Family portrait of the Prostakovs-Skotinins (based on D. Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”). Characteristics of Mrs. Prostakova (based on the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin)

Prostakova- wife of Terenty Prostakov, mother of Mitrofan and sister of Taras Skotinin. The surname indicates both the simplicity, ignorance, lack of education of the heroine, and the fact that she is in trouble.

P. -. one of the main characters of the comedy that determines the plot: it is her decision to marry Mitrofan to Sophia (contrary to the initial intention to marry her to Skotinin) that ties the knot of love intrigue and it is P.’s intention, having exhausted all legal ways to secretly marry her son with Sophia, that unties this knot. At the beginning of the comedy, P. is at the pinnacle of power, at the end of the comedy she loses everything: power over the serfs, her estate, her son (“I’m completely lost! Take away my power!” - d. 5, the last one). All levels of the plot are connected with the image of P. - love, comedy-satirical and - indirectly - ideal-utopian, because “the case of P.” allows positive characters to inform readers and viewers about their views and their program for the patriotic education of youth. In addition, positive characters constantly mention P. and in their reasoning are based on her speeches and actions, citing her as an example of monstrous evil and inhumanity. The image of P., according to the long-standing and correct conclusion of criticism, is Fonvizin’s greatest artistic success. It was developed in detail and, moreover, in a psychological key, which was quite new for Russian drama of the 18th century.

All feelings and class concepts (about noble liberty, etc.) are extremely distorted, distorted in P.’s consciousness and character.

P. is driven by a feeling of maternal love, a natural, positive and high feeling. But, not falling under either the control of the mind or the control of the soul, it degenerates into an “animal” instinct, becomes insane (Pravdin says to Mitrofan: “Her crazy love for you is what brought her most of all to misfortune” - d. 5, yavl. last thing). No wonder P. likens herself to a bitch who does not give away her puppies. Everything that is beneficial for the organization of Mitrofanushka’s fate is good, and everything that is not profitable is bad. Mitrofan does not need poor Sophia as a wife, but Sophia, a rich heiress, is the desired prey. In this case, the method by which the benefit is achieved does not matter; evil in P.’s eyes easily turns into good; “animal” nature in P. sometimes replaces human nature. The goal of life is to capture prey. (So, arranging a real “hunt” for Sophia, P. seeks to eliminate her rival - Skotinin, clinging to his neck.) The order in her house - which she directly tells Pravdin about (d. 2, iv. V) - is based on brute force . As the action progresses, she constantly snaps at her family, including her husband, servants, and teachers. Only two characters from P.’s entourage were spared insults and beatings: Mitrofan and Vralman. The first for an obvious reason, the second - because of his lavish praise for Mitrofan and all sorts of indulgence in his whims. But Mitrofan P. literally “trains” him; when Tsyfirkin is offended by Mitrofan’s insult (“Your honor, you deign to always bark without doing anything” - d. 3, iv. VII), P. immediately approves of Mitrofan’s “barking”: “Oh, Lord my God! Don’t you dare, child, to elect Pafnutich! I’m already angry!” P.'s heir must have the right not to take into account anyone, including his own mother, because otherwise the “animal” qualities in him will fade, and this is not part of the code of education and does not correspond to P.’s future types. On the contrary, callousness needs in encouragement, in example. But P. teaches Mitrofan not only inhumanity, but also cunning, resourcefulness, pretense, deception, flattery, i.e., everything that is useful in order to snatch a tasty morsel when Mitrofan becomes the master. In the scene of the meeting of Starodum (d. 3, iv. V) in the presence of Pravdin, to whom she had just told about the methods of her management, P., without embarrassment and with inspiration, lies: “When I was born, father, I never scolded anyone. I have such a disposition. Even if you scold me, I won’t say a word. Let God, in his own mind, pay the one who offends me, poor thing.” Mitrofan turned out to be a capable student: he catches Starodum’s hand to kiss it, calling him “second father.” “...All the scenes in which Prostakova appears,” wrote P. A. Vyazemsky, “are filled with life and fidelity, because her character is sustained to the end with unflagging art, with unchanging truth. A mixture of arrogance and baseness, cowardice and malice, vile inhumanity towards everyone and tenderness, equally vile, towards her son, with all that ignorance, from which, like from a muddy source, all these properties flow, coordinated in her character by a sharp-witted and observant painter.”

Fonvizin is interested not only in the essence of P.’s character, but also in the reasons for her evil character. The first reason is ignorance. “By nature,” P. is not at all stupid or soulless, but the lack of proper education led to the fact that the natural principle was not ennobled, “processed” by enlightenment. Uncultivated nature gradually becomes wild, the personality seems to become dehumanized. In this sense, Fonvizin is an opponent of the French educators, especially Rousseau, who argued that the natural principle is distorted under the influence of an unjust social structure. The image of Mrs. P. demonstrates the opposite idea: ignorance, lack of enlightenment, underdevelopment of the mind, bad manners and rudeness of feelings - this is the true source of human destruction. Therefore, the comedian puts into P.’s mouth tirades full of hatred towards enlightenment; her story about parental education is the opposite of Starodum's story.

In comedy, two types of education collide: “ancient” and new, post-Petrine. In a conversation with Starodum, P. innocently admires the patriarchal tradition: “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 a light with both hands and feet, may he rest in heaven! It happened that he would deign to shout: I will curse the little boy who learns something from the infidels, and if it weren’t for Skotinin, he would want to learn something” (D. 3, Rev. V). Her ideal is spiritual stagnation (“With us, it used to be that everyone only looks to rest”), which does not interfere with acquiring wealth through bribes. The problem proposed to Mitrofan Tsyfirkin talks about dividing money. P. thoughtfully remarks: “I found the money, don’t share it with anyone. Take it all for yourself, Mitrofanushka. Don’t learn this stupid science” (D. 3, Rev. VII). Tsyfir-kin proposes another task, which concerns a salary increase. P. intervenes again: “Don’t work in vain, my friend! I won’t add a penny; and you're welcome. Science is not like that. It’s only torment for you, but all I see is emptiness.” P.'s savagery is funny, but not harmless. The dream of 10,000 income from Sophia’s estate gives rise to a plan for her forced marriage with Mitrofan.

Another reason for P.’s “evil morality” is the moral consequence of Catherine’s law “On the Liberty of Nobles,” published on February 18, 1762. Peter I once legalized the compulsory service of nobles, and this became a moral and legal justification for landowners who had serfs. The nobleman served the state and the fatherland, the peasant served the nobleman; cruel landowners had to be subject to guardianship. Catherine's decree formally freed the nobleman from the obligation to serve the state; and, although the sovereign's service was still considered an honorable duty of the nobility, a matter of honor, nevertheless, the moral right of the nobleman to own the peasants (while maintaining legal and actual rights) became doubtful. Unlike nobles like Starodum, Pravdin and Milon and in contradiction with the formal meaning of the decree, the majority of the nobility understood it in the spirit of P. - as complete, unaccountable power over the serfs without any moral, social, public and other restrictions. To paraphrase P., the nobleman is free, “when he wants,” to do whatever “he wants” with the serf. “Master of interpreting decrees!” (Starodum), P. “wanted to say that the law justifies her lawlessness. She said nonsense, and this nonsense is the whole point of “Minor” (Klyuchevsky).

Thus, the second reason for P.’s “evil character” is a false idea of ​​the “liberty” of the nobility, not subject to moral standards.
At the end of the comedy, P. is defeated. Having tried to save herself with imaginary repentance and having almost achieved success, she breaks down, deciding that the danger has passed (“... I’m now turning everyone upside down...” - d. 5, iv. IV). But after Pravdin’s announcement of guardianship, she finally realizes that she has lost everything. This is the naturally sad and pitiful fate of the “old people” who went against history, ossified in “evil morality,” immorality, inhumanity, wild instincts and came into irreconcilable conflict with the era of Peter I and the Age of Enlightenment. P.’s collapse is the defeat of the entire previous “system” of education and the guarantee of the victory of new ideas proclaimed by positive characters. P.'s last words and, in general, the last phenomenon of comedy “stand,” as P. A. Vyazemsky said, “on the border between comedy and tragedy.” But P. Fonvizin connected with personal tragedy the coming triumph of a new morality, excluding “evil morality” from everyday life and based on the benefit of the fatherland. To Pushkin, P. seemed to be the “archetype” of a Russian provincial noblewoman; Tatyana Larina’s mother, having gotten married and moved to the village, forgets about romantic dreams and learns to “manage her husband, like Prostakova.”

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 mature enough to understand it mentally and morally).

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 above 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

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 didn't 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 reality, 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 tormenting me.

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 too will 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.

To be honest, one litter.

D. Fonvizin. Minor

D. I. Fonvizin is not only a great playwright, but also a leading 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. “The brave ruler of satire,” Pushkin called Fonvizin, and today we consider the author of the immortal comedy “The Minor” to be one of the most progressive writers of the “satirical direction” of Russian literature of the 18th 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 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 limitless, 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 impudence 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 is the ideal husband for such a despotic wife as his wife. This man is timid and insecure, 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. What a worthy son of his 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 a 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