Vralman in "Undergrowth" is one of Mitrofan's teachers. He appears before the reader as a German, whom Prostakov hired for a small fee to teach her son the wisdom of secular manners. However, the woman does not notice the obvious lies of Vralman, his constant reservations and overt flattery, while the reader immediately reveals a rogue in the teacher.
The deception is also indicated by the “speaking” surname of the hero - “Vralman”. In "Undergrowth", the characteristics of Vralman and almost all other characters are revealed through their names - for example, "Vralman" comes from the word "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 innate speech defect. At the end of the work, the deception is revealed - Starodum recognizes the former coachman in Vralman and again calls to his service.
In the comedy, the character acts as the only teacher who does not try to teach Mitrofan, while receiving a decent salary and communicating with Prostakova on an equal footing. Introducing Vralman into the plot, Fonvizin sneers at the stupidity of ignorant landowners who cannot distinguish a coachman from a foreign teacher. By this, the author touches upon the acute issues of education in Russia in the 18th century, emphasizes the need for reformation and renewal of the education system throughout the country.
Test on the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth"
1. What literary direction can the play "Undergrowth" be attributed to?
A. realism B. sentimentalism B. classicism D. romanticism
2. What tradition of the 18th century did D.I. Fonvizin violate in his comedy?
A. Trinity theory B. Love affair
B. "talking" surnames D. one-sided characteristics of the characters
3. What social type is not represented in comedy? A. noble intellectuals B. metropolitan
nobles B. provincial landowners D. serfs
4. Undergrowth in the time of Fonvizin was called ...: A. the main character of the comedy
B. teenager 15-17 years old C. lazy, narrow-minded, ignorant person D. nobleman, not
educated, not eligible to serve, marry.
5. Determine the topics of D.I. Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth": A. upbringing and education
C. love B. denunciation of ignorance D. struggle against autocracy
6. Who is Mitrofan's main teacher, whose lessons did he learn?
A. Vralman V. Kuteikin B. Tsyfirkin G. Prostakova
7. Choose the correct continuation of the phrase: Mitrofan is terrible because it is ...
A. clumsy lazy B. harmless ignoramus and glutton C. cruel, ungrateful and
soulless ignoramus G. young barich, ill-mannered and unwilling to learn
8. Choose the WRONG continuation of the phrase: “Undergrowth” is the first socio-political
B. is shown a terrible person in his ignorance and heartlessness, “like a mother” V. main
idea - the need to educate the soul of G. the author calls for the abolition of serfdom.
9. Which hero - reasoner sets out the author's program for the dissemination of the Enlightenment and the fight against
ignorance, which D.I. Fonvizin considers the cause of all vices?
A. Starodum V. Milon B. Prostakov G. Pravdin
10. Correlate the characters of the play with the aphorisms they uttered:
1. “I don’t want to study, I want to get married” 2. “I scold, then I fight; that's how the house holds up"
3. “Among pigs, I myself am the smartest of all” 4. “No one is free to tyrannize” 5. “In your eyes, they don’t see anything with me” 6. “Here are worthy fruits of malevolence!”
A. Pravdin B. Starodum V. Prostakova G. Mitrofan D. Skotinin E. Prostakov
11. Who wrote the words about Fonvizin: “Fonvizin, a friend of freedom, shone as a satire of a brave ruler ...”?
1) Pushkin 2) Gogol 3) Baratynsky 4) Derzhavin
12. Where does the action take place in the comedy "Undergrowth"? 1) in the village 2) in the city 3) in the mountains 4) in the forest
13. Who taught Mitrofan mathematics? 1) Starodum 2) Tsyfirkin 3) Vralman 4) Kuteikin
14. Which of the heroes of the comedy is the author of the words: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”?
1) Milon 2) Mitrofan 3) Pravdin 4) Tsyfirkin
15. Who sewed Mitrofan's caftan? 1) Prostakova 2) Kuteikin 3) Trishka 4) Eremeevna
16. Who is Sophia? 1) Mitrofan's nanny 2) maid 3) Starodum's niece 4) Milon's daughter
17. How does Mrs. Prostakova call Trishka? 1) fool 2) bungler 3) lazy 4) cattle
18. Brother Prostakova 1) Starodum 2) Milon 3) Pravdin 4) Skotinin
19. What birds did Mitrofan respect? 1) pigeons 2) forty 3) rooks 4) sparrows
20. Where did Starodum go? 1) to Siberia 2) to St. Petersburg 3) to Moscow 4) to Gorky
21. Who taught Mirofan to read and write? 1) Vralman 2) Kuteikin 3) Pravdin 4) Eremeevna
22. Nationality of Adam Adamovich Vralman 1) Russian 2) German 3) Tatar 4) French
23. Where was Pravdin born? 1) in the village 2) in St. Petersburg 3) in Moscow 4) in Siberia
24. Whose words: "The ranks begin - sincerity ceases"?
1) Prostakova 2) Pravdin 3) Starodum 4) Skotinina
25. Whom did Starodum's father serve? 1) Catherine 2) Alexander 3) Nicholas 4) Peter
26. Which writer did Sophia read the book? 1) Russian 2) English 3) German 4) French
Comedy test answers F.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth"
1-B, 2-D, 3-C, 4-D, 5-A, B; 6-D, 7-B, 8-D, 9-A;
1-d, 2-c, 3-d, 4-a, 5-e, 6-b.
11. 1)
13. 2)
14. 2)
15. 3)
16. 3)
17. 4)
18. 4)
19. 1)
20. 1)
21. 2)
22. 2)
23. 3)
24. 3)
25. 4)
26. 4)
Answer the following questions in writing:
1. Who do you think is to blame for the fact that Mitrofan is ignorant, ignorant, rude?
2. What do you think is the difference between education and upbringing? What is more important for the formation of personality and why?
3. Why is D.I. Fonvizin’s comedy interesting and instructive today?
Arithmetic French German Literacy
Test on the comedy "Undergrowth" D.I. Fonvizina
1. How old is Mitrofanushka at the time of the events in the play? 14 15 16 17
2. What was the maiden name of Mrs. Prostakova? Pravdina Zvereva Volkova Skotinina
3. How many teachers work with Mitrofanushka? one two three four
4. Which of the heroes once served as Starodum's coachman? Trishka Kuteikin Skotinin Vralman
5. Which character is especially fond of pigs? Trishka Skotinin Mistress Prostakova Prostakov
6. Which of the heroes once served at the imperial court? Starodum Milon Pravdin Prostakov
7. Which of the characters becomes Sophia's fiancé at the end of the play?
Skotinin Milon Mitrofanushka Prostakov
8. What language does Vralman teach Mitrofanushka? German English French Italian
9. What is the name of the landowner Skotinin? Terenty Taras Timofey Tikhon
10. What is the name of the serf - the tailor Prostakov? Trishka Parsley Sasha Mishka
11. Where does Starodum come to the Prostakovs? From France From Siberia From Poland From Prussia
12. The night before Mitrofan ate a lot: cakes jam pies cutlets
13. What does Prostakova knit in one of the episodes? socks purse scarf hat
14. What subject does teacher Kuteikin teach Mitrofan?
Arithmetic French German Literacy
15. What is the name of Mr. Prostakov? Grigory Terenty Vasily Petr
16. What is the name of Mitrofan's nanny? Evlampevna Eliseevna Eremeevna Egorovna
17. What is the name of the officer who stops with the soldiers in the village of Prostakov?
Pravdin Starodum Milon Vralman
18. Where is Mitrofan taken at the end of the play? To the ball To the service To the wedding To the theater
19. Which of the characters is Sophia's uncle? Prostakov Pravdin Skotinin Starodum
20. The tailor of the Prostakovs "badly sewed" for Mitrofan: Vest Kaftan Pantaloons Shirt
Answers on questions test on the comedy "Undergrowth"
1. 15 years old 2. Skotinina 3. three 4. Vralman 5. Skotinin
6. Starodum 7. Milon 8. French 9. Taras 10. Trishka
11. from Siberia 12. Pirogov 13. purse 14. letter 15. Terenty 16. Eremeevna 17. Milon 18. to the service 19. Starodum 20. caftan
» Fonvizin created in a rather difficult time for Russia. At that moment, Catherine II sat on the throne. The empress herself described this period in the history of the country's development in her diaries very negatively. She noted that she came to power in a state in which laws were guided only in the rarest cases and, as a rule, if they favored some noble person.
Already on the basis of this statement, one can understand that the spiritual life of Russian society of this period was in decline. In his work, Fonvizin tried to draw the attention of readers precisely to the problem of educating the younger generation, on which depends what the future of the whole country will be.
During the period described in the comedy, a decree was issued according to which all young nobles under the age of eighteen were required to receive an education. Otherwise, they were assigned to military service to Her Imperial Majesty.
The heroine of the comedy Prostakova, a domineering and aggressive woman, is used to solving everything herself. She leads her family: her husband is afraid to take a step without her command, and her son, whom she called Mitrofan, which means "close to the mother," was raised as an absolute lazy and ignorant.
The mother decides everything for him, she is afraid of his independence and is always ready to be there. For her, the main thing is that Mitrofan was well. But since she raised him as a lazy person, he has a negative attitude towards education, which requires the expenditure of some effort and time, and does not receive it of his own free will.
The fear of losing her son because of a state decree throws her mother to an undesirable step herself - to hire teachers for Mitrofan.
At first, she approaches this issue decisively, because in addition to fear, she also has a feeling of envy. She does not want to be worse than others, and some noble children have been studying with teachers for a long time. She imagines that her son will go to Petersburg and will seem there to be an ignoramus among the clever ones. This picture frightens her, because the son will thus make fun of her. Therefore, Prostakova does not skimp on money and hires several teachers at once.
The most not indifferent of them can be called a retired soldier Pafnutiy Tsyfirkin, who taught underage arithmetic. His speech is full of military terms, he is constantly engaged in calculations. He is hardworking, he notes that he does not like to sit idle. He is responsible and wants to teach Mitrofan his subject, but he is constantly harassed by the student's mother.
She suffers, believing that her beloved son will be exhausted from the lessons and thus creates a reason for interrupting the lesson ahead of time. Yes, and Mitrofanushka himself evades classes and calls Tsyfirkin names. The teacher even refused to take money at the end for the classes, because the "stump", as he called his student, he could not teach anything.
Grammar for Mitrofan is taught by the half-educated seminarian Kuteikin. He considers himself very smart, says that he comes from a scientific family and quit only fearing excessive wisdom. He is a greedy person. The main thing for him is to obtain material benefits, and not to provide true knowledge to the student. Mitrofan often misses his classes.
The most unlucky teacher turned out to be the German Vralman, hired to teach Mitrofan French and other sciences. He cannot be tolerated by other teachers. But in the family he took root: he eats with the Prostakovs at the same table, and gets the most. And all because Prostakova is pleased, because this teacher does not captivate her son at all.
Vralman believes that Mitrofan does not need all the sciences, he only needs to avoid communicating with smart people and be able to show himself favorably in the world. It is clear that Vralman, who turned out to be a former groom, did not teach the undergrowth either French or other sciences.
Thus, Prostakova hired teachers not at all so that Mitrofan would learn the sciences. She did this so that her son could always be with her and in every possible way contributes to this with his behavior.
In Fonvizin's work "Undergrowth", three teachers Vralman, Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin fight over the education of Mitrofanushka. As a result, they could not teach their student anything.
Vralman was a history teacher, but this was just his false story. In fact, he used to serve with Starodum and was far from science. And since the mother and her son did not want to absorb science, Vralman did not need to strain.
Kuteikin studied geography, but, as it turned out, Mitrofan did not even know the meaning of this science.
This teacher only wanted money. He demanded his money to the last, but was left with nothing for hypocrisy.
Tsyfirkin was completely different. He honestly said that he could not teach the student, so he would not deserve to be paid. Pravdin decided that such honesty should be rewarded.
It seems to me that Mitrofan had no chance of becoming educated. He was born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. He was surrounded by greedy people, uneducated. And he became the same. Education plays a big role and Fonvizin was able to prove it.
Updated: 2017-08-15
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Etymologically, the surname Vralman consists of two parts and is derived from the Russian word liar- liar, liar and german word mann- Human.
Vralman's task in the Prostakovs' house is to teach Mitrofanushka "in French and all the sciences." Unlike other underage 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 got the job of a tutor due to several circumstances:
- he is a foreigner
- Mrs. Prostakova is satisfied with them (“ we are happy with them”), because without tormenting Mitrofanushka with classes, it protects his health (“ baby he is not captive»)
- unanimous with Prostakova regarding the upbringing of Mitrofanushka, because he believes that he has a weak head (“ And to fit a kaloushka is unnefo a little sloppy pryukha ...”) and an unlearned, but healthy one is much better than a dead one, but “wise”, like “Aristotelis”, also believes that a letter is not needed to enter the secular world (“ How putto you Russians Tforyanin ush and couldn’t advance in the sphere of Russian Kramat!»)
Vralman has a difficult relationship with Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin, who, unlike him, have at least some education. This ultimately results in Prostakova's denunciation of them.
Despite his telling surname, Vralman deceives and behaves impudently not because of his natural essence, but because of life circumstances or out of necessity. So, due to the long (three months) job search as a coachman and the threat of starvation, Vralman called himself a teacher.
Fonvizin assigned Vralman the place of a secondary character, whose task was to act as a reflection of Mitrofanushka's laziness and Prostakova's ignorance, as well as to clearly show the inferiority of the then fashion for foreign tutors, who, like Vralman, did not have a proper education and were scammers. The insignificance of Vralman, in comparison with other characters, is visible in the frequency of appearances in the comedy (the end of the 3rd and the end of the 5th act, although it is mentioned in the 1st act), as well as his non-participation in intrigues.
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 says to Pravdin: “In Moscow, they accepted a foreigner for five years and, so that others would not lure, the contract was declared 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 owners of boarding schools were required to urgently take 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 punished with a fine. From this we can conclude that Prostakova hired Vralman in violation of the current legislation, and the police, in turn, do not properly fulfill their duties. Moreover, Fonvizin is trying to convey the idea that an ignorant tutor will lead his pupil into spiritual decay, although with proper training he must grow out of him a person with high virtues and the presence of civil virtues.
Examples of using
- If we find more than one horse for four yards, - if you please, call me a vralman (P. D. Boborykin. From the new ones, 2, 2).
Write a review on the article "Vralman"
Notes
Literature
- // Alexandrova 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 / Ans. 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 (vols. 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 well-aimed words. Collection of Russian and foreign quotations, proverbs, sayings, proverbial expressions and individual words. - St. Petersburg. : Type. Imp. Acad. Sciences, 1904. - T. 1. - 779 p. ()
- // Russian spelling dictionary / Russian Academy of Sciences. ; V. V. Lopatin (responsible ed.), B. Z. Bukchina, N. A. Eskova and others - M .: Azbukovnik, 1999.
- // Serov V. Encyclopedic dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M .: Locky-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.
An excerpt characterizing Vralman
Historians call this activity of historical persons reaction.Describing the activities of these historical figures, who, in their opinion, were the cause of what they call reaction, historians condemn them severely. All the famous people of that time, from Alexander and Napoleon to mme Stael, Photius, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand, etc., are put before their strict judgment and are justified or condemned, according to 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 own descriptions, was the main culprit of the liberal undertakings of his reign and the salvation of Russia.
In real Russian literature, from a schoolboy to a learned historian, there is no person who would not throw his stone at Alexander I for his wrong actions during this period of his reign.
“He should have done this and that. In this case, he did well, in this badly. He behaved well at the beginning of his reign and during the 12th year; but he acted badly, giving a constitution to Poland, creating a Holy Alliance, giving power to Arakcheev, encouraging Golitsyn and mysticism, then encouraging Shishkov and Photius. He did badly, being engaged in the front part of the army; he acted badly, cashiering the Semyonovsky regiment, etc.”
It would be necessary to fill out ten sheets in order to list all the reproaches that historians make to him on the basis of the knowledge of the good of mankind that they possess.
What do these accusations mean?
The very actions for which historians approve of Alexander I - such as: the liberal undertakings of the reign, the struggle with Napoleon, the firmness shown by him in the 12th year, and the campaign of the 13th year, do not follow from the same sources - the conditions of blood , upbringing, life, which made the personality of Alexander what it was - from which those actions follow, 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 accusations?
In the fact that such a historical person as Alexander I is, a person who stood at the highest possible level of human power, as if in the focus of the blinding light of all the historical rays concentrating on him; a person who was subject to those strongest influences in the world of intrigue, deceit, flattery, self-delusion, which are inseparable from power; a person who felt on himself, every minute of his life, responsibility for everything that happened in Europe, and a person not invented, but living, like every person, with his personal habits, passions, aspirations for goodness, beauty, truth - that this person , fifty years ago, not only was it not virtuous (historians do not reproach for this), but did not have those views on the good of mankind that a professor now has, who is 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 was mistaken fifty years ago in his view of what is the good of the peoples, we must involuntarily assume that the historian who judges Alexander, in the same way, after some time has passed, will turn out to be unfair in his view of that which is the good of mankind. 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 mankind changes; so that what seemed good ten years later seems 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 of the constitution and the Holy Alliance given to Poland are credited, others reproach Alexander.
It is impossible to say about the activity of Alexander and Napoleon that it was useful or harmful, because we cannot say for what it is useful and for what it is 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. Whether the preservation of my father's house in Moscow in the 12th year, 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 person had, in addition to these goals, other goals that were more general and inaccessible to me.
But let us suppose that so-called science has the possibility of reconciling all contradictions and has an invariable measure of good and bad for historical persons and events.
Let us assume that Alexander could have done everything differently. Let us assume that he could, at the behest of those who accuse him, those who profess the knowledge of the ultimate goal of the movement of mankind, dispose of according to the program of nationality, freedom, equality and progress (there seems to be no other) that the present accusers would give him. Let us assume that this program would have been possible and drawn up, and that Alexander would have acted according to it. What would have happened then to the activities of all those people who opposed the then direction of the government - to the activities that, according to historians, are good and useful? This activity would not exist; there would be no life; there would be nothing.
If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life will be destroyed.
If one assumes, as historians do, that great men lead mankind to certain goals, which are either the greatness of Russia or France, or the equilibrium of Europe, or the spreading of the ideas of the revolution, or general progress, or whatever it is, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without the concepts of chance and genius.
If the goal of the European wars of the beginning of this century was the greatness of Russia, then this goal could be achieved without all the previous wars and without invasion. If the goal is the greatness of France, then this goal could be achieved without a revolution, and without an empire. If the goal is to spread ideas, then printing would do it much better than soldiers. If the goal is the progress of civilization, then it is quite easy to assume that, in addition to the destruction 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 designate anything really existing and therefore cannot be defined. These words only denote a certain degree of understanding of phenomena. I don't know why such a phenomenon occurs; I think I can't know; therefore I do not want to know and I say: chance. I see a force producing an action disproportionate to universal human properties; I don’t understand why this is happening, and I say: genius.
For a herd of rams, that ram, which every evening is driven off by a 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 ram does not end up in a common sheepfold, but in a special stall for oats, and that this very same ram, drenched in fat, is killed for meat, must seem like an amazing combination of genius with a whole series of extraordinary accidents. .
