“The Minor” is a play by D. Fonvizin. Analysis of the work, main characters. The main themes, ideas and images of D.I.’s comedy Fonvizin “The Minor Images and characters of the heroes of the comedy The Minor

Denis Fonvizin’s immortal comedy “The Minor” is an outstanding work of Russian literature of the 18th century. Bold satire and truthfully described reality are the main components of this writer’s skill. Centuries later, every now and then in modern society heated debates arise about the main character of the play, Mitrofanushka. Who is he: a victim of improper upbringing or a vivid example of the moral decay of society?

The comedy “Brigadier” written by Fonvizin, which had a stunning success in St. Petersburg, became the basis of one of the world’s greatest literary monuments. After its publication, the writer did not return to drama for more than ten years, devoting himself more and more to state issues and tasks. However, the thought of creating a new book excited the author’s imagination. Let’s not hide the fact that, according to scientists, the first note related to “The Minor” was started back in the 1770s, long before its publication.

After a trip to France in 1778. The playwright had an exact plan for writing the future work. An interesting fact is that initially Mitrofanushka was Ivanushka, which naturally speaks to the similarity of the two comedies (Ivan was a character in “The Brigadier”). In 1781 the play was completed. Of course, a production of this type meant coverage of one of the most problematic issues of the noble society of that time. However, despite the risk, Fonvizin became the direct “instigator” of the literary revolution. The premiere was postponed due to the empress's hostility to any kind of satire, but it still took place on September 24, 1782.

Genre of the work

COMEDY is a type of drama in which the moment of effective conflict is specifically resolved. It has a number of signs:

1. does not entail the death of one representative of the warring parties;
2. aimed at “nothing” goals;
3. the narrative is lively and vivid.

Also in Fonvizin’s work, a satirical orientation is obvious. This means that the author set himself the task of ridiculing social vices. This is an attempt to veil life's problems under the guise of a smile.

“Minor” is a work built according to the laws of classicism. One storyline, one location, and all events take place within 24 hours. However, this concept is also consistent with realism, as evidenced by individual objects and places of action. In addition, the characters are very reminiscent of real landowners from the outback, ridiculed and condemned by the playwright. Fonvizin added something new to classicism - merciless and sharp humor.

What is the work about?

The plot of Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” revolves around a family of landowners who are completely mired in immorality and tyranny. Children became like their rude and narrow-minded parents, and their sense of morality suffered as a result. Sixteen-year-old Mitrofanushka is trying his best to finish his studies, but he lacks the desire and ability. The mother looks at this carelessly, she does not care whether her son will develop. She prefers that everything remain as it is; any progress is alien to her.

The Prostakovs “sheltered” a distant relative, the orphan Sophia, who differs from the rest of the family not only in her outlook on life, but also in her good manners. Sophia is the heiress of a large estate, which Mitrofanushka’s uncle, Skotinin, who is a great hunter, “looks” at. Marriage is the only available way to take over Sophia’s household, so the relatives around her are trying to persuade her into a profitable marriage.

Starodum, Sophia’s uncle, sends his niece a letter. Prostakova is terribly dissatisfied with this “trick” of her relative, who was considered dead in Siberia. The deceit and arrogance inherent in her nature is manifested in the accusation of a “deceptive” letter, supposedly “amorous”. Illiterate landowners will soon learn the true content of the message, resorting to the help of the guest Pravdin. He reveals to the whole family the truth about the Siberian inheritance he left, which gives him as much as ten thousand in annual income.

It was then that Prostakova came up with an idea - to marry Sophia to Mitrofanushka in order to appropriate the inheritance for herself. However, officer Milon, walking through the village with soldiers, “bursts” into her plans. He met with his old friend Pravdin, who, as it turned out, is a member of the vicegerental board. His plans include observing landowners mistreating their people.

Milon speaks of his long-standing love for a sweet person who was transported to an unknown place due to the death of a relative. Suddenly he meets Sophia - she is that same girl. The heroine talks about her future marriage to the undersized Mitrofanushka, from which the groom “flashes up” like a spark, but then gradually “weaken” with a detailed story about his “betrothed.”

Sophia's uncle has arrived. Having met Milon, he accepts Sophia’s choice, while inquiring about the “correctness” of her decision. At the same time, the Prostakovs' estate was transferred to state custody due to cruel treatment of the peasants. Seeking support, the mother hugs Mitrofanushka. But the Son did not intend to be polite and polite, he was rude, causing the venerable matron to faint. Waking up, she laments: “I am completely lost.” And Starodum, pointing at her, says, “These are the fruits worthy of evil!”

The main characters and their characteristics

Pravdin, Sophia, Starodum and Milon are representatives of the so-called “new” time, the Age of Enlightenment. The moral components of their souls are nothing more than goodness, love, thirst for knowledge and compassion. The Prostakovs, Skotinin and Mitrofan are representatives of the “old” nobility, where the cult of material well-being, rudeness and ignorance flourish.

• The minor Mitrofan is a young man whose ignorance, stupidity and inability to adequately analyze the situation do not allow him to become an active and reasonable representative of the noble community. “I don’t want to study, but I want to get married” is a life motto that fully reflects the character of a young man who does not take anything seriously.
• Sophia is an educated, kind girl who becomes a black sheep in a society of envious and greedy people.
• Prostakova is a cunning, careless, rude woman with many shortcomings and a lack of love and respect for all living things, except for her beloved son Mitrofanushka. Prostakova’s upbringing is only a confirmation of the persistence of conservatism, which does not allow the Russian nobility to develop.
• Starodum raises “his little blood” in a different way - for him Sophia is no longer a small child, but a mature member of society. He gives the girl freedom of choice, thereby teaching her the correct fundamentals of life. In it, Fonvizin portrays the type of personality that has gone through all the “ups” and downs,” becoming not only a “worthy parent,” but also an undoubted example for the future generation.
• Skotinin, just like everyone else, is an example of a “talking surname.” A person whose inner essence is more similar to some kind of rude, uncouth cattle than to a well-bred person.

Theme of the work

• The education of the “new” nobility is the main theme of the comedy. “Undergrowth” is a kind of allusion to the “disappearing” moral principles in people who are afraid of transformations. Landowners raise their offspring the old fashioned way, without paying due attention to their education. But those who were not taught, but were only spoiled or intimidated, will not be able to take care of either their family or Russia.
• Family theme. The family is a social institution on which the development of the individual depends. Despite Prostakova’s rudeness and disrespect towards all residents, she cherishes her beloved son, who does not at all appreciate her care or her love. This behavior is a typical example of ingratitude, which is a consequence of spoiling and parental adoration. The landowner does not understand that her son sees her treatment of other people and repeats it. Thus, the weather in the house determines the character of the young man and his shortcomings. Fonvizin emphasizes the importance of maintaining warmth, tenderness and respect in the family towards all its members. Only then will children be respectful and parents worthy of respect.
• The theme of freedom of choice. The “new” stage is Starodum’s relationship with Sophia. Starodum gives her freedom of choice, without limiting her with his beliefs, which can affect her worldview, thereby cultivating in her the ideal of a noble future.

Main problems

• The main problem of the work is the consequences of improper upbringing. The Prostakov family is a family tree that has its roots in the distant past of the nobility. This is what the landowners boast about, not realizing that the glory of their ancestors does not add to their dignity. But class pride has clouded their minds, they do not want to move forward and achieve new achievements, they think that everything will always be as before. That’s why they don’t realize the need for education; in their world, enslaved by stereotypes, it really isn’t needed. Mitrofanushka will also sit in the village all her life and live off the labor of her serfs.
• The problem of serfdom. The moral and intellectual decay of the nobility under serfdom is an absolutely logical result of the tsar’s unjust policies. The landowners have become completely lazy; they don’t need to work to support themselves. The managers and peasants will do everything for them. With such a social system, the nobles have no incentive to work and get an education.
• The problem of greed. The thirst for material well-being blocks access to morality. Prostakovs are fixated on money and power, it doesn’t matter to them whether their child will be happy, for them happiness is synonymous with wealth.
• The problem of ignorance. Stupidity deprives the heroes of spirituality; their world is too limited and tied to the material side of life. They are not interested in anything other than primitive physical pleasures, because they don’t know anything else at all. Fonvizin saw the true “human appearance” only in that person who was raised by literate people, and not by half-educated sextons.

Comedy idea

Fonvizin was a person, so he did not accept rudeness, ignorance and cruelty. He professed the belief that a person is born a “blank slate”, therefore only upbringing and education can make him a moral, virtuous and intelligent citizen who will benefit the fatherland. Thus, the glorification of the ideals of humanism is the main idea of ​​“Minor.” A young man who obeys the call of goodness, intelligence and justice is a true nobleman! If he is brought up in the spirit of Prostakova, then he will never go beyond the narrow confines of his limitations and will not understand the beauty and versatility of the world in which he lives. He will not be able to work for the good of society and will not leave anything significant behind.

At the end of the comedy, the author speaks of the triumph of “retribution”: Prostakova loses the estate and the respect of her own son, raised in accordance with her spiritual and physical ideals. This is the price to pay for miseducation and ignorance.

What does it teach?

Denis Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor,” first of all, teaches respect for one’s neighbors. The sixteen-year-old young man Mitrofanushka did not perceive the care of either his mother or his uncle at all; he took it for granted as a fact: “Why, uncle, have you eaten too much henbane? Yes, I don’t know why you deigned to attack me.” The natural result of rough treatment in the home is the ending where the son pushes away his loving mother.

The lessons of the comedy “Minor” do not end there. It is not so much respect as ignorance that shows people in the position they are carefully trying to hide. Stupidity and ignorance hover in the comedy like a bird over a nest, they envelop the village, thereby not letting the residents out of their own shackles. The author cruelly punishes the Prostakovs for their narrow-mindedness, depriving them of their property and the very opportunity to continue their idle lifestyle. Thus, everyone needs to learn, because even the most stable position in society can easily be lost if you are an uneducated person.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

Fonvizin's contemporaries highly valued The Minor; he delighted them not only with his amazing language, the clarity of the author's civic position, and the innovation of form and content.

Features of the genre

According to the genre, this work is a classic comedy, it complies with the requirements of “three unities” (place, time, action) inherent in classicism; the heroes are divided into positive and negative, each of the heroes has its own role (“reasoner”, “villain”, etc.). etc.), however, there are also deviations from the requirements of classicist aesthetics, and serious deviations.So, the comedy was only supposed to amuse, it could not be interpreted in multiple meanings, there could be no ambiguity in it - and if we remember “The Minor”, ​​then we cannot help but admit that, raising in the work the most important social issues of his time, the author resolves them by means far from comic: for example, at the end of the work, when, it would seem, “the vice is punished,” the viewer cannot help but sympathize with Mrs. Prostakova, who is rudely and cruelly pushed away by the ungrateful Mitrofanushka, preoccupied with his own fate: “Let go, mother, how you imposed yourself. .." - and the tragic element powerfully invades the comedy, which was unacceptable.. And with the “unity of action” everything is also not so simple in comedy, it has too many storylines that do not “work” in any way to resolve the main conflict , but create a broad social background that determines the characters of the characters. Finally, Fonvizin’s innovation was reflected in the language of the comedy “The Minor”; the speech of the characters is very highly individualized, it contains folklorisms, vernacular, and high style (Starodum, Pravdin), which also violates the classic canons of creating speech characteristics of characters. We can, summing up, conclude that Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” became a truly innovative work for its time; the author pushed the boundaries of the aesthetics of classicism, subordinating it to the solution of the task set for himself: to angrily ridicule the vices of his contemporary society, to rid it of “evil morals.” ", capable of destroying both the human soul and public morality.

Image system

Let us analyze the system of images of the comedy "The Minor", which, as required by the aesthetics of classicism, represents two directly opposite "camps" - positive and negative heroes. Here you can also notice a certain deviation from the canons; it manifests itself in the fact that it carries duality; it is almost impossible to classify them as purely positive or purely negative heroes. Let us remember one of Mitrofanushka’s teachers, Kuteikin. On the one hand, he suffers humiliation from Mrs. Prostakova and his student, on the other hand, he is not averse, if the opportunity arises, to “snatch his piece,” for which he is ridiculed. Or “Mitrofan’s mother” Eremeevna: she is reviled and humiliated by her mistress in every possible way, she humbly endures, but, forgetting herself, rushes to protect Mitrofanushka from her uncle, and does this not only out of fear of punishment...

The image of Prostakova in the comedy "Minor"

As already noted, Fonvizin innovatively portrays his main character, Mrs. Prostakova. From the very first scenes of the comedy, we are faced with a despot who does not want to reckon with anyone or anything. She rudely imposes her will on everyone, suppresses and humiliates not only the serfs, but also her husband (how can one not recall Mitrofan’s “dream in hand” about how “mother” beats “father”?..), she tyrannizes Sophia, she wants to force her to marry first her brother Taras Skotinin, and then, when it turns out that Sophia is now a rich bride, her son. Being herself an ignorant and uncultured person (with what pride she declares: “Read it yourself! No, madam, thank God, I was not brought up like that. I can receive letters, but I always tell someone else to read them!”), she despises education, although he tries to teach his son, he does this only because he wants to ensure his future, and what is Mitrofan’s “training” worth, as it is presented in the comedy? True, his mother is convinced: “Believe me, father, that, of course, it’s nonsense that Mitrofanushka doesn’t know”...

Mrs. Prostakova is characterized by cunning and resourcefulness, she stubbornly stands her ground and is convinced that “we will take ours” - and is ready to commit a crime, kidnap Sophia and, against her will, marry her to a man from the “Skotinin family.” When she meets resistance, she simultaneously tries to beg for forgiveness and promises punishment to those of her people, due to whose oversight the “enterprise” failed, in which Mitrofanushka is ready to actively support her: “Take it for people?” The “transformation” of Mrs. Prostakova is striking, who just on her knees humbly begged to forgive her, and, having received the petition, “jumping up from her knees”, fervently promises: “Well! Now I will give the dawn to my people. I’ll take it one by one. Now I’ll find out who let her out of her hands. No, swindlers! I won’t forgive this mockery forever.” There is so much voluptuousness in this triple “now”, and how truly scary it becomes from her request: “Give me at least three days (Aside) I would make myself known...”.

However, as already noted, there is a certain duality in the image of Prostakova. She deeply and devotedly loves her son and is ready to do anything for him. Is she guilty of comparing her love for him to the love of a dog for puppies: “Have you ever heard of a bitch giving away her puppies?”? We must not forget that she is from the Skotinin-Priplodin family, where such half-animal love was the only possible one, how could she be different? So she disfigures Mitrofan’s soul with her blind love, her son pleases her in every possible way, and she is happy because he “loves” her... Until he throws her away from him, because now he doesn’t need her, and even those people who just condemned Mrs. Prostakova sympathize with her in her maternal grief...

Image of Mitrofan

The image of Mitrofan was also created by Fonvizin in a non-traditional way. The “minor” who likes to be “small” and who diligently takes advantage of his mother’s attitude toward him is not as simple and stupid as it might seem at first glance. He has learned to use his parents' love for himself for his own benefit, he knows well how to achieve his goal, he is convinced that he has the right to everything he wants. Mitrofanushka’s selfishness is the driving force behind his actions, but the hero also has cruelty (remember his remark about “people”), resourcefulness (what is his discussion about the “door”), and lordly contempt for people, including his mother, from whom he, on occasion, seeks help and protection. And his attitude towards education is so dismissive only because he does not see any real benefit from it. Probably, when he “serves”, he - if it is beneficial - will change his attitude towards education, potentially he is ready for anything: “For me, where they tell me.” Consequently, the image of Mitrofan in the comedy “Minor” is also characterized by a certain psychologism, as is the image of Prostakova, which is Fonvizin’s innovative approach to creating negative images that were only supposed to be “villains”.

Positive images

The playwright is more traditional in creating positive images. Each of them is an expression of a certain idea, and as part of the statement of this idea, an image-character is created. Almost positive images are devoid of individual traits; they are images-ideas inherent in classicism; Sophia, Milon, Starodum, Pravdin are not living people, but exponents of a “certain type of consciousness”; they represent a system of views that was advanced for their time on the relationship between spouses, the social structure, the essence of the human personality and human dignity.

Image of Starodum

During the time of Fonvizin, the image of Starodum in the comedy “The Minor” aroused special sympathy among the audience. Already in the very “talking” surname of the character, the author emphasized the contrast between “the present century and the past century”: in Starodum they saw a man of the era of Peter I, when “In that century, courtiers were warriors, but warriors were not courtiers.” Starodum’s thoughts on education, on the ways in which a person can achieve fame and prosperity, about what a sovereign should be evoked a warm response from a significant part of the audience who shared the progressive beliefs of the author of the comedy, while special sympathy for the image of the hero was caused by the fact that he did not just proclaim these progressive ideas - according to the play It turned out that with his own life he proved the correctness and advantage of such behavior for a person. The image of Starodum was the ideological center around which the positive heroes of the comedy united, opposing the dominance of the morality of the Skotinins and Prostakovs.

Image of Pravdin

Pravdin, a government official, embodies the idea of ​​statehood, which protects the interests of education and the people, which seeks to actively change life for the better. Guardianship of Prostakova's estate, which Pravdin appoints by the will of the empress, gives hope that the ruler of Russia is able to stand up for the protection of those of her subjects who most need this protection, and the determination with which Pravdin carries out the reforms should have convinced the viewer, that the highest authorities are interested in improving the lives of the people. But how then can we understand Starodum’s words in response to Pravdin’s call to serve at court: “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”? It is likely that behind Pravdin stood the System, which confirmed its reluctance and inability to carry out real reforms, and Starodum represented himself, an individual person, in the play, and explained why the image of Starodum was perceived by the audience with much more sympathy than the image of the “ideal official” .

Milon and Sophia

The love story of Milon and Sophia is a typically classic love story of two noble heroes, each of whom is distinguished by high moral qualities, which is why their relationship looks so artificial, although, against the backdrop of Skotinin’s attitude towards the same Sophia (“You are my dear friend! If now, without seeing anything, I have a special peck for each pig, then I’ll find a little one for my wife”) she really is an example of the high feeling of moral, educated, worthy young people, contrasted with the “fertility” of negative heroes.

The meaning of the comedy "Minor"

Pushkin called Fonvizin “a brave ruler of satire,” and the comedy “Minor,” which we analyzed, fully confirms this assessment of the writer’s work. In it, Fonvizin’s author’s position is expressed quite unambiguously, the writer defends the ideas of enlightened absolutism, he does this with extreme talent, creating convincing artistic images, significantly expanding the scope of the aesthetics of classicism, taking an innovative approach to the plot of the work, to the creation of character images, some of which are not It simply represents the expression of certain socio-political ideas, but has a pronounced psychological individuality and expresses the inconsistency of human nature. All this explains the enormous importance of Fonvizin’s work and the comedy “Nedorosl” for Russian literature of the 18th century, the success of the work among his contemporaries and its significant influence on the subsequent development of Russian drama.

Positive characters include Pravdin, Sophia, Starodum and Milon. Each of them supports the ideas of the Enlightenment, considering virtue, honesty, love of country, high morality and education to be the main human values.

Their complete opposites are depicted as negative characters - the Prostakovs, Skotinin and Mitrofan. They are representatives of the “old” nobility, which with all its might clings to outdated ideas of serfdom and feudalism. Their core values ​​are money, position in the social hierarchy and physical strength.

In Fonvizin’s play “The Minor,” the main characters are divided into peculiar dual pairs, in which the author portrays people with similar social roles, but depicting them in a mirror distortion. So, in addition to a couple of “children” - Sophia and Mitrofan, we can distinguish “educators” - Starodum and Prostakov, “suitors” - Milon and Skotinin, as well as “owners” - Prostakov and Pravdin.

Mitrofan is a minor and the main character of the comedy - a spoiled, stupid young man of sixteen, for whom his mother, nanny or servants always did everything. Having adopted from his mother a love of money, rudeness and disrespect for his family (Prostakova is ready to deceive her brother in order to arrange a marriage that is profitable for her), and from his father complete lack of will, he behaves like a small child - he does not want to study, while he finds marriage fun fun. The complete opposite of Mitrofan is Sophia. This is an educated, smart and serious girl with a difficult fate. Having lost her parents at an early age and living in the care of the Prostakovs, Sophia does not adopt their values, but, in fact, becomes a “black sheep” in their society (Prostakova is even indignant that the girl can read).

Prostakova appears before readers, on the one hand, as an uneducated, cunning woman who is ready to do almost anything for the sake of profit, and on the other hand, as a practical housewife and loving mother, for whom the happiness and carefree future of her son comes above all else. Prostakova raised Mitrofan the way she was raised, and therefore was able to convey and show by her own example outdated, long-exhausted ideas and values.

Starodum has a completely different approach to education - he does not treat Sophia like a small child, talking with her as an equal, instructing her and advising her based on his own experience. In the matter of marriage, a man does not undertake to make final decisions for a girl, because he does not know whether her heart is free.
In the image of Starodum, Fonvizin portrays his ideal of a parent and educator - an authoritative, strong personality who herself has walked a worthy path. However, analyzing the system of characters in “The Minor” from the point of view of a modern reader, it is worth noting that the image of Starodum as a teacher is also not ideal. The entire time he was away, Sophia was deprived of parental care and left to her own devices. The fact that the girl learned to read, values ​​morality and virtue is most likely the merit of her parents, who instilled this in her at a young age.

In general, the theme of kinship is important both for the positive characters of the play “The Minor” and for the negative ones. Sophia is the daughter of worthy people, Milon is the son of a good friend Starodum. Prostakova received this surname only after marriage; in fact, she is Skotinina. Brother and sister are very similar, they are both driven by a thirst for profit and cunning, they are uneducated and cruel. Mitrofan is depicted as the real son of his parents and his uncle’s pupil, who inherited all their negative traits, including his love for pigs.

The characters whose relationship is not mentioned in the play are Prostakov and Pravdin. Prostakov is radically different from his wife; compared to the active and active Prostakova, he looks weak-willed and passive. In a situation where he must show himself as the owner of the village, the man is lost against the background of his wife. This leads to the fact that the more active Pravdin, who was able to pacify Prostakova, becomes the owner of the estate. In addition, Prostakov and Pravdin act as some kind of “auditors” of what is happening. Pravdin is the voice of the law, while Prostakov is the opinion of the simple (remember the “talking” names of the play) people who do not like how the “old” nobility behave in the person of his wife and brother-in-law, but is afraid of their anger, therefore he speaks only aside and not negotiating.

The last pair of characters are Skotinin and Milon. Men represent outdated and new ideas about marriage and family life. Milon has known Sophia since childhood, they love each other, and therefore their relationship is built on mutual respect and friendship. Skotinin does not even try to get to know the girl better, he is only concerned about his dowry, and he is not even going to arrange good conditions for her after marriage.

In addition to the main characters, the play contains secondary characters - teachers and educators of Mitrofan the underage. The characteristics of the supporting characters - Eremeevna, Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman - are connected with their social role in the play. The nanny is an example of a serf who faithfully serves his mistress all his life, enduring beatings and injustice. Using the example of images of teachers, the author exposes all the problems of education in Russia in the 18th century, when children were taught by retired military men who had not graduated from the seminary or even grooms.

For the 18th century, Fonvizin’s innovation was that the author depicted the characters in “The Minor” without excessive pathos and stereotypes inherent in many works of classicism. Each comedy hero is undoubtedly a composite image, but created not according to a ready-made “stencil”, but with its own individual traits. That is why the characters in the work “The Minor” remain the brightest images of Russian literature even today.

Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin always believed that the nobility should bear responsibility for the situation in the country. But he saw that most of the representatives of this class could not cope with this role and were not even worthy of it, since they were inhuman, ignorant and did not think at all about the fate of their homeland. In the comedy “The Minor,” the author denounces the nobles who are unworthy to bear this title, and also tries to find out the reasons that so disfigure the human personality.

The image of Mrs. Prostakova

Mistress of the house, wife, mother, sister - in each of these social roles, Prostakova appears before the reader in different ways. She can be rude, ignorant, autocratic, but she always finds kind words and affection for her son. When you read the play, you imagine an older woman, an elderly woman, a kind of old evil old woman. But is it? Mitrofan, as we know, is only sixteen years old, and since in those days there was a tradition of early marriages, we can assume that Mrs. Prostakova is about thirty years old! Why does the reader perceive her as an old woman? Maybe because the other characters in the play don’t like her, and some are afraid of her.
Prostakova recognizes only the rights of the strong, therefore she keeps power in her hands. She constantly argues with everyone, scolds and lectures. It might hurt. Prostakova is absolutely ignorant; she considers Vralman to be the best teacher for Mitrofanushka, mainly because he does not overwork his son, and since she understands little of the German’s speech, he inspires respect in her. She wouldn’t invite teachers at all, but you need to be “no worse than others,” and you also have to comply with the decree of Peter I mentioned by her about noble children. The decree established a procedure in which every seven-year-old noble boy was obliged to appear at the appropriate place, where he had to tell the simplest information about himself and his parents. After which the little boy, as such boys were called then, went home. The second time he came there five years later, and by that time he should have been able to read and write. After this examination, the boy was sent to military or civilian service. He could be left at home if the parents agreed to teach their son a number of discussed sciences. At the age of fifteen, the boy appeared for the exam again. Based on all of the above, we can conclude that although Prostakova is “teaching” her son, she is internally convinced of the uselessness and even harmfulness of this event.

Prostakov's image

In the comedy, Prostakov is shown as a spineless, stupid man who is subordinate to his wife in everything. Even when his wife herself demanded thoughts from him, Prostakov said that he thought the same way as she did. Prostakov is the negative hero of the comedy. Using the image of Prostakov, the author ridicules stupidity, cowardice and spinelessness.

Image of Skotinin

Skotinin is one of the main characters of the comedy and, alas, also negative. This is a person who, no matter what, wants to achieve his selfish goal. Skotinin's goal is to marry Sophia. But not because of love for her and not because of the villages that belong to Sophia, but because of the pigs that live in these villages. Skotinin is shown in the comedy as a cruel person. He takes away from his peasants everything they have in order to pay their rent. From the work it is clear that Fonvizin treats people like Skotinin with hostility.

The image of Mitrofanushka

Mitrofanushka is a boy of sixteen, ignorant and restless beyond his years. He is pampered and spoiled by his mother and nanny. He is completely unsuited to do anything on his own. He likes to eat and sleep, but does not want to work. Mitrofan is a copy of his mother. He is rude, cruel, and recognizes only the rights of the strong. He is an ungrateful son, while his mother holds power, he is with her, as soon as she loses this power, the son turns away from his mother in difficult times, betrays her. Mitrofan may be an ignoramus, but he is far from a fool. When necessary, he knows how to sweeten things up to his mother, he is not silent during the exam, he dodges, although he does not know the subjects, here one cannot deny his intelligence. He imitates his mother only because he understands that it will be more profitable and convenient for him. Mitrofan is a complete egoist, he neglects the feelings of other people, does not know how to love, sympathize, or empathize.

One of the main positive characters in the play. She is Starodum's niece, who was left an orphan. In his absence, the estate is managed by the Prostakovs. They look after Sophia and at the same time rob her. Having learned that the girl has a rich inheritance, they begin to fight for her hand and heart. However, the girl has a lover named Milon, to whom she remains faithful.

One of the main characters and the driving force in the play. She is the mother of Mitrofanushka and the sister of Taras Skotinin. Prostakova participates in almost all the events of the play, since the action takes place in the house where she is the mistress. She is a noblewoman by status, has serfs and is a typical example of a Russian landowner of the mid-18th century.

The son of the landowners Prostakovs and one of the main negative characters of the comedy. 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.

One of the main characters of the comedy, Sophia's uncle. His surname indicates that he is a man of the “old” era, that is, the era of Peter I. His role in the work is very important, especially his speeches and instructions. Starodum's father served under Peter the Great and always told his son that one must remain human at any time and in any situation.

One of the characters in the comedy, the brother of Mrs. Prostakova. This surname was not chosen by chance by the author. Taras loves and breeds pigs. Farm animals are the character's only interest. Having learned that Starodum's pupil, Sophia, is a rich heiress, he tries to win her favor and marry her.

One of the minor characters of the play. The character's surname was not chosen by chance. Pravdin is an honest and noble official, called upon to understand the actions of the Prostakov-Skotinins. He serves as a bureaucrat in the viceroyalty created by Catherine II.

One of the characters in the comedy, Sophia's fiancé, a young man of great merit, an officer with a valiant character. Milo is a modest and not arrogant person. Sophia and Starodum really like him. Thanks to him, Sophia manages to avoid marriage with Mrs. Prostakova’s underage son and courtship from Skotinin.

One of the minor characters of the play. She is Mitrofan's nanny and nurse. Using her image as an example, the author tries to show how serfdom distorted domestic servants, how it disfigured and humiliated them. Despite her inherent good human qualities, slavish humiliation takes over.

One of the characters in the comedy, Mitrofan's tutor and the highest paid employee in the Prostakovs' house. Adam Adamych Vralman was hired as a teacher of French and other sciences. In fact, he is Starodum’s former coachman, and not a teacher at all.