The word "Satire" denotes three phenomena:

1. A certain poetic lyrical epic small genre that developed and developed on Roman soil (Nevius, Ennius, Lucilius, Horace, Persius, Juvenal) and revived in modern times by neoclassicists (satires by M. Renier, N. Boileau, A.D. Cantemir, etc.) ;
2. Another less definite mixed (with a predominance of prose) purely dialogic genre, which arose in the Hellenistic era in the form of a philosophical diatribe (Bion, Telet), transformed and formalized by the cynic Menippus (3rd century BC) and named after him "menippean satire" ; later samples of it in Greek are presented for us in the work of Lucian (2nd century), in Latin fragments of Varro's satires ("Saturae Menippeae") "Menippe Saturas", Seneca's satire "Apocolocyntosis" ("Pumpkin") and, finally , a satirical novel by Petronius ("Satyricon"); this form of satire directly prepared the most important variety of the European novel, presented on ancient soil by Petronius's "Satyricon" and partly by Apuleius's "Golden Ass", and in the New time - novels by F. Rabelais ("Gargantua and Pantagruel") and M. de Cervantes ("Don Quixote"); in addition, the form of “menippe satire” is represented in modern times by the remarkable political satire “Satire Menippee” (1594) and the famous comic dialogue by Beroald de Verville (“Le Moyen de parvenir”) “The way to go out to people”, 1610;
3. A certain (mostly negative) attitude of the creator to the subject of his image (i.e. to the depicted reality), which determines the choice of means of artistic representation and the general nature of the images; In this sense, satire is not limited to the above two specific genres and can use any genre - epic, dramatic, lyrical; we find a satirical depiction of reality and its various phenomena in small folklore genres - in proverbs and sayings (there is a whole vast group of satirical proverbs and sayings), in folk ethological epithets, i.e. brief satirical descriptions of the inhabitants of various countries, provinces, cities (for example, the old French “blasons” “blasons”: “The best drunkards are in England” or “The most stupid are in Brittany”), in folk anecdotes, in folk comic dialogues (they are especially rich in was Greece), in small improvised clownish genres of court and folk (city) jesters and clowns, mimes, comedies, farces, interludes, in folk and literary tales (for example, satirical tales of L. Tick, E.T.A. Hoffmann, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, L.N. Tolstoy), in epic poems (the oldest Greek satirical epic - songs about the fool Margit, there is a significant satirical element in Hesiod's Works and Days), in song lyrics - folk (satirical street songs of France) and literary (satirical songs by P.J. Beranger, A.O. Barbier, N.A. Nekrasov), in general in lyrics (lyrics by G. Heine, Nekrasov, V.V. Mayakovsky), in short stories, stories, novels, in essay genres; in this ocean of satirical creativity - folk and literary - using diverse genres and forms, the specific genres of Roman and Menippean satire appear to be only small islands (although their historical role is very significant). These are the three meanings of the word satire.

History and theory of satire

The history and theory of satire is very poorly developed.. In essence, only the genre of Roman satire has been subjected to consistent and rigorous study. Even the Menippean satire, its folklore roots and its historical role in the creation of the European novel, are far from being studied enough. As for the inter-genre satire, i.e. to a satirical attitude to reality, realized in the most diverse genres (the third meaning of the word "satire"), then its systematic study is very bad . The history of satire is not the history of a particular genre; it concerns all genres, moreover, at the most critical moments of their development. A satirical attitude to reality, realized in any genre, has the ability to transform and update this genre. The satirical moment introduces into any genre an adjustment to modern reality, living relevance, political and ideological topicality. The satirical element, usually inextricably linked with parody and travesty, purifies the genre of dead conventionality, of senseless and outlived elements of tradition; in this way he renews the genre and does not allow it to freeze in dogmatic canonicity, does not allow it to turn into pure conventionality. Satire played the same renewing role in the history of literary languages: it refreshed these languages ​​at the expense of everyday heteroglossia, it ridiculed outdated linguistic and stylistic forms. It is known what role satirical works played (short stories, hundredths, farces, political and religious pamphlets, such novels as Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel) in the history of the creation of the literary languages ​​of the New Age and in the history of their renewal in the second half of the 18th century (satirical magazines , satirical and satirical-humorous novels, pamphlets). It is possible to correctly understand and evaluate this role of satire in the process of updating literary languages ​​and genres only if the connection between satire and parody is constantly taken into account. Historically, they cannot be separated: any essential parody is always satirical, and any essential satire is always combined with parody and travesty of obsolete genres, styles and languages ​​(suffice it to name the Menippean satire, usually saturated with parodies and travesty, "Letters of dark people", novels by Rabelais and Cervantes) . Thus, the history of satire is made up of the most important (“critical”) pages in the history of all other genres, especially the novel (it was prepared by satire and subsequently updated with the help of a satirical and parodic element). Let us also note, for example, the renewing role of the commedia dell'arte. It was determined by folk satirical masks and small clownish genres - anecdotes, comic agons (disputes), folk ethological mimicking of dialects. This comedy had a tremendous renewing influence on all the dramatic work of the New Age (and not only on the dramatic, we note, for example, the influence of its forms on romantic satire, especially on Hoffmann, or its indirect influence on N.V. Gogol). It is especially necessary to emphasize the extremely important role of satire in the history of realism. All these questions of the history of satire are very poorly developed. Literary historians were more concerned with the abstract ideology of this or that satirist or with naive-realistic conclusions from a work to contemporary historical reality.

The situation is no better with the theory of satire. The special inter-genre position of satire made its theoretical studies extremely difficult. In theories of literature and poetics, satire usually appears in the section of lyrical genres, i.e. only the Roman satirical genre and its neoclassical imitations are meant. Such an assignment of S. to lyrics is a very common occurrence. A.G. Gornfeld defines it as follows: “Satire in its true form is the purest lyric poetry of indignation” (Gornfeld A.G. Satire. Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary). Researchers who focus on the S. of the New Age and especially on the satirical novel tend to recognize it as a purely epic phenomenon. Some consider the satirical moment, as such, an extra-artistic, journalistic admixture to fiction. The relation of satire to humor is also contradictory. Some sharply separate them, consider them even something opposite, while others see in humor only a softened, so to speak, “good-natured” kind of satire. Neither the role nor the nature of laughter in S. are defined. The relationship between S. and parody is not defined. The theoretical study of S. should be of a historical and systematic nature, and it is especially important to reveal the folklore roots of S. and to determine the special nature of satirical images in oral folk art.

One of the best definitions of satire - not as a genre, but as a special relationship of the creator to the reality he depicts - was given by F. Schiller. Let's take it as a starting point. Here it is: “Reality as insufficiency is opposed in satire to the ideal as the highest reality. Reality, therefore, necessarily becomes an object of rejection in it ”(“ On Naive and Sentimental Poetry ”, 1795-96). In this definition, two points are correctly emphasized: the moment of the relation of satire to reality and the moment of the denial of this reality as insufficiency. This insufficiency is revealed, according to Schiller, in the light of the ideal "as the highest reality." This is where the idealistic limitations of Schiller's definition come into play: the "ideal" is conceived as something static, eternal and abstract, and not as the historical necessity of the advent of the new and better (the future, embedded in the denied present). It is necessary to emphasize (Schiller does not do this) the figurative nature of satirical negation, which distinguishes satire as an artistic phenomenon from various forms of journalism. So, satire is a figurative denial of modern reality in its various moments, necessarily including - in one form or another, with varying degrees of concreteness and clarity - and the positive moment of asserting a better reality. This preliminary and general definition of satire, like all definitions of this kind, is necessarily abstract and poor. Only a historical review of the rich variety of satirical forms will allow us to concretize and enrich this definition.

The oldest folklore forms of figurative negation, i.e. satire, the essence of the form of folk-holiday ridicule and disgrace. These forms were originally cult in nature. It was ritual laughter (“rire rituel” - in the terminology of S. Reinak). But this original ritual-magical meaning of ridicule and disgrace can only be reconstructed by science (with greater or lesser likelihood), yet the forms of folk-festive laughter known to us from the monuments have already been artistically reshaped and ideologically rethought: these are already established forms of figurative denial, including into itself the moment of affirmation. This is the folklore core of satire. Let's take a look at the most important facts. During the Thesmophoria, Galoa, and other Greek festivals, women showered each other with ridicule with obscene abuse, accompanying the shouted out words with obscene gestures; such laughter squabbles were called aeshrologia (i.e. "shame"). Plutarch talks about the Boeotian festival "Daedala" (Plutarch's text has not survived, but was transmitted by Eusebius), during which a fictitious marriage ceremony was played out, accompanied by laughter, and ending with the burning of a wooden statue. Pausanias tells about a similar holiday. This is a typical celebration of the resurrection of the vegetation deity; laughter here is associated with images of death and the rebirth of the productive force of nature. Especially interesting and important is the story of Herodotus (V, 83) about the feast of Demeter, during which the women's choirs ridiculed each other; here, of course, this ridicule was also connected with the motives of death and the rebirth of the productive force. Testimonies have also come down to us of ridicule during Greek wedding ceremonies. There is an interesting explicative legend explaining the connection between laughter and obscenity, on the one hand, and between laughter and rebirth, on the other. This legend is reflected in the Homeric hymn to Demeter. After the abduction of Persephone to the underworld, the grieving Demeter refused to drink and eat until the Yambas made her laugh by making an obscene gesture in front of her.

We also find folk-holiday shame and ridicule on Roman soil. Horace depicts in one of his messages - the feast of the harvest, during which free ridicule and shame are committed in a dialogic form (fescennina licentia). Ovid also speaks of a similar holiday (Fast, III, 675-676). Roman triumphal ridicule (carmina triumphalia) is known, which also had a dialogic form. Finally, I will mention the Saturnalia with their legalized freedom of laughter and organized mockery and shame of the jester's king (the old king, the old year).

All these mockery festivals, both Greek and Roman, are essentially connected with time - with the change of seasons and agricultural cycles. Laughter, as it were, captures the very moment of this change, the moment of the death of the old and at the same time the birth of the new. Therefore, festive laughter is at the same time mocking, abusive, shaming (outgoing death, winter, old year) laughter and joyful, jubilant, welcoming laughter (revival, spring, fresh greenery, new year). This is not a naked mockery, the denial of the old is inextricably merged here with the affirmation of the new and better. This negation, embodied in laughter images, therefore, had a spontaneous-dialectical character.

According to the testimony of the ancients themselves, these folk-holiday forms of ridicule and disgrace were the roots from which literary satirical forms grew. Aristotle (Poetics) sees the roots of comedy in iambic song shames ("iambidzein"), and he notes the dialogical nature of these shames ("iambidzon allelus"). M. Terentius Varro in his work “On the Origin of the Performing Arts” finds its beginnings in various festivities - in the capitals, in the lupercalia, etc. Finally, Livy reports the existence of a folk dramatic “satura” that grew out of the fescennins. All these assertions of the ancients (especially Livy) must, of course, be treated critically. But there is no doubt about the deep inner connection of the ancient literary-satirical figurative negation with the people's festive laughter and shame. And in the further development of ancient satire, it does not break its connection with the living forms of folk-festive laughter (for example, the connection with the Saturnalia of the epigrammatic work of Martial and the romance of Petronius is essential).

We observe six main features of folk-holiday ridicule and shame, which are then repeated in all any significant phenomena of satirical creativity in antiquity (and in all subsequent eras in the development of European satire):

1. the dialogic nature of ridicule-shame (mutual ridicule of choruses);
2. the moment of parody, mimicry inherent in these ridicule;
3. the universal nature of ridicule (ridicule of deities, the old king, the entire ruling system (saturnalia);
4. the connection of laughter with the material and bodily productive principle (shamefulness);
5. the essential relation of ridicule to time and temporal change, to rebirth, to the death of the old and the birth of the new;
6. elemental dialectic of ridicule, a combination in it of mockery (old) with fun (new). In the images of the ridiculed old people, they ridiculed the ruling system with its forms of oppression - in the images of the new, they embodied their best aspirations and aspirations.

Classical Greece did not know a special special genre of satire. The satirical attitude to the subject of the image (figurative negation) is realized here in the most diverse genres. Very early, a folk comic-satirical epic arose here - songs about the fool Margit (the ancients attributed them to Homer, Aristotle derived a comedy from them); "Margaret" is the first European example of "foolish satire" ("Narrensatire") - one of the most common types of satire in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Fool in this look satire in most cases performs a triple function:

1. he is ridiculed
2. he makes fun of himself
3. it serves as a means of ridiculing the surrounding reality, the mirror in which the foolish features of this reality are reflected.

A fool often combines the traits of a rogue with those of a naive simpleton who does not understand the stupid or deceitful conventions of social reality - customs, laws, beliefs (which is especially important for performing the third function that exposes the surrounding reality). This, apparently, was Margit, as far as one can judge from the extremely scarce evidence and fragments that have come down to us. A wonderful parody of the heroic epic, "The War of Mice and Frogs", also arose very early. This work testifies that already in the 7th-6th centuries BC. The Greeks had a high culture of parody. The subject of ridicule in the "War of Mice and Frogs" is the epic word itself, i.e. genre and style of the archaizing heroic poem. This parody is, therefore, a satire (figurative negation) on the dominant, but already dying style of the era (and such is any genuine parody and travesty). This mockery was not pure mockery, which is why the Greeks could attribute this parody to Homer himself. Finally, there is a strong satirical element in Hesiod's poem "Works and Days" (a satirical depiction of courts, authorities, rural hardships, an inserted satirical fable, etc.). It is characteristic that it is here that the legend of the four centuries is told, reflecting a deeply satirical sense of time, the change of centuries and generations (as valuable worlds) and a deeply satirical condemnation of the present (the famous characteristic of the "Iron Age"); here, the transfer of the “ideal”, the utopian kingdom of goodness, justice and abundance, from the future to the past (“golden age”), characteristic of the mythological worldview in general and for all ancient satire, found its vivid expression.

In the realm of lyricism, the satirical element (figurative negation) defined Greek iambic poetry (Archilochus, Hipponakt). Iambic directly arises from folk-holiday ridicule and disgrace. It combines dialogical appeal, rude abuse, laughter, obscenities, wishes for death, images of old age and decay. Yamb responds to modern reality, to topicality; everyday details are given in it and images of ridiculed people and even an ironic image of the author himself (by Archilochus) appear. In this respect, iambic differs sharply from all other genres of Greek lyrics, with their conventionality and with their high style, which is distracted from modern reality.

Similar combinations of images of reality with parodies and travesty, with obscenities and swearing in the form of an impromptu dialogue or semi-dialogue took place in the performances that were given throughout Greece by deikelasts and phallophores (we will learn about them from Athenaeus).

The comedy of Aristophanes is a fully matured powerful socio-political satire. But it also grew out of the same roots of folk-holiday ridicule and slander. Its traditional structure includes a comic folk-holiday agon, a satirical-polemical invective (parabasis); the comedy itself as a whole is to a certain extent a parody of the tragic genre, in addition, its content is replete with travesty and parodies (mainly on Euripides), it is full of swearing and obscenities (associated with the material and bodily productive principle). The subject of ridicule and shame is the present, modernity, with all its topical and topical issues (social, political, general ideological, literary); the figurative denial of this present (modernity) has a pronounced grotesque character: they combine destructive mockery with cheerful motifs of productive power, material and bodily excess, renewal and rebirth; the dying and banishing old is fraught with the new, but this new is not shown in concrete images of reality - it is present only in a cheerful shade of laughter and in images of the material-bodily principle and productive force (obscenity).

Homeland of satire

Rome is usually considered the birthplace of satire.. Quintilian's statement is known: "Satira tota nostra est" "The satire is entirely ours." This is true only in relation to a specific and independent genre of literary satire; the satirical element in folklore and in various general literary genres was sufficiently developed in Greece and had a significant impact on the development of the Roman satirical genre.

The origin of the name is satire

The very name of satire comes from the Latin word "satura", which originally denoted a dish filled with all kinds of sacrificial offerings, then pate, minced meat, and finally, in general, a “mixture” (in this sense, it was also applied to headings relating to several objects). This word was transferred to the literary genre, apparently because it was of a mixed nature, and the influence of the Greek word "satyri" is not excluded (this is admitted by T. Mommsen, M. Shants, A. Dieterich and others). According to Livy, there was a dramatic satura associated with the thecennins (many scholars question its existence). The first to write satire was Nevius (Cn.Naevius, the beginning of his literary activity, apparently, dates back to 235 BC). His satires were, apparently, a dialogical form and reflected political modernity; they also contained personal invectives (against the Metellus). Wrote satire and Ennius (Q.Ennius, 239-169 BC). They also had a dialogic element; this is evidenced by some fragments and references among his satire of the dispute between death and life (i.e., a typical folk-holiday agon). But the true creator of the genre of Roman satire was Lucilius. Numerous fragments and testimonies that have come down to us (including Horace) allow us to create a fairly complete picture of the features of his satire. These are the features:

• the basis of satire is dialogical, the type of dialogue is not plot-dramatic and not philosophical-research, but conversational-colloquial; the author talks himself, makes his characters speak (for example, in book 14, Scipio the Younger acted as the speaker), depicts dialogic scenes (for example, two meetings of the gods in the first book, a lawsuit in the second book);
• satire includes elements of literary parody (for example, on stilted tragic heroization), literary controversy (on issues of style, grammar, spelling; 10 books were devoted to these issues);
• an autobiographical, memoir element is introduced into satire (for example, the third book depicted the author's journey from Rome to the Strait of Sicily);
• the main content of satires is the figurative denial of modernity in its various manifestations (political corruption and corruption, the power of gold, empty ambition, luxury and effeminacy, wealthy plebeians, Greek mania, religious prejudices, etc.), the satirist acutely feels his "age", present, modernity (he does not deal with a single idealized time, like other genres), in its limitations and transience (that which must depart, die, as decaying, spoiled);
• the positive beginning of satire, its “ideal”, is given in the form of an ideal past: this is the old Roman virtue (virtus).

This is how the genre of Roman satire was defined by Lucilius.

The genre of Roman satire was elevated to the highest level of formal artistic perfection by Horace. But the criticism of modernity in the conditions of the August era, in comparison with Lucilius, is weakened and softened.

Horace's satire is a clever system of interlocking conversations: from one conversation we move, get involved, into another, the conversation clings to the conversation, one interlocutor is replaced by another. For example, in the 6th satire of book 1, the author first spoke with the Maecenas, but then Tillius intervenes in the conversation, then the word again goes to the Maecenas, then again to Tillius, in the interval we find ourselves on the forum and hear excited speeches of unnamed persons; in another satire, Chrysippus speaks, then unnamed persons, then the poet's father. From this uninterrupted free-conversational element, separate images of speaking people, characteristic or typical, more or less clearly characterized, constantly appear and disappear again. This conversational dialogue, freed from connection with action (as in drama) and from the constraints of strictly philosophical analysis (as in the classical philosophical dialogue of the Greeks), carries Horace characterological, reflective and depicting functions; sometimes it is given a slight parodic character. The word in this system of interlocking conversations has direct figurative and expressive functions, i.e. depicts, reflects, and at the same time is itself depicted, shown as a characteristic, typical, funny word. In general, the free-conversational word of the Horatian satire (this also applies to the word in epodes and epistles) is as close as possible in nature to the novel word. Horace himself called his satires (as well as messages) "sermones", i.e. "conversations" (Epist).

The autobiographical, memoir element in Horace is even more developed than in Lucilius. The relations of the author with the Maecenas are depicted in detail. In the 5th satire of the first book, a diary of his journey with Maecenas to Brundisium is given. In the 6th satire of the same book, the image of the author's father appears and his instructions are transmitted.

The satire of Horace is characterized by a keen sense of modernity, and, consequently, a differentiated sense of time in general. It is time, my time, my contemporaries, customs, way of life, events, literature of my time that are the true hero of the Horatian satires; if this hero (my time, modernity, present) is not ridiculed in the full sense, then they talk about him with a smile; they don’t heroize him, they don’t glorify him, they don’t sing (as in odes), they talk about him, talk freely, cheerfully and mockingly. Modernity in Horace's satire is the subject of free-mocking conversations. Saturnalian free laughter in relation to the existing system and the prevailing truth is softened to a smile. But the folk-holiday basis of this satirical perception of modern reality is quite obvious.

The last significant stage in the development of the genre of Roman satire is Juvenal (the poor and abstract satire of the young man Persia did not contribute anything significant). From a formal artistic point of view, Juvenal's satire is a degradation. But at the same time, the folk-festive (folklore) basis of Roman satire is manifested in it much more sharply than in his predecessors.

Juvenal has a new tone in relation to the denied reality (modernity) - indignation (indignatio). He himself recognizes indignation as the main driving force of his satire, its organizer (“facit indignatio versum”). Indignation becomes, as it were, in place of satirical laughter. His satire is therefore called "scourging". In reality, however, indignation is no substitute for laughter. Indignation, rather, is a rhetorical appendage of juvenile satire: its formal structure and images are organized by laughter, although outwardly it does not sound, and outwardly, instead of it, the pathos of indignation sometimes appears. In general, in the satire of Juvenal, the rhetorical pathos of the reciter struggles with the folk-comic satirical tradition. O. Ribbek's attempt to separate the true Juvenalasatirist from the rhetor finds support in this duality (Ribbek recognized the authenticity of only the first nine and eleventh satires, but even in these genuine satires he found distortions introduced by the rhetor's alien hand). Juvenal's satire retains a conversational-dialogical character, although somewhat rhetoric. The feeling of modernity, of the century, exceptionally heightened. He does not understand how one can write long poems with conventional mythological motifs. The corruption of the century is such that "it's hard not to write satire" (the first satire). The figurative denial of modern reality extends from the palace of the emperor (Domitian: 4 satyrs) to small everyday details of Roman life (for example, the morning pastime of a Roman matron in 6 satires). Characteristic is the statement of Juvenal, with which he ends the first satire: "I will try what is permissible against those whom the ashes are covered in Flaminian or Latin." This means that he only attacks the dead, i.e. to the past, to the Domitian age (he wrote under Trajan). This statement has two meanings:

1. In the conditions of imperial Rome (even under the mild regime of Trajan), such a reservation was necessary;
2. Folk-holiday ridicule and shame of the dying, the departing, the old (winter, the old year, the old king) and their traditional freedom are used here by Juvenal.
   In connection with the folk-festive forms of laughter, one must also understand the obscenities of Juvenal (the traditional connection of laughter and abuse with death, on the one hand, and with the productive generative force and the material and bodily principle, on the other).

Roman satire

This is the genre of Roman satire. This satire absorbed everything that did not find a place in strict and connected high genres: colloquial dialogue, writing, memoirs and autobiographical moments, a direct impression of life itself, but above all and most importantly, living actual modernity. Satire was free from myth and conventions, from high tone and from the system of official assessments - from everything that was mandatory for all other genres. Satire was also free from the impersonal conditional time of high genres. This freedom of the satirical genre and its inherent sense of real time is determined by its connection with folklore laughter and shame. By the way, let us recall the connection with the Saturnalia of Martial's satirical epigrams.

Hellenistic and Roman-Hellenistic "menippean satire" was also determined by folk-festive laughter. It is based on a peculiar combination of ancient dialogic mutual ridicule and mutual shame and ancient comic “argument” (agon), such as “argument between life and death”, “winter and summer”, “old age and youth”, etc., with Cynic philosophy. In addition, comedy and mime had a significant impact on the development of Menippean satire (especially its later forms). Finally, an essential plot element penetrated into this satire, thanks to its combination with the genre of fantastic travels to utopian countries (utopia from time immemorial gravitated towards folk-holiday forms) and with parodies of descents into the underworld and ascents to heaven. Radical popular ridicule of the ruling system and the ruling truth as transient, aging, dying, utopia, images of the material and bodily principle and obscenity (productive force and rebirth), fantastic travels and adventures, philosophical ideas and learning, parodies and travesty (of myths, tragedies, epic, philosophical and rhetorical genres), a mixture of genres and styles, poetry (mainly parodic) and prose, a combination of various types of dialogue with narration and letters - all this determines the composition of the Menippean satire throughout its development - in Menippus, Varro, Seneca, Petronius, Lucian. Moreover, we find all this in the novel by Rabelais and partly in Don Quixote (1605-15). Of particular importance is the broad reflection of ideological reality in the Menippean satire. The formation and change of ideas, the prevailing truth, morality, beliefs in strict genres could not be reflected. These genres assumed a maximum of certainty and stability; there was no place in them for showing the historical relativity of “truth”. Therefore, the Menippean satire could prepare the most important variety of the European novel. But in the conditions of the ancient slave-owning system, devoid of prospects, all the possibilities inherent in this satire could not fully develop.

Medieval satire

The roots of medieval satire are in local folklore. But the influence of the Roman culture of laughter - mime and saturnalia (the tradition of which continued to live in various forms throughout the Middle Ages) was also quite significant. The Middle Ages, with greater or lesser reservations, respected the freedom of the foolish cap and granted rather wide privileges to the folk-festive laughter. "Feasts of Fools" and "Donkey Festivals" were organized by the lower clergy in the churches themselves. A very characteristic phenomenon, the so-called "risus paschalis", i.e. Easter laughter: during Easter, tradition allowed laughter in the church, which was thought of as a cheerful revival after a long fast and despondency; to provoke this laughter, the preacher from the pulpit allowed himself free jokes and anecdotes. "Risus paschalis" is a Christianized (adapted to Christian beliefs) form of folklore laughter and, perhaps, the laughter of saturnalia. A lot of parodic and satirical works of the Middle Ages grew up under the guise of this legalized laughter. Christmas laughter also had a significant satirical productivity. Unlike Easter laughter, it was realized not in stories, but in songs. A huge production of Christmas songs was created, the religious Christmas theme was intertwined in them with folk motifs of the cheerful death of the old and the birth of the new; satirical mockery of the old often dominated these songs, especially in France, where the Christmas carol "Noel" "Noel" became one of the most popular genres of revolutionary street song. And on other holidays of the Middle Ages, laughter and ridicule were to a certain extent legalized and tolerant. The richest parodic literature of the Middle Ages (in Latin and in vernacular languages) was associated with holidays and recreation. Particularly important in their influence (in the later periods of the Middle Ages) was the carnival and the forms of laughter associated with it (the novels of Rabelais and Cervantes have a pronounced carnival character).

The satirical creativity of the Middle Ages was extremely diverse. In addition to the richest parodic literature (which had unconditional satirical significance), the satirical element manifested itself in the following main forms:

1. stupid satire
2. picaresque satire
3. satire of gluttony and drunkenness
4. class satire in the narrow sense
5. satirical sirventa

In addition, the satirical element finds expression in other genres of medieval literature: in ecclesiastical drama, in the epics of spilmans and cantastorii, in the diableries of mysteries, in the second part of the "Romance of the Rose" (Jean de Meun, circa 1275), in morality, soti and farces.

The image of the fool in medieval satire (and Renaissance satire) is of folklore origin. It combines denial with affirmation: its stupidity (simplicity, naivety, disinterestedness, lack of understanding of bad social conventions) turns out to be unofficial wisdom that exposes the prevailing truth (the dominant mind). But next to this, a fool is also a purely negative embodiment of stupidity. But even in this last case, not only he is ridiculed, but the whole reality surrounding him. For example, in one poem of the 12th century “The Mirror of Fools” (“Speculum stultorum”) by Nigellus, her hero, the donkey Brunellus (the usual animal image of a fool), who escaped from the owner, is treated in Salerno, studies theology in Paris (at the Sorbonne), establishes his own monastic order. Everywhere the donkey is in its place. As a result, the medical pedantry of Salerno, the ignorance of the Sorbonne, and the absurdities of monasticism are ridiculed. A large satirical role was played by the dual image of a fool in the soti of the late Middle Ages.

The picaresque satire of the Middle Ages cannot always be sharply separated from the foolish. The image of a rogue and a fool often merge. The rogue is also not so much ridiculed and exposed himself, as serving as a touchstone for the surrounding reality, for those organizations and estates of the medieval world to which he attaches himself or with whom he comes into contact. Such is his role in Striker's Priest Amis (d. 1250), in the animal epic about the Fox (Reinecke the Fox, 13th century), in picaresque fablios and schwanks. A rogue, like a fool, is not an everyday mocker, but a folklore image, a kind of realistic symbol of dual meaning, a satirical mirror for denying the rogue world. The rogue will become a household image only in the later forms of the rogue novel.

Gluttony and drunkenness have the same peculiar character of a realistic symbol in medieval satire. In the folklore, folk-holiday system of images, food and drink were associated with fertility, rebirth, national abundance (the image of a fat belly was also associated with this positive motive). Under the conditions of class reality, these images acquire a new meaning: with their help, the greed and parasitism of the clergy are ridiculed, the abundance of food and drink is transformed into gluttony and drunkenness. The ancient positive hyperbolism takes on a negative meaning. But this process cannot be completed to the end: the images of food and drink retain a dual meaning, ridicule of gluttony and parasitism is combined with a positive (joyful) accentuation of the material and bodily principle itself. Such is the satire "The Day of a Certain Abbot", which depicts the pastime of the abbot, consisting solely of immeasurable food, drink and cleansing of the stomach in all sorts of ways (with this he begins his day). Another satire, Tractatus Garsiae Tholetani (11th century), depicts the continuous and immeasurable drunkenness of the entire Roman curia, led by the pope. The images of this type of satire are grotesque: they are exaggerated to the extreme, and this exaggeration is both negative (greed and gluttony of parasites) and positive (pathos of material abundance and excess).

Mutual ridicule of estates plays a huge role in medieval satirical creativity. The satirical images of a priest, a monk, a knight, a peasant are somewhat schematized: there is no individual characteristic face behind the estate features (these images really come to life only in the satire of the Renaissance).

All four listed types of satire are associated with folklore. Therefore, the images of negation here are organized by laughter, concrete, ambiguous (negation is combined in them with affirmation, mockery with fun), universalistic, not alien to obscenities, satire is intertwined with parody here. These types of satire found their completion in the late Middle Ages in such folk books as "Eulenspiegel" (14th century), in "The Ship of Fools" (1494) by S. Brant, in the later versions of Reinecke-Fox, in hundreds, farces and short stories. In contrast, the satirical sirvent is not associated with folk laughter, it is based on an abstract political or moral tendency (such, for example, are the sirvents of V. von der Vogelweide, which are distinguished by great artistic merit; this is a true lyric of indignation).

The Renaissance is an era of unprecedented flourishing of satire, which created unsurpassed examples of it. A sharp and conscious sense of time, the change of eras in world history, characteristic of the Renaissance, made satire the most important genre of the era. The ridicule and shaming of the old and the joyful meeting of the new - the ancient folk-festive basis of satire - in the Renaissance are filled with concrete and conscious historical content and meaning. The Renaissance used all forms of medieval satire and parody, forms of ancient satire (especially the Menippean - Lucian, Petronius, Seneca) and directly drew from an inexhaustible source of folk-festive laughter forms - carnival, grassroots folk comedy, small speech genres.

The Roman Rabelais is a wonderful synthesis of all the satirical forms of antiquity and the Middle Ages on the basis of the carnival forms of his time. With the help of these forms, with exceptional clarity and depth, he managed to show the death of the old world (“Gothic age”) and the birth of a new one in contemporary reality. All his images are spontaneously dialectical: they reveal the unity of the historical process of formation, in which the new is directly born from the death of the old. His laughter is both mercilessly mocking and jubilant, in his style - an indissoluble combination of praise and scolding (swearing turns into praise and praise into scolding).

Renaissance and satire

The Renaissance is characterized by an organic combination of satire and parody. "Letters of Dark People" (1515-17) is the purest parody, and at the same time it is a wonderful satirical image of the dying Middle Ages. The same organic element is parody in Cervantes' novel. The satire of the Renaissance, like any great and genuine satire, gives the floor to the most ridiculed world. The dying world - the old power, the old system, the old truth - in the person of its representatives continues to subjectively and seriously play its role, but objectively it already finds itself in the position of a jester, its claims cause only laughter. This carnival situation is used by the satire of the Renaissance. It was used by Rabelais in a number of episodes of his novel, used by Cervantes, used by the authors of the Letters of Dark People. It was used by political and Protestant pamphleteers. For example, one of the most remarkable Protestant pamphlets, "On the Differences in Religions" by Marnix de Sainte-Aldegonde (1538-98), was written in the form of a theological treatise (of enormous size) on behalf of an orthodox Catholic enemy of the Protestants. The conventional author, with all his naivety, exposes his religion, defending consistently and to the end all its absurdities and superstitions, he exposes it to ridicule. Thanks to this method of construction, the theological pamphlet of Marnix had an artistic and satirical significance (in particular, it had a decisive influence on Till Ulenspiegel (1867) by S. de Coster). The remarkable political satire of the time of the League "Satire Menippee" is built on the same principle. It is directed against the League. At the beginning, the fairground charlatan advertises the miraculous remedy "vertu catholicon", and then depicts a meeting of the members of the League, who, in their direct and frank speeches, expose themselves and their policies.

Foolish satire found its completion at the highest level of humanistic culture in the "Praise of Stupidity" (1509) by Erasmus, in some Shrovetide games of G. Sachs. Rogue satire - in the early Spanish rogue novel and in the rogue short stories of Cervantes and Grimmelshausen (in all these phenomena, the rogue does not yet become a purely everyday character). The satire of gluttony and drunkenness ends with the German "Grobians" (K. Scheidt, I. Fishart). In all these phenomena of the Renaissance, folk-festive laughter and the images of a fool, a rogue, food and drink, and the productive force associated with it rise to the highest level of ideological consciousness, are filled with historical content, and are used to embody the new historical consciousness of the era.

In the 17th century, satirical creativity sharply impoverishes. The stabilization of the new state system and the new social groups that dominate and determine literary requirements and tastes, the addition of the neoclassical canon - all this pushed satire into the background of literature and changed its character. Laughter lost its radicalism and its universality, it was limited to private phenomena, individual vices and social ranks; laughter and history (historical figures and events), laughter and philosophical thought (worldview) have become incompatible. The main object of imitation was the genre of Roman satire (Horace and Juvenal). Such are the satires of M. Renier and N. Boileau. Elements of renaissance satire (influenced by Rabelais and Cervantes) are found only in the novels of this period: in Sorel and Scarron. Only comedy, fertilized by the powerful and beneficial influence of the commedia dell'arte, which grew out of folk-holiday roots, reached the heights of its satirical development in Molière's work.

The Age of Enlightenment again created fertile ground for the development of satire. Satire becomes radical and universal again; the influence of Horace and Juvenal is replaced by the new influence of Petronius and Lucian. Some forms of the great Renaissance satire come to life. Such are the satirical novels of Voltaire (especially Candide, 1759); misunderstanding of a simpleton or a person of a different culture is used to expose and ridicule the meaningless and dying forms - social, political, ideological - of modern reality. In Voltaire's Micromegas (1752), and especially in Swift's work, forms of grotesque satire (excessive exaggeration, fantasy) come to life, but they undergo significant changes: their positive pole disappears (a cheerful, reviving shade of laughter, the pathos of the material-bodily productive principle). The rationalism and mechanism of the Enlightenment, the non-historical nature of their worldview and the absence of any significant connection with folk laughter did not allow the satire of the Enlightenment to rise to the height of Renaissance satire. Enlightenment pamphlets (especially English - for example, J. Swift, D. Defoe, etc.) were of significant importance, lying on the border of figurative denial and journalism.

English satirical magazines of the 18th century played a rather significant role in the history of the satirical creativity of the New Age. ("Spectator" and "Chatterbox"). They created and consolidated the genres of small magazine satire: dialogic, essay, parodic. This magazine-satirical form of depicting and ridiculing modernity largely repeats, under new conditions, the forms of Horatian satire (conversational dialogue, a mass of emerging and disappearing images of speaking people, mimicking social speech manners, semi-dialogues, letters, a mixture of playful and serious reflections). Created in the 18th century, small forms of magazine satire - with minor changes - continued to live throughout the 19th century (yes, in fact, to this day).

Romantics did not create great satire. Nevertheless, they introduced a number of significant and new features into satirical creativity. Their satire is directed primarily against the cultural and literary phenomena of our time. Such are the literary satirical (and parodic) plays of L. Tick, satirical tales and stories by C. Brentano, A. Chamisso, F. Fouquet, and partly by E. T. A. Hoffmann. Denied reality - predominantly of a cultural and literary order - thickens for romantics in the form of a "philistine"; romantic satire is full of various variations of this image; in the ridicule of the philistine, forms and images of popular festive laughter often appear. The most original and profound form of satire among romantics is a satirical fairy tale. The ridicule of reality here goes beyond the limits of cultural and literary phenomena and rises to a very deep and principled satire on capitalism. Such is Hoffmann's marvelous tale Little Tsakhes (1819) (and in Hoffmann's other fantastic and grotesque works we find elements of deep anti-capitalist satire). French romanticism developed a lyrical satire of the Juvenal type (the best example is “des Chatiments” of “Retribution”, 1853, V. Hugo).

G. Heine was also the heir of romantic satire, but in the field of satirical lyrics he almost manages to make the transition from romanticism to realism (he overcame the superficial tendentiousness of Young Germany), thanks to his focus on the radicalism of the democratic movement of the era and on folk art. Romantic irony, gothic degrading parody, the tradition of the French Revolution and the fighting street song, forms of small journal-satirical (colloquial) genres, Shrovetide laughter are uniquely combined in Heine's wonderful poetic satire.

In France, the folk-song satirical tradition fertilized the satirical lyrics of P.J. Beranger. The same tradition of street satirical song, but combined with the legacy of Roman satire, determined the satirical lyrics of A.O. Barbier (see his Yambs, 1831 and Satires, 1865). The further fate of satire in the 19th century is as follows. Pure satire lived mainly in the forms of small magazine satirical genres. He did not create new large forms of satire of the 19th century. Satire played its creative role in the process of preparing and creating a European novel, which became the main genre depicting modern reality. Elements of figurative denial of this reality play a greater or lesser role in the novel of the 19th century. Sometimes they take the form of humor (for example, in W. Thackeray, in Ch. Dickens); this humor is nothing more than softened and subjectivized folk-holiday laughter (simultaneously mockingly destroying and joyfully reviving), which, at the same time, has lost its elemental dialectic and its radicalism.

Satire in Russia

Ancient Russian literature did not know satirical laughter in the proper sense of the word. The depiction of reality as "insufficiency" in comparison with the religious-philosophical, moral and state ideal in it, unlike Western European literature, was not associated with laughter. The negative attitude of the author to the described subject took the form not of ridicule, but of denunciation, emphatically serious, more often mournful - in the genre of accusatory word, in the annals, historical narrative, hagiography. The mournful tone of the denunciation was based on the traditional Orthodox idea of ​​the sinfulness of laughter. Laughter forms were preserved outside the boundaries of official culture: in oral folklore genres, in wedding and agrarian rites, in the art of buffoons, in the forms of Yuletide (the games of mummers, the rite of "stove action", the game of the dead) and Shrovetide laughter (the earliest mention in the decrees of Vladimirsky Cathedral of 1274, set out in the charter of Metropolitan Cyril II). The essence of the attitude to denunciation and laughter in the Russian medieval world was most fully expressed in the image of the holy fool, and in ancient Russian literature - in the lives of the holy fools. Heroes of life do not laugh; an exception is made for the holy fools. The behavior of the holy fool in outward appearances resembled the behavior of a jester (in Russia foolishness was symbolized by a dog, which in Europe was a sign of a jester), but laughing at him was considered a sin (an episode from the Life of St. Basil the Blessed is typical: those who laughed at his nakedness went blind and were healed by him after repentance in ignorant laughter) weeping over the ridiculous - this is the effect that the holy fool strives for, revealing wisdom under the guise of stupidity, and holiness behind external blasphemy. Russian medieval culture, thanks to the hypocrisy of Ivan the Terrible, knew the clownish rite of crowning and dethroning, however, even he did not assume a universal, freeing from fear, laughter. Feigned self-abasement was characteristic of both the life and literary behavior of the Terrible (for example, the use of the clownish pseudonym "Parthenius the Ugly" in the "Message against the Luthors", 1572). His writings are characterized by an alternation of high style with vernacular, turning into abuse; curses constitute a stable lexical group in his language (“Messages to Kurbsky”, 1564, 1577; “Messages to Polubensky”, 1577). Grozny's "mortifying" laughter accompanied the executions: in a joking manner, he asks the clownish Tsar Simeon to "sort out the little people."

Actually comic satire begins to take shape in Russia in the 17th century . Under Peter I, the traditional ban on laughter and fun is gradually being lifted. Laughter holidays, masquerades, foolish processions, jester's weddings appear (the collegium of drunkenness and Peter the Great's "crazy, all-joking and all-drunk cathedral", which ordered to do everything the other way around; the wedding of the jester Turgenev, 1695, a five-day masquerade in 1722, for which Peter himself composed programs and regulations) , Maslenitsa and Paschal laughter are legalized, while the holy fools are declared "idly raging." Of the satirical genres, the satirical story, parodic tales, alphabet books and petitions stand out (“The Tale of Ersh Ershovich”, “The Tale of Shemyakin Court”, “The Tale of the Hawk Moth”, “The ABC of the Naked and Poor Man”, “Service to the Tavern”, “ Kalyazinskaya Petition”, “The Legend of Priest Sava”). Satirical stories of the 17th century were influenced by medieval Latin parodies and facets, as well as oral comic genres (the art of buffoons, farcical grandfathers). Plots of laughter holidays and satirical literature of the 17th-18th centuries were imprinted in popular popular prints (“Moscow Maslenitsa”, “How mice bury a cat”, “The Tale of Ersh Yershovich”), which retained their influence until Pushkin’s time. In addition to the prevailing current of the so-called "democratic satire", in the 17th century there were known examples of serious moralizing satire created by Latin humanists ("Multicolored Vertograd", 1678, by Simeon of Polotsk). Satirical laughter acquired special forms in the religious struggle. An unsurpassed example of religious "meek laughter" is "The Life of Archpriest Avvakum" (1672-75). His most tragic scenes take on the form of buffoonery (martyrdom is depicted as an everyday scene, and martyrs as insignificant insects). In the 18th century, Russian satire experienced its heyday. In terms of genre, satirical creativity was extremely diverse: a satirical poetic message, an epigram, a fable, a comedy, a satirical epitaph, parodic stanza-song forms, and satirical journalism. The 18th century created Russian poetic satire, oriented towards classical European models, and developed the theory of satire. Views on the nature of satirical denunciation and the purpose of satire were formed under the influence of "Poetic Art" (1674) by N. Boileau, transferred to Russian soil by A.P. Sumarokov, fed by the works of L. Holberg, G.V. Rabener, the tradition of popular English moralizing magazines R .Style and J.Addison. The satirical opposition of reality to the ideal was interpreted in the poetics of the 18th century in accordance with the canon of the Enlightenment as the opposition of the enlightened to the barbaric, the ordered to the chaotic, the trained to the wild, the rational to the senseless. The dominant intonation of 18th century satire was "scourging satire". Following Boileau, who proclaimed in his Discourse on Satire (1668) the right to denounce mediocre authors, Russian satire becomes a means of literary struggle.

The creator of satire as a small poetic genre, focused on antique (Horace, Juvenal) and neoclassical (Boileau) samples, in Russia was A.D. Kantemir (1707-44). He wrote eight satires, in a handwritten collection (1743) provided with extensive notes and a general epigraph from Boileau's Poetic Art. Russian poetic satire, following Cantemir, mastered the basic techniques of Boileau's satires, which by that time were considered an absolute achievement: the form of a message with a characteristic appeal to the interlocutor, imitation of oral speech, and the dialogic form of constructing a text. Cantemir created not only a genre, but also a style of poetic satire, which became a reaction to the "unpleasant monotony" of the old syllabotonics. Imitating Latin verse, he developed a new poetic syntax, making extensive use of inversions and transfers; trying to bring the verse closer to a "simple conversation", he introduced colloquial speeches, proverbs and sayings. The new Russian literature adopted the genre created by Kantemir, but not his style. The genre of poetic satire acquired its canonical form in the work of Sumarokov. Theoretical views on the purpose of satire and its place in the hierarchy of genres of classicism are set forth by him in "two epistles": "On the Russian language" and "On poetry" (both 1747). His book "Satires" (1774) includes 10 invectives, each of which touches on one, indicated in the title, moral, philosophical or literary problem ("IV. About bad rhymers", "V. About bad judges", "VII. About honesty"). Sumarokov significantly enhances the comic beginning of satire, using parodies of high genres. The style of his satire approaches the epigram and pamphlet. Of the poetic sizes, he prefers iambic 6-foot, by analogy with the “Alexandrian verse” of French classic satire. After Kantemir and Sumarokov, a purposeful appeal to the genre of poetic satire is carried out in the work of I.I. Khemnitser (1745-84), who entered the history of literature as the author of fables, but also wrote satire (“Satire I. On bad judges”, “Satire II On the poor state of service ... "," Satire on bows "," Satire to himself "; during his lifetime they were not published). Since the late 1760s, poetic satire has been losing its former role, giving way to magazine, mostly prose, satire.

The tradition of satirical journalism in Russia was established by Sumarokov's The Hardworking Bee (1759), continued by publications of M.M. hers fell on 1769-74. In 1769, eight magazines appeared at once: “Vssakaaya sluchachina” by G.V. Kozitsky, “And this and that” by M.D. Chulkov, “Useful with pleasant” by I.F. Rumyantsev and I.A. L.I. Sichkareva, “Drone” by N.I. Novikov, “Hellish Post” by F.A. Emin, “Neither this nor that” by V.G. In 1770-74, new satirical publications appeared, among which Novikov's magazines "Pustomel" (1770), "Painter" (mid-1772 - mid-73), "Purse" (1774) stood out. The satirical journals of 1769-74 had an impact on the later work of D.I. By the end of the 18th century, satire, as a small poetic genre and a short magazine invective, moved to the periphery of the genre system. The boundaries of the concept of "satire" are gradually blurring; now it means not only the genre, but also a certain, accusatory, attitude of the author to the subject of the image, regardless of the genre orientation of the work (“satirical novel”, “satirical fable”, “satirical comedy”). With the penetration of the satirical tone into the dramatic and narrative genres (comedy, story, novel, travel), there is a transition to new boundaries of satire and satire, which finally ended in the 19th century. An example of satire in the broadest sense, which entered not only the history of literature, but also its living treasury, was Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" (1782). All of Fonvizin's work was associated with satire: the fable satire "Fox Kaznoday" (1761), translation (1761) of L. Holberg's "Fable of the Morale", "Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka" (mid-1760s), comedy "Foreman" (1769), the satirical cycle "Letters to Falaley" (1772). In The Undergrowth, he created a classic form of parenting comedy. Fonvizin's predecessor was Sumarokov, who created the first samples of satirical comedy, which were small farcical scenes united by a simple plot, usually dating back to the Italian comedy of masks. In the 18th century, the process of fictionalization of satire began (the work of the early Krylov). Krylov entered the history of literature as a fabulist, but began as the author of a comic opera (The Coffee House, 1783), and then satirical works in the journals he published Spirit Mail (1789), The Spectator (1792, together with A. I. Klushin, P.A. Plavilytsikov and I.A. Dmitrevsky) and "St. Petersburg Mercury" (1793, together with Klushin). Around 1798-1800, he created the "joke tragedy" "Podchipa, or Triumph", a grotesque parody of high tragedy with a characteristic mixture of book style with vernacular and elements of macaronic style (see Macaronic poetry). At the end of the 18th century, political satire began to take shape (“Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by A.N. Radishchev, 1790, anonymously).

In the 19th century, the history of satire splits into two independent lines: the history of satire as a genre and the history of satire as a certain, mainly negative attitude towards the depicted. The line of poetic satire gradually fades; its most notable examples are born in the context of literary controversy and have a distinctly parodic character (M.A. Dmitriev’s satires, in which, according to Gogol, “Juvenal’s bile was combined with some special Slavic good nature.” - “What, finally, , the essence of Russian poetry and what is its peculiarity”, 1846). Journal satire is gradually moving closer to the feuilleton, and by the end of the century it is being replaced by it. Elements of satire penetrate the works of various genres, especially intensively in the novel and drama; satirical attitude to the depicted reality becomes one of the main tools of the so-called literature of critical realism. However, the actual satirical laughter in the 19th century is reduced and is difficult to separate from other forms of comic, irony and humor (the work of A.P. Chekhov).

19th century satire in Russia

The most striking examples of satire in the 19th century are presented in the works of A.S. Griboyedov, N.V. Gogol, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, N.A. Nekrasov. The writer, in whose work the satirical vision of the world absolutely prevailed, was M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The satirical beginning in Gogol's works "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" (1831-32), "Mirgorod" (1835), "The Nose" (1836), "The Government Inspector" (1836), "Dead Souls" (1842) is connected both with the European satirical tradition (the influence of L. Stern and M. de Cervantes; the use of comic dialogues, elements of stupid and picaresque satire), and with folklore roots (ritual laughter, forms of folk satirical comedy: plots of farce actions, alogisms and absurdities of farce barkers). In the poems and poems of Nekrasov, the tradition of European song S. (P.J. Beranger, A.O. Barbier) is crossed with the national folk satirical tradition. In his poems, the method of satirical self-exposure of the depicted reality is most often used (“The Moneylender”, 1844; “ moral man", 1847). From the point of view of satirical technique, the poem “Who Lives Well in Russia” (1863-77) is noteworthy: it uses the traditional satirical “dispute” as a plot, framing plots are introduced into the main part, and in the finale a utopian image of future national happiness is created. A satirical attitude to reality pervades all the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin: "fairy tales", novels, short stories, essays, literary criticism. Grotesque, fantasy, self-disclosure of reality, satirical dialogues reach the pinnacle of their development with him. His first essay satire "Provincial Essays" (1856-57) ends with a funeral procession seeing off "past times". The very essence of the satirical relationship to time was expressed in the image of the funeral of the past: for the satirist, the present is completely decomposed into the past, which is “buried”, ridiculed, and the future, which is hoped for. Along with comic satire (“Tales”, 1882-86; “History of a City”, 1869-70), Saltykov-Shchedrin also has a serious satire (“Lord Golovlev”, 1875-80). The tradition of satirical journalism in the 19th century was continued by the newspaper of A.I. Herzen and N.P. 1864 together with N.A. Stepanov), "Whistle" (1859-63), a satirical supplement by N.A. Dobrolyubov and Nekrasov to Sovremennik.

Russian satire of the 20th century

The most notable phenomena of satire of the 20th century: satirical lyrics and plays by V.V. Mayakovsky, prose by M.A. Bulgakov, M.M. Zoshchenko, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, dramatic tales by E.L. The satire of the Soviet period is recognized by the sphere of ideology; according to the direction and nature of the denial, it breaks up into “external”, denouncing capitalist reality (“Black and White”, 1926, Mayakovsky), and “internal”, in which the denial of particular flaws is combined with a general affirmative principle. In parallel with official satire, there are humorous folklore genres (jokes, ditties) and satirical literature not allowed for publication. The unofficial satire is dominated by the grotesque, fantasy, the utopian and / or dystopian element is highly developed (Bulgakov's satirical utopias " dog's heart", 1925; "Fatal Eggs", 1925, continuing Gogol's and Shchedrin's traditions; dystopia by E.I. Zamyatin “We”, 1920).

In the satirical work of the writers of the first Russian emigration (A.T. Averchenko, Sasha Cherny, V.I. Goryansky), the genres of satirical story and feuilleton prevail. Relaunched in 1931 in the Parisian magazine Satirikon, a satire is presented on Soviet reality (Observations of an Intourist by Sasha Cherny) and on the mores of emigration (a series of cartoons “To Understand the Meaning of Russian Emigration”). The satirical beginning is present in the work of N.N. Evreinov (parody plays "The Evolution of Russian Drama", 1934; "Kozma Prutkov", 1935) and is integral part his theater theory.

The word satire comes from the Latin satira satura, which means mixture.

I. What is satire?

This topic interested us primarily because it is little studied, unusual, and also it is a continuation of our research work “Winged words and expressions in literary works". We set ourselves the following tasks:

Understand the subject of satire, its purpose;

Tell about the difference between a satirical image and a negative non-satiric one;

Tell about the features of the satirical conflict;

Find out what basic techniques the satirists use;

Prove that many satirical works are relevant in our time.

In the study of this topic, we relied on the works of N. V. Gogol,

M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A. P. Chekhov, V. V. Mayakovsky, and other writers. Our work can find many applications: in literature lessons, electives, lectures, circles. The topic is little studied, interesting and extensive, so we will continue to study it in the future. We started by clarifying the most important thing: what is the subject of satire?

The history of world literature testifies that laughter, and with it satire, humor flourishes especially rapidly in such periods when an obsolete social formation and its heroes become an anachronism, an outrage, a comedic-blatant contradiction to the popular ideals of the advanced forces of society.

Satirical genres have always been an integral part of folklore.

So what is satire? If we turn to reviews, literary and critical articles, we will see that there are a great many answers to this question.

Satire is defined as a genre

She is considered a point of view

It's called a typing method.

Recognized as a kind and type of art

Which of these answers is closest to the truth?

In ancient literature, one of the genres of lyrics was called satire, although in fact satire had already penetrated into the epic and drama. Since ancient times, it has been increasingly firmly established in various genres. Nevertheless, the term satire continued to be used for centuries in the same ancient sense. The classification adopted since the time of Aristotle, which recognized the division of literature into three poetic genres (epos, lyrics, drama), remained unshakable, and satire was considered (and still is considered by some) a genre of lyrics.

Even Belinsky, in his article “Division of Poetry into Genus and Types” (1841), adhered to the same classification. “Here,” he wrote about the lyrics, “besides the song itself, there are sonnets, stanzas, canzones, elegies, messages, satires, and, finally, all those diverse poems that are difficult to even call a special name.”

At the same time, the living experience of literature tirelessly prompted critics to rethink this long-obsolete classification. Belinsky, in particular, clearly felt that satirical art had long "knocked out" of the framework of one genre. In some articles of the 40s, the critic’s desire to consider satire as something much broader and more significant is especially clearly seen: he writes about the “satiric trend” in Russian literature, about the “satirical kind of poetry”, and so on and so forth.

Some critics call satire a "genus of literature". So, Y. Borev in the article “The System and Method of Aesthetics” writes: “Under the old Aristotelian principle of division, it is impossible to find a place for modern satire in the aesthetic system. It can only fit into the system of genres of literature, and only if the very basis for dividing literature into genres is changed. The combination of questions, what and how the artist imitates, is for Aristotle the basis of the generic division of literature into drama, epic and lyrics. It is clear that this usual principle of division is violated if satire is introduced into the number of literary genera. The type of literature is determined by the aesthetic scale in the light of which the writer takes reality. In other words, a literary genre is a type of aesthetic relationship in reality, gradually crystallized into a certain stable artistic structural form.

Indeed, satire has penetrated all kinds of literature. We also know satirical plays (“Bedbug” by V. V. Mayakovsky) and satirical poems (Kozma Prutkov) and satirical epic (N. V. Gogol, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. M. Zoshchenko and others). The basis proposed by Yu. Borev for dividing literature into poetic genera seems to be very promising. The only important thing is that this division should be firmly based on the experience of living literary development, and not on postulates put forward a priori.

II. Share of joke - share of truth.

1. What is the subject of satire?

As is known, the originality of this or that form of social consciousness, this or that form of reflection of reality is ultimately determined by the subject that this form is recognized to reflect. That is why the conversation about the originality of satire should begin with its subject.

The subject of art is the life of a person and the reality surrounding him in the richness and diversity of its manifestations, taken from the aesthetic side. Only literature and art as a whole can cognize and reflect this subject in its entirety - in the totality of their types, genera and genres.

As for certain types and types of art, then - within the framework of this single subject - they have their own objects of knowledge. Each of them is called upon to know more deeply and reflect a certain side of reality. But does satire have such a “own” subject, and if it does, what is its originality?

The first half of this question seems to be easy to answer. In fact, it is enough to recall and compare the satirical works known to us to make sure that satire has its own subject: it is negative in life, dead, inert; these are human vices and shortcomings; it is the evil that exists in the world.

Of course, the negative is depicted not only by satire, but by all literature, but one of the features of satire is that it focuses its primary attention on the negative, that exposing the rotten, dead is its main task. This is the meaning of its existence as a special kind of art. In satire, there must be an exposure of vices and shortcomings; satire cannot exist without this.

The subject of modern satire and satire of antiquity is basically the same. But over the millennia, satire has learned to know him deeper and deeper.

Already the ancient satirist denounced the vices, but these were often the vices of a particular person or group of persons.

In the era of classicism, the subject of denunciation was mainly certain characters, as "carriers" of certain vices. The most advanced and correct were the theories according to which evil, vices are phenomena of a purely moral order. This was the main achievement of the satire of classicism, the expansion and deepening of the subject of the satirical image, since it was about typical negative characters, about the generalization of certain phenomena of human psychology. The most prominent representative of this stage in the development of satire in Western European literature is Molière. In Russian literature, these are Kantemir, Sumarokov, Kapnist. They denounce ignorant nobles, "petimeters", bribe-taking officials, and the like. Criticism of them is sometimes quite sharp - as, for example, in Kapnist's Yabed - but still remains within the framework of the principle formulated in the same Yabed as follows:

The laws are holy

And the performers are dashing adversaries.

In realistic satire, its subject, finally, after a thousand-year period of evolution and development, appeared in all its breadth, versatility and in all its depth. The object of denunciation is no longer the vices of individuals or more or less large groups of "moral freaks", but the vices of the estate, class. It is no longer simply these or those negative characters that are depicted, but socio-psychological types. Thus, satire rose to a new, unprecedented level, acquired an even more clearly expressed social character.

Gogol spoke well about these features of realistic satire, characterizing such outstanding achievements of Russian satirical comedy as “Undergrowth” and “Woe from Wit”: “they can be called truly social comedies, and, as far as I think, such an expression has not yet been accepted by comedy from one of the nations. There are traces of social comedy among the ancient Greeks; but Aristophanes was guided by a more personal disposition, attacked the abuses of some one person and did not always have the truth in mind: proof of this is that he dared to ridicule Socrates. Our comedians were moved by a social cause, and not their own, they rebelled not against one person, but against a whole multitude of abuses, against the deviation of the whole society from the straight path. They made society, as it were, their own body; the fire of lyrical indignation ignited the merciless power of their mockery.

These wonderful words refer to the work of Gogol himself to a much greater extent. It was he who raised Russian satire to a new level. In general, it was in the 19th century that Russian satire achieved worldwide recognition.

1. 1. The originality of the subject of satire.

To say that the subject of satire has always been negative does not mean to fully clarify the originality of this subject.

How does the negative as an object of satire differ from the negative depicted by other types of art?

Negative in life, like any other phenomenon, has different sides. It can reveal different facets of its essence. It is in the most diverse connections and in relations with another negative, old, or with a new, emerging, positive.

With the new, emerging, it is in conflict. This contradiction is dramatic or even tragic. But this is only one side of the phenomenon. Along with the birth of this contradiction, another one matures - the internal contradiction of the phenomenon. As a result of its maturation and exposure, the discrepancy between its “form” and its true content is clearly visible, its comic essence is visible.

But here we have to make a small digression and say what the comic is. There are many different definitions of the comic, different interpretations of this concept. In this case, it is enough to emphasize that almost all interpreters of this problem agree on one thing: if we approach the comic in general philosophical terms, then its basis is always the contradiction between the form of a phenomenon and its content, between the goal and the means of achieving it, between appearance and essence. In the life around us, we constantly encounter various kinds of comic facts. All this is the simplest kind of comic, elementary comic. It lies on the surface, it is available to any person. There are many varieties of the elementary comic: the comic of appearance, the comic of position, the comic of movement, the comic of juxtaposition, the comic of result, and the like. Of course, all these varieties are closely related to each other and pass one into another.

Already elementary-comic is a manifestation of a certain kind of contradictions that exist in reality. But these are contradictions that do not have a clearly expressed social character. In addition to the elementary comic in reality, there is another kind of it - the socio-comic, which is also a manifestation of the contradictions of reality, but already public, social. It affects the deep processes taking place in human society. Socio-comic, in contrast to the elementary-comic, stable, long-term contradiction, natural. It is due not to external causes, but to the nature of the phenomenon, the fact. It is not so easily resolved, because it is an internal contradiction. In order for it to change, it is necessary to change the essence of this phenomenon, type.

Socio-comic has a different character:

Political (clearly shows that this phenomenon, this social type is something politically harmful. A vivid example is Saltykov-Shchedrin's History of a City);

Ethical (also reveals the moral (or rather, anti-moral) essence of a given social type, shows its moral failure. For example, Gogol's Dead Souls, Ilf and Petrov's The Twelve Chairs);

Aesthetic (testifies that we have an ugly phenomenon, and one that tries to look beautiful. For example, Gogol's "Inspector General").

Now we have to clarify the originality of the subject of satire. It turns out that it is not enough to say that the subject of satire is negative. It is also necessary to add - such a negative, which at the same time is socio-comic.

1. 2. Differences between humor and satire.

In the theory of literature, there has long been a dispute about what is the difference between a satirical work and a humorous one? Where does humor end and satire begin, and vice versa?

From what has been written above, we can conclude that the difference between a humorous work and a satirical one lies primarily in the fact that if the first displays mainly elementary comic, then in the second the subject of display becomes the socio-comic, which is the essence of this phenomenon or type. This, of course, does not mean that the elementary comic is not depicted in a satirical work. But the basis of satire, that without which it does not exist or ceases to be itself, is the socio-comic.

It would be wrong to present the matter as if only the old is the subject of satire. Negative, socially harmful, socially comic can also be something new, emerging. To prove this, it suffices to refer to the creative experience of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Among the satirical images of "Dead Souls", along with the gallery of landowners and officials, we meet Chichikov. Does he represent something old? On the contrary, he is a representative of the emerging bourgeoisie, a "knight" of private enterprise.

1. 3. Satirical images.

We have already found out the originality of the subject of satire - the image of the negative close-up. Negative characters are always the main characters here.

However, in itself the image of the old, dead, the presence of negative characters in the work does not mean that we have satire before us. What is the difference between a satirical image and a non-satiric one? How is criticism in satire different from criticism in other art forms. The answer is simple and short - in comedy. However, there are different opinions on this matter, so let's turn to examples. Let's see how the image of Manilov is built in the poem "Dead Souls" by N.V. Gogol.

For the first time Gogol mentions Manilov already in the first chapter. At a reception at the governor's, Chichikov met "a very courteous and courteous landowner Manilov", and not only met, but also charmed the latter.

“The landowner Manilov, not yet at all an elderly man, who had eyes as sweet as sugar, and screwed them up every time he laughed, was without memory of him. He shook his hand for a very long time and asked him convincingly to honor him by his arrival in the village, to which, according to him, there were only fifteen miles from the city outpost.

The second chapter is dedicated to Chichikov's trip to Manilov. It is significant that at the very beginning of it, Gogol considers it necessary to take advantage of the time while the characters are passing through the hallway, the hallway and the dining room, and say "something" about the owner of the house. From the very beginning, Gogol very clearly expresses his authorial attitude towards the hero. In satire, unlike epic and drama, the subjectivity of the image is visible. The satirist writer does not think to hide his emotions. On the contrary, he immediately and very clearly expresses a negative ideological and emotional assessment of the type depicted. It is also easy to see that this image is very definite: from the very first lines, the satirist emphasizes Manilov’s spinelessness, his beautiful soul, projecting, and so on. Further author's corrections only reinforce this assessment.

But maybe the feature we have indicated is inherent only in the image of Manilov, and not in the satirical image in general? Consider another example - the image of Molchalin from the work of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “In the Environment of Moderation and Accuracy”. Molchalin is known to us as the hero of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. S. Griboyedov. As we remember, Molchalin considered his main advantages "moderation and accuracy." Shchedrin transfers the already familiar literary hero to the present and shows who this prudent young man has become and what his “virtues” turned into. Chatsky at one time predicted that Molchalin would reach “known degrees, because now they love the dumb.” Saltykov draws just such a Molchalin - who made a successful bureaucratic career, but to this day does not dare to "have his own opinion." Aleksey Stepanovich is a diligent and accurate worker, an ideal inhabitant who does not stand out from the mass of ordinary people like him. Meanwhile, many bloody crimes are often committed by the hands of such dutiful obedient workers. How does Mikhail Evgrafovich feel about the hero? Here is what he writes:

“I once saw Molchalin, who, returning home with his hands stained with an unconscious crime, calmly began to cut a cabbage pie with these same hands.

Alexey Stepanovich! I exclaimed in horror. - Remember, because you have hands

I washed it, sir, - he answered me quite simply, finishing cutting the pie.

Grotesque (exaggeration). In some cases, this technique is characterized as a synonym for the distortion of reality, deviation from the truth of life, in others - the allocation of the essential features of the depicted object, their concentration and generalization.

Sharpening. This means that the writer brings every image and every detail to the maximum sharpness.

I would like to emphasize that the main techniques of satirical writers were given above, and if sharpening is used almost always to achieve a true satirical image, then the grotesque is not used everywhere, not all heroes exist in violation of life proportions and the real appearance of the phenomenon. It should also be noted that many satirical images are common nouns, and the names of the characters are used as a characteristic: Manilov, Korobochka, Derzhimorda, Iudushka Golovlev, Kolupaevs, Balalaykin, Pobedonosikov and many others.

But often, especially in small satirical genres - feuilleton, essay, poem - we meet with a different satirical image - an image of a particular phenomenon. For example, if you look into M. Koltsov's feuilleton "Praise of Modesty", we will see a generalized image of the phenomenon - "wherever you look, wherever you turn, whoever you listen to, no matter what anyone does - everyone does only the best in the world." Further, the author expands on this idea. He was interested in only one side of reality, the fact of arrogance and arrogance. He collected and compared these facts. And sometimes in such images-phenomena the means of satirical typification are much more clearly shown.

2. Features of the satirical conflict.

Almost every article and even review talks about the conflict - whether it exists or not, and if there is, it turns out whether it is significant enough, and if not, then the writer is reminded that there is no true art without conflict, that conflict must be everywhere , in every poetic genus and form.

From the above, we can conclude that satire, as a special kind of art, reveals not only the contradiction between the old and the new, but also another contradiction - between the external significance, "importance", "strength" of the old and its internal emptiness, worthlessness, failure. At the center of a satirical novel, satirical story or comedy is always a comic conflict. A comic contradiction is an internal contradiction between form and content.

So, in the "Inspector" reveals the contradiction between the position of officials and their internal failure. Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, Strawberry, Lyapkin-Tyapkin, Khlopov and other officials - they all stand at the head of the city government, they all personify the authorities. And now it turns out that these authorities, these "city governors" are bribe-takers and idlers who do not care about the population at all, but rob it, create arbitrariness and violence, covering them up with decent words.

2. 1. Plot conflict.

In order to reveal the comic conflict, in order to make it visual and clear for the reader, the satirical writer needs to think about the plot conflict as well.

Of course, these conflicts cannot be torn apart and set against each other. But it is necessary to distinguish between them.

The plot conflict is a form of revealing that real comic conflict that the satirist noticed in reality and reveals in his work.

If the above-mentioned originality of the satirical conflict (as an element of content) is universal and characteristic of all satirical works, then this cannot be said about the plot conflict. The forms of revealing comic life contradictions are extremely diverse. However, it is not only possible, but also necessary, to speak about the most common "types" of such a conflict, about some of its characteristic features.

In an epic or drama, the plot conflict, as a rule, is based on a comparison or even a direct collision of positive and negative characters. Of course, this terminology and this division are conditional. And yet, in this case, we run the risk of resorting to this "division", since it will help to clarify one important feature of the plot conflict in satire.

A satirical conflict is often built on a completely different principle, namely, on the collision of negative characters with negative ones. Such a construction, of course, is not accidental. After all, the purpose of satire is to reveal the inconsistency of the types depicted, and this inconsistency can be very well demonstrated when the old collides with the old, the negative with the negative. In this case, often there is a mutual exposure (or self-exposure) of satirical characters. This conflict reveals the comic essence of both.

This conflict was most common in the realistic satire of the 19th century. In The Inspector General, the main clash takes place between Khlestakov and city officials, headed by Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky; as a result, both city officials and Khlestakov are exposed. Although “formally” Khlestakov wins (because he leaves the city on time), in fact both sides are defeated.

Mayor. As for the internal order and what Andrei Ivanovich calls in his letter sins, I can’t say anything. Yes, and it is strange to say: there is no person who did not have any sins behind him. It is already so arranged by God himself, and the Voltairians speak against it in vain.

Ammos Fedorovich. What do you think, Anton Antonovich, sins? Sins sins - strife. I tell everyone openly that I take bribes, but why bribes? Greyhound puppies. This is a completely different matter.

The exposure of officials occurs at the very beginning and continues throughout the work. And here is how Khlestakov was exposed:

Postmaster. Amazing stuff, gentlemen! The official, whom we took for an auditor, was not an auditor.

All. Why not an auditor?

Postmaster. Not an auditor at all - I learned this from a letter

Mayor. What do you? what do you? from which letter?

Postmaster. Yes, from his own letter. They bring me a letter in the mail. I looked at the address - I see: "to Post Office Street." I was so dumbfounded. “Well,” I think to myself, “that’s right, I found the riots in the post office and notifies the authorities.” I took it and printed it.

Mayor. But how did you dare to print a letter from such an authorized person?

Postmaster. That's just the point, that he is not authorized and not a person!

Mayor (impatiently). Whatever? How dare you call him neither one nor the other, and even the devil knows what? I put you under arrest

Mayor (strikes himself on the forehead). How am I - no, how am I, you old fool? Survived, stupid sheep, out of my mind!. I have been in the service for thirty years; no merchant or contractor could hold; he deceived scammers over scammers, swindlers and rogues such that they are ready to rob the whole world, hooked on a hook. Three governors deceived!. What governors! (waved his hand) nothing to say about the governors

This is how the Governor reacts emotionally and fervently to Khlestakov's letter to his friend.

From what has been said, of course, it does not follow that the plot conflict in satire is always just that. Another kind of it is the clash between the old and the new, between the negative and the positive. This conflict reveals the comic essence of the old, the negative, its internal failure, its moral insignificance, its "stupidity" in comparison with the new, the positive. It is important to emphasize that this is certainly a comic conflict between the negative and the positive, that the struggle of the characters is comic. The plot conflict of this type is very common in satire. Examples of such works are: “Bath” by V. V. Mayakovsky, “The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik” by Yaroslav Hasek and many others.

I think it will be important to say about one more feature of the satirical conflict.

The plot conflict often does not coincide with the one that the author is going to reveal. Using the example of The Government Inspector, we have already seen that this is indeed the case: the plot conflict in them is Khlestakov's clash with city officials; he reveals another contradiction - a comic contradiction between the "claims" of the characters and their true essence.

In the same way, plot and internal conflicts do not coincide in satire even when positive characters collide with negative ones. The task of the satirist in this case will also be to reveal the inconsistency of the old, to show that his claims to significance are ridiculous, that is, to reveal the comic contradiction between what the old claims to be and what it really is.

That is why the struggle of the new with the old is not depicted in satire in all its volume and in all the complexity of life. That's why it's comical. That is why negative characters, as a rule, are revealed more thoroughly and completely.

This circumstance often confuses the satirists themselves. Meanwhile, there is nothing strange and even more "bad" in it. It is natural for satire. After all, the meaning of its existence lies in the creation of precisely negative images in the knowledge of the socio-comic in life.

In M. Gorky's pamphlet "One of the Kings of the Republic" there are only two characters - a millionaire and an author. Moreover, they do not fight with each other at all, but rather peacefully talk. One asks questions, the other answers.

If M. Gorky had thought of writing a work not satirical, but, so to speak, “ordinary”, he might also have depicted a conversation, but it would have had a completely different character. But Gorky had a satirical intention. It was important for him to ridicule capitalist entrepreneurship, to show the senselessness, the absurdity of this kind of activity. Based on this, he builds a plot conflict.

Are you a millionaire? I asked, not believing my eyes.

Oh yeah! He answered, nodding his head in conviction.

I pretended to believe him, and decided to immediately bring him to clean water.

How much meat can you eat for breakfast? I asked him a question.

I don't eat meat! he announced. - A slice of orange, an egg, a small cup of tea - that's all

His innocent eyes of a baby shone dully before me, like two large drops of muddy water, and I did not see a single spark of lies in them.

Good! I said in bewilderment. - But be sincere, tell me frankly - how many times a day do you eat?

Two! he answered calmly. “Breakfast and lunch is enough for me. For lunch, a bowl of soup, white meat and something sweet. Fruit. A cup of coffee. Cigar

My amazement grew at the speed of a gourd. He looked at me with the eyes of a saint. I took a breath and said:

But if it's true, what are you doing with your money?

Then he slightly raised his shoulders, his eyes moved in their sockets, and he answered:

I make more money with them.

To make more money

What for? I repeated.

He leaned towards me, resting his elbows on the arms of the chair, and with a touch of some curiosity asked:

You're crazy?

And you? I answered with a question.

This conversation is very indicative, because here one can clearly see the originality of that collision of the positive with the negative, which is characteristic of satire. The role of a positive character often does not consist in denouncing the enemy, stigmatizing, scourging, but in putting him in a position in which his comic essence would become obvious.

When we say that comic contradiction is at the center of the satirist's attention, it does not at all follow that he is only concerned with it.

A comic contradiction is an internal contradiction of a negative phenomenon, a contradiction of appearance with essence. But the negative is in conflict with the new, the progressive, with the interests of the people.

This contradiction is dramatic or tragic, depending on how strong the negative phenomenon is, how widespread and omnipotent it is.

In the "subtext" of satire often lies this dramatic, and sometimes tragic, contradiction between the new and the old. It seems that it is precisely in this originality, in this "duality" of the satirical conflict that the key to that combination of the tragic and the comic in satire, which Belinsky pointed out in his time, lies. He wrote that “Dead Souls” is “the contemplation of this sphere of life through laughter visible to the world and invisible, unknown to him tears”, and added: “this is the tragic meaning of Gogol’s comic work”

These words of Belinsky are not accidental and refer not only to Dead Souls. In one of his letters, the critic develops this idea: in his opinion, Gogol's books "prove that he is as much a tragedian as a comedian that one or the other rarely appears in a separate work, but more often merges with both."

Tragic and comic are very well manifested in the works

The true essence of an exploitative society, when its upper strata live off the labor of the people, is shown here with truly classical clarity. Two generals who suddenly find themselves on a desert island appear to the reader as pitiful, helpless, unable even to feed themselves. They wander around the island, they see that there are many different fruits on the trees, fish in the river, and hazel grouses, hares and other living creatures in the forest, but they cannot get food for themselves and are only amazed that “human food, in its original form, flies, swims and grows on trees. Until now, they thought, “that rolls will be born in the same form as they are served with coffee in the morning!”

Hungry, frenzied, the generals are ready to literally eat each other. But then they get the idea to find a man. He, of course, will serve them a loaf, and catch hazel grouse and fish. The generals really find a peasant, and he gets them food, and then builds a boat, on which he delivers them home to St. Petersburg.

In fact, the same problem is posed in the fairy tale "The Wild Landowner". Only the situation is based on the exact opposite. If the generals, finding themselves in a distressed situation, strive to find a peasant, then the landowner dreams, on the contrary, of getting rid of the peasants. It seems to him that these "loafers" eat him up, rob him and generally interfere with his life. And what? One day, the dream of a landowner comes true: all over the space of his possessions, the peasants suddenly disappeared. Every single one! At first the landowner rejoices at this circumstance; however, it soon becomes clear that without a peasant, without a working person, everything around has fallen into disrepair, and the landowner himself is overgrown with hair from head to toe, has lost the ability to utter articulate sounds and has become like a wild beast.

Tragic motives are contained in many of Shchedrin's works, but they are given in the subtext of satire.

The same can be said about the work of a number of other classical satirists, in particular Gogol. After all, the motive of the dramatic, even tragic situation of those who are under the control of Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, Lyapkin-Tyapkin, Strawberry and the like, is very clearly heard in the same "Inspector General". Remember at least the words of Strawberry:

O! about healing, Christian Ivanovich and I took our measures: the closer to nature, the better. A simple man: if he dies, then he will die anyway; if he recovers, he will recover anyway. Since I took over, it may even seem incredible that everyone is getting better like flies.

The duality of the satirical conflict naturally entails in such cases the duality of the perception of satirical works: the reader or viewer perceives both their comic side (“laughter visible to the world”) and tragic (“invisible, unknown tears”). One cannot separate one of these sides from the other and oppose them.

3. Features of the plot.

Comic controversy is usually found in covert and invisible to the naked eye. But sometimes such circumstances are created, such situations arise when this contradiction becomes visible and the negative "head over heels" betrays itself, reveals its comicality. Such circumstances, situations are called comic. It is the comic situation that, as a rule, underlies the plot of a satirical work. This is its main feature.

In the previous chapter, it was said that a plot conflict of the type is very common in satire and is characteristic of it - the negative collides with the negative. The “grain” of such a collision is a comical situation, and often very unusual, very rare, sometimes just a kind of incident.

This circumstance sometimes confuses not only readers, but also critics and researchers. Is it possible to build a whole work, especially a large genre - a story, a novel, a comedy, on the fact of "single", "accidental", "atypical". Is it possible to elevate an incident, an "anecdote" into a generalization? And if this is still permissible, then can such plots be considered characteristic of satire?

If we take a closer look at the plots of Gogol's famous works, we will understand that they are just deeply organic for satire.

It can be seen from Gogol's letters that he attached great importance to the plot. More than once it happened with him that the “material” for a satirical work was already “ripe”, but there was no suitable plot, and the absence of it stops the matter. At such moments, the writer persistently searched for that comic situation, that “incident”, “joke” that could form the basis of the plot.

So, in October 1835, he turned to Pushkin with a request: “Do yourself a favour, give some kind of plot, at least some kind of funny or not funny, but a purely Russian anecdote. The hand is trembling to write a comedy in the meantime. ”And further:“ Do me a favor, give me a plot, the spirit will be a comedy of five acts, and I swear it will be funnier than the devil.

As you know, in response to this request, Pushkin really told Gogol an “anecdote”, which formed the basis of the plot of the immortal “Inspector General”.

No less brilliant find for the satirist was the plot of "Dead Souls", which was also suggested to Gogol by Pushkin. Gogol immediately realized what a magnificent, capacious, capacious plot it was and how suitable it was for a satirical canvas. The buying and selling of dead souls is a case, it is an anecdote, but it helped to reveal the absurdity and comicality of the entire existing device. That is why Gogol grabbed it with such joy.

An inexhaustible source of comic situations is life. Being in constant motion, change, development, it now and then gives rise to the most unforeseen, most unusual, most exceptional situations that clearly expose some kind of real comic contradiction.

It is in life that the satirist often finds those comic situations, those incidents and anecdotes that become the framework of his works. But, of course, the satirist does not just “photograph” these situations. He creatively recreates them, sharpens them. This is where the enormous, active role of the writer's imagination manifests itself.

First of all, it is important to have some kind of capacious situation, which would constitute the “framework” of the plot. Shchedrin was a brilliant inventor of such plots. About one of them he wrote: “I doubt that a satirical pen could find for itself a story more grateful and more inexhaustible, like “Russians Abroad”. It's all about food." And then the writer makes a small sketch, a note, where in the course of writing he creates pointed comic situations.

3. 1. "Accidents are not accidental"

Developing the main situation into a detailed plot, the writer strives to saturate it as much as possible with more private comic situations. Here, too, he is looking for incidents, funny twists, scenes, and so on and so forth. At the same time, he is not at all embarrassed that some of them look like accidents. The fact is that the element of chance is used in satire much more widely than in other types and types of art: one can even say that it is characteristic of a satirical plot.

Khlestakov accidentally lingered in a district town, from which you can’t jump anywhere for at least three years. By chance he was mistaken for an auditor and so on.

But these are not at all the accidents of which there are a lot. In satire, accidents are a kind of impetus, a starting point for identifying a certain life pattern. In order to more sharply reveal the illogicality, the absurdity of this pattern, they usually use randomness, and not everyday, but exceptional

Khlestakov was indeed accidentally mistaken for an auditor; but this accident could happen only in a society built on an ingrained system of servility, bribery, sycophancy to higher authorities, and the like. Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky tell the mayor:

“This, he says, is a young man from St. Petersburg, and by his last name, he says, Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlestakov, sir, but he goes, he says, to the Saratov province and, he says, he certifies himself in a strange way: he lives another week, does not go from the tavern, takes everything into the account and does not want to pay a penny"

"Eh! - said Peter Ivanovich and I. “And why should he sit here when the road to him lies in the Saratov province?” Yes, sir. But he is the official.

Mayor. Who, what official?

Bobchinsky. The official about whom they deigned to receive a notification is the auditor.

It is noteworthy that Khlestakov is not at all going to deceive the mayor and the officials around him. He is not a swindler. He does not pretend to be an auditor at all. If he pretended to be an auditor and deliberately swindled officials, he would be an ordinary, albeit successful, swindler, and this accident would not have acquired the degree of significance to which Gogol raised it.

Various surprises, surprises, misunderstandings, and the like are also widely used in satirical plots.

Satire is designed to tear off the veils of significance from the heroes, to show their true value, to “lower” them. And so, in order to successfully solve this problem, writers often build a plot in such a way that the struggle between the characters starts and unfolds over absolutely insignificant things. This creates wonderful opportunities for the emergence of a mass of comic situations, for debunking the "significance" of the characters depicted and their actions.

An interesting kind of satirical plot is the struggle-competition of negative characters. In such cases, both characters usually pursue the same goal and the action unfolds in parallel.

A good example of this kind of plot is the first novel by Ilf and Petrov, The Twelve Chairs.

Ippolit Matveyevich Vorobyaninov and Father Fyodor almost simultaneously learn from a dying aunt about a treasure hidden in a dining set.

Hippolyte,” she whispered distinctly, “sit down beside me. I have to tell you

Ippolit Matveyevich sat down with displeasure, peering into his mother-in-law's thin mustachioed face. He tried to smile and say something reassuring. But the smile turned out to be wild, and there were no encouraging words at all. From Ippolit Matveyevich's throat only an awkward beep escaped.

Hippolyte, - the mother-in-law repeated, - do you remember our living room set?

Which? Ippolit Matveyevich asked with a courtesy that is possible only for very sick people.

The one upholstered in English chintz

Oh, is it in my house?

Yes, in Stargorod

I remember, I remember very well The sofa, a dozen chairs and a round table with six legs. The furniture was excellent, Gambsian. Why did you remember?

Here Klavdia Ivanovna said in a wooden, indifferent voice:

I sewed diamonds into the seat of the chair.

Ippolit Matveyevich glanced at the old woman.

What kind of diamonds? he asked mechanically, but immediately caught himself. “Weren’t they taken away then, during the search?”

I hid the diamonds in the chair,” the old woman repeated stubbornly.

But the actions of Father Fedor:

Having confessed the dying Claudia Ivanovna, the priest of the Church of Florus and Laurus, Father Fyodor Vostrikov, left Vorobyaninov's house in full excitement and walked all the way to his apartment, absently looking around and smiling embarrassedly. By the end of the road, his absent-mindedness reached such an extent that he almost fell under the State Executive Committee's car. No. 1. Having got out of the violet fog cast by the infernal machine, Vostrikov's father became completely upset and, despite the venerable Sar and his middle years, made the rest of the way at a frivolous gallop.

Another type of plot is very typical for satire - the journey, the adventures of the protagonist. This type of plot is found in many wonderful works of satirical literature: Gulliver's Travels by J. Swift, One-Story America by Ilf and Petrov, Hasek's The Good Soldier Schweik and many others. This plot promotes entertainment, as well as freedom of narration; it allows the writer to shift the action from one place to another, to push the leading character against any characters and types.

An essential feature of the plot in satire is that the negative characters are in a stupid position; and not by the author's arbitrariness, but by his own "fault". For example, Ostap Bender. Despite his cunning, resourcefulness, ingenuity, he appears before us as a stupid and weak social type, because he is guided by false principles.

Emphasizing once again that the main "link" of a satirical plot should be a funny situation, it should be noted that it is by no means any, but only one in which a real comic contradiction is manifested, which is in the satirist's field of vision.

When looking for a comic situation, one should also not forget that this situation must correspond to the characters of the characters depicted, “flow” from these characters and express them. Otherwise, it will turn from a means of satirical typification into an end in itself.

4. Means of satirical typification.

Satire does not have any special means of typification inherent only in it and found in other poetic genera. She uses, in particular, such artistic means as the plot, the portrait, the language of the characters, and so on. She makes extensive use of "general" poetic tropes, that is, metaphors, epithets, similes, and many others.

At the same time, if we compare these “identical” means, we will understand that they are far from being identical. In the previous chapter, we have already seen this in the example of a satirical plot. Here we will try to show what is the originality of the portrait, psychological analysis and language of characters in satire.

Let's turn to the satirical canvas and see how Sobakevich is described in Gogol's "Dead Souls":

When Chichikov glanced askance at Sobakevich, this time he seemed to him very much like a medium-sized bear. To complete the resemblance, his tailcoat was completely bear-colored, the sleeves were long, the pantaloons were long, he stepped with his feet and at random and stepped incessantly on other people's legs. The complexion was red-hot, hot, which happens on a copper penny. It is known that there are many such faces in the world over the decoration of which nature was not wise for long, did not use any small tools, somehow: files, gimlets and other things, but she simply chopped it from the whole shoulder: she grabbed it with an ax once - her nose came out, she grabbed it in another - her lips came out, she poked her eyes with a large drill and, without scraping, let it into the light, saying: “he lives! ". Sobakevich had the same strong and marvelously stitched image: he held him more downwards than upwards, did not turn his neck at all, and, due to such a non-rotation, rarely looked at the one with whom he spoke, but always either at the corner of the stove, or on the door. Chichikov glanced sideways at him once more as they passed the dining-room: a bear! perfect bear!

There can be no question of uncertainty, inconsistency, objectivity. Here everything is clear and clear from the very first words. The satirical portrait, as we see, differs significantly from the epic one not only in its certainty, clarity of assessments, greater correlation of certain details of appearance, demeanor - with the essence of the characters depicted, but also - above all - pronounced comicism: it is full of funny details, comparisons and so on.

4. 1. The spool is small, but expensive.

Laughter is a living, emotional reaction of a person to something specific, and therefore the role of details in satire is especially great. “It is impossible to cause laughter with the help of general provisions,” Stendhal wrote, “in order to be funny, in order to cause laughter, details are needed.”

One should not think that “comic” details are necessarily something special, funny “in itself”. Not at all. In fact, almost every object, every thing, almost any facial expression or movement, in short, any detail can become comical, being "applied" in the appropriate situation, in a definite correlation with the characters and other details. Let's say a cocked hat case. By itself, it's not funny at all. But in Gogol's Inspector General, hurrying to the tavern where the "inspector" is staying, in a hurry, instead of a cocked hat, he puts a case on his head, and this detail causes laughter.

Of course, the satirist is primarily interested in essential comic details, socially significant details. However, this does not mean that all comic details in a satirical work necessarily have the deepest ideological meaning, reveal the essence of a negative character, and so on. Many of them only contribute to the creation and maintenance of a comic atmosphere.

4. 2. By no means alien psychologism.

In literary criticism, criticism, one can often come across the assertion that psychologism is alien to satire. The essence is the same: satire is a “rough” art, penetration into the “depths” of psychology is beyond its power.

Numerous real facts irrefutably prove that this is not so. Deep penetration into psychology and revealing it is one of the important means of creating a full-blooded satirical image.

True, psychological analysis in satire is not identical to psychological analysis in lyrics or epic, it has its own characteristics. The attention of the satirist is attracted primarily not by individual psychology, but by social psychology. It is easy to be convinced of this if we recall at least Chekhov's small masterpieces, such as "Thick and thin", "Death of an official", "Chameleon". These extremely short stories are based on showing the psychology of the characters portrayed.

At the station of the Nikolaev railway, two people meet - a fat one and a thin one. It turns out, friends, childhood friends. A casual exchange of remarks begins: “My dear! How many winters, how many years! - "My dear!. That's not expected! Here's a surprise! The remarks develop into live friendly chatter. Everything goes very nice, until it turns out that the rank of fat is much higher than the rank of thin.

And here the laws of social psychology immediately come into force: the appearance of the subtle changes instantly.

The thin one suddenly turned pale, petrified, but soon his face twisted in all directions with the broadest smile; it seemed that sparks were falling from the face and eyes. He himself shrank, hunched, narrowed His suitcases, bundles and cartons shrank, grimaced

I, Your Excellency Very pleased, sir! A friend, one might say, of childhood, and suddenly turned out to be such grandees, sir! Hee hee s!

Individual psychology is rich, complex, changeable. It is determined not only by character, but also by a variety of circumstances and therefore is very fluid. Social psychology is more stable. Sometimes it is something ossified. Ossified does not mean flat, automatic. This psychology is very mobile, flexible, resourceful. In satirical works, the author's attention is focused on revealing the comedy of very stable patterns of social psychology, generated and supported by the existing socio-political order. At the same time, the satirist can use for his own purposes techniques similar to those of a psychological novel, but their function will be somewhat different: not only to show the emptiness, worthlessness, limitedness of the inner world of the characters, but also to ridicule them. And yet, in satire, psychological analysis in the literal sense of the word is relatively rarely used, that is, a detailed description of the internal movements of the hero's psyche. Much more often, manifestations of this psyche are shown outside: those actions of people are drawn, those conversations and remarks are reproduced in which the psychology of these persons is revealed with the greatest clarity. It is in a deep knowledge of the psychology of certain social groups, strata, types that the initial situation of a satirical work and its further plot development are based. How could Gogol have created The Inspector General if he had not understood so deeply the subtlest strings of psychology of the Druznik-Dmukhanov, Khlestakov, Lyapkin-Tyapkin and the like? Each replica of the heroes, each of their actions organically follows from psychological movements and prerequisites and expresses the characteristic features of the psychology of bureaucracy.

4. 3. "My tongue is my enemy."

One of the most effective means of typing in satire is the speech of characters.

Let's start with an example that has become a textbook. Chichikov comes to Manilov. The guest and the hosts have a sweet, exquisitely polite conversation.

How do you feel about our city? Manilova said. - Did you have a good time there?

A very good city, a beautiful city, - answered Chichikov, - and he spent a very pleasant time: the society is most courteous.

How did you find our governor? Manilova said.

Is it not true that the most honorable and most amiable person? added Manilov.

Absolutely true, - said Chichikov: - a most respectable person. And how he entered his position, how he understands it! Wish there were more people like this

And the lieutenant governor, isn't it, what a nice man? said Manilov, screwing up his eyes somewhat again.

A very, very worthy man," answered Chichikov.

Well, excuse me, how did the police chief seem to you? Isn't it true that a very nice person?

Extremely pleasant, and what a smart, what a well-read person! We lost whist with him, together with the prosecutor and the chairman of the chamber, to the very late cocks! A very, very worthy person!

For this, they did not let the chairman of the chamber, the postmaster, and thus went through almost all the officials of the city, who all turned out to be the most worthy people.

Lovely soul, the ability to be fascinated by everything and everyone, sentimentality, touching lisping, a claim to "secularism" and sophistication - these features are clearly manifested in Manilov's remarks and his questions.

Chichikov's answers, sustained in the same touchingly panegyric tone, testify to his resourcefulness and ability to adapt to his interlocutor, reveal one of the most important features of his character.

But the conversation between Chichikov and Manilov does not end there. Here they are left alone and Chichikov begins a conversation, which is the purpose of his visit.

How long ago did you deign to submit a revision tale?

Yes, a long time ago; Or rather, I don't remember.

How many peasants have died since that time?

But I can’t know, about this, I suppose, you need to ask the clerk.

The clerk appears and we are no longer witnessing a dialogue, but a kind of trio in which Manilov plays the most unenviable role. The main party, as before, is led by Chichikov.

Listen, dear! How many peasants have died since the revision was filed?

Yes, how much? Many have died since then, - said the clerk, and at the same time he hiccupped, covering his mouth slightly with his hand like a shield.

Yes, I confess, I myself thought so, - Manilov picked up, - it was very many who died! - Here he turned to Chichikov and added more: - Exactly, very many.

How about a number, for example? Chichikov asked.

Yes, how many? Manilov picked up.

How to say number? After all, it is not known how many died, no one counted them.

Yes, exactly, - said Manilov, turning to Chichikov, - I also assumed a high mortality; it is not known how many died.

You, please, re-read them, - said Chichikov, - and make a detailed register of everyone by name.

Yes, all by name, - said Manilov.

If the previous brief conversation revealed some of the essential traits of Manilov's character, then this conversation reveals his essence: complete isolation from reality. Manilov is completely unaware of the true state of affairs in his economy. And although he strives to pretend to be a “knowledgeable” person, the comic nature of his claims immediately becomes obvious - his remarks are completely empty and meaningless.

The speech of the characters in satire is aimed at the comic sharpening of images. It, as a rule, consists of such phrases and expressions that immediately clearly reveal certain aspects of the character, directly compared with the essence of the depicted types.

This will be especially clearly seen if we cite another conversation between Chichikov - this time with Sobakevich.

We are talking, as in the above conversation with Manilov, about city officials. And it is precisely this "repetition" of the theme that makes it possible to shade the contrast in the character of Sobakevich and Manilov, which is expressed in the contrast of their speech.

We remembered you at the chairman of the chamber, at Ivan Grigorievich's, - Chichikov said at last, seeing that no one was in the mood to start a conversation, - last Thursday. We had a very pleasant time there.

Yes, I wasn't at the chairman's office at the time," answered Sobakevich.

And a wonderful person!

Who it? said Sobakevich, looking at the corner of the stove.

Chairman.

Well, maybe that's how it seemed to you: he's just a Freemason, but such a fool as the world hasn't produced.

Chichikov was a little taken aback by this somewhat harsh definition, but then, having recovered himself, he continued:

Of course, every person is not without weaknesses, but what an excellent person the governor is!

Is the governor an excellent man?

Yes, isn't it?

The first robber in the world!

Sobakevich's language, like Manilov's, is directly correlated with his character and very sharply, frankly expresses this character. He is very stern, even rude and straightforward. Sobakevich's remarks, his assessments of city officials - all this continues and develops what was said about Sobakevich by the author. The hero's direct speech reveals from within those qualities that have so far been reported by other means: through a portrait, an author's characterization, and so on.

Gogol very skillfully exposes the comic contradictions in the speech of the characters, and it turns out that for these characters their own speech is no less deadly than the author's characteristics. Here one can truly say that their language is their enemy. Each of their phrases, each remark, each question brilliantly reveals their insignificant and ridiculous essence.

The comic expressiveness of the speech of the characters is achieved in a variety of ways. Satirists widely use alogism, dialogue-misunderstanding, verbal confusion and the like.

Many words in the language have two or more meanings. Satirists also use this feature to achieve comedy: their heroes use the same word in different meanings. On a similar reception, for example, the beginning of the second act of "The Bath" is held - a conversation between Optimistenko and petitioners.

Petitioner. I beg you, Comrade Secretary, tie it up, please tie it up!

Optimistenko. It's possible. Linking and reconciling - it is possible. Each issue can be linked and agreed upon. Do you have an attitude?

Petitioner. There is an attitude such an attitude that does not give a direct pass. Cursing and fighting, fighting and cursing.

Optimistenko. Who is this, the question does not give you a pass?

Petitioner. Yes, not a question, but Pashka Tigrolapov.

Optimistenko. I'm sorry, citizen, how can Pashka be tied together?

Petitioner. That's right, it can't be tied to one. But two or three of us, if you order, they will tie him up and tie him up. I ask you, comrade, tie up this hooligan. The whole apartment moans from him

Successfully found, expressive comic detail of speech often becomes not only the main, but, in essence, the only (moreover, quite sufficient) means of creating a satirical image.

5. The right to exaggeration, fantasy, conventionality.

Satirical typification can be carried out in various ways. One of them is the sharpening of the image in the form of lifelikeness. However, satirical sharpening is often carried out in a different form - in the form of exaggeration, fantasy, conventionality.

But before talking about these forms of typification, it should be noted that readers sometimes mistake the most ordinary satirical sharpening for an exaggeration.

In Mayakovsky's Bathhouse, the typist Underton dares to tell Pobedonosikov about the absurdity in his article:

Excuse me, comrade Pobedonosikov. You wrote about the tram there, but here, for some reason, Leo Tolstoy was let into the tram on the go. As far as one can understand, there is some kind of violation of the literary tram rules.

Pobedonosikov boils up:

What? What tram? Yes, yes With these constant greetings and speeches I will ask without remarks during working hours! For self-criticism, we have a wall newspaper.

The last words are sometimes perceived by readers as an exaggeration: well, what kind of bureaucrat, they say, would express himself so frankly.

In Shchedrin's "History of a City" there is a chapter called "Organchik". It tells about how the new mayor Dementy Varlamovich Brodasty arrived in the city of Foolov; how he arranged the reception, silently walked around the ranks of the assembled officials, flashed his eyes and said: “I will not tolerate it!”; how then, having locked himself in his office, he didn’t eat, didn’t drink, and kept scratching something with a pen, from time to time he ran out into the hall, threw a pile of written sheets to the clerk, said: “I won’t stand it!” and disappeared back into the office.

Unheard-of activity suddenly began to boil in all parts of the city; private bailiffs galloped; the watchmen forgot what it means to eat, and since then they have acquired the pernicious habit of grabbing pieces on the fly. They seize and catch, whip and flog, describe and sell And the mayor sits and scrapes out more and more urges

And Brodysty would have remained for many years the shepherd of this heliport, and would have rejoiced the hearts of the chiefs with his diligence, and the townsfolk would not have felt anything extraordinary in their existence, if not for a completely accidental circumstance (a simple oversight) did not stop his activities in the midst.

Last year, in the winter - I don’t remember what date and month - I was woken up in the night, I went, accompanied by a tenth policeman, to the mayor Dementy Varlamovich, and, having come, I found him sitting and with his head first in one, then in another side measuredly shaking. Lost my mind with fear and, moreover, being burdened with alcoholic drinks, I stood silent at the threshold, when suddenly the mayor beckoned me with his hand to him and handed me a piece of paper. On a piece of paper I read: "do not be surprised, but fix the spoiled." After that, the mayor took off his own head and handed it to me. Looking closer at the box in front of me, I found that it contained pieces of music in one corner. There were two of these plays: "I'll tear you apart!" and "I will not stand it!". But since the head became somewhat damp on the road, some of the pins loosened on the roller, while others completely fell out. From this very fact, the mayor could not speak clearly, or they spoke with the omission of letters and syllables. just say: w-wow!

This time we have a completely obvious exaggeration: people with an organ in their heads so far (fortunately!) do not exist. However, after the empty mayor’s head was discovered, the superintendent of the public school was called in and asked him a question: were there examples in history when people ordered, waged wars and concluded treaties, having an empty vessel on their shoulders?

The superintendent thought for a minute and answered that much in history is shrouded in darkness; but that there was, however, a certain Charles the Innocent, who had on his shoulders, although not empty, but still, as it were, an empty vessel, and waged wars and concluded treatises.

Already in these words of the superintendent there is some substantiation of the method used by Shchedrin. If there were and still are people who have, as it were, an empty vessel on their shoulders, then why not go a little further and depict a ruler who actually has an empty vessel instead of a head?

Literary and political opponents of Shchedrin, referring to the fact that "life does not happen like that," accused the writer of distorting reality. Answering the reviewer, who was outraged by the "organ", the satirist emphasized the realistic nature of his exaggeration. But why take it so literally? After all, it’s not the point that Brodystoy had an organ in his head, playing romances: “I won’t stand it!” and “I’ll rip it apart!”, but in the fact that there are people whose entire existence is exhausted by these two romances.

5. 1. Truth and plausibility are not the same thing.

Unfortunately, many people confuse such concepts as "truth" and "plausibility". Very often they are identified. Meanwhile, this should never be done.

Plausibility - the external similarity of things, the correspondence of the forms of the image to real life forms.

Truth is the revelation of the essence of things, the correspondence of the meaning of the image to the real meaning of life.

These seemingly simple things are not understood by other readers, and even by reviewers. They take exaggeration as a literary form for "exaggeration" of the content, and on this basis they reproach satirists for untruthfulness, for distorting reality.

In Pompadours and Pompadours, Shchedrin, as if anticipating such reproaches, considered it necessary to make a special "theoretical" digression and explain some of his creative principles. “I know,” he noted, “after reading my story, the reader will reproach me for exaggeration. Obviously, the reader puts in the foreground the form of the story, and not its essence, which he calls an exaggeration that, in essence, there is only an allegory that, finally, chasing the everyday, tangible reality, he loses sight of another, just as real reality, which, although it rarely comes out, has no less right to recognition, like the most rude, eye-catching concreteness.

5. 2. Satirical exaggeration.

When it comes to satirical exaggeration, they usually use such terms as hyperbole, grotesque, fantasy. But the trouble is - all these words are often used in the same sense - as a synonym for exaggeration, although these are completely different concepts.

Hyperbole (from the Greek "hyperbolē" - transition, preponderance, exaggeration) is an exaggeration of any real features of an object. There is hyperbole in various genres and types of literature; however, it was in satire that it became most widespread.

Grotesque (from the French "grotesque" - funny, funny, out of the ordinary) - an exaggeration of appearance features, character traits, actions in order to reveal their comedy and absurdity, expressed in a combination that does not occur in reality. That is, the grotesque is an artificial construction, an artificial combination in one object, phenomenon, event of qualities that are actually incompatible.

When Khlestakov says: - “They see, there is nothing to do - come to me. And at that very moment, couriers, couriers, couriers, you can imagine thirty-five thousand couriers alone!” - then this is hyperbole, since here the number of couriers that actually exist in the world is exaggerated.

If we now return to the story of the "organ", it is clear that this is also a typical grotesque.

Resorting to hyperbole, the satirist does not go beyond a certain range of reality, beyond the limits of that vital plane to which the depicted phenomenon belongs. In other words, the hyperbolization of images is only a partial violation of plausibility, it is a deviation from the plausibility of the quantitative - within the framework of the plausibility of the qualitative.

There is an episode in "The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals" when the hungry generals are ready to eat each other.

Shreds flew, there was a screech and a gasp; the general, who was a calligraphy teacher, bit off an order from his comrade and immediately swallowed it.

In the original version, he bit off the “finger”, then instead of the finger, the “end of the ear” appeared. In all three versions, Shchedrin resorts to exaggeration - and in this sense they are similar. But the nature of the exaggeration in the final version is fundamentally different than in the first two. This is grotesque.

Exaggeration as a form of typification can be used in all satirical genres. In this sense, it is general and universal. At the same time, there are genres that are based on this principle. For example, the genre of parody.

In close connection with the grotesque is another means of satirical typification - fantasy. In order to better, more clearly reveal the comic essence of the phenomenon being denounced, the satirist comes up with a situation that cannot be in real life, a fantastic situation. By placing the hero in this fictional situation, the author forces him to act in accordance with his way of thinking and character, his habits and skills. Thus, the real, true qualities of the depicted social type are revealed with the greatest acuteness.

Many writers of both past and present resort to fantasy as a means of satirical typification. An example is the story "The Nose" by N.V. Gogol.

On the 25th of March an extraordinarily strange incident happened in Petersburg.

Having cut the bread into two halves, he [Ivan Yakovlevich] looked into the middle and, to his surprise, saw something whitish. Ivan Yakovlevich poked carefully with his knife and felt it with his finger. “Dense! - he said to himself, - what would it be?

He put his fingers in and pulled out - his nose!. Ivan Yakovlevich lowered his hands; He began to rub his eyes and feel: his nose, like a nose! It also seemed like someone he knew. Horror was portrayed in the face of Ivan Yakovlevich. But Ivan Yakovlevich was neither alive nor dead. He learned that this nose was none other than collegiate assessor Kovalyov, whom he shaved every Wednesday and Sunday.

Gogol was outraged by the order based on servility and servility to superiors, and he resorted to a completely fantastic situation, for it was precisely this that helped to clearly demonstrate the comic and absurdity of such orders. An official trembling in front of his own nose, which turned out to be in the rank of state councilor - what could be funnier? Is it possible after this to take Kovalev "seriously", although he is trying to restore his shattered reputation? Is it possible not to doubt the legitimacy of the official hierarchy, if such a high rank wears a nose?

In satirical works, fantasy is not a departure from the present, but a form of criticism of this present, this reality.

Fiction in satire often merges with various forms and conventions. Sometimes it is even difficult to determine exactly what kind of detail is in front of you - fantastic or conditional? Conditional forms, as you know, are quite widespread in art. In satire, they occupy a considerable place; there are writers who prefer them to all others. Conditional forms are very capacious. They "accommodate" very broad social generalizations. Sometimes these forms are used not only for the greatest sharpening of images, but also for allegorical purposes. Aesopian language, satirical allegory without these forms would be impossible.

In no case should satire be reduced to any one means of typification - plausibility or exaggeration. Satire is characterized by both ways of satirical typification, and to deprive it of any one of them means to impoverish the genre.

6. Satirical styles.

A conversation about the main features of the artistic originality of satire will be incomplete, if not to say about its style.

What are the features of satirical styles? What are satirical styles? And what is it in general - the style of a literary work?

The last question is the hardest to answer. We will briefly outline the understanding of style that we consider the most correct.

The writer's creative work consists of observation, selection of facts, their generalization, that is, typification. Typification is a way of depicting life, a way of generalizing and individualizing an image. Style is its verbal embodiment. It is determined both by the object of the image, and by the ideological and emotional attitude towards the depicted subject of creativity, the writer. A significant role in style formation is also played by the originality of the idea, the artistic task set by the author. At the heart of the same style is one or another intonation of live speech.

Talking about how the style is born, Veniamin Kaverin wrote: “Speaking of the “transformations of the plan”, I did not mention that recording the future content of some chapters is often not limited to a dry list of actions and conversations of characters. Often there is an initial outline of what is going on and an outline of what is being said.

It is from these semi-random "plan notes" that the style originates.

It would be very difficult for me to explain how this happens. Probably, if I judged someone else's method, I would try to explain it this way: the desire to convey live speech in a certain way organizes work on style.

Speech intonation (live speech) is replaced in prose by a number of characteristic features of style that determine both the author's stylistic position and the individual speech of the characters.

Of course, V. Kaverin's story primarily reflects his personal creative experience. But it also contains remarks that reveal the general patterns of the creative process. It is speech intonation that organizes work on style. This also applies to the style of a satirical work.

In nature, there is the greatest variety of human intonations. The intonations of the great satirical writers are strikingly varied. Each truly great, original artist has his own intonation, his own style. Nevertheless, among all this diversity, several main types of intonations can be distinguished, which determine the features of various satirical styles. These forms are: humor, irony, wit, sarcasm.

Humor is such a comparison of things, details, objects, in which the comicality of the depicted is revealed. Let's take an example. Chichikov gets to the governor's ball, the author describes those present:

The men here, as elsewhere, were of two kinds: some were thin, who kept winding around the ladies; some of them were of such a kind that it was difficult to distinguish them from St. and made the ladies laugh just as in St. Petersburg. Another kind of men were fat or the same as Chichikov, that is, not so fat, but not thin either. These, on the contrary, squinted and backed away from the ladies and looked only around to see if the governor's servant had set up a green table for whist somewhere. Their faces were full and round, some even had warts, some were pockmarked, they did not wear hair on their heads either in tufts or curls, or in the manner of “damn me”, as the French say, - their hair were either low-cut or slick, and the features were more rounded and strong. They were honorary officials in the city. Alas! fat people know how to handle their affairs better in this world than thin ones. \ thin ones serve more on special assignments, or are only listed and wag back and forth; their existence is somehow too easy, airy and completely unreliable. The thick ones never occupy indirect places, but all are direct, and if they sit somewhere, they will sit securely and firmly, so that the place will rather crack and bend under them, and they will not fly off.

In the above passage, the comedy arises from the fact that men are divided into “two kinds” and are compared not by intelligence, not by education, but by complexion, ovals of faces and attitude towards ladies. This comedy intensifies when it turns out that it is the complexion that is the key to the “reliability” or “unreliability” of the very existence of people, determines their place in life.

Humorous intonation - calm intonation. The author does not throw witticisms at the depicted phenomenon and does not seem to express any feelings at all: we have before us an objective, "epic" narrative, "impartially" stating the facts. But the facts, the details are chosen in such a way, turned in such a "sideways" that the comic inherent in them is revealed "by itself", without any effort on the part of the narrator. This is achieved in addition to the appropriate comparison of facts by the selection of epithets, metaphors, comparisons and other artistic and visual means (the existence of thin ones is “too light, airy”, thick ones “never occupy indirect places, but all are direct”). The figurative fabric is built on the author's intonation.

6. 2. Irony.

Another form of satirical ridicule, different from humor, is irony - a positive presentation, enthusiastic in form and mocking in essence; immoderate praise of what really deserves blame and is blamed.

Before us is "The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich."

Glorious bekesha at Ivan Ivanovich! excellent! And what embarrassment! Fu you an abyss, what taunts! gray with frost! I bet god knows what if anyone has one! Take a look, for God's sake, at them - especially if he starts talking to someone - look from the side: what kind of overeating is this! It is impossible to describe: velvet! silver! the fire! Oh my God! Nicholas the miracle worker, the saint of God! why don't I have such a bekeshi!.

Wonderful man Ivan Ivanovich! What a house he has in Mirgorod! Around it on all sides is a canopy on oak pillars, under the canopy there are benches everywhere. Ivan Ivanovich, when it gets too hot, will throw off both his bekesha and underwear, he himself will remain in one shirt and rest under a canopy and look at what is happening in the yard and on the street. What apple and pear trees he has right under his windows! Open only the window - so the branches break into the room. It's all in front of the house; and see what's in his garden! What is not there! Plums, cherries, sweet cherries, all sorts of vegetable gardens, sunflowers, cucumbers, melons, pods, even a threshing floor and a forge.

Wonderful man Ivan Ivanovich!.

As you can see, the author speaks of Ivan Ivanovich in terms of the highest degree of enthusiasm. But no one takes these expressions at face value, because before us is ironic praise. What is irony expressed in? How to distinguish it from real praise? In a work of art, ironic intonation is expressed in the structure of phrases, in a certain “injection” of praise, in the contradiction between exorbitant enthusiasm and the real basis from which these enthusiasm emerge. Ivan Ivanovich is repeatedly called "a wonderful person"! On what basis? Why? Firstly, because he has an excellent backing. Secondly, because he good house and garden. The reader is well aware that these grounds are clearly insufficient for genuine praise of a person; he feels the irony of the author, he is aware of it. But how is the hero exposed, because in the above passage there is not a single critical word addressed to him? The effectiveness, the effectiveness of irony, lies precisely in the fact that the hero is incredibly praised for something that is not a real dignity. Thus, it is emphasized that the depicted character has no real merits.

Irony is an extremely common form of ridicule. It becomes truly indispensable in the conditions of totalitarian regimes, which prohibit criticism of the existing order. It is very difficult to find fault with a satirist who uses irony, because formally he does not criticize anything, but, on the contrary, praises.

6. 3. Wit.

A very common form of satirical ridicule is also wit.

Wit is a judgment of the author, narrator, hero about this or that phenomenon, fact, and the like, it is some kind of unexpected comparison that reveals the comic meaning of what is being discussed. It is always the activity of the “creative” mind. This is also a calculation on the activity of the mind of the perceiver. The sharpness must be able to understand, because its meaning often does not lie on the surface. It would be wrong to somehow break or oppose humor and wit, because their nature is ultimately one. But at the same time, they should still be distinguished. The following thought of Mark Twain will help to understand the difference between them: “Wit and humor - if there is a difference between them, then only in time: this is lightning and electric light. Both are obviously from the same material, but wit is a bright, instantaneous and not safe flash, while humor is naughty and enjoys plot twists. That is, wit, wit is always instantaneous (very short, concise, often aphoristic), unexpected, immediately hitting the target comparison; it is a statement that captures the essence of the comic contradiction. The work, written in a witty manner, consists, as it were, of “two” fabrics: the usual verbal and pictorial fabric is torn, punctuated by instant flashes of wit. A striking example of such works are the creations of Kozma Prutkov.

Drinking the fragrant juice of a flower,

The bee gives us honey in return;

Though your forehead is an empty barrel

But still you are not Diogenes.

(Epigram No. III)

6. 4. Sarcasm.

Finally, it should be said about another form of satirical ridicule - sarcasm. Sarcasm is an extreme degree of irony or wit, when bitterness, anger, poison are mixed with laughter. Such ridicule carries anger, hatred and is an emotion of unusually strong concentration. Sarcasm usually occurs when it comes to a phenomenon that is not only comical, but also very harmful. The satirist no longer restrains the feelings that have gripped him, he brings down their power on what constitutes the object of denunciation, he seeks to hit the enemy with an energetic, massive blow. Many (if not all) works of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin are filled with sarcasm.

6. 5. The need to feel the language subtly.

Of course, the style of this or that satirical writer and even this or that satirical work does not at all boil down to any one of these forms of ridicule. As a living speech, it is rich in various shades and intonations. There can be no restrictions, no established proportions.

In Ilya Ilf's notebook, one can find the following sketch: “In defense of a pedestrian. Pedestrians must be loved. Magazine "Pedestrian". Various variations on this theme follow. Finally, all these notes become the basis for the beginning of a new novel: The Golden Calf. And the phrase that we gave as an example becomes the first phrase of the novel.

Intonation underlies the style, defines it. But it does not exist by itself, but by language. It manifests itself in the construction of phrases, in the nature of the selection of words and their combination, in the rhythm of the narration, and so on and so forth. In short, the style of a work is formed through various linguistic means.

Hence the conclusion follows: every writer needs to know and understand the language well. As for the satirist writer, in addition to this “general” duty, he also has another one: he must subtly feel the language not only from the point of view of lexical, syntactic and the like, but also from the point of view of its comic possibilities.

The words themselves are rarely funny. A phrase is a combination of words. It opens up much greater possibilities for revealing comic contradictions. In a satirical work, the phrase should be funny. One or another negative phenomenon can sometimes be exposed, ridiculed with one phrase. Satirists do not hesitate to publish special collections of such finds. The most successful of these finds become satirical aphorisms, begin an independent life. As a rule, the satirist carefully collects various language preparations for future works.

Once A.P. Chekhov rightly remarked: “You know, first of all, you can judge a beginning writer by his language. If the author does not have a "syllable", he will never be a writer. If there is a syllable, its own language, it is not hopeless as a writer. Then you can talk about other aspects of his writings. What Chekhov said applies to satirists as well. It is by style (in Chekhov's terminology - "syllable") that we can first of all determine whether we really have a satire or a miserable fake for it.

III. "So that satire is real satire"

Laughter is an extremely sharp and powerful weapon. That is why you need to handle it very thoughtfully and skillfully. A satirist, like no other writer, must have a clear, accurate vision and understanding of reality.

In our work, we analyzed many satirical works - mainly "Dead Souls" and "Inspector General" by N.V. Gogol, some works by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin ("History of a City", fairy tales), "Twelve Chairs" by Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov, "Bath" by V. V. Mayakovsky.

The research topic seemed very interesting to us, subsequently our interest only intensified, we intend to continue studying this topic.

What conclusions can we draw?

Firstly, a satirist writer must understand and feel the language well from different angles, including the comic one.

Secondly, we learned what means satirists use to achieve their goal.

Thirdly, we believe that many satirical works are relevant in our time. As in our previous work (“Winged words and expressions in literary works”), we can say that society has changed little since the times of Gogol, Saltykov-Shchedrin and other writers. And since the subject of our study is relevant, it means that the topic is relevant.

Fourthly, we found out what is the peculiarity of the satirical conflict, the images of the work of this genre, what satirical styles exist and what are their features.

We think that in our work we coped with the tasks set, and also showed the huge role of satirical works in our life, which we sometimes do not even think about.

SATIRE- kind of comic ( see "Aesthetics"), which differs from other types (humor, irony) by the sharpness of the denunciation. Satire at its inception was a certain lyrical genre. It was a poem, often significant in volume, the content of which contained a mockery of certain persons or events. Satire as a genre originated in Roman literature. The very word "satire" comes from the Latin name of mythical creatures, mocking demigods, half animals - satyrs. Philologically, it is also connected with the word satura, which in the common people meant a dish of hodgepodge, which indicated a mixture of different sizes (Saturn verse, along with Greek sizes) and the presence in satire of a wide variety of descriptions of various facts and phenomena, unlike other lyrical genres that had strictly limited and defined area of ​​the image. Roman satire gave its highest examples in the works of Horace, Persius, and especially Juvenal.

Over time, satire has lost its significance as a certain genre, as happened with other classical genres (elegy, idyllic, etc.). Incriminating mockery has become the main feature of satire, defining its main essence. Satire fulfilled this purpose with the help of various literary forms and genres. True, whenever the forms of ancient literature were revived in literature, the old genre satire was also partially revived. So it was, for example. in Russian literature the second half of XVIII century, when the classical form of S. was used by Kantemir, Sumarokov, and others. But at the same time, satirical comedy and satirical magazines with their feuilletons, cartoons, stories, etc., also existed.

Comic is at the heart of satire, regardless of genre. Laughter is always a huge means of social influence. “... In all morality there is no medicine more real, more powerful than exposing the seemingly ridiculous” ( Lessing, Hamburg Dramaturgy, Sobr. sochin., vol. V, p. 76, ed. Wolf, 1904).

"Wild Landowner", M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin

The social functions of the comic determine its form: humorous, satirical and ironic. The social function of laughter and satire lies in the effective struggle against the comically depicted object. This is the difference between satire and humor and irony. It differs from all forms of comic satire by its activity, strong-willed orientation and purposefulness. Laughter always contains negation. Along with laughter in satire, therefore, indignation and indignation are no less strong. Sometimes they are so strong that they almost drown out the funny, push it into the background. The weakness of the comic element in satire gave rise to some researchers to assert that satire can completely do without comic tricks, that it can expose the insignificant and hostile only by its indignation. But indignation in itself, with the greatest strength and tension, does not create satire. So, Lermontov's "Duma" and "On the Death of Pushkin" with all their pathos of protest and indignation are not satra. Elements of laughter and indignation can be combined in different ways in satire. But satire cannot be built outside the comic. Denying the comic as a necessary method of constructing satire, we will come to identify satire with criticism, with negation in general. The exposure of the Russian autocracy and bureaucracy can be expressed in terms of satire (Saltykov-Shchedrin) and in terms of direct criticism and denial (L. N. Tolstoy). Mayakovsky satirically denounced the philistinism and the bourgeoisie, Gorky also denounced the philistinism and the bourgeoisie, but in terms of direct denial.

The specificity of satire is not that it reveals negative, harmful or shameful phenomena, but that it always does this by means of a special comic law, where indignation is unity with comic exposure, the exposed is shown as normal, in order to then discover through the ridiculous that this is the norm - only an appearance that obscures evil. This is confirmed by the whole history of satire. It is enough to name such names as Rabelais, Beaumarchais, Voltaire, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin. Therefore, the classical division of satire into "laughing" and "pathetic", which Schiller makes in his article "On Naive and Sentimental Comedy", has no sufficient basis.

Satire on the enemy is, firstly, a denial of the entire socio-political system. This type of satire was created by the world's greatest satirists, who in different eras gave brilliant examples of criticism and denial of the social reality of their era. Rabelais, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin - each with their own individual characteristics created this particular type of satire.

In the history of satire, we repeatedly meet with the second type of satire, when the satirist calls for the correction of individual vices, and not for the destruction of the system that gave rise to these vices. This satire is mainly directed at everyday life, customs, cultural skills and customs. Molière criticized his rising class. The image of "The Tradesman in the Nobility", which covers a number of similar Molière images ("Georges Danden", "The Funny Cossacks") is constructed in such a way that, for all its shortcomings, it is funny, but not negative. The shortcomings of these characters must be dealt with, but they can be corrected. In the same plan, Figaro is given by Beaumarchais. The comedy associated with this image does not lead to its denial. Such is Fonvizin, who sought to put forward the ignorant patriarchal nobility in place - a Europeanized, cultural nobility.

The main types of satire differ not only in their material and the nature of the writer's attitude to this material. One can observe completely different forms of constructing satire. Bourgeois aesthetics and the history of literature have repeatedly spoken about the tendentiousness of satire, about the fact that satire is a semi-artistic, semi-journalistic genre. Satire is “a borderline type of work of art”, because in it “visual-contemplative liveliness” is combined with “non-aesthetic goals” ( Jonas Cohn, General Aesthetics). Unfortunately, such views also penetrated into our Soviet criticism (see the preface to the Satir collection in the Academia publishing house, article by Piksanova in the Saltykov-Shchedrin goslitizdat one-volume edition, where a misunderstanding of the specifics of the form turns a great satirist into a talented essayist) .

Meanwhile, the forms of satirical works are extremely peculiar. We should talk not only about the degree of artistry of satire, but also about its artistic originality.

If we turn to the type of satire that is built on the denial of the social system, we will see that the work of the great satirists - Rabelais, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin - separated from each other by time and space, so different in their socio-political genesis, represents a great closeness of form. The main feature of this type of satire is that everything depicted in it is given in terms of complete negation. The positive ideological attitudes of the author, in the name of which this denial takes place, are not given in the work itself. Their essence is clear from the comic revelation of the insignificance of what is depicted. Hence the often encountered vulgar assertion that satirists of this type do not have a positive ideal.

Such satire is usually built on grotesque hyperbolism, which turns reality into fantasy. Rabelais tells about extraordinary giants, about the colossal accessories of their life, about their fantastic adventures, about sausages and sausages coming to life, about pilgrims traveling in the mouth of Gargantua. Swift fantastically shifts all human concepts, confronting his hero in turn with midgets and giants, talks about a flying island, etc. Saltykov-Shchedrin depicts a mayor with a clockwork mechanism in his head, always uttering the same two phrases, etc.

Often they tried to find explanations for hyperbolism and fantasy in the need for the writer to speak Aesopian language. But of course this is not the main thing. Strengthening the comic to the degree of the grotesque, giving it the form of an incredible, fantastic, the satirist thereby reveals its absurdity, its uncertainty, its contradiction with reality.

The realistic-grotesque fantasy of satirists, as the basis of their style, determines a number of separate techniques. The most important of these are that the fantastic is given with an exact and very extensive enumeration of naturalistic details (Rabelais) or even an accurate measurement of its dimensions (Swift).

The desire for a comprehensive realistic critique of the social order determined the very genre of this type of satire. The great satirical writers, who used their gift to expose a hostile social and political system, made the novel their main genre. The form of the novel made it possible to cover a wide range of reality. At the same time, the usual form of the novel, in connection with its satirical function, received its own characteristics as a form of a satirical novel. A satirical novel is not bound by a specific plot. The plot here is just a canvas on which everything that serves to depict and expose one or another side of life is strung. The satirist does not limit himself to the number of actors, just as he is not obliged to follow their fate to the end.

This determines the special construction of character images and their significance in the overall composition of this kind of satirical work. Not understanding this originality, Hornfeld, for example. believes that “a type in satire is not so much a living poetic image as a schematic image, devoid of individualizing details that give such vitality and charm to the creations of humor ... a mighty preponderance of social and ethical interests over aesthetic ones makes him (satirist - S. N.) lyrics and suppresses in him the creator of objective types.

There is a clear misunderstanding of the methods of satire here. The satirist, no less than any other artist, is capable of artistic embodiment of the reality he reflects. Suffice it to recall the images of the Epicurean philosopher Panurge in Rabelais or Judas Golovlev in Saltykov-Shchedrin. But this individualization and typification is achieved by other means than in humor - not through the psychological development of the image, but through large generalizations on which satire is built and which make it possible in each character, taken in a very small period of place and time, to catch the socially typical . But that is precisely why the socially typical does not become a scheme, it is embodied in artistically convincing individualized life images.

Follow us on telegram

The absence of a solid plot allows the satirist not to be constrained by the requirements for the development of a single action, because the compositional movement of satire is determined by the requirements of the location of the system of criticism that the author seeks to give in his satire, and not by the requirements of the compositional development of a single plot intrigue. This is not taken into account by theorists who, not understanding the originality of the satirical form, speak of the compositional precariousness and vagueness of satire as one of its main sins against artistry. The universalism of criticism in a satirical novel determines the need to use the most diverse material. The satirical novel uses comic characters, situations, dialogues and words in equal measure. This is the difference between this type of satire and other types.

This vast, mostly nameless, satirical literature, or the literature of forgotten writers, is extremely varied in various countries depending on the specific conditions of the struggle of the emerging young bourgeoisie, a self-conscious third estate, is crowned in France with a brilliant grotesque Rabelais (cm.) "Gargantua and Pantagruel" - a genuine satirical encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. But as the first round of the struggles of the young bourgeoisie against feudalism ended, as Catholic reaction triumphed and feudalism, after a series of there was only criticism of the particular shortcomings of the system (Scarron's Comic Novel, 1651; Grimmelshausen's Simplicissimus, 1668, etc.). This satire opposes imitation of the foreign, against the oblivion of the German foundations of life (Lauremberg, 1590-1658; Mosheros, 1601-1669), against the savagery and coarsening of morals brought by the Thirty Years' War (Grimmelshausen, Mosheros). The revival of the classical form of Roman satire as a lyric poem (Rachel) dates back to this time, which in French literature flourished by the end of the 16th century. ( Vire, "Satyres chrestiennes de la cuisine", du Verdier, "Les omonymes, satire contre les mœur corrompues de ce siècle").

The satire of negation again begins to loudly declare itself when the third estate in the 18th century. began to prepare for a decisive battle with feudalism.

Of course, even in the era of the triumph of Catholic reaction and absolutism, the third estate did not abandon the weapon of satire. Suffice it to recall Molière, the first classic of the French bourgeoisie, who created such masterpieces of satire as "Tartuffe" and "The Philistine in the Nobility."

However, the flourishing of bourgeois satire occurs only in the 18th century. Satire also captured adjacent ideological areas, penetrating into journalism and sociology. So, for Montesquieu, his "Persian Letters" were a form of political exposing of the arbitrariness and lawlessness of French absolutism and opposing it to the English system of parliamentary power. Bourgeois Enlightenment of the 18th century. because he used satire so widely that the task of the Enlightenment was to fight the feudal system in the name of the triumph of the bourgeois. It is quite natural that the classic of the French S. XVIII century. became one of the greatest enlighteners of France - Voltaire (cm.). His "virgin of Orleans", his "Candide", his pamphlets are masterpieces of satirical denial and explosion of all the shrines of feudal Catholic society, ridicule of the foundations on which this society has rested for centuries. Satire crushing exposure of the church merged another central motif of Voltaire's satire - the struggle against the arbitrariness of the absolute monarchy. Voltaire was the highest expression of the satirical denial of the feudal world among the French Enlightenment. But his arrival was prepared and continued by numerous satirists, forgotten or unknown. The masterpieces of French satire are Rameau's Nephew Diderot (cm.) and trilogy Beaumarchais (cm.).

The influence of the extremely strong and politically pointed French satire was reflected in the satire of the Enlightenment in Germany. But these are only echoes of the strong political excitement of the neighboring country. German absolutism was strong, but the German bourgeoisie was only in its infancy and did not muster its forces to fight against it. Therefore, German satire, devoid of political sharpness, acquires a moralizing, moralizing character. It is directed against a false lawyer, an insignificant scientist, against the striving of the middle class for titles. Its best representatives are Lichtenberg, Rabener and Liskov.

In the same era, satire flourished in England. But in England, satire was associated with the struggle of the aristocracy against firmly established bourgeois relations. Already in the second half of the XVII century. Dryden acted as an ardent defender of the aristocracy and a denunciator of bourgeois narrow-mindedness and bourgeois virtue. Along with a satire on the life and customs of the bourgeoisie, he gives sharply satirical sketches of the political opponents of the aristocracy. The most significant monuments of English satire in the XVIII century. created by aristocratic writers: Pop (cm.),swift (cm.Sheridan (cm.) "School of slander". Gulliver's Travels is a masterpiece of English satire. Swift's satire has little to do with religion, which is the main target for the satire of the French Enlightenment. The aristocratic nature of satire is sharply manifested in the desire to humiliate and ridicule all legislators and social reformers who thought "to teach monarchs the knowledge of their true interests, which are based on the interests of their peoples." Swift's skepticism about the possible transformations of social reality is associated with his deepest misanthropy. His criticism was supposed to reveal not only the relativity of all human institutions, but also the relativity of human personality. But the positive value of Swift's satire is in the artistic sharpness of its anti-bourgeois character.

The anti-bourgeois satirical line continued in English literature Byron (cm.). Satiric motifs distinguished themselves in his work with exceptional sharpness, aimed both at exposing the deceit and holiness of the aristocracy, and the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of the bourgeoisie.

Satire faded after the French bourgeois revolution of the late 18th century, when the problems of destroying the feudal system hostile to the bourgeois order were basically resolved. We now find strong elements of satire only in the work of opposition democratic writers, primarily in beranger (cm.). Cowardice and betrayal of the bourgeoisie after the July days exposed Barbier (cm.) in his "Yambas" and "Satires", V. Hugo (cm.) in his political lyrics (in "Châtiments"). The most striking manifestation of the satire of the XIX century. is political lyrics Heine, (cm.), directed against feudalism that has not been eradicated in Germany, against the cowardly German bourgeoisie (“The Winter's Tale”), the defense of satire in lyric poetry also by Herweg and Freiligrath.

Bourgeois satire by the end of the 19th century. gradually turns into skepticism and irony. Here it sometimes reaches great acuteness (A. France, Jean Giraudoux, and many others), but never again plays such an enormous world-historical role as it played in the days when it was imbued with the pathos of the struggle against the feudal order. We find strong elements of satire towards the end of the 19th century and at the beginning. XX centuries in English literature Bernard Shaw (cm.). His satire. directed against capitalism, the clergy, the bourgeoisie. But the half-hearted nature of their rejection of the bourgeois system deprives them of that revolutionary boldness, without which their satire turns into only talented wit.

Russian satire is poorer than Western European. In the West, satire developed during the centuries-long struggle of the third estate with the old order. In Russia, satire, indignant and scourging, reaches its heights when the ideologists of revolutionary democracy (Saltykov-Shchedrin, Nekrasov) appeared on the stage of Russian history.

In previous eras, satire also more than once became the dominant genre in Russian literature - let us recall the heyday of Russian satire in the second half of the 18th century. But this satire, in the extremely apt expression of Dobrolyubov, "tried to reduce, not to exterminate evil." Not to mention the abundant satirical journalism in which the ruling elites were directly involved (“There were also fables”, “All sorts of things”, “This and that”, “Neither this nor that”, “Day work”, “Useful with pleasant ”, “Mixture”, “Drone”), even Novikov’s publications (“Parnassian Scribbler”, “Evenings”, “Painter”, “Purse”), satires by Kantemir, Sumarokov, Fonvizin’s comedies passed over in silence such blatant phenomena as, for example, serfdom right. A sharp contrast to satire of this type are the satirical revealing paintings of Radishchev's Travels from St. Petersburg to Moscow.

Griboyedov (cm.) in his comedy branded the Molchalins and the Skalozubs. Gogol satirically showed the "dead souls" of landlord Russia. And contrary to Gogol's subjective tendencies, his satire had a profoundly revolutionary significance. The gentry (Griboyedov, Gogol), which objectively played a huge revolutionary role, was replaced by revolutionary democratic satire, containing a resolute denial of the feudal-serf, tsarist-bureaucratic system, no less resolute criticism of predatory Russian capitalism and the cowardice of the liberal bourgeoisie. This satire is fundamentally different from the noble satire, which came not from denial, but from self-criticism. Gogol, for example. strove all his life to create positive images and was dissatisfied with his comic characters. Saltykov (cm.) in them he found the deepest expression of his ideological and artistic ideas. Saltykov gives complete decomposition, comprehensively shows the worthlessness, and most importantly, the harmfulness of his Judas Golovlev. His best works - the brilliant grotesques "Lord Golovlyov", "The History of a City" and "Pompadours and Pompadourses" - are extraordinary in their strength and accuracy of exposing autocracy, bureaucratic stupidity and stupidity, feudal barbarism and tyranny, liberal complacency. In the immortal image of Judas Golovlev, Shchedrin gave a great symbol of the degeneration of the entire system.

We also find strong satirical elements in the work of the great poet of revolutionary democracy Nekrasov (cm.) (“Reflections at the front door”, “Poor and elegant”, “Contemporaries”, etc.). Against the new enemy of the working people, predatory capital and the kulaks, the satire is directed Ch. Uspensky (cm.) (“Morals of Rasteryaeva Street”). A new flowering of satire after the years of reaction is associated with the revolution of 1905. During the years 1905-1908, a huge number of satirical magazines appeared, mostly liberal-democratic. But in the same years, proletarian satire was already being created, satirical workers' magazines, the direct successor of which was the initiator of proletarian satire Demyan Bedny, and S. Bolshevik newspapers Zvezda and Pravda. Proletarian satire reaches its heights in the work of M. Gorky.

Soviet proletarian satire differs from the satire of the capitalist classes not only in its subject matter. It represents significant qualitative modifications. In a proprietary society, satire was either a denial of the entire social system as a whole or a criticism of certain aspects of this system. Soviet satire is directed primarily against class-hostile reality, against its direct class enemy, who opposes the Soviet socialist system. When Soviet satire is directed at the shortcomings of its class reality, it reveals these shortcomings as alien class stratifications, as the result of a different, hostile social system, for these shortcomings are not created by the socialist society that is being built, but by the inexhaustible consciousness of the owner. M. Koltsov sharply formulates the meaning of Soviet satire: “Is satire possible, the nature of which is dissatisfaction with the existing, an angry or bilious attitude towards the existing reality in a country where there is no exploitation and where socialism is being built? Yes, it is possible. With the blade of satire, the Soviet writer fights against the baseness of sycophancy, ignorance and stupidity.

"Twelve Chairs", Ilf and Petrov

The working class is the last in the history of classes, and it will be the last to laugh” (Speech at the International Congress of Writers). Proletarian satire is aimed not only at criticizing its shortcomings. It exposes, above all, the hostile capitalist system. It is only from proletarian positions that a true satire on the capitalist system is now possible. The bourgeois satirist does not know the recipes for improving and correcting his system and cannot reconcile himself to its complete rejection. This makes his satire half-hearted, deprives it of sharpness and effectiveness. Only by going over to proletarian positions can he give a comprehensive satirical critique. Soviet satire is busy exposing shortcomings in its own ranks. On this path, she managed to conquer a number of very diverse genres: satire fables by D. Poor, Mayakovsky’s satires, short stories by Zoshchenko and great satirical novels by Ilf and Petrov, essays and feuilletons by M. Koltsov, comedies by Bezymensky (“The Shot”), Kirshon (“ A wonderful alloy"), Konstantin Finn. This introduction of satire into almost all genres, this variety of satirical forms, in itself proves how necessary and relevant Soviet satire is.

Bibliography:Theory:Lehmann R., Satire und Humor, in his book. "Poetik", 2 Aufl., München, 1919; Wiegand J., Satire; Rehm W., Satirischer Roman, in Vol. Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturgeschichte, Bd. III, Berlin, 1928-1929. General works :Hannay J.,

Lectures on satire and satirists, L., 1854; Soldini E., Breve storia della satira, Cremona, 1891; Schneegans H., Geschichte der grotesken Satire, Strassb., 1894. antique satire:Fraenkel E., Das Reifen der horazischen Satire, on Sat. "Festschrift für R. Reitzenstein", Lpz., 1931. Italian satire:Cian V., La satira italiana, Milano, 1924. English satire:Cranstone G., ed., Satirical poems of the time of Reformation, 2 vv., Edinb., 1891-1833 (texts); Alden R. M., The rise of formal satire in England under classical influence, Philadelphia, 1899; hazlitt W., Lectures on the English comic writers, L., 1900; Tucker S. M., Verse satire in England before the Renaissance, N. Y., 1909; Previté-Orton C. W., Political satire in English poetry, N. Y., 1910; Russell F. T., Satire in the Victorian novel, N. Y., 1920; walker H., English satire and satirists, L., 1925; Cazamian L., The development of English humor, N. Y., 1930. German satire:Flogel K. F., Geschichte des Grotesk-Komischen, neubearb. v. F. W. Ebeling, Lpz., 1862; Same, neubearb. v. M. Bauer, 2 Bde, Munich, 1914; ebeling F. W., Geschichte der komischen Literatur in Deutschland seit der Mitte des XVIII Jahrhunderts, 3 Bde, Lpz., 1862-1869; Schade O., Satiren und Pasquine aus der Reformationszeit, 2 Bde, 2 Aufl., Hannover, 1863; Geiger L., Deutsche Satiriker der XVI Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1878; glass M., Klassische und romantische Satire, Stuttg., 1905; Klamroth H., Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Traumsatire im XVII u. XVIII Jh., Diss., Bonn, 1912; Satirische Bibliothek, Quellen u. Urkunden zur Geschichte der deutschen satire, hrsgb. v. O. Mausser, Bd. I-II, Munich, 1913; Wiegand J., Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung in Strenger Systematik… dargestellt, Köln, 1922. French satire:Lenient C., La satire en France au Moyen-Âge, P., 1859; his own, La Satire en France ou la littérature militante au XVI-e siècle, P., 1866; Gottschalk W., Die humoristische Gestalt in der französischen Literatur, Hdlb., 1928; Max H., Die Satire in der Französischen Publizistik unt. bes. Berucks. d. French Witzblattes, Die Entwicklung v. d. Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1880, Diss., München, 1934; Lipps T., Komik und Humor, 2 Aufl., Lpz., 1922; Naguevsky D.I., Roman satire and Juvenal. Literary-critical research, Mitava, 1879; Ostolopov N. F., Dictionary of ancient and new poetry, part 3, St. Petersburg, 1821; Belinsky V. G., Russian literature in 1843, “Notes of the Fatherland”, vol. 32, 1844 (statements about satire when evaluating Gogol’s work); Dobrolyubov N. A., Interlocutors of lovers of the Russian word, “Complete coll. sochin. ”, under the general editorship. P. I. Lebedev-Polyansky, vol. I, [M.], 1934 (originally in Sovremennik, 1856, books VIII and IX, signed by N. Laibov); his own, Reply to the remarks of A. D. Galakhov regarding the previous article, ibid., vol. I [M.], 1934 (originally in Sovremennik, 1856, book IX; article Galakhova- Criticism of "There were also fables" (in "Notes of the Fatherland", 1856, Oct.); his own, On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature, ibid., vol. I, [M.], 1934 (originally in Sovremennik, 1858, book 2 signed: “-bov”); his own, Russian satire in the age of Catherine, ibid., vol. II, [M.], 1935 (in connection with the work of A. Afanasyev mentioned below; originally in Sovremennik, 1859, book 10, without a signature); Afanasiev A. N., Russian satirical magazines 1769-1774, M., 1859; The same, new edition, Kazan, 1921; Pokrovsky V., About Russian satirical magazines: “Drone”, “Hellish Post”, “Riddle”, “Painter”, “Hardworking Ant and others”, M., 1897 his own, The dandies in the satirical literature of the 18th century, M., 1903; Lemke M. K., From the history of Russian satirical journalism (1857-1864), "The World of God", 1903, No. 6-8; The same, in his book: Essays on the history of Russian censorship and journalism of the XIX century, St. Petersburg, 1904; Gornfeld A., Satire, "Encyclopedic Dictionary", ed. F. A., I. A. Efron, semit. 56, St. Petersburg, 1900; Chebotarevskaya Anastasia From life and literature. (Russian satire of our days), Education, 1906, No. 5; Masanov I. F., Russian satire and humorous journalism. Bibliographic description, no. I-III, Vladimir, 1910-1913 (“Proceedings of the Vlad. Academician of the Archival Commission”, book XI, XV-XVIII); Sakulin P. N., Sociological satire, "Bulletin of Education", 1914, No. 4; satirical Sat. No. 1 - Berangerovtsy, M., 1914; Same, Sat. 2 - Heinevtsy, M., 1917; Begak B., Kravtsov N., Morozov A., Russian literary parody, M. - L., 1930; Imaginary poetry, Materials on the history of poetic parody of the 18th and 19th centuries, ed. Yu. Tynyanov, ed. "Academia", M. - L., 1931; epigram and satire. From the history of the literary struggle of the 19th century,

vol. I, 1800-1840, composition. V. Orlov, vol. II, 1840-1880, comp. A. Ostrovsky, ed. "Academia", M. - L., 1931-1932; Kravtsov N. and Morozov A., Satire of the 60s, ed. and before. N. Belchikova, ed. "Academia", M. - L., 1932; Poets of Iskra, ed. and note. I. Yampolsky, [L.], 1933 (Bib-ka of the poet, edited by M. Gorky); Vinogradov Nikolai, Satire and humor in 1905-1907. Bibliographic index, Bibliographic News, 1916, No. 3-4; Botsyanovsky In and Golerbach E., Russian satire of the first revolution of 1905-1906, L., 1925; Dreiden S., 1905 in satire and humor, L., 1925; Chukovsky K. and Dreiden S., Russian revolution in satire and humor: L., 1925; Album of revolutionary satire 1905-1906, ed. S. I. Mitskevich, M., 1926 (Museum of the Revolution of the USSR); Isakov S., 1905 in satire and caricature, L., 1928; Timonich A. A., Russian satirical and humorous magazines of 1905-1907. in connection with satirical magazines of the 18th and 19th centuries. Materials for bibliography, M., 1930 (glassographer, ed.). A-v Yu., Satirical literature and preparation for the coup. (From memories), "Time", 1917, No. 887; Fritsche V., Satire, Satirical magazines, Encyclopedic Dictionary, ed. "Br. A. and I. Granat and Co., ed. 7b. G.; Maevich A., Humor and satire, "Journalist", 1925, No. 4; Shafir I., Comic and satirical techniques. (On the characteristics of satirical journalism in 1917), "Journalist", 1927, No. 9-10; L. L., Satire in 1917, Reader and Writer, 1928, No. 10; Shafir A., On the question of the satirical novel, "Print and Revolution", 1929, No. 12; Yakubovsky, G., About the satire of our days, Literaturnaya Gazeta, 1929, No. 12; Boychevsky V., Ways of Soviet satire, "Soviet Land", 1931, No. 1; Nusinov I., Questions of genre in proletarian literature, "Literature and Art", 1931, No. 2-3; Mezier 4. V., Dictionary index on book science, P., 1924, pp. 277-279, 308-309. cm. also literature on individual satires. magazines and satirical writers.

General characteristics of the genre "satire"

SATIRE (Latin satira; from the earlier satura -- lit. "pate, minced meat, mixture, all sorts of things"):

one). A certain poetic lyric-epic small genre that developed on ancient Roman soil (in the work of satirical poets Nevius, Ennius, Lucilius, Horace, Perseus, Juvenal, etc.) and revived in the 17-18 centuries. literature of classicism (satires by M. Renier, N. Boileau, A.D. Cantemir, etc.). The history and poetics of this genre have been thoroughly studied by literary criticism.

2). Another, less defined, mixed genre of literature that arose at the end of the 3rd century. BC. in the work of the Greek Cynic philosopher Menippus of Gadara. The name of the satirical collection, compiled by the Roman scholar Varro (116-27 BC), was fixed as the definition of this variety of the genre - Menippean satire. The Menippean satire (Apokolocynthosis (Pumpkin) by Seneca, 1st century, the novel by Petronius Satyricon, 1st century, etc.) combines poetry and prose, serious and comic, the role of plot fantasy is great here: the characters descend into the underworld, fly to heaven etc. The artistic elements of the Menippean satire are also inherent in works of a very serious content (Consolation by the philosophy of the Latin poet-philosopher Boethius, VI century), as well as in the European novel and drama of the Renaissance and modern times (Gargantua and Pantagruel F. Rabelais, Cervantes' Don Quixote, Shakespeare's dramaturgy and etc.). In terms of the degree of study by the science of literature, Menippean satire is significantly inferior to satire as a lyrical-epic genre. Close attention to the study of the folklore origins of Menippean satire and its influence on the European novel in literary criticism of the 20th century. paid to M.M. Bakhtin, who introduced this previously little-known term into wide scientific circulation.

3). A special, characteristic of all literary genres, form of artistic reflection of reality is the denunciation and ridicule of the negative, internally perverse phenomena of life. In this case, one can speak of satire as a type of artistic pathos, a special kind of comic: annihilating ridicule of the subject of the image, revealing its internal inconsistency, inconsistency with its nature or purpose. In the European literatures of the last centuries, it is this type of satire that has become most widespread. Its history and theory are still poorly developed, which, however, does not prevent us from identifying the main characteristic features of this type of satire.

An obligatory consequence of satirical creativity is laughter. Laughter as a reaction to satire may sound overtly or muffled, but always remains - along with denunciation - the basis of satire, its way of revealing inconsistencies between appearance and essence, form and content. This artistic satire differs from the direct types of criticism of personal and social shortcomings. Satire differs fundamentally from humor in the nature and meaning of laughter. For humor, laughter is an end in itself, the task of a humorist writer is to amuse the reader. For satire, laughter is a means of debunking shortcomings, a tool for scourging human vices and manifestations of social evil. Unlike humor, satire is characterized by severity and tendentious passion. Humor usually implies an ambivalent attitude towards its subject - the ridiculed may well contain positively beautiful things (for example, the noble idealism of Don Quixote, patriarchal kindness and spiritual purity old world landowners from the story of the same name by N.V. Gogol and others). Therefore, humor is condescending, peaceful. Satire, on the other hand, is distinguished by its unconditional rejection of its subject. At the same time, its aesthetic super-task is to denounce, to arouse memories of the beautiful (goodness, truth, beauty), offended by vulgarity, vice, stupidity. The dual essence of satirical creativity was precisely defined in the 1796 treatise On Naive and Sentimental Poetry F. Schiller: "Reality as insufficiency is opposed in satire to the ideal as the highest reality. Reality, therefore, necessarily becomes an object of rejection in it."

Ridiculing the negative aspects of life, satire frees the creator and reader from the pressure of perverse authorities, seeing off, according to M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, "everything that is obsolete into the realm of shadows", and thereby expresses the positive, glorifies the truly living. The satirist's ideal is expressed negatively, revealing itself through the "anti-ideal", through its outrageous and ridiculous absence in the specific subject of the denunciation.

Both in humorous and satirical works, the author's individuality is undisguisedly present, but the forms of its manifestation are also different. In humor, laughter gravitates towards a universal “grin”, often it extends to the laugher himself (for example, to the “enthusiast” hero of E.T.A. ). In satirical works, the author's subjectivity manifests itself in a different way - primarily in their frank tendentiousness and publicism, which point to an insurmountable boundary between the artist's moral world and the subject being denounced.

These features make some authors talk about the artistic limitations of satire. So, Hegel argued in the treatise Aesthetics that in satire "it is not the feeling of the soul that finds expression, but the general idea of ​​​​good ... which ... gloomily clings to the disagreement between its own objectivity and its abstract principles and empirical reality, and it does not create any genuine poetry, nor true works of art." Quite often, criticism tries to show that the masterpieces of satirical art are not limited to solving only satirical tasks proper. So, V. G. Belinsky, reflecting on one of the pinnacle achievements of Russian satirical literature, polemically remarks: "It is impossible to look at Dead Souls more erroneously and understand them more rudely, as seeing satire in them." Belinsky broadly interprets the nature of Gogol's laughter, attesting it not as "satire", but as "humor", finds in it, in addition to "subjectivity" and "social accusatory pathos", "a certain completeness of the image" and "fusion of laughter with sad love". Most consistently in modern literary criticism, the view of pure satire as an art "bare and straightforward", as purely "negative, rhetorical, unlaughing, one-sidedly serious" laughter was expressed by M.M. Bakhtin. Bakhtin opposes this kind of satire with his own concept of "ambivalent ", dual "carnival" laughter - both denying and affirming, mocking and cheerful. This laughter, according to Bakhtin, has a cult, folklore and mythological origin: ridicule and shaming had a magical meaning from the beginning, were associated with the category of renewal, parting with the old ( year, way of life, etc.) and the birth of the new. Laughter, as it were, fixes this moment of the death of the old and the birth of the new. Far from being naked mockery takes place here, the denial of the old is inextricably merged in this type of laughter with the affirmation of the new and better. Bakhtin believes such laughter belongs to the so-called "grotesque realism", speaks of its "spontaneous-dialectical", negative affirmation fiery character. Samples of carnival laughter are abundant in the European Middle Ages (fascenia, fablio, schwank and other grassroots folk genres) and the Renaissance (Praise the stupidity of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the most striking example is Gargantua and Pantagruel F. Rabelais).

With a broad interpretation of satire ("anti-ideal", meaning "ideal"), Bakhtin's characteristics of dual, ambivalent carnival laughter are applicable to it as well. In the 19th century, during the heyday of the art of critical realism and the dominance of the genre of the novel in literature, satire ceases to be reduced to one-dimensional negation, it acquires new artistic meanings that complicate the ideological composition of the work. In the works of N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky's satire is no less ambiguous: while laughing, at the same time she hides "tears invisible to the world." Having laughed, the reader, as it were, moves from specific impressions to the final reflection: the particular appears before him as a grain of the universal, and then a tragic, feeling of a breakdown in the laws of being itself is revealed in satire. The mayor of the Gogol Inspector, Judas from the Golovlevs M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, the heroes of M. Zoshchenko's Sentimental Tales cause a comic effect, while the reader perceives them as individual characters, but as soon as they are comprehended as types, they appear as a "hole in humanity", the tragic aspect of being itself is revealed.

Since satirical pathos can permeate any genre, in Soviet and Russian literary criticism there were periodically attempts to present satire as an independent kind of fiction (L. Timofeev, Yu. Borev). Researchers see the grounds for this in the special principles of satirical typification and in the specifics of the satirical image.

The satirical image is the result of a conscious "distortion", due to which the hitherto hidden comic side and its internal unsightliness are revealed in the subject. Satire, as it were, parodies a vital object. She either comes close to it, then in her exaggerations and generalizations she deviates so far from the material of life that real signs receive a fantastic, emphatically conditional embodiment in the image. Such a deviation of the satirical image from the "usual" is achieved through sharpening, hyperbolization, exaggeration, grotesque. A fantastic plot can be embodied in grotesque forms (Gulliver's Travels by J. Swift, Lame Demon by A.R. Lesage, History of a City by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Bedbug by V.V. Mayakovsky), allegory (fables of Aesop, J. I.A. Krylova), parodic exaggeration (Worldly views of E.T.A. Hoffmann’s cat Moore).

In the field of language, the grotesque relies on witticism - the minimum element of the simplest satirical genres: pun, aphorism, anecdote.

Grotesque, caricature in satire usually reveals the comic in that side of the personality, in which it resembles an inanimate thing, a mechanical part, an inert, lifeless automaton (A.P. Chekhov’s story, Unter Prishibeyev, government officials in J. Gashek’s novel The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik, etc. .). The literary philosopher A. Bergson comments on this side of the grotesque in the following way: "It is comical to insert oneself into ready-made frames. And the most comical thing is to go into the state of a frame into which others will quickly insert themselves, that is, to become petrified in a certain character."

Ways of satirical typification are different.

Rationalist satire is focused on depicting the phenomena of social life. The delineation of individual traits is limited here, a fantastic assumption is widely used. Satire of this type often acquires a pamphlet sound, the study of life comes in the form of "proof by contradiction." The image-character in works of this kind tends to turn into a symbol and is unthinkable outside the artistic grotesque (Organ from the History of a City by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). Compositionally, works of this type are often built as dialogues through which conflicting ideas or qualities collide. This is how human properties oppose under the masks of animals in fables. But in the genres of a satirical novel, utopia or pamphlet, philosophical systems and social ideologies can also oppose each other. In such works, there is most often a hero-observer, whose attention moves from object to object and forms a plot - as a rule, illusory, almost fabulous, utopian. The hero can visit non-existent lands in order to take a look at familiar earthly conditions and suddenly catch their absurdity (Micromegas in the story of the same name by Voltaire, the hero of the novel “Another Light” by S. De Bergerac), he can travel to quite earthly countries in order to meet the whims of his contemporaries (Gille Blas at Lesage). In the picaresque epic, wanderings are connected with the search for everyday comic scenes on the real roads of England, France, Spain (The Adventures of Tom Jones, Foundling G. Fielding, etc.). The more universal questions the author raises in the work, the more fantastic the routes of the hero-observer turn out to be. In grotesque writings of this kind with broad philosophical problems, he sometimes freely deals with space and - especially - with time. Anachronisms are frequent here, modernizing antiquity or archaizing modernity (A. France's Penguin Island), transferring the hero from the present to the past or future (Yankees from Connecticut at the court of King Arthur M. Twain, a play by M.A. Bulgakov Ivan Vasilyevich, Moscow 2042 V. Voinovich, etc.). Satire of this type flourishes during periods of great historical breaks, powerful social upheavals, fraught with a revision of the entire old system of values. It is no coincidence that rationalistic satire experienced rapid development, first of all, in the 18th (Voltaire, Diderot, Swift, N. Radishchev and others) and 20th (F. Sologub, M. Bulgakov, F. Kafka and others) centuries.

A different type of satire is presented by works that ridicule a flawed personality and explore the psychological nature of evil. This kind of satire is closely related to the genre of the realistic novel. Realistic details and accurate observations are widely introduced into the works. The grotesque is represented only by light touches - unobtrusive underlining by the author of some aspects of the hero's life, subtle rearrangements of accents in the depiction of familiar reality. This type of satire can be called psychological. The image-character here is comprehended in the light of the dominance of some one quality (the immoral ambition of Rebecca Sharp in W. Thackeray's Vanity Fair, etc.). The plot in this kind of satire is a consistent biography, colored by the author's emotions of sadness, bitterness, anger, pity.

An important variety of satire is represented by artistic parodies. Historically, satire cannot be separated from parody at all. Every parody is satirical, and every satire carries an element of parody. Parody is the most natural way to overcome obsolete genres and stylistic devices, a powerful means of updating the artistic language, saving it from inertia and mechanicalness, from senseless and outlived elements of tradition. Parody is one of the key means of literary evolution. Already at the dawn of the history of European literature, parody claims its rights: in the 5th century. BC. there is a parody of the Greek heroic epic - Batrahomyomachia, where the war of the Trojans with the Achaeans described by Homer in the Iliad is represented by the struggle of mice and frogs. The subject of ridicule here is the epic word itself. This parody is a satire on the already dying genre and style of the era. In fact, any parody will play such a role in the history of literature. Sometimes the ridicule of the genre and style goes into the background, but the mischievous intonation of parody remains, causing laughter directly at the heroes of the parody (the novel Kings and Cabbage and the short stories of O. Henry's Dear Rogue cycle, G. Chesterton's Amazing Crafts Club, partly Moscow - Petushki Ven Erofeev as a parody of the genre of traveller's notes). In parodic satire, the principle of compositional symmetry is widespread - twin characters (Medieval novel, The Prince and the Pauper by M. Twain), opposite characters (Don Quixote and Sancho Panza); in the world surrounding the hero, the laws of the game, the performance, the draw (illusions of Don Quixote, the duchy of Sancho Panza) dominate. The everyday equivalent of a literary parody is a hoax, which generally easily becomes the motivation for a satirical plot. Different types of satirical typification can enter into a complex interaction. So, in Don Quixote, the general idea is parodic and ironic, but the character of the protagonist is revealed psychologically, and the picture of the world opposing him is a philosophically generalized image. The plot of the novel is quite rationalistic: the reader is offered the traditional "hunt" of the observer for observations.

Already from the 5th c. BC. the satirical element plays an important role in ancient Attic comedy (Greek satire reached its peak in the comedies of Aristophanes) and Aesop's fables.

As a small lyric-epic genre, satire is formed in the literature of Ancient Rome. Quintilian's dictum is known: "Satira tota nostra est" ("The satire is entirely ours"). Initially, the genre here was probably of a mixed character (hence its name). The genre of satire is finally taking shape in the work of Lucilius. Here, its main form-building features are already evident: a dialogic, colloquial basis, a literary-parodic element, an autobiographical beginning, a figurative denial of modernity and opposing to it the ideal past - the old Roman virtues (virtus).

Roman satire reaches its peak in the work of Horace. His satires are a series of conversations flowing into one another against the background thrill modernity. It is "my time", "my contemporaries", their way of life and customs - the true heroes of the Horatian satyrs. They are not ridiculed in the full sense of the word, but they are spoken of with a smile, freely, cheerfully and derisively. Free laughter regarding the existing world order and the prevailing truth is softened to a smile.

Another version of the genre is presented in the work of Juvenal. Here a new tone appears in the assessment of reality - indignation, indignation (indignatio). The poet recognizes indignation as the main driving force of his satire: "Facit indignatio versum" ("Indignation creates verse"). It sort of replaces the laughter. The "scourging" character of the juvenile satyrs had a particular influence on the social satire of the 18th and 19th centuries. (J. Swift, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others).

In the Middle Ages, folklore and folk "comic culture" provide samples of satire. The rise of cities is associated with the spread of anecdotes and satirical verse novels (Fablio in France, Schwank in Germany), satirical epic about animals (The Romance of the Fox), and farce in the square. The carnival tradition gives rise to an extensive oral and written culture of laughter, including parodic versions of a religious ritual designed to rid the world from freezing and "death". A huge role in the history of satire was played by the Italian folk comedia del arte ("comedy of masks").

Renaissance satire aims to redefine the dominant ideology and established forms medieval life(Decameron G. Boccaccio, S. Brant's poetic satire Ship of Fools, Praise of the Stupidity of Erasmus of Rotterdam, Letters of Dark People, etc.). In Rabelais's novel Gargantua and Pantagruel, the author's humanistic program is carried out in grotesque, hyperbolic laughter images that shake the monolithic seriousness of the official medieval ideology. Conceived as a literary parody, Cervantes' Don Quixote outgrows the scope of the plan and becomes a universal comic panorama of the world on the border of two eras, at the "transition point" from the high heroism of the Middle Ages to the mercenary-mercenary relations of the new, pre-bourgeois era. The original object of ridicule - the "knight of the sad image" - turns out to be the judge of the "dislocated" world.

Literature of the 17th century the satirical beginning is impoverished. Laughter fades into the background, loses its radicalism and universality, and is content with private phenomena. And only in the genre of comedy, in the work of J.B. Moliere, satire flourishes, depicting clearly defined types (Miserly, Tartuffe, Jourdain). Poetic satires of this era only resurrect the genres of antiquity (N. Boileau, J. La Fontaine's fables).

In the literature of the 18th century, during the Enlightenment, the satirical beginning manifests itself in a variety of genres. A picaresque novel develops (Moll Flenders D. Defoe, The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle T. J. Smolett, etc.). The picaresque novel and comedy of that time (The Marriage of Figaro Beaumarchais and others) reflect the awakened self-consciousness of a representative of the "third estate", the birth of a "private man" who is freed from the power of the social mechanism. The merry mockery of the accuser here contrasts with the poetics of the baroque novel, one of the important genres of the era, where mockery was often accompanied by tragic bitterness. The development of parodic satire in the 18th century. associated with the work of L. Stern (Tristram Shandy, Sentimental Journey). The genre of a satirical novel (or story) begins to function as a philosophical treatise (Ramo's nephew D. Diderot, Voltaire's philosophical stories). The works of art of the French Enlighteners, like Gulliver J. Swift's Travels, create a picture of an imperfect world that is looking forward to radical changes. Moreover, Swift's denial is universal, "supersocial" in nature - the writer is outraged not so much by society as by humanity, which has not come up with a better form of organization for itself than society. Thus, reflected in the mirror of satire, the main illusion of the era collapses - the cult of reason, rational living order, "enlightened", and therefore "reasonable man": according to Swift, the rational principle is completely alien to the illogical and "destructive" nature of man.

English satirical magazines of the 18th century played a significant role in the history of satirical creativity in modern times. ("Spectator" and "Chatterbox"). They created and consolidated the genres of small magazine satire: dialogic, essay, parodic. The feuilleton genre flourishes. This type of ridicule of modernity in the new conditions largely repeats the forms of Horatian satire (conversational dialogue, a gallery of speaking characters that soon disappear without a trace, semi-dialogues, letters, a mixture of playful and serious reflections). The magazine type of satirical creativity in its main features has survived to this day.

At the beginning of the 19th century Romantic writers introduced a number of new features into satire. Their satire is directed, first of all, against the cultural and literary patterns of our time. Such are literary-satirical and parodic plays by L. Tick, fairy tales and stories by C. Brentano, A. Chamisso, F. Fouquet, and partly by A. Hoffmann. Denied reality thickens for romantics in the form of a "philistine" - a philistine who is fundamentally alien to creativity, an embodied spirit of vulgarity and triviality. Later, throughout the 19th century, satire continued to exist in the form of magazine feuilletons, as well as a special element of figurative negation in the dominant genre of the era - the novel (C. Dickens, Thackeray, O. de Balzac, V. Hugo, etc.)

Later, throughout the 19th century, satire continued to exist in the form of magazine feuilletons, as well as a special element of figurative negation in the dominant genre of the era - the novel (C. Dickens, Thackeray, O. de Balzac, V. Hugo, etc.).

Foreign modernist satire of the 20th century. inclined towards an abstract philosophical interpretation of the plot and cosmic symbolism (A. Camus, F. Dürrenmatt, V.V. Nabokov). Satire is increasingly invading science fiction (A.Azimov, K.Vonnegut, R.Bradbury, S.Lem, R.Sheckley), defining the genres of anti-utopias and warning novels.

In Western literature of the 1960s-1990s, the satirical line itself was largely influenced by the American school of "black humor" (J.Barthelmy, D.Donleavy, J.Hawks, etc.). A tragic farcical narrative with a wide use of travesty and grotesque techniques is brought to the fore. The main postulates of the traditional humanistic system of values ​​and the ideology of existentialism are rethought in a parody, which turn out to be untenable when they come into contact with the predatory averaging standards of "mass society" and "consumer civilization" (J. Heller's trick, 1972). The world order is presented as an absurd cycle and the kingdom of entropy, capable of provoking only misanthropic laughter - the only truly human reaction to the universal absurdity of being (T. Pynchon's Rainbow of Earth's Gravity, 1973). Literature of this kind has a parable character, combined with the elements of malicious ridicule of the stilted ideals, stereotyped vital interests, predictability of social behavior ( dead father D. Bartelmy, 1975). In the end, "black satire" comes from the surrealistic philosophical category of evil laughter in anticipation of the end of the world, since there are no other "hopes for deliverance". Foreign satirical literature of the 1980s - early. The 1990s as a whole breaks up into many national versions of ridiculing local social vices. The parody of cultural clichés, which are in the center of attention of Western postmodern writers, typologically goes back to the rebellious skepticism of "black humor", but is devoid of its philosophical depth and remains in the sphere of playing with the "totalitarian" signs of mass civilization. In the second half of the 1990s, a new supranational trend emerged in Western, primarily European and Latin American, literature - anti-globalization satire, reflecting the ideological uprising of the "new left" intellectuals against the dictatorship and social institutions of the "new world order" (This world without me F. Clevi, 1998, P. Carrera's Endless Tunnel, 2000, H. Blumen's Snail, 2001, etc.). However, this line of literature has not yet developed an original artistic language and continues to play with the traditional methods of satirical debunking on new thematic material.

Old Russian literature did not know satirical creativity in the proper sense of the word. In Russia, the image of the bad sides of reality, contrary to the religious and moral ideal, in contrast to the Western European tradition, was not associated with laughter. Laughter was comprehended by ancient Russian scribes as a spiritually ambiguous, sinful, passionate beginning. The negative attitude of the author took the form not of ridicule, but of denunciation, emphatically serious, more often mournful - in the genre of accusatory words, in chronicles, in hagiography. Comic forms turned out to be completely outside the boundaries of official culture - in folklore genres, in wedding and agricultural rites, in the art of buffoons. The essence of the attitude towards laughter in the Russian Middle Ages was most fully expressed in the lives of holy fools, whose behavior, by outward signs, resembled that of a jester. However, laughing at holy fools was considered a sin (an episode from the Life of St. Basil the Blessed is typical: those who laughed at his nakedness became blind and were healed only after repentance in ignorant laughter). Weeping over the ridiculous is the effect that the holy fool strives for, revealing deep wisdom under the guise of stupidity, and holiness behind external blasphemy.

Actually, the culture of laughter began to take shape in Russia under Western influences only in the 17th century. Under Peter I, the traditional ban on laughter and fun is gradually being lifted. The paradox of the situation is that at the beginning of the 18th century. molds from the forms of "folk carnival culture" are implanted in Russia from above and often cause protests from the "lower classes" (masquerades, stupid processions, jester's weddings, the "crazy, all-joking and all-drunk cathedral" of Peter the Great). From the end of the 17th century samples of serious moralizing satire appear, created by Latin authors (Vertograd multicolored by Simeon of Polotsk, etc.).

Satire in Russia. In the 18th century satire flourishes in Russia. It is clothed in the most diverse genres: epigram, epistle, fable, comedy, epitaph, parody song, journalism. The creator of Russian satire as a small poetic genre oriented towards ancient and classic samples was A.D. Kantemir (eight satires in a manuscript collection of 1743). The satires of Cantemir were guided by the theory set forth in the poetic treatise by N. Boileau Poetic Art with poetics and themes. In accordance with the European classicist canons, reality was opposed here to the ideal as barbaric - enlightened, senseless - reasonable. Cantemir, imitating Latin verse, developed a new syntax, intensively used inversions (reverse word order) and hyphenation, sought to bring the verse closer to "simple conversation", introduced vernacular, proverbs and sayings.

However, the stylistic innovations of Kantemir did not find continuation in Russian literature. The next step in the development of domestic satire was made by A.P. Sumarokov, the author of the 1774 book Satires, who outlined his theoretical views on the purpose of satire and its place in the hierarchy of classic genres in two epistles of 1747 - On the Russian language and On poetry. Satire on incompetent authors becomes an important means of literary struggle.

In the second half of the 18th century poetic satire in Russia is losing its former role and is giving way to magazine satire. In the 1760s-1790s, new satirical magazines were opened one after another in Russia: "Useful hobby", "Free hours", "Mix", "Drone", published by I.S. Krylov "Mail of Spirits", "Spectator" and many other. An expanded understanding of the satirical as an inter-genre variety of the ideological and emotional approach to the subject of the image is being formed in the literary consciousness. One of the first examples of satire in the broad sense of the word is the comedy by D.I. Fonvizin Undergrowth (1782).

In the 19th century the line of poetic satire in Russian literature is gradually fading. Its most significant samples are born in the context of literary controversy (satires by M.A. Dmitriev and others). Magazine satire is increasingly gravitating towards the feuilleton genre. Elements of satire intensively penetrate into the novel and drama and contribute to the final design of the poetics of critical realism. The brightest images of satire in Russian literature of the 19th century. are represented by the works of A.S. Griboedov, N.V. Gogol, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, N.A. Nekrasov. The satirical vision of the world prevailed in the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, who embodied on Russian soil the traditions of "high indignation", scourging juvenile laughter. The genre nature of the writer's works was affected by the influence of his satirical approach: novelistic forms tended to be sketchy, feuilleton, to the ancient diatribe - a polemical sermon-debunking.

Yet actually satirical laughter in the 19th century. reduced and difficult to separate from other forms of comic, irony and humor (the work of A.P. Chekhov).

A bright page in the history of Russian satire in the early 20th century. associated with the activities of the magazines "Satyricon" (1908-1914) and "New Satyricon" (1913-1918), in which the largest satirical writers of the era were actively published: A. Averchenko, Sasha Cherny (A. Glikberg), Teffi (N. Buchinskaya ) and others. The magazines did not shy away from bold political satire, turned to a wide range of poetic and prose genres, attracted outstanding artists as illustrators (B. Kustodiev, K. Korovin, A. Benois, M. Dobuzhinsky, etc.)

Among the most notable phenomena of domestic satire of the 20th century. - lyrics and plays by V. Mayakovsky, prose by M. Bulgakov, M. Zoshchenko, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, dramatic tales by E. Schwartz. The satire of the Soviet period is realized almost exclusively by the sphere of ideology, according to the nature of the denial, it breaks up into "external", denouncing capitalist reality (Black and White, 1926, V. Mayakovsky), and "internal", in which the denial of particular flaws is combined with a general affirmative principle. In parallel with official satire, there are humorous folklore genres (jokes, ditties) and satirical literature not allowed for publication. Grotesque and fantasy predominate in unofficial satire, utopian and anti-utopian elements are highly developed (Heart of a Dog and Fatal Eggs of M. Bulgakov, both - 1925, continuing Gogol's and Shchedrin's traditions, E. Zamyatin's anti-utopia We, 1920).

An important place is occupied by satire in the work of representatives of the first wave of Russian literary emigration (A. Averchenko, Sasha Cherny, Teffi, V. Goryansky, Don Aminado (A. Shpolyansky), etc.). The genres of satirical story and feuilleton predominate in their heritage. In 1931, in Paris, M. Kornfeld resumes the publication of the Satyricon. In addition to the previous authors, I. Bunin, A. Remizov, A. Kuprin participate in the published issues. A special place in the magazine is occupied by a satire on Soviet reality and the mores of emigration.

From the late 1950s and into the 1960s, in the wake of the "thaw", satire in the USSR was on the rise and took on the role of an underlying polemical opposition to the dominant ideology. The semi-official version of the Soviet epic heroism about the "leading and guiding force of the party" during the Great Patriotic War is satirically subverted in V. Voinovich's novel The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of a Soldier Ivan Chonkin (1969).

Inheriting the traditions of J. Hasek, the author depicts the events of Russian history through the eyes of a "little man", whose deliberate immediacy gives him the right to detach and freely perceive what is happening, revealing its inner absurdity.

In the 1970s and 1980s, domestic satire picked up the traditions of M. Zoshchenko and made the figure of a “simple Soviet man”, a sober conformist, who snatches from the environment the slightest manifestations of the absurdity of Soviet life, forming a common mosaic of social ill-being. The ideological ambiguity of this kind of verbal production and its hidden opposition led to the gradual shift of satire from large literary forms to miniature oral genres of an anecdotal story and pop reprise (M. Zhvanetsky, A. Arkanov, etc.) - here the very form of a comic tale provides a guarantee of inner freedom writer. In dramaturgy, the satirical beginning was most clearly manifested in the work of G. Gorin in the 1970s-1990s (To Kill Herostratus, Til, The Most Truthful, Kin IV, The House That Swift Built, Jester Balakirev, etc.), in whose tragicomic plays transparent allusions to modernity are invariably placed in the generalized plan of a philosophical parable, in no way reducible to flat sociality. The satirical works of representatives of the "third wave" of Russian emigration (Moscow 2042 by V. Voinovich, 1986, the French Soviet Socialist Republic by A. Gladilin, 1987, etc.) for the most part fit into the genre framework of dystopia and do not go beyond the one-dimensional ridicule of Soviet reality.

In the literature of Russian social art and postmodernism in general ("Lianozovo group", D. Prigov, L. Rubinshtein, T. Kibirov), the satirical beginning is manifested primarily in the parodic play on the clichés of Soviet and post-Soviet cultural mythology in order to discredit the very "totalitarian" language and style mass thinking.

The main features of the satire of Saltykov-Shchedrin, manifested in the fairy tales "The Wild Landowner" and "The Bear in the Voivodeship"

One of the most ancient examples of satirical typification is the likening of people to animals, the use of zoological images to ridicule social vices. “Assimilation is a stylistic turn based on a detailed comparison. If during the usual comparison of two objects one common feature is established and their partial proximity to each other differs, then likening reveals in a work of art a system of parallel communities between two objects or phenomena. Zoological similitudes serve the main purpose of satire - to show negative phenomena and people in a low and ridiculous form. Comparison of social vices with the animal world is one of Saltykov-Shchedrin's witty satire techniques, he uses it both in individual episodes and in whole fairy tales. So, in the fairy tale “The Wild Landowner”, a man is shown, but in his appearance there are obvious animal features: “And now he became wild ... he was all overgrown with hair from head to toe, like a wild Esau, and his nails became like iron. He stopped blowing his nose a long time ago, but he walked more and more on all fours ... He even lost the ability to utter articulate sounds ... he learned the average between whistling, hissing and barking. But the tail has not yet acquired. Here the author, showing the evolution of the gentleman, resorts to likening in the image of a beast, although there is no “tail” yet. Some time will pass and the degradation process will be completed.

In the fairy tale "The Bear in the Voivodeship" the resemblance of a man to a bear is wittily shown. Along with assimilation, zoological images here also combine the Aesopian function (the Aesopian language is allegorical, disguised). The meaning of the tale is to expose the stupid and cruel rulers (Toptygins) of despotic power (Lion, Donkey). The three Toptygins developed their activities with various atrocities. The first one - small ones (he ate a siskin), the other - large ones (pogroms), the third one - adhered to the "ancient routine" and was content with "natural" atrocities, collecting tribute. But the peasants' patience snapped, and they dealt with the Toptygins.

The main idea of ​​the tale is that the salvation of the people is not in replacing the evil Toptygins with good ones, but in eliminating, that is, overthrowing the autocracy.

Here Saltykov-Shchedrin showed an acute socio-political theme, and the zoological mask and the Aesopian language opened the writer more freedom for a sharp satirical assessment of power. Toptygin is a satirical pseudonym for royal dignitaries. The author shows them as "Cattle", "rotten blockhead", "scoundrel". All this would have been impossible without the use of an animal mask and Aesopian techniques. The "menagerie", presented in fairy tales, testifies to the inexhaustible ingenuity of the satirist in the methods of artistic allegory.

The hidden meaning is comprehended from figurative pictures and direct allusions to the hidden meaning.

Toptygin ate a siskin "It's all the same, as if someone had driven a poor, tiny gymnasium student to suicide by pedagogical measures." Such a method of switching the narrative from the fantastic to the realistic, from the zoological to the social sphere, makes Shchedrin's allegories transparent and accessible to the public. The satirist does "humanization" of the animal figures of his fairy tales with great tact, preserving the nature of the images. The choice of images for comparison is not random. The action of the beast in the fairy tale is not limited only by the fact that he was lucky by nature, but allegorically expresses the social meaning.

In the "Bear in the Voivodship" bears go on business trips, receive running money and strive to get on the "tablets of history".

A bear, a lion, a donkey are not just symbols, they are a Wild landowner, peasants, portraits of a society torn apart by internal contradictions.

So, in fairy tales, under the guise of animals, certain persons and social phenomena are allegorically depicted. On the one hand, we see that in his tales the actions of animals are close to human ones and the relationship within the zoological world symbolizes the social relations of people in a class society, and on the other hand, a distance is always maintained between zoological images and a person, which is necessary in order for the allegory to be convincing.

The meaning of the word SATIRE in the Dictionary of Literary Terms

SATIRE

- (from lat. satura - a mixture, a hodgepodge, all sorts of things)

1) Kind of comic (see comic): a way of manifesting the comic in art, which consists in annihilating ridicule of phenomena that seem to the author to be vicious. S. is the most acute form of denunciation of reality. If humor is a mockery of the "private", then S., as a rule, is a ridicule of the "general", denunciation of social and moral vices and shortcomings (for example, Gulliver's Travels by J. Swift). The satirical beginning can be present in works of any genre: comedies, farces, literary and folk song lyrics, stories, novels, novels, anecdotes, proverbs, etc.

2) Lyric-epic genre: a poetic work in which the phenomena of reality are sharply, caustically exposed (for example, satires by A.D. Kantemir "On those who blaspheme the teachings", "To your mind", satirical hymns by V.V. Mayakovsky).

Dictionary of literary terms. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is SATIRE in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• SATIRE in Wiki Quote:
  Data: 2009-09-02 Time: 22:58:05 * Satire is a kind of mirror in which everyone who looks into it sees any face except ...
• SATIRE in Sayings of famous people:
  
• SATIRE in Dictionary One sentence, definitions:
  - a mirror in which the viewer sees any face except his own. Jonathan ...
• SATIRE in Aphorisms and clever thoughts:
  a mirror in which the viewer sees any face other than his own. Jonathan ...
• SATIRE in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  (lat. satira) 1) a way of displaying the comic in art, consisting in annihilating ridicule of phenomena that the author considers vicious. The power of satire depends...
• SATIRE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  (lat. satira, from an earlier satura - satura, literally - a mixture, all sorts of things), a kind of comic; merciless, annihilating rethinking...
• SATIRE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  Satire is a poetic denunciation of current reality: this is the most complete definition of that diverse literary form that is everyday speech, and sometimes ...
• SATIRE in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  
• SATIRE
  (Latin satira), 1) a way of displaying the comic in art: annihilating ridicule of phenomena that seem to the author to be vicious. The strength of satire depends on the socio-moral ...
• SATIRE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  s, w. 1. In ancient literature and the literature of classicism: a literary genre that ridiculed the vices of man and society, as well as the work of this ...
• SATIRE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  , -s, w. 1. A work of art that sharply and mercilessly denounces the negative phenomena of reality. 2. Convicting, scourging ridicule. II adj. satirical...
• SATIRE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  SATHIRA (lat. satira), a way of displaying the comic in art, consisting in annihilating ridicule of phenomena, which seem to the author to be vicious. The strength of S. depends ...
• SATIRE in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? poetic denunciation of current reality: this is the most complete definition of that diverse literary form that everyday speech, and sometimes ...
• SATIRE in the Full accentuated paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
  sati "ra, sati" ry, sati "ry, sati" r, sati "re, sati" ram, sati "ru, sati" ry, sati "swarm, sati" swarm, sati "rami, sati" re, ...
• SATIRE in the Popular Explanatory-Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language:
  -s, well. 1) only units. A method of manifestation of the comic in art, consisting in annihilating ridicule of phenomena that seem to the author to be vicious. Satire...
• SATIRE in the Dictionary for solving and compiling scanwords:
  A caustic literary…
• SATIRE in the New Dictionary of Foreign Words:
  (lat. satira satura (lanx) overflowing dish, hodgepodge) 1) a poetic work in antiquity and classicism literature, ridiculing vices, shortcomings; 2) ...
• SATIRE in the Dictionary of Foreign Expressions:
  [lat. satira 1. poetic work in antiquity and classicism, ridiculing vices, shortcomings; 2. in literature and art - cruel, ...
• SATIRE in the Dictionary of synonyms of Abramov:
  cm. …
• SATIRE in the dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian language:
  mockery, mockery, mockery, irony, caricature, mockery, ridicule
• SATIRE in the New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language Efremova:
  and. 1) A work that ridicules some. vice, defect (in the literature of classicism). 2) A work of art in which the negative ...
• SATIRE in the Dictionary of the Russian Language Lopatin:
  sat`ira, ...