Techniques of satirical depiction of mayors in “The History of a City” by M. Saltykov-Shchedrin

The History of a City" is one of the central works of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. It was published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski in 1869-1870 and caused a wide public outcry. The main means of satirical exposure of reality in the work are grotesque and hyperbole. In terms of genre, it is stylized as a historical chronicle. The image of the author-narrator is called in it “the last archivist-chronicler.”

M.E. writes with subtle irony. Saltykov-Shchedrin about how the faces of these mayors change with the change of a particular historical era: “So, for example, the mayors of Biron’s time are distinguished by their recklessness, the mayors of Potemkin’s time by their stewardship, and the mayors of Razumovsky’s time by unknown origins and knightly courage. All of them flog the townsfolk, but the first flog the townsfolk absolutely, the latter explain the reasons for their management by the requirements of civilization, the third want the townsfolk to rely on their courage in everything.” Thus, from the very beginning, a hierarchy is built and emphasized: higher spheres - local government - ordinary people. Their destinies mirror what is happening in areas of power: “in the first case, the inhabitants trembled unconsciously, in the second they trembled with the consciousness of their own benefit, in the third they rose to awe filled with trust.”

Issues

“The History of a City” exposes the imperfections of the social and political life of Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has rarely been blessed with good rulers. You can prove this by opening any history textbook. Saltykov Shchedrin, sincerely worried about the fate of his homeland, could not stay away from this problem. The work “The History of a City” became a unique solution. The central issue in this book is the power and political imperfection of the country, or rather one city of Foolov. Everything - the history of its founding, the string of worthless autocrats, and the people of Foolov themselves - are so ridiculous that it looks like some kind of farce. This would be a farce if it were not so similar to real life in Russia. “The Story of a City” is not just a political satire on the existing political system in this country, but fundamentally affects the very mentality of the people of the entire country.

So, the central problem of the work is the motive of power and political imperfection. In the city of Foolov, mayors are replaced one after another. Their fates are to some extent tragic, but at the same time grotesque. So, for example, Busty turned out to be a doll with an organ in its head, which uttered only two phrases: “I won’t tolerate it!” and “I’ll ruin you!”, and Ferdyshchenko forgets about his responsibilities when it comes to food, especially goose and boiled pork, which is why he dies from gluttony. Acne turns out to have a stuffed head, And Vanir dies from strain, trying to comprehend the meaning of the decree, Grustilov dying of melancholy... The end of the reign of each of them is sad, but funny. The mayors themselves do not inspire respect - someone is impenetrably stupid, someone is excessively cruel, liberal rulers are also not the best way out, since their innovations are not vitally necessary, but, at best, a tribute to fashion or an empty whim. For some completely incomprehensible reason, mayors do not think about the people, about what people need. There are many rulers, they are different creatures, but the result is the same - life gets neither better nor worse. And rulers become mayors more by misunderstanding than by necessity. Who was there among Foolov's bosses - a cook, a barber, a runaway Greek, minor army ranks, an orderly, state councilors and, finally, a scoundrel Gloomy Burcheev. And, what's most amazing, there was not a single mayor who had an idea of his responsibilities and the rights of the people A. For Foolov's mayors there was no clear concept of their own actions. As if they had nothing better to do, they replanted birch trees in the alley, introduced gymnasiums and sciences, abolished gymnasiums and sciences, introduced Provençal oil, mustard and bay leaves, collected arrears... and, in fact, that’s all. Their functions were limited to this.

The author emphasizes that the chronicler’s appearance is very real, which does not allow one to doubt his authenticity for a minute. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin clearly indicates the boundaries of the period under consideration: from 1931 to 1825. The work includes “Address to the reader from the last archivist-chronicler.” To give a documentary character to this fragment of the narrative, the author places a footnote after the title stating that the address is conveyed exactly in the words of the chronicler himself. The publisher allowed himself only spelling corrections of the text in order to edit certain liberties in the spelling of words. The address begins with a conversation with the reader about whether there are worthy rulers and leaders in the history of our country: “ Is it 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??» Omniscient Publisher supplements this quote with a reference to poem by G.R. Derzhavina: “Caligula! Your horse in the Senate Could not shine, shining in gold: Good deeds shine!” This addition aims to emphasize the value scale: It is not gold that shines, but good deeds.. Gold in this case acts as a symbol of acquisitiveness, and good deeds are proclaimed as the true value of the world.

Further in the work follows a discussion about man in general. The chronicler encourages the reader to look at his own person and decide what is more important in him: the head or the belly. And then judge those in power.

At the end of the address, Foolov is compared to Rome, this again emphasizes that we are not talking about any specific city, and about the model of society in general. Thus, the city of Foolov is a grotesque image not only of all of Russia, but also of all power structures on a global scale, for Rome has been associated with the imperial city since ancient times, the same function is embodied by the mention of the Roman emperors Nero (37-68) and Caligula (12-68). 41) in the text of the work. For the same purpose, to expand the information field of the narrative, surnames are mentioned in the work Kostomarov, Pypin and Soloviev. Contemporaries had an idea of what views and positions were being discussed. N.I. Kostomarov - famous Russian historian, researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia and Ukraine, Ukrainian poet and fiction writer. A .N. Pypin (1833-1904) - Russian literary critic, ethnographer, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, cousin of N.G. Chernyshevsky. B.C. Soloviev (1853-1900) - Russian philosopher, poet, publicist, literary critic of the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

Further, the chronicler assigns the action of the story to the era existence of tribal feuds . At the same time, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin uses his favorite compositional technique: the fairy-tale context is combined with the pages of real Russian history. All this creates a system of witty subtle hints that are understandable to a sophisticated reader.

Having come up with funny names for the fairy-tale tribes, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin immediately reveals to the reader their allegorical meaning when representatives of the tribe of blockheads begin to call each other by name (Ivashka, Peter). It becomes clear that we are talking specifically about Russian history.

Made up our minds bunglers find themselves a prince, and since the people themselves are stupid, they are looking for an unwise ruler. Finally, one (the third in a row, as is customary in Russian folk tales) "princely lordship" agreed to own this people. But with a condition. “And you will pay me many tributes,” the prince continued, “whoever brings a bright sheep, sign the sheep to me, and keep the bright one for yourself; Whoever happens to have a penny, break it in four: give one part to me, the other to me, the third to me again, and keep the fourth for yourself. When I go to war, you go too! And you don’t care about anything else!” Even foolish bunglers hung their heads from such speeches.

In this scene M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin convincingly shows that any power is based on the obedience of the people and brings them more troubles and problems than real help and support. It is no coincidence that the prince gives the bunglers a new name: “ And since you did not know how to live on your own and, being stupid, you yourself wished for bondage, then you will no longer be called blockheads, but Foolovites».

The experiences of deceived bunglers are expressed in folklore. It is symbolic that one of them sings a song on the way home “Don’t make noise, mother green oak tree!”

The prince sends his thieving governors one after another. A satirical inventory of city governors gives them an eloquent description, testifying to their business qualities.

Clementy p received a proper rank for his skillful preparation of pasta. Lamvrokanis he sold Greek soap, sponges and nuts. Marquis de Sanglot loved to sing obscene songs. One can list for a long time the so-called exploits of mayors. They did not stay in power for long and did nothing worthwhile for the city.

June 21 2011

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 inanimateness of the mayors, who are the key images in each chapter.

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.

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 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 supposedly gives the book a historiographical nature and a special meaning, consists of 21 names (from the pasta-traitor Clement to Major Interkhvat-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 city-government thought 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 city's successes cover 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 surrounding environment 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; The cormorant is broken in half by the 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 clearly reveal one side or another. But he 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 one 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. causes laughter, but not cheerful, 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 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...”

Need a cheat sheet? Then save - "Techniques of satirical depiction in the novel by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “The History of a City.” Literary essays!

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 modernity. In the novel “The History of a City,” it was important for the author to reveal the essence of each era, to determine the patterns of development of society, 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 and 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, reaching 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 policemen 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 “Straw City” 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.

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 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 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 supposedly gives the book a historiographical nature and a special meaning, consists of 21 names (from the pasta-traitor Clement to Major Interkhvat-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 city-government thought 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 reign 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; The cormorant is broken in half by the 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 proverbs: “only here’s what I say to you: 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.

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 the 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 not yet lost its relevance, because, unfortunately, we still meet people like Foolov’s mayors. L.N. Tolstoy