Description of Mrs. Prostakova. Characteristics of Mrs. Prostakova (based on the comedy by D.I.
Composition
In the comedy Nedorosl Fonvizin depicts the vices of his contemporary society. His heroes are representatives of different social strata: statesmen, nobles, servants, self-proclaimed teachers. This is the first socio-political comedy in the history of Russian drama.
The central character of the play is Mrs. Prostakova. She manages the household, beats her husband, keeps the servants in terror, and raises her son Mitrofan. Now I scold, now I fight, and that’s how the house holds together. No one dares to resist her power: Am I not powerful in my people. But there are also tragic elements in the image of Prostakova. This ignorant and selfish overripe fury loves and sincerely cares for her son. At the end of the play, rejected by Mitrofan, she becomes humiliated and pitiful:
You are the only one left with me.
Let go...
I don't have a son...
The main way to create Prostakova’s character is speech characterization. The heroine's language changes depending on who she is addressing. Mrs. Prostakova calls her servants thieves, scoundrels, beasts, and a dog's daughter. Addresses Mitrofan: my dear friend, darling. Greets guests with respect: I recommend you, dear guest, you are welcome.
The image of Mitrofan in the play is associated with the idea of education, which is very important for educational literature. Mitrofan is an ignoramus, a slacker, his mother’s favorite. He inherited arrogance and rudeness from his mother. He addresses Eremeevna, who is sacredly devoted to him: old Khrychovka. Mitrofan's upbringing and education corresponds to the fashion of the time and the understanding of his parents. He is taught French by the German Vralman, exact sciences by retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, who has a little knowledge of arithmetic, and grammar by seminarian Kuteikin, dismissed from all teaching. Mitrofanushka's knowledge of grammar and his desire not to study, but to get married are ridiculous. But his attitude towards Eremeevna, his willingness to accept people, his betrayal of his mother evokes different feelings. Mitrofanushka becomes an ignorant and cruel despot.
The main technique for creating satirical characters in a play is zoologization. Getting ready to get married, Skotinin declares that he wants to have his own piglets. It seems to Vralman that, living with the Prostakovs, he lived like a fairy with little horses. Thus, the author emphasizes the idea of the animal lowlands of the surrounding world.
Despite the fact that the genre of the play Nedorosl is a comedy, Fonvizin is not limited only to exposing social vices and creating satirical characters. The author draws a number of positive characters Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia, Milon. These heroes openly express the views of an honest person on noble morality, family relationships and even the civil system. This dramatic technique truly signifies a revolution in Russian educational literature from. criticism of the negative aspects of reality to the search for ways to change the existing system.
Reflecting current problems of his time, Fonvizin was a talented psychologist, thinker, and artist. His comedy has universal significance, it lives on for centuries and does not leave the stages of modern theaters.
The action takes place on the Prostakov estate. The unlimited hostess is Mrs. Prostakova. It is interesting to note that in the list of characters, only she is given the title “Madam”; the rest of the characters are named only by last name or first name. She really dominates the world under her control, she dominates brazenly, despotically, with complete confidence in her impunity. Taking advantage of Sophia's orphanhood, Prostakova takes possession of her estate. Without asking the girl’s consent, he decides to marry her off. However, the full nature of this “fury” is revealed in its treatment of serfs. Prostakova is deeply convinced of her right to insult, rob and punish peasants, whom she views as beings of a different, lower Breed.
Prostakova’s well-being rests on the shameless robbery of serfs. “Since then,” she complains to Skotinin, “we took away everything the peasants had, and we can’t take anything back.” Order in the house is restored through abuse and beatings. “From morning to evening, Prostakova again complains, it’s like being hanged by the tongue, I don’t give up: I scold, then I fight.” Eremeevna, when asked how much salary she is entitled to, replies with tears: “Five rubles a year, up to five slaps a day.”
Prostakova's primitive nature is clearly revealed in sharp transitions from arrogance to cowardice, from complacency to servility. She is rude to Sophia while she feels her power over her, but upon learning of Starodum’s return, she instantly changes her tone and behavior. 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 forgive you! Ah, father! Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. Now I’ll take them all one by one.” Prostakova's brother Skotinin is related to her not only by blood, but also by spirit. He exactly repeats the serfdom practice of his sister. “If I weren’t Taras Skotinin,” he declares, “if I’m not guilty of every fault. In this, sister, I have the same custom as you... and any loss... I will rip off my own peasants, and the ends will be in the water.”
The presence of Skotinin in the play emphasizes the wide distribution of nobles like Prostakova and gives it a typical character. It is not for nothing that at the end of the play Pravdin advises to warn the other Skotinins about what happened on the Prostakov estate. Many nobles are so low in mental and civic development that they can only be likened to animals. Cattle possessing people—this is the painful problem that was posed with great courage by D.I. Fonvizin.
He gave the characters distinctly Russian names, surrounded them with familiar surroundings, and preserved Russian customs on stage. Mrs. Prostakova nee Skotinina is always compared to a dog, Skotinin to pigs. They themselves persistently call themselves cattle, animals. “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” asks Prostakova. “Oh me, a dog’s daughter!” she states elsewhere. Skotinin’s base spiritual appearance is revealed in his passion for “pigs.” “I love pigs... he admits, and in our neighborhood there are such large pigs 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.” “No, sister,” he declares to Prostakova, I want to have my own piglets.” And Mitrofan, according to his mother, “was raised by the same hunter before pigs... Sometimes, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy.” “I am cattle,” Mitrofan reads from the Book of Hours, not a man.”
Fonvizin made a real revolution in the field of comedy language. The speech of many of his characters is pre-determined. digital image. In “The Minor,” the speeches of Prostakova, Skotinin, and Eremeevna are especially colorful. Fonvizin retains all the irregularities in the language of his ignorant heroes: “pervo-et” instead of the first one, “robenka” instead of a child, “golovushka” instead of little head, “kotoro” instead of which. Proverbs and sayings were successfully used. Prostakova’s rude, dissolute nature is well revealed by the vulgarisms she uses: “And you, beast, were dumbfounded, but you didn’t bite your brother’s mug, and you didn’t tear his snout over his ears.” Swear words never leave Prostakova’s tongue: cattle, mug, rascal, old witch. The news of the illness of the yard girl Palashka infuriates her: “Oh, she’s a beast! Lying down. As if noble!”
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. Moreover, they are deeply convinced of the uselessness and unnecessaryness of knowledge. “People live and have lived without science,” Prostakova confidently declares. Their social ideas are just as wild. High positions exist, in their deep conviction, only for enrichment. According to Prostakova, her father “was a commander for fifteen years... did not know how to read and write, but he knew how to make a living.” They see the advantages of the “noble” class in the opportunity to insult and rob people dependent on them. The cause of “evil morality” can also be bad mentors. Mitrofan's training is entrusted to the half-educated seminarian Kuteikin, the retired soldier Tsyfirkin and the former coachman, the German Vralman. Mitrofan is one of the main characters in the comedy. Using techniques of speech characterization, D. I. Fonvizin portrayed Mitrofan as the greatest lazy person. But it’s not just the teachers; Mitrofan’s character and behavior are a natural result of the living examples with which he is surrounded in his parents’ house. The most destructive influence was on Mitrofan Prostakov. After all, his name, translated from Greek, means “like a mother,” that is, “representing a mother.” From Prostakova, Mitrofan adopted rudeness, greed, and contempt for work and knowledge. The upbringing that the mother wanted to give her son was a bestial upbringing, an upbringing of animal needs.
Slavery corrupts masters and landowners, depriving them of their human traits. They turned their peasants into cattle, but they themselves became cattle, losing honor and conscience, forgetting about human and family attachments. Fonvizin managed to create truly typical images that became household names and survived their time. The names of Mitrofanushka, Skotinin, and Prostakova became immortal.
Other works on this work
Minor Analysis of the work by D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". Enlightened and ignorant nobles in D. Fonvizin’s play “The Minor” Enlightened and unenlightened nobles in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Good and evil in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Good and evil in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Vital questions in the play "Nedorsl" Ideas of Russian enlightenment in the comedy "Nedorosl" Ideas of Russian enlightenment in D. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Portrayal of the nobility in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Portrayal of the small nobility in Russian literature of the 19th century. What kind of Prostakova did I imagine? The image of minor characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” The image of Mrs. Prostakova in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” The image of Mirofanushka in the comedy “Minor” The image of Mitrofanushka in Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” The image of Taras Skotinin in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Images of the immortal comedy "Minor" Images of negative characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” Construction and artistic style of the comedy "Minor" Why is Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” which denounces serfdom, called a comedy of education? The problem of education in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” The problem of upbringing and education in the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” Problems of education in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin "Minor" Problems of education and upbringing in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” Problems reflected in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Speech characteristics in the comedy “Minor” SATIRICAL ORIENTATION OF THE COMEDY "UNDERGROUND" The satirical orientation of D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Cattle that own people (Based on the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor”) Funny and sad in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” Funny and tragic in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” The meaning of the title of the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin "Minor" The meaning of the title of Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” A son worthy of his mother Based on the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” The theme of education in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” The theme of upbringing and education in the play “Minor” Fonvizin - author of the comedy "Minor" Characteristics of Mrs. Prostakova (based on the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin) What did D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” teach me? What does D.I make fun of? Fonvizin in Mitrofanushka's upbringing? “These are the fruits worthy of evil!” (based on the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor”) Portrait description of Prostakova in the comedy “Minor” Prostakov family IMAGE OF MITROFANUSHKA Analysis of the work Characteristics of Mitrofan in the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin "Minor" Fonvizin "Minor". “These are the fruits worthy of evil!” Problems and heroes of D. N. Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor” The problem of education in the comedy “UNDERGROUND” Characteristics of the image of Starodum in the play “The Minor” The main meaning of Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Characteristics of the image of Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka) The image of Mitrofan in Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" Is the image of Mitrofanushka relevant in our time? Is Mitrofan dangerous or funny (Comedy “The Minor”) The image and character of Prostakova in Fonfizin's comedy The meaning of speech characteristics in the comedy "Minor" Features of classicism in the comedy of D.I. Fonvizin "Minor" Characteristics of the image of Sophia The main character of the comedy is landowner Prostakova Minor Mitrofanushka Teachers and servants in the simpleton’s house (comedy “The Minor”) Classicism in drama. Comedy “The Minor” by D. I. Fonvizin Why Mitrofanushka became an undergrowth (2) The history of the creation of the comedy "Minor" Denunciation of the serfdom system in D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Raising a worthy citizen based on D. I. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” Mitrofanushka 1 Family portrait of the Prostakov-Skotinins Characteristics of Prostakova’s image in the comedy “Minor” Characteristics of Prostakov's image The satirical skill of D. I. FonvizinI liked Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor.” The main theme of this work is the “evil nature of the serf owners.” With the first scene of the comedy, I saw a world in which some people own other people. The main figure of this world is Prostakova. Prostakova was uneducated and uneducated. She, like all ignoramuses, was rude to everyone from whom she did not meet resistance. Fonvizin calls Prostakova a “despicable fury.” She extends her despotic power not only to the serfs, but also to her husband, Sophia, Skotinin.
One day, when Prostakova called her husband, he did not come. Then she said to Mitrofan: “Then go and get him out if you don’t get any good.”
In this remark I saw Prstakova’s rude and dismissive attitude towards her husband. But despite this attitude towards Prostakov, she never scolded her son. Mitrofan was spoiled because his mother allowed him everything, protected him even when he was wrong. Prostakova loved her son dearly and did not allow teachers to bother Mitrofan. By this act, she deprived her son of the opportunity to receive an education. Prostakova did not think about raising her son, under Mitrovan she scolded the serfs, and as a result, her beloved son left her.
At the end of the comedy, the Prostakovs receive a well-deserved punishment - the authorities order to take custody of the estate. The final scene, in which even Mitrovan leaves Prostakova, indicates that a vicious person is preparing a well-deserved punishment for himself through his actions. 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’s speech: rude in addressing the servants (“fraudster”, “cattle”, “thief’s mug” - tailor Trishka; “beast”, “scum” - nanny Ermeevna), caring and affectionate in conversation with her son Mitrofanushka (“live forever, learn forever, my dear friend,” “darling”). But at the same time, she is not at all worried about raising her son (“It’s very nice to me that Mitrofanushka doesn’t like to step forward...
He's lying, my dear friend. I found the money - don't share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself, Mitrofanushka.
Don't learn this stupid science! "). It is not surprising that Mitrofanushka grew up so spoiled and uncouth. There is another negative character in the play - Prostakova's brother - Skotin. He, like his sister, is cruel and narcissistic.
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 will live happily with me. Ten thousand of your income! What happiness has come; yes, I have never seen so many since I was born; yes, I will buy all the pigs from the world with them “Yes, you hear me, I will do that, so that everyone will blow the trumpet: in this little neighborhood there are only pigs to live.”) The ignorance and bestiality of Skotin and Prostakova make their vices obvious.
These people are clearly visible, they have nothing to cover up their animality, and they don’t even consider it necessary to do so. Their world wants to subjugate all life, to assign the right of unlimited power over both serfs and noble people. Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" is the first socio-political comedy in the history of Russian drama. The author exposes in it the vices of his contemporary society.
The heroes of the comedy are representatives of different social strata: statesmen, nobles, servants, self-proclaimed teachers. The central character of the play is Mrs. Prostakova. She manages the household, beats her husband, keeps the servants in terror, and raises her son Mitrofan.
“Now I scold, now I fight, and that’s how the house holds together.” No one dares to resist her power: “Am I not powerful in my people.” Speech characterization is the main way to create Prostakova’s character.
The heroine's language changes depending on who she is addressing. Mrs. Prostakova calls her servants “thieves”, “rascals”, “beast”, “dog’s daughter”. He addresses Mitrofan: “my dear friend,” “dulyenka.” He greets guests with respect: “I recommend you a dear guest,” “you are welcome.” There are also tragic elements in the image of Prostakova. This ignorant and selfish “despicable fury” loves and sincerely cares about her son.
At the end of the play, rejected by Mitrofan, she becomes humiliated and pitiful:
- - You are the only one left with me.
- - Let it go...
- - I don’t have a son...
The image of Mitrofan in the play is associated with the idea of education, which is very important for educational literature. Mitrofan is an ignoramus, a slacker, his mother's favorite. He inherited arrogance and rudeness from his mother. He addresses Eremeevna, who is sacredly devoted to him: “old Khrychovka.” Mitrofan's upbringing and education corresponds to the "fashion" of the time and the understanding of his parents. He is taught French by the German Vralman, exact sciences by retired sergeant Tsyfirkin, who “speaks a little of arithmetic,” and grammar by seminarian Kuteikin, dismissed from “all teaching.” Mitrofanushka’s “knowledge” in grammar, his desire not to study, but to get married, are ridiculous. But his attitude towards Eremeevna. the readiness to “take on people”, the betrayal of the mother evokes different feelings. Mitrofanushka becomes an ignorant and cruel despot. The names of the characters are remarkable. “Talking” surnames immediately establish the reader’s and viewer’s attitude towards their owners. Psychologically, he already becomes a participant in the action. The opportunity to evaluate the heroes and their actions was taken away from him. From the very beginning, from the names of the characters, the reader was told where the negative characters were and where the positive ones were. And the reader’s role comes down to seeing and remembering the ideal to which one must strive. The language of comedy is interesting. Negative characters and their servants have a common vernacular language. The Skotinins' vocabulary consists mainly of words used in the barnyard. This is well shown by the speech of Skotinin - Uncle Migrofan. It is all filled with words: pig, piglets, barn. The idea of life also begins and ends with the barnyard. He compares his life with the life of his pigs, for example. “I want to have my own piglets.” “If I have... a special barn for each pig, then I’ll find a little light for my wife.” And he is proud of it: “Well, if I were a pig’s son. If...” The vocabulary of his sister Mrs. Prostakova is a little more diverse due to the fact that her husband is “a fool beyond counting” and she has to do everything herself. But Skotinin’s roots are also evident in her speech. Favorite curse word: "cattle". To show that Prostakova is not far behind her brother in development, Fonvizin sometimes denies her basic logic. For example, such phrases: “Since we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t tear off anything anymore,” “So is it really necessary to be like a tailor in order to be able to sew a caftan well?” And, drawing conclusions from what has been said, Prostakova ends the phrase: “What a bestial reasoning.” All that can be said about her husband is that he is a man of few words and does not open his mouth without his wife’s instructions. But this characterizes him as a “countless fool,” a weak-willed husband who fell under the heel of his wife. Mitrofanushka is also a man of few words, although, unlike his father, he has freedom of speech. Skotinin's roots are manifested in his inventiveness of curse words, “old bastard”, “garrison rat”. Servants and teachers have in their speech characteristic features of the classes and parts of society to which they belong. Eremeevna’s speech is constant excuses and desires to please. Teachers. Tsyfirkin is a retired sergeant, Kuteikin is a sexton from Pokrov. And with their speech they show their belonging: one to the military, the other to church ministers. The author introduces a number of positive characters - Starodum, Pravdin, Sophia, Milon. These heroes openly express the views of an “honest” person on noble morality, family relationships, and even the civil order. This dramatic technique truly caused a revolution in Russian educational literature, from criticism of the negative aspects of reality to the search for ways to change the existing system. The speech of the positive heroes is no different. This is bookish speech, the speech of educated people of that time, which practically does not express emotions. You understand the meaning of what is said from the direct meaning of the words. For the rest of the characters, the meaning can be grasped in the very dynamics of speech. Milon's speech is almost impossible to distinguish from Pravdin's speech. It is also very difficult to tell anything about Sophia based on her speech. An educated, well-behaved young lady, as Starodum would call her, sensitive to the advice and instructions of her beloved uncle. Starodum's speech is completely determined by the fact that the author put his moral program into the mouth of this hero: rules, principles, moral laws by which a “pious person” should live. Starodum’s monologues are structured in this way: Starodum first tells a story from his life, and then the conclusion
The comedy “The Minor” is a brilliant work by Fonvizin, in which the playwright portrayed bright, memorable characters, whose names have become household names in modern literature and the era. 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 all the negative qualities of 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 shielding of the son from any concerns of the real world may be associated 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. The 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 mentally and morally mature enough to understand this).
The fact that in the final scene Mitrofan abandons his mother is undoubtedly the fault of Prostakova herself. 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 his own experience with her, passes on his own knowledge and, most importantly, respects her personality.
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 reforms in the education of Russian society of that era were.
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, we have before us a woman with a difficult fate, who at one moment loses everything that was valuable to her.
According to the canons of classic works, the exposure and punishment of 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
Prostakov, whose characterization is the subject of this review, is a minor character in the famous comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor.” He is interesting because he sets off the character traits of his wayward wife, who occupies a prominent place in the work. He is the father of the main character Mitrofanushka, and his personality partly explains the disposition of the young man, who is described by the author as a spoiled young man of limited intelligence.
Personality
When analyzing this play, you should pay special attention to the role that Prostakov plays in the development of the plot. The characteristics of this hero will allow students to understand the lifestyle that this noble family led. Schoolchildren need to point out the telling surname of the character, which from the very beginning gives readers a hint of what to expect from this person.
Indeed, Prostakov is very simple-minded by nature; he never thinks about anything, allowing his wife to run the household and raise their son. He is timid and even downtrodden: anyone can be rude to him, for example, his wife is often rude to him and does not mince words, allowing herself rather harsh, contemptuous and mocking remarks about her husband.
Hero image
Prostakov, whose characterization must necessarily include an analysis of the degree of his education, judging by the reviews of those around him, is a man of limited intelligence. This explains the fact that his wife seized all power in the house and estate into her own hands. He has no opinion of his own and completely left the solution to domestic problems to his wife. The hero periodically emphasizes that he relies on her for everything, and this once again proves that she is the real mistress of the house.
Obviously, Fonvizin in this case plays on the contrast: a timid husband and a cruel wife. Prostakov, whose characterization is impossible without comparison with the image of his wife, under the pen of a talented playwright looks like her complete opposite. In general scenes, this difference between the characters is especially striking to the reader. The author created a sitcom in which each character is a bearer of some kind of shortcoming, and at the same time criticized the social reality of his time, when landowners led an idle lifestyle.
Social implications
A characterization of Prostakov should include an analysis of his social position: without this, it will be impossible to understand the author’s idea. The fact is that Fonvizin created a work that was relevant for his time. Therefore, all his characters are very recognizable, situations typical of Russian reality in the second half of the 18th century.
The hero is a nobleman, a landowner, i.e., a representative of the class that at the time in question was privileged and considered dominant. These people enjoyed all the privileges that the government gave them. Under Catherine II, they were exempted from compulsory military and civil service, which was henceforth made voluntary. Therefore, many remained in the village, on their estates, doing housework or spending their time idly.
Mitrofanushka’s father also belongs to the latter category. But Mrs. Prostakova took care of the house. The characterization of this heroine shows the image of a cruel, but extraordinary woman. She takes care of the housework and takes care of raising her son, while her husband does nothing at all. He rather resembles a child who also needs care and attention. So the author ridiculed many noble landowners who did not bother themselves with any obligations and refused to serve. Therefore, the play turned out to be especially relevant, lively and recognizable.
Appearance
The characterization of Prostakov should include a brief overview of his behavior and appearance. Judging by the remarks of his wife and those around him, the hero looks like a confused and absent-minded person. He is inattentive, slow, sluggish. Often he cannot find an answer, he stammers and has difficulty finding words. The hero is somewhat baggy, and his clothes, judging by his wife’s comments, don’t fit him well.
Mrs. Prostakova, whose characterization reveals her as a powerful woman, but not without some taste, takes care of a suit for her husband. He obviously has no sense of style and doesn't care at all about how he looks in public or in society. The hero obviously does not have what she called good, secular manners. He does not know how to receive guests according to etiquette and is only somewhat at a loss in the presence of outside visitors.
Comparison of heroes
As a rule, the characteristics of the Prostakovs do not cause much difficulty for students. “The Minor” is a play that, as mentioned above, is a comedy of situations and characters. All characters are revealed both through their own remarks and through the statements and comments of others. The Prostakovs were no exception in this regard. Despite the striking differences in their characters, both have one thing in common - their blind love for their son. Mitrofanushka's father, like his mother, understands all his shortcomings: laziness, stupidity and short-sightedness, but does not make any attempts to correct the young man. Perhaps this is precisely the main mistake of both characters.
Spouse relationship
When analyzing the play in question, the characterization of the Prostakovs occupies an important place. “The Minor” is a work in which the author vividly and vividly depicted representatives of the noble class, as well as the emerging intelligentsia. The main character's parents are very recognizable by their relationship to each other, as well as to their son. Mrs. Prostakova does not respect her husband and does not perceive him as the owner of the estate. In turn, the latter puts up with the role assigned to him. At the same time, this character is interesting because he says everything he thinks. Thus, the characterization of Prostakov from the comedy “The Minor” allows us to better understand the image of his wife, who occupies the main place in the entire work.
He is frank in his statements, naive and simple-minded, which greatly irritates his wife, who prefers to use various tricks and tricks to get her way. Often the reader sees what is happening through his eyes. You want to believe him, because he is so good-natured that he is incapable of lying.
Mrs. Prostakova is Mitrofanushka’s mother, one of the main characters of the comedy. She was born into a family with many children, but only she and her brother survived. Prostakova's father was a military servant, after which, being illiterate, he became rich, but he was so greedy that one day he died lying on a chest that was completely filled with gold coins. Prostakova and her brother Skotinin also grew up greedy and rich.
Fonvizin speaks of Prostakova as a wild animal that is capable of “doing bad things to others,” and this is what her maiden name says - the same as that of her brother - Skotinin. She is rude to her peasants, in addition, she took away everything they had. But not only the servants are afraid of their mistress, but also her husband. Prostakova treats him like a servant, forcing him to obey her; his opinion means nothing to her and she pushes him around as she wants, considering herself the mistress of this estate.
She has the only treasure - her sixteen-year-old son Mitrofanushka. The only happiness for Prostakova is the well-being of her son, because she considers it her main parental duty not to deny him anything. But even though Prostakova believes that studying is harmful and even dangerous to health, she still hires foreign teachers for him, considering it “fashionable.”
The landowner Prostakova humiliates and insults all her servants. For example, she accuses Mitrofanushka’s nanny, Eremeevna, of greed because she is worried about Mitrofan overeating buns at lunch. And she calls Trishka a “fraudster” only because he made her son’s caftan the wrong size.
She approaches Starodum with flattery, since he possessed a large sum of money, which he bequeathed to his niece Sofyushka, and Prostakova wanted to marry her Mitrofanushka to her. But because of her selfishness and greed, all her plans collapsed, and she was left with nothing.
Thus, throughout her life, Prostakova’s character was disfigured. Prostakova grew up in a family that was characterized by extreme ignorance, greed and ingratitude. Her parents did not give her or her brother a good upbringing and did not instill any good qualities in her soul. But most of all, the conditions of serfdom affected her - she was the full owner of the serfs. She did not follow any rules and was aware of her complete power over everyone, so she turned into an "inhuman mistress tyrant."
Option 2
Prostakova is not as simple as it seems. Behind the smiles and kind words addressed to the people she needs, there is a lot of anger, envy and cruelty.
It reveals itself in communication with forced people. The serfs suffer from her unfair abuse, from cruel beatings... She does what she wants. And when she is reprimanded (almost judged) she does not understand why she cannot be the mistress of her own home. It’s strange to her that a good master doesn’t swear at his servants. And she doesn’t want, for example, to quarrel with her neighbors; she’d rather take away their money and land from the peasants. That is, so as not to be at a loss. It's the same with nerves, I think. Prostakova will not quarrel with important people, but she needs to “drain” the negativity on someone. And these are her poor servants. She doesn't hear any excuses. For example, at the very beginning she scolds the tailor for a good caftan. The tailor says that he never learned to sew. Prostakova laughs, like, do you really need to study for this?
She pushes her husband around. Doesn't respect him at all. He treats his brother a little better, but also laughs at his simplicity. When poor Sophia is needed as a groom, then he communicates well with him; when she has assigned her son as a groom to a rich woman, then the brother is no longer needed. And she is ready to use everyone to her advantage.
Her politeness does not come from the heart. A good attitude depends on benefits. She offended Sophia, but as soon as she got rich, she became a “darling.” Her politeness (bows, kisses) is unnecessary. Starodub, a rich uncle, also notices this. That is, he is practically nobody to them, they are all seeing him for the first time, but he is already everyone’s “father.” When Sophia's engagement is announced, Prostakova does not stop. She's organizing a bride kidnapping! It turns out that she is ready to do almost anything for the sake of her goals, which are often all fixated on her son.
She is even proud of the fact that she was not taught anything at the time. Believes that education is not necessary for a good life. But he already understands that the “child” needs to be given a good (visible) education.
She loves only her son, Mitrofanushka. Blind maternal love. My son is good to everyone: smart, educated, and kind... But in fact, everything is wrong! And in the end, the spoiled Mitrofanushka is ready to abandon his own mother. This is the worst blow for her. She did everything for this boy, and he is a traitor. In principle, he behaves the same way as she does.
Image, characterization of Prostakova in the comedy Nedorosl
I think that everyone is scolding Prostakov so much in vain! She already got it in comedy. Everyone considers her a stupid, evil, hypocritical woman. In principle, this is how it seems... But you need to look at the reasons for her strange behavior.
She just loves her son too much. And Mitrofanushka only uses this shamelessly - for her own benefit. Prostakova almost forgot herself for the sake of her son. She is at the mercy of feelings. So she could love her husband, brother, father... or ice cream. That is, its main thing is to love someone or something, to do everything for its good.
And she just doesn’t understand a lot of things. As a child, as we understand, she was not taught anything. She doesn't know many sciences. For example, she believes that only the coachman needs geography. But on the other hand, she is not so wrong! People often fill their heads with unnecessary information and know everything superficially. And there must be specialists in each field. Now, if mathematics doesn’t suit me, then there’s no point in bothering me with it.
Prostakova still believes that servants need to be scolded, that they need to be beaten, but they don’t understand any other way. (Maybe this is partially true.) If you remember the hero from Chekhov’s funny story “The Intruder,” it’s useless to talk to this guy! And one more thing - she doesn’t want to spoil relations with neighbors, with relatives, and says that she would rather take it all out on the serfs. It's terrible, yes. But then serfs (like black slaves) were practically not considered people. They were hitting simulators for her, just like dolls are now in offices. And if in a hundred years they start talking about the rights of dolls, we will also turn out to be cruel.
In the finale, she screams that she is dead - there is no more power (literally) or a son (figuratively). The son turned out to be a real traitor. In general, Prostakova is a close-minded mother hen; she cannot be entirely blamed for her terrible behavior. Perhaps she will even repent and reform.
Several interesting essays
- Essay Mathematics in my life (5th, 6th grade)
Each of us has a passion or hobby. My favorite activity is mathematics. At first glance, it may seem that mathematics is a dry and uninteresting science. But this is one of the oldest and most interesting sciences
- The theme of loneliness in the story Tosca by Chekhov essay
The story "Tosca" is the pinnacle achieved by Chekhov's mastery. Sensitive lyricism and a depressing feeling of sadness are presented in perfection and it is precisely because of this that it is physically painful to read this work.
- Analysis of the story The Living Relics of Turgenev
I. S. Turgenev showed an example of endless patience, suffering and acceptance of God’s will in his story “Living Relics.” In the image of the main character Lukerya, the author reflected the character, fortitude and attitude to the life of the Russian people.
- Analysis of the chapter Fatalist from the novel Hero of Our Time, 9th grade
The final part of Lermontov’s work “A Hero of Our Time” is the story “Fatalist”. The events in this chapter take place near the Cossack village, where the main character stayed for two weeks. Basically, what the officers did was play cards.
Most people in the world are rich: there are a lot of pennies, valuables and speeches. Let us not forget that financial wealth is not the most important thing in life and we should not forget about such a term as spiritual wealth
