However, the full extent of the disposition of this “fury” is revealed in its treatment of serfs.
Prostakova is the sovereign mistress of her villages and in her house she is selfish, but her selfishness is stupid, wasteful, inhuman: having taken everything from the peasants, she deprives them of their means of subsistence, but she also suffers a loss - it is impossible to take rent from the peasants, there is nothing. Moreover, I feel the full support of the supreme power; she considers the situation natural, hence her confidence, arrogance, and assertiveness. Prostakova is deeply convinced of her right to insult, rob and punish the peasants, whom she views as beings of another, lower breed. Sovereignty has corrupted her: she is angry, capricious, abusive and pugnacious - she gives out slaps in the face without hesitation. Prostakova dominates the world under her control, she dominates brazenly, despotically, with complete confidence in her impunity. They see the advantages of the “noble” class in the opportunity to insult and rob people dependent on them. Prostakova's primitive nature is clearly revealed in sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. Prostakova is a product of the environment in which she grew up. Neither her father nor her mother gave her any education or instilled any moral rules. But the conditions of serfdom had an even stronger impact on her. She is not restrained by any moral principles. She feels her limitless power and impunity. She treats servants and hired people with rude disdain and insult. No one dares to resist her power: “Am I not powerful in my people?” Prostakova’s well-being rests on the shameless robbery of serfs. “Since then,” she complains to Skotinin, “we took away everything that the peasants had, and she can’t rip off anything anymore. Order in the house is restored with abuse and beatings. “From morning to evening,” Prostakova complains again, how I hang my tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight.”
In her house, Prostakova is a wild, powerful despot. Everything is in her unbridled power. She calls her timid, weak-willed husband a “weeper,” a “freak,” and pushes him around in every possible way. Teachers are not paid a salary for a year. Faithful to her and Mitrofan, Eremeevna receives “five rubles a year and five slaps a day.” She is ready to “grab” her brother Skotinin’s mug, “tear his snout head over heels.”
Prostakova manifests herself not only as a despot, but also as a mother who loves her son with animal love. Even her son’s excessive gluttony first evokes tenderness in her, and only then concerns about her son’s health. Her love for her son is undeniable: it is this that drives her, all her thoughts are directed towards his well-being. She lives by this, this is the main thing for her. She is hostile to enlightenment. But the wild and ignorant Prostakova realized that after Peter’s reforms, a nobleman without education could enter the public service impossible. She was not taught, but she teaches her son as best she can: another century, another time. She cares about Mitrofan’s education not because she understands the benefits of education, but in order to keep up with fashion: “Little child, without studying, go to the same Petersburg; they'll say you're a fool. There are a lot of smart people these days.”
Taking advantage of Sophia's orphanhood, Prostakova takes possession of her estate. Without asking the girl’s consent, he decides to marry her off. He behaves with her openly, brazenly, assertively, without regard for anything. But he instantly changes his mind when he hears about 10 thousand. And strive to achieve her goal with all her might, by all means: her every word, every movement is filled with the energy to marry her son to the rich Sophia.
Prostakova’s figure is colorful. Still, it is not for nothing that she is Prostakova: she is all outward, her cunning is ingenuous, her actions are transparent, she declares her goals openly. The wife of a simpleton and a simpleton herself. If we highlight the main thing in Prostakova, then there are two balancing factors: the autocratic mistress of the family and estate; teacher and leader younger generation nobles - Mitrofan.
Even love for a son is the most strong passion Prostakova - is not able to ennoble her feelings, because it manifests itself in base, animal forms. Her mother's love is deprived human beauty and spirituality. And such an image helped the writer from a new perspective to expose the crime of slavery, which corrupts human nature and serfs and masters. And this individual characteristic allows us to show all the terrible, human-disfiguring power of serfdom. All great, human, holy feelings and relationships in Prostakova are distorted and slandered.
Where do such wild morals and habits come from? From Prostakova's remark we learn about early childhood her and Skotinin. They grew up amid darkness and ignorance. Under these conditions, their brothers and sisters die, grievances and pain are transferred to two living children. The children in the family were not taught anything. “Old people, my father! This was not the century. We weren't taught anything. It used to be that kind people would approach the priest, please him, please him, so that he could at least send his brother to school. By the way, the dead man is light with both hands and feet, may he rest in heaven! It happened that he would deign to shout: I’ll curse the little boy who learns something from the infidels, and be it not Skotinin who wants to learn something.”
It was in this environment that the character formation of Prostakova and Skotinin began. Having become the sovereign mistress of her husband’s house, Prostakova received even greater opportunities for the development of all negative traits of your character. Even the feeling mother's love took on ugly forms in Prostakova.
Mrs. Prostakova received an “enviable upbringing, trained in good manners,” and she is no stranger to lies, flattery and hypocrisy. Throughout the comedy, the Skotinins and Prostakovs emphasize that they are unusually smart, especially Mitrofanushka. In fact, Prostakova, her husband and her brother do not even know how to read. She is even proud of the fact that she cannot read; she is outraged that girls are taught to read and write (Sophia), because... I am sure that a lot can be achieved without education. “From our surname Prostakovs..., lying on their sides, they fly to their ranks.” And if she had to receive a letter, she would not read it, but would give it to someone else. Moreover, they are deeply convinced of the uselessness and unnecessaryness of knowledge. “People live and have lived without science,” Prostakova confidently declares. “Whoever is smarter than that will be immediately elected by his brothers the nobles to another position.” Their social ideas are just as wild. But at the same time, she is not at all worried about raising her son. It is not surprising that Mitrofanushka grew up so spoiled and uncouth.
Illiterate Prostakova understood that there were decrees by which she could oppress the peasants. Pravdin threw a remark towards the heroine: “No, madam, no one is free to tyrannize,” and received the answer: “Not free!” A nobleman is not free to flog his servants when he wants. Why have we been given a decree on the freedom of the nobility?” When Pravdin announces the decision to put Prostakova on trial for inhumane treatment of the peasants, she humiliatingly lies at his feet. But, having begged for forgiveness, he immediately hurries to deal with the sluggish servants who let Sophia go: “I forgave! Oh, father! Well! Now I’ll give the dawn to my people. Now I’ll sort them all out one by one.” Prostakova wants her, her family, her peasants to live according to her practical reason and will, and not according to some laws and rules of enlightenment: “Whatever I want, I’ll put it on my own.” For her despotism, cruelty and greed, Prostakova was severely punished. She not only loses uncontrolled landowner power, but also her son: “You are the only one left with me, my dear friend, Mitrofanushka!” But he hears the rude answer of his idol: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself...”. At this tragic moment, in the brutal tyrant who raised a soulless scoundrel, the truly human traits of the unfortunate mother are visible. A Russian proverb says: “Whoever you mess with, you’ll get rich from.”
Skotinin- not a hereditary nobleman. The estate was probably received by his grandfather or father for his service, and Catherine gave him the opportunity not to serve. Appeared THE FIRST FREE MAN IN Rus', unusually proud of his position free man, the master of his time, his life. Taras Skotinin, Prostakova’s brother, is a typical representative of small feudal landowners. He is related to her not only by blood, but also by spirit. He exactly repeats the serfdom practice of his sister. Skotinin loves pigs so much that no matter what business he takes on, he will definitely end up in swinishness. Skotinin’s pigs live well, much better than his serfs. From these, what kind of demand? Unless you take the quitrent from them. Thank God, Skotinin does this cleverly. He is a serious man, he has little time. It’s good that the Almighty saved him from such boredom as science. “If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. I have the same custom with you, sister... and any loss... I’ll rip off my own peasants, and it’ll end in water."
His very name suggests that all his thoughts and interests are connected only with his barnyard. He lives on his farm and pork factory. It doesn't take much insight to see Skotinin's bestiality. Starting with his last name, pigs are a constant topic of his conversations and an object of love, vocabulary: bristled, one litter, squealed, He is ready to identify himself with pigs: “I want to have my own piglets!”, and about the future family life says: “If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a little light for my wife.” He shows warmth and tenderness only to his pigs. He speaks about himself with great dignity: “I am Taras Skotinin, not the last of my kind. The Skotinins family is great and ancient. You won’t find our ancestor in any heraldry,” and immediately falls for Starodum’s trick, claiming that his ancestor was created “a little earlier than Adam,” that is, together with animals.
Skotinin is greedy. Self-confidence can be heard in every remark of Skotin, who is devoid of any merits. (“You can’t beat your betrothed with a horse, darling! It’s a sin to blame for your own happiness. You’ll live happily with me. Ten thousand of your income! What happiness has come; yes, I’ve never seen so many since I was born; yes, I’ll buy all the pigs in the world with them “Yes, you hear me, I’ll do that, so that everyone will blow the trumpet: in this little neighborhood there’s only pigs to live.”
Skotinin, a pig lover, says without any intention that “we have such large pigs in our neighborhood that there is not a single one of them that, standing on its hind legs, would not be taller than each of us by a whole head» an ambiguous expression, which, however, very clearly defines the essence of Skotinin.
“The brutes are all hard-headed by birth,” and the brother, in whom “what came into his mind, stuck there.” He, like his sister, believes “that learning is nonsense.” He treats pigs better than people, declaring: “People in front of me are smart, but among pigs I myself am smarter than everyone else.” Rude, like his sister, promises to make Mitrofan a freak for Sophia: “By the legs, and on the corner!”
Growing up in a family that was extremely hostile to education: “I haven’t read anything since I was a child. God saved me from this boredom,” he is distinguished by ignorance and mental underdevelopment. His attitude to teaching is very clearly revealed in the story about Uncle Vavil Faleleich: “No one had heard of literacy from him, nor did he want to hear from anyone: what a head he was! ... I would like to know if there is a learned forehead in the world that would not fall apart from such a blow; and my uncle, to his eternal memory, having sobered up, only asked if the gate was intact? He can understand the strength of the forehead only in the literal sense; playing with meanings is inaccessible to him. The vitality of Skotinin’s language is facilitated by the folk proverbs“Every fault is to blame”; “You can’t beat your betrothed with a horse.” Having heard about the taking into custody of the Prostakovs’ estate, Skotinin says: “Yes, they’ll get to me that way. Yes, and any Skotinin can fall under guardianship... I’ll get out of here and get out of here.” Before us is a seasoned, local, semi-wild landowner-slave owner. The owner of the last century.
Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka)- a teenager, the son of the landowners Prostakovs, 15 years old. The name “Mitrofan” means in Greek “revealed by the mother,” “like his mother.” Maybe with this name Mrs. Prostakova wanted to show that her son is a reflection of herself. Mrs. Prostakova herself was stupid, arrogant, impolite, and therefore did not listen to anyone’s opinion: “While Mitrofan is still a teenager, it’s time to marry him; and then in ten years, when he enters, God forbid, into the service, you’ll have to endure everything.” It has become a household word to designate a stupid and arrogant mama's boy - an ignoramus. The upbringing of such bumpkins among the nobility was facilitated by rewarding nobles for their service with “local salaries.” As a result, they settled on their estates and lived on income from the lands and serfs. Their children got used to a well-fed and quiet life, avoiding the sovereign's service in every possible way. By decree of Peter I, all young noble sons - immature - were required to have knowledge of God's law, grammar, and arithmetic. Without this, they had no right to marry or enter the service. Minors who did not receive such a basic education were ordered to be sent to sailors or soldiers without length of service. In 1736, the period of stay in the “undergrowth” was extended to twenty years. The decree on the freedom of the nobility abolished compulsory military service and gave nobles the right to serve or not to serve, but confirmed the compulsory training introduced under Peter I. Prostakova follows the law, although she does not approve of it. She also knows that many, including those from her family, are circumventing the law. That is why Prostakova hires teachers for her Mitrofanushka. Mitrofan did not want to study, his mother hired teachers for him only because this was the custom in noble families, and not so that her son would learn intelligence. An ignorant mother teaches her son science, but she hired teachers at a “cheaper price,” and even then gets in the way. But what are these teachers: one - former soldier, the second is a seminarian who left the seminary, “fearing the abyss of wisdom,” the third is a rogue, a former coachman. Mitrofanushka is a lazy person, accustomed to being lazy and climbing into the dovecote. He is spoiled, poisoned not by the upbringing he is given, but, most likely, by the complete lack of upbringing and the harmful example of his mother.
Mitrofanushka himself has no goal in life, he only loved to eat, laze around and chase pigeons: “I’ll run to the dovecote now, maybe it’s either…”. To which his mother replied: “Go and have some fun, Mitrofanushka.” Mitrofan has been studying for four years now, and it’s very bad: he barely walks through the book of hours with a pointer in his hand, and then only under the dictation of the teacher, sexton Kuteikin, in arithmetic “he learned nothing” from the retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, but “in French and all the sciences “He is not taught at all by the teacher himself, who was expensively hired to teach these “all sciences” by a former coachman, the German Vralman. Under Kuteikin’s dictation, the ignoramus reads a text that, in principle, characterizes himself: “I am a worm,” “I am a cattle ... and not a man,” “Reviling men.” The teaching tires Mitrofan so much that he happily agrees with his mother. Prostakova: “Mitrofanushka, my friend, if studying is so dangerous for your little head, then for me, stop.” Mitrofanushka: “And for me, even more so.” Mitrofanushka’s teachers know little, but they try to fulfill their duties honestly and conscientiously. They are trying to introduce him to new requirements, teach him something, but still he remains very close to his uncle in soul, just as this closeness was previously interpreted as a property of nature. There is rudeness, a reluctance to learn, and a hereditary love for pigs, as evidence of a primitive nature. Lazy and arrogant, but very smart in everyday life, Mitrofanushka is not taught sciences and moral rules, namely immorality, deception, disrespect for his duty as a nobleman and for his own father, the ability to bypass all the laws and rules of society and the state for the sake of his own convenience and benefit. Skotinin’s roots have been evident in him since childhood: “Our Mitrofanushka is just like his uncle. And he was a hunter of pigs, just like you. When I was still three years old, when I saw a pig, I used to tremble with joy.” His whole life is limited in advance to the barnyard, where people are perceived as pigs, and pigs are part of a certain cult that the owners worship. However, Prostakova herself remains the main educator of the undergrowth with her “firm logic” and equally firm morals: “If you found the money, don’t share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don’t learn this stupid science.” Therefore, Prostakova strongly prefers the former coachman Vralman to honest teachers because “he does not force a child.”
Mitrofan's character is clearly revealed through his speech. He has already learned the addresses to servants that are customary in his family: “old khrychovka, garrison rat” and others, however, when he needs protection, he turns to Eremeevna: “Mommy! Shield me! He has no respect for his elders, he addresses them rudely, for example: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane?<…>Get out, uncle, get out." His actions also serve to reveal his character: he cowardly hides from Skotinin behind Eremeevna’s back, complains to Prostakova, threatening to commit suicide, willingly takes part in the abduction of Sophia and immediately meekly agrees with the decision of his own fate.
This rude and lazy man is not stupid, he is also cunning, he thinks practically, he sees that the material well-being of the Prostakovs depends not on their enlightenment and official zeal, but on the intrepid impudence of his mother, the clever robbing of his distant relative Sophia and the merciless robbery of his peasants. Prostakova wants to marry the poor pupil Sophia to her brother Skotinin, but then, having learned about 10,000 rubles, of which Starodum made Sophia the heir, she decides not to let the rich heiress go. Mitrofan, encouraged by his mother, demands an agreement, declaring: “The hour of my will has come. I don’t want to study, I want to get married.” But he agrees to get married only to avoid studying, and because his mother wants it. Prostakova understands that first it is necessary to achieve Starodum’s consent. And for this it is necessary for Mitrofan to appear in a favorable light: “While he is resting, my friend, at least for the sake of appearance, learn, so that it reaches his ears how you work, Mitrofanushka.” For her part, Prostakova in every possible way praises Mitrofan’s hard work, successes and her parental care for him, and although she knows for sure that Mitrofan has not learned anything, she still arranges an “exam” and encourages Starodum to evaluate his son’s successes. The depth of Mitrofan's knowledge is revealed in a scene describing an unforgettable impromptu exam arranged by Pravdin. Mitrofan learned Russian grammar by heart. Determining what part of speech the word “door” is, he demonstrates remarkable logic: the door is “adjective” “because it is attached to its place. Over there at the closet of the pole for a week the door has not yet been hung: so for now that is a noun.”
Mitrofan is an undergrowth, first of all, because he is a complete ignorant, knowing neither arithmetic nor geography, unable to distinguish an adjective from a noun. “Eorgafia,” according to Prostakova, is not needed by a nobleman: “What are cab drivers for?” But he is also immature morally, since he does not know how to respect the dignity of other people. Mitrofanushka, in essence, does not contain anything evil in her nature, since she has no desire to cause misfortune to anyone. But gradually, under the influence of pampering, pleasing his mother and nanny, Mitrofan becomes insensitive and indifferent towards his family. The only science that he has mastered perfectly is the science of humiliation and insult.
Mitrofanushka was ill-mannered, rude and impudent with servants and teachers, he grew up as a spoiled child, whom everyone around him obeyed and obeyed, and he also had freedom of speech in the house. He does not value his father at all and mocks teachers and serfs. He takes advantage of the fact that his mother dotes on him and spins her around as she wants. The education that Prostakov gives to his son kills his soul. Mitrofan loves no one but himself, does not think about anything, treats teaching with disgust and waits only for the hour when he will become the owner of the estate and, like his mother, will push around his loved ones and uncontrollably control the destinies of the serfs. He stopped in his development. Sophia says about him: “Even though he is 16 years old, he has already reached the last degree of his perfection and will not go further.” Mitrofan combines the traits of a tyrant and a slave. When Prostakova's plan to marry her son to a rich pupil, Sophia, fails, the undergrowth behaves like a slave. He humbly asks for forgiveness and humbly accepts “his sentence” from Starodum - to go serve (“For me, where they tell me”). He was confident that the people around him should help him and give him advice. Slave upbringing was instilled in the hero, on the one hand, by the serf nanny Eremeevna, and, on the other hand, by the whole world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, whose concepts of honor are distorted.
As a result, Mitrofan turns out to be not just an ignoramus, whose very name has become a household name, but also an image of heartlessness. While the mother is the complete mistress of the house, he rudely flatters her, but when the Prostakovs’ estate is taken into custody due to the mistress’s harshness towards the serfs and the mother rushes to her son as the last support, he becomes frank: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself... " Having lost power and strength, he does not need his mother. He will look for new powerful patrons. The figure of Mitrofan becomes scarier, more sinister than the older generation of Skotinins - Prostakovs. They had at least some kind of attachment. Mitrofan is ignorant, has no moral principles and, as a result, is aggressive. After all, from a spoiled son, Mitrofan turns into a cruel person, a traitor. He shows his real attitude towards his mother. There could not be a worse punishment, even for someone like Prostakova maybe. This, of course, is not funny at all, but scary, and such betrayal is the worst punishment for evil ignorance.
Mitrofan combines the traits of a tyrant and a slave. When Prostakova's plan to marry her son to a rich pupil, Sophia, fails, the undergrowth behaves like a slave. He humbly asks for forgiveness and humbly accepts “his sentence” from Starodum - to go to serve. Slave upbringing was instilled in the hero, on the one hand, by the serf nanny Eremeevna, and, on the other hand, by the whole world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins, whose concepts of honor are distorted. Through the image of Mitrofan, Fonvizin shows the degradation of the Russian nobility: from generation to generation, ignorance increases, and the coarseness of feelings reaches animal instincts. No wonder Skotinin calls Mitrofan “damned pig.” The reason for such degradation is an incorrect, disfiguring upbringing. And, finally, Mitrofan is an immature in the civic sense, since he has not matured enough to understand his responsibilities to the state. “We see,” Starodum says about him, “all the unfortunate consequences of bad upbringing. Well, what can come out of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland?” "This is evil worthy fruits! - he sums it up. If you do not raise a child properly, do not teach him to express rational thoughts in the correct language, he will forever remain “incurably ill,” an ignorant and immoral creature.