Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Chita Mining College
discipline: literature
on the topic: Saltykov-Shchedrin “The History of a City.” The originality of the genre, the satirical guise of ignorance
Introduction
Conclusion
References
INTRODUCTION
The book “The History of a City” is one of the most original and perfect creations of the great Russian satirist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. It was written more than a hundred years ago; published from January 1869 to September 1870 on the pages of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, and after that it was published as a separate publication
Soon after the appearance of “The History of a City” I.S. Turgenev, who was then abroad, published a review of it in the English magazine “The Academy”. Turgenev wrote about the enormous interest “that this strange and wonderful book aroused in Russia, and compared it with the best examples of world satire.
Such an enthusiastic assessment of Shchedrin’s new work was completely deserved and fair: time not only did not refute it, but strengthened it even more. “The History of a City” is indeed an unusual book and highest degree wonderful.
1. The originality of the genre of the work
You will not find the city of Foolov on any geographical map. And not because it is too small or renamed, but because it is a conventional, allegorical city. It would be wrong to see in it any one of the real Russian cities... Foolov is a generalized city that has absorbed something characteristic, typical. And don’t be confused by some of the contradictions in his description. Thus, in one chapter it is said that Foolov was founded in a “swamp”, and in another - that it “has three rivers and, according to ancient Rome, built on seven mountains...” Such contradictions are not at all an oversight of the author. They are intended to emphasize the diversity of Foolov, who is the personification of the autocratic state.
Already at the very beginning of the book, in the “Address to the reader from the last archivist-chronicler” there are lines that provide a kind of “key” to understanding the entire subsequent narrative: “If the ancient Hellenes and Romans were allowed to praise their godless leaders and betray their vile things to posterity deeds for edification, will we, Christians, who received light from Byzantium, find ourselves in this case less worthy and grateful? Is it really possible that in every country there will be glorious Nero and Caligula, shining with valor, and only in our own country will we not find such?”
As we see, the city of Foolov is placed here on a par with countries, and Foolov’s mayors are compared with the Roman emperors Nero and Caligula, “famous” for their unbridled tyranny and arbitrariness.
There are other unambiguous hints in the book indicating that we are talking specifically about autocracy. Thus, in the chapter “The Tale of the Six Mayors,” the first of the widows who plotted to steal the reins of Foolov’s government is nicknamed Iraida Paleologova; and the second - Clementine de Bourbon. At the same time, the reader, of course, immediately remembers that the Palaiologi are a dynasty of Byzantine emperors, and the Bourbons are French kings. In general, this whole struggle of widows for power is surprisingly reminiscent of the struggle for the royal throne that unfolded in Russia in the 18th century. Indeed, for seventy years (from 1725 to 1796) it was occupied mainly by women - Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizabeth I, Catherine II. Moreover, each of them came to power as a result of a palace coup.
The events described in the remaining chapters of the work force the reader to remember many other facts of Russian history.
When creating his fictitious city, the Writer relied on material from real Russian reality. However, the purpose of his satire was not at all to shoot at the figures of the past. No, the satirist did not fight with the shadows of the past in his book! He, as before, was concerned about the most important problems of our time. “Strike the present in the past, and your word will be clothed with triple strength,” Gogol once advised. And Shchedrin, creating “The History of a City,” was guided by precisely this principle. In the past, he was attracted first and foremost by those moments that retained their current significance. The writer did not set out to encrypt real Russian history. His task was to convey its meaning, revealing those internal patterns and results that, at the time of writing the book, brought vital modernity.
Formally, the History of a City covers the period from 1731 to 1825. In fact, we are not talking about any one specific historical period, but about the characteristic features of the autocratic system, about the very foundations of the life of society under absolutism.
This idea is confirmed, in particular, in the fact that the times in the book often seem to intersect: into a story about events attributed to XVIII century, suddenly facts from the 60s of the XIX century are interjected. This technique not only gives a brilliant comic effect, but also carries a serious ideological load. The grotesque principle of “combining” the past and the present clearly expresses the idea of the “immutability” of those foundations of life that are depicted by the satirist.
“The History of a City” is not an allegorical historical chronicle or an encrypted series of essays, but a satirical novel in which the state of society under the autocracy was brilliantly embodied. A condition that arose in Russia much earlier than 1731, designated as the beginning of the story, and which by no means stopped in 1825, although the chronicler’s story ends there. A state that, in principle, did not change at all in the 60s of the 19th century, when the book was written. A condition that is characteristic not only of Tsarist Russia, but also of any society experiencing the yoke of autocracy.
2. Power in “The Story of a City”
Power and the people—this is the cardinal problem that is the internal core of the book and makes it whole, despite the external independence of the chapters.
And in the first chapter - “On the Roots of the Origin of the Foolovites” - the writer talks about how Foolov arose. It debunks one of the most absurd and harmful legends of Russian history - the legend of the voluntary conscription of the Varangians to Rus'.
According to this legend, the ancients Slavic tribes, who were once free and independent, who decided everything important issues public life together, at a meeting, they suddenly voluntarily renounced their freedom, democratic principles administration and turned to the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor with a request to come to Rus' to rule it: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: come reign and rule over us.” They came, established autocracy, and since then, prosperity and order have reigned on Russian soil, they say.
This myth is what Shchedrin explodes from the inside, presenting it in a sharply satirical, fairy-tale manner. The writer does not “refute” anything, does not “argue” with anyone. He simply reinterprets the legend in such a way that it becomes clear to the reader: voluntary renunciation of freedom, independence, and democratic principles of government is the greatest stupidity. And if people took such a step, then they are fools. There is no other name for them and there cannot be!
Glunov's power is represented in the book by a whole gallery of mayors. With a variety of faces, in different times Foolov’s rulers, the satirist introduces the reader to the chapter called “Inventory of the mayors”, brief characteristics The rulers listed in it are truly murderous. Who didn’t control the fate of the Foolovites! And Amadeus Manuilovich Clementy, taken from Italy by Biron “for his skillful preparation of pasta” and promoted to the proper rank; and Lamvrokakis - “a runaway Greek, without a name, patronymic or even rank, caught by Count Kirila Razumovsky in Nizhyn, at the bazaar”; and Pyotr Petrovich Ferdyshchenko - the former orderly of Prince Potemkin; and Onufriy Ivanovich Negodyaev - former Gatchina stoker
The biographies of many of them may seem implausible. Meanwhile, they reflect the real state of affairs. Under an autocratic system, people at the top of power often found themselves completely random, but somehow “liked” the emperor or his entourage. So, for example, Biron, who allegedly took Clementius out of Italy, was himself “taken out” by Empress Anna Ioannovna from Courland and received unlimited power during her reign. And Kirila Razumovsky, who allegedly caught Lamvrokakis in Nizhyn, became a count and even the ruler of all of Ukraine only thanks to his brother Alexei, the lover of Elizabeth I. As for Ferdyshchenko and Negodyaev, their “takeoff” is reminiscent of some actual facts. Suffice it to say that Catherine II gave the title of count to her hairdresser, and Paul I elevated his valet to count. The number of specific historical examples of this kind, clearly illustrating the real origins of Shchedrin’s satire, could easily be multiplied. The writer sometimes did not even need to resort to exaggeration: reality provided him with a wealth of “ready-made” material.
There is a lot in this book that is frankly fantastic in nature. A mayor with an “organ” instead of a head... A mayor with a stuffed head... Tin soldiers - filled with blood and frantically destroying huts... Here the satirical exaggeration already goes beyond all limits of life-like verisimilitude. No matter how fantastic certain figures, actions, details may be, they are always based on certain life phenomena. The writer turns to the grotesque in order to fully expose the essence of these phenomena, to clearly demonstrate their true meaning. Thus, with the image of Mayor Brudasty, whose activities are described in the chapter “Organchik,” the satirist shows: in order to rule the city of Foolov, it is not at all necessary to have a head; for this it is enough to have a simple mechanism capable of reproducing just two phrases - “I’ll ruin you!” and “I won’t tolerate it!” Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty represents, as it were, the very essence of “mayorship”, purified of everything random and extraneous. With the help of the grotesque, the satirist makes extremely visible what is typical of all mayors, regardless of their personal inclinations, character, temperament, beliefs, etc.
There were different mayors in Foolov. Active and inactive. Liberal and conservative. Those who introduced enlightenment and eradicated it. However, all their varied projects and endeavors ultimately boiled down to one thing: to extract “arrears” and suppress “sedition.”
The gallery of mayors who were honored with a detailed image begins with Brudasty and ends with Ugryum-Burcheev. If the first one is kind of " common denominator" mayors, expresses their true essence, purified from all “impurities,” then the latter represents a more significant value, and therefore more ominous: Gloomy-Burcheev is the same essence, multiplied by a strict plan for the “levelling” of life and a dull inflexibility.
Gloomy-Burcheev surpassed all his predecessors. He surpassed him with boundless idiocy and inexhaustible energy aimed at translating the ideals he professed into reality. These ideals are the following: “straight line, absence of diversity, simplicity brought to the point of nakedness”... The “former scoundrel” decided to turn the entire city, or rather the entire country, into a continuous barracks and force them to march from morning to evening. The anti-human, leveling essence of autocracy is shown here by Shchedrin with stunning force.
The prototype of Ugryum-Burcheev was largely Arakcheev. However, it is fundamentally wrong to limit the broad generalizing meaning of the figure drawn by Shchedrin, to reduce image to prototype. In Ugryum-Burcheev, the features characteristic of a certain type of ruler, and not just Arakcheev, are concentrated and sharpened.
3. The people in “The History of a City”
Until now, we have been talking about mayors who personify Foolov’s power. However, Shchedrin portrays the Foolovites themselves. How do they behave under the yoke of autocracy? What properties do they exhibit?
The main qualities of Foolovites are inexhaustible patience and blind faith in their superiors. No matter how poor they are, no matter how much the mayors mock them, the Foolovites still continue to hope and praise, praise and hope. They greet the appearance of each new mayor with sincere jubilation: even before seeing the newly appointed ruler in the eye, they already call him “handsome” and “clever,” congratulate each other and fill the air with enthusiastic exclamations. The misfortunes that befall them are taken for granted and they don’t even think about protest. “We are ordinary people!” - they say. “We can endure. If we are now all piled up in a heap and set on fire at all four ends, we won’t even say the opposite word!”
Of course, even among the Foolovites there were sometimes thoughtful people who were ready to stand up for the people and tell the mayors the whole truth. However, the “intercessors of the people” were calmly sent to places where Makar did not send the calves. And the people were “silent” at the same time. It cannot be said that he did not sympathize with their plight. I sympathized, of course. But he did not express his feelings and thoughts publicly. If he did express it at times, these words were very reminiscent of those with which the Foolovites saw off the truth-seeker Yevseich, who was arrested on the orders of the mayor Ferdyshchenko: “I suppose, Yevseich, I suppose! - it was heard all around, - with the truth you will live well everywhere! It goes without saying that the result of this kind of “voice of the people” could only be one thing; “From that moment old Yevseich disappeared, as if he had never existed, disappeared without a trace, as only the “miners” of the Russian land can disappear.”
The writer does not close his eyes to the real state of affairs, does not exaggerate the degree of national self-awareness. He paints the masses as they really were then. “The History of a City” is a satire not only on the rulers of Russia, but also on the obedience and long-suffering of the people.
Shchedrin was convinced that true love to the people lies not in verbal oaths and touching lisps, but in a sober look at their strengths and weaknesses, on its advantages and disadvantages. The writer wanted to see the people free and happy, and therefore did not put up with those qualities that had been instilled in the masses for centuries: obedience, passivity, humility, etc. Being a democratic revolutionary, Shchedrin, like Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov, deeply believed in creative forces the people, in their enormous potential, in the people as the force that can radically change the world. At the same time, he saw that the real people of his time were still far from this ideal.
“The History of a City” was created in those years when it became absolutely clear that the revolutionary situation of 1859-1861 ended in nothing due to the passivity of the broad masses. “...Centuries of slavery had so beaten down and dulled the peasant masses that during the reform they were incapable of anything other than fragmented, isolated uprisings, or rather even “revolts,” not illuminated by any political consciousness...” (V.I. Lenin). The hopes of the democratic revolutionaries for an imminent popular revolution turned out to be in vain: the masses had not yet grown to understand that their first and main enemy was the autocracy. Under these conditions, the leading figures of Russia faced with renewed vigor the task of awakening social consciousness among the people. “The History of a City” by Shchedrin solved this problem. It revealed the true face of autocracy. She denounced the passivity of the broad masses, who patiently carried the Wartkins and Gloomy-Burcheevs on their shoulders, and thereby contributed to the formation of popular consciousness, called on the people to political activity, to an open struggle against autocracy.
4. IT - revolution or brutal repression
In a certain connection with the problem of depicting the people is the question of understanding the ending of the book. This ending is allegorical. “Something”, called “it” by the chronicler, is falling on the city of Foolov.
What did the satirist mean by this “it”? The answers to this question are exactly the opposite. Some researchers believe that Shchedrin here in an allegorical form depicts the revolution sweeping away the anti-people Foolov government. Others believe that this means the onset of a severe reaction.
It seems that the second point of view is more correct. Its fairness is confirmed by a number of hints and omissions contained in the book.
First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that it is here, just before the finale, that the writer sets out the history of Foolov’s liberalism.
Talking about Ionka Kozyr, Ivashka Farafontyev, Alyoshka Bespyatov, thirty-three philosophers and other “unreliable elements” who preached illicit ideas, Shchedrin thereby emphasizes that in Foolov there were people who represented opposition to the existing regime and longed for a change in life. At the same time, the satirist does not close his eyes to the fact that they were all, in essence, beautiful-spirited single dreamers who did not know practical ways to realize their dreams. Foolov's mayors easily dealt with them.
The all-crushing, inflexibly ideological activity of Ugryum-Burcheev led to the fact that “unreliable elements” became active again in Foolov, eager to free the city from the “former scoundrel”, but did not dare to take any practical action, because “every minute seemed convenient for liberation, and every minute seemed premature.” “And then one day,” continues Shchedrin, “an order appeared in all settled units, announcing the appointment of spies. It was a drop that overflowed the cup...” Further in the text there is an outflow. And after sharpening the following explanation: “But here I must admit that the notebooks that contained the details of this case were lost to God knows where. Therefore, I find myself forced to limit myself to only conveying the denouement of this story, and only due to the fact that the piece of paper on which it is described accidentally survived.”
What “case” was the writer forced to remain silent about? What happened in 1825 that cannot be reported in print? It is absolutely clear that such a “case” could only be the Decembrist uprising. It is precisely this that is reflected in the event that concludes the history of Foolov’s liberalism.
The attempt of “unreliable elements” to overthrow Ugryum-Burcheev and achieve his release was unsuccessful. The ending was that a week later “it” flew into the city from the north: either a downpour or a tornado. “Full of anger, it rushed, drilling the ground, roaring, humming and groaning, and from time to time spewing out some dull, croaking sounds. Although it was not yet close, the air in the city began to vibrate, the bells rang of their own accord, the trees were ruffled, the animals went crazy and rushed across the field, not finding the way to the city. It was getting closer, and as it got closer, time stopped running. Finally the earth shook, the sun darkened... The Foolovites fell on their faces. An inscrutable horror appeared on all faces and gripped all hearts.” The whole atmosphere, the whole style of this passage clearly indicates that we are talking about the onset of a terrible, deadening reaction, and not at all about a revolution sweeping away the Foolov. After all, it came from the north, that is, it was something cold, gloomy, chilling. And it makes dull, croaking sounds. And with his appearance, the sun darkened and an inscrutable horror gripped all the Foolovites.
A true understanding of the ending is also helped by the beginning of the last chapter, where the following is said about Gloomy-Burcheev: “He was terrible. But he was aware of this only to a weak degree and made a reservation with a kind of stern modesty. “Someone is coming after me,” he said, “who will be even more terrible than me.” Well, could Shchedrin have put this phrase into the mouth of Ugryum-Burcheev if he had been swept away by a victorious revolution? Of course not.
As you can see, the characterization of the ruler following Ugryum-Burcheev, for all its laconicism, is very definite. Moreover, the first phrase is, perhaps, even more expressive than the second: it means that “someone” who replaced Ugryum-Burcheev turned out to be more terrible than him, if the chronicler is afraid to even talk about him.
The final scene of "The Story of a City" in symbolic form spoke about this crowned monster that fell on Russia like a tornado. However, this time too the satirist directed his blow not so much to the past as to the present. After all, the book was written at the end of the 60s, when a short-term period of “liberalization” and “reforms” was replaced by another onslaught of reaction.
A fierce, terrible “it” has once again fallen upon Russian society, bringing with it cold and darkness... It has spread throughout the entire country and mercilessly suppresses its living forces, fetters thought, paralyzes feelings. It has thousands of eyes to spy and thousands of ears to eavesdrop. It has a thousand legs to follow on the heels of every suspect, and a thousand arms to scribble and scribble denunciations.
It was with this monster that Shchedrin fought, inflicting crushing satirical blows on it with all the force of his enormous talent.
CONCLUSION
“The History of a City,” both at the time of its appearance and in subsequent times, sounded extremely relevant. She reflected not only the past and present, but also to a large extent saw the future. Reality seemed to compete with the satirical fiction of the writer, trying to catch up with it, or even surpass it.
Soon after the book was published, in 1876, Shchedrin, in a letter to N.A. Nekrasov reported: “...for example, a law was issued allowing governors to issue mandatory decrees or, simply put, laws. It's incredible, but it's true. When I imagined in “The History of a City” a mayor who loved to write laws, I myself did not expect that this would come true so soon. In general, it becomes almost strange to live in the world.”
Shchedrin turned out to be a prophet not only in this case. His satire was so deep and witty that subsequent generations perceived it as something topical. Expressing his admiration for Shchedrin’s genius, M. Gorky said: “The significance of his satire is enormous both in its truthfulness and in that sense of almost prophetic foresight of the paths along which Russian society should have followed and followed from the 60s until our days." These words, spoken in 1909, when the political reaction in once again plunged Russia into the darkness of lawlessness and tyranny, the deep typism of Shchedrin’s images, their artistic perfection and ideological capacity are revealed in the best possible way.
“The History of a City” still lives on, although the tsarist autocracy has long been overthrown. It has crossed national borders and continues to fight wherever autocracy triumphs. Turgenev once feared that this work Shchedrin will be largely incomprehensible to foreign readers because of his purely Russian flavor. These fears turned out to be unfounded. “A Strange and Wonderful Book” is now known not only in our country, but also abroad and stands firmly among the greatest achievements of world satire.
Saltykov Shchedrin satirical city
References
1. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “The History of a City.” M., Soviet Russia, 1985
2. D.N. Nikolaev “Creativity of Saltykov-Shchedrin.” M., Fiction, 1970
3. V.A. Vetlovskaya "Satire in Russian literature". M., 2009
Similar documents
"The History of a City" M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin is a satirical work, the grotesqueness of its structure. The interweaving of the authentic and the fantastic, the grotesque in the depiction of the character system. Grotesque figures of city governors, Foolovian liberalism.
test, added 12/09/2010
The childhood years of Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov (pseudonym - N. Shchedrin), home education and study at the Moscow Noble Institute. The most famous works. A satirical depiction of the relationship between the people and the authorities in the novel "The History of a City."
presentation, added 05/08/2012
Satire as an accusatory literary work, depicting the negative phenomena of life in a funny, ugly way. Basic satirical devices. Historical background satirical novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin "The History of a City", its images.
presentation, added 02/20/2012
Familiarization with stylistic features writing and the plot line of the satirical painting “The History of a City” by Saltykov-Shchedrin. Portrayal of general disbelief and loss moral values nation in the novel "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky.
abstract, added 06/20/2010
Research into the poetics of M.E.’s creativity Saltykov-Shchedrin from the 1920s to the 2000s. Peculiarities of color painting in the story "The History of a City". Aesthetics and semantics of color in the story. Study of color trends in literature XVIII era and XIX centuries.
course work, added 07/22/2013
The grotesque style and phraseology of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel, a combination of unbridled plot fiction and outwardly real and everyday details of fact. Social and political satire in "The History of a City", techniques of artistic exaggeration.
abstract, added 11/10/2010
The history of the city with the “speaking” name Foolov. Incorrigible human vices. Characters of Saltykov-Shchedrin. A work that ridicules eternal human vices, and not a parody of the history of Russia and not a satirical depiction of modernity.
creative work, added 02/03/2009
The life path and work of the great Russian satirist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. A study of the writer's life, beginning with early years up to and including the reference to Vyatka. The beginning of a literary journey. Anti-government stories, punishment for freethinking.
abstract, added 10/22/2016
The history of creation and critics' assessment of the novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin "Lord Golovlevs". Themes and problems of the novel by Saltykov-Shchedrin, its relevance for the modern reader. The system of characters in the novel, its significance for the history of Russian literature.
thesis, added 04/29/2011
A brief biographical sketch of the life path of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin - Russian writer and prose writer. The beginning of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s literary activity, his first stories. The writer's exile to Vyatka. Resuming his writing and editing work.
ORIGINALITY OF SALTYKOV-SHCHEDRIN'S SATIRE. In 1780, “The History of a City” by Saltykov-Shchedrin was published. It is very difficult to determine the genre of this work at first glance. This is most likely a historical chronicle with elements of fantasy, hyperbole, and artistic allegory. This is a brilliant example of socio-political satire, the relevance of which has become increasingly acute and brilliant over the years.
“He knows his native country better than anyone,” I. S. Turgenev wrote about Shchedrin, and it is very noteworthy that these words were evoked from him precisely by “The History of a City.” The book begins with: ancient chronicler, “having said a few words in praise of his modesty,” continues: “There was... in ancient times a people called blockheads.” These same bunglers ruined their lands, quarreled with their neighbors and “stripped the bark from the last pine into flat cakes.” Then “they decided to look for a prince.” Thus, they no longer became blockheads, but Foolovites, and their city began to be called Foolov. The narrative itself is preceded by an “inventory of mayors” in the amount of 21 copies. And the collection of biographies of Foolov’s mayors begins with Dementy Valamovich Brudasty. A huge mechanism was operating in his head, playing two shout words: “I won’t tolerate” and “I’m dawning.” According to the satirist, Brudasty embodies the type of extremely simplified administrative leader, resulting from the very nature of totalitarianism. The chronicle continues with “The Tale of the Six Mayors,” which evokes in the reader’s memory the excesses of favoritism of the era of palace coups in Russia. Amalka Shtokfim overthrew Clémentine de Bourboni and put her in a cage. Then Nelka Lyakhovskaya overthrew Amalka and locked her in the same cage with Klemantinka. The next morning, “there was nothing left in the cage except stinking bones.” This is how the writer played on the meaning of the figurative expression “ready to eat each other.” And then there are the stories
about other city governors, one of whom is more disgusting than the other. And this description ends with the image of Gloomy-Burcheev. This is where the despotic nature of absolutism and its “bridling possibilities” are fully revealed. Gloomy-burcheevism is a brilliant satirical generalization of all regimes and traditions based on unity of command. But then either a downpour or a tornado hit the town of Foolov and “the former scoundrel instantly disappeared, as if he had melted into thin air.” The chronicle ends with the mysterious words: “History has stopped flowing.” The entire population of Foolov is united by awe and submission to the curbing “measures” of the authorities. The Foolovites are almost always shown as a mass: the Foolovites rush towards the mayor’s house in droves, throw themselves to their knees as a whole, flee from the villages in crowds, even die together. Sometimes, however, they grumble and even rebel. But this is a “revolt on the knees,” with the screams of the flogged, the cries and groans of a maddened hungry crowd, as it was in a lean year.
This is the ending, equally bitter for all Foolovites. Saltykov-Shchedrin liked to repeat that the Russian peasant is poor in all respects, and above all in the consciousness of his poverty. Bearing in mind this poverty, passivity and humility of the peasant, the satirist bitterly exclaims on behalf of the people: “We endure cold, hunger, every year we keep waiting: maybe it will be better... How long?”
Speaking about the originality of satire in the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin, one must understand that his satirical style, his techniques and methods of depicting heroes were formed along with the ideological and creative formation of the writer’s views on the people. A man who was vitally and spiritually close to the masses of the people, who grew up among the people, and who, as a result of his duty, was constantly faced with the problems of the people, Saltykov-Shchedrin absorbed the people's spirit, their language, their moods. This allowed him, already in his early satirical cycles (“Provincial Sketches”, “Pompadours and Pompadours”, “Tashkent People”, etc.) to very deeply and correctly assess the predatory essence of the serf owners, the nobility and the emerging bourgeoisie and kulaks.
It was here that the satirist’s weapons began to be honed. N.A. Dobrolyubov wrote about the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin at that time: “Among the masses of the people, the name of Mr. Shchedrin, when it becomes known there, will always be pronounced with respect and gratitude: he loves this people, he sees many kind, noble, although undeveloped or misdirected instincts in these humble, simple-minded workers. He protects them from all sorts of talented people and mediocre shy people; he treats them without any denial. In “Bogomolets” his contrast is magnificent between the simple-minded faith, the living, fresh feelings of common people and the arrogant emptiness of General Daria Mikhailovna or the disgusting fanfare of the tax farmer Khreptyugin.” But in these works Shchedrin does not yet possess the fullness of the satirical palette: the psychological portraits of officials, bribe-takers, bureaucrats, although supported by telling names, like that of this Khreptyugin, the backbone of the people, do not yet bear the stamp of evil accusatory laughter, with which the heroes are already branded “ Stories of one city." In general, if “The History of a City” were not such a talented and profound work that it is, it could be used as a textbook on the forms and methods of using satire. It has everything: techniques of satirical fiction, unbridled hyperbolization of images, grotesque, Aesopian language of allegories, parody of various institutions of statehood and political problems.
"Problems political life- these are the problems in artistic interpretation which Shchedrin abundantly includes hyperbole and fantasy. The more acute the political problems addressed by the satirist, the more hyperbolic and fantastic his images” 2.224. For example, Saltykov-Shchedrin described the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of government officials engaged in robbing the people before, but only in “The History of a City” does Brudasty appear with his empty head, in which is built an organ with two romances “I’ll Ruin!” and “I won’t tolerate it!” All the contempt that the author was capable of expressing for such figures is expressed in this grotesque image, conveyed in an allegedly fantastic way. But the author’s hint that such figures are not uncommon in Russian reality has a much more acute effect on public opinion. The image of Brudasty is fantastic and therefore funny. And laughter is a weapon. It helps an intelligent person to correctly assess a phenomenon or a person, and figures like Brudasty, having recognized themselves, are also forced to laugh, otherwise everyone would not know about their empty head. Here, the author, in addition, uses the technique of assigning telling surnames to his characters (Brudasty is a special breed of ferocious shaggy dogs) - and here we get the famous Shchedrin character: a stupid, ferocious man with a furry soul.
And then one can imagine what will happen to the people given over to such a ruler. “Unheard of activity suddenly began to boil in all parts of the city; private bailiffs galloped off; the policemen galloped; The guards forgot what it meant to eat, and from then on they acquired the bad habit of grabbing pieces on the fly. They seize and catch, flog and flog, describe and sell... and above all this hubbub, above all this confusion, like the cry of a bird of prey, reigns the ominous “I will not tolerate it!” 44.20. A characteristic feature of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s satire is that he draws portraits of his heroes with special care, with great psychologism, and only then these heroes, as if independently, based on the portrait drawn by the author, begin to live and act.
All this is reminiscent of a puppet theater, as the author repeatedly mentioned in different periods life, as in the fairy tale “The Toy Business of Little People”: “A living doll tramples a living person under its heel.” No wonder contemporary writer artist A.I. Lebedev, in his cartoon drawing, depicted Shchedrin as a collector of dolls, which he mercilessly pins to the pages of his books with his sharp satire. An example of such living dolls in “The History of a City” can be called Wartkin’s tin soldiers, who, having entered the robes, filled with blood and ferocity, attack the houses of the residents of Foolov and in a few moments destroy them to the ground. A real soldier, in the understanding of Saltykov-Shchedrin, as a native of the same people, who is also called upon to protect the people from the enemy, cannot and should not speak out against the people. Only tin soldiers, dolls are able to forget their roots, bringing pain and destruction to their people 10.19. And yet, in “The History of a City” there is one purely fantastic period. This is the period of the reign of the gendarmerie officer - Colonel Pryshch (although in the “Inventory to the Mayors” he is only a major). But even here Saltykov-Shchedrin remains true to his manner: in that Pyshch turned out to have a stuffed head, which was bitten off by a certain voluptuous leader of the nobility, most likely the state councilor Ivanov following Pyshch, who “died in 1819 from strain, trying to comprehend some Senate decree" 44.17; there is nothing unusual in this fact for Saltykov-Shchedrin.
Even before “The History of a City,” the author drew images of officials eating each other. Envy and coddling, even to the point of palace coups, are such a characteristic feature of Russian reality that, no matter how the author tries to more naturally and more plausibly describe the fantastic eating of a head, doused with vinegar and mustard by the leader of the nobility, none of the readers has any doubt that the speech it is precisely about envy, a vile and dirty feeling that pushes a person to meanness and even to kill an opponent, preventing him from taking a sweet spot 10.21.
The fantasy of this period lies in something else: how could it happen that under the rule of the gendarme Pryshch, the city of Foolov “was brought to such prosperity, which the chronicles had not imagined since its very foundation”
The Foolovites suddenly had everything “twice and three times as much as before,” 44.107, and Pimple looked at this prosperity and rejoiced. And it was impossible not to rejoice at him, because the general abundance was reflected in him. His barns were bursting with offerings made in kind; the chests did not hold silver and gold, and the banknotes simply lay on the floor” 44.105. The fantastic nature of such prosperity of the people lies precisely in the fact that in the entire history of Russia there has not been a single period when the people lived calmly and richly. Most likely, Saltykov-Shchedrin, with his characteristic corrosive sarcasm, is depicting here the habit that has taken root in Russia to show off, to build “Potemkin villages”
By creating the ironic, grotesque “History of a City,” Saltykov-Shchedrin hoped to evoke in the reader not laughter, but a “bitter feeling” of shame. The idea of the work is built on the image of a certain hierarchy: ordinary people who will not resist the instructions of often stupid rulers, and the tyrant rulers themselves. The common people in this story are the residents of the city of Foolov, and their oppressors are the mayors. Saltykov-Shchedrin ironically notes that these people need a boss, one who will give them instructions and keep a tight rein, otherwise the whole people will fall into anarchy.
History of creation
The concept and idea of the novel “The History of a City” was formed gradually. In 1867, the writer wrote a fairy-tale-fantasy work, “The Story of the Governor with a Stuffed Head,” which later formed the basis for the chapter “The Organ.” In 1868, Saltykov-Shchedrin began working on “The History of a City” and completed it in 1870. Initially, the author wanted to give the work the title “Foolish Chronicler.” The novel was published in the then popular magazine Otechestvennye zapiski.
The plot of the work
(Illustrations by the creative team of Soviet graphic artists "Kukryniksy")
The narration is told on behalf of the chronicler. He talks about the inhabitants of the city who were so stupid that their city was given the name “Fools”. The novel begins with the chapter “On the Roots of the Origin of the Foolovites,” which gives the history of this people. It tells in particular about a tribe of bunglers, who, after defeating the neighboring tribes of bow-eaters, bush-eaters, walrus-eaters, cross-bellied people and others, decided to find a ruler for themselves, because they wanted to restore order in the tribe. Only one prince decided to rule, and even he sent an innovative thief in his place. When he was stealing, the prince sent him a noose, but the thief was able to somehow get out of it and stabbed himself with a cucumber. As you can see, irony and grotesque coexist perfectly in the work.
After several unsuccessful candidates for the role of deputies, the prince came to the city in person. Having become the first ruler, he started the countdown of the city’s “historical time”. It is said that twenty-two rulers with their achievements ruled the city, but the Inventory lists twenty-one. Apparently, the missing one is the founder of the city.
Main characters
Each of the mayors fulfills his task in implementing the writer’s idea through the grotesque to show the absurdity of their rule. Traits are visible in many types historical figures. For greater recognition, Saltykov-Shchedrin not only described the style of their rule, comically distorted their surnames, but also gave apt characteristics indicating historical prototype. Some personalities of mayors are images collected from characteristic features different persons history of the Russian state.
Thus, the third ruler, Ivan Matveevich Velikanov, famous for drowning the director of economic affairs and introducing taxes of three kopecks per person, was exiled to prison for an affair with Avdotya Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter I.
Brigadier Ivan Matveyevich Baklan, the sixth mayor, was tall and proud to be a follower of the line of Ivan the Terrible. The reader understands that this refers to the bell tower in Moscow. The ruler found his death in the spirit of the same grotesque image that fills the novel - the foreman was broken in half during a storm.
The personality of Peter III in the image of Guard Sergeant Bogdan Bogdanovich Pfeiffer is indicated by the characteristic given to him - “a Holstein native”, the style of government of the mayor and his outcome - removed from the post of ruler “for ignorance”.
Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty was nicknamed “Organchik” for the presence of a mechanism in his head. He kept the city in fear because he was gloomy and withdrawn. When trying to take the mayor's head to the capital's craftsmen for repairs, it was thrown out of the carriage by a frightened coachman. After Organchik's reign, chaos reigned in the city for 7 days.
A short period of prosperity for the townspeople is associated with the name of the ninth mayor, Semyon Konstantinovich Dvoekurov. A civilian advisor and innovator, he took up appearance city, started honey and brewing. Tried to open an academy.
The longest reign was marked by the twelfth mayor, Vasilisk Semyonovich Wartkin, who reminds the reader of the style of rule of Peter I. The character’s connection with a historical figure is indicated by his “glorious deeds” - he destroyed the Streletskaya and Dung settlements, and difficult relations with the eradication of the ignorance of the people - he spent four wars for education and three - against. He resolutely prepared the city for burning, but suddenly died.
By origin, a former peasant Onufriy Ivanovich Negodyaev, who, before serving as mayor, stoked furnaces, destroyed the streets paved by the former ruler and erected monuments on these resources. The image is copied from Paul I, as evidenced by the circumstances of his removal: he was dismissed for disagreeing with the triumvirate regarding the constitutions.
Under State Councilor Erast Andreevich Grustilov, Foolov's elite was busy with balls and nightly meetings with the reading of the works of a certain gentleman. As in the reign of Alexander I, the mayor did not care about the people, who were impoverished and starving.
The scoundrel, idiot and “Satan” Gloomy-Burcheev has a “speaking” surname and is “copied” from Count Arakcheev. He finally destroys Foolov and decides to build the city of Neprekolnsk in a new place. When attempting to implement such a grandiose project, the “end of the world” occurred: the sun went dark, the earth shook, and the mayor disappeared without a trace. This is how the story of “one city” ended.
Analysis of the work
Saltykov-Shchedrin, with the help of satire and grotesque, aims to reach human soul. He wants to convince the reader that human institutions must be based on Christian principles. Otherwise, a person’s life can be deformed, disfigured, and in the end can lead to the death of the human soul.
“The History of a City” is an innovative work that has overcome the usual boundaries of artistic satire. Each image in the novel has pronounced grotesque features, but is at the same time recognizable. Which gave rise to a flurry of criticism against the author. He was accused of “slander” against the people and rulers.
Indeed, the story of Foolov is largely copied from Nestor’s chronicle, which tells about the time of the beginning of Rus' - “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The author deliberately emphasized this parallel so that it would become obvious who he means by the Foolovites, and that all these mayors are by no means a flight of fancy, but real Russian rulers. At the same time, the author makes it clear that he is not describing the entire human race, but specifically Russia, reinterpreting its history in his own satirical way.
However, the purpose of creating the work Saltykov-Shchedrin did not make fun of Russia. The writer’s task was to encourage society to critically rethink its history in order to eradicate existing vices. The grotesque plays a huge role in creating an artistic image in the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin. The main goal of the writer is to show the vices of people that are not noticed by society.
The writer ridiculed the ugliness of society and was called a “great scoffer” among such predecessors as Griboyedov and Gogol. Reading the ironic grotesque, the reader wanted to laugh, but there was something sinister in this laughter - the audience “felt like a scourge lashing itself.”
The idea for the book was formed by Saltykov-Shchedrin gradually, over several years. In 1867, the writer composed and presented to the public a new fairy-tale-fiction “The Story of the Governor with a Stuffed Head” (it forms the basis of the chapter known to us called “The Organ”). In 1868, the author began work on a full-length novel. This process took a little more than a year(1869-1870). The work was originally entitled “Foolish Chronicler.” The title “The History of a City,” which became the final version, appeared later. Literary work was published in parts in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski.
Due to inexperience, some people consider Saltykov-Shchedrin’s book to be a story or a fairy tale, but this is not so. Such voluminous literature cannot claim the title of short prose. The genre of the work “The History of a City” is larger and is called a “satirical novel.” It represents a kind of chronological overview of the fictitious town of Foolov. His fate is recorded in chronicles, which the author finds and publishes, accompanied by his own comments.
Also, terms such as “political pamphlet” and “satirical chronicle” can be applied to this book, but it only absorbed some features of these genres, and is not their “purebred” literary embodiment.
What is the work about?
The writer allegorically conveyed the history of Russia, which he assessed critically. He called the inhabitants of the Russian Empire “Foolovites.” They are residents of the city of the same name, whose life is described in the Foolov Chronicle. This ethnic group originated from ancient people called "bunglers". For their ignorance they were renamed accordingly.
The Headbangers were at enmity with neighboring tribes, as well as with each other. And so, tired of quarrels and unrest, they decided to find themselves a ruler who would establish order. After three years they found a suitable prince who agreed to rule over them. Together with the acquired power, people founded the city of Foolov. This is how the writer designated the formation Ancient Rus' and Rurik's calling to reign.
At first, the ruler sent them a governor, but he stole, and then he arrived in person and imposed strict order. This is how Saltykov-Shchedrin imagined the period of feudal fragmentation in medieval Russia.
Next, the writer interrupts the narrative and lists the biographies of famous mayors, each of which is a separate and complete story. The first was Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty, in whose head there was an organ that played only two compositions: “I won’t tolerate it!” and “I’ll ruin you!” Then his head broke, and anarchy set in - the turmoil that came after the death of Ivan the Terrible. It was his author who portrayed him in the image of Brudasty. Next, identical twin impostors appeared, but they were soon removed - this is the appearance of False Dmitry and his followers.
Anarchy reigned for a week, during which six mayors replaced each other. This is the era of palace coups, when Russian Empire Only women and intrigue ruled.
Semyon Konstantinovich Dvoekurov, who established mead making and brewing, is most likely a prototype of Peter the Great, although this assumption runs counter to historical chronology. But the reformist activities and iron hand of the ruler are very similar to the characteristics of the emperor.
The bosses changed, their conceit grew in proportion to the degree of absurdity in the work. Frankly insane reforms or hopeless stagnation were ruining the country, the people were sliding into poverty and ignorance, and the elite either feasted, then fought, or hunted for the female sex. The alternation of continuous mistakes and defeats led to horrific consequences, satirically described by the author. In the end, the last ruler of the Gloomy-Burcheev dies, and after his death the narrative ends, and because of the open ending, there is a glimmer of hope for changes for the better.
Nestor also described the history of the emergence of Rus' in The Tale of Bygone Years. The author draws this parallel specifically to hint who he means by the Foolovites, and who are all these mayors: a flight of fancy or real Russian rulers? The writer makes it clear that he is not describing the entire human race, but rather Russia and its depravity, reshaping its fate in his own way.
The composition is arranged in chronological sequence, the work has a classic linear narrative, but each chapter is a container for a full-fledged plot, which has its own heroes, events and results.
Description of the city
Foolov is in a distant province, we learn about this when Brudasty’s head deteriorates on the road. This is a small settlement, a county, because they come to take away two impostors from the province, that is, the town is only a small part of it. It doesn’t even have an academy, but thanks to the efforts of Dvoekurov, mead making and brewing are thriving. It is divided into “settlements”: “Pushkarskaya settlement, followed by the settlements Bolotnaya and Negodnitsa.” Agriculture is developed there, since the drought, which occurred due to the sins of the next boss, greatly affects the interests of the residents, they are even ready to rebel. With Pimple, harvests increase, which pleases the Foolovites immensely. “The History of a City” is replete with dramatic events, the cause of which is the agrarian crisis.
Gloomy-Burcheev fought with the river, from which we conclude that the district is located on the shore, in a hilly area, since the mayor is leading the people in search of a plain. The main place in this region is the bell tower: unwanted citizens are thrown from it.
Main characters
- The prince is a foreign ruler who agreed to take power over the Foolovites. He is cruel and narrow-minded, because he sent thieving and worthless governors, and then led with only one phrase: “I’ll screw it up.” The history of one city and the characteristics of the heroes began with it.
- Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty is a withdrawn, gloomy, silent owner of a head with an organ that plays two phrases: “I won’t tolerate it!” and “I’ll ruin you!” His apparatus for making decisions became damp on the road, they could not repair it, so they sent for a new one to St. Petersburg, but the working head was delayed and never arrived. Prototype of Ivan the Terrible.
- Iraida Lukinichna Paleologova is the wife of the mayor, who ruled the city for a day. An allusion to Sophia Paleolog, the second wife of Ivan IIII, grandmother of Ivan the Terrible.
- Clémentine de Bourbon is the mother of the mayor, she also happened to rule for one day.
- Amalia Karlovna Shtokfish is a pompadour who also wanted to stay in power. German names and the names of women - the author’s humorous look at the era of German favoritism, as well as a number of crowned persons of foreign origin: Anna Ioanovna, Catherine the Second, etc.
- Semyon Konstantinovich Dvoekurov - reformer and educator: “He introduced mead making and brewing and made it mandatory to use mustard and bay leaf. He also wanted to open the Academy of Sciences, but did not have time to complete the reforms he had begun.
- Pyotr Petrovich Ferdyshchenko (a parody of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov) is a cowardly, weak-willed, loving politician, under whom there was order in Foolov for 6 years, but then he fell in love with married woman Alena and exiled her husband to Siberia so that she would succumb to his onslaught. The woman succumbed, but fate struck a drought on the people, and people began to die of hunger. There was a riot (referring to the salt riot of 1648), as a result of which the ruler’s mistress died and was thrown from the bell tower. Then the mayor complained to the capital, and they sent him soldiers. The uprising was suppressed, and he found himself a new passion, because of which disasters occurred again - fires. But they also dealt with them, and he, having gone on a trip to Foolov, died from overeating. It is obvious that the hero did not know how to restrain his desires and fell into their weak-willed victim.
- Vasilisk Semenovich Borodavkin, an imitator of Dvoekurov, imposed reforms with fire and sword. Decisive, likes to plan and organize. Unlike my colleagues, I studied the history of Foolov. However, he himself was not far off: he instituted a military campaign against his own people, in the darkness “friends fought with their own.” Then he carried out an unsuccessful transformation in the army, replacing the soldiers with tin copies. With his battles he brought the city to complete exhaustion. After him, Negodyaev completed the plunder and destruction.
- Cherkeshenin Mikeladze, a passionate hunter of the female sex, was only concerned with arranging his rich personal life at the expense of his official position.
- Feofilakt Irinarkhovich Benevolensky (a parody of Alexander the First) is a university friend of Speransky (the famous reformer), who composed laws at night and scattered them around the city. He loved to be clever and show off, but did nothing useful. Dismissed for high treason (relations with Napoleon).
- Lieutenant Colonel Pimple is the owner of a head stuffed with truffles, which the leader of the nobility ate in a hungry fit. Under him, agriculture flourished, since he did not interfere in the lives of his charges and did not interfere with their work.
- State Councilor Ivanov is an official who arrived from St. Petersburg, who “turned out to be so small in stature that he could not contain anything spacious” and burst from the strain of comprehending the next thought.
- The emigrant Viscount de Chariot is a foreigner who, instead of working, just had fun and threw balls. Soon he was sent abroad for idleness and embezzlement. It was later discovered that he was female.
- Erast Andreevich Grustilov is a lover of carousing at public expense. Under him, the population stopped working in the fields and became interested in paganism. But the wife of the pharmacist Pfeiffer came to the mayor and imposed new religious views on him, he began to organize readings and confessional gatherings instead of feasts, and, having learned about this, the higher authorities deprived him of his post.
- Gloomy-Burcheev (a parody of Arakcheev, a military official) is a martinet who planned to give the whole city a barracks-like appearance and order. He despised education and culture, but wanted all citizens to have the same homes and families on the same streets. The official destroyed the entire Foolov, moved it to a lowland, but then a natural disaster occurred, and the official was carried away by a storm.
This is where the list of heroes ends. The mayors in Saltykov-Shchedrin's novel are people who, by adequate standards, are in no way capable of managing any populated area and being the personification of power. All their actions are completely fantastic, meaningless and often contradict one another. One ruler builds, the other destroys everything. One comes to replace the other, but nothing changes in people's life. There are no significant changes or improvements. Political figures in "The Story of a City" have common features- tyranny, pronounced depravity, bribery, greed, stupidity and despotism. Outwardly, the characters retain an ordinary human appearance, while the inner content of the personality is fraught with a thirst for suppression and oppression of the people for the purpose of profit.
Topics
- Power. This is the main theme of the work “The History of a City,” which is revealed in a new way in each chapter. Mainly, it is seen through the prism of a satirical image of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s contemporary political structure in Russia. The satire here is aimed at two aspects of life - to show how destructive autocracy is and to reveal the passivity of the masses. In relation to autocracy, it is a complete and merciless denial, but in relation to ordinary people, its goal was to correct morals and enlighten minds.
- War. The author focused on the destructiveness of bloodshed, which only ruins the city and kills people.
- Religion and fanaticism. The writer is ironic about the people’s readiness to believe in any impostor and in any idols, just to shift responsibility for their lives onto them.
- Ignorance. The people are not educated and not developed, so the rulers manipulate them as they want. Foolov's life is not getting better not only due to the fault of political figures, but also because of the reluctance of people to develop and learn to master new skills. For example, none of Dvoekurov’s reforms took root, although many of them had a positive result for enriching the city.
- Servility. The Foolovites are ready to endure any arbitrariness, as long as there is no hunger.
Issues
- Of course, the author touches on issues related to government. The main problem in the novel is the imperfection of power and its political techniques. In Foolov, rulers, also known as mayors, are replaced one after another. But at the same time, they do not bring anything new into the life of the people and into the structure of the city. Their responsibilities include caring only about their well-being; the mayors do not care about the interests of the residents of the county.
- Personnel issue. There is no one to appoint to the position of manager: all candidates are vicious and not fit for selfless service in the name of an idea, and not for the sake of profit. Responsibility and the desire to eliminate pressing problems are completely alien to them. This happens because society is initially unfairly divided into castes, and none of them ordinary people cannot occupy an important post. The ruling elite, feeling the lack of competition, lives in idleness of mind and body and does not work conscientiously, but simply squeezes out of the rank everything that it can give.
- Ignorance. Politicians do not understand the problems of mere mortals, and even if they want to help, they cannot do it right. There are no people in power, there is a blank wall between classes, so even the most humane officials are powerless. “The History of a City” is only a reflection of the real problems of the Russian Empire, where there were talented rulers, but due to their isolation from their subjects, they were unable to improve their lives.
- Inequality. The people are defenseless against the arbitrariness of managers. For example, the mayor sends Alena’s husband into exile without guilt, abusing his position. And the woman gives up because she doesn’t even expect justice.
- Responsibility. Officials are not punished for their destructive acts, and their successors feel safe: no matter what you do, nothing serious will happen for it. They will only remove you from office, and then only as a last resort.
- Reverence. The people are great power, there is no point in it if he agrees to blindly obey his superiors in everything. He does not defend his rights, does not protect his people, in fact, he turns into an inert mass and, by his own will, deprives himself and his children of a happy and fair future.
- Fanaticism. In the novel, the author focuses on the theme of excessive religious zeal, which does not enlighten, but blinds people, dooming them to idle talk.
- Embezzlement. All the prince’s governors turned out to be thieves, that is, the system is so rotten that it allows its elements to carry out any fraud with impunity.
Main idea
The author's intention is to depict a political system in which society comes to terms with its eternally oppressed position and believes that this is in the order of things. The society in the story is represented by the people (the Foolovites), while the “oppressor” is the mayors, who replace each other at an enviable speed, while managing to ruin and destroy their possessions. Saltykov-Shchedrin ironically notes that the residents are driven by the force of “love of authority,” and without a ruler they immediately fall into anarchy. Thus, the idea of the work “The History of a City” is the desire to show the history of Russian society from the outside, how people for many years transferred all responsibility for organizing their well-being onto the shoulders of the revered monarch and were invariably deceived, because one person cannot change the whole country. Change cannot come from outside as long as the people are ruled by the consciousness that autocracy is the highest order. People must realize their personal responsibility to their homeland and forge their own happiness, but tyranny does not allow them to express themselves, and they ardently support it, because as long as it exists, nothing needs to be done.
Despite the satirical and ironic basis of the story, it contains a very important point. The point of the work “The History of a City” is to show that only if there is a free and critical vision of power and its imperfections, changes for the better are possible. If a society lives by the rules of blind obedience, then oppression is inevitable. The author does not call for uprisings and revolution, there are no ardent rebellious lamentations in the text, but the essence is the same - without popular awareness of their role and responsibility, there is no path to change.
The writer not only criticizes the monarchical system, he offers an alternative, speaking out against censorship and risking his public office, because the publication of “History ...” could lead to not only his resignation, but also imprisonment. He not only speaks, but through his actions calls on society not to be afraid of the authorities and to speak openly to them about painful issues. The main idea of Saltykov-Shchedrin is to instill in people freedom of thought and speech, so that they can improve their lives themselves, without waiting for the mercy of mayors. It fosters an active citizenship in the reader.
Artistic media
What makes the story special is the peculiar interweaving of the world of the fantastic and the real, where fantastic grotesquery and journalistic intensity of current and real problems coexist. Unusual and incredible incidents and events emphasize the absurdity of the depicted reality. The author masterfully uses such artistic techniques as grotesque and hyperbole. In the life of the Foolovites, everything is incredible, exaggerated, funny. For example, the vices of city governors have grown to colossal proportions; they are deliberately taken beyond the scope of reality. The writer exaggerates in order to eradicate real-life problems through ridicule and public disgrace. Irony is also one of the means of expression author's position and his attitude to what is happening in the country. People love to laugh, and it is better to present serious topics in a humorous style, otherwise the work will not find its reader. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel “The History of a City” is, first of all, funny, which is why it was and is popular. At the same time, he is ruthlessly truthful, he hits hard on topical issues, but the reader has already taken the bait in the form of humor and cannot tear himself away from the book.
What does the book teach?
The Foolovites, who personify the people, are in a state of unconscious worship of power. They unquestioningly obey the whims of the autocracy, the absurd orders and tyranny of the ruler. At the same time, they experience fear and reverence for the patron. The authorities, represented by the mayors, use their instrument of suppression to the fullest extent, regardless of the opinions and interests of the townspeople. Therefore, Saltykov-Shchedrin points out that the common people and their leader are worth each other, because until society “grows up” to more high standards and does not learn to defend its rights, the state will not change: it will respond to primitive demand with a cruel and unfair offer.
The symbolic ending of “The Story of a City,” in which the despotic mayor Gloomy-Burcheev dies, is intended to leave a message that the Russian autocracy has no future. But there is also no certainty or constancy in matters of power. All that remains is the tart taste of tyranny, which may be followed by something new.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!