The image and characteristics of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin’s “Nedorosl”: a description of Mitrofan Prostakov. Characteristics of the hero Mitrofan from Fonvizin's comedy Nedorosl The name of Mitrofanushka's mother from Nedorosly

Mitrofan is an undergrowth, a negative character in a comedy, a young nobleman. He is very similar to his mother, Mrs. Prostakova, and brother Taras Skotinin. In Mitrofan, in Mrs. Prostakova, in Skotinin one can notice such character traits as greed and selfishness. Mitrofanushka knows that all power in the house belongs to his mother, who loves him and allows him to behave the way he wants. Mitrofan is lazy, does not like and does not know how to work and study, he only frolics, has fun and sits in the dovecote. It’s not so much the mama’s boy himself who influences those around him, as they influence him, trying to raise the little boy as an honest, educated person, and he is like his mother in everything. Mitrofan treats his servants very cruelly, insults them and generally does not consider them to be people:

Eremeevna. Yes, learn at least a little.
Mitrofan. Well, say another word, you old bastard! I’ll finish them off; I’ll complain to my mother again, so she’ll deign to give you a task like yesterday.

Mitrofan also has no respect for teachers. He strives only for his own personal gain, and when he learns that Sophia has become Starodum’s heir, he immediately intends to offer her his hand and heart, and the attitude towards Sophia in the Prostakovs’ house changes significantly for the better. And all this is only because of greed and cunning, and not because of the feat of the heart.

Mitrofan is depicted in the comedy “The Minor” very vividly, vitally, with many human vices, and Mrs. Prostakova simply dotes on her son:

Mrs. Prostakova. ... We don’t regret the last crumbs, just to teach our son everything. My Mitrofanushka doesn’t get up for days because of a book. My mother's heart. It’s a pity, it’s a pity, but just think: for that the child will be in any way... The groom is no matter who, but still the teachers go, he doesn’t waste an hour, and now two of them are waiting in the hallway... My Mitrofanushka has no peace either day or night.

The opposite of Mitrofan is Sophia, a young, kind, reasonable girl.

The main problem that led Fonvizin to create the image of Mitrofan is education to a small extent - serfdom (this generally refers to relationships between people of different social positions).

Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” was staged in the theater in 1782. The historical prototype of the “Miscellaneous” was the title of a noble teenager who did not complete his studies. During Fonvizin’s time, the burdens of compulsory service increased at the same time as the weakening...

(based on the comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor”) The name of D. I. Fonvizin rightfully belongs to the number of names that make up the pride of Russian national culture. His comedy “The Minor” - the ideological and artistic pinnacle of creativity - has become one of the classic examples...

The famous comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “The Minor” is distinguished by its great social depth and sharp satirical orientation. In essence, this is where Russian social comedy begins. The play continues the traditions of classicism, but later...

Mitrofanushka (Prostakov Mitrofan) is the son of the landowners Prostakovs. It is considered an undergrowth because he is 16 years old and has not reached the age of majority. Following the tsar's decree, Mitrofanushka studies. But he does this with great reluctance. He is characterized by stupidity, ignorance and laziness...

The problem of raising children, the legacy destined for the country, played an important role in society in the old days and remains relevant to this day. Members of the Prostakov family are strangers to each other. They don't look like a strong, loving family at all. Mrs. Prostakova is rude...

Mitrofanushka is the son of the landowners Prostakovs and one of the main negative characters in the comedy “The Minor.” As a minor teenager, he is a prominent representative of the noble youth and one of the many “minors” who inhabited Russia in the 18th century. By nature, he is rude and cruel, does not want to study or serve, does not value his father and, taking advantage of his mother’s boundless love, manipulates her as he wishes. He is characterized by dullness, ignorance and laziness, which indicates his similarity to his mother. He openly mocks serfs and teachers. On the one hand, he seems to be a tyrant, on the other hand, the author shows his slavish behavior, instilled in him by the entire Prostakov-Skotinin family and the serf nanny Eremeevna.

When all of Prostakova’s plans to marry him to her rich pupil Sophia collapse and he has to prepare for military service, he meekly asks for forgiveness and accepts his sentence. Using this character as an example, the author of the play tries to show the ignorance of the nobles of that time, as well as social degradation in the country. Thanks to the image of Mitrofanushka, the word “minor” became a common noun. Subsequently, this was the name given to stupid and ignorant people.

The play by Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin is a comedy about the undersized Mitrofanushka (from the Greek “like his mother”), about the vices of his upbringing, which turns the young man into a spoiled and stupid creature. Previously, there was nothing bad about this word, and only over time it became a common noun. In those days, teenagers who had not reached the age of fifteen required to enter the service were called minors.

The decree on the freedom of the nobility, signed by Peter I, gave the nobles the right to choose: to serve or not to serve. But one way or another, training became mandatory. Mrs. Prostakova tries to follow the law, but wants to keep her son “with her” for another ten years: “While Mitrofan is still in his infancy, it’s time to marry him; and then in ten years, when he enters, God forbid, into the service, you’ll have to endure everything.”

Being the only son of the landowners Prostakovs, Mitrofan Terentyevich at the age of sixteen lives with his parents, without knowing any worries. His domineering mother decides everything for him: who to marry, who to kiss on the hand.

Characteristics of the hero

(Illustration for a comedy. Artist T.N. Kasterina, 1981)

Our main character is a spoiled mama's boy who behaves as he pleases. However, his mother’s undivided love turned him not only into an egoist, but also into a skilled manipulator. He doesn’t recognize his father at all and doesn’t value him at all, because he doesn’t indulge his whims. Mitrofan does not like his uncle and is rude in every possible way.

Throughout the play, Prostakov enjoys the comfort of home and idleness, instead of serving. He doesn’t care about anything, except maybe tasty and plentiful food and fun.

Mitrofanushka has neither life goals nor high aspirations. He also has no desire to study, to which he “dedicated” four whole years, but was never able to learn either literacy or arithmetic. This is understandable, because Prostakov never lived by his own wits, and the caring mother did not want to “torment her child with studies,” hiring teachers only because this was customary in noble families.

It is curious that Mitrofan is also characterized by a certain self-criticism: he is aware that he is lazy and stupid. However, this fact does not upset him at all.

Cruelty towards his teachers and servants was the norm for him, because he was narcissistic and arrogant, just like Mrs. Prostakova, who also did not take into account anyone’s opinion except her own. The young man’s nanny, Eremeevna, suffered a lot from him. Mitrofan constantly complained to his mother about the poor woman and they stopped paying her salary.

The whole plot is built around the plan of Mitrofanushka’s sudden marriage to the poor orphan Sophia, who (suddenly!) turns out to be a rich heiress. Following his mother’s instructions, the hero ultimately betrays her: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself.”

The image of the hero in the work

For his relatives, Mitrofan Prostakov is still a small child - even in his presence they talk about him in this way, calling him now a child, now a child - and Mitrofanushka shamelessly takes advantage of this throughout the comedy.

Through the image of Mitrofan, one of the main negative characters, the author shows the degradation of the noble class of that time. Ignorance and rudeness, stupidity and apathy are just the tip of the iceberg of the problems of improper upbringing and permissiveness.

Mommy’s favorite, whose life is burdened with class vices, causes laughter through tears: “Although he is 16 years old, he has already reached the last degree of his perfection and will not go further.” He is his mother's slave, he is her tyrant. His heart does not know love, pity and compassion.

Thanks to the image created by Fonvizin, the word “undergrowth” in our time is used to describe ignorant and stupid people.

Mitrofan Terentyevich Prostakov (Mitrofanushka) - a teenager, the son of the landowners Prostakovs, 15 years old. The name “Mitrofan” means in Greek “revealed by the mother,” “like his mother.” It has become a household word to denote a stupid and arrogant ignorant mama's boy. Yaroslavl old-timers considered the prototype of the image of M. to be a certain barchuk who lived in the vicinity of Yaroslavl, as reported by L. N. Trefolev.

Fonvizin's comedy is a play about a teenager, about his monstrous upbringing, which turns a teenager into a cruel and lazy creature. Before Fonvizin’s comedy, the word “minor” did not carry negative semantics. Minors were teenagers who had not reached fifteen years of age, i.e., the age determined by Peter I for entering the service. In 1736, the period of stay in the “undergrowth” was extended to twenty years. The decree on the freedom of the nobility abolished compulsory military service and gave nobles the right to serve or not to serve, but confirmed the compulsory training introduced under Peter I. Prostakova follows the law, although she does not approve of it. She also knows that many, including those from her family, are circumventing the law. M. has been studying for four years now, but Prostakova wants to keep him with her for ten years.

The plot of the comedy is based on the fact that Prostakova wants to marry the poor pupil Sophia to her brother Skotinin, but then, having learned about 10,000 rubles, of which Starodum made Sophia the heir, she decides not to let the rich heiress go. Skoti-nin does not want to give in. On this basis, enmity arises between M. and Skotinin, between Prostakova and Skotinin, turning into ugly quarrels. M., encouraged by his mother, demands an agreement, declaring: “The hour of my will has come. I don’t want to study, I want to get married.” But Prostakova understands that first it is necessary to achieve Starodum’s consent. And for this it is necessary for M. to appear in a favorable light: “While he is resting, my friend, at least for the sake of appearance, learn, so that it reaches his ears how you work, Mitrofanushka.” For her part, Prostakova in every possible way praises M.’s hard work, successes and her parental care for him, and although she knows for sure that M. has not learned anything, she nevertheless arranges an “exam” and encourages Starodum to evaluate his son’s successes (d. 4, yavl. VIII). The lack of motivation of this scene (it is hardly appropriate to tempt fate and present your son in a bad light; it is also unclear how the illiterate Prostakova could appreciate M.’s knowledge and the pedagogical efforts of his teachers) is obvious; but it is important for Fonvizin to show that the ignorant landowner herself becomes a victim of her own deception and sets a trap for her son. After this farcical comedy scene, Prostakova, confident that she will push her brother aside by force, and realizing that M. could not stand the test and comparison with Milon, decides to forcibly marry M. to Sophia; instructs him to get up at six o’clock, place “three servants in Sophia’s bedroom, and two in the entryway to help” (d. 4, revelation IX). To this M. replies: “Everything will be done.” When Prostakova’s “conspiracy” fails, M., at first ready to follow his mother “into being taken for people” (D. 5, Rev. III), then humbly asks for forgiveness, and then rudely pushes his mother away: “Get rid of yourself, mother, how imposed itself” (d. 5, the last one). Completely confused and having lost power over people, he now must go through a new school of education (“I’m off to serve,” Pravdin tells him), which he accepts with slavish obedience: “For me, wherever they tell me to.” These last words of M. become a kind of illustration to the words of Starodum: “Well, what can come of Mitrofanushka for the fatherland, for whom ignorant parents also pay money to ignorant teachers? How many noble fathers who entrust the moral education of their son to their serf slave! Fifteen years later, instead of one slave, two come out, an old guy and a young master” (d. 5, yavl. I).

The struggle for Sophia's hand, making up the plot of the comedy, pushes M. into the center of the action. As one of the “imaginary” suitors, M. with his figure connects two worlds - ignorant nobles, tyrants, the world of “evil morals” and enlightened nobles, the world of good morals. These “camps” are extremely alienated from each other. Prostakova, Skotinin cannot understand Starodum, Pravdin and Milon (Prostakova says to Starodum in complete bewilderment: “God knows how you judge you today” - d. 4, episode VIII; M. cannot understand , what the same characters demand from him), and Sophia, Pravdin, Milon and Starodum perceive M. and his relatives with open contempt. The reason for this is different upbringing. M.'s natural nature is distorted by his upbringing, and therefore he is in strict contradiction with the norms of behavior of a nobleman and with ethical ideas about a well-behaved and enlightened person.
The author's attitude towards M., as well as towards other negative characters, is expressed in the form of a “monological” self-exposure of the hero and in the remarks of the positive characters. The rudeness of his vocabulary reveals his hardness of heart and evil will; lack of enlightenment of the soul leads to laziness, empty pursuits (chasing pigeons), and gluttony. M. is the same tyrant of the household as Prostakova. Like Prostakova, she does not take into account her father, seeing him as an empty place, and bullies teachers in every possible way. At the same time, he holds Prostakova in his hands and threatens to commit suicide if she does not protect him from Skotinin (“Vit here and the river is close. Nyrnu, remember what they called” - d. 2, iv. VI). M. knows neither love, nor pity, nor simple gratitude; in this respect he surpassed his mother. Prostakova lives for her son, M. - for herself. Ignorance can progress from generation to generation; the coarseness of feelings is reduced to purely animal instincts. Prostakov notes with surprise: “It’s a strange thing, brother, how family can resemble family. Mitrofanushka is our uncle. And he was a hunter of pigs, just like you. As he was still three years old, it used to be that when he saw a pig, he would tremble with joy” (D. 1, Rev. V). In the fight scene, Skotinin calls M. “damned pig.” With all his behavior and speeches, M. justifies the words of Starodum: “An ignoramus without a soul is a beast” (D. 3, Rev. I).

According to Starodum, there are three types of people: the enlightened, smart person; unenlightened, but possessing a soul; unenlightened and soulless. M., Prostakova and Skotinin belong to the latter variety. It’s as if claws are growing in them (see the scene of Skotinin’s quarrel with M. and Eremeevna’s words, as well as Prostakova’s fight with Skotinin, in which M.’s mother “pierced” Skotinin’s scruff), bearish strength appears (Skotinin tells Prostakova: “It will come to withdrawal , I’ll bend, you’ll crack” - d. 3, yavl. Comparisons are taken from the animal world: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?” Worse, M. has stopped in his development and is then only capable of regression. Sophia says to Milo: “Although he is sixteen years old, he has already reached the last degree of his perfection and will not go further” (d. 2, iv. II). The absence of family and cultural traditions turned into the triumph of “evil morality,” and M. breaks even those “animal” ties that united him with his family circle.

In the person of M. Fonvizin, he brought out a unique type of slave-tyrant: he is a slave of low passions, which turned him into a tyrant. M.’s “slave” upbringing in a narrow sense is connected with “mother” Eremeevna, in a broad sense - with the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins. In both cases, M. is instilled with dishonest concepts: in the first because Eremeevna is a serf, in the second because the concepts of honor are perverted.

The image of M. (and the very concept of “minor”) became a household word. However, the educational idea about the mechanistic dependence of human behavior on his upbringing was subsequently overcome. In Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter,” Petrusha Grinev receives a similar education to M., but develops independently and behaves like an honest nobleman. Pushkin sees in M. something indigenous, Russian, charming, and with the help of the epigraph (“Mitrofan for me”) elevates the narrator - and partly the characters - of “Belkin’s Tales” to the hero of “The Minor.” The name “Mitrofan” is found in Lermontov (“Tambov Treasurer”). The satirical development of the image is given in the novel by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen of Tashkent”.
Prostakova is the 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.

Article menu:

Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” is one of the best motivational works. With the help of the image of Mitrofan Prostakov, we can analyze and realize the destructiveness of boundless blind parental love and permissiveness.

Description of character

Mitrofan Prostakov is not distinguished by outstanding character qualities. In fact, this is a vivid example of lack of education (in any sense of it) and bad manners.

Excessive parental care and permissiveness became the reason for the formation of a complex character.

At 15 years old, he is still considered a child - his parents forgive him a lot, citing the fact that he is a child and will outgrow it.

Parents spoil their son - they believe that adult life is full of difficulties, and therefore it is necessary to arrange the childhood period in such a way that it is the least carefree.

As a result, Mitrofan grows up pampered and spoiled. However, he himself is not capable of good deeds or humanity - the young man constantly quarrels with peasants and teachers, is rude and cruel not only towards them, but also towards his parents.

Receiving neither punishment for his actions nor rebuff, he only becomes more convinced of the correctness of his actions and continues to become more and more bitter.
Mitrofan is not interested in anything other than marriage.

We invite you to read it, written by Denis Fonvizin.

He does not know how to find beauty and aesthetics in the world around him - nature, art. To some extent, he resembles an animal that is guided solely by basic instincts.

Mitrofan is a very lazy person; he likes the measured life of a parasite and sneak. He doesn't try to achieve anything in life. Although, if desired, he can develop himself. It is worth noting that in general he is a smart person - Mitrofan realizes that he is incredibly stupid, but does not see a problem in this - the world is full of stupid people, so he will be able to find worthy company for himself.

Attitude towards others

The story of Mitrofan Prostakov is a typical story about what happens when a person is guided by the motive of permissiveness and impunity from childhood. The young man’s parents are overwhelmed by excessive love for their son, which is extremely destructive for him both as an individual and as a unit of interpersonal relationships and social communication.

Dear readers! We present to you which was written by Denis Fonvizin.

Mitrofan’s parents did not attach importance to the peculiarities of their son’s interaction with society, did not make adjustments and did not correct their son’s mistakes that arose in communicating with other people, which as a result resulted in an extremely unfavorable picture.

In Mitrofan’s mind, communication with a person begins with determining his position in society - if this is a significant, important person (aristocrat), then the young man tries to meet the minimum etiquette standards, which is true and this is difficult for him. Mitrofan does not stand on ceremony with ordinary people at all.

Mitrofan's disdainful, rude attitude towards teachers is common. The parents, again, do not interfere with their son, and therefore the situation develops into the level of interpersonal relationships in general. Mitrofan is allowed to be rude to other people (mostly people of lower social status, or those who are not strong enough to fight back), while teachers and educators are forced to follow the rules of etiquette and treat their pupils courteously.

So, for example, it seems common for a young man to exclaim to a teacher in a similar way: “Give me the board, garrison rat! Ask what to write." As well as insulting addresses towards his nanny: “old bastard.”

As a result, a mother who madly loves her child also becomes the subject of rudeness. From time to time, Mitrofan reproaches his mother for being tired of her, blackmails her - he threatens to commit suicide, and on the whole successfully sums up his mother’s efforts: “You lured me in, blame yourself.”

Attitude to learning

While the bulk of the aristocracy tried to give the best education to their children, in the hope that this would allow their children to become successful in life, Mitrofan’s parents teach their child, because it is impossible not to teach - the decree issued by Peter I obliges all aristocrats to teach their children in arithmetic, grammar and God's word.

The image of Mitrofan Prostakov for the modern reader does not seem entirely typical - in most cases, history and literature provide images of educated, although not always purposeful, aristocrats. The image of Prostakov seems out of the ordinary, however, if you think about it, you can come to the conclusion that this is not so. This fact is confirmed by historical documents (Peter I’s decree on the compulsory education of nobles) - if the situation with lack of education were not widespread, then it would hardly be reflected in official documents.

Mitrofan's parents are not educated people - their knowledge is based on life experience, in general they do not see the point in education and consider science a forced measure, a tribute to fashion. This attitude of the parents, in particular the mother, provoked a feeling of unnecessary education in the eyes of Mitrofan.

Prostakov’s parents were unable to convey to him the idea of ​​the need for education and the prospects that open up for an educated person, and in fact they could not do this - Mitrofan’s mother considered education an evil, a necessity that must be experienced. From time to time, she adds fuel to the fire, voicing her true attitude towards studying: “my friend, at least study for show, so that his ears can reach him how hard you work!”

In other words, the mother in no way condemns her son for his negligent behavior in the field of education and training, which further convinces Mitrofan that this whole process is useless and unnecessary, and is carried out solely “for show.”

This attitude led to another problem - a strong negative attitude towards the learning process itself and towards the teachers.

Over several years of study, Mitrofan was unable to advance one iota and therefore he is still a “minor” - due to insufficient knowledge, the young man cannot obtain documents indicating his education, but his parents are of little concern.

After four years of learning to read and write, Mitrofan still reads syllables, reading new texts still seems to be an unsolvable task for him, and things won’t be much better with those he already knows - Mitrofan constantly makes mistakes.

With arithmetic, things also do not look optimistic - after several years of study, Mitrofan only mastered counting to three.

The only thing where Mitrofan succeeded was French. His teacher, the German Vralman, speaks rather flatteringly about his student, but in this case the point is not in Mitrofan’s exceptional predisposition to learning languages, but in Vralman’s ability to deceive - Adam Adamovich not only successfully hides the true state of his student’s level of knowledge, but also deceives the Prostakovs, posing as a teacher - Vralman himself does not know French, but, taking advantage of the Prostakovs’ stupidity, he successfully creates the appearance.

As a result, Mitrofan finds himself hostage to the situation - on the one hand, his parents do not see the point in education, and are gradually instilling this position in their son. On the other hand, stupid, poorly educated teachers, due to their knowledge, cannot teach a young man anything. At a time when the situation with arithmetic and grammar teachers looks at the level of “difficult, but possible” - neither Kuteikin nor Tsyfirkin have exceptional knowledge, but they still have the bulk of knowledge, then the situation with Vralman looks completely catastrophic - man , who does not know French, teaches French.

Thus, Mitrofan Prostakov represents a person with an insignificant soul, petty desires limited to the carnal, animal satisfaction of his needs, who has reached the limit in his moral and spiritual development. Paradoxically, having the opportunity, Mitrofan does not strive to realize his potential, but, on the contrary, wastes his life in vain. He finds a certain charm in laziness and parasitism and does not consider this a flaw.