Characteristics and image of the liar in the comedy undergrowth essay. Comedy test D.I. Fonvizin “The Minor” (7th grade) Criticism about the image of Milo in the comedy “The Minor”

Vralman in “Nedorosl” is one of Mitrofan’s teachers. He appears before the reader as a German, who was hired by Prostakova for a small fee to teach her son the intricacies of secular manners. However, the woman does not notice Vralman’s obvious lies, his constant reservations and undisguised flattery, while the reader immediately reveals the rogue in the teacher.

The hero’s “speaking” surname, “Vralman,” also indicates deception. In “The Minor”, the characteristics of Vralman and almost all other characters are revealed through their names - for example, “Vralman” comes from the word “to lie” and the ending “mann”, inherent in German surnames. In addition to the fact that the surname indicates a deceitful person, a liar, it also reveals the personality of the character - the “false German”. Even the hero’s seemingly German accent at the end of the play is explained by the man’s congenital speech impediment. At the end of the work, the deception is revealed - Starodum recognizes Vralman as a former coachman and again calls him to his service.

In the comedy, the character is the only teacher who does not try to teach Mitrofan, at the same time receives a decent salary and communicates with Prostakova on an equal footing. By introducing Vralman into the plot, Fonvizin ironizes the stupidity of ignorant landowners who cannot distinguish a coachman from a foreign teacher. With this, the author touches on pressing issues of education in Russia in the 18th century, emphasizing the need for reform and renewal of the education system throughout the country.

Vralman is one of the minor characters in the comedy “The Minor” by Russian writer Denis Fonvizin. Already by the hero’s surname, a lot about this person becomes clear. Vralman literally translates as a lying person. In this comedy, he is presented as a teacher who was hired by the wealthy noble family of the Prostakovs for their venerable son Mitrofan. Vralman's nature is cunning, deceitful and lazy. Upon entering the family, he pretended to be a teacher, which he was not. His hopeless situation, in which he found himself without finding a job as a coachman, obliged him to get out in any way. He immediately made the right impression on Mrs. Prostakova; she naively believed that Adam Adamovich was German by origin because of his surname and accented pronunciation.

Since in those days it was fashionable to have a foreign teacher, Mrs. Prostakova accepted Vralman for five years at once, with an increased salary, so that other families would not lure him away. Vralman was the highest paid employee in the house of the Prostakov nobles. While engaged in the education of Mitrofan, Vralman only knew how to make the entire educational process appear, justifying it by the fact that education is not important for a nobleman, he will go out into the world without it.

From the first day, Vralman managed to find an approach to Mrs. Prostakova; he communicates with her on equal terms. Among all the teachers working in Prostakova’s house, it was Vralman who inspired more confidence and liked her more than anyone else. It was he, like no one else, who turned out to be close to her in his views regarding issues of education and upbringing. Vralman, just like the uneducated Mrs. Prostakova, is inclined to believe that a child should not bother his head with unnecessary sciences.

The duality of Vralman’s nature becomes clear at the end of the comedy, when other heroes Starodum and Pravdin appear on stage. When it was beneficial for Adam, he flattered Prostakova in every possible way and praised her son. And suddenly, when he no longer had to count on benefits, Vralman immediately asked to work for Starodum. He even dared to speak impartially about Mrs. Prostakova.

By creating the image of Vralman, the author tried to convey how important education is and managed to show all the shortcomings of the system. With his work he ridicules the laziness of students and the ignorance of teachers. The play points out that problems in the field of education should be solved at the state level, because the future of the country depends on the education of the people.

Picture for the essay The image and characterization of Vralman in the comedy Nedorosl

A short story about a liar from the comedy “Undergrowth”

vlad7576

(484),
closed

5 years ago

I can’t grasp the meaning of the comedy, but a story about a liar needs to be written. Help me please.

GALINA

Higher intelligence

5 years ago

In order to give Mitrofanushka an education, Prostakova hires teachers: Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin and Vralman. And if the first two are really trying to teach Mitrofanushka some sciences, then Vralman even openly declares to Prostakova that science is a useless thing, and only he, Vralman, Mitrofanushka needs as a teacher, because he can tell him about society and how people live . Prostakova agrees with him on this.
The German Vralman is a rogue teacher, a man with a lackey's soul, Starodum's former coachman. Having lost his job as a result of Starodum's departure to Siberia, he became a teacher because he could not find a position as a coachman. Naturally, such an ignorant teacher could not teach his student anything. He did not teach, indulging Mitrofan’s laziness and taking advantage of Prostakova’s complete ignorance.
He is the only one of all the teachers who praises Mitrofan, trying to please Prostakova, but, returning to Starodum, he claims: “Shit with the best hosts, it mattered to me that I am all with the horses.”

Source: more details here “Encyclopedia of Literary Heroes” (** delete the link) http://www.*a4format*.ru/pdf_files_bio2/47165968.pdf

Other answers

Similar questions

Also asked

otvet.mail.ru

Characteristics of Vralman in the comedy “Minor”

He recognizes Vralman as a former coachman and again calls him to his service.

home-task.com

Characteristics of minor characters in the comedy “Minor”

And for such selfless and faithful service, Eremeevna receives only beatings and hears only such appeals from Prostakova and Mitrofan as a beast, a dog’s daughter, an old witch, an old bastard. The fate of Eremeevna is difficult and tragic, forced to serve the monster landowners who are unable to appreciate her faithful service.

Retired soldier Tsyfirkin is a man with a number of good qualities. He is hardworking: “I don’t like to live idlely,” he says. In the city, he helps clerks “either check the meter or summarize the results,” and “teach the guys in his spare time.” (Fonvizin painted the image of Tsyfirkin with obvious sympathy. In a different light, Fonvizin gives the teacher of Russian and Church Slavonic languages Kuteikin. This is a half-educated seminarian who left the first classes of the theological seminary, “fearing the abyss of wisdom.” But he is not without cunning. Reading the Book of Hours with Mitrofan, he It is not without intent that he chooses the text: “I am a worm, not a man, a slander against men,” and he also interprets the word worm as “that is, an animal, a cattle." Like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna. But Kuteikin sharply differs from Tsyfirkin in his greed for money.Kuteikin’s language strongly emphasizes Church Slavonicisms, which he brought from the spiritual environment and theological school.

Destructive and merciless satire fills all the scenes depicting the way of life of the Prostakova family. In the scenes of Mitrofan's teaching, in the revelations of his uncle about his love for pigs, in the greed and arbitrariness of the mistress of the house, the world of the Prostakovs and Skotinins is revealed in all the ugliness of their spiritual squalor.

An equally destructive verdict on this world is pronounced by the group of positive nobles present on stage, contrasted with the bestial existence of Mitrofan’s parents. Dialogues between Starodum and Pravdin. which touch upon deep, sometimes national issues, are passionate journalistic speeches reflecting the author’s position. The pathos of the speeches of Starodum and Pravdin also performs an accusatory function, but here the exposure merges with the affirmation of the positive ideals of the author himself.

Two problems that especially worried Fonvizin lie at the heart of “The Minor.” This is primarily the problem of the moral decay of the nobility. In the words of Starodum. indignantly denouncing the nobles, in whom nobility, one might say, was “buried with their ancestors,” in his reported observations from the life of the court, Fonvizin not only states the decline of the moral foundations of society, he seeks the reasons for this decline.

Starodum’s final remark, which ends “The Minor”: “These are the fruits of evil!” - in the context of the ideological provisions of Fonvizin’s treatise, gives the entire play a special political sound. The unlimited power of landowners over their peasants, in the absence of a proper moral example on the part of the highest authorities, became a source of arbitrariness; this led to the nobility forgetting their duties and the principles of class honor, that is, to the spiritual degeneration of the ruling class. In the light of Fonvizin’s general moral and political concept, the exponents of which in the play are positive characters, the world of simpletons and brutes appears as an ominous realization of the triumph of evil.

Another problem of "Undergrown" is the problem of education. Understood quite broadly, education in the minds of thinkers of the 18th century was considered as the primary factor determining the moral character of a person. In Fonvizin’s ideas, the problem of education acquired national significance, because the only reliable, in his opinion, source of salvation from the evil threatening society - the spiritual degradation of the nobility - was rooted in correct education.

A significant part of the dramatic action in “The Minor” is, to one degree or another, subordinated to the problems of education. Both the scenes of Mitrofan’s teaching and most of Starodum’s moral teachings are subordinated to it. The culminating point in the development of this theme is undoubtedly the scene of Mitrofon's examination in Act IV of the comedy. This satirical picture, deadly in terms of the power of the accusatory and sarcasm contained in it, serves as a verdict on the system of education of simpletons and brutes. The passing of this verdict is ensured not only through the self-disclosure of Mitrofan’s ignorance, but also through the demonstration of examples of a different upbringing. These are, for example, scenes in which Starodum talks with Sophia and Milo. –

A son of his time, Fonvizin, with all his appearance and the direction of his creative quest, belonged to that circle of advanced Russian people of the 18th century who formed the camp of enlighteners. All of them were writers, and their work is permeated with the pathos of affirming the ideals of justice and humanism. Satire and journalism were their weapons. Courageous protest against the injustices of autocracy and angry accusations against the serf owners were heard in their works. This was the historical merit of Russian satire of the 18th century, one of the most prominent representatives of which was Fonvizin.

More abstracts by this author

www.uznaem-kak.ru

The image and characteristics of Milon in the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin: description of the hero |LITERATURUS: World of Russian Literature

Officer Milon is one of the positive heroes of the comedy “The Minor.”

The image and characterization of Milon in the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin

Milon is an officer. He leads the soldiers to Moscow and makes a stop at the Prostakov estate:

“...leads his team to Moscow...”

“...I was ordered to lead the soldiers without delay... yes, moreover, I myself am eager to be in Moscow...”

Milo is a good young man, with “commendable qualities” and “special virtues”:

“...a young man of commendable qualities...”

“...I am very pleased to be acquainted with a person of your qualities...”

“...Special advantages...”

Milo is a modest, not arrogant person:

“...At my age and in my position, it would be unforgivable arrogance to consider everything deserved with which a young man is encouraged by worthy people...”

Milo is a brave, undaunted man:

“...I heard that you were in the army. Your fearlessness..."

“...Being in battle and exposing my life...”

“...I sincerely wish to test myself...”

Milo values courage and justice in people:

“...The judge who, fearing neither vengeance nor the threats of the strong, gave justice to the helpless, is a hero in my eyes...”

Milo is a virtuous, enlightened person:

“...I see and honor virtue, adorned with enlightened reason...”

“...If my heart is virtuous...”

Milon is an honest man, so Starodum calls him a friend:

“...I am a friend of honest people...” (Starodum about Milo)

Milon is Sophia's lover. They don’t see each other for six months and suddenly meet in the Prostakovs’ house. In the end, the lovers remain together:

“...I am in love and have the happiness of being loved...”

“...For more than six months I have been separated from the one who is dearer to me than anything in the world, and, what is even more sad, I have not heard anything about her during all this time...”

Criticism about the image of Milon in the comedy “The Minor”

“...a detachment of soldiers commanded by a young man Milon comes to the village [of the Prostakovs]. He is in love with Sophia, and Sophia with him: these faces... are honest, noble, educated, in a word, those who, in contrast to fools,... speak intelligently in generalities and resemble each other like two peas in a pod...”

(S. S. Dudyshkin, “Works of Fonvizin”, 1847)

This was a quotation characterization and image of officer Milon in the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin: a description of the hero in quotes.

See: All materials on the comedy “Minor”

www.literaturus.ru

/ Works / Fonvizin D.I. / Minor / The image of minor characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “Minor”

Taras Skotinin, Prostakova’s brother, is a typical representative of small feudal landowners. Having grown up in a family that was extremely hostile to enlightenment, he is distinguished by ignorance and mental retardation, although he is naturally smart. Having heard about the taking into custody of the Prostakovs’ estate, he says: “Yes, they’ll get to me that way. Yes, and any Skotinin can fall under guardianship... I’ll get out of here as quickly as possible.”

All his thoughts and interests are connected only with his barnyard. Gogol says about him: “Pigs became for him what an art gallery is for an art lover! He only shows warmth and tenderness towards his pigs. Skotinin is a ferocious serf owner, a master of “ripping off” rent from the peasants. Skotinin is greedy. Having learned that Sophia will bring her husband a fortune that will give him ten thousand in income, he is ready to destroy his rival, Mitrofan.

Eremeevna, Mitrofan’s nanny, is drawn with great artistic force. Fonvizin convincingly shows what a corrupting influence serfdom had on domestic servants, how it disfigures and perverts their inherent good human qualities, develops and fosters slavish humiliation in them. Eremeevna has served Prostakov-Skotinin for forty years. She is selflessly devoted to them, slavishly attached to home, and has a highly developed sense of duty. Without sparing herself, she protects Mitrofan. When Skotinin wants to kill Mitrofan, Eremeevna, “shielding Mitrofan, going berserk and raising her fists,” as Fonvizin pointed out, shouts: “I’ll die on the spot, but I won’t give up the child. Show up, sir, just kindly show up. I’ll scratch out those thorns.” But this devotion and sense of duty acquires a distorted, slavish character in Eremeevna. She has no sense of human dignity. There is not only hatred for one’s inhuman oppressors, but even protest. Serving her tormentors, “without sparing her life”, Eremeevna lives in constant fear, trembling before her fierce mistress. “Oh, he’s leaving him! Where should my head go? - she screams with despair and fear, seeing how Skotinin approaches Mitrofan with threats. And when Milon pushes Eremeevna away from Sofia, Eremeevna screams: “My little head is gone!”

The images of Mitrofan’s home teachers: Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin, Vralman are truthful and vitally convincing in the comedy.

In another light, Fonvizin gave the teacher of Russian and Church Slavonic languages Kuteikin. This is a half-educated seminarian who left the first classes of theological seminary, “fearing the abyss of wisdom.” But he is not without cunning. Reading the Book of Hours with Mitrofan, he deliberately chooses the text: “I am the seven worm, and not the man, the reproach of men,” and he also interprets the word worm - “that is, (i.e.) animal, cattle.” Like Tsyfirkin, he sympathizes with Eremeevna. But Kuteikin differs sharply from Tsyfirkin in his greed for money. Kuteikin’s language strongly emphasizes Church Slavonicisms, which he brought from the spiritual environment and theological school.

The comedy portrays the German Vralman, a rogue teacher, a man with a lackey's soul, and Starodum's former coachman, in a satirical light. Having lost his job as a result of Starodum's departure to Siberia, he became a teacher because he could not find a position as a coachman. Naturally, such an ignorant “teacher” could not teach his student anything. He did not teach, indulging Mitrofan’s laziness and taking advantage of Prostakova’s complete ignorance.

/ Works / Fonvizin D.I. / The Minor / The image of minor characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”

Etymologically, the surname Vralman consists of two parts and is derived from the Russian word liar- liar, liar and German words mann- Human.

Vralman’s task in the Prostakovs’ house is to teach Mitrofanushka “French and all sciences.” Unlike other minor mentors - Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin, he is in a special position and receives a salary equal to three hundred rubles a year. Being a coachman (according to Starodum) and not knowing either the French language or any sciences, Vralman received the position of a tutor due to several circumstances:

he is a foreigner
Mrs. Prostakova is pleased with him (“ we are happy with it"), because without tormenting Mitrofanushka with classes, she protects his health (" he doesn't captivate the kid»)
is unanimous with Prostakova regarding Mitrofanushka’s upbringing, because he believes that he has a weak head (“ And fit kaloushka is unefo much slower than pryuha...") and the unlearned, but healthy is much better than the dead, but “wise,” like “Aristotelis”, also believes that literacy is not needed to enter the secular world (“ How putto py Rossiski Tforyanin ush and could not f sfete advance pez Rossiskoy kramat!»)

Vralman has a difficult relationship with Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin, who, unlike him, have at least some education. This ultimately results in Prostakova denouncing them.

Despite his telling surname, Vralman deceives and behaves brazenly not because of his natural essence, but because of life circumstances or out of necessity. So, due to a long (three months) search for work as a coachman and the threat of dying from hunger, Vralman called himself a teacher.

Fonvizin assigned Vralman the place of a minor character, whose task was to act as a reflection of Mitrofanushka’s laziness and Prostakova’s ignorance, as well as to clearly show the flawedness of the then fashion for foreign tutors, who, like Vralman, did not have the proper education and were swindlers. Vralman's insignificance, compared to other characters, is visible in the frequency of his appearances in the comedy (the end of the 3rd and the end of the 5th act, although mentioned in the 1st act), as well as his non-participation in intrigue.

After Fonvizin, the image of an ignorant foreign tutor will become a classic for Russian comedy. Literary critic K.V. Pletnev believes that such a circumstance deserves attention as the fact that “ Vralman was hired in Moscow. Prostakova tells Pravdin: “In Moscow they accepted a foreigner for five years and, so that others would not lure him away, they reported the contract to the police..." This is important because, according to the imperial decree in force since the middle of the 18th century, all foreigners who expressed a desire to work as tutors and act as boarders were required to urgently pass qualifying exams at Moscow University or at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. If someone hired a foreign tutor who did not have the necessary certificate, then this was punishable by a fine. From this we can conclude that Prostakova hired Vralman in violation of current legislation, and the police, in turn, do not properly fulfill the duties assigned to them. Moreover, Fonvizin is trying to convey the idea that an ignorant tutor will lead his pupil to spiritual decay, although with proper training he should raise him into a person with high virtues and the presence of civic virtues.

Examples of using

- If we find more than one horse in four households, please call me a liar (P.D. Boborykin. From the new ones, 2, 2).

Write a review about the article "Vralman"

Notes

Literature

// Aleksandrova Z. E. Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. - M.: Russian language, 2011.
Vralman // Ashukin N. S., Ashukina M. G. Winged words. Literary quotations. Figurative expressions / Answer. ed. V. P. Vompersky; Il. A. B. Markevich. - M.: Pravda, 1986. - 768 p. - 500,000 copies.
// Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / Vinokur G. O., prof. B. A. Larin, S. I. Ozhegov, B. V. Tomashevsky, prof. D. N. Ushakov; Ed. D. N. Ushakova. - M.: ; OGIZ (vol. 1); State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries (vol. 2-4), 1935-1940. - 45,000 copies.
// Mikhelson M. I. Russian thought and speech. Yours and someone else's. Experience of Russian phraseology. Collection of figurative words and parables. Walking and apt words. A collection of Russian and foreign quotes, proverbs, sayings, proverbial expressions and individual words. - St. Petersburg. : Type. Imp. Academician Sciences, 1904. - T. 1. - 779 p. ()
// Russian spelling dictionary / Russian Academy of Sciences. ; V. V. Lopatin (chief editor), B. Z. Bukchina, N. A. Eskova, etc. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.
// Serov V. Encyclopedic dictionary of popular words and expressions. - M.: Locked Press, 2003.
// Encyclopedia of Literary Heroes: Russian Literature of the 17th - First Half of the 19th Century / Ed. A. N. Arkhangelsky and others - M.: Olympus; AST, 1997. - 672 p. - ISBN 5-7390-0164-1.

Excerpt characterizing Vralman

Historians call this activity of historical figures reaction.
Describing the activities of these historical figures, who, in their opinion, were the cause of what they call the reaction, historians strictly condemn them. All famous people of that time, from Alexander and Napoleon to m me Stael, Photius, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand, etc., are subject to their strict judgment and are acquitted or condemned, depending on whether they contributed to progress or reaction.
In Russia, according to their description, a reaction also took place during this period of time, and the main culprit of this reaction was Alexander I - the same Alexander I who, according to their descriptions, was the main culprit of the liberal initiatives of his reign and the salvation of Russia.
In real Russian literature, from a high school student to a learned historian, there is not a person who would not throw his own pebble at Alexander I for his wrong actions during this period of his reign.
“He should have done this and that. In this case he acted well, in this case he acted badly. He behaved well at the beginning of his reign and during the 12th year; but he acted badly by giving a constitution to Poland, making the Holy Alliance, giving power to Arakcheev, encouraging Golitsyn and mysticism, then encouraging Shishkov and Photius. He did something wrong by being involved in the front part of the army; he acted badly by distributing the Semyonovsky regiment, etc.”
It would be necessary to fill ten pages in order to list all the reproaches that historians make to him on the basis of the knowledge of the good of humanity that they possess.
What do these reproaches mean?
The very actions for which historians approve of Alexander I, such as: the liberal initiatives of his reign, the fight against Napoleon, the firmness he showed in the 12th year, and the campaign of the 13th year, do not stem from the same sources - the conditions of blood , education, life, which made Alexander’s personality what it was - from which flow those actions for which historians blame him, such as: the Holy Alliance, the restoration of Poland, the reaction of the 20s?
What is the essence of these reproaches?
The fact that such a historical person as Alexander I, a person who stood at the highest possible level of human power, is, as it were, in the focus of the blinding light of all the historical rays concentrated on him; a person subject to those strongest influences in the world of intrigue, deception, flattery, self-delusion, which are inseparable from power; a face that felt, every minute of its life, responsibility for everything that happened in Europe, and a face that is not fictitious, but living, like every person, with its own personal habits, passions, aspirations for goodness, beauty, truth - that this face , fifty years ago, not only was he not virtuous (historians do not blame him for this), but he did not have those views for the good of humanity that a professor now has, who has been engaged in science from a young age, that is, reading books, lectures and copying these books and lectures in one notebook.
But even if we assume that Alexander I fifty years ago was mistaken in his view of what is the good of peoples, we must involuntarily assume that the historian judging Alexander, in the same way, after some time will turn out to be unjust in his view of that , which is the good of humanity. This assumption is all the more natural and necessary because, following the development of history, we see that every year, with every new writer, the view of what is the good of humanity changes; so that what seemed good appears after ten years as evil; and vice versa. Moreover, at the same time we find in history completely opposite views on what was evil and what was good: some take credit for the constitution given to Poland and the Holy Alliance, others as a reproach to Alexander.
It cannot be said about the activities of Alexander and Napoleon that they were useful or harmful, because we cannot say for what they are useful and for what they are harmful. If someone does not like this activity, then he does not like it only because it does not coincide with his limited understanding of what is good. Does it seem good to me to preserve my father’s house in Moscow in 12, or the glory of the Russian troops, or the prosperity of St. Petersburg and other universities, or the freedom of Poland, or the power of Russia, or the balance of Europe, or a certain kind of European enlightenment - progress, I must admit that the activity of every historical figure had, in addition to these goals, other, more general goals that were inaccessible to me.
But let us assume that so-called science has the ability to reconcile all contradictions and has an unchanging measure of good and bad for historical persons and events.
Let's assume that Alexander could have done everything differently. Let us assume that he could, according to the instructions of those who accuse him, those who profess knowledge of the ultimate goal of the movement of mankind, order according to the program of nationality, freedom, equality and progress (there seems to be no other) that his current accusers would have given him. Let us assume that this program was possible and drawn up and that Alexander would act according to it. What would then happen to the activities of all those people who opposed the then direction of the government - with activities that, according to historians, were good and useful? This activity would not exist; there would be no life; nothing would have happened.
If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life will be destroyed.

If we assume, as historians do, that great people lead humanity to achieve certain goals, which consist either in the greatness of Russia or France, or in the balance of Europe, or in spreading the ideas of revolution, or in general progress, or whatever it may be, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without the concepts of chance and genius.
If the goal of the European wars at the beginning of this century was the greatness of Russia, then this goal could be achieved without all the previous wars and without an invasion. If the goal is the greatness of France, then this goal could be achieved without revolution and without empire. If the goal is the dissemination of ideas, then printing would accomplish this much better than soldiers. If the goal is the progress of civilization, then it is very easy to assume that, besides the extermination of people and their wealth, there are other more expedient ways for the spread of civilization.
Why did it happen this way and not otherwise?
Because that's how it happened. “Chance made the situation; genius took advantage of it,” says history.
But what is a case? What is a genius?
The words chance and genius do not mean anything that really exists and therefore cannot be defined. These words only denote a certain degree of understanding of phenomena. I don't know why this phenomenon happens; I don't think I can know; That’s why I don’t want to know and say: chance. I see a force producing an action disproportionate to universal human properties; I don’t understand why this happens, and I say: genius.
For a herd of rams, the ram that is driven every evening by the shepherd into a special stall to feed and becomes twice as thick as the others must seem like a genius. And the fact that every evening this very same ram ends up not in a common sheepfold, but in a special stall for oats, and that this very same ram, doused in fat, is killed for meat, should seem like an amazing combination of genius with a whole series of extraordinary accidents .

The undergrown Mitrofan in Fonvizin's comedy had several teachers. One of them, and the most worthy in the opinion of the narrow-minded Mrs. Prostakova, was the German Vralman.

By the name of this character it is not difficult to guess about his main qualities. He was undoubtedly a deceiver and flatterer who invented various fables in order to gain the favor of his mistress and, accordingly, earn more.

Throughout the play, Vralman lies more than once, which makes the reader understand that the so-called teacher does not have any education at all. Later it turns out that Vralman served Starodum as a coachman, and entered the service as a teacher only for the sake of money. In addition, it turns out that he is not German at all, and the accent is explained by a congenital defect in pronunciation. Thus, by the end of the play, all of Vralman’s deceptions are revealed.

The duplicity of his nature is revealed during the denouement. Despite the fact that throughout his service in the Prostakovs’ house, he tirelessly flattered Mrs. Prostakova and undeservedly showered praise on her son Mitrofan, as soon as Starodum and Pravdin appeared on the stage, Vralman realized that he could no longer find benefits in this house. Then he asked to serve under Starodum, not only did he not stand up for Mrs. Prostakova, whom he “respected” immensely, but he also insulted her, saying that the residents of this house looked like goats. This act makes it clear that Vralman is a selfish, pathetic person who has no principles at all and who tries to find his own benefit in everything.

Through the image of Vralman, Fonvizin once again tries to point out the importance of education and the shortcomings of the existing educational system. He exposes both the laziness of the students and the ignorance of the teachers. His play is intended to show that the problem of education must be solved at the state level and needs reformation, because the fate of Russia depends on it.

Essay Image and characteristics of Vralman

D.I. Fonvizin wrote the play “Minor” in 1971 with the aim of ridiculing the education system of that time.

One of the main characters is the son of the noblewoman Prostakova Mitrofanushka. Prostakova, who never had any education from birth, believes that Mitrofanushka does not need it at all. However, the Prostakov family still hired a foreigner, Vralman, for their son to teach their dear son French and other sciences. And they hired him for five years at once, so that other nobles would not lure him away, because it was very fashionable to have a foreign tutor for your child.

The surname Vralman makes one think that this person is deceitful. He is very arrogant and cunning, lives on everything that is ready, his owners seat him at the same table, and even receives a salary of three hundred rubles a year.

Prostakova approves of Vralman because he completely agrees with her on the issues of Mitrofanushka’s upbringing, however, other teachers do not like him for his parasitism and constant lies. And since Vralman himself is an uneducated person, he does not force the underage to study, but, on the contrary, indulges his laziness. He says that a nobleman will go out into the world even without education and that there are a lot of ignoramuses like Mitrofanushka in the world.

And so, when Prostakova decides to brag about how the foreigner taught her son, it turns out that he didn’t teach him anything, and science for Mitrofanushka is the tales of the cowgirl Khavronya, who told them to him at the request of Vralman.

In the end, it turned out that Vralman was a simple coachman who was left without work after his owner left. And he had to choose either to die of hunger or to become a teacher. When his owner returned, he was very surprised that Adam Adamovich was doing something he had no idea about. Taking advantage of the lack of education of the Prostakovs, who could not distinguish a coachman from a foreign teacher, he lived a well-fed life, and when his owner returned and the deception was revealed, Vralman asked to return to work with him, citing the fact that he lived with the Prostakovs, as in a stable, so thereby confirming that they are far from enlightened.

Option 3

In the comedy “The Minor,” Fonvizin introduced us to the main character Mitrofan; the main events take place around the boy. The child had a nanny and several teachers. Mrs. Prostakova (Mitrofan's mother) considered the most worthy teacher Vralman, who was German.

It was no coincidence that the author chose such a surname for the teacher. You can immediately understand a lot from it. The German at his core was a blatant deceiver and a rare flatterer. He came up with many ways to please the hostess, she would like her and, as a result, receive a good fee.

Throughout the entire work, Vralman often lies and deceives. From this, the reader can understand that this character does not have proper pedagogical education. Previously, he served as an ordinary coachman for Starodum, but for the sake of money he went to work as a teacher. It also became known that Vralman is not a real German. Due to a congenital speech impediment, he developed a Germanic accent. No matter how hard he tried to lie, by the end of the work it became clear to everyone what kind of person he was.

Prostakova treats Vralman very well because he always agrees with her and admires her stupid ideas. All the other teachers do not like the German; they consider him a deceiver and a parasite. Vralman has no special education, he is illiterate, so he does not force Mitrofanushka to study. On the contrary, he rewards the student for his laziness.

Vralman was two-faced. Working for the Prostakovs, he tried every day to please the hostess. The teacher tirelessly praised the narrow-minded Mitrofan, which could not but please the mistress of the house. When his former owner Starodum appeared in the house, the teacher realized that his deception would soon be exposed, and he would stop receiving good money for his work. Vralman decides to return to the service of his former master. In a conversation with Starodum, Vralman begins to insult Prostakova. Although earlier he showered the hostess with compliments. Such an act reveals the teacher as a selfish, low and unprincipled person. Vralman never thought about others; in all situations he looked only for his own benefit.

Fonvizin wanted to convey to readers that education is very important, but there are many shortcomings in the education system itself. The writer in his work “The Minor” vividly describes the laziness of students and the indifference of teachers. The play conveys the idea of the need for reform in the field of education and science.

The set of punctuation marks that is used in the writing of any language is called punctuation. Also called the section of linguistics that studies the rules of use and placement of punctuation marks in the text

Essay Image and characterization of Grandmother Akulina Ivanovna (based on Gorky’s story Childhood) 7th grade

Perhaps every Russian writer is a person with a capital M, moreover, each has his own unique, inimitable and genuine life and destiny. The famous Russian writer was no exception

They are shown differently than the feudal landowners in the comedy “The Minor” by the teacher Mitrofanushka. Of these, retired Sergeant Tsyfirkin is depicted with the greatest sympathy. This is a straightforward, honest, hardworking person. He explains his appearance as a teacher this way: “I don’t like to live idly. I teach kids in my spare time.” He teaches to the best of his knowledge and capabilities, but he teaches conscientiously. When it turns out that Mitrofanushka has not learned anything, Tsyfirkin refuses payment for his work: “Not at all.”

He deftly responds to Mitrofan’s scolding with a proverb: “The dog barks, the wind blows.” In general, Tsyfirkin often uses apt folk proverbs and sayings. But military service left a strong imprint on his language. At his very first statement, officer Milon immediately recognizes him as a serviceman. Tsyfirkin speaks clearly and precisely formulating his thoughts; his sentence is laconic; There are words accepted in the army: “order”, “your honor”, “rapid fire”, “the gentlemen here are good commanders”.

Kuteikin, a deacon, a half-educated seminarian, “afraid of the abyss of wisdom,” is depicted with a humorous touch. Kuteikin is not without wit. Apparently, not without a second thought, he forces Mitrofanushka to repeat a peculiar self-description: “I am a worm... And not a man.” Both Tsyfirkin and Kuteikin are sympathetic to the fate of Prostakova’s serf servants. Both are outraged that Vralman is preventing them from teaching Mitrofanushka for real. Both of them are not devoid of good nature and playfulness, as is shown in their conversation with Eremeevna at the end of scene 6 of act II. These are the types of home teachers, common in remote provincial estates of the 18th century, far from learned, but conscientiously carrying out their difficult task of teaching noble “juniors.”

Mitrofanushka's third teacher, the German Vralman, a type of rogue teacher (he is a coachman by profession), is clearly depicted in satirical colors. Seeing Prostakova’s complete ignorance and her blind love for her son, Vralman plays the role of a kind, undemanding teacher. Prostakova is delighted with him, Mitrofan too, and such a role gives Vralman himself the opportunity to hide his ignorance. Tsyfirkin and Kuteikin unravel the true face of this parasite, but they cannot do anything. Such types of foreign teachers were not uncommon in the houses of nobles in the 18th century. The type of such a rogue teacher, Monsieur Beaupré, was later depicted by Pushkin in the story “The Captain's Daughter.”

In the comedy "Minor" the language of each of these teachers is very successfully individualized. Tsyfirkin speaks the language of a former military man: he calls the swearing in Prostakova’s house “rapid fire,” and threatens Vralman: “And we will give them honor. I am the board." Kuteikin’s language, as a person from a spiritual background, is replete with Church Slavonic expressions: “The call came and came,” “I will crush the teeth of sinners,” etc. Vralman's language is the broken language of a foreigner, with comical pronunciation of sounds and syntactically incorrect construction of sentences. Vralman's speech takes on an obsequious character when he speaks with the owners, and is impudently cheeky and arrogant when talking with servants, which expressively characterizes his lackey soul.

These, in general terms, are in the comedy “The Minor” by Mitrofanushka’s teacher.