Satirical depiction of mayors. In “The History of a City,” M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin connected the past with the present. In many of the characters in the work, it is easy to see the features of those who ruled Russia in the 18th or first quarter of the 19th century. No one doubts the similarity between Benevolensky and Speransky or Ugryum-Burcheev and Arakcheev (the closeness of the surnames immediately leads to such analogies).
But despite all the recognition of the mayors, there is a bold fantasy in their depiction. The city where the action takes place is named by Shchedrin as Foolish. And the first in a long line of mayors we meet Brudasty - with an organ in his head instead of its normal, human structure. And then follows the “fantastic traveler Ferdntsenko,” driving from one end of the city pasture to the other to the sound of timpani and congratulatory speeches. Then - Mayor Pimple with a stuffed head.
Fantasy here is not arbitrariness, but a pattern of satirical depiction. Fiction is the path to a deeper understanding of reality. It is clear that in life the rulers of Russia remained similar to people. They uttered ordinary words, and not “I’ll ruin you!” and “I won’t tolerate it!” They also dominated and oppressed. But they could no longer really control or determine the course of events. And their activities did not require any effort of the mind or soul. Outwardly they look like people, but they have no human content - that’s what M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin is talking about.
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin shows mayors not only directly in their state affairs. About Pimple, for example, it is reported that he “poisoned foxes and hares in the city pasture, and once killed a very pretty little bourgeois girl.” The animal nature, as can be seen from this example, permeates all the interests of the characters in “The City of History.” The content of their lives is only the satisfaction of bodily needs and the oppression of Foolov's inhabitants with absurd decrees.
The only mayor who does not persecute Foolov's inhabitants with his orders is Pimple. And during his reign, “everything they had was double and triple what it was before.” Does this mean that mayors are useless and even harmful? But, on the other hand, during the times of Foolov’s “anarchy,” when there was no mayor in power, the city of Foolov quickly loses its civilized appearance, wolves walk the streets, and the economy falls into complete desolation. Does this mean that the well-being of the townsfolk depends on the mayors? No, of course, it is not the mayors themselves, who can only be roughly called people, but the idea of power, and on a pure idea, without any content, that maintains order in the city of Ilupov.
To complete the series of mayors, Ugryum-Burcheev appears on the pages of “The History of a City.” The satirist says the following about him: “Gloomy-Burcheev was a scoundrel in the full sense of the word.” This characteristic combines the name of the position of regimental executioner and the designation of a swindler. Gloomy-Burcheev undertakes to stop the river, that is, to stop life in the city of Foolov. The satirist knows that the Foolovites will remain silent. But the rule of this mayor still leads to disaster: It appears from somewhere and puts an end to Foolov’s story. It is possible that the catastrophe will not bring anything good with it: in the “Inventory of Town Governors”, after Ugryum-Burcheev, there is also Intercept-Zalikhvatsky, who “burned the gymnasium and abolished the sciences.” But Foolov's shock is truly catastrophic.
The satirist's laughter is bitter. But there is also a high rapture in him that everything finally appears in its true light, everything is called by its proper name.
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin is a recognized master of satire. It was satire that helped the writer shed new light on historical events and look at modern times. In the novel “The History of a City,” it was important for the author to reveal the essence of each era, determine the patterns of social development, and the causes of political violence. That is why the narration in the novel is led not by the author, but by a chronicler who is entirely subordinate to the cruel state machine.
At the beginning of the novel, the chronicler gives a brief inventory of all the mayors of Foolov, indicating their role in the life of the city. The order of the images is not random. All characters are built on the principle of satirical parallels, as well as on the principle of growth, strengthening of certain qualities.
The chronicler leads a line of mayors who begin with external automatism, mechanicalness (Organchik, Pimple) and end with internal devastation, inhumanity (Ugryum-Burcheev). Many mayors have prototypes among historical figures, emperors and empresses (Nicholas I, Arakcheev, Speransky, Potemkin, Catherine II, Anna Ioannovna, etc.). Satire allowed the writer to clearly show the insignificant essence of Foolov's rulers. The whole history of this city is a history of despotism, oppression, senseless cruelty.
Among the twenty-two mayors, the chronicler singles out only the most outstanding. Their biographies occupy entire chapters in the novel. The first image of Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty appears before the reader. In the memory of the Foolovites he remained under the name Organchik. The author describes his senseless automatic activity using grotesque and hyperbole.
Grotesque allows you to create artistic exaggeration that reaches the point of absurdity. Organchik's activities are essentially useless and cruel. The essence of this ruler is expressed in just two words: “I will ruin”, “I will not tolerate.” It is not surprising that residents suspect it is not a person, but a mechanism. Brudasty's active work consisted of issuing decrees allowing the flogging of ordinary people. The consequences of this legislative activity are depicted hyperbolically: “unheard-of activity suddenly began to boil in all parts of the city: private bailiffs galloped; the police officers galloped; the assessors galloped off; The guards have forgotten what it means to eat... They grab and catch, flog and flog, describe and sell...”
The breakdown of the Organ, which plays the same melody until the very end, is grotesquely depicted. Grotesque is also used in the episode when Organchik’s head bites the boy in the cart. Even without a torso, the mayor's mechanical head continues to commit violence.
The disappearance of Organchik’s head marked anarchy and anarchy in the city. Using fantasy, the chronicler talks about the murder of a life-campanian who was beheaded in order to restore the broken Organ. The meeting of two impostors with an empty mechanical head is fantastically depicted. The people no longer believe any of them; they are still waiting for the return of their “father”. The essence of Organchik is revealed gradually: first the chronicler uses hyperbole, then it develops into grotesque and ends with fantasy. These techniques make it possible to give the reader a complete understanding of the insignificance of all Organchik’s innovations and its mechanical essence.
The mayor Pyotr Petrovich Ferdyshchenko, a former foreman and batman of Prince Potemkin, is satirically shown in the novel (chapter “The City of Straw” and “The Fantastic Traveler”). At first, his activities as head of the city were unremarkable. But the authorities discovered the essence of this ruler - selfishness, greed, stupidity. With his lust and connivance, he almost destroyed the city.
To characterize this hero, the chronicler uses not only satire, he includes a love affair in the image. His love affairs are depicted using the technique of gradation. At first, his sympathies relate to the townsman's wife Alena Osipovna, famous for her beauty. The love line is completed by the rude, dirty shooter Domashka.
Ferdyshchenko eventually settled on choosing someone like himself. Famine and fires struck the Foolovites. The chronicler depicts these disasters using hyperbole. Fantasy and irony permeate the description of the foreman’s absurd journey. He planned to benefit his subjects with his mercy, to bring about a harvest with his beneficence.
Using satire and irony, the chronicler vividly shows the cattle pasture along which Ferdyshchenko travels from one end to the other along with his retinue - two disabled soldiers. So M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin parades the famous travels of Count Orlov in the south of Russia. The essence of such travel is an empty pastime and lavish receptions and dinners. It is lunch that crowns the foreman’s entire journey. After the pig in sour cream, “some kind of administrative vein” on his face trembled, trembled and suddenly “froze.” Ferdyshchenko died of gluttony. This is the result of his inglorious life.
Completes Foolov’s story of the Gloomy-Burcheevs (chapters “Confirmation of Repentance”, “Conclusion”). His reign is the most tragic for the entire city. Despite the fact that the chronicler portrays him as a human, Gloomy-Burcheev has long lost his human essence. To characterize this image, the leading technique is hyperbole. His portrait is hyperbolic: “wooden face”, “conical skull”, “developed jaws”, ready to “crush and bite in half” everything. In all the paintings he always appears in a soldier’s overcoat against the backdrop of the desert. This is very symbolic, because Gloomy-Burcheev hated all living things. “He slept on the bare ground,” he gave orders and carried them out himself. He turned all the members of his family into dumb, downtrodden creatures who languished in the basement of his house.
This is a “leveller” to the highest degree, striving to equalize and depersonalize everything around. The drill of the Foolovites, their grandiose efforts aimed at destroying the city in order to carry out the order of Ugryum-Burcheev, is described hyperbolically. The use of hyperbole reaches its highest point when the Foolovites try to block the flow of the river with a dam. Here the symbolic images of the river and the image of the mayor himself come to the fore. The river, disobedient to his will, personifies life here, which cannot be stopped by the will of a gloomy nonentity.
Gloomy-Burcheev is a symbol of destruction, death, violence, which is ultimately doomed to self-disintegration. Life took precedence over the tyranny of the “scoundrel.” The element of grotesque and fantasy in the first chapters of the novel develops into hyperbolization, no less terrible and tragic. Thus, with the help of a rich arsenal of satirical techniques, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin reveals to the reader the essence of each mayor.
Essay text:
M. E. Salykov-Shchedrin is one of the most famous literary satirists of the 19th century. The novel The History of a City is the pinnacle of his artistic creativity. Despite the name, behind the image of the city of Glupoza lies an entire country, namely Russia. Thus, in figurative form, Salgykov-Shchedrin reflects the most terrible aspects of the life of Russian society that required increased public attention. The main idea of the work is the inadmissibility of autocracy. And this is what unites the chapters of the work, which could become separate stories. Shchedrin tells us the history of the city of Foolov, what happened in it for about a hundred years. Moreover, he focuses on the mayors, since it was they who expressed the vices of city government. In advance, even before the start of the main part of the work, an inventory of the mayors is given. The word inventory is usually referred to as things; in lyricism Shchedrin uses it deliberately, as if emphasizing the inanimateness of the mayors, who are the key images in each chapter. The satirical means used by the author of the chronicle are varied. Taken together, the images of all the mayors create a single image of an autocratic ruler. The essence of each of the mayors can be imagined even after a simple description of their appearance. For example, the tenacity and cruelty of Gloomy-Burcheev is expressed in his wooden face, which obviously was never illuminated by a smile. The more peaceful Pimple, on the contrary, was rosy-cheeked, had scarlet and juicy lips, his gait was active and cheerful, his gesture was quick. Images are formed in the reader’s imagination with the help of such artistic techniques as hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, etc. Even facts of reality take on fantastic features. Shchedrin deliberately uses this technique to enhance the feeling of an invisible connection with the true state of affairs in feudal Russia. The work is written in the form of chronicles. Some parts, which, according to the author’s intention, are considered found documents, are written in heavy clerical language, and in the chronicler’s address to the reader there are colloquialisms, proverbs, and sayings. Adding to the comicality is the confusion in dates and the anachronisms and allusions often made by the chronicler (for example, references to Herzen and Ogarev). Shchedrin most fully introduces us to the mayor Ugryum-Burcheev. There is a clear analogy with reality here: the surname of the mayor is similar in sound to the surname of the famous reformer Arakcheev. In the description of Gloomy-Burcheev there is less comic, and more mystical, terrifying. Using satirical means, Shchedrin endowed him with a large number of the most striking vices. And it is no coincidence that the story ends with a description of the reign of this mayor. According to Shchedrin, history has stopped flowing. The novel The Story of a City is certainly an outstanding work; it is written in colorful, grotesque language and figuratively denounces the bureaucratic state. The story has still not lost its relevance, because, unfortunately, we still meet people like Foolov’s mayors.
The rights to the essay “Techniques of satirical depiction in M. E. Salykov-Shchedrin’s novel The History of a City” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to
M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin is one of the most famous literary satirists of the 19th century. The novel “The History of a City” is the pinnacle of his artistic creativity.Despite the name, behind the image of the city of Foolov lies an entire country, namely Russia. Thus, in figurative form, Saltykov-Shchedrin reflects the most terrible aspects of the life of Russian society that required increased public attention. The main idea of the work is the inadmissibility of autocracy. And this is what unites the chapters of the work, which could become separate stories.
Shchedrin tells us the history of the city of Foolov, what happened in it for about a hundred years. Moreover, he focuses on the mayors, since it was they who expressed the vices of city government. In advance, even before the start of the main part of the work, an “inventory” of mayors is given. The word “inventory” is usually referred to things, so Shchedrin uses it deliberately, as if emphasizing the inanimate nature of the mayors, who are the key images in each chapter.
The satirical means used by the author of the chronicle are varied. Taken together, the images of all the mayors create a single image of the autocratic ruler.
The essence of each of the mayors can be imagined even after a simple description of their appearance. For example, the tenacity and cruelty of Gloomy-Burcheev are expressed in his “wooden face, obviously never illuminated by a smile.” The more peaceful Pimple, on the contrary, “was rosy-cheeked, had scarlet and juicy lips,” “his gait was active and cheerful, his gesture was quick.”
Images are formed in the reader’s imagination with the help of such artistic techniques as hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, etc. Even facts of reality acquire fantastic features. Shchedrin deliberately uses this technique to enhance the feeling of an invisible connection with the true state of affairs in feudal Russia.
The work is written in the form of chronicles. Some parts, which, according to the author’s intention, are considered found documents, are written in heavy clerical language, and in the chronicler’s address to the reader there are colloquialisms, proverbs, and sayings. The confusion in dates and the anachronisms and allusions often made by the chronicler (for example, references to Herzen and Ogarev) enhance the comedy.
Shchedrin most fully introduces us to the mayor Ugryum-Burcheev. There is a clear analogy with reality here: the surname of the mayor is similar in sound to the surname of the famous reformer Arakcheev. In the description of Gloomy-Burcheev there is less comic, and more mystical, terrifying. Using satirical means, Shchedrin endowed him with a large number of the most “bright” vices. And it is no coincidence that the story ends with a description of the reign of this mayor. According to Shchedrin, “history has stopped flowing.”
The novel “The History of a City” is certainly an outstanding work; it is written in colorful, grotesque language and figuratively denounces the bureaucratic state. “History” has still not lost its relevance, because, unfortunately, we still meet people like Foolov’s mayors.
Despite the name, behind the image of the city of Glupoza lies an entire country, namely Russia. Thus, in figurative form, Saltykov-Shchedrin reflects the most terrible aspects of the life of Russian society that required increased public attention. The main idea of the work is the inadmissibility of autocracy. And this is what unites the chapters of the work, which could become separate stories.
Shchedrin tells us the history of the city of Foolov, what happened in it for about a hundred years. Moreover, he focuses on the mayors, since it was they who expressed the vices of city government. In advance, even before the start of the main part of the work, an “inventory” of mayors is given. The word “inventory” is usually referred to things, so Shchedrin uses it deliberately, as if emphasizing the inanimate nature of the mayors, who are the key images in each chapter.
The satirical means used by the author of the chronicle are varied. Taken together, the images of all the mayors create a single image of the autocratic ruler.
The essence of each of the mayors can be imagined even after a simple description of their appearance. For example, the tenacity and cruelty of Gloomy-Burcheev are expressed in his “wooden face, obviously never illuminated by a smile.” The more peaceful Pimple, on the contrary, “was rosy-cheeked, had scarlet and juicy lips,” “his gait was active and cheerful, his gesture was quick.”
Images are formed in the reader’s imagination with the help of such artistic techniques as hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, etc. Even facts of reality acquire fantastic features. Shchedrin deliberately uses this technique to enhance the feeling of an invisible connection with the true state of affairs in feudal Russia.
The work is written in the form of chronicles. Some parts, which, according to the author’s intention, are considered found documents, are written in heavy clerical language, and in the chronicler’s address to the reader there are colloquialisms, proverbs, and sayings. The confusion in dates and the anachronisms and allusions often made by the chronicler (for example, references to Herzen and Ogarev) enhance the comedy.
Shchedrin most fully introduces us to the mayor Ugryum-Burcheev. There is a clear analogy with reality here: the surname of the mayor is similar in sound to the surname of the famous reformer Arakcheev. In the description of Gloomy-Burcheev there is less comic, and more mystical, terrifying. Using satirical means, Shchedrin endowed him with a large number of the most “bright” vices. And it is no coincidence that the story ends with a description of the reign of this mayor. According to Shchedrin, “history has stopped flowing.”
The novel “The History of a City” is certainly an outstanding work; it is written in colorful, grotesque language and figuratively denounces the bureaucratic state. “History” has still not lost its relevance, because, unfortunately, we still meet people like Foolov’s mayors.
“History” itself is built by the creator in a deliberately illogical and inconsistent manner. The great satirist prefaced the main content with an appeal from the publisher (in the role of which he himself acts) and an appeal to the readers of the supposedly last Foolov archivist. The inventory of city governors, which allegedly gives the book a historiographical nature and a special meaning, consists of 21 names (from the pasta-traitor Clement to Major Intercept-Zalikhvatsky, who burned the gymnasium and abolished the sciences). In the “History” itself, attention to the people in charge is clearly unequal: some (Benevolensky, Brudasty, Wartkin, Gloomy-Burcheev) are devoted to many literary pages, others (Mikeladze, Du-Chario) were less fortunate. This can be seen in the structure of “History”; three introductory sections, one final Appendix (Supporting documents containing the city's thinking and legislative exercises) and a total of 5 main sections for the narration of the exploits of 21 rulers.
There has never been a city called “Fool” in the Russian Empire, no one has met such outlandish, implausible bosses (with a stuffed head, like Ivan Panteleevich Pryshch).
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin showed himself to be a brilliant connoisseur of Aesopian language, putting it in a supposedly chronicle form (the chronicle of the city's successes covers about a century, and the years of rule are indicated, albeit approximately). This parody of presentation allowed the writer to talk about modernity and denounce officials without causing censorship interference or the wrath of his superiors. It’s not for nothing that Shchedrin himself called himself “a student of the censorship department.” Of course, the intelligent reader guessed the life around him behind Foolov’s ugly paintings. The power of Shchedrin’s satirical denunciation of the reactionary foundations on which Russian monarchical power rested was so powerful that the grotesque and fantastic images of the book were perceived as the most truthful depiction of life.
Consider, for example, the description of the causes of death of the mayors: Ferapontov was torn to pieces by dogs; Lamvrokakis is eaten by bedbugs; A cormorant is broken in half by a storm; Ferdyshchenko died from overeating; Ivanov - trying to comprehend the Senate Decree; Mikeladze - from exhaustion, etc.
In “History” Shchedrin skillfully uses satirical hyperbole: the facts of true reality take on fantastic shapes in him, which allows the satirist to most vividly reveal one or another side of the image. But the writer does not avoid realistic sketches. Thus, the fire in the Pushkarskaya settlement of the “straw city” is described very naturalistically: “one could see people swarming in the distance, and it seemed that they were unconsciously milling around in one place, and not rushing about in melancholy and despair. One could see scraps of lit straw, torn from the roofs by the whirlwind, circling in the air. Gradually, one after another, the wooden buildings were occupied and seemed to melt away.”
The chronicle of city government is written in a colorful, but also complex language. It also widely uses the stupid bureaucratic style: “let everyone bake pies on holidays, without forbidding themselves from such cookies on weekdays” (Charter on respectable baking of pies - performed by Benevolensky). There is also an old Slavic speech: “I want to tickle the Foolovites, who are dear to me, by showing the world their glorious deeds and the good root from which this famous tree grew and stole the whole earth with its branches.” There was a place and time for popular sayings: “But I’m telling you a word: it’s better... to sit at home with the truth than to bring trouble upon yourself” (Ferdyshchenko).
The portrait gallery of Shchedrin’s “favorites” - Foolov’s mayors - is immediately and strongly remembered. One after another they pass before the reader, absurd and disgusting in their cruelty, stupidity, and malicious hatred of the people. Here are Brigadier Ferdyshchenko, who starved the Foolovites, and his successor Borodavkin, who burned thirty-three villages in order “with the help of these measures” to collect arrears of two rubles and a half, and Major Perekhuvat-Zalikhvatsky, who abolished science in the city, and Theophylact Benevolensky, possessed passion for writing laws (already on the benches of the seminary he wrote several wonderful laws, among which the most famous are the following: “let every man have a contrite heart”, “let every soul tremble”, “let every cricket know the pole corresponding to its rank”).
It is in the description of the main characters that M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin uses a wide variety of artistic means. Thus, the extreme cruelty of Gloomy-Burcheev is recorded “in a wooden face, obviously never illuminated by a smile,” with a “narrow and sloping forehead,” sunken eyes and developed jaws, ready to “crush or bite in half.” On the contrary, the liberal-minded Pimple, the mayor with a stuffed head, “was rosy-cheeked, had scarlet and juicy lips, from behind which a row of white teeth showed; His gait was active and cheerful, his gesture was quick.” External characteristics are similar to their psychological images: the ferocious Bruddety, aka Organchik, does not look like a native of France, the aristocrat Du-Chariot, having fun in pleasures and entertainment, but “Karamzin’s friend” Grust-tilov, distinguished by “tenderness and sensitivity heart”, is no less far from the “fantastic traveler foreman Ferdyshchenko...
The townspeople and people in “History” evoke an ambivalent feeling. On the one hand, according to the author himself, they are characterized by two things: “the usual Foolovian enthusiasm and the ordinary Foolovian frivolity.” It's scary to live in the city of Foolov. The book makes you laugh, but not funny, but bitter and gloomy. The writer himself said that he was counting “on arousing in the reader a bitter feeling, and not at all a cheerful disposition.” It’s scary for Foolov not only because it is ruled by limited officials, “appointed by the Russian government.” It is scary that people endure their misfortunes meekly and patiently.
However, this silent, painful reproach of the writer did not at all mean mockery of the people. Shchedrin loved his contemporaries: “All my works,” he later wrote, “are full of sympathy.” The deep meaning of “The History of a City” lies not only in the images of the mayors, brilliant in their accusatory power, but also in that general characteristic of the Foolovites, which inevitably suggested the future awakening of the people suppressed by the power. The great satirist calls for the inner life of Russian cities like Foolov to once break out and become bright and worthy of a person. It is no coincidence that the “historical” chronicle ends with the flight of the last mayor; Ug-ryum-Burcheev disappeared, “as if melting into air.” The powerful movement of the true history of mankind was unable to restrain the authorities for another century: “the river did not subside. As before, it flowed, breathed, gurgled and wriggled...”
It turns out that Shchedrin looked far ahead. He believed in the collapse of Foolov's system of life, in the victory of the ideals of reason, human dignity, democracy, progress, civilization. His works, including “The History of a City,” were predicted to have a great future. Turgenev compared Saltykov-Shchedrin with Swift, Gorky admitted that it was for this work that he “really fell in love” with the writer. And so it happened. Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin has become one of the most read writers in our country and abroad.