Jan 25 2011

Saltykov - Shchedrin can be called Pushkin’s phrase “satire is a brave ruler.” These words were spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Fonvizin, one of the founders of Russian satire. Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov, who wrote under the pseudonym Shchedrin, is the pinnacle of Russian satire. Shedrin's works, with all their genre diversity - novels, chronicles, tales, short stories, essays, plays - merge into one huge artistic canvas. It depicts an entire historical time, like Dante’s “Divine” and Balzac’s “Human Comedy”. But it depicts in powerful condensations the dark sides of life, criticized and denied in the name of the always present, openly or hidden, ideals of social justice and light.

It is difficult to imagine our classical literature without Saltykov-Shchedrin. It is in many ways completely unique. “A diagnostician of our social evils and ailments,” this is how his contemporaries spoke of him. He didn’t know life from books. Exiled to Vyatka as a young man for his early works, obliged to serve, Mikhail Evgrafovich thoroughly studied the bureaucracy, the injustice of the regime, and the life of different strata of society. As a vice-governor, he became convinced that the Russian state primarily cares about the nobles, and not about the people, for whom he himself came to respect.

The writer beautifully depicted the life of a noble family in “The Golovlev Gentlemen”, bosses and officials in “The History of a City” and many other works. But it seems to me that he reached the pinnacle of expressiveness in his short fairy tales “for children of a fair age.” These, as the censors correctly noted, are real satire.

There are many types of gentlemen in Shchedrin's fairy tales: landowners, officials, merchants and others. The writer often portrays them as completely helpless, stupid, and arrogant. Here is “about how one man fed two generals.” With caustic irony, Saltykov writes: “The generals served in some kind of registry... therefore, they did not understand anything. They didn’t even know any words.”

Of course, these generals did not know how to do anything except live at the expense of others, believing that rolls grow on trees. They almost died. Oh, how many such “generals” there are in our lives, who also believe that they should have apartments, cars, dachas, special rations, special hospitals, etc., etc., while “loafers” are obliged to work. If only these were on a desert island!

The guy is shown to be a great guy: he can do everything, he can do anything, he can even cook a handful of soup. But the satirist does not spare him either. The generals force this hefty man to twist a rope for himself so that he does not run away. And he obediently carries out the order.

If the generals found themselves on the island without a man not of their own free will, then the wild landowner, the hero of the fairy tale of the same name, all the time dreamed of getting rid of the obnoxious men, from whom comes a bad, servile spirit.

Finally, the peasant world disappeared, and the landowner was left alone - alone. And, of course, he went wild. “He was all… overgrown with hair… and his claws became like iron.” The hint is absolutely clear: the peasants live by their labor. And therefore they have enough of everything: peasants, bread, livestock, and land, but the peasants have little of everything.

The writer's tales are full of complaints that people are too patient, downtrodden and dark. He hints that the powers over the people are cruel, but not that terrible.

The fairy tale “The Bear in the Voivodeship” depicts a Bear who, with his endless pogroms, brought the peasants out of patience, and they put him on a spear and “torn off his skin.”

Not everything about Shchedrin is interesting to us today. But the writer is still dear to us for his love for the people, honesty, desire to make life better, and loyalty to ideals.

Many writers and poets used fairy tales in their work. With its help, one or another vice of humanity or society was revealed. The tales of Saltykov and Shchedrin are sharply individual and unlike any others. Satire was Saltykov-Shchedrin's weapon. At that time, due to the strict censorship that existed, the author could not fully expose the vices of society, show the entire inconsistency of the Russian administrative apparatus. And yet, with the help of fairy tales “for children of a fair age,” Saltykov-Shchedrin was able to convey to people a sharp criticism of the existing order. Censorship missed the tales of the great satirist, failing to understand their purpose, their revealing power, their challenge to the existing order.

To write fairy tales, the author used grotesque, hyperbole, and antithesis. Aesops was also important to the author. Trying to hide the true meaning of what was written from censorship, one had to use this technique. The writer loved to come up with neologisms to characterize his characters. For example, words such as “pompadours and pompadours”, “foam remover” and others.

Now we will try to consider the features of the writer’s fairy tale genre using the example of several of his works. In “The Wild Landowner” the author shows to what extent a rich gentleman who finds himself without servants can sink. This tale uses hyperbole. At first cultivated, the landowner turns into a wild animal, feeding on fly agarics. Here we see how helpless a rich man is without a simple peasant, how unadapted and worthless he is. With this tale, the author wanted to show that an ordinary Russian person is a serious force. A similar idea is put forward in the fairy tale “The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals.” But here the reader sees the peasant’s resignation, his humility, unquestioning submission to the two generals. He even ties himself to a chain, which once again indicates the submissiveness, downtroddenness, and enslavement of the Russian peasant.

In this tale, the author used both hyperbole and grotesque. Saltykov - Shchedrin prompts the reader to think that it is time for the peasant to wake up, think about his situation, and stop submitting meekly. In “The Wise Piskar” we see the life of an ordinary person who is afraid of everything in the world. “The wise minnow” constantly sits locked up, afraid to go out into the street again, to talk to someone, to get to know someone. He leads a closed, boring life. With his life principles, he resembles another, the hero of A.P. Chekhov from the story “The Man in a Case,” Belikov. Only before his death does the minnow think about his life: “Who did he help? Who did you regret, what good did he do in life? “He lived and trembled and died - he trembled.” And only before his death does the average person realize that no one needs him, no one knows him and no one will remember him.

The writer shows the terrible philistine alienation and self-isolation in “The Wise Piskar.” M.E. Saltykov - Shchedrin is bitter and painful for the Russian person. Reading Saltykov-Shchedrin is quite difficult. Therefore, perhaps many did not understand the meaning of his fairy tales. But the majority of “children of a fair age” appreciated the great satirist according to his merits.

Saltykov-Shchedrin m. e. - The role of the grotesque in

If in the early works of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin there were almost no techniques of sharp satirical exaggeration, then by the time of the creation of “The History of a City” the writer had already made maximum use of unusual comparisons and likenings, which formed the basis of his satirical fiction. The author developed all the methods of typification, which were embodied in his images of Foolov's mayors. This is how he came to create a grotesque image, a satirical-fantastic character. The main function of his exaggerations is to reveal the essence of a person, the true motives of his speeches, actions and actions. In his work, Saltykov-Shchedrin directed sharp arrows of satirical denunciation at the ruling elite of the country, placing a critical image of the relationship between the government and the people at the center of the narrative. The main goal of the satirist was to create a generalized image of Russia, in which the centuries-old weaknesses of national history, worthy of satirical coverage, and the fundamental defects of Russian state and social life are synthesized. It was to best achieve this task that he chose the most successful form - the grotesque and fantasy. Moreover, this form does not distort reality at all, but only brings to the point of paradox the qualities that the bureaucratic regime conceals. Artistic exaggeration here plays the role of a kind of magnifying glass, through which everything secret becomes clear, the true essence of things is exposed, and really existing evil is enlarged. Hyperbole helps Shchedrin to tear away the veils of reality, bringing out the real nature of the phenomenon. It was the hyperbolic image that best helped to attract the reader’s attention to those negative aspects that had already become familiar and familiar.

In addition, the hyperbolic form revealed everything negative that was just emerging in society, but had not yet assumed its threatening proportions. Such exaggeration anticipated the future, hinted at what would happen tomorrow. With the help of the grotesque and fantasy, Saltykov-Shchedrin diagnoses the social diseases of society, brings to the surface all those consequences of social evil that have not yet manifested themselves, but which certainly flow from the existing system. Here the satirist enters the “area of ​​predictions and premonitions.” It is precisely this prophetic meaning that is contained in the image of Gloomy-Burcheev, in which all the vices of the other mayors were united in an exaggerated form.

Explaining the nature of the Aesopian form, which included exaggeration and allegory, the author noted that they do not obscure his thought, but, on the contrary, make it publicly accessible. The writer looked for such colors and images that were engraved in the memory, vividly, intelligibly, and vividly outlined the object of satire, making its idea clearer. In response to criticism of his narrative style and the images he used, the satirist wrote: “If instead of the word “organ” the word “fool” had been put, then the reviewer probably would not have found anything unnatural... After all, it’s not The fact is that Brudasty had an organ in his head playing the romances “I will not tolerate” and “I will ruin”, but the fact is that there are people whose entire existence is exhausted by these two romances. Are there such people or not?

However, while denouncing the despotism of the ruling circles, the author also touches on another question - under what conditions, thanks to which such a bureaucratic regime can flourish. And here he already comes out with satire on the inhabitants of Foolov. These people are naive, submissive, blindly believe in their superiors, in the supreme power. “We are ordinary people! - say the Foolovites. - We can endure it. If we are now all piled up in a heap and set on fire at all four ends, then we won’t say a nasty word!” The author does not show the slightest sympathy for such people. On the contrary, he strongly criticizes such inaction and connivance. The writer said about the people of Foolov: “If they produce Wartkins and Gloomy-Burcheevs, then there can be no question of sympathy.” The author's only sincere regret is the futile attempts of that part of the people who strive to resist evil, but their efforts are so naive and inept that they do not bring the slightest result.

The “history of Foolov’s liberalism” also appears in a satirical light in the stories about Ionka Kozyrev, Ivashka Farafontyev and Alyoshka Bespyatov. Daydreaming and ignorance of practical ways to realize their dreams - these are the characteristic features of Foolov's liberals. The political naivety of the people can be heard even in their very sympathy for their intercessors: “I suppose, Evseich, I suppose! - the Foolovites escort the truth-loving Yevseich to prison, - with the truth you will live well everywhere! The writer makes extensive use of folklore, and, as A.S. Bushmin noted, in order to say bitter words of reproach about the people, he took these words from the people themselves, from them he received permission to be their satirist.

It is precisely thanks to its cruelty and mercilessness that Saltykov-Shchedrin’s satirical laughter in “The History of a City” has a great purifying meaning. Far ahead of his time, the author exposes the complete failure of the existing police-bureaucratic regime in Russia.

Grotesque is a term meaning a type of artistic imagery (image, style, genre) based on fantasy, laughter, hyperbole, bizarre combination and contrast of something with something.

In the grotesque genre, the ideological and artistic features of Shchedrin's satire were most clearly manifested: its political sharpness and purposefulness, the realism of its fiction, the mercilessness and depth of the grotesque, the sly sparkle of humor.

Shchedrin’s “Fairy Tales” contain in miniature the problems and images of the entire work of the great satirist. If Shchedrin had written nothing except “Fairy Tales,” then they alone would have given him the right to immortality. Of Shchedrin’s thirty-two fairy tales, twenty-nine were written by him in the last decade of his life and, as it were, sum up the writer’s forty years of creative activity.

Shchedrin often resorted to the fairy-tale genre in his work. There are elements of fairy-tale fiction in “The History of a City,” and complete fairy tales are included in the satirical novel “Modern Idyll” and in the chronicle “Abroad.”

And it is no coincidence that Shchedrin’s fairy-tale genre flourished in the 80s of the 19th century. It was during this period of rampant political reaction in Russia that the satirist had to look for a form that was most convenient for circumventing censorship and at the same time the closest and most understandable to the common people. And the people understood the political acuteness of Shchedrin’s generalized conclusions, hidden behind Aesopian speech and zoological masks. The writer created a new, original genre of political fairy tale, which combines fantasy with real, topical political reality.

In Shchedrin's fairy tales, as in all of his work, two social forces confront each other: the working people and their exploiters. The people appear under the masks of kind and defenseless animals and birds (and often without a mask, under the name “man”), the exploiters act in the guise of predators. And this is already grotesque.

“And if you saw a man hanging outside the house, in a box on a rope, smearing paint on the wall, or walking on the roof like a fly, that’s me!” - the man savior says to the generals. Shchedrin laughs bitterly at the fact that the peasant, on the orders of the generals, himself weaves a rope with which they then tie him. In almost all fairy tales, the image of the peasant people is depicted by Shchedrin with love, breathing with indestructible power and nobility. The man is honest, straightforward, kind, unusually sharp and smart. He can do everything: get food, sew clothes; he conquers the elemental forces of nature, jokingly swimming across the “ocean-sea”. And the man treats his enslavers mockingly, without losing his sense of self-esteem. The generals from the fairy tale “How one man fed two generals” look like pathetic pygmies compared to the giant man. To depict them, the satirist uses completely different colors. They do not understand anything, they are dirty physically and spiritually, they are cowardly and helpless, greedy and stupid. If you are looking for animal masks, then the pig mask is just right for them.

In the fairy tale “The Wild Landowner,” Shchedrin summarized his thoughts on the reform of the “liberation” of the peasants, contained in all his works of the 60s. He poses here an unusually acute problem of the post-reform relationship between the serf-owning nobles and the peasantry completely ruined by the reform: “The cattle will go out to water - the landowner shouts: my water! a chicken wanders into the outskirts - the landowner shouts: my land! And the earth, and the water, and the air - everything became his!”

This landowner, like the above-mentioned generals, had no idea about labor. Abandoned by his peasants, he immediately turns into a dirty and wild animal, becoming a forest predator. And this life, in essence, is a continuation of his previous predatory existence. The wild landowner, like the generals, regains his outward human appearance only after his peasants return. Scolding the wild landowner for his stupidity, the police officer tells him that without peasant taxes and duties the state cannot exist, that without the peasants everyone will die of hunger, not a piece of meat or a pound of bread can be bought at the market, and the gentlemen will not have any money. The people are the creators of wealth, and the ruling classes are only consumers of this wealth.

The crucian carp from the fairy tale “Crucian carp the idealist” is not a hypocrite, he is truly noble, pure in soul. His socialist ideas deserve deep respect, but the methods of their implementation are naive and ridiculous. Shchedrin, being himself a socialist by conviction, did not accept the theory of utopian socialists, considering it the fruit of an idealistic view of social reality and the historical process. “I don’t believe... that struggle and quarrel are a normal law, under the influence of which everything living on earth is supposedly destined to develop. I believe in bloodless prosperity, I believe in harmony...” the crucian carp ranted. It ended with the pike swallowing him, and swallowing him mechanically: she was struck by the absurdity and strangeness of this sermon.

In other variations, the theory of the idealistic crucian carp was reflected in the fairy tales “The Selfless Hare” and “The Sane Hare.” Here the heroes are not noble idealists, but ordinary cowards who rely on the kindness of predators. The hares do not doubt the right of the wolf and the fox to take their lives; they consider it quite natural that the strong eat the weak, but they hope to touch the wolf’s heart with their honesty and humility. “Or maybe the wolf... ha ha... will have mercy on me!” Predators remain predators. The Zaitsevs are not saved by the fact that they “didn’t start revolutions, didn’t go out with weapons in their hands.”

The personification of wingless and vulgar philistinism was Shchedrin's wise minnow - the hero of the fairy tale of the same name. The meaning of life for this “enlightened, moderate-liberal” coward was self-preservation, avoiding conflicts and fighting. Therefore, the gudgeon lived to a ripe old age unharmed. But what a humiliating life it was! She consisted entirely of continuous trembling for her skin. “He lived and trembled - that’s all.” This fairy tale, written during the years of political reaction in Russia, hit without a miss on liberals, groveling before the government for their own skin, and on ordinary people hiding in their holes from the social struggle.

The Toptygins from the fairy tale “The Bear in the Voivodeship,” sent by the lion to the voivodeship, set the goal of their reign to commit “bloodshed” as much as possible. By this they aroused the wrath of the people, and they suffered “the fate of all fur-bearing animals” - they were killed by the rebels. The wolf from the fairy tale “Poor Wolf”, who also “robbered day and night,” suffered the same death from the people. The fairy tale “The Eagle Patron” gives a devastating parody of the king and the ruling classes. The eagle is the enemy of science, art, the defender of darkness and ignorance. He destroyed the nightingale for his free songs, the literate woodpecker “dressed up, in shackles and imprisoned in a hollow forever,” he ruined the crow men to the ground. It ended with the crows rebelling, “the whole herd took off from their place and flew away,” leaving the eagle to die of starvation . “Let this serve as a lesson to the eagles!” - the satirist meaningfully concludes the tale.

All of Shchedrin's fairy tales were subject to censorship persecution and alterations. Many of them were published in illegal publications abroad. The masks of the animal world could not hide the political content of Shchedrin's fairy tales. The transfer of human traits - psychological and political - to the animal world created a comic effect and clearly exposed the absurdity of existing reality.

The images of fairy tales have come into use, become household names and live for many decades, and the universal types of objects of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s satire are still found in our lives today, you just need to take a closer look at the surrounding reality and reflect.

9. Humanism of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”

« The willful murder of even the last of people, the most evil of people, is not permitted by the spiritual nature of man... The eternal law came into its own, and he (Raskolnikov) fell under its power. Christ came not to break, but to fulfill the law... Those who were truly great and brilliant, who performed great deeds for all mankind, did not act this way. They did not consider themselves superhumans, to whom everything was permitted, and therefore could give a lot to the “human” (N. Berdyaev).

Dostoevsky, by his own admission, was concerned about the fate of “nine-tenths of humanity,” morally humiliated and socially disadvantaged under the conditions of the bourgeois system of his time. "Crime and Punishment" is a novel that reproduces pictures of the social suffering of the urban poor. Extreme poverty is characterized by having “nowhere else to go.” The image of poverty constantly varies in the novel. This is the fate of Katerina Ivanovna, who was left with three young children after the death of her husband. This is the fate of Marmeladov himself. The tragedy of a father forced to accept his daughter's fall. The fate of Sonya, who committed a “feat of crime” against herself for the sake of love for her loved ones. The suffering of children growing up in a dirty corner, next to a drunken father and a dying, irritated mother, in an atmosphere of constant quarrels.

Is it acceptable to destroy an “unnecessary” minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority? Dostoevsky answers with the entire artistic content of the novel: no - and consistently refutes Raskolnikov’s theory: if one person arrogates to himself the right to physically destroy an unnecessary minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority, then “simple arithmetic” will not work: in addition to the old woman-pawnbroker, Raskolnikov also kills Lizaveta - that the most humiliated and insulted, for which, as he tries to convince himself, the ax was raised.

If Raskolnikov and others like him take on such a high mission - defenders of the humiliated and insulted, then they must inevitably consider themselves extraordinary people to whom everything is allowed, that is, they inevitably end up with contempt for the very humiliated and insulted whom they defend.

If you allow yourself to “bleed according to your conscience,” you will inevitably turn into Svidrigailov. Svidri-Gailov is the same Raskolnikov, but already completely “corrected” from all prejudices. Svid-rigailov blocks all paths for Raskolnikov leading not only to repentance, but even to a purely official confession. And it is no coincidence that only after Svidrigailov’s suicide Raskolnikov commits this confession.

The most important role in the novel is played by the image of Sonya Marmeladova. Active love for one's neighbor, the ability to respond to someone else's pain (especially deeply manifested in the scene of Raskolnikov's confession of murder) make the image of Sonya ideal. It is from the standpoint of this ideal that the verdict is pronounced in the novel. For Sonya, all people have the same right to life. No one can achieve happiness, his own or someone else's, through crime. Sonya, according to Dostoevsky, embodies the people's principles: patience and humility, immeasurable love for people.

Only love saves and reunites a fallen person with God. The power of love is such that it can contribute to the salvation of even such an unrepentant sinner as Raskolnikov.

The religion of love and self-sacrifice acquires exceptional and decisive importance in Dostoevsky's Christianity. The idea of ​​the inviolability of any human person plays a major role in understanding the ideological meaning of the novel. In the image of Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky executes the denial of the intrinsic value of the human personality and shows that any person, including the disgusting old money-lender, is sacred and inviolable, and in this respect people are equal.

Raskolnikov's protest is associated with acute pity for the poor, suffering and helpless.

10. The theme of family in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”

The idea of ​​the spiritual foundations of nepotism as an external form of unity between people received special expression in the epilogue of the novel “War and Peace.” In a family, the opposition between spouses is, as it were, removed; in communication between them, the limitations of loving souls are complemented. Such is the family of Marya Bolkonskaya and Nikolai Rostov, where such opposite principles of the Rostovs and Bolkonskys are united in a higher synthesis. Nikolai’s feeling of “proud love” for Countess Marya is wonderful, based on surprise “at her sincerity, at that almost inaccessible to him, sublime, moral world in which his wife always lived.” And Marya’s submissive, tender love “for this man who will never understand everything that she understands is touching, and as if this made her love him even more strongly, with a touch of passionate tenderness.”

In the epilogue of War and Peace, a new family gathers under the roof of the Lysogorsk house, uniting in the past the heterogeneous Rostov, Bolkon, and, through Pierre Bezukhov, also Karataev origins. “Like in a real family, in the Lysogorsk house several completely different worlds lived together, which, each maintaining its own peculiarity and making concessions to one another, merged into one harmonious whole. Every event that happened in the house was equally important - joyful or sad - for all these worlds; but each world had its own reasons, independent of others, to rejoice or be sad about some event.”

This new family did not arise by chance. It was the result of a national unity of people born of the Patriotic War. This is how the epilogue reaffirms the connection between the general course of history and individual, intimate relationships between people. The year 1812, which gave Russia a new, higher level of human communication, which removed many class barriers and restrictions, led to the emergence of more complex and broader family worlds. The guardians of the family foundations are women - Natasha and Marya. There is a strong, spiritual union between them.

Rostov. The writer's particular sympathies are with the patriarchal Rostov family, whose behavior reveals high nobility of feelings, kindness (even rare generosity), naturalness, closeness to the people, moral purity and integrity. The Rostov courtyards - Tikhon, Prokofy, Praskovya Savvishna - are devoted to their masters, feel like one family with them, show understanding and show attention to the lordly interests.

Bolkonsky. The old prince represents the color of the nobility of the era of Catherine II. He is characterized by true patriotism, broad political horizons, understanding of Russia's true interests, and indomitable energy. Andrey and Marya are progressive, educated people looking for new paths in modern life.

The Kuragin family brings nothing but troubles and misfortunes to the peaceful “nests” of the Rostovs and Bolkonskys.

Under Borodin, at the Raevsky battery, where Pierre ends up, one feels “a common revival for everyone, like a family revival.” “The soldiers... mentally accepted Pierre into their family, appropriated them and gave him a nickname. “Our master” they nicknamed him and laughed affectionately about him among themselves.”

Thus, the feeling of family, which is sacredly cherished in peaceful life by those close to the people of Rostov, will turn out to be historically significant during the Patriotic War of 1812.

11. Patriotic theme in the novel "War and Peace"

In extreme situations, in moments of great upheaval and global change, a person will definitely prove himself, show his inner essence, certain qualities of his nature. In Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" someone utters loud words, engages in noisy activities or useless vanity, someone experiences a simple and natural feeling of "the need for sacrifice and suffering in the consciousness of general misfortune." The first only consider themselves patriots and shout loudly about love for the Fatherland, the second - patriots in essence - give their lives in the name of common victory.

In the first case, we are dealing with false patriotism, repulsive with its falseness, selfishness and hypocrisy. This is how secular nobles behave at a dinner in honor of Bagration; when reading poems about the war, “everyone stood up, feeling that dinner was more important than the poems.” A false patriotic atmosphere reigns in the salon of Anna Pavlovna Scherer, Helen Bezukhova and in other St. Petersburg salons: “... calm, luxurious, concerned only with ghosts, reflections of life, St. Petersburg life went on as before; and because of the course of this life, it was necessary to make great efforts to recognize the danger and the difficult situation in which the Russian people found themselves. There were the same exits, balls, the same French theater, the same interests of the courts, the same interests of service and intrigue. This circle of people was far from understanding all-Russian problems, from understanding the great misfortune and needs of the people during this war. The world continued to live by its own interests, and even in a moment of national disaster, greed, promotion, and serviceism reign here.

Count Rastopchin also displays false patriotism, posting stupid “posters” around Moscow, calling on city residents not to leave the capital, and then, fleeing the people’s anger, deliberately sending the innocent son of the merchant Vereshchagin to death.

In the novel, Berg is presented as a false patriot, who, in a moment of general confusion, is looking for an opportunity to profit and is preoccupied with buying a wardrobe and a toilet “with an English secret.” It doesn’t even occur to him that now it’s embarrassing to think about wardrobes. Such is Drubetskoy, who, like other staff officers, thinks about awards and promotion, wants to “arrange for himself the best position, especially the position of adjutant to an important person, which seemed especially tempting to him in the army.” It is probably no coincidence that on the eve of the Battle of Borodino, Pierre notices this greedy excitement on the faces of the officers; he mentally compares it with “another expression of excitement,” “which spoke of not personal, but general issues, issues of life and death.”

What “other” persons are we talking about? These are the faces of ordinary Russian men, dressed in soldiers' greatcoats, for whom the feeling of the Motherland is sacred and inalienable. True patriots in the Tushin battery fight without cover. And Tushin himself “did not experience the slightest unpleasant feeling of fear, and the thought that he could be killed or painfully wounded did not occur to him.” A living, blood-borne feeling for the Motherland forces soldiers to resist the enemy with incredible fortitude. The merchant Ferapontov, who gives up his property for plunder when leaving Smolensk, is also, of course, a patriot. “Get everything, guys, don’t leave it to the French!” - he shouts to the Russian soldiers.

Pierre Bezukhov gives his money and sells his estate to equip the regiment. A feeling of concern for the fate of his country, involvement in the common grief forces him, a wealthy aristocrat, to go into the thick of the Battle of Borodino.

True patriots were also those who left Moscow, not wanting to submit to Napoleon. They were convinced: “It was impossible to be under the control of the French.” They “simply and truly” did “that great deed that saved Russia.”

Petya Rostov is rushing to the front because “The Fatherland is in danger.” And his sister Natasha frees the carts for the wounded, although without family goods she will remain homeless.

True patriots in Tolstoy's novel do not think about themselves, they feel the need for their own contribution and even sacrifice, but do not expect rewards for this, because they carry in their souls a genuine holy feeling of the Motherland.

Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin is the creator of a special literary genre - the satirical fairy tale. In short stories, the Russian writer denounced bureaucracy, autocracy, and liberalism. This article examines such works by Saltykov-Shchedrin as “Wild Landowner”, “Eagle-Patron”, “Wise Minnow”, “Crucian-Idealist”.

Features of Saltykov-Shchedrin's tales

In the fairy tales of this writer one can find allegory, grotesque, and hyperbole. There are features characteristic of an Aesopian narrative. The interactions between the characters reflect the relationships that prevailed in 19th century society. What satirical techniques did the writer use? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to briefly talk about the life of the author, who so mercilessly exposed the inert world of landowners.

about the author

Saltykov-Shchedrin combined literary activities with public service. The future writer was born in the Tver province, but after graduating from the lyceum he left for St. Petersburg, where he received a position in the Ministry of War. Already in the first years of work in the capital, the young official began to languish with the bureaucracy, lies, and boredom that reigned in the institutions. With great pleasure, Saltykov-Shchedrin attended various literary evenings, where anti-serfdom sentiments prevailed. He informed St. Petersburg residents about his views in the stories “A Confused Affair” and “Contradiction.” For which he was exiled to Vyatka.

Life in the provinces gave the writer the opportunity to observe in all details the bureaucratic world, the life of landowners and the peasants oppressed by them. This experience became the material for works written later, as well as the formation of special satirical techniques. One of Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin’s contemporaries once said about him: “He knows Russia like no one else.”

Satirical techniques of Saltykov-Shchedrin

His work is quite diverse. But perhaps the most popular among Saltykov-Shchedrin’s works are fairy tales. We can highlight several special satirical techniques with the help of which the writer tried to convey to readers the inertia and deceit of the landowner world. And above all, in a veiled form, the author reveals deep political and social problems and expresses his own point of view.

Another technique is the use of fantastic motifs. For example, in “The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals” they serve as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the landowners. And finally, when naming Shchedrin’s satirical techniques, one cannot fail to mention symbolism. After all, fairy tale heroes often point to one of the social phenomena of the 19th century. Thus, the main character of the work “Horse” reflects all the pain of the Russian people, oppressed for centuries. Below is an analysis of individual works by Saltykov-Shchedrin. What satirical techniques are used in them?

"Crucian idealist"

In this tale, the views of representatives of the intelligentsia are expressed by Saltykov-Shchedrin. The satirical techniques that can be found in the work “Crucian Crucian Idealist” are symbolism, the use of folk sayings and proverbs. Each of the heroes is a collective image of representatives of one or another social class.

The plot of the tale centers on a discussion between Karas and Ruff. The first, as is already clear from the title of the work, gravitates towards an idealistic worldview, belief in the best. Ruff, on the contrary, is a skeptic who mocks the theories of his opponent. There is also a third character in the tale - Pike. This unsafe fish symbolizes the powers that be in Saltykov-Shchedrin’s work. Pike are known to feed on crucian carp. The latter, driven by the best feelings, goes to the predator. Karas does not believe in the cruel law of nature (or the established hierarchy in society for centuries). He hopes to bring Pike to his senses with stories about possible equality, universal happiness, and virtue. And that’s why he dies. Pike, as the author notes, is not familiar with the word “virtue”.

Satirical techniques are used here not only to expose the rigidity of representatives of certain sections of society. With the help of them, the author tries to convey the futility of moralistic debates that were common among the intelligentsia of the 19th century.

"Wild Landowner"

The theme of serfdom is given a lot of space in the works of Saltykov-Shchedrin. He had something to say to readers about this. However, writing a journalistic article about the relations of landowners to peasants or publishing a work of art in the genre of realism on this topic was fraught with unpleasant consequences for the writer. Therefore, we had to resort to allegories and light humorous stories. In “The Wild Landowner” we are talking about a typical Russian usurper, not distinguished by education and worldly wisdom.

He hates “men” and dreams of killing them. At the same time, the stupid landowner does not understand that without the peasants he will die. After all, he doesn’t want to do anything, and he doesn’t know how. One might think that the prototype of the fairy tale hero is a certain landowner whom the writer perhaps met in real life. But no. We are not talking about any particular gentleman. And about the social stratum as a whole.

Saltykov-Shchedrin fully explored this theme, without allegories, in “The Golovlev Gentlemen.” The heroes of the novel - representatives of a provincial landowner family - die one after another. The reason for their death is stupidity, ignorance, laziness. The character in the fairy tale “The Wild Landowner” faces the same fate. After all, he got rid of the peasants, which he was glad about at first, but he was not ready for life without them.

"Eagle Patron"

The heroes of this tale are eagles and crows. The first symbolize the landowners. The second are peasants. The writer again resorts to the technique of allegory, with the help of which he ridicules the vices of the powerful. The tale also includes the Nightingale, Magpie, Owl and Woodpecker. Each of the birds is an allegory for a type of people or social class. The characters in "The Eagle the Patron" are more humanized than, for example, the heroes of the fairy tale "Crucian the Idealist." Thus, the Woodpecker, who has the habit of reasoning, at the end of the bird's story does not become a victim of a predator, but ends up behind bars.

"The Wise Minnow"

As in the works described above, in this tale the author raises questions relevant to that time. And here this becomes clear from the very first lines. But Saltykov-Shchedrin’s satirical techniques are the use of artistic means to critically depict not only social, but also universal, vices. The author narrates the story in “The Wise Minnow” in a typical fairy-tale style: “Once upon a time...”. The author characterizes his hero in this way: “enlightened, moderately liberal.”

Cowardice and passivity are ridiculed in this tale by the great master of satire. After all, these were precisely the vices that were characteristic of most representatives of the intelligentsia in the eighties of the 19th century. The gudgeon never leaves its shelter. He lives a long life, avoiding encounters with dangerous inhabitants of the aquatic world. But only before his death does he realize how much he missed during his long and worthless life.

The work of Saltykov-Shchedrin can rightfully be called the highest achievement of social satire of the 1860–1880s. It is not without reason that Shchedrin’s closest predecessor is considered to be N.V. Gogol, who created a satirical and philosophical picture of the modern world. However, Saltykov-Shchedrin sets himself a fundamentally different creative task: to expose and destroy as a phenomenon. V. G. Belinsky, discussing Gogol’s work, defined his humor as “calm in its indignation, good-natured in its slyness,” comparing it with others “formidable and open, bilious, poisonous, merciless.” This second characteristic deeply reveals the essence of Shchedrin's satire. He removed Gogol's lyricism from the satire and made it more explicit and grotesque. But this did not make the works simpler or more monotonous. On the contrary, they fully revealed the comprehensive “bungling” of Russian society in the 19th century.

“Fairy tales for children of a fair age” were created in the last years of the writer’s life (1883–1886) and appear before us as a kind of result of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s work in literature. And in terms of the richness of artistic techniques, and in terms of ideological significance, and in terms of the diversity of recreated social types, this book can fully be considered an artistic synthesis of the writer’s entire work. The form of a fairy tale gave Shchedrin the opportunity to speak openly on issues that concerned him. Turning to folklore, the writer sought to preserve its genre and artistic features and, with their help, draw the reader’s attention to the main problem of his work. Saltykov-Shchedrin's tales, by their genre nature, represent a kind of fusion of two different genres of folklore and original literature: fairy tales and fables. When writing fairy tales, the author used grotesque, hyperbole, and antithesis.

Grotesque and hyperbole are the main artistic techniques with which the author creates the fairy tale “The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals.” The main characters are a man and two loafer generals. Two completely helpless generals miraculously ended up on a desert island, and got there straight from bed in their nightgowns and with orders around their necks. The generals almost eat each other because they cannot not only catch fish or game, but also pick fruit from the tree. In order not to starve, they decide to look for a man. And he was found right away: he was sitting under a tree and shirking work. The “huge man” turns out to be a jack of all trades. He got apples from the tree, and dug potatoes from the ground, and prepared a snare for the hazel grouse from his own hair, and got fire, and prepared provisions. And what? He gave the generals a dozen apples, and took one for himself - sour. He even made a rope so that his generals could tie him to a tree with it. Moreover, he was ready to “please the generals for the fact that they, a parasite, favored him and did not disdain his peasant work.”

The man collected a swan's fluff to deliver his generals in comfort. No matter how much they scold the man for parasitism, the man “keeps rowing and rowing and feeding the generals with herring.”

Hyperbole and grotesque are evident throughout the narrative. Both the peasant's dexterity and the generals' ignorance are extremely exaggerated. A skilled man cooks a handful of soup. Stupid generals don’t know that buns are made from flour. A hungry general swallows his friend's order. An absolute hyperbole is that the man built a ship and took the generals straight to Bolshaya Podyacheskaya.

Extreme exaggeration of individual situations allowed the writer to turn a funny story about stupid and worthless generals into a furious denunciation of the existing order in Russia, which contributes to their emergence and carefree existence. In Shchedrin's fairy tales there are no random details or unnecessary words, and the heroes are revealed in actions and words. The writer draws attention to the funny sides of the person depicted. Suffice it to remember that the generals were in nightgowns, and each had an order hanging around their necks.

The uniqueness of Shchedrin's fairy tales also lies in the fact that in them the real is intertwined with the fantastic, thereby creating a comic effect. On the fabulous island, the generals find the famous reactionary newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti. From the extraordinary island it is not far from St. Petersburg, to Bolshaya Podyacheskaya.

These tales are a magnificent artistic monument of a bygone era. Many images have become household names, denoting social phenomena of Russian and world reality.