”, the landowner Prostakova is a very peculiar 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" in Fonvizin's comedy is respected. But Prostakova is not a typical negative classic character, who, according to the requirements, should not have any positive features at all.
Our main character- Prostakov only in appearance. She is Skotinina by birth and in essence, and is only able to give birth to something similar to herself.
She is the central face of the conflict that has formed in the comedy. All the problems were originally tied to her, and created by her. This is a woman who was brought up by an imperious tyrant-father, who received visitors, "sitting on a chest." She grew up in wealth and permissiveness. She was married, but managed to easily suppress her husband's will, because, apparently, she was physically stronger.
She resolves all controversial issues with the help of her fists, and never refuses herself the opportunity to humiliate, insult and shout at someone, and even more so at serfs. Everything should be subordinated to Prostakova and should please her. Even the wealthy Starodub is a “benefactor” who is obliged to do her good deeds. Who else but her!
She already disposed of the lands and property of the orphan Sophia in advance - the good does not disappear, especially since it goes into her hands. If not a brother, then a son, especially since Sophia is a rich heiress. Sophia herself is of no interest to anyone, pigs - only they really occupy the groom Skotinin.
And the undersized groom Mitrofan does not care who he is married to - the most powerful emotions he also experienced at the sight of "pigs" - "as he was for another three years, it happened, when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy"! But the fact that her, Prostakova never let go of her hands. The landowner is even ready for outright baseness when everything does not turn out the way she planned.
But, oddly enough, this creature is able to love - selflessly, not seeing anything negative. She adores her only son with some kind of animal love, ready to tear to shreds for the offense inflicted on her offspring: “Have you heard that a bitch gave out her puppies?” Everything that she says and does not do her child, she is ready to justify, protect, rush to the offender. This is the blind maternal instinct of an animal, not a single living being is more unworthy of it, only a worthy heir to the Skotinins, her baby, her pride and joy.
At the end of the comedy, Prostakova is completely unsettled and demoralized: her power over the estate is taken away from her, Sophia marries another and wealth is lost - and even the adored 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 that she had was irretrievably lost.
This character, of course, cannot arouse 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 nobility", 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 Undergrowth, it was Fonvizin who began to ridicule the "tyrants of Russian life" in literature.
The comedy "Undergrowth" is a brilliant work by Fonvizin, in which the playwright portrayed bright, memorable characters whose names are in contemporary literature and era have become household names. One of the main images of the play is the mother of the undergrowth Mitrofanushka - Mrs. Prostakova. According to the plot of the work, the heroine belongs to negative characters. A rude, uneducated, cruel and mercenary 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 "Undergrowth" is no exception. The woman was brought up in a family of uneducated landowners, whose main value was material wealth - her father even died on a chest with money. Disrespect for others, cruelty towards the peasants and the willingness to do anything for the sake of profit Prostakov adopted 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 - is a real horror.
Perhaps if Prostakova married an educated and more active man, the shortcomings of her upbringing became less and less noticeable over time. However, she got a passive, stupid Prostakov as her husband, who finds it easier to hide behind the skirt of an active wife than to solve household issues on his own. The need to manage the whole village herself and the old landowner's upbringing made the woman even more cruel, despotic and rude, reinforcing all the negative qualities of her character.
Considering the life story of the heroine, the ambiguous characterization of Prostakova in "Undergrowth" is clarified before the reader. Mitrofan is the son of a woman, her only consolation and joy. However, neither he nor her husband appreciates Prostakova's efforts to manage the village. It is enough to recall the well-known scene when, at the end of the play, Mitrofan leaves his mother, and the husband can only reproach his son - Prostakov also stays away from her grief, not trying to console the woman. Even with all the grumpy character, Prostakov is sorry, because the closest people leave her.
Mitrofan's ingratitude: who is to blame?
As mentioned above, Mitrofan was Prostakova's only consolation. Excessive love of a woman raised a "mama's boy" out of him. Mitrofan is just as rude, cruel, stupid and greedy. At sixteen, he still resembles a small child who is naughty and runs around chasing pigeons instead of studying. On the one hand, excessive care and protection of the son from any worries of the real world may be associated with the tragic history of the family of Prostakova herself - one child is not eighteen. However, on the other hand, it was simply convenient for Prostakova that Mitrofan remained a big imbecile child.
As it becomes clear from the scene of the lesson in arithmetic, when a woman solves the tasks proposed by Tsyfirkin in her own way, the "own", landowner's wisdom of the owner is the main one for her. Without any education, Prostakova resolves any situation in search of personal gain. Obedient Mitrofan, who obeyed his mother in everything, should also have been a profitable investment. Prostakova does not even spend money on his education - after all, firstly, she herself lived perfectly without burdensome knowledge, and, secondly, she knows better what her son needs. Even marrying Sophia, first of all, would replenish the chests of the Prostakovs' village (recall that the young man does not even fully understand the essence of marriage - he is simply mentally and morally not mature enough yet).
The fact that in the final scene Mitrofan refuses his mother is undoubtedly the fault of Prostakova herself. The young man took over from her disrespect for relatives and the fact that you need to stick to someone who has money and power. That is why Mitrofan, without hesitation, agrees to serve with the new owner of the village of Pravdina. However, the main reason still lies in the general "malice" 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 obsolete morality
In The Undergrowth, Mrs. Prostakova is contrasted with two characters - Starodum and Pravdin. Both men are carriers of humane educational ideas, contrasting with the outdated, landowner's foundations.
Starodum and Prostakova, according to the plot of the play, are the parents of young people, but their approach to education is completely different. A woman, as mentioned earlier, pampers her son and treats him like a child. She does not try to teach him something, on the contrary, even during the lesson she says that he will not need knowledge. Starodum, on the other hand, communicates with Sophia on an equal footing, shares his own experience with her, transfers 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 from them, 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, enlightening ideas. He came to the village specifically to stop Prostakova's cruelty and let people work in peace. Through a comparison of 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 image of Prostakova
In "Undergrowth" Prostakov acts as an ambiguous character. On the one hand, she appears as a cruel, stupid, mercenary representative of the old nobility and landowner customs. On the other hand, we have a woman with difficult fate, which in 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 "Undergrowth" does not fit into the patterns and frames of classic heroes. The psychologism and non-standard depiction of an essentially composite image (Prostakova is a reflection of the whole social layer of serf Russia in the 18th century) makes 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 “Characteristics of Prostakova in the comedy “Undergrowth” by Fonvizin”
Artwork test
Prostakov.
The ideological concept determined the composition actors"Undergrowth." The comedy depicts typical feudal landlords (Prostakovs, Skotinina), their serf servants (Eremeevna and Trishka), teachers (Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman) and contrasts them with such advanced nobles as, according to Fonvizin, everything should be Russian nobility: on public service(Pravdin), in the field of economic activity (Starodum), on military service(Milon).
The image of Sophia, an intelligent and enlightened girl, contributes to a more complete disclosure of Prostakova's willfulness and ignorance; Sophia is connected with all the struggle that takes place in the "comedy".
The main face of the comedy is the landowner Prostakova. - rough and unbridled nature. She is impudent when she meets no resistance, and at the same time she is cowardly when she encounters strength. Merciless to those who are in her power, she humiliates herself, ready to wallow at her feet, begging for forgiveness from someone who is stronger than her (the scene with Pravdin at the end of the comedy), she is ignorant simpleton. She is hostile to enlightenment; from her point of view, education is superfluous: “Without the sciences, people live and lived,” she says. Only in obedience to necessity, wanting to "bring to the people" Mitrofan, she hires teachers for him, but she herself interferes with his teaching. In relations with people, she is guided only by rough calculation, personal gain. Such, for example, is her attitude towards Starodum and Sophia. For the sake of personal gain, she is even capable of committing a crime (an attempt to kidnap Sophia in order to forcibly marry her to Mitrofan).
Prostakova has no moral concepts: a sense of duty, philanthropy, a sense of human dignity.
A staunch inveterate serf-owner, she considers serfs to be her complete property: she can do whatever she pleases with them. No matter how hard her servants and peasants strain at work, they cannot please their ferocious owner. The illness of a serf infuriates her “Lies! Oh, she's a beast! Lies! As if noble!.. Delirious, beast! As if noble! Even Eremeevna, devoted to her, Mitrofan's nanny, who is trying in every possible way to please her, Prostakova calls nothing more than an "old witch", "a dog's daughter" and a "bad mug".
Prostakova believes that it is possible to manage the economy only with the help of swearing and beatings. She herself tells Pravdin about this, naively believing that the methods of her management are worthy of all praise: That's how the house is kept, my father. She completely robbed the peasants, squeezed everything she could out of them. “Since everything,” she lamented to her brother, “whatever the peasants had, we have taken away, we can’t rip anything off. Such a disaster!
Prostakova is despotic and rude not only in relation to the serfs. She does not put a dull, timid and weak-willed husband in anything and pushes him around as she wants. Teachers Mitrofan, Kuteika-nu and Tsyfirkin, do not pay salaries for a year.
Only Prostakova treats her son Mitrofan differently. She loves him, is tender to him) Caring for his happiness and well-being is the main content of her life. “One of my concerns, one of my joys is Mitrofanushka,” she says. My maternal love she likens it to a dog's attachment to his puppy. Therefore, her blind, unreasonable, ugly love for her son brings neither Mitrofan nor herself anything but harm.
The character of Prostakova, the degree of her mental development, the position of a landowner and sovereign mistress in the house, her attitude towards people around her - all this is expressively and vividly reflected in her speech.
So, she calls Trishka "a swindler, a thief, a slot, a thieves' mug, a blockhead", Eremeevna - a "beast". Her dismissive attitude towards her husband is also expressed in mockery of him: “You yourself are baggy, clever mind”, and in rude shouts: “Why are you so pissed off today, my father?” "The whole century, sir, you walk, I weigh my ears." She calls her husband a "freak", "dead". But her speech becomes different in appeals to her son: “Mitrofanushka, my friend; my friend of the heart; son", etc.
At first, Prostakova treats Sophia roughly tyrannically: "No, ma'am, these are your inventions, in order to intimidate us with your uncle, so that we give you freedom." “Oh, mother! I know that you are a craftswoman, but dashing, I don’t really believe you. When she finds out that Sofya has become a rich heiress, the tone of her speech changes dramatically: “Congratulations, Sofyushka! Congratulations, my soul!
Prostakova's lack of culture is reflected in her use of vernacular: first - instead of the first, looking - instead of more, girls - instead of the girl.
But Prostakova is a landowner; in her midst, she also heard the speech of people of that time close to the literary language. Therefore, in her speech there are (albeit rarely) bookish-literary words and phrases, although somewhat distorted: “amorous writing”; “this is from the officer who was looking to marry you”; "I recommend you our dear guest, Mr. Pravdin"
Ingratiatingly, flatteringly, she turns to Starodum: “Our priceless guest! Would it really be necessary to meet our own father, on whom we have all hope, who we have alone, like gunpowder in the eye.
The image of Prostakova, vividly and truthfully drawn, acquires even greater persuasiveness, vitality, especially because Fonvizin shows the conditions under the influence of which her character was formed and took on such ugly forms. Prostakova grew up in a family characterized by extreme ignorance. Neither father nor mother gave her any education, did not instill any moral rules, did not lay anything good in her soul from childhood, but the conditions of serfdom - her position as the sovereign owner of serfs - influenced her even more strongly. Unrestrained by any moral foundations, full of consciousness of her unlimited power and impunity, she turned into an "inhuman mistress", a tyrant-fiend.
The comedy "Undergrowth" is a brilliant work by Fonvizin, in which the playwright portrayed bright, memorable characters whose names in modern literature and the era have become household names. One of the main images of the play is the mother of the undergrowth Mitrofanushka - Mrs. Prostakova. According to the plot of the work, the heroine belongs to negative characters. A rude, uneducated, cruel and mercenary 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 "Undergrowth" is no exception. The woman was brought up in a family of uneducated landowners, whose main value was material wealth - her father even died on a chest with money. Disrespect for others, cruelty towards the peasants and the willingness to do anything for the sake of profit Prostakov adopted 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 - is a real horror.
Perhaps if Prostakova married an educated and more active man, the shortcomings of her upbringing became less and less noticeable over time. However, she got a passive, stupid Prostakov as her husband, who finds it easier to hide behind the skirt of an active wife than to solve household issues on his own. The need to manage the whole village herself and the old landowner's upbringing made the woman even more cruel, despotic and rude, reinforcing all the negative qualities of her character.
Considering the life story of the heroine, the ambiguous characterization of Prostakova in "Undergrowth" is clarified before the reader. Mitrofan is the son of a woman, her only consolation and joy. However, neither he nor her husband appreciates Prostakova's efforts to manage the village. It is enough to recall the well-known scene when, at the end of the play, Mitrofan leaves his mother, and the husband can only reproach his son - Prostakov also stays away from her grief, not trying to console the woman. Even with all the grumpy character, Prostakov is sorry, because the closest people leave her.
Mitrofan's ingratitude: who is to blame?
As mentioned above, Mitrofan was Prostakova's only consolation. Excessive love of a woman raised a "mama's boy" out of him. Mitrofan is just as rude, cruel, stupid and greedy. At sixteen, he still resembles a small child who is naughty and runs around chasing pigeons instead of studying. On the one hand, excessive care and protection of the son from any worries of the real world may be associated with the tragic history of the family of Prostakova herself - one child is not eighteen. However, on the other hand, it was simply convenient for Prostakova that Mitrofan remained a big imbecile child.
As it becomes clear from the scene of the lesson in arithmetic, when a woman solves the tasks proposed by Tsyfirkin in her own way, the "own", landowner's wisdom of the owner is the main one for her. Without any education, Prostakova resolves any situation in search of personal gain. Obedient Mitrofan, who obeyed his mother in everything, should also have been a profitable investment. Prostakova does not even spend money on his education - after all, firstly, she herself lived perfectly without burdensome knowledge, and, secondly, she knows better what her son needs. Even marrying Sophia, first of all, would replenish the chests of the Prostakovs' village (recall that the young man does not even fully understand the essence of marriage - he is simply mentally and morally not mature enough yet).
The fact that in the final scene Mitrofan refuses his mother is undoubtedly the fault of Prostakova herself. The young man took over from her disrespect for relatives and the fact that you need to stick to someone who has money and power. That is why Mitrofan, without hesitation, agrees to serve with the new owner of the village of Pravdina. However, the main reason still lies in the general "malice" 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 obsolete morality
In The Undergrowth, Mrs. Prostakova is contrasted with two characters - Starodum and Pravdin. Both men are carriers of humane educational ideas, contrasting with the outdated, landowner's foundations.
Starodum and Prostakova, according to the plot of the play, are the parents of young people, but their approach to education is completely different. A woman, as mentioned earlier, pampers her son and treats him like a child. She does not try to teach him something, on the contrary, even during the lesson she says that he will not need knowledge. Starodum, on the other hand, communicates with Sophia on an equal footing, shares his own experience with her, transfers 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 from them, 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, enlightening ideas. He came to the village specifically to stop Prostakova's cruelty and let people work in peace. Through a comparison of 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 image of Prostakova
In "Undergrowth" Prostakov acts as an ambiguous character. On the one hand, she appears as a cruel, stupid, mercenary representative of the old nobility and landowner customs. 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 "Undergrowth" does not fit into the patterns and frames of classic heroes. The psychologism and non-standard depiction of an essentially composite image (Prostakova is a reflection of the whole social layer of serf Russia in the 18th century) makes 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 “Characteristics of Prostakova in the comedy “Undergrowth” by Fonvizin”
Artwork test
Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" is one of classical works, without which it is impossible to consider the traditions of social comedy and satire in Russian literature in general. The author skillfully portrays typical characters hinterland, ossified, rude, uneducated, but bearing important titles and proud of their own nobility.
An important role in reflecting the author's position and the whole idea of the work is played by such a characteristic character as Mrs. Prostakova. A tough landowner, she is quite typical of the Russian reality of that time. Under her "wing" is a beloved son, and also not too loving husband who simply does not dare to object to his domineering wife. She is actually a narrow-minded, but very purposeful woman who is completely focused on raising her own son and the financial and social prosperity of her family. She obviously lacks both education and banal upbringing and tact, however, this character is not devoid of strong feelings, and is not at all as unambiguous as it might seem.
Characteristics of the hero
The main features of the character are not so difficult to understand, they are prescribed by Fonvizin quite clearly, since Prostakova herself is neither a mysterious person nor a lady too deep in her inner content. On the one hand, she is cruel and merciless, she is ready for anything to achieve her own goals. On the other hand, she is filled with love for her son so much that she does not want to notice his most obvious shortcomings. Such a contradiction does not allow the reader to perceive her solely as a negative character.
The main features of the heroine can also be attributed to malevolence, irascibility, intolerance. She is not too happy, so she is always unhappy with what is happening around. This applies to both the relationship with her husband and the social structure, even politics and economics, as much as she is able to understand them at all.
Another important feature of this hero is her dislike for the sciences in all their manifestations. For her, the absence of any development is a guarantee of stability and prosperity. She is very straightforward, so she takes any exercises and lessons literally. In many scenes with the teacher, her greed is also revealed: simple mathematical problems plunge her into a real shock, make her completely protect her child from these harmful sciences.
This is precisely her psychological portrait: over the years, the typical consciousness of an imperious landowner literally “killed” everything human in her. Only the lust for power drives her, and even good feelings turn into something negative: love for a husband turns into a command, tenderness for a son - into overprotection. Small but significant features, the author draws through the details, for example, giving a link to an unsightly maiden name. The former Skotina, Prostakova, received after marriage a no less telling surname.
The image of the hero in the work
Prostakov - central image in a comedy around which several storylines. However, it is much more important that she embodies all the old landowners, which Fonvizin makes fun of. The finale, in which Prostakova again plays a central role, shows the main idea of the author precisely through the social death of this "malicious fury". She inevitably came to an end, as well as the entire system of petty-bourgeois society. Throughout Prostakov's comedy, there is the embodiment of petty-bourgeois orders and remnants.
Through the image of Prostakova, the author of the comedy outlines all the features that are so hated to him in contemporary society. The lady does not consider her serfs to be people; for her, they are only soulless and not too smart machines for executing orders. They are obliged to endure any punishment from her with or without it. In her eyes, such people simply cannot have good intentions and need "hedgehogs".
She does not consider the interests and feelings of other people to be something important. Without deceit and cunning, this woman will not be able to arrange her future, and this is a dead end path of development, which is why it leads to such a tragic ending. The deprivation of Prostakova of her village at the end is a direct reference of the author to the sad end of all philistinism, which must be deprived of all property for their crimes. At the same time, the future of the state, according to Fonvizin, remains with such characters and classes as Sophia and Milan.
