On what basis was the image of Mrs. Prostakova created? Characteristics of Prostakova in the comedy “Minor. Fonvizin's innovation in the portrayal of Prostakova

The comedy by D. Fonvizin “The Minor” tells about the events that took place in the Prostakovs’ house. Their main participants are Mitrofan, the son of the owner of the house, his mother, Mrs. Prostakova, and Starodum with his niece.

Mrs. Prostakova madly loves her son, cares and fusses overly with him, indulging all his whims and whims, which is why Mitrofan grows up as an absolutely dependent person, whose level of development does not at all correspond to his age. But Mrs. Prostakova blindly follows his wishes. She sees her future in her son, repeating all the time: “This son is my only consolation!” And at the same time she does nothing to ensure that her son grows into something worthwhile. Mitrofan is taught literacy by bad teachers, and he himself does not want to learn. However, the mother considers her son the best and most educated, although this lazy fellow has no intelligence or knowledge.

With her husband, Mrs. Prostakova behaves as if she does not consider him a person at all, let alone the head of the family. She decides all issues herself, regardless of his opinion and neglecting it when it comes to Mitrofan.

Mrs. Prostakova is a cruel and unfair mistress towards her servants and peasants. She can severely punish a tailor for sewing a suit incorrectly, and does not pay attention if one of the servants gets sick. Mrs. Prostakova scolds Eremeevna for every “mistake.” For example, if Mitrofanushka ate too many buns at dinner, and Eremeevna showed concern about this, she says: “Do you feel sorry for the sixth bun, you beast? That’s the kind of zeal.” It never occurred to her that overeating would not be good for her son. Prostakova considers all serfs to be her property, practically a thing, so she allows herself to thoughtlessly manage their lives and rip them off like a stick, simply at her whim.

Mrs. Prostakova treats Sophia like an evil mistress. She is always rude and cold. But as soon as she finds out that Starodum, Sophia’s uncle, left his niece a large inheritance, she changes her behavior, becomes hypocritically kind and affectionate, and calls her “dear friend.” Now Prostakova wants to marry her son to Sofia in order to receive all her money as a dowry, refusing this to her brother, although she previously agreed to this marriage. Having learned that Sofia is betrothed to officer Milan and that Starodum agreed to this, Prostakova wants to marry her son to the girl by force and deception. However, her idea failed. By law, the village was taken away from her, depriving her of power.

Mrs. Prostakova was a cruel, headstrong woman who did not take into account the interests and feelings of other people, which is why she lost everything. In the image of Prostakova, Fonvizin reveals the negative traits of a narrow-minded, unscrupulous person with power, who through his actions brings both himself and his loved ones into trouble. The author shows that you can get wealth without losing honor and human face. And people like Prostakova ultimately pay for all the evil caused.

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.

Prostakova's fate

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. 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 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

", the landowner Prostakova is a very unique character for a comedy written according to the rules of classicism. She also stands out against the background of very “pale” positive characters, and is not as disgustingly unambiguous as her son Mitrofan Prostakov and brother Taras Skotinin.

Of course, the classic “trinity” is observed in Fonvizin’s comedy. But Prostakova is not a typical negative classic character, who, according to the requirements, should have no positive traits at all.

Our main character is Prostakova only in appearance. She is Skotinina by birth and in essence, and is only capable of giving birth to something similar to herself.

She is the central face of the conflict that has formed in the comedy. All problems were initially tied to her, and were created by her. This is a woman who was raised by an imperious tyrant father who received visitors “sitting on a chest.” She grew up in wealth and permissiveness. She was given in marriage, but was able to easily suppress her husband’s will, since, apparently, she was physically stronger.

She resolves all controversial issues with the help of her fists, and never denies herself the opportunity to humiliate, insult and yell at someone, and especially at serfs. Everything should be subordinated to Prostakova and should please her. Even the rich Starodub is a “benefactor” who is obliged to benefit her. Who else if not her!

She had already disposed of the lands and property of the orphan Sophia in advance - the good would not go to waste, especially since it was coming into her hands. If not for his brother, then for his son, especially since Sophia is a rich heiress. Sophia herself is of no interest to anyone, pigs are the only ones who really occupy Skotinin’s fiancé.

And the underage groom Mitrofan does not care who he is married to - he also experienced the strongest emotions at the sight of “pigs” - “as he was three years old, it used to be, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy”! But Prostakova never let go of her. The landowner is even ready for outright baseness when everything does not work out as she planned.

But, oddly enough, this creature is capable of loving - selflessly, without seeing anything negative. She adores her only son with some kind of animal love, ready to tear him to shreds for the insult inflicted on her offspring: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” Whatever her child says or does, she is ready to justify, defend, and rush at the offender. This is the blind maternal instinct of an animal; no living creature is more unworthy of it, only the worthy heir of the Skotinin family, her baby, her pride and joy.

At the end of the comedy, Prostakova is completely unsettled and demoralized: power over the estate has been taken away from her, Sophia marries someone else and her wealth is lost - and even her beloved Mitrofan leaves her without regret as soon as he sees her failure. But most of all, the landowner is killed by the thought that the power she had was lost irretrievably.

This character, of course, cannot evoke sympathy; he is endowed with painfully unattractive features. However, Prostakova is not a single character who showed us the “tyrant of Russian life” in the comedy. This is a typical representative of the “wild lordship”, and since this problem was sore, Fonvizin solves it radically - he shows exactly how to deal with people like her. And although serfdom was abolished only sixty years after the release of The Minor, it was Fonvizin who began ridiculing the “tyrants of Russian life” in literature.

He described non-trivial characters in the work, whose names are today used as common nouns to describe characteristic types. Mrs. Prostakova is the main character’s mother. She is one of the negative heroes of the comedy. A cruel serf woman who everywhere exhibits despotism, she is self-interested and arouses contempt. Sometimes her actions provoke ridicule. The characteristics of this image are thought out by Fonvizin to the smallest detail, and the character is distinguished by his psychologism.

History of creation

The idea of ​​creating a play originated with Fonvizin in 1778, and the work was completed in 1782. At this time, the era of reign occurred. The heroes of the essay became the personification of typical representatives of the society of that time. At that time, the country was dominated by the cult of an enlightened monarchy and an upswing in scientific and cultural development. The Empress herself encouraged the townspeople and nobles to follow the propagated idea of ​​enlightenment.

While working on a comedy, Fonvizin shared the ideas characteristic of a representative of his social status. In the comedy, he reflected the real state of affairs, demonstrating the weaknesses of the policies being implemented. The play has become an example of classical drama. The work uses “speaking” surnames, which also allows us to classify it as an example of classicism. The positive characters in the story include Sophia and Milon, and the negative ones include Prostakov and himself. The names of the characters reveal the dominant feature in their images. So, for example, Pravdin becomes the bearer of morality in comedy.

Role in the play "The Minor"

The work clearly demonstrates how upbringing and morals instilled in the family shape the personality and its character traits. Prostakova grew up in a landowner family, where the penchant for education was not encouraged. Material wealth in her family was valued more highly, so cruelty towards serfs is inherent in the landowner at the genetic level, out of a thirst for profit. It is worth remembering that she was one of eighteen children. Only two children survived in the family. Even taking into account mortality statistics, this fact is terrifying.

Prostakova’s biography was not conducive to broadening her horizons. Her husband was not burdened with knowledge and ambitions. The husband was unable to positively influence her, since stupidity and passivity also characterized him. They were flavored with cowardice and unwillingness to take responsibility. The need to take on the role of mistress of the house and head of the family made Prostakova rude and strengthened her negative qualities.

At the same time, the landowner, who is perceived as nothing other than an evil fury, is a caring mother. Mitrofanushka is her only love. The son, like the husband, does not appreciate the woman’s efforts. Grief falls on the landowner when Mitrofan decides to leave her, and her husband does not come to Prostakova’s defense.

The son of a despotic mistress was no different from his mother. He was narrow-minded, greedy and rude. At the age of 16, he was considered an infantile fellow, incapable of independence. The lazy man had fun, not knowing the worries and hardships of real life. His mother raised him with love, protecting him from work, so the young man grew up to be a “mama’s boy.”

Mitrofan obeys his mother in everything and, like her, does not recognize the effect of education. When the question of marrying Sophia arises, it turns out that he does not understand the meaning of marriage, since he simply has not grown up to it. Marriage becomes a means of improving the well-being of the family. The young man’s refusal of his mother is natural, because she herself instilled disrespect for the family and dependence on money and power. Pravdin, as a master, is of more interest to Mitrofan than his mother. The lack of her father's authority and lack of upbringing have led to a situation in which Prostakova is deprived of the most important thing she has.

Prostakova is contrasted with Pravdin and Starodum, who advocate enlightenment, reproaching the outdated way of life practiced by the landowners. Like Prostakova, Starodum is the father of a representative of the new generation, but his attitude to education differs from the rules established in the house of a future relative. The landowner instills in Sophia a love of learning, a thirst for knowledge and reflection.

He develops personality. The characters' views on managing the estate vary, as do their views on relationships with serfs. The enlightener Pravdin saves the peasants of Prostakova, saving them from the usual cruelty of the landowner.

Contrasting two radically different points of view, the author of the work emphasized the need for social reforms. For all the stupidity and severity, Prostakova represents the nobility, whose foundations have outlived their usefulness, and a disappointed woman who has dramatically lost everything she had. Contrary to dramatic canons, the negative character, the landowner, evokes pity and sympathy. The inherent psychologism of the image makes it innovative.

Quotes

The speech of the landowner Prostakova characterizes the approach to managing the peasants and the usual way of life. The phrases that she uses in the dialogues eloquently describe the disastrous situation in which the serfs found themselves due to the stupidity of the lady and her lack of interest in education.

“...we took away everything that the peasants had, we can’t rip anything off. Such a disaster! - clearly demonstrates the stinginess, greed and despotism of Prostakova, who is ready to rob her own peasants naked.

The woman treats the serfs as plebeians, without hesitation scolding them to the best of their ability.

“...And you, brute, come closer...” she says to the tailor Trishka, humiliating him.

Prostakova considers constant showdowns with serfs to be work that wastes time and effort. Although her appearance does not suggest that a woman can get into a fight with ordinary men, the reality turns out differently:

“...From morning to evening, as if hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight; This is how the house holds together, my father!” - Prostakova complains.

Greed, inability to manage competently, and lack of interest in the correct approach to communication fully characterize Prostakova.

- Mrs. Prostakova. The playwright portrays her vividly and realistically. Before us is a living face, we see Prostakova, we understand all her simple primitive psychology, we understand why and how the character of this “despicable fury” developed, as Pravdin calls her. The first thing that catches your eye when you read “The Minor” or see the production of this comedy is the extraordinary rudeness of Mrs. Prostakova: the first act begins with her scolding the tailor Trishka, calling him “a beast, a thief, and a blockhead.” . The same rudeness is visible in her words addressed to her husband, to her brother. But in the treatment of the servants one can see not only rudeness, but also inhuman cruelty. Having learned that the girl Palashka is sick, ill and delirious, Prostakova exclaims: “Oh, she is a beast! Lying down! He's delusional, you beast! It’s like she’s noble!” She tells her husband to punish Trishka the tailor because, in her opinion, the caftan he sewed for Mitrofan does not fit well. “Rogues! the thieves! scammers! beat everyone to death!” - she shouts to people. Prostakova considers mistreatment of servants not only her right, but also her duty: “I manage everything myself, father,” she says to Pravdin, “from morning to evening, like being hanged by the tongue, I don’t lay down my hands: I scold, I fight, That’s how the house holds up!” She completely ruined her serfs with quitrents and says it herself: “since we robbed everything that the peasants had, we can no longer rip off anything.” Her brother, Skotinin, does the same with his peasants: “No matter how much the neighbors offended me, no matter how much loss they caused,” he says, “I didn’t hit anyone with my forehead: and any loss, how to go about it, I’ll tear it off.” their own peasants, and they end up in the water.”

Heroes of Fonvizin's "Minor"

Brother and sister received the same upbringing, which partly explains the rudeness of their morals. Prostakova herself says that her father had eighteen brothers and sisters, but, except for her and her brother, everyone “fitted in”; it is clear that the children grew up without any supervision: “some were pulled out of the bathhouse dead; three, after sipping milk from a copper cauldron, died; two of the Holy One fell from the bell tower; and the rest did not stand on their own...” The children at home were not taught anything. The father got angry when “good people” persuaded him to send his son to school, and shouted: “I will curse the child who learns anything from the infidels, and be it not Skotinin who wants to learn something.”

In a conversation with Starodum, Prostakova completes the portrait of her father: “The dead father,” she says, “was a commander for fifteen years, and with that he deigned to die because he did not know how to read and write, but knew how to make and save enough. He always received petitions while sitting on an iron chest. After everything, he will open the chest and put something in.” At the same time, he was a great “economist”, in other words, a stingy miser. “Dead man, light,” Prostakova ends her story, “lying on a chest with money, he died, so to speak, of hunger.” The example of such a father and the upbringing he gave to his children was reflected in Prostakova’s character and views.

Fonvizin. Minor. Maly Theater performance

However, agreeing with her father that “people live and have lived without science,” Prostakova is trying to give her son Mitrofanushka some kind of education. Following the demands of the time, she even herself says to Mitrofan: “live forever, learn forever.” She understands that now you can’t get high ranks without a diploma. Therefore, the seminarian Kuteikin has been teaching Mitrofan literacy for three years now, the retired soldier Tsyfirkin has been teaching arithmetic, and the German Vralman, who enjoys special honor in the house as a foreigner, has been teaching all sciences. Prostakova spares nothing in order to bring Mitrofanushka into the public eye, but, not understanding anything about science herself, she interferes in lessons, stupidly prevents teachers from doing their job and indulges Mitrofan’s laziness.

Prostakova's mad love for her son is the only good trait of her character, although, in essence, it is a primitive, rude feeling; Prostakova herself compares her love for her son with the natural affection of a dog for its puppy. But love for her son, whatever it may be, takes first place in all the actions and thoughts of Mrs. Prostakova. Mitrofan is the center and meaning of her life. For his sake, she is ready to commit a crime, tries to take Sophia away and forcibly marry her to Mitrofan. Therefore, when all her atrocities are revealed, when Pravdin takes custody of her estate for inhumane treatment of the servants and threatens to put her on trial, seeing that power and strength have been taken away from her, she rushes to her adored son: “You are the only one left with me.” , my dear friend, Mitrofanushka!” - And when Mitrofan, in response to this cry of his mother’s heart, rudely pushes her away: “Get off, mother, how you imposed yourself!” – she cannot stand her grief and says: “And you! And you leave me!” faints. At this moment, one involuntarily feels sorry for Mrs. Prostakova; the author managed to portray her truly as a living person. Pointing at her, Starodum says the famous final words of the comedy: “These are the worthy fruits of evil!”