UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Beyond history: a study of Saltykov's The history of a town 1972

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1972_A8 P48.pdf [ 6.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0093291.json
JSON-LD: 1.0093291+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0093291.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0093291+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0093291+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0093291+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0093291.ris

Full Text

BEYOND HISTORY: A STUDY OF SALTYKOV'S THE HISTORY OF A TOWN by P e t e r P e t r o B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULTILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of S l a v o n i c S t u d i e s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1972 In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l fu l f i lment o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y sha l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying o f th is t h e s i s fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is thes is fo r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion . Department of S l a v o n i c S tudies The Un ive rs i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A p r i l 30. 1972 ABSTRACT The purpose of this work i s to show the evolution of The History of a Town and analyze i t s s a t i r i c a l form and thus to elucidate the obscure points that u n t i l recently prevented the recognition of The History of a Town (Istoriya odnogo goroda, 1869-1870; from now on, mentioned as The History) as a major work of Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov- Shchedrin (1826-1889), a work that came into the Russian l i t e r a t u r e a f t e r the time of the Great Reforms and which expressed the s p i r i t of the time,, understanding of the h i s - t o r i c a l process and aimed deeper beyond the s a t i r i c a l rendering of the h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s . Considered by most of the c r i t i c s as a kind of parody of Russian h i s t o r y , where a p r o v i n c i a l town, Glupov, stands for Russia u_.d whose governors are caricatures of Russian sovereigns and ministers, this work survived the onslaught of various interpretations. Shortly a f t e r i t s f i r s t appear- ance i t generated much controversy and grounds for suspicion as to whether i t was not more than a parody of Russian h i s - tory and the characters that appear i n i t more than mere caricatures of the House of Romanov and t h e i r ministers. Aft e r the heated polemics and discussions so t y p i c a l of the period of the publication of Saltykov's s a t i r i c chronicle subsided, neglect descended upon i t , to cover i t for several i i i decades. The i n t e r e s t i n Saltykov's works increased a f t e r the books were dusted and rediscovered by the Soviet propa- gandists who also gave an impetus to a serious study of Saltykov's work, which, with a few exceptions, lacked both i n o b j e c t i v i t y and i n assertion of the chronicle's s i g n i f i - cance beyond the h i s t o r i c a l l y ramified period which The History ostensibly covered. An attempt w i l l be made here to show that Saltykov t r i e d , successfully, to transcend the temporary framework of a d e f i n i t e s i t u a t i o n of the period between 1731-1826 i n order to give us an insight into the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the governors and the governed, encompassing the epoch high- lighted by the reform of 1961 and the decade that followed i t . This study w i l l also undertake an analysis of Salty- kov's technique of s a t i r e and humour, as well as the gradual development of his technique and ideas i n the course of the decade preceding the publication of The History. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i INTRODUCTION ' • • . • 1 CHAPTER I. THE EMERGENCE OF GLUPOV 4 I I . THE IDEA OF GLUPOV . . . 21 1 1 1 • KONFUZ AND THE CHARACTERS 26 IV. THE HISTORY OF GLUPOV 40 V. THE TWO KINDS OF NAROD 53 VI. THE GOVERNORS 57 V I I . LAUGHTER THROUGH TEARS . 6 4 V I I I . THE MEN AND THE PUPPETS 80 IX. GLUPOVIANS AND THEIR WORLD 91 CONCLUSION • . 103 FOOTNOTES 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 INTRODUCTION "What description, then, can I fi n d for the men of th i s generation? What are they l i k e ? " —Luke, VII, 31-32. According to the biographers of Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin, the single and strongest influence i n his youth was exercised by The New Testament. Here the young Saltykov discovered the quest for j u s t i c e , something that he f a i l e d to see i n the actions of the people around him. The clash between the lessons of the Gospels and (for him) the shocking r e a l i t y formed early i n his l i f e that highly c r i t i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n toward society which was to make him the foremost s a t i r i s t of the second h a l f of the nine- teenth century. Out of t h i s c r i t i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n evolved also his most powerful s a t i r e , The History of a Town, which, more than any other work,-bears out his e f f o r t to record i n s a t i r i c form the i n i q u i t i e s of his age. Saltykov's idea of placating the present while seem- ing to depict the past was not met with unanimous under- standing, either i n the nineteenth century or even now. One could explain this by the temptation to associate the gover- nors of the town of Glupov, whom The History describes, with the Russian monarchs of the period between 1731 and 1826. I t i s undisputable that such a comparison could be made, and i t was indeed made by many scholars, s t a r t i n g with Ivanov- 1 o Razumnik and B. Eikhenbaum, and ending with C. Kulesov's . . 3 annotated e d i t i o n of The History, the most comprehensive and detailed one, so f a r . The correspondence between the characters of The History and Russian monarchs, however, should not be the f o c a l point of the research of this master- pice of Saltykov: it.should rather be i t s s t a r t i n g point. In that respect this thesis attempts to go beyond what I generally c a l l "history", i . e . , beyond the formal l i m i t a t i o n s (acknowledged as such by Saltykov himself^) of the said period 1731-1826. A more appropriate way of looking at thi s f r u i t of Saltykov's c r i t i c a l s p i r i t i s contained i n the words of I. P. Foote: "The History of a Town . . . i s . . . the most f a r - reaching of.his [Saltykov's] attacks on the Russian s i t u a - 5 ti o n . " For, with the advantage of looking at Saltykov's work a hundred years l a t e r , i t i s possible to see what his contemporaries could not: namely, the persistence of the kind of s i t u a t i o n described i n his work. I f we take his work as an expression of the power and e x c l u s i v i t y of the governors, and the helplessness and p a s s i v i t y of the masses — a n d there i s no reason why we should not take i t as s u c h — then we s h a l l be unable to set the. date when the s i t u a t i o n i n Russia r a d i c a l l y changed. The c r i t i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n of Saltykov evolved with the t i m e s , and t h i s t h e s i s w i l l undertake an a n a l y s i s of the development of the main themes c o n t r i b u t i n g to the genesis of The H i s t o r y i n the f i r s t three chap te r s . The f o l l o w i n g two chapters are concerned w i t h S a l t y k o v ' s ideas on h i s t o r y and the r o l e which the people p lay i n i t . The remaining four chapters then analyze the s a t i r i c a l devices and the r o l e of l augh te r through t e a r s , of the grotesque, as e f f e c - t i v e means o f conveying the au tho r ' s i d e a s , and d i s c u s s b r i e f l y S a l t y k o v ' s s a t i r i c e x c u r s i o n i n t o U t o p i a . CHAPTER I THE EMERGENCE .OF GLUPOV The History of a Town i s a history of Glupov, o r — a s Mirsky translated i t — S i l l y t o w n . " ^ The beginnings of the intimate love a f f a i r that Saltykov had with the idea of Glupov can be e a s i l y traced to another geographical e n t i t y : his Krutogorsk, a p r o v i n c i a l town that happened to be the target of his s a t i r e i n the P r o v i n c i a l Sketches (1856). Although Saltykov departed considerably from the descriptiveness and characterization of p r o v i n c i a l l i f e that made his name after 1856, when he published his P r o v i n c i a l Sketches—a series of s a t i r i c a l portrayals of a p a t h e t i c a l l y stagnant Russian province a f t e r 184 8—one recognizes without d i f f i c u l t y the a f f i n i t y between Krutogorsk and Glupov: on the l e v e l of the character deployment we detect embryonic features of the t e r r i b l e Ugryum-Burcheyev i n Feier, the governor of Krutogorsk. Yet, while the aim of Saltykov's P r o v i n c i a l Sketches was to point out the contrast between the c i t i e s and the province by delving endlessly into the abhorrently backward and s t u l t i f y i n g l i f e i n the province, with Glupov of The History he t r i e d ambitiously for a coup that was almost unprecedented i n the history of Russian l i t e r a t u r e . Glupov was to stand for the whole of Russia. This the c r i t i c s 5 r e a d i l y unders tood. The misunders tanding came when the c r i t i c s t r i e d to a s c r i b e f a l s e motives to t h i s work. This was crowned by p e r s i s t e n t e f f o r t s tha t s u r v i v e d u n t i l now, which c o n s i s t o f i d e n t i f y i n g va r ious cha rac te r s o f The H i s - t o r y , mainly the governors o f the town of Glupov, w i t h Russ ian s o v e r e i g n s . From there i t i s on ly a s h o r t s tep towards f i t t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h i s work as a c l e v e r a t t ack on the monarchy. But a t the time of the p u b l i c a t i o n of S a l t y k o v ' s work, to a t t ack on ly the p a s t , i t s too obvious 2 d e f i c i e n c i e s , was h a r d l y worth the s a t i r i s t ' s pen. A l l the same, S a l t y k o v was known as a powerful c r i t i c of abso lu t i sm as a j o u r n a l i s t , and so many readers f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to d i s s o c i a t e him from h i s a l t e r ego, the one w i t h whom t h i s t h e s i s i s concerned: S a l t y k o v , the man of l e t t e r s , s a t i r i s t , n o v e l i s t . Th i s cu r ious d i v i s i o n , of course , does not serve as a d i s p o s a l bag fo r "the j o u r n a l i s t " , s i n c e the l a t t e r i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the former; but where S a l t y k o v the j o u r - n a l i s t concerned h i m s e l f w i t h day- to-day problems of s o c i a l l i f e , a t the same time he c o l l e c t e d m a t e r i a l fo r S a l t y k o v the man o f l e t t e r s , whose aim was to get deeper to the roots from which the day- to-day problems o r i g i n a t e d . C a r e f u l s tudy r e v e a l s t h i s obvious dichotomy tha t S a l t y k o v h i m s e l f r e a d i l y admit ted when he s a i d tha t he had to be o b j e c t i v e when w r i t i n g f i c t i o n . I t was t h i s o b j e c t i v - i t y tha t made him the t a rge t of both p r o g r e s s i v e and 6 conservative groups throughout the nineteenth century. People of every walk of l i f e and of every shade of p o l i t i c a l conviction f e l t h is lash. I t f e l l a l i k e on governor and on peasant; on r a d i c a l and conservative. More than any other man, i t flayed the s r e d n i i chelovek, the "average man', whose cupidity, hypocrisy and vulgarity Saltykov set himself to expose and to i n d i c t again and again.- 5 Saltykov posed a problem with his often enigmatic character and his less enigmatic work. His contemporaries found they had to revise the ideas that they held about Saltykov. Turgenev wrote i n one of his l e t t e r s of 1857 that i f Saltykov had success with his writings, then i t was not worthwhile to write any more;^ but i t was Turgenev 1s review of The History, written i n 1871 for The Academy, an English journal, which presented Saltykov, and s p e c i f i c a l l y his s a t i r i c chronicle of Glupov, to the English reader: There i s something of Swift i n Saltykov . . . that serious and grim comedy, that r e a l i s m — prosaic i n i t s l u c i d i t y amid the wildest play of fancy—and, above a l l that constant good sense . . .5 It i s hardly necessary to add that, at the time of this review, Turgenev had a deep respect for Saltykov. Nekrasov went through a s i m i l a r transformation; Saltykov was la b e l l e d "bureaucrat" by Rzhevskiy and deystvitel'no-statskiy progressist by Pisarev.^ A l l t h i s i l l u s t r a t e s the degree of misunderstanding that the s a t i r i s t had to suffer to a certain extent throughout his l i f e . He was not to f i n d peace even at home, where he was considered by his family a morose old 7 man. S t r e l s k y r i g h t l y a s se r t s h i s p l i g h t : As a . c r i t i c of l i f e , he was f a r i n advance of h i s own t imes ; not u n t i l our own day d i d h i s judge- ment beg in to ev ince t h e i r t rue depth and meaning.^ Georg Lukacs .joins i n w i t h h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f S a l t y k o v which appeared i n h i s Probleme des Realismus I I : S a l t y k o v - S c h t s c h e d r i n , wohl der g ross te S a t i r i - ke r der W e l t l i t e r a t u r s e i t S w i f t , beg inn t e r s t i n der l e t z t e n Z e i t e in igermassen bekannt zu werden.^ ' These a s s e r t i o n s come very c l o s e l y to a j u s t appre- c i a t i o n o f the s a t i r i s t , but- they aire not by any means c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a l l s c h o l a r s h i p on S a l t y k o v . An example which i l l u s t r a t e s the c o n v e n t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s of the l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n comes from the Concise H i s t o r y of Russ ian L i t e r a - ' tu re by Thais S. L i n d s t r o m , who devoted to S a l t y k o v not more than two and a h a l f pages, which the s a t i r i s t shares w i t h S. Aksakov: His a t t acks on co r rup t o f f i c i a l d o m were couched i n l i t e r a r y c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s to confound the censor and d e l i g h t h i s l e f t i s t [ s i c ! ] audience , but w h i l e they were immensely popular i n the heated c l i m a t e o f the mid-n ine teen th cen tu ry , they were too imme- d i a t e l y t o p i c a l to s u r v i v e . Sa l tykov-ShchedrTn owes h i s endur ing r e p u t a t i o n to one masterpiece— The Golov levs (1872), a l a r g e l y a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l nove l fo r which h i s f ami ly never forgave h im.^ Th i s t h e s i s i s a l s o an attempt to show tha t The H i s - t o ry was not "too immediately t o p i c a l to s u r v i v e " . I . P . Foote t e l l s u s , i n h i s a r t i c l e on The H i s t o r y , t h a t i t i s the most e a s i l y understood o f S a l t y k o v ' s s a t i r e s . In t h i s way, Glupov w i l l . e m e r g e , as we pass by the c o n f l i c t i n g 8 opinions of many c r i t i c s . L. Grossman, a Soviet c r i t i c , t r i e d to connect The History with the works whose object was h i s t o r i c a l s a t i r e . He mentions Pushkin's fragment I s t o r i y a sela Goryukhina (1830); A. Tolstoy's Russkaya i s t o r i y a ot Gostomysla; A. France's Penguin Island; and goes to great lengths i n order to prove his point: the idea of the h i s t o r i c a l s a t i r e as an inter p r e t a t i o n of The History. He i d e n t i f i e s i n the chroni- cle p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and f a c t u a l h i s t o - r i c a l periods, disregarding and brushing aside Saltykov's express desire not to consider i t as a h i s t o r i c a l s a t i r e . ^ To ignore the author's explanations written aft e r the work had been published i s nothing new, as the famous l e t t e r written by Belinsky to Gogol exemplifies; i n the case of The History the text does not j u s t i f y e n t i r e l y a conjecture of this kind. More tempting and i n s t r u c t i v e seems to be the attempt of V. V. Gippius, who looks at Saltykov i n an o r i g i n a l way 12 i n his essay Lyudi i kukly v s a t i r e Saltykova, where he traces the motif of the puppet and other elements to t h e i r place of origine, namely, German Romanticism i n general and E. T. A. Hoffmann i n p a r t i c u l a r . With this i n mind he follows Pypin: . . . B n e n a T J i e H H e , uojiy^ewRoe :OT o ^ e p K a C a j i T H K O B a , He c a T H p H H e c K o e - - 3TO C K o p e e B n e n a T J i e H H e c K a 3 K H FodbMaHa.13 9 The f l i g h t s of fantasy, grotesquerie and occasional drops of nonsensical humour would support this supposition i f i t were not for the fa n t a s t i c r e a l i t y that anchors the whole work into the realm of the. possible. Pushkin's I s t o r i y a sela Goryukhina (1830), mentioned i n connection with L. Grossman's view, i s included i n most c r i t i c s ' treatment of The History. The short fragment of some twenty-five pages does indeed bear resemblance to Sal- tykov's work, i f only formally. Unfortunately, Pushkin did not f i n i s h t h i s manuscript and we are l e f t with only a frag- ment, which gives us the introduction to the'History, which he used for his Povesti Belkina, mainly as the background 14 for the biography of Belkm. The detailed plan which Pushkin wrote for his History was preserved, and we can f i n d some s i m i l a r i t i e s to Salty 1? ; kov's chronicle: the peasant r e b e l l i o n , the destruction of a v i l l a g e by f i r e , the abrupt changes i n the "government 1, etc. Saltykov also might have taken over, i n his introduc- t i o n , Pushkin's device of "finding some old documents" from which the author compiles the story. The most important of the s i m i l a r i t i e s , however, i s the general idea of subs t i t u t - ing a v i l l a g e (Pushkin) or a small p r o v i n c i a l town (Saltykov) for the whole Russian Empire. Here the s i m i l a r i t i e s end. Saltykov had a d e f i n i t e purpose when he decided to hide behind the mask of an editor and three chroniclers. In 10 doing so, he put himself i n a position from which he could attack and r i d i c u l e the pompous celebrations of the millen- nium of the Russian Empire, an event which was met with laudatory and pseudo-historical writing by some hist o r i a n s and crowned by a monumental sculpture designed by Mikeshin and. raised i n Novgorod. Grossman juxtaposes Saltykov's work to this monumental sculpture and shows how the writer t r i e d to de-pathetize the myth of Russian rulers as wise and kind, and show i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t the legend of the i n v i t a t i o n 15 of the Varangians. I t was probably at that time, during or a f t e r these celebrations, that an idea of Glupov began to emerge i n Saltykov's mind, we are t o l d by Grossman. Two c a t a l y t i c incidents took place before 1862, when some short stories about Glupov appeared for the f i r s t time. One'was the unfor- tunate Martiyanov's attempt to influence Alexander II by his l e t t e r from London i n 1862. The l e t t e r urged the Emperor to introduce more reforms-. The other incident was a public lecture given by Professor Pavlov of the University of St. Petersburg. Among other daring statements, he said that during the whole millennium Russia was a slave society and that by the middle of the nineteenth century the patience of the destitute was exhausted. He finished his lecture with 1 r Imeyushchiy ushi da s l y s h i t . This, of course, ran counter to the mandatory o f f i c i a l picture of Russia extolled i n 11 Mikeshin's sculpture; but, without dwelling unnecessarily long on t h i s point, i t i s quite possible to imagine Saltykov as conceiving an a l l e g o r i c a l picture of his contemporary Russia, for the construction of which he would use his favourite tools and even material. He could once again draw from the experiences he had i n Vyatka, where he was banished during the upsurge of repression after 1848, on account of having written a short story Zaputannoe delo. Saltykov's banishment seems cruel by any standards, at f i r s t sight, but i t was i n Vyatka that Saltykov made his remarkable career, and i t was i n Vyatka that he found an abundant fountain of material for his s a t i r e s . From i t s beginnings, Russian l i t e r a t u r e includes a martyrologue of writers who were punished so l e l y on account of t h e i r writ- ings; but the persistent e f f o r t s , mainly of Soviet scholars, to place Saltykov i n i t seem to be s l i g h t l y , exaggerated i n view of the b e n e f i c i a l influence that Vyatka exercised on Saltykov's career, both l i t e r a r y and o f f i c i a l . I t may seem strange, but the reader should be rather thankful for Vyatka. Vyatka turned out to be immortalized by i t s f i c t i o n a l coun- terpart, Krutogorsk, and-it.happened to be at.the cradle of Glupov as we l l . The difference between Krutogorsk and Glupov was an important one, as can be seen from Skabichev- sky's e d i t o r i a l i n Iskra: B1-' „ry6epHCKHX o ^ e p K a x " r . U te f lpnH :CTOBT eme n a 12 n o H B e : TOM caM.oM o6jiHT£KTe.flb'HoM JIHT e p . a T y p H , K O T o p a a 6njia B: TaK.oM M O f l e B KOHue ^>0-x r o f l O B . • . . Some thirteen years l a t e r , however, the development of Saltykov's prose had progressed considerably from the beginnings of the P r o v i n c i a l Sketches. I t was no more glav- 18 noe delo — raketu p u s t i t ' i•smekh p r o i z v e s t i , as Pisarev would have l i k e d to have i t . As a matter of fa c t , the laughter that The History produces i s of a d i f f e r e n t kind. In a 1970 edi t i o n of the s a t i r i c chronicle, V. Putintsev writes: KHnra lU,eflpHHa B H 3 H B a e T CMex, HO BTO He Bece^ i a a K H H r . a , H CMex Has e e CTpaHHii;aMH r o p e n H MpaneH.19 This i s i n accordance with Saltykov's idea. He did not view his book as an entertaining piece. And i t i s doubtful that he considered any of his s a t i r i c a l pieces for entertainment only. He must, then, have been deeply perturbed and worried about the attempts of such an i n f l u e n t i a l man as Pisarev who, i n his time, put him i n the same bag with Pisemsky (not of the time of T'yufyak [1850]; but of the time of Vzbalamu- chennoe more [1863], the a n t i = n i h i l i s t novel) and A. K. Tolstoy (mentioning Rnyaz Serebryany [1862] as an example of the l i g h t genre i n which, according to Pisarev, Saltykov's s a t i r i c a l production belongs), topping o f f his comparison with: . J t e r K H H c i e x r . He / i p H H a H jierKaa Me^ T.a Te JIB - HO.CTb r . - <3?:eTa cBAGSIHH Meaofly c06010: Te cHHMH y3aMH p c T B e H H o r o pOflCTBa.^" The dubious sense t ha t these derogatory l i n e s had i n the e a r l y s i x t i e s of the n ine teen th century has long s i n c e van i shed , Fet be ing a f i n e poet de sp i t e the r a d i c a l s ' (and 21 a l s o S a l t y k o v ' s ) d i s l i k e f o r h im. S a l t y k o v , however, found a good suppor ter i n Skab ichevsky , who defended him i n 22 an exp lana to ry e d i t o r i a l i n I s k r a ( i n 1871). Th i s and many o ther vo ices of sympathy fo r S a l t y k o v came l a t e r . In the fe rven t days of Russkoe s l o v o and P i s a r e v , and fu r ious d i s c u s s i o n s o f Turgenev 's Fathers and Sons (1862) , Cherny- shevsky ' s a r r e s t and subsequent p u b l i c a t i o n of Chto d e l a t ' ? (1864), S a l t y k o v stands c u r i o u s l y a l o o f . His sparse r eac - t i o n s to these hot i s sues of the day were o f a nega t ive c h a r a c t e r . He would de sc r ibe Fathers and Sons i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: . . . K a K H e i C O T O p H M X B S C TVHHUIKa H fiO^I.TyHKUIKa [presumably Bazarov] , p,a BflofiaBOK eine H3 n p o - xof lHMii ,eB B 3 f l y M a j i n p n y f l a p H T b 3 a BaacHoM 6 a p H i i i H . e M H ?i TO H3 .3TOrO n p O H 3 OUIJIO . 2 3 For the n i h i l i s t s i n genera l he had a theory tha t was ha rd ly one to make him a d a r l i n g o f the r a d i c a l s : TaK H a 3 H B a e M H e H H r H j i H CTH cyrb He HTO H H o e , KaK' T H T V J I H p H N e C O B B T H H K H B ffHKOM H H e p a C K a f l H H O M C O.G T O H H H H a T H T V ^ H p H H e C O B B T H H K H CJTTb paCKaflB- n n e c H HHTT/LJLVLC T H . ^4 In both of these examples we recogn ize the o r i g i n a l vo i ce o f S a l t y k o v , who was s u s p i c i o u s of the t o r r e n t o f l o f t y polemics which was l o s i n g ground w i t h each degree o f i t s e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g i n t e n s i t y . A t tha t p a r t i c u l a r time 14 S a l t y k o v the j o u r n a l i s t was the head of Sovremennik, a magazine o f h igh i n t e l l e c t u a l s tandards founded by P u s h k i n . He had to move very c a r e f u l l y i n h i s p o s i t i o n because, hav ing r e c e i v e d many warnings from the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , he d i d not wish to put' the e x i s t e n c e of Sovremennik at s t a k e . This was h a r d l y making him appea l ing to the younger genera- t i o n . F . V e n t u r i summed up the s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s way: In p l ace of t h i s appeal to the young g e n e r a t i o n , S a l t v k o v - S h c h e d r i n was able to make use of h i s mar- v e l l o u s s a t i r i c a l power, which expressed the b i t t e r - ness tha t most s e n s i t i v e s p i r i t s f e l t about the s u f f o c a t i n g u g l i n e s s of l i f e i n R u s s i a . He was able to a t t ack a l l the va r ious m o r a l , p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l b i g o t r y tha t was again coming to the fore a f t e r the shock of the reforms. But though S a l t y k o v - S h c h e d r i n p layed an impor tant p a r t i n the format ion of the i n t e l l i g e n t s i a between the ' s i x t i e s and ' s e v e n t i e s , he had no chance of p r o v i d i n g a n e w . p o l i t i c a l l i n e or a d i r e c t spur to the younger genera t ion .^5 I f , as V e n t u r i s a i d , S a l t y k o v had no chance o f p r o - v i d i n g a new p o l i t i c a l l i n e as a j o u r n a l i s t , he never cared fo r one as a w r i t e r . Here a g a i n , we come across the d i s - t i n c t i o n o f those , supposedly , two d i f f e r e n t "be ings" . S a l t y k o v the j o u r n a l i s t took p a r t i n the o b l i q u e j o u r n a l i s - t i c p r a c t i c e o f i n - f i g h t i n g ( e . g . , h i s polemics w i t h the b ro the r s Dos toevsky) . S a l t y k o v the w r i t e r remained wi thou t a p o l i t i c a l commitment, "a r e s t l e s s a v i a t o r , to whom the o l d e a r t h , overgrown w i t h the moss o f t r a d i t i o n , i s more h a t e f u l than anyth ing e l s e . " In h i s l i t e r a r y a r t he r a the r concent ra ted on a 15 cert a i n type, or various types which became his targets i n his s a t i r e s . The ga l l e r y of these types contains the Ivans, also c a l l e d Van'ki or Ivashki. The Ivans are Glupovians, 27 whose counterparts are S i d o r i c h i (those who decide the fate of the Ivans). The S i d o r i c h i are the governors, the minority; the Van 1ki are the majority, powerless i n r e l a t i o n 2 8 to the "better o f f " minority. Then come the pompadury, started i n 1863. This e d i f i c e i s crowned by the gradona- c h a l ' n i k i , or the governors of the town of Glupov from The History. Apart from th i s "Glupovian cycle" stand the l a t e r type: the tashkentsy (from the cycle Gospoda tashkentsy [1869-1872]), 2 9 The author allows for considerable movement within any of these categories or types, but there i s no movement from one type or category to another. This hints of a rather integrated b e l i e f i n a sort of typology which we can see only with d i f f i c u l t y , and very vaguely. In the extreme sense, i t would mean that Saltykov does not view society as divided into classes, as some would l i k e to have i t , but rather into various types of people that p e r i o d i c a l l y occur i n history and are e a s i l y recognized by him i n his contempo- 30 rary Russia. This point i s then ignored i n the studies which place The History i n the category of h i s t o r i c a l s a t i r e and i s one of.the indicators which point beyond the simplis- t i c i nterpretations. 16 The nightmarish t h e a t r e o f the e l a b o r a t e game which the S i d o r i c h i p l a y w i t h the V a n ' k i . s t r i k e s us wit h apparent r u l e s t h a t are obvious to a l l the observers and to none of the observed. One of the r u l e s i s t h a t no matter what the g r a d o n a c h a l ' n i k i (the type which S a l t y k o v uses i n The H i s t o r y whose predecessor was S i d o r i c h ) do, they are not to be under- stood by the Glupovians (the Ivashki) and v i c e v e r s a . To make the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f c o n t a c t (and p o s i t i v e communica- tio n ) even more d i s t a n t , there i s a r u l e which makes the Glu - povians unable t o understand themselves. To make the chaos complete, S a l t y k o v throws i n a n o n s e n s i c a l l y i r r a t i o n a l gradonachal'nik (governor),, a t a time when t h i n g s seem to be g e t t i n g b e t t e r . I f t h i s was Saltykov's. Weltanschauung, he co u l d be h a r d l y committed to any of the e x i s t i n g S a l v a t i o n i s t groups. The a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n on the Glupov theme together w i t h The H i s t o r y , l i k e an opus surrounded by the opuscula from which i t o r i g i n a t e d , are s a t u r a t e d by t h i s t ypology. As Lunachar - i sky s a i d , S a l t y k o v was r e a l l y a man who awoke sooner than the r e s t , and was f o r c e d to l i v e among the s l e e p i n g . The p o i n t which Lunacharsky missed i s the one where he speaks about the s l e e p i n g m a j o r i t y i n the past tense. The H i s t o r y shows us p r e c i s e l y t h a t the " o l d forms" a g a i n s t which S a l t y - kov r a i l s cannot be r e p l a c e d by forms which w i l l never grow o l d ; f o r some people, even what others c o n s i d e r "new" seems to be " o l d " ( i n t h i s S a l t y k o v i s very c l o s e to E . Zamyat in , who despera te ly fought the entrenchment .of what appeared to be the "new forms" a f t e r the S o v i e t R e v o l u t i o n o f 1917). 31 S a l t y k o v ' s s a t i r e s are l e s u top ies a rebours , i n the sense tha t they show tha t U top i a can be s t r i v e n f o r , but h a r d l y a t t a i n e d . A l l t h i s i s p e r f e c t l y i n keeping w i t h the au tho r ' s ch ron i c impat ience to see th ings "moving", and e s p e c i a l l y so i f cons idered at the background o f S a l t y k o v ' s p o l i t i c a l thought . D. N . Ovsyan iko -Ku l ikovsky t e l l s us tha t S a l t y k o v , l i k e Nekrasov, was a t f i r s t under the i n f l u e n c e of popul i sm (narodnichestvo) not devo id o f sen t imen ta l i sm coming from 32 the i d e a l i z a t i o n o f the muzhik. S a l t y k o v par ted w i t h the i d e a l i z a t i o n o f the muzhik and, s i m i l a r l y , w i t h another se t o f ideas which had appeared on h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l h o r i z o n i n h i s s tudent days , when, w i t h h i s vene ra t i on of B e l i n s k y , he imbibed the ideas o f French Utopian s o c i a l i s m represented by Proudhon, F o u r i e r and e s p e c i a l l y S a i n t - S i m o n . D. V . G r i s h i n wrote the f o l l o w i n g i n h i s comparative study of Dostoevsky and S a l t y k o v : L i k e Dostoevsky, S. Shchedr in i n the f o r t i e s was under the powerful i n f l u e n c e of the ideas of Utopian s o c i a l i s m . Both w r i t e r s p a i d fo r t h e i r enthusiasm w i t h e x i l e . Both accepted the ideas o f Utopian s o c i a l i s m i n a pu re ly i d e a l i s t i c s p i r i t . L a t e r S. Shchedr in broke w i t h the ideas of Utopian s o c i a l i s m . L i k e Dostoevsky, he was angered by the aim of t h i s sys tem's founders to " r egu la t e" and " c a l c u l a t e " the fu ture f u l l y and a r b i t r a r i l y ; and he c r i t i c i z e d "the 18 p i c t u r e s o f the future s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y " drawn by Chernishevsky i n the nove l What Are We To Do? (dreams of Vera Pavlovna) .33 S a l t y k o v ' s t o t a l r e j e c t i o n o f the " r egu la t ed fu ture" found expres s ion i n the p i c t u r e o f Glupov under the gover- no r sh ip o f Ugryum-Burcheyev. Th i s account o f a t o t a l i t a r i a n regime, i n many ways p r o p h e t i c , shows wi thou t doubt the breadth o f S a l t y k o v ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l independence which was to remain h i s h a l l m a r k . Al though he was an impa t i en t man, S a l t y k o v found time to s top and pose h i m s e l f a ques t i on about the nature of h i s own e f f o r t . He d i d so i n h i s s t o r y Capons (Kapluny, 1862), and t r i e d to answer; i t : ,3,'a.HeM TH B O J i H y e i i i & c f l , 3 a i e M 3a<5eraeuih B n e p e ^ ? - - a npo.CTO n o T O M y H Bojmyiocb, n . o T O M y H 3 a d e r a i o Bnepefl, .^TO ycHfl . e T b H a M e c T e He Mory! 34 . and fu r t he r o n - - ft He M o r y e . C T b , c n a T B H: T o n r a T L a c n 3 H b , KaK e-flHT, GIIHT H: T o n n y T e e r ^ y n o B i i H , H6O y M e n s Apyrne B K y c H , flpyrne HaMOHHOcTH. 35 The inces san t energy which was pushing him on was a force whose na tu re , and even d i r e c t i o n , was changing as the times were changing; but the u l t i m a t e aim—the s e r v i c e to common sense, so uncommon i n h i s t ime , and more s u b s t a n t i a l - l y , h i s exposure o f both o f f i c i a l and r a d i c a l humbug— remained e s s e n t i a l l y the same. This same force i s a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e fo r S a l t y k o v ' s campaign to recogn ize Glupov fo r 19 what i t r e a l l y was: his contemporary Russia. In thi s he went to such lengths that Glupov. became an obsession from which he f i n a l l y wanted to be freed. The whole process, including the period of obsession as well as l i b e r a t i o n from i t , involves roughly a decade, beginning with the Emancipa- tion of the Serfs. , ,H flOJiace'H C K a a . a T B n p a B f l y : T j i y n o B co . c T a B J i a e T RJISI Me HH H .CTHHHHH KOUIMap . HH MHCJIb , HH fl.eHCTBHH M O I He CBofioflHH. T j i y n o B flaBHT HX B c e i o cBoeio: THJKec TBIO; T j i y n o B n p e f t C T a B J i f l E T C H M H e B e 3 f l e : H B x j i e f i e , KOTO- PHM R eu, H B B M H 6 , K O T o p o e ^ H n b i o . B.oMfly jm a B ro . C T H H H y i o - - OH. T a M , BHH,zi,y. JW a B c e H H - - OH TaM, c o f i f l y jm B n o r p e d , HJIH B KyxHio - - OH T a M . . . B camS MOH K a d n H . e T , K&K a HH n p o B e T p H B a i o e r o , H a c T . o M H H B o B p H B a M T C f l r j iyuoBcK'He; 3 a n a x H . . He very soon r e a l i z e d that he was a prisoner of Glu- pov, and his e f f o r t to escape from th i s prison ended i n f a i l u r e on one plane: that on which Glupov was indeed Russia personified and devoid of fancy grotesquerie to make i t palpable and understandable. From th i s Glupov he did not free himself and remained, i n a way, an enemy to the Glupo- vian s t y l e of l i f e , i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s and representatives, to the end of his l i f e . On another plane, where Glupov figured as an imaginative, f i c t i o n a l e n t i t y , a l i t e r a r y idea that usurped the right to represent r e a l i t y i n i t s own way and with i t s own devic e s , — t h e r e Saltykov scored success. He put together a l l his.anguish, knowledge and s k i l l and wrote his s a t i r i c a l chronicle, The History of a Town, then wrote to a frie n d that i t (The History) closed a 20 37 c h a p t e r , t o w h i c h he w i s h e d n e v e r t o r e t u r n . Thus S a l t y k o v abandoned t h e r o a d on w h i c h he f i r s t s e t o u t i n 1848 when, b a n i s h e d , he came t o V y a t k a . • As a w r i t e r , he h a d f o l l o w e d t h e r o a d t o K r u t o g o r s k , and t h e n t o G l u p o v . The w o r l d o f p e t t y o f f i c i a l s and m i g h t y g o v e r n o r s , o f r e b e l l i o u s and p a s s i v e p e a s a n t s , o f p o o r t o w n s f o l k comple- mented by a r t i s a n s and t h e o c c a s i o n a l f r e e t h i n k e r , o f t h e f l e a s w h i c h p l a g u e d i t , o f h u n g e r and f i r e , o f t h e d r a b and g r e y c o u n t r y s i d e , — a l l t h a t made up t h e m i c r o c o s m o f R u s s i a we f i n d i n G l u p o v , w h i c h t h e n emerges t h r o u g h t h e e x o r c i s m o f t h e a u t h o r , who d i s p o s e d o f t h i s p a i n f u l a c c u m u l a t i o n w e i g h i n g h e a v i l y on h i s mi n d by i m m o r t a l i z i n g G l u p o v i n The H i s t o r y . CHAPTER II THE IDEA OF GLUPOV The idea of Glupov did not develop harmoniously. I t proceeded from a statement which Saltykof wrote i n Glupov and Glupovians (Glupov JL glupovtsy, 1862) , to an elaborate s a t i r i c chronicle i n The History. The structure of the whole Glupovian cycle reminds one, by i t s form, of konfuz, which the cycle depicts. Saltykov's konfuz i s simply not the same as "confu- sion". His konfuz, writes S. V i l i n s k i j i n his book 0 L i t e - v 1 r a r n i c i n n o s t i M. Jev. Saltykova-Scedrina, has a p o l i t i c a l colour. While i n Glupov :L glupovtsy Saltykov denies that Glupov ever had any his t o r y , l a t e r on, with the advent of konfuz brought about by the Reform of 1861, he changes his mind as he follows the peculiar s i t u a t i o n when the old order was disturbed and the new one was not yet established. Sal- tykov, looking at this s i t u a t i o n through the prism of s a t i r e , considers this a tragicomic development and decides that Glupov has a history a f t e r a l l , but one which was very spe- c i a l from those of the other c i v i l i z e d countries. I t was konfuz that marked the hist o r y of Glupov. The many desperate rebellions i n the history of Russia, i t s stubborn resistance of the new that was not marked by the peasants' expectations, the h y s t e r i c a l t h r i l l that ran through the body of the 22 peasantry af t e r the forced routine of i n e r t i a , a l l this was included i n the concept of Saltykov's konfuz. More s p e c i f i - c a l l y , konfuz originated when the authorities wanted to establish an order, a new order. Then chaos reigned supreme. For Saltykov, the pieces of the puzzle f e l l together a f t e r February 19, 1861: The publication of the manifesto i n 19th Febru- ary brought back i n a fla s h a l l the hopes, and disappointments, of the peasants. Throughout 1861 the great news of freedom produced a state of passionate excitement. The peasants protested against any aspect of the new s i t u a t i o n which did not correspond to t h e i r immediate i n t e r e s t or to the notion of"freedom that they had already formed. The i n the two following years hopes began to wane; the wave of excitement ebbed. The blow was severe and i t l e f t i n d e l i b l e traces on the most sensi t i v e men of a l l classes.2 One almost v i s u a l i z e s a sleeping giant who has just received a severe blow: he wakes up, gropes for something, but does not. f i n d what he hoped to f i n d . He i s puzzled for a while, then goes back to sleep again... There was a gap between the newly powerless n o b i l i t y and the advent of the bourgeoisie. For a time, the army had to apply strong repression. The consequence of t h i s , the puzzled giant, i s at the heart of Saltykov's konfuz. From this emanates the idea of The History. The comparison with the sleeping giant i s not s u f f i - cient to c l a r i f y a l l the i n t r i c a c i e s of those troubled times. We know now that what followed the awakening was not a sleep. The forces w i t h i n the mu l t i t ud inous mass of peasantry which craved fo r more of both zemlya and v o l y a were not dormant from tha t t ime . The con fus ion , t o o , was not l i m i t e d to j u s t the i l l i t e r a t e peasant . The gentry were as p u z z l e d as t h e i r s e r f s . This was indeed a p e r i o d of very cu r ious u n c e r t a i n t y r ega rd ing the f u t u r e , t h i s p e r i o d immediately p reced ing the decree o f Emanc ipa t ion . I t took a long t ime fo r e v e r y t h i n g to s e t t l e as i t "ought" to be . S a l t y k o v , i n h i s o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n as v i c e - g o v e r n o r of the Ryazan 1 and l a t e r , Tver p r o v i n c e s , had an e x c e l l e n t chance to see the whole p rov ince from the b i r d ' s eye view of h i s o f f i c e , but t h i s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e d h i s torment, because he was l i t e r a l l y f looded by repor t s of the m o n s t r o s i t i e s which b e f e l l the poor peasants on account of the army's i n t e r v e n t i o n , and h i s a l ready gloomy nature needed no f u r - ther l a c e r a t i o n s of the wors t p o s s i b l e k i n d tha t cou ld happen to any Russ ian gentleman of tha t p e r i o d . A t t h i s p o i n t he decided to i n t e r r u p t . h i s double career ( o f f i c i a l and l i t e r a r y ) i n favour o f the v o c a t i o n of a man of l e t t e r s and a j o u r n a l - i s t . In 1860 he began h i s c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Sovremennik. The i n n o c e n t l y na ive peasants , k i l l e d at the p e r i o d of t r oub le s s h o r t l y a f t e r the decree was p r o c l a i m e d , are sometimes d i f f i c u l t to recognize i n . G l u p o v i a n s . We w i l l see , however, t ha t they were i n c l u d e d there as p a r t o f a broader concept : as the peop le , narod , whom he d i d not wish to put forward i n a rough, g l o r i f y i n g and epi c way, because any p a t h e t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was f o r e i g n to him. He proved t h i s i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of the S l a v o p h i l i d e a of narod found i n Skazanie o s t r a n s t v i i inoka . P a r f e n i y a , (1856) : . . . cTpa.HHa.5i M H C j i b nejioMy H a p o A y RSLTB K a K y i o - T.o. 6e3pa3 JIHHHO-AO<5pOAB T e j i b H y i o C p H 3 H O H O M H K > . ^ Thus he was caught i n a c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a t , f o r any- one but S a l t y k o v , would have been very bothersome to recon- c i l e . On the one hand, he f e l t deeply w i t h the peasants, si n c e he knew them very w e l l (even as a c h i l d he t a l k e d w i t h and knew every s i n g l e peasant belonging to h i s f a m i l y estate) but he could not bear to submit to any i d e a l i z a t i o n of peasant l i f e , or even to such d e s c r i p t i o n as one f i n d s i n Turgenev and Tols t o y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , he objected to the karataevshchina, and so one cannot f i n d a s i n g l e p o s i t i v e reference to the peasants or even to narod. He r e c o n c i l e d t h i s w i t h h i s compassion f o r the odd Ivanushka who gets k i l l e d (thrown down from the b e l f r y ) a t the times of d i s t u r b - ances i n Glupov, and wi t h h i s sympathy f o r the few martyrs who died without being understood by the people. We could say that he loved what he considered the cream of the people, be i t a simple Ivanushka or a B e l i n s k y - l i k e c h a r a c t e r , but fo r the great mass, the Glupovians, he had anger and uncom- 5 mon hatred of some of i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , — m a i n l y the t r a d i t i o n a l i n e r t i a and the r e s i s t a n c e to the new. He d i d not leave us , then , narod w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r , se t physiognomy, but l e f t us w i t h a t e r r i f y i n g crown of u t t e r l y i r r a t i o n a l people who sway w i t h events as b i r c h t rees - do. L i k e them, they respond on ly when they are bo thered . With Glupovians e v e r y t h i n g happens. They are genuine ly innocent of any i n t e n t i o n s , good or e v i l . I f there i s a good year and they have p l e n t y of food—they d i d not c a u s e . i t . Comes hunger—they d i e l i k e f l i e s . They are not the p o s i t i v e hero o f the c h r o n i c l e . The anguish of the w r i t e r i s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between the governors of the town of Glupov ( g r a d o n a c h a l ' n i k i ) and the sub jec t s ( g l u p o v t s y ) . Judging from a l l t h i s , i t becomes ev iden t tha t the i dea o f Glupov, the concept ion o f the Glupovian c y c l e which terminated ' i n the c r e a t i o n of The H i s t o r y , i s r e l a t e d to the p o l i t i c a l developments of the decade which began on the eve of the Great Reforms. Despi te the ove r t references to the pas t , the konfuz and the charac te r s o f The H i s t o r y were modelled by the development of the decade mentioned, and so i n d i c a t e i n what way the c h r o n i c l e t ranscends the pas t and consequent ly goes beyond mere h i s t o r y . CHAPTER III KONFUZ AND THE CHARACTERS Considering the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l developments of the late ' f i f t i e s and early ' s i x t i e s , we get the idea of the progression of the central theme of The History: the relationship between the authorities and the people."'" In the early 'sixties,'the morale of the progressive and l i b e r a l c i r c l e s was s t i l l very high. The s p i r i t of reform which appeared i n Russian society i n the late ' f i f t i e s ran very high before the actual reform, mainly because a l l kinds of speculations about the nature of impending changes stimulated,the l i b e r a l imagination. Many imagined some fa n t a s t i c , spectacular events would take place, but a l l the plans of the more imaginative pomeshchik seem to vanish when those who were most involved--the peasants—began to inquire i n t h e i r own uneducated but spectacular way. Then i t ap- peared that t h e i r voices were not needed. The gentry auto- matically assumed the ri g h t to decide what would be best for the i r subjects, and this ended the b r i e f spate of condescen- sion which marked the late ' f i f t i e s . One of the reasons for the misunderstandings which followed was that the Tsar used the gentry as a transmission l i n k with the lowest c l a s s , but this lowest class refused the authority of the gentry and was w i l l i n g to l i s t e n only to the Tsar. In this way, there was no connect ion between the Tsar and the peasants . From the peasant ' s p o i n t of v i ew, i t seemed absurd to l i s t e n to the gentry because he thought the gentry would be s t r i p p e d of t h e i r a u t h o r i t y and power over h im, ans so would not be able to implement the changes (the Great Reforms), be ing cons idered by the peasant the pa r ty i n i m i c a l to the Emperor. The peasant viewed the Emperor as the l i b e r a t o r who would end w i t h the pomeshchiki onee and f o r a l l . Here , t o o , are the elements of konfuz . K O H C p V 3 n p O H H K B C K J f l V ; K O H C p V 3 B C e p f l l i a X IIOMeiUHKOB, K O H C p y 3 B c o o d p a a c e H H H X n o ^ T e H H o r o K j r n e i e c T B a , K O H C j p y 3 B j i H T e p . a T y p e H a c y p H a j i H C T H K e , K O H ( f a y 3 B y i i a x a f l M H H H - " C T p a T O p O B . ^ One of the many aspects of konfuz i s the change i n the a t t i t u d e of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and gentry towards t h e i r s u b j e c t s . In S a l t y k o v ' s S a t i r e s i n Prose ( S a t i r y v p roze , 1861) t h i s aspect i s ana lyzed . I t appears t ha t the konfuz brought about a " so f t en ing" of the hard way of d e a l i n g w i t h the peasants and the author wonders where a l l t h i s came from. He suggests I . S. Turgenev and Napoleon as the people who s t a r t e d the democrat ic ideas i n R u s s i a . He mentions Turgenev 's Rudin (1856) , but the French i n f l u e n c e i s preeminent: . . . fl O.'G T.a T O H H O BCIIOMHH Tb." TOJIhKO O, T O H IIOJIb3e, K O T o p y i o n p H H e c j i H FjiynoBy c H a n a j i a 3 M n r p a H T H cppaHD;y3- C K n e H n o T O M 06opBaHHHe o c T . a T K E de l a grr rande arm^e, H o: T.OM, K O T o p y i o flo HauiHX flHefi n p a H O C H T d p p a H i t y 3 H - r y B e p H e p n , c f tpaHn;y3H-Kya( f tepH, c p p a H u ; y 3 H - K a M e p f l H H e p H . ^ 28 The tone of the stories that deal with Glupov i n the Satires i n Prose i s very l i g h t compared to the tone of The History (within The History i t s e l f the progression to the t r a g i c i s noticeable). We can see here the elements of the future s a t i r i c chronicle i n a very loose form; Glupov i s s t i l l not considered i n that magnanimous, all-embracing way as i t was to become a few years l a t e r . The cycle of Glupov was begun i n the Satires i n Prose. F i r s t came the story Literatory-obyvate.li, then Kleveta, and the l a s t one: Nashi glupovskie dela. In a l l these three stories there i s an abundance of material of a " p u b l i c i s t " character, yet i t does not make them as temporarily t o p i c a l as some c r i t i c s feared. There are, of course, numerous allusions to various public figures, but the point from which they are attacked or commented upon has not yet l o s t i n t e r e s t and the reason for that i s the apparent p a r a l l e l 4 with contemporary (Soviet) Russia. One could almost say that the reason for the l i v i n g i n t e r e s t in.Saltykov i n the Soviet Union today, and for the new editions of his work (his Collected Works are being published at the present time and the l a s t e d i t i o n of The History was published i n 1970), i s his c r i t i c i s m of those phenomena which have survived for a whole century. But the Satires i n Prose are not p a r t i c u l a r l y conspi- cuous i n t h i s respect. The degree of generalization (and consequent ly the u n i v e r s a l i t y of i t s meaning) i s not as h igh as i t i s i n The H i s t o r y . I t i s the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f the shortcomings of the a u t o c r a t i c system of government and t h e i r c r i t i q u e tha t makes The H i s t o r y so a p p l i c a b l e wherever the au toc racy , and a l l t ha t goes w i t h i t , i n any form s t i l l s u r v i v e s . With the debut of Glupov and i t s subsequent e s t a b l i s h - ment i n s t o r i e s l i k e Glupovskoe r a spu t s tvo (1862) , Glupov :L g lupovtsy (1862), and Kapluny ( w r i t t e n i n 1862 but not pub- l i s h e d at the t ime because of; censorship) , , S a l t y k o v had a f i r m b a s i s ready fo r h i s s a t i r i c c h r o n i c l e . He had, more or l e s s , the i dea of Glupov and i t s i n h a b i t a n t s i n mind ever s i n c e . He d i d not know y e t what shape i t would t ake , but as the p i c t u r e of the narod became s o l i d , he s t a r t e d to work on i t s coun te rpa r t : the S i d o r i c h i , pompadury, g r a d o n a c h a l ' n i k i , a l l of them be ing the " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s " (as we now c a l l them) of the peop le , of the G lupov ians . In the second h a l f o f the ' s i x t i e s , a book by B . C h i - c h e r i n , 0 narodnom p r e d s t a v i t e l ' s t v e (1866), appeared i n R u s s i a . In i t C h i c h e r i n , an i n f l u e n t i a l a p o l o g i s t fo r the regime, t r i e s to show why i t i s , and how i t came about , tha t .the monarchy represents the peop le , and goes to great lengths 5 to show the supposed n a t u r a l cha rac t e r of the au toc racy . This book was o f great i n t e r e s t to S a l t y k o v , as i n h i s w r i t - ings he was t r y i n g to prove the c o n t r a r y , h a t i n g the autocracy 30 as h i s most i d e o l o g i c a l co l l eagues seldom d i d . The t h e o r i e s of another a p o l o g i s t — M . Pogod in ' s p r a i s e o f the Bezuslovnaya pokornos t ' n a r o d a / — i s an example o f the adver sa r i e s tha t the germina t ing ideas to be expressed i n The H i s t o r y had to combat. A t the t ime of w r i t i n g S a t i r e s i n P rose , S a l t y k o v ' s hope fo r an improved p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n was s t i l l h i g h ; he expected fu r t he r changes a f t e r the decrees . Exp re s s ion o f t h i s hope can be found i n K l e v e t a (1861): IIo B c e M n p H 3 H S I K 3 . M , n o j i o s c e H H e F j i y n o B a oflHO H 3 c a M H X d e 3 H a f l e a c H H x : e r o : TOHJJT K a K o H - T O H e ^ y r , KOTO- P H H H e M H H y C M O flOJBKeH n p H B e C T E K O f l p y C M e p T H . O f l H a K O , OH He: TOJIBKO He y M H p a e T , HO Aaace H3I>HB- Jifter. T B e p f l o e H a n t e p e H H e SCHTB d e 3 K O H q a . H He C M O T P H H a BHflHMyio H e j i e n o c T b BTHX HaAeacff, H He M o r y He p a 3 f l e j i a T b HX, a He M o r y He n p H 3 H a i b HX BnojiHe ocHOB.aTeJIBHHMH . . . X'OTH c o r p a a c s a H e : TBOH H n o p a - aceHH npoKa3oB, HO B 0 3 f l j r x T j i y n o B a HHCT, H6O o c B e - acaeTCa npn.fteTaioiii.HMH H 3 Y M H O B a B.e.TpaMH.7 Here , S a l t y k o v b e l i e v e s i n Umnov, which w i l l h e lp to change Glupov. Elsewhere i n ! Sat i res . . in-'Pr-ose, he mentions tha t a very long time ago, Glupov was c a l l e d Umnov t o o . He b e l i e v e s i n a rena issance o f t h i s fo rgo t t en Umnov. This i s another o f the impor tant d i f f e r e n c e s between the i dea o f Glupov which S a l t y k o v had i n the e a r l y ' s i x t i e s and the f i n a l i dea expressed i n The H i s t o r y , where the rena issance of Glupov i s not mentioned. Obvious ly S a l t y k o v , l i k e many of h i s contemporar ies , at f i r s t b e l i e v e d i n a s u b s t a n t i a l progress which never m a t e r i a l i z e d . 31 The l o s s of optimism i s exp l a ined by S o v i e t c r i t i c s a c c o r d i n g l y : . t h e coun te r - a t t ack of the r e a c t i o n a f t e r the Great Reforms made any progress i l l u s o r y . For S a l t y k o v i t was a b i t t e r l o s s , s i n c e he wished to see the l a s t minutes of Glupov: H Aaace H y B C T B y i o H e K O T o p y i o C H M n a r a i o K H O B o r j r y - n o B L i y i o . . O H M J M M H S i r o T O M y , "HTO O H - - - nocjteflHHH H3 r j i y n o B u e B . 8 S a l t y k o v never re tu rned to the novoglupovets and Umnov. In s t ead , he chose to concent ra te on the counte rpar t o f the g l u p o v e t s , on the type w h i c h , i n the gu ise o f a gover- nor o r . even a T s a r , r u l e d over the grey domain of Glupov. This t ime he chose to name i t pompadur, but the reader recognized the S i d o r i c h i n h im, as we might r ecogn ize pompa- dur i n the governors , those formidable g r a d o n a c h a l ' n i k i o f the town of Glupov. The Pompadours and Pompadouresses (Pompadury i pompa- dursh i ) i s a c o l l e c t i o n of s t o r i e s which were p u b l i s h e d dur ing the years 1863-1874. For our convenience , they can be d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : those p u b l i s h e d between 1863 and 1871, and those between 1871 and 1874. The s t o r i e s were p u b l i s h e d i n Sovremennik and Otechestvennye z a p i s k i . There were four e d i t i o n s o f Pompadours i n S a l t y k o v 1 l i f e t i m e : i n 1873, 1879 and 1 8 8 6 . 9 The pompadours were modelled a f t e r the p r o v i n c i a l governors and v i ce -gove rno r s whose l i f e S a l t y k o v knew intimately through his service i n Ryazan 1 and Tver. The pompadouresses are the ingenious lovers of these p r o v i n c i a l administrators. The choice of the pompadur was more than fortunate. The obvious sense that comes into one's mind f i r s t i s the Marquise de Pompadour, the famous eighteenth cantury favourite of Louis XV. Like her, Saltykov's pompa- dursha i s able to take care of the a f f a i r s of her lover. But the other sense of the word i s closer to the Russian reader than the f i r s t . Here, the words pompa and the c o l - l o q u i a l samodur (or dur) convey a mixture of the pomp and stupidity.which Saltykov wanted to express with this type i n the f i r s t p l a c e . 1 0 "• When Saitykov began to write this c o l l e c t i o n of s t o r i e s , he v i s u a l i z e d something d i f f e r e n t from the f i n a l product. His intent at the beginning, around 186 3, was to write what he c a l l e d a Provintsial'ny romans v d e y s t v i i , and so i n his l e t t e r to Nekrasov he c a l l e d them "stories about the governors". 1 1 Saltykov's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the genre as romans (a small musical form s i m i l a r to the b a l l a d , usually composed to an already popular poem) shows the i r o n i c bent which he wanted to give to these stories i n order to annoy 12 Fet, with whom he was at the time engaged i n a polemic. For the same reason he gave one of his stories the t i t l e Na zare ty ee ne budi, which was the f i r s t l i n e of one of Fet's poems. S i m i l a r l y , another story from the same series bears 33 the t i t l e Ona eshche edva umeet l e p e t a t ' , which was the f i r s t l i n e of Maykov's poem. On the whole , the content of the Pompadours i s to a great degree t o p i c a l , as had been s a i d many times by many c r i t i c s about the whole body o f S a l t y k o v ' s work. T o p i c a l i n the sense tha t he i s very open i n address ing h i s s a t i r i - c a l charges to h i s p o l i t i c a l opponents. I t i s dated by i t s a n a l y s i s o f the pos t - r e fo rm p e r i o d . However, there are s t o r i e s which are c l o s e r i n cha rac t e r to The H i s t o r y than to the s e r i e s fo r which they were in t ended . Such i s the l a t e s t o r y o f the f i r s t group, Edinstvenny ( U t o p i a , 1871), where he presents a very e x c e p t i o n a l pompadur who resembles the governor , P ry shch , of The H i s t o r y ; •HH H a y K , HH H C K y c c T B OH He 3 H a j i ; HO e c j i H n o n a - fla^iacb n o f l p y K y KHHHCKa c K a p T U H K a M , TO p a c c i i a T P H - B&JI ee c yflOBOJib.c T B n e M . B o c o f i e H H O . C T H H p a B H J i a c b e M y n o B e . C T b o noxoacfleHHHX P o d H H 3 0 H a K p y 3 o e H a H e O6H T a e M O M o . C T p o B e (K c n a c T b i o H 3 f l a H H a a c KapraHKaMH.-'-^ This pompadur was a man who hated v i o l e n c e which the admi- n i s t r a t i o n used to keep ' ' law and o r d e r " . He i s very sad and annoyed by . the r epor t s f i l e d by a non-commissioned p o l i c e - o f f i c e r , who r e g u l a r l y turns i n r epo r t s about impending r e b e l l i o n s and r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s . S ince "e to t pompa- dur dazhe s r e d i neobyknovennykh byJL samy neobyknovenny" , he decided tha t r e b e l l i o n s and r e v o l u t i o n s e x i s t e d on ly i n the mind o f the non-commissioned p o l i c e - o f f i c e r . B . a A M K H K C T p a u H K . ' o n 6h\ji tpiwioeoq: VL-6U'JI ydeacfleH, H T O c a M a a jrynmafi a f l M H H K C T p a i i H H - 3 a K J i i o H a : e T C H B O T c y r c T B Z Z : x a K O B o M . l ^ As t h i s Is a "Utopia", the pompadur proclaims: "Net revolyutsiy-s 1 Net i_ nikogda nebyvalo-s I" and arrests the non-commissioned p o l i c e - o f f i c e r . This, of course, does not take place i n that Russia as we know i t from other stories from the same s e r i e s . The example, i n i t s obvious absurdity, i s close to the s p i r i t of The History and was picked up with that i n mind. In the other s t o r i e s we come across things which Sal- tykov used l a t e r i n The History. Such i s the t i t l e of the pompadur's writing, 0 blagovidnoy administratora naruzhnosti, which we f i n d i n the story Stary kot na pokoe (1868) , where the author of the mentioned piece of inspired writing i s the pompadur Blamanzhe, while i n The History, Saltykov changed the t i t l e to 0 ";blagovidnoy vsekh gradonachal' nikov naruzh- 15 n o s t i , whose "author" there i s the governor Mikeladze. Also, i n the already quoted Maykovian-titled story, Ona eshche edva umeet lepetat 1 (1864) , we come across a form of warning: "Razzoryu!", which w i l l be so t y p i c a l for the gover- nor Organchik (Brudasty), who w i l l pronounce i t with the machanical " l i t t l e organ" i n The History. A t y p i c a l pompadur, however, i s not the one who arrests his non-commissioned p o l i c e - o f f i c e r , nor the one who shouts "Razzoryu1". I t i s a d i f f e r e n t man, a character l i k e Mit'ka Kozlik, created according to Saltykov's personal experience. A young man, whose only occupation u n t i l he i s t h i r t y consists of promenading down the Nevsky, having dinner at the Dusseaus (on c r e d i t ) , and going to the Mikhailovsky Theatre i n the evening, i s the most l i k e l y future pompadur. After he passes his t h i r t i e t h year, the d i r t y jokes, which he kept t e l l i n g the company of young fashionable men i n St. Petersburg, begin to bore him and he yearns for a d i s t i n - guished position i n the province. Having an i n f l u e n t i a l uncle and aunt, his wish readily turns into r e a l i t y , and he becomes Dmitry Pavlovich Kozelkov. Very economically sketched, this brisk development of Mit'ka Kozlik into a p r o v i n c i a l governor i s a masterly miniature found i n the story Zdravstvuy milaya, khoroshaya moyaI (1864). In ano- ther story, Na zare ty ee ne budi (1864), the same Kozel- kov' s e x p l o i t s , as those of an established pompadur, are followed. He i s compared tojMetternich on account of the s k i l l f u l way he plays his opponents against each other. But ingenuity is„*not a predominant feature of the pompadur type i n general; rather, i t i s t h e i r s t u p i d i t y as demonstrated i n Staraya pompadursha (186 8), where a widow—pompadursha—wins over, unceremoniously, the new pompadur, discovering that he i s as stupid as her husband was. After a while, she reigns over the province... Saltykov's pompadurs are e s s e n t i a l l y bureaucrats. We see them i n t h e i r d a i l y contact with t h e i r subordinates, and we learn about the problems of a p r o v i n c i a l character; t h e i r occasionally absurd reaction to these problems does not make this series a writing of the absurd. There i s a mass of very concrete p o l i t i c a l material that i t s s a t i r e e x p l o i t s . A l l the pompadurs s t r i v e for power and more power, and some are unhappy that they are not allowed to write the law for th e i r provinces. Despite t h e i r hunger for power, they lack the "greatness" of a gradonachal'nik, who does not have a nobler o r i g i n than the pompadur, but his "greatness" i s achieved by a t t r i b u t i n g great designs to these o f f i c i a l s , designs imcompatible with the mere governorship of a provin- c i a l town. The gradonachal'nik gives us the impression that he, l i k e an autocrat, i s not interested i n the "petty de- t a i l s " concerning the actual administration; he decides only the general course of his p o l i c i e s . The Utopian pompadur who appeared i n the story Edinstvenny (Utopia, 1871) has much i n common with Gogol's Kostanzhoglo, Fonvizin's Pravdin, and also GOncharov's Stolz. They are a l l "too good to be true". They represent respec- t i v e l y the timely attitudes of t h e i r authors towards the q u a l i t i e s and a b i l i t i e s that a contemporary man should pos- sess. However, Saltykov had the advantage of coming up as the l a s t one of those mentioned writers, i n that he did not repeat the "mistake" of his great colleagues. He did not pretend to present the pompadur as the hero of just another of his s t o r i e s , but as the hero of his Utopian story. In his own comic way, this pompadur represents the b e l i e f held by his author, at the time of the publication of the story, i . e . , around 1871 when, as we have seen, he did not believe any more i n the reforms or Utopian socialism. As d i f f e r e n t as the pompadurs are, they a l l come from the same stock. They .'invariably originate i n the great family of S i d o r i c h i , whom Saltykov avidly studied throughout the ' s i x t i e s : . . . M e H a 3a.HHMa.eT He flOMaiUHee y c T p o M c T B O CH # O _ - p H H e M , 06 3 T O M H 6e3 Me Hfl flOBOJIhHO n u c a j r a - - HO n p B e f l e H H e H aejia. HX , K a K p a c H , cyme.cTByicai ief i n O J L H T H H e C K H * This, no doubt, i s per f e c t l y i n accordance with the peculiar typology (dela ikh kak rasy), already mentioned at the beginning of this work. The series Pompadury i pompa- durshi i s a study of th i s type, which evolved from a crude 17 o f f i c i a l of Krutogorsk through novoglupovets to pompadur. As Saltykov concentrates on th i s type, the mass (glupovtsy) i s standing far i n the background. Saltykov mentioned this e a r l i e r , i n 1862, i n what amounted to a l i t t l e declaration of a programme: . . . ' n p e f l M B TOM MOHX H 3 H C K a H H H 6HJIH H ' G y f l y T HCKJUOHHTejIbHO C H f l O p H H H . 18 • — t h a t i s , those i n power, l i k e pompadury, or gradonachal'- n i k i . 38 In the series Pompadury we also f i n d what w i l l be so important i n The History: the art of condensing his type into a sketch that bears a l l the necessary.features to make him representative of the type, the characterization of the various characters according to th e i r speech which, further- more, determines t h e i r s o c i a l standing; the role of nature as the factor which stresses the development of the character. In 1865, Saltykov wrote to Annenkov that he was begin- 19 nmg to write Ocherki goroda. Bryukhova; i n 1867 and 186 8 he wrote to Nekrasov about the pompadur with the stuffed 20 • head. These plans', however, indicate the gradual develop- ment of The History. Instead of the history of Bryukhov,. Saltykov wrote the history of Glupov, the pompadur with the s t u f f i n g i n head turned into the gradonachal'nik Pryshch. In 1869, the January issue of Otechestvennye zapiski c a r r i e d the f i r s t chapters of The History. These chapters marked the synthesis of a decade-long quest for adequate expression of his ideas about the people and t h e i r r u l e r s . I have attempted to trace the development of the type of the ru l e r s , and also to point out the influence of the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n connection with Saltykov's konfuz, being aware of t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e for The' History. When Saltykov published the f i r s t chapters he did not know how controversial his s a t i r i c chronicle would be, nor did he foresee that his s a t i r i c presentation of the most troublesome problem i n Russian i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y — t h e problem of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the people and t h e i r rulers-—would become a work of art which would free i t s e l f from the f e t t e r s of the time and present a view of the hi s t o r y of Russia that would not only transcend the period and the p e r s o n a l i t i e s with which.it was dealing, but also give an i n s i g h t into the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of the Russian nation. CHAPTER IV THE HISTORY OF GLUPOV PK'CTOPHH y T j i y n o B a H.eT - - c p a K T n e n a j i B H H M H.' THJKejIO :OTpa3HBIHHfiCH H a o 6 . H T a T e j i H a x . " — Saltykov Saltykov wrote the above i n 1862.''" At that time, he had not idea that what seemed to be a joke at the beginning (Glupov) would grow into a cycle which he would conclude with a history of Glupov. So, after a l l , Glupov had a hist o r y . I t was written according to the pr i n c i p l e s which were used by Pogodin, Shubinsky, Bartenev, Mordovtsev, Mel'nikov, i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l studies. That means that the history of Glupov was to be the history of i t s r u l e r s , the governors (gradonachal 1niki), because these his t o r i a n s took spe c i a l pains to prove t h e i r t h esis, according to which the history of Russia was actually the history of the r u l i n g dynasty. Pokusaev'writes: HfleojiorH iiapH3Ma, HCTO'PHKH -- „rocyAap:cTB6HHHKH" yTBepacflaroT, :HTO c a M O f l e p a c a B H a n B ^ i a ' C T b - - 3TO C y a T O CH c a M a a c o 3 H f l a i e j i b H a a , c a M a a p a c n o p H f l H T e j i b H a n C H J i a H C T O p H H . C a^ITHKOB-UIeflpHH K a K CH flO K p a H H Q C T H flOBOflHT ' 3 T y p e a K U H O H H y i o H f l e i o , BHJKHMa.eT B e e H e j i e n o c T H , K O T o p n e O H a TSSRT B c e f i e . : ^ This meant, p r a c t i c a l l y , that Saltykov, i n order to parody the h i s t o r i a n s , chose to develop t h e i r ideas ad absurdum and show how wrong they were. This assumption seems to render 4 1 the pathos of the work' i d e a l l y , ever since we can r e f e r to the sympathies which Saltykov was supposed to have for Shchapov's ideas on hi s t o r y , more s p e c i f i c a l l y , on the pre- 3 dominant role of people rather than sovereigns. Shchapov, a h i s t o r i a n , said the following on that subject: It i s now a well-established notion that the fundamental factor of history i s the people i t s e l f and that i t i s the s p i r i t of the people that makes histor y . This idea i s no longer new . . . Yet, i n order to be s a t i s f i e d by Pokusaev and Ki r p o t i n , we should see Saltykov showing the people actually making h i s - tory. Quite the contrary: The History i s a powerful accusa- tion of the people's lack of any constructive action except senseless r e b e l l i o n s , bunty that more than anything else stood as a target for Saltykov's sarcasm. I t appears, then, that Saltykov's work rejects the implications of a narrow inter p r e t a t i o n which operates with the "black and white" system (or, "reactionary and progressive"), since pointing out the author's c r i t i c i s m of something i d e n t i f i e d as "reac- tionary" does not necessarily bring us the same author's agreement with what i s considered "progressive". Generally, i t i s much safer to point out what i s being attacked than to show from what standpoint the attack was directed. The reasons for which this work seems to i n v i t e the c r i t i c s and lure them into p o l i t i c a l interpretations, i s i t s powerful negativism. One feels i n the chronicle the author's strong d i s l i k e for the subject treated. I t i s , indeed, a morbid pathology of the times and the smell of decay which emanates from i t i n v i t e s the ideologue to pronounce his judgment only to be defied by the work's complexity which embraces more... Quite apart from these 'considerations stand the fact that, for the most part, material for this s a t i r e was sup- p l i e d by what we may c a l l i n general the Russian p o l i t i c s of the nineteenth century, but t h i s does not give us license to construe a binding theory which not only f a i l s to persuade the reader, but simply offers an unsatisfactory resolution. The text which w i l l be under analysis on the follow- ing pages comes from the l a t e s t (1969) ed i t i o n of Sobranie 5 sochinenii, which.is reprinted from the 1883 e d i t i o n : that i s , the l a s t one published during Saltykov's l i f e t i m e . ^ There were important changes i n the order of the chap- te r s . In the f i r s t (journal) e d i t i o n , the chapter 0 koreni proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev appears as the l a s t (sixteenth), while the f i r s t book ed i t i o n puts i t into t h i r d place. Ano- ther item, the Opravdatel'nye dokumenty, which i n the journal text appeared i n s i x t h place, i s put at the end of the f i r s t d e f i n i t i v e book ed i t i o n (published i n St. Petersburg i n 1870). 7 Formally, the composition of The History i s a parody of the usual type of monograph that contemporary his t o r i a n s wrote. I t i s a chronicle divided into two parts; the f i r s t consists of general and introductory chapters, the second devotes a sp e c i a l chapter to each "personality" or governor 8 of Glupov. The whole work i s appended by the "documents" mentioned above (Opravdatel'nye dokumenty). I t i s probably due to this structure that the censorship found i t impossi- ble to prevent the publication of this work (the material to which censorship objected was spread i n such a way, due to the structure, that the complete picture i s obtained only when a l l i t s parts are put together), but the composition was not the only device designed to confound the censor. T* i e PQ^t °f view was another of the author's multitude of ingenious ideas i n this game. At the beginning, Saltykov pretends to the role of a mere publisher who edits and pub- lishes "podlinnye dokumenty". He speaks i n the work with many d i f f e r e n t voices: as a publisher and three d i f f e r e n t a r c h i v i s t s , chroniclers. This gives him ample opportunity to interrupt the chronicler as the publisher (or as himself) But, most of a l l , this arrangement gives him a license where by he describes the events through the eyes and s e n s i t i v i t y of a chronicler whose point of view i t s e l f i s a source of s a t i r i c a l presentation of the said events. F i n a l l y , the chronicle i s written i n an Aesopic language f as termed by the c r i t i c s , i n t e n t i o n a l l y ambiguous enough to make the censor as well as the modern reader uncertain about the meaning of many a l l u s i o n s . In the introduction, Ot izdatel'ya, we are t o l d that the chronicle covers a period beginning i n 1731 and ending i n 1825. The whole period i s summarized here and the reader also receives c e r t a i n clues that t e l l him how to look at the work which he i s about to read. For example, speaking about the. variety of governors and th e i r d i f f e r e n t approaches to the changing problems, the author suddenly reveals: B c e . o H H c e i c y T o f i H B a T e j i e M , HO n e p B H e c e x y i a6co- JUOTHO, B T o p a e o d t a c H H i o T n p H H H H H C B o e H p a c n o p a f l a - : Te-zibHo.cTH: Tp.e:6oBSHHflMH n.HBiMH3,aH.HH,: TPBTBH acejiaiOT, :HTO6 o6HB.aTeji'H B O . B c e M no^ioacHJiHCb H a a x O T B a r y . ^ 0 --and the reader i s aware that the preceding talk about the variety of the governors was a smoke-screen. In another part of the introduction, the author writes about the fan- t a s t i c occurrences that took place i n the period which the chronicle covers (1731-1825), saying that this should be enough to show the reader what an abyss separates him (the reader) from the past. However, the content of the chroni- cle i s constantly proving the contrary ( i . e . , there i s no abyss, no change). This fa l s e emphasis recurs i n the chronicle as i t . i s one of Saltykov's favourite devices. After the introduction, there i s another short item. It i s the Obrashchenie k chi t a t e l y u ot poslednego arkhiva- r i u s a - l e t o p i s t s a . The function of this piece i s to turn the attention to the i m p l i c i t rank of the governors. Through many h i n t s , the " c h r o n i c l e r " l e t s the reader know th a t the governors (whom he c a l l s Nero, A c h i l l e s , etc.) represent a more elevated o f f i c e than the e x p l i c i t rank of the governor of a p r o v i n c i a l town. For that purpose, the " c h r o n i c l e r " quotes from Derzhavin's V e l 'mozha ( K a j i n r y j i a ! . T B . O H K O H L B o e s a T e / He M o r C H H T B , C H H A B 3uraTe : / C H H J O T . flodpne peji&l ) The comparison of the governors to despots does not leave the reader i n doubt as to the r e a l meaning of the forthcoming " h i s t o r i c a l " r ecord. This chapter i s w r i t t e n i n the eighteenth century s t y l e w i t h corresponding expressions, but the f a l s e impression of the mockingly o l d document i s suddenly brought out by the reference to Bartenev (1829- 1912), Saltykov's contemporary,. and the reader i s once again 12 reminded of the present r a t h e r than the past. In the con- c l u s i o n of the Obrashchenie, the c h r o n i c l e r compares Glupov to Rome: . P ' a3HHIia B" TOM" T O J I b K O C O . C T O H T , H T O B P H M e C H H J I O H e n e . C T H e , a ? y H a c ^ - f i j i a r o H e . C T H e , ' P H M 3apaaca^ i o 6yM:cTBO, a H a c - - K p . o T O ' C T b , B PaMe d y m e B a j i a nop.jia.si n e p H b , a y H a c - - H a n a ^ i H H K H . 1 3 With t h i s , the sho r t Obrashchenie ends, and the mer- c i l e s s l y i r o n i c view on the o r i g i n of the Russian Empire fo l l o w s i n the chapter, 0 k o r e n i proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev the chapter which i n the j o u r n a l e d i t i o n appeared as the l a s Here we f i n d the d e s c r i p t i o n of the beginning of Glu- pov, and so Salt y k o v deems i t necessary to inaugurate i t i n an appropriate fashion: He x o n y H, n o f l o f i H O Ko . C T O M a p o B y , c e p H M BOJIKOM n o 3 a M J i H , HH, n o f l o f i H O C o j i o B t e B y , IHH3HM o p j i o M uinp.aTb no/i; o f i j i e K H , HH n o A o C H O ITfiinHHy, p a c T e K H T B C H MHCJIBIO n o flpeBy...14 This i s a s k i l l f u l travesty of the Slovo o polku Igoreve (BOSH d o B e m n M , ante K O M y x o T f l i i i e n e c H K TBOPETH,: TO p a cTeKanieT C H MHCJIHIO n o flpeBy, c e p H M BJIKOM n o 3 e M J i H , UIH3HM 15 o p j i o M no/i o d j i a K y ) , where Saltykov wove i n the names of three contemporary historians known by t h e i r d i f f e r e n t ap- proaches to the history of Russia. Mentioned are: M. I. Kostomarov (1817-1885), who stressed the importance of the national movements rather than the role of the rulers (his works Bogdan Khmel'nitsky and the Time of Troubles i l l u s - trate his opi nion); S. M. Solov'ev (1820—1879), who belonged to the opposing camp, bel i e v i n g that the Russian state was developed because of the policy of the Tsars: and A. N. Pypin (1833-1904), who used for his works very broad back- ground material of a c u l t u r a l nature. I t i s amazing how well Saltykov managed to give the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these three scholars, while staying inside the s t y l i z e d imitation. The function of this pseudo-rpoetical introduction to the history of Glupov i s to show the way i n which Saltykov's want to treat his material; to the exclusion of the most current methods, he w i l l bring a record, a chronicle of t r i v i a , which.will as often as not be absurd, naive, feeble- minded and also profound. I f we could compare the events that Saltykov mentions to a cover which envelops some essence or i m p l i c i t material, then with each absurdity t h i s cover w i l l deteriorate, and through the holes we w i l l catch ,a glimpse of the essence of the chronicle, i t s adaptable, uni- versal message of the predicament of the human being s u f f e r - ing under severe l i m i t a t i o n s imposed on him by- the authorir t i e s . For this reason, we fi n d i n The History contemporary thought, knowledge of the concepts which appeared i n the historiography i n Saltykov's time. As Kir p o t i n says: ECZEH BHHMSLTe^IbHO B HH T £L T b CH B." Te K'C T „ H C T O p H H oflHoro r o p o f l a " . TO 06HapyxcH TC H, ^TO UteflpnH n e p n a j i Rjia CBoero i u e#eBpa MaTepHaJLH H3 C o B p e M e H H O cTH He B MeHbiueM CTeneHH i e M H3 HCTOPHH.17 — b u t at the same time, Kirpotin turns to the one-sided approach, the danger of which was already elucidated on the previous pages: C a M a a cpopMa n a p o s r a Ha: T p y f l H y i e HHX-C oBpeMeHHHKOB, Ha HX KOHueniiHH , Ha HX n c i H T H H e c K H e B3VJisip,u, e f l K a a H a c M e u i K a Ha# o T p n i i a H H e M po j i n H a p o f l H H x M a c e H HCTO- pHHecKOH 3 aKOHHO.c TH peBOJIIOLIHH. BHOCHJIH B KHHPy lUeflpHHa ' f l y x aKTyajibHO.CTH. 18 On the basis of The History, i t i s not possible to make Saltykov a champion of the "role of the masses" and the " h i s t o r i c a l i n e v i t a b i l i t y of revolutions". Such opinion i s useful for i l l u s t r a t i o n of the reading subjected to one- sided i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . K i r p o t i n i s ri g h t when he says that the book has a s p i r i t of a c t u a l i t y . 48 In the chapter 0.koreni proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev, Saltykov traces the o r i g i n of the Glupovians to a t r i b e which he c a l l s golovot'yapy. The name comes from the t r i b e ' s main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , that of h i t t i n g t h e i r heads on anything within reach. This t r i b e was surrounded by a number of other tribes with s i m i l a r l y funny names: . . . M o p a c e e f l H , j r y K o e f l H , vyw,eep,n, KJIIOKOBHHKH, KypajiecH, B e p T f l ^ a e 6o6n, j r a r y i i i e H H H K H , JiairoTHHKH, H e p H O H e f i n e , A O j i d e a c H H K H , n p o j i o M J i e H H L i e r o ^ o B H , c^ i e n o p o f l H , r y d o n u r e r i H , B H C J i o y x H e , K o c o d p i o x n e , panyuiHHKH, 3ayrOJIBHHKH, KpoineBHHKH H pyKOcyn.19 Suvorin, the author of the most quoted negative review of The History, c a l l e d the above-quoted names of the various tribes l i v i n g i n the area of present-day Russia a 20 "mockery of the nation". In defence, Saltykov wrote a l e t t e r to Vestnik Evropy, the journal i n which Suvorin's review appeared i n 1871: . . . yTBepacf la io [wrote Saltykov] , .1JTO HH OAEO H 3 3 T H X H a 3 B a H H H He BHMHIIIjieHO MHOB, H C C H J i a K C b B " 3 T O M c j r y n a e H a Hajia, CaxapoBa H spyrnx jno6.HTe.aeM pyccKoM HapoflHO .CTH. OHH 3acBHfl : e T e j i b . c T B y K T , "HTO .3T:OT „ B 3 f l O p " COHHHeH C S M 0 M HapOflOM. ..21 I. P. Sakharov's work Skazaniya russkogo naroda f u l l y supports Saltykovi "Morzheyed" was a name for the inhabitant of the Arkhangelsk area, "gushcheyed" and "dolbezhnik" for 22 the inhabitants of Novgorod, and so on. In a s i m i l a r vein, Saltykov writes about the deeds of the golovot'yapy: BoJiry TOJIOKHOM 3 aicecHJIH, II.OTOM T e j i e H K a H a daHio 49 : T a m H J i H , noTOM B Kouie j i e K a i u y B a p n ^ i n , n o T O M K 0 3 J i a B co j ioaceHOM T e . C T e y i o n i M H , noTOM CBHHBIO 3a do6pa K y n n j i n , # a cofiaKy 3a BOJiKa y C n - a n , n o TOM j i a n T H p a c T e p a j i H fla n o A B o p a M H C K a j r a : 6UJIO J i a n T e M i n e . C T B , a C H C K a j I H C e M b ; n O T O M p a K a C KOJIOKOJIbHHM 3BOHOM B.C T p e n a ^ i H , n o T O M m y K y c ann . c o r H a ^ i H , n o TOM K O M a p a 3a B O C e M B Bep .CT JIOB.HTB X O f l H J E . . • 3 A l l t h i s , as a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n o f R u s s i a n h i s t o r y , was v e r y i n s u l t i n g t o t h e f e e l i n g o f n a t i o n a l p r i d e and p r o w e s s , s o h i g h l y e x t o l l e d d u r i n g t h e c e l e b r a t i o n s o f R u s s i a ' s m i l l e n n i u m . B o t h l i b e r a l s and c o n s e r v a t i v e s s h a r e d t h e b o i s t e r o u s f e e l i n g o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , a l t h o u g h t h e y c e r t a i n l y d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r v i e w s as t o t h e f o r c e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e R u s s i a n s t a t e . S a l t y k o v , j u d g i n g f r o m h i s work, l a c k e d — i f we a r e t o l o o k a t h i m t h r o u g h t h e eyes o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s — t h e s e n s e o f i d e n t i t y n o t o n l y w i t h t h e " h i s t o r i c a l R u s s i a n n a t i o n " , b u t a l s o w i t h t h e s e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l m i l i e u , and t h e p r e v a i l i n g Z e i t g e i s t o f h i s t i m e . He was s k e p t i c a l when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h e i t h e r t h e p a t h e t i c e f f e r v e s c e n c e o f t h o s e who p r a i s e d n a r o d , o r t h e c a l c u l a t e d p l a n s o f t h o s e who w i s h e d t o p r e - p a r e a b e t t e r f u t u r e f o r i t w i t h t h e i r r i g i d s o c i a l i s t schemes o f a U t o p i a n c h a r a c t e r . C l e a r l y , t h e n , he was an o u t c a s t . I n p r e s e n t i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e G l u p o v i a n s (narod) i n a p r o f o u n d l y a n t i - p a t h e t i c way, S a l t y k o v made u s e o f t h e r i c h f o l k e x p r e s s i o n s w h i c h s u p p l i e d h i m w i t h a f o l k s y a t t i - t u d e t o w a r d what t h e p e o p l e t h o u g h t was s t u p i d ( p a K a c KOJO- 50 KCTibHHM 3BOHOM B e T p e ^ a j i H , n o TOM myKy c aim c o r H a M , e t c . ) . The s t u p i d i t y of the Glupovians i s almost unlimited and the author does not waste a single l i n e without stressing t h i s i n the chapter O koreni...; i n one place, describing the search for a r u l e r undertaken by the Glupovians, they spend three years and three days looking for a suitable prince who would be w i l l i n g to take them as his subjects. (parody of the i n v i t a t i o n : o f the Varangians). They make i t known that they are looking for the most stupid prince i n the world. On t h e i r way, they ask everyone to show them the way to the stupid prince: IIIJIH OHH no pOBHOMV M e . C T y T p n r o f l a H. TPH AHH, H B e e H H K V f l a n p n . i z T H H e M o r j i H . H a K O H e n . , . o f l H a K O , . flouiJiH flo C o j i o T a . BHAHT, CTOHT H a K p a i o C o j i O T a M y x ^ i o M e i i - p y K o c y f i , p y KaBHirH.' T o p n a T 3a n o H C O M , a OH A p y r n x H i n e T . -- He 3 H a e i u t jm, jnodesHBiM p y K O c y r o n i K O , rfle 6H HaM TaKoro KHH3a C H C K a T t , HTO6H He 6UJIO e r o H a cB.eTe r j i y n e e ? - - -BQUOJIVLJIVLOR r o j i o B O T a n H . -- 3Haio, e c T K T a K o M , - - O T B e n a j i pyKocyM,-- B.OT H f l H i e n p f l M o n e p e 3 6OJIOTO, K a K p a 3 . T y T . E p O C H J I H C B OHH B e e p a 3 0 M B COJIOTO, VL 6 OJIbllie n o j i o - BHHH HX T.yT n.OTonjEO ( „ M H o r H e 3 a 3eMJiio CBOK n o p e B H O - • BSLJIW." , r o B o p u T j r e T o n n c e n . ) ; .<: .^4 Here we have a good example of st y l e of the whole work. In the f i r s t place, Saltykov shows us a non-event, a banal account of the group of s i l l y people i n search of one who should be even more s i l l y . This group loses more than half i t s people i n the swamp because of i t s s t u p i d i t y . The 51 key to the understanding of th i s passage i s i n the words „ M H o r H e 3a.3eMjr.10 CBOK) nop e B H O B a j i n " , a c l i c h e one could f i n d i n a h i s t o r i c a l monograph of that time. This sentence, how- ever, sets the whole non-event into i t s proper perspective, hinting that the r e a l h i s t o r y , the r e a l o r i g i n of what was l a t e r to become the Russian Empire consisted as well of simi l a r non-events, the absurdity of which becomes immediately obvious as i t i s contrasted with any gross, g l o r i f i c a t o r y statement l i k e „ M H o r H e 3a 3eMjno CBOK n o p e B H O B a j i n " . Further on i n The-History, we w i l l f i n d even more banal and t r i v i a l incidents which Saltykov treats with a l l the seriousness and respect that a chronicler would invest into them. The search-party of the Glupovians (at that time s t i l l c a l l e d golovot'yapy), f i n a l l y reaches the prince for whom they have been looking such a long time. I t i s t h e i r voluntary choice to become his vassals and they accept his demands. The ruthless prince, a f t e r giving them his orders, l e t s them go with these words: „A KaK He y M e j i H BH acHTb H a CBoeS BOJie is c a n , vjrynue, noacej ia jra ce6e Ka6ajrH,: TO H a a H B a T b c a B a M B n p e f l b He r o j i o B . O T f l n a M H , a r j i y n o B i i a M H . "^5 Saltykov stresses here the voluntary character of t h i s a t i r i c a l " i n v i t a t i o n of the Varangians". For our purpose, i t i s not important that modern historiography treats this " i n v i t a t i o n " more or less as a supposed incident, pointing out the half-legendary and almost mythical character of Rurik's appointment. The veracity of the facts i s inten- t i o n a l l y distorted or ignored for a simple reason: Saltykov was not writing a history of Russia. He was a s a t i r i s t , not a h i s t o r i a n . His aim as a s a t i r i s t was not to give a s a t i - r i c a l account of Russia's past, but a s a t i r i c a l account of the phenomena which originated i n Russia i n the past and. haunted i t s present. C H A P T E R V THE TWO KINDS OF NAROD Since mystical and f a t a l i s t i c views on the problems of Russia were foreign to him, Saltykov makes the golovot'- yapy responsible for turning into the glupovtsy. Theirs was the choice and they chose submission instead of freedom. There exists a p o s s i b i l i t y of the S l a v i c tribes having been subjected by force, but Saltykov does not approach t h i s , because contemporary historians did not, and, on the contrary, g l o r i f i e d the legendary " i n v i t a t i o n " . This g l o r i f i c a t i o n , rather than the h i s t o r i c a l incident i t s e l f , was objectionable to him, and The History s e n s i t i v e l y records s i m i l a r events, which were interpreted o f f i c i a l l y i n such a way that Saltykov' reacted by r i d i c u l i n g them i n his chronicle. This i s the case with the rest of the h i s t o r i c a l material with which Saltykov so prodigiously plays, leaving something out and adding something else instead, to the discomfiture and mis- understanding of those who looked for the missing events. Suvorin, i n the previously mentioned review of 1871, not only c r i t i c i z e d Saltykov for not mentioning such impor- tant h i s t o r i c a l events as Pugachev's Uprising and many others, but, more seriously, accused Saltykov of what he c a l l e d "glumlenie^nad'narodom", of mockery of the people. 1 Saltykov r e p l i e d with two l e t t e r s , i n which he explained many 54 things about The History. These two l e t t e r s are at the same time the most detailed statement about the aim and nature of The History. One i s a personal l e t t e r to'A.^.N. Pypin, the editor of Vestnik Evropy, the other i s addressed to the jour- nal i t s e l f . In the f i r s t one, as b e f i t s a private l e t t e r , 2 Saltykov i s more outspoken. In the l e t t e r to the journal, Saltykov defends himself against the charges of mockery of the people with a shatter- ingly bold theory. He comes out with the idea that a d i s - t i n c t i o n should be made (presumably by the reviewer, Suvorin) between the h i s t o r i c a l people (narod istoricheskiy) and the people as the embodiment of democratic ideas (narod kak vo- p l o t i t e l ' i d e i demokratizma). Saltykov accuses Suvorin of not making such a d i s t i n c t i o n : Bood i i i e , He,zi,opa3yMeHHe O T H O C U T e j i b H O vjijujie-RVLa. Hafl HapoflOM, KaK K a a c B T c a , n p o H C x o f l H T :OT: T o r o , "HTO pei ieH3S.HT MOH He . O T J i H ^ a e T n a p o f l a n e T o p u n e c K o r o , : TO e:cTi> fleMcTByiomero Ha nonpnuie HCTOPHH, :OT Hapof la K a K BomioTHTeJIH H f l e n • fleMOKp.aTH3Ma. I lepBHM OD;&HH.-. B a e T c a H n p H o f i p e T a e T c O I J T B ' C T B H e n o Mepe geji CBOHX. EGJIH OH npoH3BOfl.HT E o p o f l a B K H H H X H v r p i o M - E y p H e e B H X ; . ; : [the most notorious governors of Glupov]', TO o C O H y B C T B H H He M03K.ST 6 H T b p e H H J eCJIH OH B H K a 3 H B a e T C T p e M J i e H n e BHHTH HG COCTOSJHHH 6 e c c o 3 H . a T e a b H o . C T H : T o r f l a c o i y B S T B a e K HeMy HBJIHBTCH B n o^ H e 3 a K O H H H M , HO M e p a B i o r o conyBCTBHH B c e - T a r a o f i y c JiOBJiHBa.e TCH M s p o i o y c H J i n M , flBjiaeMHx HapoflOM H a n y T H K co3H . a T e j i b - HO.'CTH. The po s i t i o n of Saltykov i s made c r y s t a l clear by this explanation. He cannot be accused of the said mockery, because the people for him consist of two parts. His s a t i r e 55 h i t s only one part, the part which Saltykov thought deserved to be h i t . Satire here i s meant i n the general meaning: a l i t e r a r y work that holds up to r i d i c u l e and contempt i n denouncing, exposing, or deriding vice, f o l l y , abuses, stu- p i d i t i e s or e v i l s of any kind. Saltykov then asserted the rig h t to r i d i c u l e whatever he l i k e d with a form which he considered appropriate. I t i s no wonder that an introductory chapter l i k e the one Saltykov wrote generated such an amount of c r i t i c i s m and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t was here that the e d i f i c e b u i l t by the g l o r i f i e r s was attacked at the very foundations. The Glupovians are ruled i n d i r e c t l y at f i r s t . The "most stupid of princes", who had agreed to be the Glupovian r u l e r , sent a t h i e f to substitute for him. This arrangement did not prove s a t i s f a c t o r y , and so the prince came to Glupov personally and with a shout " I ' l l f l o g you to death!" took over control of the town of Glupov: "S etim slovom nachalis' 4 i s t o r i c h e s k i e vremena." The brisk ending of the introductory chapter expresses the "philosophy".. of most of the governors who were to rule over the town of Glupov, the flogging being the unchanging c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the changing times. In the preceding chapter the author had given us a l i s t of the governors, whom we already know by the name which Saltykov gave them: gradonachal'niki. Although these are sent to Glupov "from above", t h e i r existence depends on the tolerance of the Glupovians, as the author writes i n his l e t t e r to Suvorin. For, i f they aire ready to tolerate the vicious governors, i t means they (narod) are unconscious beings and as such they f u l l y deserve to be ruled by them. This, then, i s the meaning of the two kinds of narod. The s a t i r i c chronicle t r i e s to bring about a change and wake up the "unconscious beings" by concentrating on the gover- nors by revealing t h e i r viciousness and, at the same time, t h e i r emptiness. CHAPTER VI THE GOVERNORS The t i t l e gradonachal'nik, which Saltykov gave to his governors, was not f i c t i t i o u s . The o f f i c e of gradonachal'nik was established i n 1862. The gradonachal'nik was respon- s i b l e f or the administration of the two " c a p i t a l s " — St. Petersburg and Moscow--and also of the seven main ports, such as Odessa, Sevastopol and others. He d i r e c t l y super- vised the police and the municipal "self'government". The main function of the gradonachal'nik (according to the Bol'- shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya) was to f i g h t the revolution- ary movement. The fact that Saltykov used this designation for the period preceding the actual establishment of the o f f i c e makes i t an int e n t i o n a l anachronism, i n which The History abounds. The anachronisms were designed,'in general, to d i r e c t the reader'ts attention to the present; i n the case of the o f f i c e of the governor, to d i r e c t attention higher than to the o f f i c e of a mere governor of a town. A short chapter, Opis' gradonachal'nikam ( L i s t of Governors), i s a l i s t of governors who ruled over Glupov between 1731 and 1826. The l i m i t (the year 1826) i s only formal, for he breaches i t with his anachronisms and r e f e r - ences to contemporary events that make any spe c i a l i d e n t i - f i c a t i o n and c o l l a t i o n a senseless exercise. Saltykov 58 stressed i n his already quoted l e t t e r that he did not want to be s t r a i t j a c k e t e d by any formal obstacles and chose to defy a l l the l o g i c a l and factual precepts that a non-̂ s a t i r i c a l work was obliged to follow: . . . B CVIIIHO.CTH, H H H K O r f l a He "CTeCHHJICa CpOpMOK) H nOJIb3 OBajICH eK) JLHWb H a C T O J I b K O , HaCKOJIhKO HaXOflHJI .3TO HyacHHM; B of lHOM Me.cTe roBopH-zi OT J inrja a p x H B a - p n y c a , ' * B flpyroM--.OT C B o e r o c o f i c T B e H H o r o ; B O#HOM-- npHflepacHBajicH y K a 3 a m i f i HCTOPHH, B flpyroM--roBopH^i o. T a K H X d p a K T a x , KOTOPHX B flaHHyio MHHyTy coBceM He 6HJIO. The Opis' gradonachal 1nikam (from now on, the Li s t ) contains twenty-two ent r i e s . The number of entr i e s , however, does not correspond to the number of governors treated more extensively i n the book. A l l i n a l l , only seven of the t o t a l of twenty-two are accorded an extensive treatment, while the other serve another function. Thus, the next chapter does' not begin with governor number one, Klementiy, as i t should, but with number eight: Brudasty (Organchik). The L i s t i s also a sample of the kind of nonsensical humour which sporadically invades the pages of the chronicle. To show an example of contrasting ent r i e s , I w i l l compare Boro- davkin (number twelve on the L i s t ) with Du Chariot (number eighteen): 12. E o p o f l a B K H H , B a c H M C K C e M e H O B H H , T p a f l O H a - n a j i B H H H e . ' C T B O cue 6HJIO c a M o e n p o f l o j i a c H T e j i b H o e H c a M o e 6 jie.cTfliuee . L T p e f l B O J i H T e J I K C T B O B a ^ i B KOMnaHHH n p . O T H B Hef lOHMiUHKOB, npHHeM c n a j i H J i T p H f l i r a T K T p n flepeBHH H, c noMoupo CHX M e p , B 3 H C K a j i Hef lOHMOK flBa -py6jia c no: j iTHHOio . BBeji B y n o T p e f i j i e H n e n r p y Ji&uyw H n p o B a H C K o e ua.cjs.o-, 3 a M O . C T M 6a3apHyio r M o m a / i b H 3 a c a f l H J i <5epe3KaMH 59 yjmixy, Beflymyio K npHcyT.cTBGHHHM M e . cTBM; BHOBB x o f l a - . TaMcTBOBaj i o 3aBef l . eTHH B P j i y n o B e a n a f l e M r a , HO nojiy- ^HB : o T K a 3 , nocTpoHJi. cBe3»CHH floM. YMep B 1798 rosy, H a 3 K 3 e K y H H H , H a n y T C T B y e M H i i K a m i T a H - H c n p a B H H K O M . ^ • l 8 . ' " i flio. Ulapno, • BHKOHTV Aureji flopoqpeeBHH, dppaHn;y3- CKHM BH-xoflen. JIK6HJI p a f l H T b c a B a c e H C K o e n j i a T t e H j i a K O M H J i c H jiaryuiKaMH. LTo p a c c M O T p e H H H , O K a 3 a j i c a fleBHnew. B t i c a a H B 1821 r o s y 3 a r p a H H u y . ^ Borodavkin i s a character with whom Saltykov i s con- cerned much more than with Du Chariot, i f we take them as representatives of the two strains that make up th i s work. The f i r s t would be .the serious one, of the Borodavkin kind, while the other might i n v i t e charges of the "laugh for laugh's sake" kind. On the whole, these two elements co- ex i s t and are intermingled, which demonstrated i n .the very condensed account of governors' a c t i v i t i e s the Opis' grado- nachal 'nikam. If we look at Borodavkin, for example, we see two kinds of a c t i v i t i e s : he burned down thirty-three v i l l a g e s i n his "administrative zealousness", and also introduced some card game (lamush), and o l i v e o i l . The second a c t i v i t y offsets the heavy, t r a g i c impression received by the sad fact of the burning down of the v i l l a g e s . Such i s the func- ti o n of the governor Du Chariot's place i n the L i s t ; i t i s a l i g h t touch of the comic which keeps the balance of the tragi c and comic i n check. Later on i n the chronicle t h i s balance w i l l be tipped on the side of the t r a g i c . As we look at the governors on the L i s t , the problem of the t o p i c a l i t y of thi s s a t i r i c work emerges once more: i s 60 i t possible for the reader to read this s a t i r i c chronicle without being acquainted with the specificum of that p a r t i - cular s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , the r e a l i a that served as a model for i t ? The answer i s p o s i t i v e , because the merging of s a t i r i c and purely humorous elements makes for two kinds of reading. The chronicle offers a r i c h s a t i r i c palette for. the i n i t i a t e d while making laugh those who are not. To understand t h i s , we might perhaps modify s l i g h t l y the state- ment of T. S. E l i o t , who said about Shakespeare's plays: For the simplest auditors there i s the p l o t , for the more thoughtful the character and c o n f l i c t of character, for the more l i t e r a r y the words and phrasing, for the more musically sen s i t i v e the rhythm, and for auditors of greater understanding and sensitiveness a meaning which reveals i t s e l f gradually.5 Thus, for some, Saltykov's work w i l l be a work of humour, for others a b i t i n g s a t i r e which has l o s t i t s impact because i t i s t o p i c a l , and for another group of people i t w i l l be both humorous and s a t i r i c a l and not at a l l dated i n the nineteenth century, because for them Saltykov's charac- ters are caught i n the i n f e r n a l machine of c o n f l i c t s produced by the epoch which was made Saltykov's t a r g e t — a l l of which could be expressed under the term condition humaine. If i d e n t i f i e d t h i s way, The History projects the evolution of the human condition which he saw as a continuum e a s i l y d i s - cernible i n the eighteenth century: MoaceT 6HTB, H H ouinfiaiocb, HO B BCAKOM c j i y n a e 61 ouinfiaiocjb coBepiueHHO H C K p e H H O , HTO: Te ace c a m e OCHOBH acH3HH, KOTopne cyme.c TBOBajiH B XVIII B e K e - - c y m e . c TBVIOT H: Tenept.6 I t i s clear from th i s statement that the governors do not act i n a void, they are rather limited i n t h e i r actions by the said continuum. In view of t h i s , the s a t i r i s t refuses to populate the space that he created with i d e n t i - f i a b l e monarchs; he rather uses cert a i n types ( f a i t h f u l to the mentioned typology) who, to be sure, embody some of the cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Russian autocrats, but never to the point of mere s a t i r i c plagiarism of actual Russian hi s t o r y , of which some accused him. From amongst the governors that are accorded more extensive treatment, so far only Borodavkin has been men- tioned. The rest of the seven are: Dvoekurov, Ferdyshchenko, Brudasty, Benevolensky, Grustilov, Ugryum-Burcheev. The remaining f i f t e e n governors form a galle r y of often i n c r e d i - ble characters, where the mundane clashes with the fa n t a s t i c : Pfeyfer, Bogdan Bogdanovich, sergeant of the guard, for example, was taken from his po s i t i o n because of his igno- rance (this i s mundane); a Frenchman, Marquis de Sanglot, a friend of Diderot, was known for his light-mindedness, his singing of obscene songs, and f l y i n g i n the a i r . The l a t t e r was almost f a t a l for him, since once as he was f l y i n g i n the garden he almost flew away but he got stuck on the point of 62 a tower (this i s f a n t a s t i c ) ; another governor, Major Pryshch, had his head stuffed with appetizing s t u f f i n g , the governor Ivanov was of such a small stature that he could not absorb the voluminous regulations and died from exhaustion when try i n g to comprehend,some senat o r i a l ukaz (mundane and fan- tastic) . The gradonachal'nik Mikeladze died of exhaustion too, a f t e r he had enlarged the population of Glupov twice. The governors whom Saltykov treats more extensively l a t e r i n his book are characterized i n the L i s t only b r i e f l y , but at the same time they are endowed with t h e i r most t y p i - c a l features or.accomplishments to make the L i s t comparable to a petite dictionary entry of a h i s t o r i c a l personage. To sum up the L i s t of Governors, one has to stress the importance of the p o s s i b i l i t y of reading and understand- ing this chronicle on more than one l e v e l . The- material of the L i s t can be readily adopted by the reader who does not know the relevant h i s t o r i c a l p a r a l l e l s which are offered to him; he w i l l simply read i t as a book of absurd humour. On the other hand, one can understand Suvorin's objection as the reaction of a man who knew very well the d e t a i l s on the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l l e v e l to the extent of excluding a more simple interpretation of the work, i n fact disregarding any other possible reading except that of a consistent, b i t i n g h i s t o r i c a l s a t i r e . In many respects, the whole chronicle resembles the L i s t . As i n the L i s t , the reader finds i n the chronicle deep changes of both the tone and the characters; one i s led through a perpetual c i r c l e of comedy and tragedy, the ups and downs of which, l i k e bumps on a country road, remind one of the L i s t . Here the reader also finds a sample of Saltykov's technique of humour, his laughter through tears. CHAPTER VII LAUGHTER THROUGH TEARS „H flOJiHO eme o n p e f l e j i e H O . MHe o 3 H p : a i b BCKJ r p o M a f l H O - H e c y m y i O C H K H 3 H B , 0 3 H P H T L e e C K B 0 3 B BHf lHHH M u p y C M e X H H e 3 p a M H e , H e B e f l O M H e e M y — Gogol Laughter through tears was c a l l e d a "serious philoso- p h i c a l element" by C. Kulesbv : i n her work about The History. Whether or not a philosophical element, laughter through tears appears to be the condition of the s a t i r i c chronicle. This condition consists of two contradictory ingredients: the comic and the t r a g i c , yet i t i s not iden- t i c a l with tragicomedy inasmuch as the l a t t e r , as a ru l e , has a happy denouement, while Saltykov's s a t i r i c chronicle 2 has a very macabre and mystical ending. Tragic, i n our case, i s the very s i t u a t i o n or state of things. The Glupovians, flogged throughout the duration of the period covered by the chronicle, supply and consti-' tute the tr a g i c element here. Their predicament i s one of the targets 'for Saltykov's mockery, irony and exercise i n wit and humour. The laughter that results from the use of abundant s a t i r i c a l and humorous devices i s not a boisterous, careless' one; the readerj'aware of the p l i g h t of the 65 Glupovians, laughs then through tears, as i t were, unable to dissociate the humorous incident from the gruesome s i t u a t i o n of the Glupovians i n general. The History was written for the reader who actually l i v e d i n Glupov, i f we are to believe Saltykov. As such, he was sens i t i v e to the, above-mentioned "tragic element" as i t was part of his l i f e , and so i t was necessary to show the Glupovians i n such a way as to make him detest the Glupo- vians, to enlarge t h e i r s t u p i d i t y to such an extent that he 3 ' would be prevented from sympathizing with them. Saltykov did exactly that: he deprived the reader of the p o s s i b i l i t y of sympathizing, yet he made an e f f o r t to assure him that Glupov was not an ephemeral creation. This, no doubt, added a tinge of bitterness to even the c r a z i e s t escapades that we encounter i n the chronicle. The role of the s a t i r i s t who u t i l i z e s "smekh skvoz slezy" i s to see l i f e through both laughter and tears. For Gogol, as we can see from the quotation at the beginning of this chapter, thought that people could see only the laugh- ter while he saw also the tears (He3 p u M t i e , HeBeflOMHe [Mupy] c a e 3 H ) . Thus, i n Gogol's The Greatcoat (Shinel', 1842), the people, mir, represented by the colleagues of Akaky Akakie- vich see only the comical part of the poor o f f i c i a l ' s l i f e . Gogol then makes a point of exploring the "unseen" part, the ridiculous but moving desire to own a nice, warm overcoat. When reading i t , we are conscious of the author's manipula- tion of our sympathy. In Eikhenbaum's analysis of The 4 Greatcoat, the s h i f t of emphasis, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r i o r i t i e s — t h e enlarging of the i n s i g n i f i c a n t d e t a i l at the expense of what seems to require more at t e n t i o n — s e r v e s as a 5 method of grotesque composition, which i n i t s turn relays the idea of smekh skvoz' s l e zy to the reader. Thus, when we look at smekh skvoz' s l e zy i n The History, we inevitably turn to Gogol for comparison. This comparison i s pertinent not only for the understanding of the s a t i r i c a l genre i n general, but mainly for the under- standing of Saltykov's u t i l i z a t i o n of the devices used by his great predecessor. C. Kulesov^ mentions, i n this con- nection the work of A. Slonimskii (Tekhnika komicheskogo u 7 Gogolya), whose analysis of Gogol's work i s supposedly euqlly v a l i d for Saltykov's work. The danger of comparison, however, l i e s i n the closeness of the things compared; they are close to each other, but they r e t a i n t h e i r s p e c i f i c features. So i t i s with the works of the two authors d i s - cussed here. The genuinely t r a g i c element never gains the upper hand i n Gogol's work, while Saltykov's i s often marked by excruciating gloom (an example of the l a s t i s supplied by Saltykov's most famous work, The Golovlevs [Gospoda Golov- levy, 1872-76] , where a l l the p r i n c i p a l characters die a slow death i n an atmosphere of decay devoid of any hope). 67 A s i m i l a r gloom hangs over Glupov. Kyra Sanine, i n her book on Saltykov, writes: . . . le f a i t est que,1*Element tragique, absent de premieres pages, prend ensuite une place de plus en plus grand.8 This s i m i l a r i t y to The Golovlevs should be stressed and not overlooked, as i t usually i s i n works devoted to The His- tory . I t i s an i n d i c a t i o n of a change of d i r e c t i o n . As pointed out i n the discussion about the differences of approach i n P r o v i n c i a l Sketches and The History, one that was examined i n the f i r s t part of t h i s work, Saltykov became s c e p t i c a l about the outcome of the Great Reforms; and his s a t i r e i n the decade that followed the a b o l i t i o n of serfdom, a s a t i r i c a l rendering of r e a l i t y , r e f l e c t e d some of this scepticism. The light-hearted, humorous (albeit i n the minority) gives way to the sardonic, expressed by means of sarcasm, irony and invective. The invective, designed to d i s c r e d i t the misconduct of the public, then takes the most . . . 9 important position m The Golovlevs. The gloomy, the t r a g i c , present more than before i n Saltykov's writing, s t i l l gives place to h i l a r i o u s scenes and i l l o g i c a l commentaries supplied by the chroniclers (there were four of them). Such i s the f i r s t chapter, Organchik, which describes the period of the governorship of one Bru- dasty (marked as number eight i n the L i s t of Governors, Opis' Gradonachal'nikam,^ who arrived i n Glupov i n 1762. . Brudasty 68 i s n o t a human b e i n g , b u t a p u p p e t w i t h a s p e a k i n g a p p a r a t u s e n a b l i n g h i m t o p r o n o u n c e o n l y two w o r d s , "Ne p o t e r p l y u 1 " and l a t e r , " R a z o r y u l " The j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f t h e image o f a m a n - l i k e m e c h a n i c a l o b j e c t w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l l y t h i n k i n g g r o u p o f o f f i c i a l s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e m a l f u n c t i o n o f t h e a r t i f i c i a l v o c a l c h o r d s i s h i l a r i o u s , m a i n l y b e c a u s e t h e o f f i c i a l s a r e b o t h e r e d l e s s by f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i r g o v e r n o r was o n l y a p u p p e t w i t h an empty h e a d and a l i t t l e m a c h i n e t h a n by t h e d a n g e r t h a t m i g h t a r i s e i f t h e G l u p o v i a n s were. i n f o r m e d a b o u t i t . They do n o t f i n d i t v e r y s t r a n g e and a c c e p t t h e i r g o v e r n o r , s i n c e he was s e n t t o them f r o m a b o ve: . . . noMoniHHK r p a f l O H a n a j i b H H K a coodpa3HJi, :HTO eacejin oflHaacflH sonymeHO, .HTO6H B T j i y n o B e diiji ropOAHHMHM, HMeiomuM BMe.CTO TOJIOBH npo.cxyio yKJiaflKy, : TO, .CTajio <5HTh, .3TO: TaK H cJiepye T. H The c o m m e n t a r i e s s u p p l i e d by c h r o n i c l e r s whose judgment i s o f t e n i m p a i r e d i s a n o t h e r d e v i c e w h i c h h e l p s t o d i s p e l t h e gloom. The f o l l o w i n g example f u n c t i o n s on more t h a n one l e v e l : BO3HHK B o n p o c : K a K y i o Haf lodHO.c T b Mor HMBTL r p a f l o - H a n a j i b H H K B E a M d a K O B e , KOTOPHM, KpoMe: T o r o ."̂ TO nn j i de3 n p o c n n a , dHJi eme H ABHHM n p e j n o d o f l e M ? 1 The m a t t e r c o n c e r n s B aybakov, t h e watchmaker, c a l l e d t o r e p a i r t h e i l l - f u n c t i o n i n g h e a d o f B r u d a s t y , O r g a n c h i k . The commentary employs f i v e d i f f e r e n t i d e a s t i g h t l y p a c k e d i n one s h o r t s e n t e n c e : 1) t h e p r o b l e m ( v o z n i k v o p r o s ) , 2) t h e need f o r B a y b a k o v (kakuyu n a d o b n o s t ' , e t c . ) , 3 ) B a y b a k o v d r i n k s ( k o t o r y i , krome t o g o c h t o p i l ) , 4) B a y b a k o v d r i n k s 69 without r e s t r a i n t (bez prosypa), 5) Baybakov i s a f o r n i c a t o r . Not only i l l o g i c a l when we connect the b e g i n n i n g of the sentence w i t h i t s c o n c l u s i o n (the need f o r Baybakov, the f o r n i c a t o r ) , i t i s a l s o i l l o g i c a l (and w r i t t e n w i t h t h a t purpose) as a commentary, s i n c e the c h r o n i c l e r omitted the most important t h i n g about Baybakov, the f a c t t h a t he was a watchmaker i n the f i r s t p l a c e , and then a drunkard and a f o r n i c a t o r . The wealth o f i r r e l e v a n c i e s reminds one of Gogol's w r i t i n g . L i k e him, S a l t y k o v t r i e d to e x p l o i t t h i s technique as o f t e n as the t e x t p e r m i t t e d . In the f o l l o w i n g c i t a t i o n from the b e g i n n i n g o f the chapter Voyny za prosve- shchenie, S a l t y k o v c h a r a c t e r i z e s the new governor who- has come to Glupov, V a s i l i s k Semenovich Borodavkin: B o p o f l a B K H H , CMeHHBiaHH fipHraflupa <i>epflumeHKV, npeflcTSLBJISIJI c o B e p i u e H H y i o n p o T H B o n o j i o a c H O CTB C B o e i n y ripeffMe.CTHHKy. H a c K O J i b K O nocneflHuK 6HJI p a c n y m e H H p H X J i , Ha 'CTOJibKO ace nepBH8 n o p a a c a j i p a c T p p o i i H O C T b i o H K a K O B - T O H e C v I H X a H H o M aflMHHHC T p a T H B H o S B H e f l H H B O - C T M , KOTopaa c o c o f i e H H o S aHeprneM n p o a B J i a j i o c b B B o n p o c a x , KacaBiunxca Btie / ie HHOTo a n n a . IIo:cToaHHO 3 a c T e r H y T H M Ha B e e n y r o B H U H H H M e a n o r o T O B e dpypaac- K y H n e p n a T K H , OH npe / i ; : cTaBJ ia j i CO6OH T a n r p a f l O H a - r n a j i b H H K a , y K O T o p o r o H o r n BO B c a K o e B p e M a T.OTOBH 6eac:aTb H e B e f l O M O K y z i a . Hneu OH, KSH M y x a , M e j i b K a j i n o r o p o , z i y , H a f i j u o f l a a , .^Tofi odHBaTeJIH HMe JIH 6OAPHH H B e c e J i n M B H f l , Ho^bio - . -TyuiHJi n o a c a p H , Rejiaji gbaj ib- niHBHe: T p e B o r n H Boo6m,e 3 a c T a B a . a . B p a c n j i o x . 1 3 Amidst what reads l i k e a m a t t e r - o f - f a c t d e s c r i p t i o n , we f i n d d evices t h a t p e r s i s t e n t l y r e c u r throughout the work; i r r e l e v a n t d e t a i l : „3a : c T e r H y i H M Ha Bee n y r o B H U H H HMea n o r o - TOBe dpypaacKy H n e p n e TKH" ; p l a y upon words: „ n o p a a c a j i . . . 70 aflMHHH'C Tp.aTHBHOH BHeflHHBQ .C ThK), KOTOpafl C O C O d e H H O H 3 H e p r n e M n p o H B J i a j i o c b B B o n p o c a x , K a c a B i i i H X C H B H e f l e H H o r o H H i i a , " (from a proverbial expression, „ H e CTOHT BNeseHHoro aMna" = "not 14 worth a wooden n i c k e l " ); grotesque si m i l e : M f l H e M OH, K a K M y x a , M e j i b K a j i n o roposy," a parody of l o g i c a l form, where the projected sense of the sentence i s turned into nonsense: T , . . . OH n p e f l . c T a B J i f l j i codoM: THII r p a A O H a n a j i b H H K a , y K O T o p o r o H o r n BO B C H K o e B p e M a TOTOBH descaTB H e B e f l o i n o K y q a . " The whole paragraph, moreover, i s concluded with a bout of fever- ish a c t i v i t y which has nothing to do with the a c t i v i t y expected of a governor („TyuiHJi n o s c a p H , Reji&ji dpajiHuiHBHe: T p e - BOPH' 0 Boodme 3acTaBaji B p a c n j i o x " ) , and which, therefore, makes us r e a l i z e what kind of administrative e f f i c i e n c y distinguished t h i s new governor from the old one. The author gradually leads the reader to accept that there was b a s i c a l l y no difference abong the various governors. Borodavkin, whom Saltykov presents as the opposite of his prececessor Ferdy- .shchenko ( n n p e f l C T a B J i a j i c o B e p u i e H H y i o np:oTHBonoj ioacHo.c TB" ) appears to have no redeeming features which would help to ameliorate the l i f e of the Glupovians. The humour of this passage comes from the interplay of two sets of ideas: one set i s our expectancy that the picture of Borodavkin w i l l conform to our image of an e f f i - cient administrator, an improvement over the former one; the other set of ideas i s the deformation of the i d e a l of an 71 administrator by s k i l l f u l manipulation of the above-mentioned devices. Seen from the point of view of the structure of the chronicle, the chapter Voyny za prosveshchenie comes a f t e r the chapters Solomennyi gorod and Fantasticheskii puteshest- vennik-; the f i r s t of those two chapters contains a deeply moving description of a v i l l a g e f i r e , h ailed as one of the few powerful and authentic descriptions of a v i l l a g e on f i r e 15 i n Russian l i t e r a t u r e . The other shows the governor Ferdy- shchenko indulging i n "travels" through the t e r r i t o r y of Glupov. I t i s a mockery of famous journeys undertaken by Catherine the Great through southern Russia. Both the chap- ters lean towards the t r a g i c , and so the coming of Borodav- kin and his description l i f t s for a while the p a i n f u l impres- sion and restores the balance of the t r a g i c and the humorous. One feels that i n the case of Solomennyi gorod Saltykov went too far i n one d i r e c t i o n , namely towards the deeply t r a g i c , and this i s not the only example (the conclusion of the chronicle', discussed further on, i s another case of the same); i t i s a turning point of sorts, a f t e r which The His- tory takes on a more serious tone and shows less of the p l a y f u l comedy of i t s f i r s t h a l f . Borodavkin i s an important character of the chronicle. Unlike those governors before him, Borodavkin contemplates the o f f i c e of a governor and t r i e s to evaluate the actions 72 of his predecessors: . . . OH HBHJIC& B T j i y n o B H npeacfle B c e r o n o f l B e p r H y j i C T p o r o M y p a c c M O T p e H H i o HaMepeHHfl H # e a H H a CBOHX n p e f l i n e c T B e H H H K O B . Ho K o r / i a OH B3rJifmyji H a C K p n a c a j i H , . TO T a K H a x H y j i . B e p e H H i i e i o n p o i n j i H . nepefl HHM : H K j i e - M e H T H H , H B e j I H K a H O B , H J I a M B p O K a K H C , H E a K J i a H , H. M a p K H 3 fle C a H r j i O T , H i e p f l H i n e H K O , HO ^TO .qe j ia j iH -3TH JHOAH, o i e M OHH a y M a j i H , K a K n e s a f l a ^ H n p e c j i e R O B a j i n - - B O T 3 T O r O - T O HMeHHO H H e j I b 3 H 6UJIO O n p e f l e j L H T b HH nOfl KaKHM B H f l O M . K a 3 a J I O C b , TITO B e C b " 3 T O T pflfl--He .HTO HHOe, KaK C O H H O e Me.HTaHHe, B K O T O p O M Me J I b K a K T 0<5pa3H 6e3 JIHH,, B K O T O p O M 3 B e E H T KaKH6 - TO CMJTTHHe K p E K H , n o x o a c n e Ha O T f l a j i e H H o e r a j i f l e H H e s a x M e j i e B i n e M : TOJUTH. . . B.OT BHiuj ia H 3 Mpana oflHa: TeHB, x j i o n H y j i a : p a 3 - p a 3 ! - - H H c n e 3 J i a H e B e f l O M O Ky# a ; C M O T p n i i i b , Ha M e c T O ee B H C T y n a e T yac flpyraa T e H b , H Toace x ^ i o n a e T K a K n o n a ^ i o , H H c n e 3 a e T . . . "„Pa33opio! " , „ H e n o T e p - m n o ! " CJIHUIHTCH c o B c e x C T o p o H , a ÎTO pa3opio, n e r o He n o T e p n j n o--Tor , o pa3o6p:aTb H e B 0 3 M o a c H O . Pafl <5H n o . c T o p o H H T b c a , n p H a c a T b c a K y r j i y , HO HH n o c i o p o - H H T b C H , HH n p n a c a T b c a H e j i b 3 a , i r o T O M y HTO H3 B c a K o r o yvjia. pa3Aa:e T e a Bee: TO ace „ p a 3 3 o p K > ! " , K O T o p o e TOHHT yKpHBaiomeroca B flpyrofi y r o j i H T a M , B CBOK o n e p e f l b , o n H T b H a c r a r a B T e r o . 3TO d m i a K a K a a - T O flHKaa 3 H e p - r n a , j i H i u e H H a a . B c a K o r o c o f l e p a c a H n a , : T a K HTO flaace E o p o f l a B K H H , HecMOTpa H a CBOIO p a c T o p o n H p . C T b , HecKOJibKO ycoMHHJica B flo.CTOHHCTBe e e . I t appears that no matter how d i s t i n c t the governors were, they appear to Borodavkin as f l e e t i n g shadows who have l e f t no other mark except the obstinate "razzoryu!" and "ne poterplyu!". We are suddenly i n a serious domain, accentu- ated by the kind of imagery which envelops the most important ideas throughout the work. The image of a shadow appearing from the darkness (MBOT BHiujia H3 M p a n a o f l H a T e H b ") , the picture of phantoms ( t , c o H H o e M e i H T a H n e , B KOTOPOM M e j i b K a i o T o6pa3H 6 e 3 juan") , and the glupovians represented by a d i s - tant, sad crying resembling the hubbub of a drunken crowd— a l l t his we find i n the chapter Solomenny, ' gorod, and f i n a l l y i n the ending of the chronicle. I t i s an intercession of a strong element representing probably the strength of nature, a meaningless, savage energy ( , ; , f lHKaa S H e p r n a , j r a m e H H a s BCHKOTO coflepacaHHa") , which v i s i t s Glupov i n the form of 'hunger, f i r e , and as the " i t " , the l a t t e r being a controversial phenomenon which "ends the history of Glupov" („H:CTOPHH n p e - 17 Kp .aTHJia T e n e H H e C B o e " ) . The t r a g i c , the "tears" of thi s work are accompanied by the imagery of gloom. Although the i n t e n s i t y of thi s gloom varies, there are places where i t i s l e f t alone, where the author chose not to add his usual touch of humour, where the reader can see the seriousness of Saltykov's intent. Such i s the passage i n the above-mentioned chapter, Solomen- ny gorod; X:OTH 6UJI B c e r o fleBHTHH i a c B H a n a j i e , HO H e 6 o RO . : T a K o f i .CTeneHH saKpHJioct : TynaMH, H T O - H a y j ra i iax c,zr,e- j i a j i o c B coBepmeHHo: TeMHO. C B e p x y n'epHaa, 6e3rpaHHH Haa 6 e 3 f l H a , npope3HBaeMaa MOJIHHHMH; K p y r o M B 0 3 s y x , H a n o j i H e H H H H Kpy THIUHMHC H a T O M a M H n t i J i H , - - B e e 3TO npefl.CTaBJiajio H e n 3 o 6 p a 3 H M H H x a o c , Ha r p o 3 H O M cpoHe K O T o p o r o B H C T y n a j i He MeHee r p o 3 H b i f i C H J i y a T noacapa. BHAHO 6UJIO, K a K B flajin K o n o u i a T c a JITORK, . H K a 3 a j i o c b , .•HTO OHH 6 e . c c o 3 H a T e j i b H o : TOJiKy TCH Ha OAHOM Me .CTe, a He M e ^ i y T C H B: TOCKe H C T i a a H b e . 18 The picture of people j o s t l i n g around unconsciously on background of chaotic violence of a staggering natural (n^epHaf l , d e 3 r p a H H H H a a 6e3Rua., npope3HBaeMaa MOJIHHHMH") brings out t h e i r powerlessness, the contrast between the the force 74 i n f i n i t e chasm and swarms of people i s f u r t he r en larged by the d i s t a n c i n g o f the people ( „B . #a j iH K o n o n r a T C H JIJEOAH"). What are the phantoms, the shadows tha t Borodavkin saw appear ing from the darkness? S a l t y k o v t r i e d ' to answer t h i s q u e s t i o n i n an a r t i c l e Contemporary Phantoms (Sovre- mennye p r i z r a k i w r i t t e n i n 186 5 and p u b l i s h e d posthumously i n 1935). The a r t i c l e i s very u s e f u l f o r the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of many u n c e r t a i n t i e s r ega rd ing S a l t y k o v ' s op in ions on the Russ ian s i t u a t i o n . About the phantoms he wrote as f o l l o w s : HTO: T a n o e n p n 3 p : a K ? .' Paccyscflaa T e o p s m e c K z , BTO : T a K a a cpopMa HCH3HH K O T o p a a CHJTHTBCH 3 a K J i i o H H TB B. c e d e He.HTO c y m e . c T B e H H o e , SCH3HeHHoe,. T p e n y i n e e , a B fl.eS.CT- B H T e JIBHO.'C T H 3 aKJUOHaB T JIHHIB n y C T - O T y . ^ This sounds r a t h e r g e n e r a l , vague; The governors a r e , fo r Borodavk in , on ly phantoms: i . e . , emptiness wrapped i n t o a semblance of l i f e , or a "form of l i f e " („c)?opMa SCH3HH") ; of t h i s , the bes t example i s the governor Brudasty (Organchik) . As we go through the whole g a l l e r y of governors , we indeed f i n d tha t S a l t y k o v t r i e d to g ive the reader the impress ion o f the emptiness o f the governors , an emptiness tha t s i g n i - f i e d or marked the absence o f unders tanding f o r the needs o f the Glupov ians : the governors are empty of compassion f o r them. T h i s , i n t u r n , b r i n g s up a q u e s t i o n : what about the Glupov ians , t h e i r p a s s i v i t y , why do they accept the gover- nors? Looking aga in i n t o the same a r t i c l e we f i n d S a l t y k o v ' s r e f l e c t i o n on t h i s sub j ec t : 75 .BHHOBHTO JIVS. O d l n e C T B O B." T O M , MTO." TaK JieTKO n o f l - iHHJteTca BJiaflHHe.c TBJT n p n 3 paKOB ? Bjia'GTHO om OHO B H d n p . aTb Meacfljr TOK VLJIW. flpyroio HCTHHOIO? HBT, He BHHOBaTO H He B j ia ' C T H O . HeTHHa HaayMHBa.eTea caMa codoio, noHBa Hapa:cTa.eT ECTopa^ecKH; CTieflOBaTe JIBHO, B H H H TB H He KOPO, H He B H e M . 2 0 One must take a statement l i k e t h i s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when a n a l y z i n g The H i s t o r y ; i n i t s l i g h t , S a l t y k o v ' s s a t i r e i s a c r i t i q u e w r i t t e n by a man who saw the h i s t o r i c a l reasons behind many of the th ings tha t he s a t i r i z e d . In t h i s he equals Gogo l . For both of them the th ings t h a t o ther people were unable to see—things t ha t o thers t o l e r a t e d and accep- ted—were unacceptab le . S a l t y k o v hated the very forms tha t l i f e had taken upon i t s e l f i n R u s s i a : Ho CKaacHTe Ha MHJIO.CTB, MOSCHO jm He HeHaBHfl .e TB, M03KHO J11A He C T O p . aTB O T H e r Of lOBaHHtt , KOrfla SCH3HB n y i a B T c a B cpopMax, . yTp :af HBUIHX BCHKHH CMHCJI, K o r f l a e .CTB c03Hamie Hejteno.'CTH BTHX dpopM H KOVRQ: Ten He M e H e e r o p B K a a Heod XOAHMOCTB 3a.CTaBia.eT HOAHHHHTBCH HM, dor 3 H a e T a3-3a nero, dor 3Ha;eT 3 a n e M ? 2 1 This i s a r e b e l l i o n aga ins t s o c i a l conven t ions , aga ins t the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e w h i c h , S a l t y k o v thought , belonged to the d i s t a n t pa s t . In t h i s way the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s , imagery, generated ques t ions which have brought us to the p o s i t i o n from which the author c rea ted h i s s a t i r e . As The H i s t o r y p rogres ses , gloom descends on Glupov w i t h cor responding speed. I t reaches i t s c l imax i n the end ing . We f i n d here the imagery d i scussed i n Solomenny gorod: 76 GeBep . n o T e M H e j i H IIOKPHJICH: T y n a i i H ; H3 STHX T y * He."HTO H'e.cjiocb Ha r o p o / i ; ; . He: TO jiHBeHB, He: TO C M e p n . IIoJiHoe r H e B a , OHO H e c a o c b , : ' d y p o B H 3eMjnd, . r p o x o n a , • r y f l f l H H C T e H f l H no BpeMeHSM H 3 p H r a a H3 c e d s K a K H e - T O r j i y x n e , K a p K a i o i i i H e 3 B y K H . X.OTH OHO dnjio eine He d j i H 3 K O , HO B03/i.yx B r o p o f l e 3 a K O J i e d a j i C H , K O J i o K O J i a caMH codoM 3 a r y f l e j i n , ' flepeBta B S i e p o i U H J i H C b , acHBOTHLie o d e 3 y M e j i H H M B T a j i H C b n o nojiio, He H a x o f l H floporn B r o p o f l . OHO djr .H3HJiocb n n o Mepe: T o r o K a K d j i H 3 H J i o c b BpeMH o . c T a H a B J i H B a j i o der CBOH. H a K O H e q 3eMjisj. 3 . a T p H C J i a c b , coj iHne n o M e p K J i o . . . rjrynoBirH najiH HHII. H e H c n o B e f l M H H yacac B H C T y n H J i H a B c e x jiHiiax, o x B a T H J i Bee c e p f l i i a . OHO npHiiijio. . . 22 What i s t h i s " i t " (ono)? Most of the scholars who wrote about The History t r i e d to tackle this problem. The exhaus- 23 t i v e study of I. Foote, which traces the history of the research dealing with this problem, suggests,, thaf ono repre- sents the coming of the rule,of Nicholas 1,(1825-1855); or, more generally, the coming of the reaction (the t i t l e of the study i s Reaction or Revolution?). There are, however, as many arguments pro as there are contra; a whole generation of Soviet scholars was proving for years that ono i s the inevitable popular revolution, and now even the opposite opinion i s heard. Without playing the a r b i t e r , one should again go back to Saltykov's warnings contained i n the l e t t e r s to Pypin and Vestnik Evropy, where he warned against the misinterpretation of his work as a l i t e r a l rendering of Russian h i s t o r y . I t w i l l become evident, then, that ono i s neither revolution nor reaction, but an apocalyptic v i s i o n of a deus ex machina-like intervention of something supra- human (probably nature) i n human a f f a i r s . We can i n f e r from other writings of Saltykov that the aim of such an interven- tion would be the forced ending of a cycle of h i s t o r y : not, of course, the cycle of the r e a l Russian h i s t o r y , but the history of Glupov. This c y c l i c a l theory was known at the time; i t was l a t e r populatized i n the writins of Saltykov's 24 contemporary, Nietzsche. Saltykov might have read about i t i n Schopenhauer's works, which were widely known i n 2 5 Saltykov* s time. The following of the t r a g i c element, i t s representa- ti o n i n The History shows, then, that the imagery (the dark clouds, the sun which grows suddenly dark) i s repeated i n the work with a d e f i n i t e purpose. The purpose i s to prepare the reader for the climactic coming of the " i t " , ono. Writ- ten i n evangelic s t y l e , the e f f e c t that ono has on various objects, animals and people i s supernatural („KOJioKOJia caMH cofioM 3 'aryf leJIH, #epeBBH B3HeponiHJiHCB, JKHBO T H H e o6eQyM.ejm H M.B TajiHCB n o nojno, . . . 3eMjia 3 . a T p a c j i a c B , c o j i H n e noMepKJio . . . r j i y n o B n H n a j i n HHU.") ; i t goes beyond history (the factual history of Russia) . Satire i s said to be flanked by comedy on one side 26 and tragedy on the other. The History, then, leans toward tragedy. Laughter through tears stops shortly before the ending. I f Saltykov managed throughout the whole work to keep the laughter and tears together, he drops the former at 78 the end. The ending i s disturbingly pessimistic as i t stands, i f we do not take into consideration the appendix, 27 Opravdatel'nye dokumenty, for as we know, thi s was appended i n the book e d i t i o n , not the o r i g i n a l one. This appendix once more brings i n laughter. Here Saltykov parodies the ideas and s t y l e of the t s a r i s t statutes, projects, laws and , 28 decrees. From the light-heartedly funny beginning, where the reader was amused by Brudasty (Organchik), the chronicle progresses to Ugryum-Burcheyev, also a c a r i c a t u r e - l i k e char- acter, not a funny one, as Brudasty and others, but rather a freakish one. A s i m i l a r pattern can be observed i n The Golovlevs, but there i s no appendix to confuse the reader. Henri Bergson pointed out, i n his celebrated essay on laughter (Do r i r e , 1900) , that "the absence of f e e l i n g . . . 29 usually accompanies laughter." It stands to reason, i f we surmise then, that the kind of s a t i r e Saltykov wrote made one both laugh and f e e l at the same time. This, i n turn, suggests that the public to.whom this s a t i r e was offered did not react to the r e a l i t y which was the subject of Saltykov's work i n the same manner: i . e . , the public did not laugh at the r e a l i t y and did not " f e e l " i t , or understand i t to the extent that Saltykov did: When the human comedy of manners and men i s out of gear through the tyranny of either over the other and existence i s become a travesty and caricature of l i f e , so heavy and lumpish that i t cannot even move towards the melting pot, then, when men can neither laugh nor weep, comes s a t i r e to break the congestion i n them and make them laugh and weep together.30 If we accept t h i s , then we f i n d a new dimension to Lunacharsky's words about the man who woke up before the others d i d . But how does this man do i t ? Maybe thi s advice of Bergson offers the answer: "Now step aside, look upon l i f e as a disinterested spectator: many a drama w i l l turn 31 into a comedy." Laughter through tears i s , then, an alternation between such a "stepping aside" as Bergson mentioned and the return to the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n (the tears, the tragedy). As such, i t i s a condition of The History, i t s r e a l i t y , which we strongly f e e l during the strangest,happenings of Saltykov's men and puppets, the characters of this s a t i r i c chronicle. CHAPTER VIII THE MEN AND THE PUPPETS "The attitudes, gestures and movements of the human body are laughable in exact proportion as that body reminds us of a mere machine." — Bergson Arthur Koestler, i n his discussion of humour and satire,"'' wrote this about s a t i r e : The s a t i r e i s a verbal caricature which d i s t o r t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of an i n d i v i d u a l or society by exaggeration and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . The features picked out for enlargement are, of course, those of which he disapproves . . .2 One of the things that Saltykov hated most were the "old forms of l i f e " , as he c a l l e d them. In t h i s category belongs the b l i n d obedience of the people, t h e i r mechanical accep- tance of the orders coming from above, and also the routine- l i k e behaviour of those who were i n power, t h e i r automatic administration which, once set on any course, was impossible to d i v e r t by any means, except by the intervention of the mysterious " i t " , as we saw i n the previous chapter. These are the features "picked out for enlargement", as Koestler said. In The History we f i n d the u t i l i z a t i o n of this mecha- n i c a l acceptance and machine-like behaviour i n the form of 81 puppets, or puppet-like characters. The deployment of these, in the chronicle was an exceptionally fortunate idea, because i t serves two purposes at the same time: a puppet i s a comical subject insofar as i t resembles a man and acts l i k e one, but not i n a proper way; and i t also shows the reader " how far the c r i t e r i a that a society t r i e s to maintain are eroded when a puppet,.or puppet-like behaviour, i s permis- s i b l e and acceptable. For the reader has the advantage of comparing the a c t i v i t y of Saltykov's puppet with his own experience. Thus the comical and the s a t i r i c a l are economi- c a l l y concentrated i n a single device--the puppet. Brudasty, sometimes c a l l e d Organchik, had a speaking apparatus i n his empty head. This puppet could say only two commands: "Razzoryu!" and "Ne poterplyu!" I t i s re p e t i t i o u s , and any cruel administrator i n r e a l l i f e could be s i m i l a r l y limited and re p e t i t i o u s , but as Bergson showed us: The truth i s that r e a l l y l i v i n g l i f e should never repeat i t s e l f . Wherever there i s r e p e t i t i o n or complete s i m i l a r i t y , we always suspect some mechanism at work behind the l i v i n g . ^ r And so, fa n t a s t i c as i t i s , the prototype of Brudasty could very well be imagined by the reader. When Saltykov shows us an image of a man-like automaton, he draws our attention to what should not be; he projects what Bergson c a l l e d the "[suspicion of] some mechanism at work behind the l i v i n g " into a l i t e r a r y character. 82 Another governor, Pryshch (number 16 on the L i s t ) , has, instead of brains, some meat s t u f f i n g inside his head. Although he speaks l i k e a r e a l man, he indulges i n a kind of mechanical dolce far niente as he refuses to do any adminis- t r a t i v e work: lipeKp.a.THB Bee flejia, OH XOAHJI no ro.cTHMH n p H H H M a j i odeflH H 6SLJSH H flaace 3aBej .CTaio 6op3HX H POHHHX COfiaK, C KOTOpBIMH." TpaBHJI Ha TOpOflCKOM BHroHe 3a8neB, JIHCHII, a oflHaacflH 3&nojieB&Ji oneHb xopouieHh- K y i o MemaHOHKy. 4 I t i s during the governorship of Pryshch that Glupov f l o u r - ished as never before. Pryshch's administrative p a s s i v i t y reminds one of a pompadur from the story Edinstvennyi (1871): „B a/iMHHHCTpaiiHH OH 6HJI cpHJiocoop H 6UJI ydeac/i,eH, HTO Jiyniuaa a f l M H H K C i p a i t H H 3aKJU0Ha.e TCH B OTcyTCTBHK TaKOBoH." In a l l other respects Pryshch i s unlike a puppet. Apparently, the only a r t i f i c i a l part of his body i s his head. The good time that the Glupovians enjoyed under th i s period of absence of administration shows Saltykov's d i s t r u s t of any kind of organized management of human a f f a i r s . The message i s e v i - dent: i f a fellow with a head f u l l of mincement who does not care a b i t about governing w i l l do, what do you need govern- ment for, anyway? With Ugryum-Burcheyev things take a d i f f e r e n t turn. Although described as a man, he creates the impression of a mechanical man, a puppet. He uses only half a dozen words l i k e : "Zachem?" (his favourite), "Shabashi", "GoniI", etc., 83 and always moves in. a straight l i n e . His thinking coincides with his marching: •OH H E K o r f l a He C e c H O B a j i C H , . He 3 a K H n a j i , H e . MC THJI , H e ' n p e c j i e f l O B a j i , a, n o f l o d H O BCHKOH flpyr.oH d e c c o 3 H a - : T e j i t H O fleMcTByiomeM CHJIB n p n p o f l H , ineji B n e p e f l , cMBTan .c . j i H i i a 3SMJIH B e e , HTO HS y c n s B a j i o n o . C T o p o - H H T b C H B flOporH. „ 3 a H S M ? " - - B O T e f l H H C T B S H H O e ' C J I O B O , K O T O p H M OH BBipaJKajI flBHSCe HHH C B O e M flyiIIH.6 He i s very unlike the governors before him ( „ H e d e c HO" B a j i C H , He 3 a K a n a j i , HB MCTHJI,- HS n p e c j i e f l O B a j i " ) , and the com- parison used here. (,,noflo6HO . . . cajie n p u p o f l H " ) sets him even further from them. Lacking some of.the common charac- t e r i s t i c s of human behaviour, he possesses a mechanical one: C T p a c T H O C T b d t u i a B H n e pKHyT a H 3 H n c j i a 3 JISMBHTOB, co . cTaBJiHBUiHx e r o n p n p o / i , y , H 3 a M e H S H a HenpsKJiOHHO.'c Tb io , fl.BHC TBOBaBUISIO C p e r y j I H p H O . C TbK) C a M O r O O T H B T J I H B O r O M e x a H H 3 M a . OH HS a c s c T H K y j i n p o B a j i , HS B 0 3 B H i n a j i r o j i o c a , He C K p e a c s T a j i 3yd&MH, HB r o r . o T a j i , HS: T o n a j i H o r a M H , HS 3aJIHBajICH H a ^ a J I b C T B e H H O - H 3 B . H T 6 J I b H H M C M 6 X O M . 7 With mechanical pedantry, Ugryum-Burcheyev sets out to do what he decided upon. He reorganizes Glupov along m i l i t a r y l i n e s , so that an analogy with Arakcheev's "mi l i t a r y s e t t l e - ments" i s e a s i l y recognized. Glupov i s renamed Nepreklonsk to symbolize the f i e r c e determination of i t s governor. The motif of a puppet-like man does not f i n d i t s place only among the governors. We also f i n d i t i n the t i n soldiers of Borodavkin which come to l i f e at the climax of Borodavkin's "campaign for enlightenment" (Voyna za prosve- shchenie). Borodavkin t r i e d to talk the Glupovians into c u l t i v a t i n g and using mustard, but they put up such a defens 84 a g a i n s t t h e m u s t a r d t h a t B o r o d a v k i n h a d t o u s e h i s army, and when t h i s army became d e m o r a l i z e d he u s e d t h e t i n s o l d i e r s . The r e a s o n s f o r t h i s were m a i n l y e c o n o m i c (HnpOBHSHTV He npocHT, a MapuiHpoBKy H OH ncnojiHHTb MosceT") . When n e e d e d , t h e t i n s o l d i e r s came t o l i f e : C HHMH npOHCXOflHJIO HTO-TO COBCeM He OdBIKHOBeHHOe . IIocTeneHHO, B r.aa3ax y Bcex, cojifl'aTHKH HanajiH HajiH- BaTBCH KpOBbio, Tjia3a HX, flocejie HenoflBnacHHe, Bflpyr CTajiH BpamaTbca H BHpaacaTh. rHeB; yen HapncoBaHHHe BKpHBb H BKOCb, BCTaJIH Ha CBOH Me.c Ta H HanajiH uie Be - jiHTbCHj ry6H, npeflcTaBJiaBiune: TOHKyic po3 0Byio ^epTy, KOTopaa OT 6BIBIUHX soac f l eM no^TH yace CMH^acb, OTTO- nnpHJiHCb H H3taBJiajiH HaMepeHHe ne^TO npon3HecT H . noaBHJiHeb H03flpa, - o. KOTopHx. npeacf le n B .noMHHe, He 6H.JIO, H HaMa^iH p a 3 f l p a T b C f l H CBHABTejihcTBOBHTB O H.B TepneHHH. - - :̂ TO CKaaceTe, cjiyacHBHe? -- cnpocHji EopoflaBKHH. 8. He r e S a l t y k o v shows a man-made o b j e c t b e c o m i n g a l i v e , a c t i n g l i k e a man. B l o o d f i l l s t h e b o d i e s o f t h e t i n s o l d i e r s and t h e y c e a s e t o be m e c h a n i c a l c o n t r a p t i o n s . I n a d i f f e r e n t p l a c e , S a l t y k o v shows r e a l s o l d i e r s a c t i n g l i k e m e c h a n i c a l o n e s , i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e " t i n s o l d i e r s " : IIpoxoflHJiH nepe3 TjiynoB BoMcKa neinne, npoxoflHJiH BOHCKa KOHHtie . — Kyfla, ro^iyfiHHKH? -- c BOJiHeHHeM c n p a i i i H B a j i E o p o f l a B K H H COJIfl.aTHKOB. Ho cojiflaTHKH B: TpydBi: ipydHJiH, necHH He*™, HOCKawi c a n o r o B nrpajra, nmib :CTOJI6OM Ha yjraii.ax noflHHMajin, H Bee npOXOflHJIH, H Bee npOXOflHJTH. - - Ba j ioM BajiHT COJIAHT! -- roBopHJiH r j i y n o B H H , H Ka3a^IOCb HM, HTO .'3TO JIIOflH KaKHe-TO ocodeHHtie, "H TO OHH c a M o S npHpofloM co3flaHH fljia: Toro, ^.TO6 xoflBTb 6e3 KOHqa, XOAHTB no BCSM HanpaBJieHHHM. ' HTO OHH cnycKaioTca c OAHOH njiocKofi B03BHiueHHo:cTH RJISI: T o r o , HTO6H Jie .3T£ H a .npyryio njiocKyio Bo3BHiiieHHO.CTBJ n e p e - X O f l H T Hepe3 OflHH MO.CT RJISi T O r O , HTOCJH n e p e M T H BCJiefl 3a. TeM n e p e 3 apyroM MO.CT. H eme MO.CT, H eine. njiocKaa BO3BHiiieHHO.cTt; H eme, H eme...^ The soldiers depicted here seem to act without motivation. The most pronounced c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these sol d i e r s i s motion devoid of purpose ( l t c n y c K a i o T C f l c oflHoM njioc-KoM BO3BH- uieHHO.cTH RJLSZ: T o r o , "H:TO(3H j i e 3 T b H a / i p y r y i o . . . " ) , stressed by the use of r e p e t i t i o n (,tn B e e npoxoflHJin, H B e e n p o x o f l H J i H , . . . flpyrofi MOCT. H eine MO.CTV: H eine n j i o c K a a B o 3 BHiiie HH O.C T E> , H eine, H eine..."). The soldiers do not answer Borodavkin's question. The general impression given by the quotation i s one of a detachment of toy sol d i e r s who, once wound up, march u n t i l the spring i s released and the mechanical action stopped. The above examples o f f e r a whole scale of p o s s i b i l i - t i e s of puppet-like behaviour of characters. V. V. Gippius, who studied the "motif of m o r t i f i c a t i o n or mechanization""1"^ i n the entire work of Saltykov, organized the puppet-like characters i n the following manner: 1. L i v i n g Man, 2. Mechanized Man: a) organism creating an impres- sion of being an automaton, b) having i n his organism some mechanical parts, 3. L i v i n g Puppet: a) automaton, b) t a l k i n g puppet, c) t a l k i n g , but immobile puppet, d) non-talking puppet, ^* Irnmobile Puppet (non-talking) . 86 I n T ^ e History, we fi n d the mechanized man (an exam- ple of the variety a) i s Ugryum-Burcheyev; of the variety b) Brudasty—Organchik). In the l i v i n g puppet category we could include the t i n sol d i e r s of Borodavkin, and perhaps also the sold i e r s that march through Glupov, as described i n the l a s t quotation (both cases would come under b), as "talking puppets", although the other soldiers do not t a l k , but sing and play the trumpets). The exposition of the "mechanical on the l i v i n g " brings the Shchedrinist to a discussion of the grotesque, 12 which i s clos e l y connected with i t . The grotesque, K. S. Guthke says, . . . implies ludicrous horror or h o r r i f y i n g l u d i - crbusness. Its fa n t a s t i c d i s t o r t i o n s of r e a l i t y make us apprehend, i n a cold shudder, something abysmally uncanny and demonic, an awareness which generates the feelings of estrangement, stupefying bafflement, strained laughter and gruesome f r i g h t and anguish a l l at the same time.13 Another c r i t i c t e l l s us about the two basic types of the grotesque: the " f a n t a s t i c " and the " s a t i r i c " . (Wolfgang Kayser i n The Grotesque i n Art and L i t e r a t u r e 1 4 ) .. Examples of the fa n t a s t i c grotesque are contained i n the,work of E. 15 T. A. Hoffmann and Gogol (e.g., Nos); the s a t i r i c grotesque can also be found i n Gogol (e.g., Mertvye dushi). In The' History we f i n d the grotesque as defined by Guthke above, but we.find also another kind of grotesque, which i s achieved by the juxtaposition of a. cruelly r e a l i s t i c 87 i n c i d e n t w i t h a c o n t e x t w h i c h i s . o p p o s e d t o i t (a humorous, c o m i c a l s i t u a t i o n ) , s o t h a t o u r l a u g h t e r becomes s t r a i n e d , n o t by t h e " f a n t a s t i c d i s t o r t i o n o f r e a l i t y " , b u t by, i t s u n e x p e c t e d i n t r u s i o n i n t o t h e humorous, s a t i r i c a l d o m a i n . T h i s i s an example o f a t e c h n i q u e u s e d p r o f u s e l y i n The H i s t o r y . The f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s t h e " u s u a l " k i n d o f g r o t e s q u e . I t f o l l o w s t h e d i s c o v e r y , by a m a r s h a l o f t h e n o b i l i t y , o f P r y s h c h ' s m i n c e m e n t - s t u f f e d h e a d : 3 a B H 3 a j i a c b d o p b d a ; HO n p e f l B O f l H T e j i b BOinej i yace B npo. 'CTb H He n o M H H J i ce6a. rj ia3a e r o C B . e p K a j i H , d p i o x o cjiaflo.cTHO: HHJIO. O H 3aflHxajica, . C T O H a j i , H a 3 H B a j i r p a f l O H a n a j i b H H K a , t f l y n i K O H n , „MHJIK.OHM, H A p y r H M H HeCB.oMcTBeHHHMH .3TOMy c a H y HMenaMHj jiH3aji e r o , Hioxaj i H: T . f l . H a K O H e n ; c H e c j i H x a H H H M o.c T e p Be He H H e M d p o c H J i c a n p e f l B O f l H T e j i b Ha CBOIO a c e p T B y , O T p e 3 a j i HQSCOM JIOMOTb TOJIOBH H H e M e f l J i e H H O n p o r j i O T H J i . . . 3a n e p B H M j i o M T e M H a c j i e f l O B a j i flpyroM, n.oTOM T p e T H M , flo. T e x n o p , n o n a He o . C T a j i o c b HH KPOXH.,.1^ The s t r a n g e n e s s o f t h i s f i g h t was a c h i e v e d by u t i l i z i n g t h e • i m a g e r y o f a h u n g r y ( „ d p i o x o c j i a f l o c T H O - HHJIO") and s e x u a l l y a r o u s e d man ( m0H 3 a f l H x a j i c 5 i , . C T O H a j i , H a 3 H B a j i r p a A O H a n a j i b H H K a „flyiiiKoS", „MHJIK.OH" , " e t c . ) . The l a t t e r i s more e f f e c t i v e s i n c e t h e e r o t i c e l e m e n t i s o f a h o m o s e x u a l n a t u r e . The g r o t e s q u e image i s t h e gruesome c u t t i n g , up o f t h e g o v e r n o r ' s h e a d , and m a i n l y h i s agony: Torfla rpaflOHanajibHHK B f l p y r BCKOHHJI H C T a j i ' odTH- ' p . a T b j i a n K a M H ' Te Me.CTa C B o e r o T e j i a , KOTopne n p e f l B O - flHTejib n o j i H J i y K c y c o M . IIOTOM OH 3aKpyacHJiCH H a OAHOM Me.CTe H B f l p y r BceM K o p n y c o M r p o x H y j i c a H a rj.oji.17. 88 Here we have both " f a n t a s t i c d i s t o r t i o n s o f r e a l i t y " and " l u d i c r o u s h o r r o r " , , expressed by c a l l i n g the governor ' s hand "paws" ( l a p k i ) and by the death of the governor , r e s p e c t i v e l y . On another o c c a s i o n , the grotesque r e s u l t s from a d e s c r i p t i o n of a c r u e l ac t committed by a Glupovian mob: A^ieHKa o c T a j i a c b C H a p y a c n c npo.CTe .pTHMH Bpo3b pyKaMH. B: T a K O M n o j i o a c e H K H 3 a : c T a j i a ee: TOJinaj 3 a v ' CTajia S^ieflHyio, Tpenenryio B c e i c TejioM, n OM TH d e 3 y M H y i o . - - I I o a c a j i e H T e , aTaMaHH-MOJIOAIIH, Moe: T e j i o 6ejioel - - r o B o p H J i a A j i e H K a o c j i a d e B i i i H M OT y a c a c a rojrocoM, - - Bef lOMO B a M c a M H M , ?i TO OH Me HH CHJIKOM OT Myaca y B e j i ! Ho: TOJina H H i e r o yac HecjiHiiiaJia. -- CKa3HBaM, BeflbMa! - - r y f l e ^ i a o H a , - - ^ e p e 3 K a n o e : T B o e KOJIAOBC TBO H a Ham r o p o a c y x o d b Hanuia? A j i e H K a CJIOBHO o d e c n a M H T e j i a . O H a M S T a j i a c b H, KaK 6hi yBepeHHaa B H e H 3 d e a c H O M n c x o s e CBoero flejia, : TOJIBKO n o B T o p H j i a : t I T o n i H O MHe! o x , d.aTioi i iKH,' TOIUHO MHe ! " T o r ^ a c o B e p u i H J i o c b Hec / ib ixaHHoe flejio. A j i e H K y pa3 0 M , CJIOBHO p y x , B 3 H e c j i H H a B e p x H H H a p y c KOJIO- KOJIBHH H d p o c H J i H o . T T y f l a Ha p a c K a T c BBIIIIHHBI do j iee n H T H a f l n H T H c a a c e H e M . . . „H H e o . c T a j i o c h OT: TOH d p H r a f l n p o B O H c j i a f l K o M y i e x n ffaace HH e f l H H o r o J i o c K y T a . B OAHO M E H O B e H H e O K a p a 3 H e c j i H ee n p H d j r y z i H H e r o j i o f l H H e n c H . " 1 8 Here the f a n t a s t i c element i s absent . The death o f Alenka i s de sc r ibed i n a very b r i s k , economical way. A l e n k a , the mis t r e s s of the governor Ferdyshchenko, i s fo rced to l i v e w i t h the governor a f t e r he has sent her husband to S i b e r i a . She i s a sympathet ic c h a r a c t e r , but S a l t y k o v does not make 89 her e n t i r e l y blameless: aft e r she learns that her husband has been arrested, she no longer opposes Ferdyshchenko 1s advances. She i s a clever g i r l , and the l i t t l e game that she plays can be seen from the way she talks with the governor: - - H T O , flypbH n o p o f l a , H a f l V M a j i a c h ? - - c n p o c n j i O H e e . - - Huib. T e d a , C T a p o r o n c a , y u i e M H ^ o ! HJIH. MSLJIO H a : cTHf lo f iy i i iKy M O I O H a c M O T p e j i c a ! - - orpN3Hyjiacb A j i e H K a . -i q -- JIaflHo! -- C K a 3 a j i d p n r a f l n p , [Ferdyshchenko]. One does not expect her to die i n such a t e r r i b l e way after an introduction l i k e t h i s . The sudden death of Alenka, then, i s a grotesque incident, which the reader could not a n t i c i - pate. The cause of the mob's anger directed against her i s the hungry year which has already k i l l e d many Glupovians. They take the i r r a t i o n a l view that the rela t i o n s h i p of Alenka and Ferdyshchenko has brought a curse upon Glupov. The incident i t s e l f i s a very cruel one. Ferdyshchenko does not protect Alenka, and locks her out while he i s safely hidden inside his mansion, waiting for the storm to pass by. The climax of the whole incident i s introduced by „Torfla c o B e p - u iHJiocb H e c j r b i x a H H o e Rejio; to make i t r e a l i s t i c , Saltykov gives us the height of the bell-tower from which she was thrown down ( „ c B H I U H H H d o j i e e i r a T H a f l i r a T H caxceHeM"). Suddenly the reader r e a l i z e s Alenka's agony ( „ 3 a M O K "mejiKHyji, H - A j i e H K a d . C T a j i a c b C H a p y x c H c n p o c T e pTHMH Bpo3b p y n a M H . . . d j i e f l H a a , ; . . . I I O . ^TH de3yMHaa . . . O H a M B T a j i a c b " , e t c . ) . The comment 90 of the chronicler, b r i e f as i t i s , supplies a touch of irony ( „ H He o c i a j i o c B OT: TOH 6 p H r a f l H p o B o M c j i a f l K o M y T e x n flaace HH e/ iHHoro J i o c K y T a " ) . But the irony cannot r e l i e v e the impact of the bloody incident, and the r e s u l t i s an uneasy f e e l i n g of bafflement: i s thi s comedy, i s this s a t i r e ? I t i s s a t i r e , o r — i n N. Frye 1s words-- m i l i t a n t irony ( i t assumes stand- 20 ards against which the grotesque and absurd are measured. ). The militancy of thi s touch of irony rests i n i t s being a comment to a tr a g i c incident; the uneasy f e e l i n g of b a f f l e - ment, the strained laughter t e l l us that we were dealing with the grotesque. The world of Glupov i s inhabited by puppets as well as people; they coexist by virtue of necessity. This often grotesque world reaches beyond Saltykov's model—Russia. Yet, i t was the only world available for Glupovians. CHAPTER IX GLUPOVIANS AND THEIR WORLD Ho M e pK H . e T fleHB--HacTajia H O ^ b ; n p H U I J i a - - H C M H p a p O K O B O T O T n a H b djiaroflHTHyio. nonpoBa C o p B a B , OT - C p a c H B a e T npoHB... H ' 6 e 3 f l H a HaM odHaaceHa , C C B O H M H CTpaXaMH H 'MPJiaMH, H H B T nperpa/i; Mesc eM H HaMH: B . O T OTHero. HaM H O H B CTpaniHa! — Tyutchev Throughout the s a t i r e , the most common terms used for the people inhabiting the town of Glupov are: the Glupovians (glupovtsy), average men (obyvateli), and c i t i z e n s (grazh- dane). On many occasions the Glupovians are presented as a crowd, or as "stunned ones", "subordinate ones", "authority- loving people", e t c . 1 This p a r t i a l l i s t gives us the flavour of the derision with which Saltykov etches the crowded por- t r a y a l of the people. We know from the concept of the "two kinds of narod", which Saltykov explained i n his l e t t e r to Vestnik Evropy, that the people who "produce" the Ugryum- Burcheyevs and the Borodavkins do not deserve other treat- ment. In the f i r s t chapter which deals with the chronicle of Glupov, c a l l e d Organchik, the author introduces the Glu- povians to the reader: J K H T e J I H J i H K O B a j i H ; eme He BHflaB B ' r j i a 3 a B H O B B Ha3HaHeHHoro npaBHTe J I H , O H H yace p a c eK a 3 H B a j i n 06 neM a H e K f l O T H H H a 3 H B a j r a e r o „ K p a c a B H H K O M " H „yMHH- .iieH". n o 3 f l p a B J i H j i H flpyr flpyra c paflo .c TBK>, iiejiOBajiHC B , 92 n p O J I H B a j I H C J i e 3 H , 3aXOflHJIH B KafiaKH, C H O B a BHXOAHJIH H3 H H X H O H H T b 3 a X O f l H J I H . 3 , The Glupovians seem to be f l o u r i s h i n g ; t h e i r unwarranted joy, soon to be disappointed by the "krasavchik" and "umnitsa" Brudasty., the governor with a " l i t t l e organ" i n his head, i s the joy of naive children. From the very beginning, the author sets the rules for the rela t i o n s h i p between the Glupo- vians and the world. The immature behaviour of Glupovians i s shown by t h e i r reactions ( t , i r e j r o B a j i H C b , n p o j i H B a j i H c j i e 3 H , 3aXO#HJIH B Ka6aKH, C H O B a BHXOflHJIH H3 H H X H O H H T B 3aXOf lHJIH") ; t h e i r coming i n and out of the drinking house (kabak) sug- gests, with i t s apparent aimlessness, cert a i n primitive q u a l i t i e s which, rather than t h e i r s t u p i d i t y . (such as shown in the genealogy of the Glupovians i n 0 koreni proiskhozh- 4 deniya glupovtsev ), w i l l remain t h e i r main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 5 . i n The History. Their primitivism i s a device that renders them unable to defend themselves; i t almost absolves them from being accountable for t h e i r actions and t h e i r general pa s s i v i t y as s o c i a l beings. Whenever they act, they do so as a mob which, as we saw i n the case of Alenka, does not deliberate, but k i l l s . Saltykov has no sympathy for this mob, and attacks i t i n the chronicle by exaggerating i n Glu- povians that which i s so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a mob: unconscious, i n s t i n c t i v e , impulsive action. A l l these features are recog- nizable as those of a lower being, a homo primitivus, as i t 93 were. They are present, furthermore, even where Saltykov does not depict a crowd, and so his message there i s even more f o r c e f u l . The Glupovians l i v e i n a world which remains, i n the whole chronicle, sternly h i e r a r c h i c a l . By imposing h i e r - archy even where i t i s not applicable (e.g., the area of psychological reaction), he r i d i c u l e s the concept of hi e r - archy i n general: TpaffOHaHajibHHK 6e3MOJiBHO o6omeji paflH I H H O B H H X ' apxH'cTp.aTurOB, CBepKHyvi r j i a 3 a M H , npoH3Hec : „He n.OTepnjiK)! " - - H C K P H J I C H B K a 6 M H B T . ^ I H H O B H H K H Q'CTOJideHejiH; 3 a H H M H op TO.a6eHe.7iH H o6BIBa T e J I H . 6 Here the Glupovians adhere s t r i c t l y to the ethic; they are dumbfounded, as the o f f i c i a l s are, but being of a lower rank (commoners) they react i n a way proper to the table of ranks. This i s an esp e c i a l l y i l l u s t r a t i v e example of. the interplay of the. humorous and the s a t i r i c a l , based on the incongruity of the s i t u a t i o n , with our knowledge of human reaction. One of the overtones (possibly not intended) i s again the slower reaction of the Glupovians compared to that of the o f f i c i a l s . The governor (gradonachal'nik) i s the sun of the Glupovian solar system,-his authority unquestionable; but in order to be pleasing, the governor should have certain q u a l i t i e s about which the Glupovians are outspoken: . . . : T H no Aynie c HaMH nor oBopid T H .aacKOH-TO, jiacKOH-TO n p o H H M . a M ! : . T H npHrpo3.HTb.-TO npnrpo3H, fla noTOM H noMHJiyM! -- TaK T O B O P H J I H r.aynoBHH, H co cjie3aMH npnnoMajiH, Ka.Kne 6HBa.7iH y H H X npeacfle H a ^ a j i b - 94 HHKH, B C e npHBB TJIHBHe , p,& a o C p L i e , fla KpacaBHEKE -- Bce .-TO B MyHAHpax! 7 A f t e r t h i s , the reader expects tha t an example of a governor who f u l f i l l s the above requirements w i l l f o l l o w , but the governor they mention appears to be no d i f f e r e n t from any o ther governor . Here i s what the mentioned governor , B a k l a n , says about h i s programme: -- HaTHCK, — C K a 3 a j i OH,-- H npnTOM 6H:C Tp.OTa, CHHCXOflHTejIBHO.C Tb, H np.HTOM "CTporOCTb. H npETOM 6jiaropa3yMHaa' TBep,a;o:c T b . B.OT, MHJIO.CTHBBie r o c y z i a p n , : Ta iiejib HJIH,: TOiHee CKa3 . a T b , : Te E H T L ii e j i e f i , KOTOPHX . a, c doacteio noMouibio, Haaeiocb flacTHrHjTTb npn n o c p e f l - C T B e H e K O T O p H X af lMHHHC Tp.HTHBHHX MeponpEHTEH, C O C i a - BJIHIOIUHX cynj,Ho:cTb HJIH, jiyHine CKa3 . a T b , a/ipo odflyMaHHoro MHOB njiaHa KaMnaHHH! 8 A f t e r enumerating three se ts o f i r r e c o n c i l a b l e oppos i tes (a parody o f the n o t i o n which e x i s t e d i n R u s s i a : b a ty us hk a- ts a r was supposed to be the fa the r of h i s peop le , and as a f a t h e r , h i s p a t e r n a l love should f i n d exp re s s ion In both d i s c i p l i n e and l o v e ) , which i n themselves are s a r c a s t i c enough, Bak lan shows h i s t rue c o l o u r s : l i k e a l l governors before h im , he w i l l f l o g the G lupov i ans , fo r no matter what o ther whims the governors of Glupov i n v e n t e d , the c o l l e c t i n g o f a r r ea r s and c o n s i s t e n t f l o g g i n g headed the l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s . The euphemism for f l o g g i n g , he re , i s " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e measures" ( t rafliEHKCTp:aTHBHHe MeponpHflTHfl") , which are as f a r from f l o g g i n g as ubornaya from nuzhn ik . The l a s t quo t a t i on i s noteworthy from another p o i n t of v i ew: from the way Sa l tykov , here uses the o r a t o r i c a l 95 c l i c h e and o f f i c i a l e s e ( c a l l i n g the Glupovians „MHJIO:C THBHC rocyaapn, . . . c doacbeio n o M o m b i o , . . . flocTurHyTb . . . nej ib . . . r u i a H Ka.Mna.Mn") 9 . Saltykov's deri s i o n of the sentimental attitude of the people ( i l l u s t r a t e d by the expression batyUshka-1sar) reaches i t s tenor i n the chapter Fantasticheskiy puteshest- vennik, 1 0 when the governor Ferdyshchenko travels around Glupov i n the best t r a d i t i o n of his "patron" Potemkin, 1 1 and instructs his people to welcome him "as i f he came from who- 12 knows-where1" This i s what the Glupovians do: LTjiaKajiH: T.yT Bee, n ^ i a K a J i H H n.OTOMy, HTO acaJiKO, H noTOMy, .TJTO paflo.c THO. B ocodeHHOCTH pa3 j i H B a ^ r a c b oflHa s p e B H H f l CTapyxa.. . • — 0 n e M TBI, CT'apyuiKa, njianeiiib?-- c n p o c H J i 6pn- ra^Hp [Ferdyshchenko] , jiacKOBO Tpenjin ee no njieny. - - O x .TH Hani d.aTiouiKa! K a K H a M He nJiaKaTH— TO, KopMHJieir TH . Haiu! BeK MH CBOH Bce'.-TO n j i a n e M . . . ' BC e n j i a n e M ! - - B c x j i n n H B a j i a B OTBST CTapyxa.13 The absurdity of a l l these tears i s revealed by c a l l i n g Ferdyshchenko kormilets, for i t was under his governorship that Glupov suffered the worst hunger i n i t s h i s t o r y . The governor, on the whole, i s for Glupovians only one of the elements which, i f put together, would make up th e i r world.Their struggle with the governor i s a part of th e i r t o t a l struggle for s u r v i v a l . Some of the obstacles i n t h e i r way are: a bad crop, r e s u l t i n g i n hunger and f i r e (discussed e a r l i e r ) ; and " c i v i l i z a t i o n " represented i n the chronicle by the enforced c u l t i v a t i o n and use of mustard, o l i v e o i l , etc. The l a s t i s modelled on the actual "potato wars" of 1839-1840, when the government ordered out the troops to enforce the c u l t i v a t i o n of potatoes which, at the 14 time, the peasants considered "poisonous". In the description of hunger, Saltykov achieved great e f f e c t by the use of understatement and economy: E a 3 a p H onycTejin, n p o f l a B H T B d m i o He^ero, fla- i l H e K O M y , noTOMy . H T O r o p o / i , o6e3jnop,eji. • „ K O H noMepjiH,-- r o B o p m JieTonHceu;,-- K O H , ofiecnaMHTeB, pa3deacajiHCb K T O Ky/ia:."-" 15 To show how the town of Glupov was depopulated by a t e r r i b l e famine, he f i r s t uses the image of an empty shop, and only then adds that there were no people l e f t to patronize i t . Once again Saltykov changes the narrator (presumably from an editor to a chronicler) and gives us a b r i e f comment of the chronicler („KOH noMepjiH, - - r o B o p H T j r e T o r i H c e i i , - - K O H , o d e c - n a M H T e B , pa36escajiHCb K T O Kyaa"). This combination of under- statement and economy of expression, or, i n other words, Of the powerful image and s i m p l i c i t y , shows Saltykov's c r a f t s - manship at i t s best. Here we can also note the absence of any irony, or derision of the Glupovians, on the part of Saltykov. The f i e r c e mockery of the s a t i r i s t i s applied where he thinks i t w i l l help him to combat p a s s i v i t y or, as he called, i t , . a commitment to the forms of l i f e that are obsolete, a certain conservatism shared by both the 97 a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the Glupovians. There, Saltykov does not h e s i t a t e to use h i s whip. From time to time the Glupovian world was d i s t u r b e d by some governor's d e s i r e to b r i n g some " c i v i l i z a t i o n " to Glupov. The governor Borodavkin t r i e d to force mustard and o l i v e o i l on the Glupovians, and met w i t h what appeared to be a strong "energy of i n a c t i o n " : . . . r j i y n o B i i H : T o x c e 6HJIH c e d e H a y M e . 3 H e p r . H H fleacTBaa OHH c 6 ojibinoK) H a x o f l H H B O ' C T b i o n p : oTHBo n o . c T a - BHJIH aHepr.HK) < 5 e 3 f l e M c T B H H . -- HTO x o u i b B HaMH flejiaH!-- r o B p o n J i H OAHH, - - XOUIB . - - H a KycKM p e a c t ; XOUIB - - c KaineM e u i B , a MH He c o r j i a c H H ! - - C. H a c 6p.aT, .He ..HTO B03MeuiB!--TOBOPHJIH flpyrne, - - MH H e . TO' HTO n p o n n e , K O T O p n e : T e j i o M o d p o c j i n ! H a c , d p a T , H y K O J i y r i H y T B • Herfle ! S. y n o P H O CTOHJIH n p H :3TOM H a K Q J i e H a x . The t a r g e t of the s a t i r i s t ' s attack here i s the s l a v e men- t a l i t y of the Glupovians, as he shows t h a t the bravado of t h e i r d i s s e n t f i n d s expression i n k n e e l i n g down i n f r o n t of Borodavkin. But Glupovians, opposed as they are to mustard, symbolize the. attitude of people i n gener a l , t h e i r c a u t i o u s - ness when faced w i t h a no v e l t y . Saltykov expressed t h i s w i t h a touch of humour when he l e t the Glupovians t h i n k t h i s : flyMaioT: c T a H y T OHH: T e n e p b ecib ropHHixy,-- K a K CH H a fiy-flymee B p e M a eine KaKyio HH H a e . C T B M e p a o . C T B e . C T b He 3 a c T a B H J i H ; . . . Ka3ajiocb, HTO K O J i e H H B .3TOM c j i y n a e n p e f l C T a B J i a i o T c p e / i H H H n y T b , KOTOPHH M O a c e T yMHp .O T B O p H T b H T y H flpyryiO . C T O p O H H . 17 Yet, peaceful as t h e i r r e a c t i o n might seem to us, the 98 compromising a t t i t u d e of the Glupovians was e x p l a i n e d by Borodavkin as a r e b e l l i o n (bunt ) . That these r e b e l l i o n s were many times only, products o f the governors ' : imag ina t i on i s ev iden t from a conve r sa t i on between Borodavkin and an o l d G l u p o v i a n : -- CTajio 6 H T B , CH J I H 6y.HTH? — cnpauiHBaji E o p o f l a B K H H . -- Majio JIH <5HJIO 6yHToB! y H a p , cya,apb, nac H B T 3Toro: TaKaa n p n i c eTa: K O J I H ceKyT - - T a n yac H 3 H a e u i b , .TITO dy.HT! 1° I t i s p r e c i s e l y because the s a t i r i s t g ives us a complex p i c t u r e of the Glupovians (he shows t h e i r s t u p i d i t y and cunning , t h e i r animal behaviour as a mob, and d i sa rming and t o u c h i n g l y good-natured s i m p l i c i t y ) t ha t we beg in to gl impse the r e a l i t y behind the of ten absurd and grotesque facade, and a t the same time f e e l t ha t the author h i t a s u b s t a n t i a l and u n i v e r s a l i s sue when he concent ra ted upon the seemingly i n s i g n i f i c a n t p l i g h t of the G lupov i ans . H i s treatment of the G lupov ians ' predicament , t h e i r s i t u a t i o n , presents a problem which i s s t i l l t o p i c a l , as i t most probably w i l l be i n the f u t u r e , s i n c e i t i s the problem of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t a t e and s o c i e t y . In an unsigned a r t i c l e , w r i t t e n fo r the occas ion of the appearance o f a new e d i t i o n of the 19 c o l l e c t e d works of S a l t y k o v , we read : As a t r e a t i s e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s t a t e and s o c i e t y The H i s t o r y of a Town i s important not on ly for the s tudent o f Russ ian h i s t o r y ( for whom i t should be r e q u i r e d reading) but a l s o fo r i t s r e l e - vance to twen t i e th -cen tu ry t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m : . t h e i f i n a l chapter on the administration of the arch- l e v e l l e r Ugryum-Burcheyev (a notable fore-runner df the 19 84 school of p o l i t i c a l satire) had had fearsome echoes i n Russia and elsewhere i n modern ti m e s . 2 u . In many ways, then, The History i s more clos e l y related to the twentieth century (mainly i t s periods of totalitarianism) than to the nineteenth. This i s very para- doxical ,. because we have seen that the subject of Saltykov's s a t i r e was by no means a r i d i c u l i n g of the "old times". Yet ' 21 Arsenev writes i n 1888, - that The History does not concern 22 i t s e l f with contemporary Russian society: he believes i t i s concerned e n t i r e l y with i t s past. Unfortunately for mankind, i t was Russia's future (the period of Stalinism) that served as a model.for George Orwell's 19 84. More t e r r i b l e than f i r e , hunger, or campaigns for " c i v i l i z a t i o n " , was the gradonachal'nik Ugryum-Burcheyev. There were ways of escaping the former, but the governor- ship of Ugryum-Burcheyev put the Glupovians into a com- ple t e l y new po s i t i o n , one which made any attempt for a decent l i f e superfluous, because Ugryum-Burcheyev changed the whole structure of Glupovian l i f e i n an unusual way. He arrived i n Glupov with detailed plans. These c a l l e d for a Utopian c i t y par excellence: from a square i n the middle of the c i t y the streets issued r a d i a l l y , each having the same number of houses. Each house i n i t s turn accommodates two old people, two adults, two youngsters and 100 two l i t t l e children. The sexes are mixed and are not ashamed of each other. Weak babies and old people not needed by the economy are exterminated (in Nazi Germany thi s was attempted under the "Euthanasia" programme), schools are abolished, and so i s the past and the future, and so there i s no need for a chronicler. Each house has i t s commander and a spy. Ugryum- Burcheyev i n s i s t e d e s p e c i a l l y on the spies. The Glupovians have to do everything together. Together they get up as ordered, meet i n gymnasiums for morning exercise, and leave together for work. While working, they move i n unison, and 23 so they also sing Ukhneml Dubinushka, ukhnem! After sunset each gets a piece of bread and goes to bed. While they sleep, the s p i r i t of Ugryum-Burcheyev hovers above the town and v i g i l a n t l y guards the sleep of the Glupovians. There i s no God, no i d o l s , nothing: B 3 T O M (f)a.HTa.C T H H e C K O M MHpe H B T HH C T p a C T e M , HH V B J i e H e H H H , HH n p H B H 3 a H H O . C T.e2. B e e 3KHBVT KaacAyio M H H V T V B M e . G T e , H B C H K H H H V B C T B V B T C e C f l O f l H H O K H M . . J K H 3 H b HH Ha M r H O B e H b B He O T B J i e K a e TC H O T H C n O J I H e H H H . d e c H H C j i e H H o r o MH-oacecTBa .flypaiiKHX o6H3aHHO .CTeH, H 3 KOTopBix Kaacflaa : p a c cH.HT a H a 3 a p a H e e H "OHa KascflHM n e j i o B eKOM T H r . O T e . e T K a K p o K . SCeHmHHH" H M e K T n p a B O p o a c a T b flBTefi T O J i b K O 3HM.OH, n . O T O M y .HTO H a p y u i e H H e 3 T o r o • n p a B H J i a MOSCBT B o c n p e n s T C T B O B . a T b y c n e n i H O M y x o / i ; y JIBTHHX. p a d . O T . COM3H M e a c a y MOJIOAHMH jnoflbMH y : c T p a n B a i o T C H H e H H a n e , K a K c o o d p a 3 H o p o c T y H: TBJIO- c jioaceHHK), : T a K K a K BTO y f l O B J i e TBOPHB T T p e 6 O B a H H f l M n p a B H J i b H o r o H K p a c n B o r o dppo .HTa.24 With the coming of Ugryum-Burcheyev, the Glupovian world takes upon i t s e l f a si g n i f i c a n c e which reaches f a r 101 into the future. What seemed to be a bad dream at the end of the nineteenth century now seems to be a prophetic ac- count of the notorious p o l i t i c a l developments which held a large part of the world spellbound before World War I I . We fi n d here the indispensable spies whom Orwell replaced with 25 the "telescreen", the ever-present governor, the prede- cessor of the Big Brother of 1984, or the Well-Doer of E. Zamyatin. The .governor's fascination with the s t r a i g h t l i n e continues i n Zamyatin's We: "To unbend the wild curve, to 25 straighten i t out to a tangent—to a straight l i n e ! " This world i s no longer " f a n t a s t i c " after the storm of the t o t a l - i t a r i a n regimes of this century. Hannah Arendt's dictum about the t o t a l i t a r i a n regime: " T o t a l i t a r i a n movements are 27 mass organizations of atomized, i s o l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s " , was expressed by Saltykov i n the passage, „Bce J K H B V T Kaacflyio M H H V T y BMe.CTe, H B C H K H M n y B C T B y e T c e 6 a O A H H O K H M " '-and one can only wonder at the accuracy with which the s a t i r i c Utopia of Saltykov characterized the future. The accuracy with which Saltykov parodies Utopian socialism shows the extent of his understanding of the p o l i - t i c a l process, the new ideas which th i s process produced and which are now termed variously as Utopian socialism, u t i l i - tarianism, egaliterianism (Saltykov himself used the term " n i v e l l a t o r " and "kantonist" for Ugryum-Burcheyev). The very f a c t that this f i n a l part of The History seems so 102 t o p i c a l now shows to what extent modern p o l i t i c s and ideas are t r i b u t a r i e s of the nineteenth century. We can see that the governorship of Ugryum-Burcheyev has more i n common with the s a t i r e of Utopia than with the m i l i t a r y settlements advocated by Arakcheev. The grand design of Ugryum-Burcheyev, the t o t a l dictatorship and the- s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s with the t o t a l i t a r i a n rule of H i t l e r and S t a l i n , show again how the chronicle transcended the history of Glupov, or rather, how close to Glupov history has brought the rest of the world. CONCLUSION As stated i n the introduction, the main body of t h i s thesis was concerned with the development of The History and partly with the analysis of i t s s a t i r i c a l devices. The stress throughout this work was on those aspects of Salty- kov's s a t i r e which have universal v a l i d i t y . This explains, among other things, why the conventional readings of The History were accorded a b r i e f comment instead of more exten- sive treatment. Moreover, this course resulted from follow- ing the author's suggestions as expressed i n the l e t t e r s which he wrote a f t e r the publication of The History, and also from the impression that to indulge, i f only b r i e f l y , i n repeating the t r a d i t i o n a l interpretations would mean to go beyond the scope of this study. Instead, I have t r i e d to ft/ show how Glupov developed from a l i t t l e joke with which < Saltykov wanted to pique his readers. With time, and p o l i - t i c a l changes, this joke began to take on more and more body, and eventually grew into a group of stories which I have c a l l e d the Glupovian cycle. From uni d e n t i f i a b l e and vague characters, two basic types evolved: the Glupovian and the governor. Their c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as well as t h e i r a c t i v i - t i e s , were coloured by the p r e v a i l i n g atmosphere of konfuz: p o l i t i c a l i n s t a b i l i t y marked by a temporary absence of firm control over Russian society a f t e r the Great Reforms. This 104 contemporary element was fused with the account of Russian history of the second half of the eighteenth and the begin- ning of the nineteenth centuries, and the product of this fusion or combination was a hybrid s a t i r i c chronicle of both the past and the present. Saltykov found that t h i s chroni- c l e was an i d e a l platform from which he could conveniently s a t i r i z e the phenomena which seemed incompatible with the ideals he shared with the progressive and l i b e r a l group of Russian i n t e l l i g e n t s i a . He took an extreme stand when he disowned the people who produce and tolerate tyrants, know- ing that i n t h i s way he separated himself from the r e a l people for the sake of the i d e a l ones. This misanthropic stance, reminiscent of that of Swift, with whom he i s often compared, was a p o s i t i v e feature i n a s a t i r i s t who strove for the improvement of the l o t of those who suffered most, the simple f o l k . Since everything depended on the whims of those who possessed power, Saltykov concentrated his atten- tion on them i n the chronicle, c a l l i n g them governors. The actions of these characters are occasionally comic, but are always set against a broader background, the e s s e n t i a l l y t r a g i c s u f f e r i n g of the people. Consequently, Saltykov's laughter—and the reader's laughter—comes through tears. The laughter through tears, produced by the incongruity between words and action, shows the gap between the i d e a l of the free man and his caricature as a mechanical contraption. 105 To stress the l a t t e r , Saltykov created puppets and puppet- l i k e characters and l e t them act among the people to show the people's helplessness and to attack t h e i r p a s s i v i t y , which he likened to a state of unconsciousness. The depravity of the governors and the meek pa s s i v i t y of the Glupovians often reach a grotesque proportion, as we witness the gradual deterioration of the s i t u a t i o n of the Glupovian world. The most powerful and adequate expression of this we f i n d i n the s a t i r e of Utopia which, for many reasons, i s very close to the modern reader. We f i n d here, among others, the spy as the complement of the governor (fortuitously close to the contemporary Soviet coupling of commander and commissar). This anti-Utopia antedates the important s a t i r i c a l works of the present century: Zamyatin's We, Huxley's Brave New World, and Orwell's 19 84. I t i s here that the timeless message of The History i s f e l t with the greatest vigour. The nightmare of the t o t a l i t a r i a n regime i s invoked here with the s a t i r - i s t ' s tour de force. Because Saltykov r i d i c u l e d such vices as the mechanical encrusted on the l i v i n g — t o borrow Berg- son's phrase—and p o l i t i c a l corruption, his s a t i r e i s s t i l l a l i v e , inasmuch as these phenomena are a constant threat to modern man as well . Thus, The History of a Town manifests the universal application of i t s s a t i r e , and goes beyond the history of a p a r t i c u l a r age and nation while remaining, paradoxically, an anathema of the t y p i c a l l y Russian s i t u a t i o n FOOTNOTES FOOTNOTES TO INTRODUCTION "'"Discussion of thi s commentary can be found i n I. P. Foote, "Reaction or Revolution", Oxford Slavonic Papers, Vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968. 2 B. Eikhenbaum, " I s t o r i y a odnogo goroda M. E. Salty- kova-Shchedrina"^ (Kommentariy), i n 0 proze, Khudozhesven- naya l i t e r a t u r e , Leningrad, 1969, p. 455. 3 v ' Xv. . C. Kulesov, "Saltykov-Scednn, I s t o r i y a odnogo goro- da : an annotated e d i t i o n with an introduction", Ph.D., Indiana, 1969. 4 . In his l e t t e r to Vestnik Evropy, M. E. Saltykov- Shchedrin, Sobranie sochineniy, tom VIII (henceforth abbre- viated as M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. £och. VIII), p. 452: "Ya sovsem n e i m e l v vidu istoricheskoy s a t i r y . " 5 I. P. Foote, "Reaction or Revolution", p. 105. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I. ''"D. S. Mir sky, A History of Russian L i t e r a t u r e , p. 293. 2 . . . . This was pointed out by Skabichevsky i n his e d i t o r i a l published i n Iskra, reprinted i n M. S. Goryachkina, red., M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v russkoy k r i t i k e , p. 226. 3 N. Strelsky, Saltykov and Russian Squire, p. 5. 4 • ' '' . Mentioned i n D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskiy, I s t o r i y a russkoy l i t e r a t u r y XIX v., p. 231. 5 Turgenev's review i n The Academy, I I , London, March 1, 1871, pp. 151-152. M̂. S. Goryachkina, Op.' c i t . , p. 193. 7N. Strelsky, Op. c i t . , p. 29. Q G. Lukacs, Probleme des Realismus I I , p. 36. 107 9 • T. S. Lindstrom, Concise History of Russiari L i t e r a -ture , p. 161. I t i s not the brevity which i s questionable, but the lack of understanding of Saltykov's work. 1 0 I . P. Foote, Op. c i t . , p. 105. 1 "''Saltykov expressed t h i s wish i n his l e t t e r to Vest- nik Evropy, Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 451; L. Grossman's ideas were expressed i n his a r t i c l e "Rossiya Saltykova", published i n his book Borba za s t i l ' , p. 169. 1 2 V. V. Gippius, Ot Pushkina do Bloka, p. 295. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 297. 14 A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochmeniy v 10 tomakh, p. 752 (Ostrovsky's play Goryachee serdtse, 1868, dealt with the gradonachal'nik and could have been of more substantial influence than Pushkin's fragment). 1 6 I b i d . , p. 175. 17 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. c i t . , p. 223. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 191. 1 9 I n the Introduction to the 1970 e d i t i o n of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin,.Istoriya odnogo goroda, p. 8. 20 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. c i t . , p. 159. 21 This was demonstrated i n the negative review of Fet's poetry, published i n V. Y. K i r p o t i n , N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov) o l i t e r a t u r e , p. 188. 22 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. c i t . , p. 223. 2 3 D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, Op. c i t . , p. 24 7. 2 4 I b i d . 2 5 F. Venturi, The Roots of Revolution, p. 323. E. Zamyatin's words about Wells, from A. Voronsky, Evgeny Zamyatin, p. 173. 27 From Glupovskoe' rasputstvo, M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. IV, p. 211. 108 2 8 From Pompadury i_ pompadurshy, M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 7. 29 This cycle marks a change. Here, Saltykov's mam concern is,not a c r i t i q u e of the relationship of the main groups of society, as i n the Glupovian cycle, but rather a c r i t i q u e of an ascendant class of parvenus i n the wake of the i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of Russia. 30 Thus, ta l k i n g about a character from The History, Saltykov says: "Paramosha sovsem ne Magnitskiy tol'ko, no vmeste s tem i graf D. A. Tolstoy. I dazhe ne graf D. A. Tolstoy a vse voobshche lyudi izvestnoy p a r t i i . . . " (Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 456). 31 R. Pletnev, Entretiens sur l a l i t e r a t u r e Russe des 18e et 19e s i e c l e s , p. 486. 32 D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, Sobranie sochmeniy, Tom 8, Part 2, p. 1. 33 D. V. Grishin, "The Problem of Dictatorship i n the Work of Dostoevsky and of S. Shchedrin", p. 85. 3 4 M i E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. IV, p. 249. 3 5 I b i d . , p. 250. 3 6 I b i d . , p. 234. 37 V. K i r p o t i n , Saltykov-Shchedrin, zhizn' i_ tvor- chestvo, p. 281. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I I . "''S. V i l i n s k i j , 0 l i t e r a r n i c'innosti M. Jev. Saltykova- Scedrina, i s the only work which discusses konfuz i n d e t a i l . 2 F. Venturi, Op. c i t . , p. 208. 3 Y. Elsberg, Saltykov-Shchedrin, p. 106; the peasant disturbances mentioned i n thi s paragraph occurred both before and af t e r 1861. 4 Quoted from Y. Elsberg, Op. c i t . , p. 67. 5 This hate Saltykov shares with Swift. In a l e t t e r 109 to Alexander Pope (September 29, 1725), Swift wrote: "I hate and detest the animal c a l l e d man, although I h e a r t i l y love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." (Jonathan Swift, G u l l i - ver's Travels and Other Writings, p. 494). FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I I I . "'"E. Pokusaey, Revolyutsionnaya s a t i r a Saltykova- Shchedrina, p. 23. 2 M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. I l l , p. 267. 3 I b i d . , p. 503. 4As i n the nineteenth century, we again witness the d i v i s i o n progressive-conservative;. as before, the climate i s controlled by d i c t a t o r s h i p . 5 E. Pokusaev, Op. c i t . , p. 30. ^Ibid., p. 31. 7M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 475. 8 I b i d . , p. 516. g E. Pokusaev, Op. c i t . , p. 126. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 125. 1:LM. . E. S.-Shch. , Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 462. 1 2 I b i d . , p. 463. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 220. 14T, . , Ibid. . 1 5 I b i d . , p. 429. 1 6M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. IV, p. 210; i t a l i c s are mine. (Henceforth, whenever i t a l i c s appear i n quotations from Russian, they are mine.) 17 K. K. Arsenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, p. 87. 1 8M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 281. 110 1 9V. Ki r p o t i n , Op. c i t . , p. 281. 2 0A. S. Bushmin, SatIra Saltykova-Shchedrina, p. 75. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV. •"•M. E. S.-Shch. , Sobr. soch. IV, p. 203. 2 E . Pokusaev, Op. c i t . , pp. 31-32. 3V. Ki r p o t i n , Op_. c i t . , p. 282. 4 F . Venturi, Op. c i t . , p. 199. 5M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 265. 6 I b i d . , p. 549. 7 I b i d . , pp. 535-536. o E. Pokusaev, Op_. c i t . , p. 33. 9A. I. Efimov, Yazyk s a t i r y Saltykova-Shchedrina, as well as C. Kulesov, Op. c i t . , discuss this feature i n d e t a i l . 1 0M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 265. 1 1 I b i d . , p. 267; the inter p r e t a t i o n of the quotation comes from B. Eikhenbaum, Op_. c i t . , p. 464. 1 2 B . Eikhenbaum, Op. c i t . , p. 465. 1 3M. E. S.-Shch., Op.•cit., p. 269. 1 4 I b i d . 1 5A. D. Stokes, Anthology of Early Russian L i t e r a t u r e , p. 62. 1 6 B . Eikhenbaum, Op_. c i t . , pp. 465-467. 1 7V. Ki r p o t i n , Op_. c i t . , p. 291. 1 8 I b i d . • 1 9M. E. S.-Shch., 0£. c i t . , p. 270. I l l 2 0 l b i d . , p. 452. 2 1 I b i d . , p. 453. 22 . . . . . A detailed account of th i s i s available i n the com- mentary by G. V. Ivanov, i n H. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 555, 23 M. E. S.-Shch.,' pp. c i t . , p. 271. 2 4 I b i d . , p. 272. 2 5 I b i d . , p * 275. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER V. 1 I b i d . , p. 454. 2 Ibid., p. 451 ( l e t t e r to Vestnik Evropy), p. 455 ( l e t t e r to A. N. Pypin). 3 I b i d . , p. 454. 4 I b i d . , p. 277. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 1 "M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 452. Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya, Tom 12, p. 396, 2, 3 I b i d . , pp. 278-279. 4 I b i d . , p. 79. 5T. S. E l i o t , Use of Poetry, p. 153. 6M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 456. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VII. 1C. Kulesov, Op. c i t . 2 W. F. T h r a l l and Hibbard, A Handbook to Li t e r a t u r e , pp. 490-491. 112 N. I. Sokolov, Russkaya l i t e r a t u r a r narodnichestvo, p. 166, quoting P. N. Tkachev. 4B. Eikhenbaum, "Kak sdelana 'Shinel'' Gogolya". 5 I b i d . 6C. Kulesov, Op. ext., p. 36. 7 • • "Slonimsky i n his study provides a discussion dealing with the serious philosophical element i m p l i c i t i n the Gogol- ian humour, his smekh skvoz slezy." C. Kulesov, Op. c i t . , p. 37. Q K. Sanine, Saltykov-Ghtchedrine, Sa vie et ses oeuvres, p. 169. 9 • • Karl D. Kramer elucidates the role of the invective i n his a r t i c l e , " S a t i r i c form i n Saltykov's Gospoda Golovlevy". 1 0M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 278. 1 1 I b i d . , pp. 288-289. 1 2 I b i d . , p. 284. 1 3 I b i d . , pp. 333-334. 1 4A. I. Smirnitskiy, Russko-Angliyskiy slovar', p. 104. 15 Petrov, red., I s t o r i y a russkoy l i t e r a t u r y XIX veka, Tom I I , p. 423. 1 6M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 336. 1 7 I b i d . , pi 423. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 323. 1 9M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VI, pp. 382-383. 2 0 I b i d . , p.'384. 2 1 I b i d . , p. 389. 2 2M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 423. 2 3 . I. P. Foote, Op. c i t . 113 24 Although Nietzsche l i v e d approximately i n the same time as Saltykov, he was younger; and by the time his p h i l o - sophy became known Saltykov was no longer l i v i n g . However, Nietzsche, i n his philosophy, continued the work of Schopen- hauer (see;;note 25; below) and so Nietzsche's Theory of Eternal Recurrence (an introduction to th i s theory i s found i n B. C. Van Fraasen, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time and Space) i s only a more up-to-date version of the c y c l i c a l the pry known from Schopenhauer's widely-read work. 25 "Schopenhauer has written that history i s an i n t e r - minable and perplexing dream of human generations; i n the dream there are recurring forms, perhaps nothing but forms." ( i t a l i c s are mine) quoted from J . L. Borges, Other Inquisi - tions 1937-1952, t r . R. Simms, pp. 155-156. This accurately expresses Saltykov's b e l i e f s , mainly his ideas on forms and phantoms as expounded i n Sovremennye p r i z r a k i , Sobr. soch. VI, pp. 382-383. 2 6 Such i s the arrangement of Satire among other myths i n N. Frye's Anatomy of C r i t i c i s m . 3 7 M . E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 424. 2 8 B. Eikhenbaum, "Kommentariy", p. 50 2. 29 H. Bergson, "Laughter", p. 63. 30 G. Cannan, S a t i r e , p. 52. 31 H. Bergson, Op. c i t . , p. 63. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VIII. 1A. Koestler, The Act of Creation. 6 I b i d . , p. 398. 7 I b i d . , p. 39 7. 114 8 I b i d . , p. 346. 9 I b i d . , p. 335. 1 (V. V. Gippius, "Lyudi i kukly v s a t i r e Saltykova". 1 : L I b i d . , p. 305. 12 I do not wish to suggest here that the grotesque i s necessarily a part of the mechanization motif i n general, but i n some cases (as i n the following excerpt about the governor Pryshch) i t i s . Also, I w i l l abstain from treating the absurd as a category i n i t s e l f , because i t i s inherent i n the context of Saltykov's grotesque. 13 K. S. Guthke, Modern Tragicomedy, p. 73. 1 4 T h i s c r i t i c traces the o r i g i n of the grotesque back to Romanticism (and ultimately to Roman architecture), where he discusses E. T. A. Hoffman as one of the writers who u t i l i z e d the grotesque i n that period, and shows how the Romantic writers drew t h e i r material from the Gothic novel (Castle of Otranto by H. Walpole, Vathek by William Beck- ford, e t c . ) . 15 • V. V. Gippius, Op. c i t . , p. 304, mentioned Hoff- mann's "Sandman".in connection with the puppet motif. Ibid. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 318. 1 9Ibid.', p. 30 8., 20 N. Frye, Op. c i t . , . p. 223. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IX. This p a r t i a l l i s t comes from C. Kulesov, Op. c i t . , p. 58. 2 M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 454. 3 I b i d . , p. 280. 115 4 I b i d . , p. 269. 5 V. V. Gippius, Op. c i t . , treated as one of the s a t i r i s t ' s motifs. 6M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 281. 7 I b i d . 8 I b i d . , p. 282. 9 • V. V. Vinogradov, The History of the Russran L i t er- ary Language from the Seventeenth Century to the Nineteenth, discusses Saltykov from the point of view of the development of the l i t e r a r y language on pp. 236, 237, 239, 241, 253. Also A. E. Efimov, Op. c i t . 1 0M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 329. "'""'"Here Saltykov mentions Potemkin as being the patron of Ferdyshchenko (see the L i s t ) i n order to suggest the p a r a l l e l between the journeys of Catherine the Great and those of Ferdyshchenko, and also to hint at the arrangements, by Potemkin, of the " t h e a t r i c a l " v i l l a g e s b u i l t to please Catherine. 1 2M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 330. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 332. 1 4B. Eikhenbaum, "Kommentariy", p. 482. 1 5M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , p. 311. 1 6 I b i d . , p. 338. 1 7 I b i d . , p. 339. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 337. 19 "Coded S a t i r e " , Times L i t e r a r y Supplement, August 18, 1966. 2 0 I b i d . , p. 733. 21 K. K. Arsenev, K r i t i c h e s k i e etyudy po russkoy l i t e r a t u r e , Tom I. 2 2 l b i d . , p.. 36. M. E. S.-Shch., Op. c i t . , pp. 404-406. I b i d . , p. 406. G. O r w e l l , 19 84. E. Zamyatin, We^ p. 4. H. Arendt, The O r i g i n of T o t a l i t a r i a n i s m , BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS: Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. • The Origins of Totalitarianism. Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian Books, 1966. Arsenev, K. K. K r i t i c h e s k i e etyudy po russkoy l i t e r a t u r e . Tom I. St. Petersburg: 1888. . Saltykov-Shchedrin. St. Petersburg: 1906. Aykhenvald, Y. Siluety russkikh pisateley. B e r l i n : 1923. Baskakov, V.N. . M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v portretakh, i l l y u s t r a t s i y a k h , dokumentakh. Leningrad: Prosveshche- nie, 1968. Bol'shaya.sovetskaya entsiklopediy. Vvedenskiy, B.A., red. Tom XII~. Izdanie 2-e, gos. nauch. i z d . Moscow!: ; Sovet- skaya entsiklopediya, 1952. Bushmin, A. S. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Leningrad: Izd. ProsveshchenTe, 1970. • . S a t i r a Saltykova-Shchedrina. Leningrad: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959. Cannan, G i l b e r t . S a t i r e . London: Martin Seeker, [n.d.]. Dobrovol'skiy, A. M. B i b l i o g r a f i y a l i t e r a t u r y o.\'M. E. Salty- kove-Shchredrine 1848-1917. Moscow-Leningrad: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR,, 1961. Dossick, Jesse J . Doctoral Research on Russia and the Soviet Union. New York: New York University Press, 1960. Efimov, A.- I. Yazyk s a t i r y Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo uni v e r s i t e t e , 1953. Eliot, T. S. Use of Poetry. Cambridge, Mass.: 1933. E l l i o t t , Robert C. The Power of Sa t i r e : Magic, R i t u a l , Art. Princeton: 1960. 118 Elsberg, Y. Nasledie Gogolya 1 Shchedrina i sovetskaya satiira. Moscow: Sovetskiy p i s a t e l " , 1954. S altykov-Shchedrin. Moscow: G o s l i t i z d a t , 19 53.. Ershov, L. F. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin o l i t e r a t u r e i iskusstve. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1953. Feibleman, J. K. In Praise of Comedy (Study i n i t s Theory and P r a c t i c e ) . New York: Horizon Press, 1970. Fraasen, Van, B. C. An - Introduction to'^the Philosophy of Time and-Space. New York: Random House, 19 70. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of C r i t i c i s m . Four Essays. New York: Atheneum, 196 8. Glicksberg, Ch. I. The Ironic Vision i n Modern L i t e r a t u r e . The Hague: Martinus N i j h o f f , 1969. Gorelov, A. Podvig russkoy l i t e r a t u r y . . Leningrad: Sovet- skiy p i s a t e l ' , 1957. Goryachkina, M. S. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v russkoy k r i t i k e . Moscow: Gosizd. khud. l i t . , 1959. . S a t i r a SaTtykova-Shchedrina. Moscow: Prosveshche- nie, 1965. Grossman, L. Borba z a . s t i l ' . Moscow: N i k i t i n s k i e Subbot- n i k i , 1927. Guthke, Karl S. Modern Tragicomedy. An Investigation into the Nature of the Genre. New York: Random House, 1966. Highet, G i l b e r t . The Anatomy of S a t i r e . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962. Kayser, Wolfgang. The Grotesque i n Art and Li t e r a t u r e . V. Weisstein ( t r a n s T H New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Kernan, A l v i n B. The Plot of S a t i r e . New Haven: 1965. Kir p o t i n , V. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. L i t e r a t u r n o - k r i t i - cheskiy ocherk. Moscow: Sovetskiy p i s a t e l 1 , 1939. __, red. N. Schedrin (M. E. Saltykov) o l i t e r a t u r e . Moscow: Gos. i z d . khud. l i t . , 1952. 119 . Saltykov-Shchedrin, zhizn' i tvorchestvo. Moscow: Sovetskiy p i s a t e l ' , 1955. ~ Koestler, Arthur. The' Act of Creation. A study of the conscious i n science and ar t . New York: D e l l Paperbacks, 1964. Kulesov, Catherine. Saltykov-Scedrin, " I s t o r i j a odnogo goroda": An Annotated E d i t i o n wITh an Introduction. Ph.D. Indiana: 1969. Lindstrom, Thais S. A Concise History of Russian L i t e r a t u r e . New York: New York University Press, 1966. Lukacs, G. Probleme des Realismus I I . B e r l i n : Luchterhand, 1967. ~~ Makashin, S. Saltykov-Shchedrin: b i o g r a f i y a . Moscow: Gos. i z d . khud. l i t . , 1951. Mirsky, D. S. A History of Russian L i t e r a t u r e . New York: Vintage Books, 1958. Orwell, G. 1984. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, D. N. I s t o r i y a russkoy l i t e r a t u r y XIX veka. Tom IV. Moscow: 1910; [American Council of Learned Societies r e p r i n t s : Russian Series N.6]. ' ' Sobranie sochineniy. Tom 8, Part 2. St. Peters- burg: Izd. Prometey, 1909. Pares, Bernard. A History of Russia. New York: Vintage Books, 1965. Paulson, Ronald. The Fic t i o n s of S a t i r e . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967. Pletnev, R. Entretiens sur l a l i t e r a t u r e Russe des 18e et 19e s i e c l e s . Montreal: Les Presses de L'universite de Montreal, 1967. Pokusaev, E. Revolyuts ionnaya s a t i r a Sa1tykova-Shchedrina, Moscow: Gos~. i z d . khud. TTti , 1963. Prozorov, V. 0 khudozhestvennom myshlenii pis atelya-s a t i r i k a . Saratov: Izdatel'stvo Saratovskogo universiteta,. 1965. Pushkin, A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy. Tom VI. Moscow: Gos. i z d . khud. l i t . , 1949. 120 Riasanovsky, N. V. A History of Russia. London: Oxford Press, 1969. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. E. I s t o r i y a odnogo goroda. Moscow: Izd. detskaya l i t e r a t u r a , 1970. ' . Sobranie.sochinenii v 201 tomov. (Vols. 1-10). Moscow: Izd. khudozhestvennaya l i t . , 1965. M. E. Sa1tykov-Shchedrin v •vospominaniyakh sovremennikov. S. A. Makashin, red. Moscow: Gos. i z d . khud. l i t . , 1957. Sanine, Kyra. Saltykov-Chtchedrine, Sa vie et ses oeuvres. P a r i s : I n s t l t u t d 1Etudes Slaves de 1"University de Paris, 1955. ' '" " Schopenhauer, Arthur. The Ess e n t i a l Schopenhauer. London: Unwin Books, 1962. Shtein, A. K r i t l c h e s k i y realizm i_ russkaya drama XIX veka. Moscow: Gos. i z d . khud. lit.,-1962. Slonimsky, Aleksandr. Tekhnika komicheskogo u Gogolya. Petrograd: Academia, 1923. Sokolov, N. I. Russkaya l i t e r a t u r e i_ narodnichestvo. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo u n i v e r s i t e t a , 1968. Stokes, A. D. Anthology of Early Russian L i t e r a t u r e . Letchworth: Bradda Books, 196 3. Stone, Christopher. Parody. London: Martin Seeker, [n.d.]. Strelsky, Nikander. Saltykov and the Russian Squire. Columbia: 1941. Swift, Jonathan. Gu l l i v e r ' s Travels and Other Writings. L. A. Lauda, ecL Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1960. T h r a l l , W. F. and A. Hibbard. A Handbook to L i t e r a t u r e . Revised and Enlarged by C.„ H. Holman. New York: The Odyssey Press, 1960. Turkov, A. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Moscow: Izd. Molodaya Gvardiya, 1964. Venturi, F. Roots of Revolution. New York: Knopf, 1964. 121 Vernadsky, G. A History of Russia. New Haven: Yale Univer- s i t y , 1959. V i l i n s k i j , Sergij G. 0 l i t e r a r n i c i n n o s t i M. Jev. Saltykova- Scedrina. Brno: F T l . Fak. Masarykovy Univerzity^ 1928. Vinogradov, V. V., and Lawrence L. Thomas. (Vinogradov) The History of the Russian L i t e r a r y Language from the Seven- teenth Century to the Nineteenth" Madison: The Univer- s i t y of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Wren, M. C. The Course of Russian History. New York: Mac- Mi l l a n , 1963. Yakovleva, N. V. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, neizdannye pisma 18 84-1889. Moscow: Academia, 19 32. Zo l o t n i t s k i y , D. Shchedrin—dramaturg. Leningrad-Moscow: Gos. i z d . Iskusstvo, 1961. B. ARTICLES Bergson, Henri. "Laughter," Comedy, W. Sypher (ed.). New York: Anchor Books, 19 56. Bushmin, A. S. "Iz i s t o r i i vzaimootnosheniy M. E. Saltykova- Shchedrina i Emilya Zolya," Russko-Evropeyskie l i t e r a - turnye svyazi. Moscow: 1966. "Roman v teoreticheskom i khudozhestvennom i s t o l - kovanii Saltykova-Shchedrina," I s t o r i y a russkogo romana. Tom I I . Moscow-Leningrad: Izd. 'Nauka', 1964. "Coded Satire , " Times L i t e r a r y Supplement, August 18, 1966. Eikhenbaum, B. "I s t o r i y a odnogo goroda M. E. Saltykova- Shchedrina (Kommentariy)", 0.proze. Sbornik s t a t e i . Leningrad: Khudozhesvennaya l i t . , 1969 ' "Kak sdelana ' S h i n e l 1 1 Gogolya", Ibid. Foote, I. P. "Reaction or Revolution? The ending of Salty- kov's The History of a Town", Oxford Slavonic Papers, Vol. I. "..'Oxford: .Clarendon Press, 1968. Gippius, V. V. "Lyudi i kukly v s a t i r e Saltykova," Ot Push- kin do Bloka. Moscow^Leningrad: Izd. Nauka, 1966. 122 Grishin, D. V. "The Problem of Dictatorship i n the Work of Dostoevsky and of S.-Shchedrin," A u s t r a l i an Quarterly, XXXI, i i i , pp. 82-91. Ivanov, G. V. "Kommentariy" to the text of I s t o r i y a odnogo goroda, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Sobr. soch. Tom VIII. Moscow: Khud. l i t . , 1969. Kramer, Karl D. " S a t i r i c Form i n Saltykov's Gospoda Golov- levy," The Slav i c and East European Journal, Winter 1970, Vol. XIV, No. 4. Voronsky, Alexander. "Evgeny Zamyatin," P. M i t c h e l l (trans.), Russian Literature T r i q u a r t e r l y , Number 2, Winter 1972.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 16 0
Macedonia 7 4
Indonesia 5 0
Japan 2 0
Hungary 2 0
China 2 0
Russia 2 2
Ghana 2 0
Sweden 1 0
Romania 1 1
Israel 1 0
Canada 1 0
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 3
Skopje 7 4
Mountain View 4 0
Blora 4 0
Buffalo 3 0
Columbia 2 0
Vancouver 2 0
Shizuoka 2 0
Beijing 2 0
Moscow 1 2
Saint Paul 1 0
Uppsala 1 0
New York 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items