UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Beyond history: a study of Saltykov's The history of a town Petro, Peter 1972-12-31

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

Item Metadata


UBC_1972_A8 P48.pdf [ 6.06MB ]
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
Original Record: 1.0093291 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

BEYOND HISTORY: A STUDY OF SALTYKOV'S THE HISTORY OF A TOWN by Peter Petro B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULTILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Slavonic Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1972 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Slavonic Studies The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date April 30. 1972 ABSTRACT The purpose of this work is to show the evolution of The History of a Town and analyze its satirical form and thus to elucidate the obscure points that until 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 literature after the time of the Great Reforms and which expressed the spirit of the time,, understanding of the his torical process and aimed deeper beyond the satirical rendering of the historical facts. Considered by most of the critics as a kind of parody of Russian history, where a provincial 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 after its first appear ance it generated much controversy and grounds for suspicion as to whether it was not more than a parody of Russian his tory and the characters that appear in it more than mere caricatures of the House of Romanov and their ministers. After the heated polemics and discussions so typical of the period of the publication of Saltykov's satiric chronicle subsided, neglect descended upon it, to cover it for several iii decades. The interest in Saltykov's works increased after 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 in objectivity and in assertion of the chronicle's signifi cance beyond the historically ramified period which The  History ostensibly covered. An attempt will be made here to show that Saltykov tried, successfully, to transcend the temporary framework of a definite situation of the period between 1731-1826 in order to give us an insight into the relationship of the governors and the governed, encompassing the epoch high lighted by the reform of 1961 and the decade that followed it. This study will also undertake an analysis of Salty kov's technique of satire and humour, as well as the gradual development of his technique and ideas in the course of the decade preceding the publication of The History. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION ' • • . • 1 CHAPTER I. THE EMERGENCE OF GLUPOV 4 II. THE IDEA OF GLUPOV . . . 21 111 • KONFUZ AND THE CHARACTERS 6 IV. THE HISTORY OF GLUPOV 40 V. THE TWO KINDS OF NAROD 53 VI. THE GOVERNORS 57 VII. LAUGHTER THROUGH TEARS . 6 4 VIII. THE MEN AND THE PUPPETS 80 IX. GLUPOVIANS AND THEIR WORLD 91 CONCLUSION • . 103 FOOTNOTES 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 INTRODUCTION "What description, then, can I find for the men of this generation? What are they like?" —Luke, VII, 31-32. According to the biographers of Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin, the single and strongest influence in his youth was exercised by The New Testament. Here the young Saltykov discovered the quest for justice, something that he failed to see in the actions of the people around him. The clash between the lessons of the Gospels and (for him) the shocking reality formed early in his life that highly critical disposition toward society which was to make him the foremost satirist of the second half of the nine teenth century. Out of this critical disposition evolved also his most powerful satire, The History of a Town, which, more than any other work,-bears out his effort to record in satiric form the iniquities 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 in 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. It is undisputable that such a comparison could be made, and it was indeed made by many scholars, starting with Ivanov-1 o Razumnik and B. Eikhenbaum, and ending with C. Kulesov's . . 3 annotated edition of The History, the most comprehensive and detailed one, so far. The correspondence between the characters of The History and Russian monarchs, however, should not be the focal point of the research of this master-pice of Saltykov: it.should rather be its starting point. In that respect this thesis attempts to go beyond what I generally call "history", i.e., beyond the formal limitations (acknowledged as such by Saltykov himself^) of the said period 1731-1826. A more appropriate way of looking at this fruit of Saltykov's critical spirit is contained in the words of I. P. Foote: "The History of a Town . . . is . . . the most far-reaching of.his [Saltykov's] attacks on the Russian situa-5 tion." For, with the advantage of looking at Saltykov's work a hundred years later, it is possible to see what his contemporaries could not: namely, the persistence of the kind of situation described in his work. If we take his work as an expression of the power and exclusivity of the governors, and the helplessness and passivity of the masses —and there is no reason why we should not take it as such— then we shall be unable to set the. date when the situation in Russia radically changed. The critical disposition of Saltykov evolved with the times, and this thesis will undertake an analysis of the development of the main themes contributing to the genesis of The History in the first three chapters. The following two chapters are concerned with Saltykov's ideas on history and the role which the people play in it. The remaining four chapters then analyze the satirical devices and the role of laughter through tears, of the grotesque, as effec tive means of conveying the author's ideas, and discuss briefly Saltykov's satiric excursion into Utopia. CHAPTER I THE EMERGENCE .OF GLUPOV The History of a Town is a history of Glupov, or—as Mirsky translated it—Sillytown."^ The beginnings of the intimate love affair that Saltykov had with the idea of Glupov can be easily traced to another geographical entity: his Krutogorsk, a provincial town that happened to be the target of his satire in the Provincial Sketches (1856). Although Saltykov departed considerably from the descriptiveness and characterization of provincial life that made his name after 1856, when he published his Provincial  Sketches—a series of satirical portrayals of a pathetically stagnant Russian province after 184 8—one recognizes without difficulty the affinity between Krutogorsk and Glupov: on the level of the character deployment we detect embryonic features of the terrible Ugryum-Burcheyev in Feier, the governor of Krutogorsk. Yet, while the aim of Saltykov's Provincial Sketches was to point out the contrast between the cities and the province by delving endlessly into the abhorrently backward and stultifying life in the province, with Glupov of The  History he tried ambitiously for a coup that was almost unprecedented in the history of Russian literature. Glupov was to stand for the whole of Russia. This the critics 5 readily understood. The misunderstanding came when the critics tried to ascribe false motives to this work. This was crowned by persistent efforts that survived until now, which consist of identifying various characters of The His tory , mainly the governors of the town of Glupov, with Russian sovereigns. From there it is only a short step towards fitting interpretations of this work as a clever attack on the monarchy. But at the time of the publication of Saltykov's work, to attack only the past, its too obvious 2 deficiencies, was hardly worth the satirist's pen. All the same, Saltykov was known as a powerful critic of absolutism as a journalist, and so many readers find it difficult to dissociate him from his alter ego, the one with whom this thesis is concerned: Saltykov, the man of letters, satirist, novelist. This curious division, of course, does not serve as a disposal bag for "the journalist", since the latter is an integral part of the former; but where Saltykov the jour nalist concerned himself with day-to-day problems of social life, at the same time he collected material for Saltykov the man of letters, whose aim was to get deeper to the roots from which the day-to-day problems originated. Careful study reveals this obvious dichotomy that Saltykov himself readily admitted when he said that he had to be objective when writing fiction. It was this objectiv ity that made him the target of both progressive and 6 conservative groups throughout the nineteenth century. People of every walk of life and of every shade of political conviction felt his lash. It fell alike on governor and on peasant; on radical and conservative. More than any other man, it flayed the srednii chelovek, the "average man', whose cupidity, hypocrisy and vulgarity Saltykov set himself to expose and to indict 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 in one of his letters of 1857 that if Saltykov had success with his writings, then it was not worthwhile to write any more;^ but it was Turgenev1s review of The History, written in 1871 for The Academy, an English journal, which presented Saltykov, and specifically his satiric chronicle of Glupov, to the English reader: There is something of Swift in Saltykov . . . that serious and grim comedy, that realism— prosaic in its lucidity amid the wildest play of fancy—and, above all that constant good sense . . .5 It is hardly necessary to add that, at the time of this review, Turgenev had a deep respect for Saltykov. Nekrasov went through a similar transformation; Saltykov was labelled "bureaucrat" by Rzhevskiy and deystvitel'no-statskiy progressist by Pisarev.^ All this illustrates the degree of misunderstanding that the satirist had to suffer to a certain extent throughout his life. He was not to find peace even at home, where he was considered by his family a morose old 7 man. Strelsky rightly asserts his plight: As a.critic of life, he was far in advance of his own times; not until our own day did his judge ment begin to evince their true depth and meaning.^ Georg Lukacs .joins in with his evaluation of Saltykov which appeared in his Probleme des Realismus II: Saltykov-Schtschedrin, wohl der grosste Satiri-ker der Weltliteratur seit Swift, beginnt erst in der letzten Zeit einigermassen bekannt zu werden.^ ' These assertions come very closely to a just appre ciation of the satirist, but- they aire not by any means characteristic of all scholarship on Saltykov. An example which illustrates the conventional attitudes of the literary historian comes from the Concise History of Russian Litera- ' ture by Thais S. Lindstrom, who devoted to Saltykov not more than two and a half pages, which the satirist shares with S. Aksakov: His attacks on corrupt officialdom were couched in literary circumlocutions to confound the censor and delight his leftist [sic!] audience, but while they were immensely popular in the heated climate of the mid-nineteenth century, they were too imme diately topical to survive. Saltykov-ShchedrTn owes his enduring reputation to one masterpiece— The Golovlevs (1872), a largely autobiographical novel for which his family never forgave him.^ This thesis is also an attempt to show that The His tory was not "too immediately topical to survive". I. P. Foote tells us, in his article on The History,that it is the most easily understood of Saltykov's satires. In this way, Glupov will.emerge, as we pass by the conflicting 8 opinions of many critics. L. Grossman, a Soviet critic, tried to connect The  History with the works whose object was historical satire. He mentions Pushkin's fragment Istoriya sela Goryukhina (1830); A. Tolstoy's Russkaya istoriya ot Gostomysla; A. France's Penguin Island; and goes to great lengths in order to prove his point: the idea of the historical satire as an interpretation of The History. He identifies in the chroni cle particular historical personalities, and factual histo rical periods, disregarding and brushing aside Saltykov's express desire not to consider it as a historical satire.^ To ignore the author's explanations written after the work had been published is nothing new, as the famous letter written by Belinsky to Gogol exemplifies; in the case of The  History the text does not justify entirely a conjecture of this kind. More tempting and instructive seems to be the attempt of V. V. Gippius, who looks at Saltykov in an original way 12 in his essay Lyudi i kukly v satire Saltykova, where he traces the motif of the puppet and other elements to their place of origine, namely, German Romanticism in general and E. T. A. Hoffmann in particular. With this in mind he follows Pypin: . . . BnenaTJieHHe, uojiy^ewRoe :OT o^epKa CajiTHKOBa, He caTHpHHecKoe -- 3TO CKopee BnenaTJieHHe cKa3KH FodbMaHa.13 9 The flights of fantasy, grotesquerie and occasional drops of nonsensical humour would support this supposition if it were not for the fantastic reality that anchors the whole work into the realm of the. possible. Pushkin's Istoriya sela Goryukhina (1830), mentioned in connection with L. Grossman's view, is included in most critics' treatment of The History. The short fragment of some twenty-five pages does indeed bear resemblance to Sal tykov's work, if only formally. Unfortunately, Pushkin did not finish this manuscript and we are left 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 find some similarities to Salty1? ; kov's chronicle: the peasant rebellion, the destruction of a village by fire, the abrupt changes in the "government1, etc. Saltykov also might have taken over, in his introduc tion, Pushkin's device of "finding some old documents" from which the author compiles the story. The most important of the similarities, however, is the general idea of substitut ing a village (Pushkin) or a small provincial town (Saltykov) for the whole Russian Empire. Here the similarities end. Saltykov had a definite purpose when he decided to hide behind the mask of an editor and three chroniclers. In 10 doing so, he put himself in a position from which he could attack and ridicule the pompous celebrations of the millen nium of the Russian Empire, an event which was met with laudatory and pseudo-historical writing by some historians and crowned by a monumental sculpture designed by Mikeshin and. raised in Novgorod. Grossman juxtaposes Saltykov's work to this monumental sculpture and shows how the writer tried to de-pathetize the myth of Russian rulers as wise and kind, and show in a different light the legend of the invitation 15 of the Varangians. It was probably at that time, during or after these celebrations, that an idea of Glupov began to emerge in Saltykov's mind, we are told by Grossman. Two catalytic incidents took place before 1862, when some short stories about Glupov appeared for the first time. One'was the unfor tunate Martiyanov's attempt to influence Alexander II by his letter from London in 1862. The letter 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 slyshit. This, of course, ran counter to the mandatory official picture of Russia extolled in 11 Mikeshin's sculpture; but, without dwelling unnecessarily long on this point, it is quite possible to imagine Saltykov as conceiving an allegorical 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 in 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 first sight, but it was in Vyatka that Saltykov made his remarkable career, and it was in Vyatka that he found an abundant fountain of material for his satires. From its beginnings, Russian literature includes a martyrologue of writers who were punished solely on account of their writ ings; but the persistent efforts, mainly of Soviet scholars, to place Saltykov in it seem to be slightly, exaggerated in view of the beneficial influence that Vyatka exercised on Saltykov's career, both literary and official. It may seem strange, but the reader should be rather thankful for Vyatka. Vyatka turned out to be immortalized by its fictional coun terpart, Krutogorsk, and-it.happened to be at.the cradle of Glupov as well. The difference between Krutogorsk and Glupov was an important one, as can be seen from Skabichev-sky's editorial in Iskra: B1-' „ry6epHCKHX o^epKax" r. UteflpnH :CTOBT eme na 12 noHBe: TOM caM.oM o6jiHT£KTe.flb'HoM JIHTep.aTypH, KOTopaa 6njia B: TaK.oM MOfle B KOHue ^>0-x roflOB . • . . Some thirteen years later, however, the development of Saltykov's prose had progressed considerably from the beginnings of the Provincial Sketches. It was no more glav-18 noe delo — raketu pustit' i•smekh proizvesti, as Pisarev would have liked to have it. As a matter of fact, the laughter that The History produces is of a different kind. In a 1970 edition of the satiric chronicle, V. Putintsev writes: KHnra lU,eflpHHa BH3HBaeT CMex, HO BTO He Bece^iaa KHHr.a, H CMex Has ee CTpaHHii;aMH ropen H MpaneH.19 This is in accordance with Saltykov's idea. He did not view his book as an entertaining piece. And it is doubtful that he considered any of his satirical pieces for entertainment only. He must, then, have been deeply perturbed and worried about the attempts of such an influential man as Pisarev who, in his time, put him in the same bag with Pisemsky (not of the time of T'yufyak [1850]; but of the time of Vzbalamu-chennoe more [1863], the anti=nihilist novel) and A. K. Tolstoy (mentioning Rnyaz Serebryany [1862] as an example of the light genre in which, according to Pisarev, Saltykov's satirical production belongs), topping off his comparison with: . JterKHH ciex r. He/ipHHa H jierKaa Me^ T.a Te JIB -HO.CTb r.- <3?:eTa cBAGSIHH Meaofly c06010: TecHHMH y3aMH pcTBeHHoro pOflCTBa.^" The dubious sense that these derogatory lines had in the early sixties of the nineteenth century has long since vanished, Fet being a fine poet despite the radicals' (and 21 also Saltykov's ) dislike for him. Saltykov, however, found a good supporter in Skabichevsky, who defended him in 22 an explanatory editorial in Iskra (in 1871). This and many other voices of sympathy for Saltykov came later. In the fervent days of Russkoe slovo and Pisarev, and furious discussions of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons (1862) , Cherny-shevsky's arrest and subsequent publication of Chto delat'? (1864), Saltykov stands curiously aloof. His sparse reac tions to these hot issues of the day were of a negative character. He would describe Fathers and Sons in the following manner: . . . KaK HeiCOTOpHM XBSC TVHHUIKa H fiO^I.TyHKUIKa [presumably Bazarov] , p,a BflofiaBOK eine H3 npo-xoflHMii,eB B3flyMaji npnyflapHTb 3a BaacHoM 6apHiiiH.eM H ?i TO H3 .3TOrO npOH3 OUIJIO . 2 3 For the nihilists in general he had a theory that was hardly one to make him a darling of the radicals: TaK Ha3HBaeMHe HHrHjiHCTH cyrb He HTO HHoe, KaK' THTVJIHpHNe COBBTHHKH B ffHKOM H HepaCKaflHHOM C O.G TOHHHH a TH TV^HpHHe COBBTHHKH CJTTb paCKaflB-nnecH HHTT/LJLVLC TH. ^4 In both of these examples we recognize the original voice of Saltykov, who was suspicious of the torrent of lofty polemics which was losing ground with each degree of its ever-increasing intensity. At that particular time 14 Saltykov the journalist was the head of Sovremennik, a magazine of high intellectual standards founded by Pushkin. He had to move very carefully in his position because, having received many warnings from the administration, he did not wish to put' the existence of Sovremennik at stake. This was hardly making him appealing to the younger genera tion. F. Venturi summed up the situation in this way: In place of this appeal to the young generation, Saltvkov-Shchedrin was able to make use of his mar vellous satirical power, which expressed the bitter ness that most sensitive spirits felt about the suffocating ugliness of life in Russia. He was able to attack all the various moral, political and social bigotry that was again coming to the fore after the shock of the reforms. But though Saltykov-Shchedrin played an important part in the formation of the intelligentsia between the 'sixties and 'seventies, he had no chance of providing a new.political line or a direct spur to the younger generation.^5 If, as Venturi said, Saltykov had no chance of pro viding a new political line as a journalist, he never cared for one as a writer. Here again, we come across the dis tinction of those, supposedly, two different "beings". Saltykov the journalist took part in the oblique journalis tic practice of in-fighting (e.g., his polemics with the brothers Dostoevsky). Saltykov the writer remained without a political commitment, "a restless aviator, to whom the old earth, overgrown with the moss of tradition, is more hateful than anything else." In his literary art he rather concentrated on a 15 certain type, or various types which became his targets in his satires. The gallery of these types contains the Ivans, also called Van'ki or Ivashki. The Ivans are Glupovians, 27 whose counterparts are Sidorichi (those who decide the fate of the Ivans). The Sidorichi are the governors, the minority; the Van1ki are the majority, powerless in relation 2 8 to the "better off" minority. Then come the pompadury, started in 1863. This edifice is crowned by the gradona-chal'niki, or the governors of the town of Glupov from The History. Apart from this "Glupovian cycle" stand the later type: the tashkentsy (from the cycle Gospoda tashkentsy [1869-1872]),29 The author allows for considerable movement within any of these categories or types, but there is no movement from one type or category to another. This hints of a rather integrated belief in a sort of typology which we can see only with difficulty, and very vaguely. In the extreme sense, it would mean that Saltykov does not view society as divided into classes, as some would like to have it, but rather into various types of people that periodically occur in history and are easily recognized by him in his contempo-30 rary Russia. This point is then ignored in the studies which place The History in the category of historical satire and is one of.the indicators which point beyond the simplis tic interpretations. 16 The nightmarish theatre of the elaborate game which the Sidorichi play with the Van'ki.strikes us with apparent rules that are obvious to all the observers and to none of the observed. One of the rules is that no matter what the gradonachal'niki (the type which Saltykov uses in The History whose predecessor was Sidorich) do, they are not to be under stood by the Glupovians (the Ivashki) and vice versa. To make the possibilities of contact (and positive communica tion) even more distant, there is a rule which makes the Glu povians unable to understand themselves. To make the chaos complete, Saltykov throws in a nonsensically irrational gradonachal'nik (governor),, at a time when things seem to be getting better. If this was Saltykov's. Weltanschauung, he could be hardly committed to any of the existing Salvationist groups. The articles written on the Glupov theme together with The  History, like an opus surrounded by the opuscula from which it originated, are saturated by this typology. As Lunachar-i sky said, Saltykov was really a man who awoke sooner than the rest, and was forced to live among the sleeping. The point which Lunacharsky missed is the one where he speaks about the sleeping majority in the past tense. The History shows us precisely that the "old forms" against which Salty kov rails cannot be replaced by forms which will never grow old; for some people, even what others consider "new" seems to be "old" (in this Saltykov is very close to E. Zamyatin, who desperately fought the entrenchment.of what appeared to be the "new forms" after the Soviet Revolution of 1917). 31 Saltykov's satires are les utopies a rebours, in the sense that they show that Utopia can be striven for, but hardly attained. All this is perfectly in keeping with the author's chronic impatience to see things "moving", and especially so if considered at the background of Saltykov's political thought. D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky tells us that Saltykov, like Nekrasov, was at first under the influence of populism (narodnichestvo) not devoid of sentimentalism coming from 32 the idealization of the muzhik. Saltykov parted with the idealization of the muzhik and, similarly, with another set of ideas which had appeared on his intellectual horizon in his student days, when, with his veneration of Belinsky, he imbibed the ideas of French Utopian socialism represented by Proudhon, Fourier and especially Saint-Simon. D. V. Grishin wrote the following in his comparative study of Dostoevsky and Saltykov: Like Dostoevsky, S. Shchedrin in the forties was under the powerful influence of the ideas of Utopian socialism. Both writers paid for their enthusiasm with exile. Both accepted the ideas of Utopian socialism in a purely idealistic spirit. Later S. Shchedrin broke with the ideas of Utopian socialism. Like Dostoevsky, he was angered by the aim of this system's founders to "regulate" and "calculate" the future fully and arbitrarily; and he criticized "the 18 pictures of the future socialist society" drawn by Chernishevsky in the novel What Are We To Do? (dreams of Vera Pavlovna).33 Saltykov's total rejection of the "regulated future" found expression in the picture of Glupov under the gover norship of Ugryum-Burcheyev. This account of a totalitarian regime, in many ways prophetic, shows without doubt the breadth of Saltykov's intellectual independence which was to remain his hallmark. Although he was an impatient man, Saltykov found time to stop and pose himself a question about the nature of his own effort. He did so in his story Capons (Kapluny, 1862), and tried to answer; it: ,3,'a.HeM TH BOJiHyeiii&cfl, 3aieM 3a<5eraeuih Bnepe^? -- a npo.CTO noTOMy H Bojmyiocb, n.oTOMy H 3aderaio Bnepefl, .^TO ycHfl.eTb Ha MecTe He Mory! 34 . and further on--ft He Mory e.CTb, cnaTB H: TonraTL acn3Hb, KaK e-flHT, GIIHT H: TonnyT ee r^ynoBiiH, H6O y Mens Apyrne BKycH, flpyrne HaMOHHOcTH. 35 The incessant energy which was pushing him on was a force whose nature, and even direction, was changing as the times were changing; but the ultimate aim—the service to common sense, so uncommon in his time, and more substantial ly, his exposure of both official and radical humbug— remained essentially the same. This same force is also responsible for Saltykov's campaign to recognize Glupov for 19 what it really was: his contemporary Russia. In this he went to such lengths that Glupov. became an obsession from which he finally wanted to be freed. The whole process, including the period of obsession as well as liberation from it, involves roughly a decade, beginning with the Emancipa tion of the Serfs. , ,H flOJiace'H CKaa.aTB npaBfly: TjiynoB co.cTaBJiaeT RJISI Me HH H.CTHHHHH KOUIMap . HH MHCJIb, HH fl.eHCTBHH MOI He CBofioflHH. TjiynoB flaBHT HX Bceio cBoeio: THJKec TBIO; TjiynoB npeftCTaBJiflETCH MHe Be3fle : H B xjiefie, KOTO-PHM R eu, H B BMH6, KOTopoe^ H nbio. B.oMfly jm a B ro.CTHHHyio -- OH. TaM, BHH,zi,y. JW a B ceHH -- OH TaM, cofifly jm B norped, HJIH B KyxHio -- OH TaM... B camS MOH KadnH.eT, K&K a HH npoBe TpHBaio ero, HacT.oMHHBo BpHBaMTCfl rjiyuoBcK'He; 3anaxH. . He very soon realized that he was a prisoner of Glu pov, and his effort to escape from this prison ended in failure on one plane: that on which Glupov was indeed Russia personified and devoid of fancy grotesquerie to make it palpable and understandable. From this Glupov he did not free himself and remained, in a way, an enemy to the Glupo-vian style of life, its institutions and representatives, to the end of his life. On another plane, where Glupov figured as an imaginative, fictional entity, a literary idea that usurped the right to represent reality in its own way and with its own devices,—there Saltykov scored success. He put together all his.anguish, knowledge and skill and wrote his satirical chronicle, The History of a Town, then wrote to a friend that it (The History) closed a 20 37 chapter, to which he wished never to return. Thus Saltykov abandoned the road on which he first set out in 1848 when, banished, he came to Vyatka. • As a writer, he had followed the road to Krutogorsk, and then to Glupov. The world of petty officials and mighty governors, of rebellious and passive peasants, of poor townsfolk comple mented by artisans and the occasional freethinker, of the fleas which plagued it, of hunger and fire, of the drab and grey countryside,—all that made up the microcosm of Russia we find in Glupov, which then emerges through the exorcism of the author, who disposed of this painful accumulation weighing heavily on his mind by immortalizing Glupov in The  History. CHAPTER II THE IDEA OF GLUPOV The idea of Glupov did not develop harmoniously. It proceeded from a statement which Saltykof wrote in Glupov  and Glupovians (Glupov JL glupovtsy, 1862) , to an elaborate satiric chronicle in The History. The structure of the whole Glupovian cycle reminds one, by its form, of konfuz, which the cycle depicts. Saltykov's konfuz is simply not the same as "confu sion". His konfuz, writes S. Vilinskij in his book 0 Lite-v 1 rarni cinnosti M. Jev. Saltykova-Scedrina, has a political colour. While in Glupov :L glupovtsy Saltykov denies that Glupov ever had any history, later on, with the advent of konfuz brought about by the Reform of 1861, he changes his mind as he follows the peculiar situation when the old order was disturbed and the new one was not yet established. Sal tykov, looking at this situation through the prism of satire, considers this a tragicomic development and decides that Glupov has a history after all, but one which was very spe cial from those of the other civilized countries. It was konfuz that marked the history of Glupov. The many desperate rebellions in the history of Russia, its stubborn resistance of the new that was not marked by the peasants' expectations, the hysterical thrill that ran through the body of the 22 peasantry after the forced routine of inertia, all this was included in the concept of Saltykov's konfuz. More specifi cally, konfuz originated when the authorities wanted to establish an order, a new order. Then chaos reigned supreme. For Saltykov, the pieces of the puzzle fell together after February 19, 1861: The publication of the manifesto in 19th Febru ary brought back in a flash all 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 situation which did not correspond to their immediate interest or to the notion of"freedom that they had already formed. The in the two following years hopes began to wane; the wave of excitement ebbed. The blow was severe and it left indelible traces on the most sensitive men of all classes.2 One almost visualizes a sleeping giant who has just received a severe blow: he wakes up, gropes for something, but does not. find what he hoped to find. He is puzzled for a while, then goes back to sleep again... There was a gap between the newly powerless nobility and the advent of the bourgeoisie. For a time, the army had to apply strong repression. The consequence of this, the puzzled giant, is at the heart of Saltykov's konfuz. From this emanates the idea of The History. The comparison with the sleeping giant is not suffi cient to clarify all the intricacies of those troubled times. We know now that what followed the awakening was not a sleep. The forces within the multitudinous mass of peasantry which craved for more of both zemlya and volya were not dormant from that time. The confusion, too, was not limited to just the illiterate peasant. The gentry were as puzzled as their serfs. This was indeed a period of very curious uncertainty regarding the future, this period immediately preceding the decree of Emancipation. It took a long time for everything to settle as it "ought" to be. Saltykov, in his official position as vice-governor of the Ryazan1 and later, Tver provinces, had an excellent chance to see the whole province from the bird's eye view of his office, but this also constituted his torment, because he was literally flooded by reports of the monstrosities which befell the poor peasants on account of the army's intervention, and his already gloomy nature needed no fur ther lacerations of the worst possible kind that could happen to any Russian gentleman of that period. At this point he decided to interrupt.his double career (official and literary) in favour of the vocation of a man of letters and a journal ist. In 1860 he began his collaboration with Sovremennik. The innocently naive peasants, killed at the period of troubles shortly after the decree was proclaimed, are sometimes difficult to recognize in.Glupovians. We will see, however, that they were included there as part of a broader concept: as the people, narod, whom he did not wish to put forward in a rough, glorifying and epic way, because any pathetic representation was foreign to him. He proved this in his criticism of the Slavophil idea of narod found in Skazanie o stranstvii inoka . Parfeniya, (1856) : . . . cTpa.HHa.5i MHCjib nejioMy HapoAy RSLTB KaKyio-T.o. 6e3pa3 JIHHHO-AO<5pOAB TejibHyio CpH3HOHOMHK>. ^ Thus he was caught in a contradiction that, for any one but Saltykov, would have been very bothersome to recon cile. On the one hand, he felt deeply with the peasants, since he knew them very well (even as a child he talked with and knew every single peasant belonging to his family estate) but he could not bear to submit to any idealization of peasant life, or even to such description as one finds in Turgenev and Tolstoy. More specifically, he objected to the karataevshchina, and so one cannot find a single positive reference to the peasants or even to narod. He reconciled this with his compassion for the odd Ivanushka who gets killed (thrown down from the belfry) at the times of disturb ances in Glupov, and with his sympathy for 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 it a simple Ivanushka or a Belinsky-like character, but for the great mass, the Glupovians, he had anger and uncom-5 mon hatred of some of its characteristics,—mainly the traditional inertia and the resistance to the new. He did not leave us, then, narod with a particular, set physiognomy, but left us with a terrifying crown of utterly irrational people who sway with events as birch trees - do. Like them, they respond only when they are bothered. With Glupovians everything happens. They are genuinely innocent of any intentions, good or evil. If there is a good year and they have plenty of food—they did not cause.it. Comes hunger—they die like flies. They are not the positive hero of the chronicle. The anguish of the writer is divided equally between the governors of the town of Glupov (gradonachal'niki) and the subjects (glupovtsy). Judging from all this, it becomes evident that the idea of Glupov, the conception of the Glupovian cycle which terminated' in the creation of The History, is related to the political developments of the decade which began on the eve of the Great Reforms. Despite the overt references to the past, the konfuz and the characters of The History were modelled by the development of the decade mentioned, and so indicate in what way the chronicle transcends the past and consequently goes beyond mere history. CHAPTER III KONFUZ AND THE CHARACTERS Considering the socio-political developments of the late 'fifties and early 'sixties, 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 liberal circles was still very high. The spirit of reform which appeared in Russian society in the late 'fifties ran very high before the actual reform, mainly because all kinds of speculations about the nature of impending changes stimulated,the liberal imagination. Many imagined some fantastic, spectacular events would take place, but all the plans of the more imaginative pomeshchik seem to vanish when those who were most involved--the peasants—began to inquire in their own uneducated but spectacular way. Then it ap peared that their voices were not needed. The gentry auto matically assumed the right to decide what would be best for their subjects, and this ended the brief spate of condescen sion which marked the late 'fifties. One of the reasons for the misunderstandings which followed was that the Tsar used the gentry as a transmission link with the lowest class, but this lowest class refused the authority of the gentry and was willing to listen only to the Tsar. In this way, there was no connection between the Tsar and the peasants. From the peasant's point of view, it seemed absurd to listen to the gentry because he thought the gentry would be stripped of their authority and power over him, ans so would not be able to implement the changes (the Great Reforms), being considered by the peasant the party inimical to the Emperor. The peasant viewed the Emperor as the liberator who would end with the pomeshchiki onee and for all. Here, too, are the elements of konfuz. KOHCpV3 npOHHK BCKJflV; KOHCpV3 B CepflliaX IIOMeiUHKOB, KOHCpy3 B coodpaaceHHHX no^TeHHoro KjrneiecTBa, KOHCjpy3 B jiHTep.aType H acypHajiHCTHKe, KOH(fay3 B yiiax aflMHHH-"CTpaTOpOB. ^ One of the many aspects of konfuz is the change in the attitude of the administration and gentry towards their subjects. In Saltykov's Satires in Prose (Satiry v proze, 1861) this aspect is analyzed. It appears that the konfuz brought about a "softening" of the hard way of dealing with the peasants and the author wonders where all this came from. He suggests I. S. Turgenev and Napoleon as the people who started the democratic ideas in Russia. He mentions Turgenev's Rudin (1856) , but the French influence is preeminent: . . . fl O.'G T.a TOHHO BCIIOMHH Tb." TOJIhKO O, TOH IIOJIb3e, KOTopyio npHHecjiH FjiynoBy cHanajia 3MnrpaHTH cppaHD;y3-CKne H noTOM 06opBaHHHe ocT.aTKE de la grrrande arm^e, H o: T.OM, KOTopyio flo HauiHX flHefi npaHOCHT dppaHity3H-ryBepHepn, cftpaHn;y3H-Kya(ftepH, cppaHu;y3H-KaMepflHHepH. ^ 28 The tone of the stories that deal with Glupov in the Satires in Prose is very light compared to the tone of The  History (within The History itself the progression to the tragic is noticeable). We can see here the elements of the future satiric chronicle in a very loose form; Glupov is still not considered in that magnanimous, all-embracing way as it was to become a few years later. The cycle of Glupov was begun in the Satires in Prose. First came the story Literatory-obyvate.li, then Kleveta, and the last one: Nashi glupovskie dela. In all these three stories there is an abundance of material of a "publicist" character, yet it does not make them as temporarily topical as some critics 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 lost interest and the reason for that is the apparent parallel 4 with contemporary (Soviet) Russia. One could almost say that the reason for the living interest in.Saltykov in the Soviet Union today, and for the new editions of his work (his Collected Works are being published at the present time and the last edition of The History was published in 1970), is his criticism of those phenomena which have survived for a whole century. But the Satires in Prose are not particularly conspi cuous in this respect. The degree of generalization (and consequently the universality of its meaning) is not as high as it is in The History. It is the generalization of the shortcomings of the autocratic system of government and their critique that makes The History so applicable wherever the autocracy, and all that goes with it, in any form still survives. With the debut of Glupov and its subsequent establish ment in stories like Glupovskoe rasputstvo (1862) , Glupov :L glupovtsy (1862), and Kapluny (written in 1862 but not pub lished at the time because of; censorship),, Saltykov had a firm basis ready for his satiric chronicle. He had, more or less, the idea of Glupov and its inhabitants in mind ever since. He did not know yet what shape it would take, but as the picture of the narod became solid, he started to work on its counterpart: the Sidorichi, pompadury, gradonachal'niki, all of them being the "representatives" (as we now call them) of the people, of the Glupovians. In the second half of the 'sixties, a book by B. Chi-cherin, 0 narodnom predstavitel'stve (1866), appeared in Russia. In it Chicherin, an influential apologist for the regime, tries to show why it is, and how it came about, that .the monarchy represents the people, and goes to great lengths 5 to show the supposed natural character of the autocracy. This book was of great interest to Saltykov, as in his writ ings he was trying to prove the contrary, hating the autocracy 30 as his most ideological colleagues seldom did. The theories of another apologist—M. Pogodin's praise of the Bezuslovnaya  pokornost' naroda/ — is an example of the adversaries that the germinating ideas to be expressed in The History had to combat. At the time of writing Satires in Prose, Saltykov's hope for an improved political situation was still high; he expected further changes after the decrees. Expression of this hope can be found in Kleveta (1861): IIo BceM npH3HSIK3.M, nojiosceHHe FjiynoBa oflHO H3 caMHX de3HafleacHHx: ero: TOHJJT KaKoH-TO He^yr, KOTO-PHH HeMHHyCMO flOJBKeH npHBeCTE K Oflpy CMepTH. OflHaKO, OH He: TOJIBKO He yMHpaeT, HO Aaace H3I>HB-Jifter. TBepfloe HantepeHHe SCHTB de3 KOHqa. H He CMOTPH Ha BHflHMyio HejienocTb BTHX HaAeacff, H He Mory He  pa3flejiaTb HX, a He Mory He npH3Haib HX BnojiHe ocHOB.aTeJIBHHMH . . . X'OTH c orpaacsaHe: TBOH H nopa-aceHH npoKa3oB, HO B03fljrx TjiynoBa HHCT, H6O ocBe-acaeTCa npn.fteTaioiii.HMH H3 YMHOBa B.e.TpaMH.7 Here, Saltykov believes in Umnov, which will help to change Glupov. Elsewhere in! Satires.. in-'Pr-ose, he mentions that a very long time ago, Glupov was called Umnov too. He believes in a renaissance of this forgotten Umnov. This is another of the important differences between the idea of Glupov which Saltykov had in the early 'sixties and the final idea expressed in The History, where the renaissance of Glupov is not mentioned. Obviously Saltykov, like many of his contemporaries, at first believed in a substantial progress which never materialized. 31 The loss of optimism is explained by Soviet critics accordingly:.the counter-attack of the reaction after the Great Reforms made any progress illusory. For Saltykov it was a bitter loss, since he wished to see the last minutes of Glupov: H Aaace HyBCTByio HeKOTopyio CHMnaraio K HOBorjry-noBLiyio.. OH MJM MHS iroTOMy, "HTO OH--- nocjteflHHH H3 rjiynoBueB. 8 Saltykov never returned to the novoglupovets and Umnov. Instead, he chose to concentrate on the counterpart of the glupovets, on the type which, in the guise of a gover nor or.even a Tsar, ruled over the grey domain of Glupov. This time he chose to name it pompadur, but the reader recognized the Sidorich in him, as we might recognize pompa dur in the governors, those formidable gradonachal'niki of the town of Glupov. The Pompadours and Pompadouresses (Pompadury i pompa- durshi) is a collection of stories which were published during the years 1863-1874. For our convenience, they can be divided into two parts: those published between 1863 and 1871, and those between 1871 and 1874. The stories were published in Sovremennik and Otechestvennye zapiski. There were four editions of Pompadours in Saltykov1 lifetime: in 1873, 1879 and 1886.9 The pompadours were modelled after the provincial governors and vice-governors whose life Saltykov knew intimately through his service in Ryazan1 and Tver. The pompadouresses are the ingenious lovers of these provincial administrators. The choice of the pompadur was more than fortunate. The obvious sense that comes into one's mind first is the Marquise de Pompadour, the famous eighteenth cantury favourite of Louis XV. Like her, Saltykov's pompa- dursha is able to take care of the affairs of her lover. But the other sense of the word is closer to the Russian reader than the first. Here, the words pompa and the col loquial samodur (or dur) convey a mixture of the pomp and stupidity.which Saltykov wanted to express with this type in the first place.10 "• When Saitykov began to write this collection of stories, he visualized something different from the final product. His intent at the beginning, around 186 3, was to write what he called a Provintsial'ny romans v deystvii, and so in his letter to Nekrasov he called them "stories about the governors".11 Saltykov's classification of the genre as romans (a small musical form similar to the ballad, usually composed to an already popular poem) shows the ironic bent which he wanted to give to these stories in order to annoy 12 Fet, with whom he was at the time engaged in a polemic. For the same reason he gave one of his stories the title Na  zare ty ee ne budi, which was the first line of one of Fet's poems. Similarly, another story from the same series bears 33 the title Ona eshche edva umeet lepetat', which was the first line of Maykov's poem. On the whole, the content of the Pompadours is to a great degree topical, as had been said many times by many critics about the whole body of Saltykov's work. Topical in the sense that he is very open in addressing his satiri cal charges to his political opponents. It is dated by its analysis of the post-reform period. However, there are stories which are closer in character to The History than to the series for which they were intended. Such is the late story of the first group, Edinstvenny (Utopia, 1871), where he presents a very exceptional pompadur who resembles the governor, Pryshch, of The History; •HH HayK, HH HCKyccTB OH He 3Haji; HO ecjiH nona-fla^iacb nofl pyKy KHHHCKa c KapTUHKaM, TO pacciiaTPH-B&JI ee c yflOBOJib.c TBneM. B ocofieHHO.CTH HpaBHJiacb eMy noBe.CTb o noxoacfleHHHX PodHH30Ha Kpy3oe Ha HeO6HTaeMOM o.CTpoBe (K cnacTbio H3flaHHaa c KapraHKaMH.-'-^ This pompadur was a man who hated violence which the admi nistration used to keep ''law and order". He is very sad and annoyed by.the reports filed by a non-commissioned police-officer, who regularly turns in reports about impending rebellions and revolutionary activities. Since "etot pompa dur dazhe sredi neobyknovennykh byJL samy neobyknovenny" , he decided that rebellions and revolutions existed only in the mind of the non-commissioned police-officer. B . aAMKHKCTpauHK.'on 6h\ji tpiwioeoq: VL-6U'JI ydeacfleH, HTO caMaa jrynmafi aflMHHKCTpaiiHH -3aKJiioHa:eTCH B OTcyrcTBZZ: xaKOBoM.l^ As this Is a "Utopia", the pompadur proclaims: "Net  revolyutsiy-s 1 Net i_ nikogda nebyvalo-s I" and arrests the non-commissioned police-officer. This, of course, does not take place in that Russia as we know it from other stories from the same series. The example, in its obvious absurdity, is close to the spirit of The History and was picked up with that in mind. In the other stories we come across things which Sal tykov used later in The History. Such is the title of the pompadur's writing, 0 blagovidnoy administratora naruzhnosti, which we find in the story Stary kot na pokoe (1868) , where the author of the mentioned piece of inspired writing is the pompadur Blamanzhe, while in The History, Saltykov changed the title to 0 ";blagovidnoy vsekh gradonachal' nikov naruzh-15 nosti, whose "author" there is the governor Mikeladze. Also, in the already quoted Maykovian-titled story, Ona  eshche edva umeet lepetat1 (1864) , we come across a form of warning: "Razzoryu!", which will be so typical for the gover nor Organchik (Brudasty), who will pronounce it with the machanical "little organ" in The History. A typical pompadur, however, is not the one who arrests his non-commissioned police-officer, nor the one who shouts "Razzoryu1". It is a different man, a character like Mit'ka Kozlik, created according to Saltykov's personal experience. A young man, whose only occupation until he is thirty consists of promenading down the Nevsky, having dinner at the Dusseaus (on credit), and going to the Mikhailovsky Theatre in the evening, is the most likely future pompadur. After he passes his thirtieth year, the dirty jokes, which he kept telling the company of young fashionable men in St. Petersburg, begin to bore him and he yearns for a distin guished position in the province. Having an influential uncle and aunt, his wish readily turns into reality, and he becomes Dmitry Pavlovich Kozelkov. Very economically sketched, this brisk development of Mit'ka Kozlik into a provincial governor is a masterly miniature found in the story Zdravstvuy milaya, khoroshaya moyaI (1864). In ano ther story, Na zare ty ee ne budi (1864), the same Kozel kov' s exploits, as those of an established pompadur, are followed. He is compared tojMetternich on account of the skillful way he plays his opponents against each other. But ingenuity is„*not a predominant feature of the pompadur type in general; rather, it is their stupidity as demonstrated in Staraya pompadursha (186 8), where a widow—pompadursha—wins over, unceremoniously, the new pompadur, discovering that he is as stupid as her husband was. After a while, she reigns over the province... Saltykov's pompadurs are essentially bureaucrats. We see them in their daily contact with their subordinates, and we learn about the problems of a provincial character; their occasionally absurd reaction to these problems does not make this series a writing of the absurd. There is a mass of very concrete political material that its satire exploits. All the pompadurs strive for power and more power, and some are unhappy that they are not allowed to write the law for their provinces. Despite their hunger for power, they lack the "greatness" of a gradonachal'nik, who does not have a nobler origin than the pompadur, but his "greatness" is achieved by attributing great designs to these officials, designs imcompatible with the mere governorship of a provin cial town. The gradonachal'nik gives us the impression that he, like an autocrat, is not interested in the "petty de tails" concerning the actual administration; he decides only the general course of his policies. The Utopian pompadur who appeared in the story Edinstvenny (Utopia, 1871) has much in common with Gogol's Kostanzhoglo, Fonvizin's Pravdin, and also GOncharov's Stolz. They are all "too good to be true". They represent respec tively the timely attitudes of their authors towards the qualities and abilities that a contemporary man should pos sess. However, Saltykov had the advantage of coming up as the last one of those mentioned writers, in 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 stories, but as the hero of his Utopian story. In his own comic way, this pompadur represents the belief 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 in the reforms or Utopian socialism. As different as the pompadurs are, they all come from the same stock. They .'invariably originate in the great family of Sidorichi, whom Saltykov avidly studied throughout the 'sixties: . . . MeHa 3a.HHMa.eT He flOMaiUHee ycTpoMcTBO CH#O_-pHHeM, 06 3TOM H 6e3 Me Hfl flOBOJIhHO nucajra -- HO npBefleHHe H aejia. HX, KaK pacH, cyme.cTByicaiiefi nOJLHTHHeCKH * This, no doubt, is perfectly in accordance with the peculiar typology (dela ikh kak rasy), already mentioned at the beginning of this work. The series Pompadury i pompa-durshi is a study of this type, which evolved from a crude 17 official of Krutogorsk through novoglupovets to pompadur. As Saltykov concentrates on this type, the mass (glupovtsy) is standing far in the background. Saltykov mentioned this earlier, in 1862, in what amounted to a little declaration of a programme: . . . ' npeflMB TOM MOHX H3HCKaHHH 6HJIH H'GyflyT HCKJUOHHTejIbHO CHflOpHHH. 18 • —that is, those in power, like pompadury, or gradonachal'-niki. 38 In the series Pompadury we also find what will be so important in The History: the art of condensing his type into a sketch that bears all the necessary.features to make him representative of the type, the characterization of the various characters according to their speech which, further more, determines their social 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; in 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 stuffing in head turned into the gradonachal'nik Pryshch. In 1869, the January issue of Otechestvennye zapiski carried the first chapters of The History. These chapters marked the synthesis of a decade-long quest for adequate expression of his ideas about the people and their rulers. I have attempted to trace the development of the type of the rulers, and also to point out the influence of the political situation in connection with Saltykov's konfuz, being aware of their significance for The' History. When Saltykov published the first chapters he did not know how controversial his satiric chronicle would be, nor did he foresee that his satiric presentation of the most troublesome problem in Russian intellectual history—the problem of the relationship between the people and their rulers-—would become a work of art which would free itself from the fetters of the time and present a view of the history of Russia that would not only transcend the period and the personalities with which.it was dealing, but also give an insight into the characteristic features of the Russian nation. CHAPTER IV THE HISTORY OF GLUPOV PK'CTOPHH y TjiynoBa H.eT -- cpaKT nenajiBHHM H.' THJKejIO :OTpa3HBIHHfiCH Ha o6.HTaTejiHax. " — Saltykov Saltykov wrote the above in 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 all, Glupov had a history. It was written according to the principles which were used by Pogodin, Shubinsky, Bartenev, Mordovtsev, Mel'nikov, in their historical studies. That means that the history of Glupov was to be the history of its rulers, the governors (gradonachal1niki), because these historians took special pains to prove their thesis, according to which the history of Russia was actually the history of the ruling dynasty. Pokusaev'writes: HfleojiorH iiapH3Ma, HCTO'PHKH -- „rocyAap:cTB6HHHKH" yTBepacflaroT, :HTO caMOflepacaBHan B^ia'CTb -- 3TO CyaTO CH caMaa co3HflaiejibHaa, caMaa pacnopHflHTejibHan CHJia HCTOpHH. C a^ITHKOB-UIeflpHH KaK CH flO KpaHHQCTH flOBOflHT '3Ty peaKUHOHHyio Hfleio, BHJKHMa.eT Bee HejienocTH, KOTopne OHa TSSRT B cefie.:^ This meant, practically, that Saltykov, in order to parody the historians, chose to develop their ideas ad absurdum and show how wrong they were. This assumption seems to render 41 the pathos of the work' ideally, ever since we can refer to the sympathies which Saltykov was supposed to have for Shchapov's ideas on history, more specifically, on the pre-3 dominant role of people rather than sovereigns. Shchapov, a historian, said the following on that subject: It is now a well-established notion that the fundamental factor of history is the people itself and that it is the spirit of the people that makes history. This idea is no longer new . . . Yet, in order to be satisfied by Pokusaev and Kirpotin, we should see Saltykov showing the people actually making his tory. Quite the contrary: The History is a powerful accusa tion of the people's lack of any constructive action except senseless rebellions, bunty that more than anything else stood as a target for Saltykov's sarcasm. It appears, then, that Saltykov's work rejects the implications of a narrow interpretation which operates with the "black and white" system (or, "reactionary and progressive"), since pointing out the author's criticism of something identified as "reac tionary" does not necessarily bring us the same author's agreement with what is considered "progressive". Generally, it is much safer to point out what is being attacked than to show from what standpoint the attack was directed. The reasons for which this work seems to invite the critics and lure them into political interpretations, is its powerful negativism. One feels in the chronicle the author's strong dislike for the subject treated. It is, indeed, a morbid pathology of the times and the smell of decay which emanates from it invites 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 satire was sup plied by what we may call in general the Russian politics of the nineteenth century, but this does not give us license to construe a binding theory which not only fails to persuade the reader, but simply offers an unsatisfactory resolution. The text which will be under analysis on the follow ing pages comes from the latest (1969) edition of Sobranie 5 sochinenii, which.is reprinted from the 1883 edition: that is, the last one published during Saltykov's lifetime.^ There were important changes in the order of the chap ters. In the first (journal) edition, the chapter 0 koreni  proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev appears as the last (sixteenth), while the first book edition puts it into third place. Ano ther item, the Opravdatel'nye dokumenty, which in the journal text appeared in sixth place, is put at the end of the first definitive book edition (published in St. Petersburg in 1870).7 Formally, the composition of The History is a parody of the usual type of monograph that contemporary historians wrote. It is a chronicle divided into two parts; the first consists of general and introductory chapters, the second devotes a special chapter to each "personality" or governor 8 of Glupov. The whole work is appended by the "documents" mentioned above (Opravdatel'nye dokumenty). It is probably due to this structure that the censorship found it impossi ble to prevent the publication of this work (the material to which censorship objected was spread in such a way, due to the structure, that the complete picture is obtained only when all its parts are put together), but the composition was not the only device designed to confound the censor. T*ie PQ^t °f view was another of the author's multitude of ingenious ideas in this game. At the beginning, Saltykov pretends to the role of a mere publisher who edits and pub lishes "podlinnye dokumenty". He speaks in the work with many different voices: as a publisher and three different archivists, chroniclers. This gives him ample opportunity to interrupt the chronicler as the publisher (or as himself) But, most of all, this arrangement gives him a license where by he describes the events through the eyes and sensitivity of a chronicler whose point of view itself is a source of satirical presentation of the said events. Finally, the chronicle is written in an Aesopic languagef as termed by the critics, intentionally ambiguous enough to make the censor as well as the modern reader uncertain about the meaning of many allusions. In the introduction, Ot izdatel'ya, we are told that the chronicle covers a period beginning in 1731 and ending in 1825. The whole period is summarized here and the reader also receives certain clues that tell him how to look at the work which he is about to read. For example, speaking about the. variety of governors and their different approaches to the changing problems, the author suddenly reveals: Bce.oHH ceicyT ofiHBaTejieM, HO nepBHe cexyi a6co-JUOTHO, BTopae odtacHHioT npHHHHH CBoeH pacnopafla-: Te-zibHo.cTH: Tp.e:6oBSHHflMH n.HBiMH3,aH.HH,: TPBTBH acejiaiOT, :HTO6 o6HB.aTeji'H BO.BceM no^ioacHJiHCb Ha ax OTBary.^0 --and the reader is 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 tastic occurrences that took place in 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 is constantly proving the contrary (i.e., there is no abyss, no change). This false emphasis recurs in the chronicle as it.is one of Saltykov's favourite devices. After the introduction, there is another short item. It is the Obrashchenie k chitatelyu ot poslednego arkhiva-riusa-letopistsa. The function of this piece is to turn the attention to the implicit rank of the governors. Through many hints, the "chronicler" lets the reader know that the governors (whom he calls Nero, Achilles, etc.) represent a more elevated office than the explicit rank of the governor of a provincial town. For that purpose, the "chronicler" quotes from Derzhavin's Vel 'mozha (Kajinryjia!. TB.OH KOHL B oesaTe / He Mor CHHTB, CHHA B 3uraTe : / CHHJOT . flodpne peji&l ) The comparison of the governors to despots does not leave the reader in doubt as to the real meaning of the forthcoming "historical" record. This chapter is written in the eighteenth century style with corresponding expressions, but the false impression of the mockingly old document is suddenly brought out by the reference to Bartenev (1829-1912), Saltykov's contemporary,. and the reader is once again 12 reminded of the present rather than the past. In the con clusion of the Obrashchenie, the chronicler compares Glupov to Rome: . P'a3HHIia B" TOM" TOJIbKO CO.CTOHT, H TO B P HMe CHHJIO Hene.CTHe, a?y Hac^-fijiaroHe.CTHe,' PHM 3apaaca^io 6yM:cTBO, a Hac--Kp.oTO'CTb, B PaMe dymeBajia nop.jia.si nepHb, a y Hac--Hana^iHHKH.13 With this, the short Obrashchenie ends, and the mer cilessly ironic view on the origin of the Russian Empire follows in the chapter, 0 koreni proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev the chapter which in the journal edition appeared as the las Here we find the description of the beginning of Glu pov, and so Saltykov deems it necessary to inaugurate it in an appropriate fashion: He xony H, noflofiHO Ko.CTOMapoBy, cepHM BOJIKOM no 3aMJiH, HH, noflofiHO CojioBteBy, IHH3HM opjioM uinp.aTb no/i; ofijieKH, HH noAoCHO ITfiinHHy, pacTeKHTBCH MHCJIBIO no flpeBy...14 This is a skillful travesty of the Slovo o polku Igoreve (BOSH do BemnM, ante KOMy xoTfliiie necHK TBOPETH,: TO pacTeKanieTCH MHCJIHIO no flpeBy, cepHM BJIKOM no 3eMJiH, UIH3HM 15 opjioM no/i odjiaKy) , where Saltykov wove in the names of three contemporary historians known by their different 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 illus trate his opi nion); S. M. Solov'ev (1820—1879), who belonged to the opposing camp, believing 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 cultural nature. It is amazing how well Saltykov managed to give the characteristics of these three scholars, while staying inside the stylized imitation. The function of this pseudo-rpoetical introduction to the history of Glupov is to show the way in which Saltykov's want to treat his material; to the exclusion of the most current methods, he will bring a record, a chronicle of trivia, which.will as often as not be absurd, naive, feeble-minded and also profound. If we could compare the events that Saltykov mentions to a cover which envelops some essence or implicit material, then with each absurdity this cover will deteriorate, and through the holes we will catch ,a glimpse of the essence of the chronicle, its adaptable, uni versal message of the predicament of the human being suffer ing under severe limitations imposed on him by- the authorir ties. For this reason, we find in The History contemporary thought, knowledge of the concepts which appeared in the historiography in Saltykov's time. As Kirpotin says: ECZEH BHHMSLTe^IbHO B HH T £L T b CH B." Te K'C T „HCTOpHH oflHoro ropofla". TO 06HapyxcH TC H, ^TO UteflpnH nepnaji Rjia CBoero iue#eBpa MaTepHaJLH H3 CoBpeMeHHOcTH He B MeHbiueM CTeneHH ieM H3 HCTOPHH.17 —but at the same time, Kirpotin turns to the one-sided approach, the danger of which was already elucidated on the previous pages: CaMaa cpopMa naposra Ha: TpyflH yie HHX-C oBpeMeHHHKOB, Ha HX KOHueniiHH, Ha HX nciHTHHecKHe B3VJisip,u, eflKaa HacMeuiKa Ha# oTpniiaHHeM pojin HapoflHHx Mace H HCTO-pHHecKOH 3 aKOHHO.c TH peBOJIIOLIHH. BHOCHJIH B KHHPy lUeflpHHa 'flyx aKTyajibHO.CTH. 18 On the basis of The History, it is not possible to make Saltykov a champion of the "role of the masses" and the "historical inevitability of revolutions". Such opinion is useful for illustration of the reading subjected to one sided interpretation. Kirpotin is right when he says that the book has a spirit of actuality. 48 In the chapter 0.koreni proiskhozhdeniya glupovtsev, Saltykov traces the origin of the Glupovians to a tribe which he calls golovot'yapy. The name comes from the tribe's main characteristic, that of hitting their heads on anything within reach. This tribe was surrounded by a number of other tribes with similarly funny names: . . . MopaceeflH, jryKoeflH, vyw,eep,n, KJIIOKOBHHKH, KypajiecH, BepTfl^ae 6o6n, jraryiiieHHHKH, JiairoTHHKH, HepHOHefine, AOjideacHHKH, npojioMJieHHLie ro^oBH, c^ienopoflH, rydonureriH, BHCJioyxHe, Kocodpioxne, panyuiHHKH, 3ayrOJIBHHKH, KpoineBHHKH H pyKOcyn.19 Suvorin, the author of the most quoted negative review of The History, called the above-quoted names of the various tribes living in the area of present-day Russia a 20 "mockery of the nation". In defence, Saltykov wrote a letter to Vestnik Evropy, the journal in which Suvorin's review appeared in 1871: . . . yTBepacflaio [wrote Saltykov] , .1JTO HH OAEO H3 3THX Ha3 BaHHH He BHMHIIIjieHO MHOB, H CCHJiaKCb B "3TOM cjrynae Ha Hajia, CaxapoBa H spyrnx jno6.HTe.aeM pyccKoM HapoflHO.CTH. OHH 3acBHfl:eTejib.c TByKT, "HTO .3T:OT „B3flOp" COHHHeH C SM0M HapOflOM. ..21 I. P. Sakharov's work Skazaniya russkogo naroda fully 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 similar vein, Saltykov writes about the deeds of the golovot'yapy: BoJiry TOJIOKHOM 3 aicecHJIH, II.OTOM TejieHKa Ha daHio 49 : TamHJiH, noTOM B Kouiejie Kaiuy Bapn^in, noTOM K03Jia B cojioaceHOM Te.CTe yioniMH, noTOM CBHHBIO 3a do6pa Kynnjin, #a cofiaKy 3a BOJiKa yCn-an, no TOM jianTH pacTepajiH fla no ABopaM HCKajra: 6UJIO JianTeM ine.CTB, a CHCKajIH CeMb; nOTOM paKa C KOJIOKOJIbHHM 3BOHOM B.C Tpena^iH, noTOM myKy c ann. corHa^iH, no TOM KOMapa 3a BOCeMB Bep.CT JIOB.HTB XOflHJE . . • 3 All this, as a presentation of the origin of Russian history, was very insulting to the feeling of national pride and prowess, so highly extolled during the celebrations of Russia's millennium. Both liberals and conservatives shared the boisterous feeling of accomplishment, although they certainly differed in their views as to the force responsible for the development of the Russian state. Saltykov, judging from his work, lacked—if we are to look at him through the eyes of his contemporaries—the sense of identity not only with the "historical Russian nation", but also with the sensibility of the intellectual milieu, and the prevailing Zeitgeist of his time. He was skeptical when confronted with either the pathetic effervescence of those who praised narod, or the calculated plans of those who wished to pre pare a better future for it with their rigid socialist schemes of a Utopian character. Clearly, then, he was an outcast. In presenting the origin of the Glupovians (narod) in a profoundly anti-pathetic way, Saltykov made use of the rich folk expressions which supplied him with a folksy atti tude toward what the people thought was stupid (paKa c KOJO-50 KCTibHHM 3BOHOM BeTpe^ajiH, no TOM myKy c aim corHaM, etc.). The stupidity of the Glupovians is almost unlimited and the author does not waste a single line without stressing this in the chapter O koreni...; in one place, describing the search for a ruler undertaken by the Glupovians, they spend three years and three days looking for a suitable prince who would be willing to take them as his subjects. (parody of the invitation:of the Varangians). They make it known that they are looking for the most stupid prince in the world. On their way, they ask everyone to show them the way to the stupid prince: IIIJIH OHH no pOBHOMV Me.CTy Tpn rofla H. TPH AHH, H Bee HHKVfla npn.izTH He MorjiH. HaKOHen.,. oflHaKO, . flouiJiH flo CojioTa. BHAHT, CTOHT Ha Kpaio CojiOTa Myx^ioMeii-pyKocyfi, py KaBHirH.' TopnaT 3a noHCOM, a OH Apyrnx HineT. -- He 3Haeiut jm, jnodesHBiM pyKOcyroniKO, rfle 6H HaM TaKoro KHH3a CHCKaTt, HTO6H He 6UJIO ero Ha cB.eTe rjiynee? -- -BQUOJIVLJIVLOR rojioBOTanH. -- 3Haio, ecTK TaKoM,-- OTBenaji pyKocyM,-- B.OT HflHie npflMo nepe3 6OJIOTO, KaK pa3. TyT. EpOCHJIHCB OHH Bee pa30M B COJIOTO, VL 6 OJIbllie nojio-BHHH HX T.yT n.OTonjEO ( „MHorHe 3a 3eMJiio CBOK nopeBHO-• BSLJIW." , roBopuT jreTonncen.); .<: .^4 Here we have a good example of style of the whole work. In the first place, Saltykov shows us a non-event, a banal account of the group of silly people in search of one who should be even more silly. This group loses more than half its people in the swamp because of its stupidity. The 51 key to the understanding of this passage is in the words „MHorHe 3a.3eMjr.10 CBOK) nop eBHOBajin" , a cliche one could find in a historical monograph of that time. This sentence, how ever, sets the whole non-event into its proper perspective, hinting that the real history, the real origin of what was later to become the Russian Empire consisted as well of simi lar non-events, the absurdity of which becomes immediately obvious as it is contrasted with any gross, glorificatory statement like „MHorHe 3a 3eMjno CBOK nopeBHOBajin". Further on in The-History, we will find even more banal and trivial incidents which Saltykov treats with all the seriousness and respect that a chronicler would invest into them. The search-party of the Glupovians (at that time still called golovot'yapy), finally reaches the prince for whom they have been looking such a long time. It is their voluntary choice to become his vassals and they accept his demands. The ruthless prince, after giving them his orders, lets them go with these words: „A KaK He yMejiH BH acHTb Ha CBoeS BOJie is can, vjrynue, noacejiajra ce6e Ka6ajrH,: TO HaaHBaTbca BaM Bnpeflb He rojioB.OTflnaMH, a rjiynoBiiaMH. "^5 Saltykov stresses here the voluntary character of thi satirical "invitation of the Varangians". For our purpose, it is not important that modern historiography treats this "invitation" 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 is inten tionally distorted or ignored for a simple reason: Saltykov was not writing a history of Russia. He was a satirist, not a historian. His aim as a satirist was not to give a sati rical account of Russia's past, but a satirical account of the phenomena which originated in Russia in the past and. haunted its present. CHAPTER V THE TWO KINDS OF NAROD Since mystical and fatalistic 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 possibility of the Slavic tribes having been subjected by force, but Saltykov does not approach this, because contemporary historians did not, and, on the contrary, glorified the legendary "invitation". This glorification, rather than the historical incident itself, was objectionable to him, and The History sensitively records similar events, which were interpreted officially in such a way that Saltykov' reacted by ridiculing them in his chronicle. This is the case with the rest of the historical 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, in the previously mentioned review of 1871, not only criticized Saltykov for not mentioning such impor tant historical events as Pugachev's Uprising and many others, but, more seriously, accused Saltykov of what he called "glumlenie^nad'narodom", of mockery of the people.1 Saltykov replied with two letters, in which he explained many 54 things about The History. These two letters are at the same time the most detailed statement about the aim and nature of The History. One is a personal letter to'A.^.N. Pypin, the editor of Vestnik Evropy, the other is addressed to the jour nal itself. In the first one, as befits a private letter, 2 Saltykov is more outspoken. In the letter 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 dis tinction should be made (presumably by the reviewer, Suvorin) between the historical people (narod istoricheskiy) and the people as the embodiment of democratic ideas (narod kak vo-plotitel' idei demokratizma). Saltykov accuses Suvorin of not making such a distinction: Boodiiie, He,zi,opa3yMeHHe OTHOCUTejibHO vjijujie-RVLa. Hafl HapoflOM, KaK KaacBTca, npoHCxoflHT :OT: Toro, "HTO peiieH3S.HT MOH He .OTJiH^aeT napofla neTopunecKoro,: TO e:cTi> fleMcTByiomero Ha nonpnuie HCTOPHH, :OT Hapofla KaK BomioTHTeJIH Hflen • fleMOKp.aTH3Ma. IlepBHM OD;&HH.-. BaeTca H npHofipeTaeT cOIJTB'CTBHe no Mepe geji CBOHX. EGJIH OH npoH3BOfl.HT EopoflaBKHHHX H vrpioM-EypHe eBHX;.; : [the most notorious governors of Glupov]', TO o COHyBCTBHH He M03K.ST 6HTb peHHJ eCJIH OH BHKa3HBae T CTpeMJieHne BHHTH HG COCTOSJHHH 6ecco3H.aTeabHo.CTH : Torfla coiyBSTBae K HeMy HBJIHBTCH Bno^He 3aKOHHHM, HO Mepa Bioro conyBCTBHH Bce-Tara ofiyc JiOBJiHBa.e TCH Mspoio ycHJinM, flBjiaeMHx HapoflOM Ha nyTH K co3H.aTejib-HO.'CTH. The position of Saltykov is made crystal clear by this explanation. He cannot be accused of the said mockery, because the people for him consist of two parts. His satire 55 hits only one part, the part which Saltykov thought deserved to be hit. Satire here is meant in the general meaning: a literary work that holds up to ridicule and contempt in denouncing, exposing, or deriding vice, folly, abuses, stu pidities or evils of any kind. Saltykov then asserted the right to ridicule whatever he liked with a form which he considered appropriate. It is no wonder that an introductory chapter like the one Saltykov wrote generated such an amount of criticism and dissatisfaction. It was here that the edifice built by the glorifiers was attacked at the very foundations. The Glupovians are ruled indirectly at first. The "most stupid of princes", who had agreed to be the Glupovian ruler, sent a thief to substitute for him. This arrangement did not prove satisfactory, and so the prince came to Glupov personally and with a shout "I'll flog you to death!" took over control of the town of Glupov: "S etim slovom nachalis' 4 istoricheskie 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 characteristic of the changing times. In the preceding chapter the author had given us a list of the governors, whom we already know by the name which Saltykov gave them: gradonachal'niki. Although these are sent to Glupov "from above", their existence depends on the tolerance of the Glupovians, as the author writes in his letter to Suvorin. For, if they aire ready to tolerate the vicious governors, it means they (narod) are unconscious beings and as such they fully deserve to be ruled by them. This, then, is the meaning of the two kinds of narod. The satiric chronicle tries to bring about a change and wake up the "unconscious beings" by concentrating on the gover nors by revealing their viciousness and, at the same time, their emptiness. CHAPTER VI THE GOVERNORS The title gradonachal'nik, which Saltykov gave to his governors, was not fictitious. The office of gradonachal'nik was established in 1862. The gradonachal'nik was respon sible for the administration of the two "capitals"— St. Petersburg and Moscow--and also of the seven main ports, such as Odessa, Sevastopol and others. He directly 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 fight the revolution ary movement. The fact that Saltykov used this designation for the period preceding the actual establishment of the office makes it an intentional anachronism, in which The  History abounds. The anachronisms were designed,'in general, to direct the reader'ts attention to the present; in the case of the office of the governor, to direct attention higher than to the office of a mere governor of a town. A short chapter, Opis' gradonachal'nikam (List of  Governors), is a list of governors who ruled over Glupov between 1731 and 1826. The limit (the year 1826) is only formal, for he breaches it with his anachronisms and refer ences to contemporary events that make any special identi fication and collation a senseless exercise. Saltykov 58 stressed in his already quoted letter that he did not want to be straitjacketed by any formal obstacles and chose to defy all the logical and factual precepts that a non-^ satirical work was obliged to follow: . . . B CVIIIHO.CTH, H HHKOrfla He "CTeCHHJICa CpOpMOK) H nOJIb3 OBajICH eK) JLHWb HaCTOJIbKO, HaCKOJIhKO HaXOflHJI .3TO HyacHHM; B oflHOM Me.cTe roBopH-zi OT Jinrja apxHBa-pnyca,'* B flpyroM--.OT CBoero coficTBeHHoro; B O#HOM--npHflepacHBajicH yKa3amifi HCTOPHH, B flpyroM--roBopH^i o. TaKHX dpaKTax, KOTOPHX B flaHHyio MHHyTy coBceM He 6HJIO. The Opis' gradonachal1nikam (from now on, the List) contains twenty-two entries. The number of entries, however, does not correspond to the number of governors treated more extensively in the book. All in all, only seven of the total 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 it should, but with number eight: Brudasty (Organchik). The List is also a sample of the kind of nonsensical humour which sporadically invades the pages of the chronicle. To show an example of contrasting entries, I will compare Boro-davkin (number twelve on the List) with Du Chariot (number eighteen): 12. EopoflaBKHH, BacHMCK CeMeHOBHH, TpaflOHa-najiBHHHe.'CTBO cue 6HJIO caMoe npoflojiacHTejibHoe H caMoe 6 jie.cTfliuee . LTpeflBOJiHTeJIKCTBOBa^i B KOMnaHHH np.OTHB HeflOHMiUHKOB, npHHeM cnajiHJi TpHfliraTK Tpn flepeBHH H, c noMoupo CHX Mep, B3HCKaji HeflOHMOK flBa -py6jia c no:jiTHHOio. BBeji B ynoTpefijieHne nrpy Ji&uyw H npoBaHCKoe ua.cjs.o-, 3aMO.CTM 6a3apHyio rMoma/ib H 3acaflHJi <5epe3KaMH 59 yjmixy, Beflymyio K npHcyT.cTBGHHHM Me.cTBM; BHOBB xofla-. TaMcTBOBaji o 3aBefl.eTHH B PjiynoBe anafleMra, HO nojiy-^HB :oTKa3, nocTpoHJi. cBe3»CHH floM. YMep B 1798 rosy, Ha 3K3eKyHHH, HanyTCTByeMHii KamiTaH-HcnpaBHHKOM. ^ • l8.'"i flio. Ulapno, • BHKOHTV Aureji flopoqpeeBHH, dppaHn;y3-CKHM BH-xoflen. JIK6HJI paflHTbca B aceHCKoe njiaTte H jiaKOMHJicH jiaryuiKaMH. LTo paccMOTpeHHH, OKa3ajica fleBHnew. BticaaH B 1821 rosy 3a rpaHHuy.^ Borodavkin is a character with whom Saltykov is con cerned much more than with Du Chariot, if we take them as representatives of the two strains that make up this work. The first would be .the serious one, of the Borodavkin kind, while the other might invite charges of the "laugh for laugh's sake" kind. On the whole, these two elements co  exist and are intermingled, which demonstrated in .the very condensed account of governors' activities the Opis' grado nachal 'nikam. If we look at Borodavkin, for example, we see two kinds of activities: he burned down thirty-three villages in his "administrative zealousness", and also introduced some card game (lamush), and olive oil. The second activity offsets the heavy, tragic impression received by the sad fact of the burning down of the villages. Such is the func tion of the governor Du Chariot's place in the List; it is a light touch of the comic which keeps the balance of the tragic and comic in check. Later on in the chronicle this balance will be tipped on the side of the tragic. As we look at the governors on the List, the problem of the topicality of this satiric work emerges once more: is 60 it possible for the reader to read this satiric chronicle without being acquainted with the specificum of that parti cular socio-political situation, the realia that served as a model for it? The answer is positive, because the merging of satiric and purely humorous elements makes for two kinds of reading. The chronicle offers a rich satiric palette for. the initiated while making laugh those who are not. To understand this, we might perhaps modify slightly the state ment of T. S. Eliot, who said about Shakespeare's plays: For the simplest auditors there is the plot, for the more thoughtful the character and conflict of character, for the more literary the words and phrasing, for the more musically sensitive the rhythm, and for auditors of greater understanding and sensitiveness a meaning which reveals itself gradually.5 Thus, for some, Saltykov's work will be a work of humour, for others a biting satire which has lost its impact because it is topical, and for another group of people it will be both humorous and satirical and not at all dated in the nineteenth century, because for them Saltykov's charac ters are caught in the infernal machine of conflicts produced by the epoch which was made Saltykov's target—all of which could be expressed under the term condition humaine. If identified this way, The History projects the evolution of the human condition which he saw as a continuum easily dis cernible in the eighteenth century: MoaceT 6HTB, H H ouinfiaiocb, HO B BCAKOM cjiynae 61 ouinfiaiocjb coBepiueHHO HCKpeHHO, HTO: Te ace came OCHOBH acH3HH, KOTopne cyme.c TBOBajiH B XVIII BeKe--cyme.c TBVIOT H: Tenept.6 It is clear from this statement that the governors do not act in a void, they are rather limited in their actions by the said continuum. In view of this, the satirist refuses to populate the space that he created with identi fiable monarchs; he rather uses certain types (faithful to the mentioned typology) who, to be sure, embody some of the characteristics of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Russian autocrats, but never to the point of mere satiric plagiarism of actual Russian history, 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 fifteen governors form a gallery of often incredi ble characters, where the mundane clashes with the fantastic: Pfeyfer, Bogdan Bogdanovich, sergeant of the guard, for example, was taken from his position because of his igno rance (this is mundane); a Frenchman, Marquis de Sanglot, a friend of Diderot, was known for his light-mindedness, his singing of obscene songs, and flying in the air. The latter was almost fatal for him, since once as he was flying in the garden he almost flew away but he got stuck on the point of 62 a tower (this is fantastic); another governor, Major Pryshch, had his head stuffed with appetizing stuffing, the governor Ivanov was of such a small stature that he could not absorb the voluminous regulations and died from exhaustion when trying to comprehend,some senatorial ukaz (mundane and fan tastic) . The gradonachal'nik Mikeladze died of exhaustion too, after he had enlarged the population of Glupov twice. The governors whom Saltykov treats more extensively later in his book are characterized in the List only briefly, but at the same time they are endowed with their most typi cal features or.accomplishments to make the List comparable to a petite dictionary entry of a historical personage. To sum up the List of Governors, one has to stress the importance of the possibility of reading and understand ing this chronicle on more than one level. The- material of the List can be readily adopted by the reader who does not know the relevant historical parallels which are offered to him; he will simply read it 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 details on the socio-political level to the extent of excluding a more simple interpretation of the work, in fact disregarding any other possible reading except that of a consistent, biting historical satire. In many respects, the whole chronicle resembles the List. As in the List, the reader finds in the chronicle deep changes of both the tone and the characters; one is led through a perpetual circle of comedy and tragedy, the ups and downs of which, like bumps on a country road, remind one of the List. 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 onpefle jieHO. MHe o3Hp:aib BCKJ rpoMaflHO-HecymyiOCH KH3HB, 03HPHTL ee CKB03B BHflHHH Mupy CMeX H He3paMHe, HeBeflOMHe eMy — Gogol Laughter through tears was called a "serious philoso phical element" by C. Kulesbv : in her work about The  History. Whether or not a philosophical element, laughter through tears appears to be the condition of the satiric chronicle. This condition consists of two contradictory ingredients: the comic and the tragic, yet it is not iden tical with tragicomedy inasmuch as the latter, as a rule, has a happy denouement, while Saltykov's satiric chronicle 2 has a very macabre and mystical ending. Tragic, in our case, is the very situation or state of things. The Glupovians, flogged throughout the duration of the period covered by the chronicle, supply and consti-' tute the tragic element here. Their predicament is one of the targets 'for Saltykov's mockery, irony and exercise in wit and humour. The laughter that results from the use of abundant satirical and humorous devices is not a boisterous, careless' one; the readerj'aware of the plight of the 65 Glupovians, laughs then through tears, as it were, unable to dissociate the humorous incident from the gruesome situation of the Glupovians in general. The History was written for the reader who actually lived in Glupov, if we are to believe Saltykov. As such, he was sensitive to the, above-mentioned "tragic element" as it was part of his life, and so it was necessary to show the Glupovians in such a way as to make him detest the Glupo vians, to enlarge their stupidity to such an extent that he 3 ' would be prevented from sympathizing with them. Saltykov did exactly that: he deprived the reader of the possibility of sympathizing, yet he made an effort to assure him that Glupov was not an ephemeral creation. This, no doubt, added a tinge of bitterness to even the craziest escapades that we encounter in the chronicle. The role of the satirist who utilizes "smekh skvoz  slezy" is to see life 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 puMtie, HeBeflOMHe [Mupy] cae3H). Thus, in 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 official's life. Gogol then makes a point of exploring the "unseen" part, the ridiculous but moving desire to own a nice, warm overcoat. When reading it, we are conscious of the author's manipula tion of our sympathy. In Eikhenbaum's analysis of The 4 Greatcoat, the shift of emphasis, the distribution of priorities—the enlarging of the insignificant detail at the expense of what seems to require more attention—serves as a 5 method of grotesque composition, which in its turn relays the idea of smekh skvoz' sle zy to the reader. Thus, when we look at smekh skvoz' sle zy in The  History, we inevitably turn to Gogol for comparison. This comparison is pertinent not only for the understanding of the satirical genre in general, but mainly for the under standing of Saltykov's utilization of the devices used by his great predecessor. C. Kulesov^ mentions, in this con nection the work of A. Slonimskii (Tekhnika komicheskogo u 7 Gogolya), whose analysis of Gogol's work is supposedly euqlly valid for Saltykov's work. The danger of comparison, however, lies in the closeness of the things compared; they are close to each other, but they retain their specific features. So it is with the works of the two authors dis cussed here. The genuinely tragic element never gains the upper hand in Gogol's work, while Saltykov's is often marked by excruciating gloom (an example of the last is supplied by Saltykov's most famous work, The Golovlevs [Gospoda Golov-levy, 1872-76] , where all the principal characters die a slow death in an atmosphere of decay devoid of any hope). 67 A similar gloom hangs over Glupov. Kyra Sanine, in her book on Saltykov, writes: . . . le fait est que,1*Element tragique, absent de premieres pages, prend ensuite une place de plus en plus grand.8 This similarity to The Golovlevs should be stressed and not overlooked, as it usually is in works devoted to The His tory . It is an indication of a change of direction. As pointed out in the discussion about the differences of approach in Provincial Sketches and The History, one that was examined in the first part of this work, Saltykov became sceptical about the outcome of the Great Reforms; and his satire in the decade that followed the abolition of serfdom, a satirical rendering of reality, reflected some of this scepticism. The light-hearted, humorous (albeit in the minority) gives way to the sardonic, expressed by means of sarcasm, irony and invective. The invective, designed to discredit the misconduct of the public, then takes the most . . . 9 important position m The Golovlevs. The gloomy, the tragic, present more than before in Saltykov's writing, still gives place to hilarious scenes and illogical commentaries supplied by the chroniclers (there were four of them). Such is the first chapter, Organchik, which describes the period of the governorship of one Bru-dasty (marked as number eight in the List of Governors, Opis'  Gradonachal'nikam,^ who arrived in Glupov in 1762. . Brudasty 68 is not a human being, but a puppet with a speaking apparatus enabling him to pronounce only two words, "Ne poterplyu1" and later, "Razoryul" The juxtaposition of the image of a man-like mechanical object with the rationally thinking group of officials investigating the malfunction of the artificial vocal chords is hilarious, mainly because the officials are bothered less by finding that their governor was only a puppet with an empty head and a little machine than by the danger that might arise if the Glupovians were. informed about it. They do not find it very strange and accept their governor, since he was sent to them from above: . . . noMoniHHK rpaflOHanajibHHKa coodpa3HJi, :HTO eacejin oflHaacflH sonymeHO, .HTO6H B TjiynoBe diiji ropOAHHMHM, HMeiomuM BMe.CTO TOJIOBH npo.cxyio yKJiaflKy,: TO, .CTajio <5HTh, .3TO: TaK H cJiepye T. H The commentaries supplied by chroniclers whose judgment is often impaired is another device which helps to dispel the gloom. The following example functions on more than one level: BO3HHK Bonpoc : KaKyio HaflodHO.c Tb Mor HMBTL rpaflo-HanajibHHK B EaMdaKOBe, KOTOPHM, KpoMe: Toro ."^TO nnji de3 npocnna, dHJi eme H ABHHM npejnodofleM?1 The matter concerns Baybakov, the watchmaker, called to repair the ill-functioning head of Brudasty, Organchik. The commentary employs five different ideas tightly packed in one short sentence: 1) the problem (voznik vopros), 2) the need for Baybakov (kakuyu nadobnost', etc.),3) Baybakov drinks (kotoryi, krome togo chto pil), 4) Baybakov drinks 69 without restraint (bez prosypa), 5) Baybakov is a fornicator. Not only illogical when we connect the beginning of the sentence with its conclusion (the need for Baybakov, the fornicator), it is also illogical (and written with that purpose) as a commentary, since the chronicler omitted the most important thing about Baybakov, the fact that he was a watchmaker in the first place, and then a drunkard and a fornicator. The wealth of irrelevancies reminds one of Gogol's writing. Like him, Saltykov tried to exploit this technique as often as the text permitted. In the following citation from the beginning of the chapter Voyny za prosve-shchenie, Saltykov characterizes the new governor who- has come to Glupov, Vasilisk Semenovich Borodavkin: BopoflaBKHH, CMeHHBiaHH fipHraflupa <i>epflumeHKV, npeflcTSLBJISIJI coBepiueHHyio npoTHBonojioacHOCTB CBoeiny ripeffMe.CTHHKy. HacKOJibKO nocneflHuK 6HJI pacnymeH H pHXJi, Ha'CTOJibKO ace nepBH8 nopaacaji pacTppoiiHOCTbio H KaKOB-TO HeCvIHXaHHoM aflMHHHC TpaTHBHoS BHeflHHBO-CTM, KOTopaa c ocofieHHoS aHeprneM npoaBJiajiocb B Bonpocax, KacaBiunxca Btie/ie HHOTo anna. IIo:cToaHHO 3acTerHyTHM Ha Bee nyroBHUH H HMea noroTOBe dpypaac-Ky H nepnaTKH, OH npe/i;:cTaBJiaji CO6OH Tan rpaflOHa-r najibHHKa, y KOToporo Horn BO BcaKoe BpeMa T.OTOBH 6eac:aTb HeBeflOMO Kyzia. Hneu OH, KSH Myxa, MejibKaji no ropo,ziy, Hafijuoflaa, .^Tofi odHBaTeJIH HMe JIH 6OAPHH H BeceJinM BHfl, Ho^bio-.-TyuiHJi noacapH, Rejiaji gbajib-niHBHe: TpeBorn H Boo6m,e 3acTaBa.a. Bpacnjiox. 13 Amidst what reads like a matter-of-fact description, we find devices that persistently recur throughout the work; irrelevant detail: „3a:cTerHyiHM Ha Bee nyroBHUH H HMea noro-TOBe dpypaacKy H nepne TKH" ; play upon words: „nopaacaji . . . 70 aflMHHH'C Tp.aTHBHOH BHeflHHBQ.C ThK), KOTOpafl C OCOdeHHOH 3HeprneM npoHBJiajiocb B Bonpocax, KacaBiiiHXCH BHefleHHoro HHiia," (from a proverbial expression, „He CTOHT BNeseHHoro aMna" = "not 14 worth a wooden nickel" ); grotesque simile: MflHeM OH, KaK Myxa, MejibKaji no roposy," a parody of logical form, where the projected sense of the sentence is turned into nonsense: T,. . . OH npefl.cTaBJiflji codoM: THII rpaAOHanajibHHKa, y KOToporo Horn BO BCHKoe BpeMa TOTOBH descaTB HeBefloino Kyqa." The whole paragraph, moreover, is concluded with a bout of fever ish activity which has nothing to do with the activity expected of a governor („TyuiHJi noscapH, Reji&ji dpajiHuiHBHe: Tpe-BOPH' 0 Boodme 3acTaBaji Bpacnjiox"), and which, therefore, makes us realize what kind of administrative efficiency distinguished this new governor from the old one. The author gradually leads the reader to accept that there was basically no difference abong the various governors. Borodavkin, whom Saltykov presents as the opposite of his prececessor Ferdy-.shchenko (nnpeflCTaBJiaji coBepuieHHyio np:oTHBonojioacHo.c TB" ) appears to have no redeeming features which would help to ameliorate the life of the Glupovians. The humour of this passage comes from the interplay of two sets of ideas: one set is our expectancy that the picture of Borodavkin will conform to our image of an effi cient administrator, an improvement over the former one; the other set of ideas is the deformation of the ideal of an 71 administrator by skillful manipulation of the above-mentioned devices. Seen from the point of view of the structure of the chronicle, the chapter Voyny za prosveshchenie comes after the chapters Solomennyi gorod and Fantasticheskii puteshest-vennik-; the first of those two chapters contains a deeply moving description of a village fire, hailed as one of the few powerful and authentic descriptions of a village on fire 15 in Russian literature. The other shows the governor Ferdy-shchenko indulging in "travels" through the territory of Glupov. It is a mockery of famous journeys undertaken by Catherine the Great through southern Russia. Both the chap ters lean towards the tragic, and so the coming of Borodav kin and his description lifts for a while the painful impres sion and restores the balance of the tragic and the humorous. One feels that in the case of Solomennyi gorod Saltykov went too far in one direction, namely towards the deeply tragic, and this is not the only example (the conclusion of the chronicle', discussed further on, is another case of the same); it is a turning point of sorts, after which The His  tory takes on a more serious tone and shows less of the playful comedy of its first half. Borodavkin is an important character of the chronicle. Unlike those governors before him, Borodavkin contemplates the office of a governor and tries to evaluate the actions 72 of his predecessors: . . . OH HBHJIC& B TjiynoB H npeacfle Bcero noflBeprHyji CTporoMy paccMOTpeHHio HaMepeHHfl H #eaHHa CBOHX npeflinecTBeHHHKOB. Ho Kor/ia OH B3rJifmyji Ha CKpnacajiH, . TO TaK H axHyji. BepeHHiieio npoinjiH. nepefl HHM : H Kjie-MeHTHH, H BejIHKaHOB, H JIaMBpOKaKHC , H EaKJiaH, H. MapKH3 fle CaHrjiOT, H iepflHineHKO, HO ^TO .qejiajiH -3TH JHOAH, o ieM OHH ayMajiH, KaKne safla^H npecjieROBajin--BOT 3TOrO-TO HMeHHO H HejIb3H 6UJIO OnpeflejLHTb HH nOfl KaKHM BHflOM. Ka3aJIOCb, TITO BeCb "3TOT pflfl--He .HTO HHOe, KaK COHHOe Me.HTaHHe, B KOTOpOM Me JIbKaKT 0<5pa3H 6e3 JIHH,, B KOTOpOM 3 B e EH T KaKH6 - TO CMJTTHHe KpEKH, noxoacne Ha OTflajieHHoe rajifleHHe saxMejieBineM : TOJUTH. . . B.OT BHiujia H3 Mpana oflHa: TeHB, xjionHyjia : pa3-pa3!--H Hcne3Jia HeBeflOMO Ky#a; CMOTpniiib, Ha MecTO ee BHCTynaeT yac flpyraa TeHb, H Toace x^ionaeT KaK nona^io, H Hcne3aeT... "„Pa33opio! ", „He noTep-mno!" CJIHUIHTCH co Bcex CTopoH, a ^ITO pa3opio, nero He noTepnjno--Tor,o pa3o6p:aTb HeB03MoacHO. Pafl <5H no.cTopoHHTbca, npHacaTbca K yrjiy, HO HH nociopo-HHTbCH, HH npnacaTbca Hejib3a, iroTOMy HTO H3 BcaKoro yvjia. pa3Aa:e Tea Bee: TO ace „pa33opK>! ", KOTopoe TOHHT yKpHBaiomeroca B flpyrofi yroji H TaM, B CBOK onepeflb, onHTb HacraraBT ero. 3TO dmia KaKaa-TO flHKaa 3Hep-rna, jiHiueHHaa .BcaKoro coflepacaHna,: TaK HTO flaace EopoflaBKHH, HecMOTpa Ha CBOIO pacToponHp.CTb, HecKOJibKO ycoMHHJica B flo.CTOHHCTBe ee. It appears that no matter how distinct the governors were, they appear to Borodavkin as fleeting shadows who have left no other mark except the obstinate "razzoryu!" and "ne poterplyu!". We are suddenly in 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 Mpana oflHa TeHb") , the picture of phantoms (t,coHHoe MeiHTaHne, B KOTOPOM MejibKaioT o6pa3H 6e3 juan") , and the glupovians represented by a dis tant, sad crying resembling the hubbub of a drunken crowd— all this we find in the chapter Solomenny, ' gorod, and finally in the ending of the chronicle. It is an intercession of a strong element representing probably the strength of nature, a meaningless, savage energy (,;,flHKaa SHeprna, jrameHHas BCHKOTO coflepacaHHa") , which visits Glupov in the form of 'hunger, fire, and as the "it", the latter being a controversial phenomenon which "ends the history of Glupov" („H:CTOPHH npe-17 Kp.aTHJia TeneHHe CBoe") . The tragic, the "tears" of this work are accompanied by the imagery of gloom. Although the intensity of this gloom varies, there are places where it is left 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 is the passage in the above-mentioned chapter, Solomen  ny gorod; X:OTH 6UJI Bcero fleBHTHH iac B Hanajie, HO He6o RO . : TaKofi .CTeneHH saKpHJioct: TynaMH, HTO-Ha yjraiiax c,zr,e-jiajiocB coBepmeHHo: TeMHO. CBepxy n'epHaa, 6e3rpaHHH Haa 6e3flHa, npope3HBaeMaa MOJIHHHMH; KpyroM B03syx, HanojiHeHHHH Kpy THIUHMHC H aTOMaMH ntiJiH, --Bee 3TO npefl.CTaBJiajio Hen3o6pa3HMHH xaoc, Ha rpo3HOM cpoHe KOToporo BHCTynaji He MeHee rpo3Hbifi CHJiyaT noacapa. BHAHO 6UJIO, KaK B flajin KonouiaTca JITORK, . H Ka3ajiocb, .•HTO OHH 6e.cco3HaTejibHo: TOJiKy TCH Ha OAHOM Me.CTe, a He Me^iyTCH B: TOCKe H CTiaaHbe. 18 The picture of people jostling around unconsciously on background of chaotic violence of a staggering natural (n^epHafl, de3rpaHHHHaa 6e3Rua., npope3HBaeMaa MOJIHHHMH") brings out their powerlessness, the contrast between the the force 74 infinite chasm and swarms of people is further enlarged by the distancing of the people ( „B .#ajiH KononraTCH JIJEOAH"). What are the phantoms, the shadows that Borodavkin saw appearing from the darkness? Saltykov tried' to answer this question in an article Contemporary Phantoms (Sovre-mennye prizraki written in 186 5 and published posthumously in 1935). The article is very useful for the clarification of many uncertainties regarding Saltykov's opinions on the Russian situation. About the phantoms he wrote as follows: HTO: Tanoe npn3p:aK? .' Paccyscflaa TeopsmecKz, BTO : TaKaa cpopMa HCH3HH KOTopaa CHJTHTBCH 3aKJiioHH TB B. cede He.HTO cyme.cTBeHHoe, SCH3HeHHoe,. Tpenyinee, a B fl.eS.CT-BHTe JIBHO.'C TH 3 aKJUOHaB T JIHHIB nyCT-OTy. ^ This sounds rather general, vague; The governors are, for Borodavkin, only phantoms: i.e., emptiness wrapped into a semblance of life, or a "form of life" („c)?opMa SCH3HH") ; of this, the best example is the governor Brudasty (Organchik). As we go through the whole gallery of governors, we indeed find that Saltykov tried to give the reader the impression of the emptiness of the governors, an emptiness that signi fied or marked the absence of understanding for the needs of the Glupovians: the governors are empty of compassion for them. This, in turn, brings up a question: what about the Glupovians, their passivity, why do they accept the gover nors? Looking again into the same article we find Saltykov's reflection on this subject: 75 .BHHOBHTO JIVS. OdlneCTBO B." TOM, MTO." TaK JieTKO nofl-iHHJteTca BJiaflHHe.c TBJT npn3 paKOB ? Bjia'GTHO om OHO BHdnp.aTb Meacfljr TOK VLJIW. flpyroio HCTHHOIO? HBT, He BHHOBaTO H He Bjia'CTHO. HeTHHa HaayMHBa.eTea caMa codoio, noHBa Hapa:cTa.eT ECTopa^ecKH; CTieflOBaTe JIBHO, BHHH TB H He KOPO, H He B HeM.20 One must take a statement like this into consideration when analyzing The History; in its light, Saltykov's satire is a critique written by a man who saw the historical reasons behind many of the things that he satirized. In this he equals Gogol. For both of them the things that other people were unable to see—things that others tolerated and accep ted—were unacceptable. Saltykov hated the very forms that life had taken upon itself in Russia: Ho CKaacHTe Ha MHJIO.CTB, MOSCHO jm He HeHaBHfl.e TB, M03KHO J11A He CTOp.aTB O T Her OflOBaHHtt, KOrfla SCH3HB nyiaBTca B cpopMax, .yTp:af HBUIHX BCHKHH CMHCJI, Korfla e.CTB c03Hamie Hejteno.'CTH BTHX dpopM H KOVRQ: Ten He MeHee ropBKaa Heod XOAHMOCTB 3a.CTaBia.eT HOAHHHHTBCH HM, dor 3HaeT a3-3a nero, dor 3Ha;eT 3aneM?21 This is a rebellion against social conventions, against the social structure which, Saltykov thought, belonged to the distant past. In this way the consideration of literary devices, imagery, generated questions which have brought us to the position from which the author created his satire. As The History progresses, gloom descends on Glupov with corresponding speed. It reaches its climax in the ending. We find here the imagery discussed in Solomenny gorod: 76 GeBep .noTeMHeji H IIOKPHJICH: TynaiiH; H3 STHX Ty* He."HTO H'e.cjiocb Ha ropo/i;;. He: TO jiHBeHB, He: TO CMepn. IIoJiHoe rHeBa, OHO Hecaocb, :'dypoBH 3eMjnd, . rpoxona, • ryflfl H H CTeHfl H no BpeMeHSM H3pHraa H3 ceds KaKHe-TO rjiyxne, KapKaioiiiHe 3ByKH. X.OTH OHO dnjio eine He djiH3KO, HO B03/i.yx B ropofle 3aKOJiedajiCH, KOJioKOJia caMH codoM 3aryflejin, ' flepeBta BSiepoiUHJiHCb, acHBOTHLie ode3yMejiH H MBTajiHCb no nojiio, He HaxoflH floporn B ropofl. OHO djr.H3HJiocb n no Mepe: Toro KaK djiH3HJiocb BpeMH o.cTaHaBJiHBajio der CBOH. HaKOHeq 3eMjisj. 3.aTpHCJiacb, cojiHne noMepKJio . . . rjrynoBirH najiH HHII. HeHcnoBeflMHH yacac BHCTynHJi Ha Bcex jiHiiax, oxBaTHJi Bee cepfliia. OHO npHiiijio. . . 22 What is this "it" (ono)? Most of the scholars who wrote about The History tried to tackle this problem. The exhaus-23 tive 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 title of the study is 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 is the inevitable popular revolution, and now even the opposite opinion is heard. Without playing the arbiter, one should again go back to Saltykov's warnings contained in the letters to Pypin and Vestnik Evropy, where he warned against the misinterpretation of his work as a literal rendering of Russian history. It will become evident, then, that ono is neither revolution nor reaction, but an apocalyptic vision of a deus ex machina-like intervention of something supra-human (probably nature) in human affairs. We can infer from other writings of Saltykov that the aim of such an interven tion would be the forced ending of a cycle of history: not, of course, the cycle of the real Russian history, but the history of Glupov. This cyclical theory was known at the time; it was later populatized in the writins of Saltykov's 24 contemporary, Nietzsche. Saltykov might have read about it in Schopenhauer's works, which were widely known in 2 5 Saltykov* s time. The following of the tragic element, its representa tion in The History shows, then, that the imagery (the dark clouds, the sun which grows suddenly dark) is repeated in the work with a definite purpose. The purpose is to prepare the reader for the climactic coming of the "it", ono. Writ ten in evangelic style, the effect that ono has on various objects, animals and people is supernatural („KOJioKOJia caMH  cofioM 3'aryfleJIH, #epeBBH B3HeponiHJiHCB, JKHBO THHe o6eQyM.ejm H M.B TajiHCB no nojno, . . . 3eMjia 3.aTpacjiacB, cojiHne noMepKJio . . . rjiynoBnH najin HHU.") ; it goes beyond history (the factual history of Russia) . Satire is 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. If Saltykov managed throughout the whole work to keep the laughter and tears together, he drops the former at 78 the end. The ending is disturbingly pessimistic as it stands, if we do not take into consideration the appendix, 27 Opravdatel'nye dokumenty, for as we know, this was appended in the book edition, not the original one. This appendix once more brings in laughter. Here Saltykov parodies the ideas and style of the tsarist 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 caricature-like char acter, not a funny one, as Brudasty and others, but rather a freakish one. A similar pattern can be observed in The  Golovlevs, but there is no appendix to confuse the reader. Henri Bergson pointed out, in his celebrated essay on laughter (Do rire, 1900) , that "the absence of feeling . . . 29 usually accompanies laughter." It stands to reason, if we surmise then, that the kind of satire Saltykov wrote made one both laugh and feel at the same time. This, in turn, suggests that the public to.whom this satire was offered did not react to the reality which was the subject of Saltykov's work in the same manner: i.e., the public did not laugh at the reality and did not "feel" it, or understand it to the extent that Saltykov did: When the human comedy of manners and men is out of gear through the tyranny of either over the other and existence is become a travesty and caricature of life, so heavy and lumpish that it cannot even move towards the melting pot, then, when men can neither laugh nor weep, comes satire to break the congestion in them and make them laugh and weep together.30 If we accept this, then we find a new dimension to Lunacharsky's words about the man who woke up before the others did. But how does this man do it? Maybe this advice of Bergson offers the answer: "Now step aside, look upon life as a disinterested spectator: many a drama will turn 31 into a comedy." Laughter through tears is, then, an alternation between such a "stepping aside" as Bergson mentioned and the return to the original position (the tears, the tragedy). As such, it is a condition of The History, its reality, which we strongly feel during the strangest,happenings of Saltykov's men and puppets, the characters of this satiric 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, in his discussion of humour and satire,"'' wrote this about satire: The satire is a verbal caricature which distorts characteristic features of an individual or society by exaggeration and simplification. 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 life", as he called them. In this category belongs the blind obedience of the people, their mechanical accep tance of the orders coming from above, and also the routine like behaviour of those who were in power, their automatic administration which, once set on any course, was impossible to divert by any means, except by the intervention of the mysterious "it", as we saw in the previous chapter. These are the features "picked out for enlargement", as Koestler said. In The History we find the utilization of this mecha nical acceptance and machine-like behaviour in the form of 81 puppets, or puppet-like characters. The deployment of these, in the chronicle was an exceptionally fortunate idea, because it serves two purposes at the same time: a puppet is a comical subject insofar as it resembles a man and acts like one, but not in a proper way; and it also shows the reader " how far the criteria that a society tries to maintain are eroded when a puppet,.or puppet-like behaviour, is permis sible and acceptable. For the reader has the advantage of comparing the activity of Saltykov's puppet with his own experience. Thus the comical and the satirical are economi cally concentrated in a single device--the puppet. Brudasty, sometimes called Organchik, had a speaking apparatus in his empty head. This puppet could say only two commands: "Razzoryu!" and "Ne poterplyu!" It is repetitious, and any cruel administrator in real life could be similarly limited and repetitious, but as Bergson showed us: The truth is that really living life should never repeat itself. Wherever there is repetition or complete similarity, we always suspect some mechanism at work behind the living.^ r And so, fantastic as it is, 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 called the "[suspicion of] some mechanism at work behind the living" into a literary character. 82 Another governor, Pryshch (number 16 on the List), has, instead of brains, some meat stuffing inside his head. Although he speaks like a real man, he indulges in a kind of mechanical dolce far niente as he refuses to do any adminis trative work: lipeKp.a.THB Bee flejia, OH XOAHJI no ro.cTHMH npHHHMaji 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-Kyio MemaHOHKy. 4 It is during the governorship of Pryshch that Glupov flour ished as never before. Pryshch's administrative passivity reminds one of a pompadur from the story Edinstvennyi (1871): „B a/iMHHHCTpaiiHH OH 6HJI cpHJiocoop H 6UJI ydeac/i,eH, HTO Jiyniuaa aflMHHKCipaitHH 3aKJU0Ha.e TCH B OTcyTCTBHK TaKOBoH." In all other respects Pryshch is unlike a puppet. Apparently, the only artificial part of his body is his head. The good time that the Glupovians enjoyed under this period of absence of administration shows Saltykov's distrust of any kind of organized management of human affairs. The message is evi dent: if a fellow with a head full of mincement who does not care a bit about governing will do, what do you need govern ment for, anyway? With Ugryum-Burcheyev things take a different turn. Although described as a man, he creates the impression of a mechanical man, a puppet. He uses only half a dozen words like: "Zachem?" (his favourite), "Shabashi", "GoniI", etc., 83 and always moves in. a straight line. His thinking coincides with his marching: •OH HEKorfla He CecHOBajiCH, . He 3aKHnaji, He. MC THJI , He' npecjieflOBaji, a, noflodHO BCHKOH flpyr.oH decco3Ha-: TejitHO fleMcTByiomeM CHJIB npnpoflH, ineji Bnepefl, cMBTan .c . jiHiia 3SMJIH Bee, HTO HS ycnsBajio no.CTopo-HHTbCH B flOporH. „3aHSM?"--BOT eflHHCTBSHHOe ' CJIOBO, KOTOpHM OH BBipaJKajI flBHSCe HHH CBOeM flyiIIH.6 He is very unlike the governors before him („He dec HO" BajiCH, He 3aKanaji, HB MCTHJI,- HS npecjieflOBaji") , and the com parison used here. (,,noflo6HO . . . cajie npupoflH") sets him even further from them. Lacking some of.the common charac teristics of human behaviour, he possesses a mechanical one: CTpacTHOCTb dtuia BHnepKHyTa H3 Hncjia 3 JISMBHTOB, co.cTaBJiHBUiHx ero npnpo/i,y, H 3aMeHSHa HenpsKJiOHHO.'c Tbio, fl.BHC TBOBaBUISIO C peryjIHpHO.C TbK) CaMOrO OTHB TJIHBOrO MexaHH3Ma. OH HS acscTHKyjinpoBaji, HS B03BHinaji rojioca, He CKpeacsTaji 3yd&MH, HB ror.oTaji, HS: Tonaji HoraMH, HS 3aJIHBajICH Ha^aJIbC TBeHHO-H3B.HT6JIbHHM CM6XOM.7 With mechanical pedantry, Ugryum-Burcheyev sets out to do what he decided upon. He reorganizes Glupov along military lines, so that an analogy with Arakcheev's "military settle ments" is easily recognized. Glupov is renamed Nepreklonsk to symbolize the fierce determination of its governor. The motif of a puppet-like man does not find its place only among the governors. We also find it in the tin soldiers of Borodavkin which come to life at the climax of Borodavkin's "campaign for enlightenment" (Voyna za prosve-shchenie). Borodavkin tried to talk the Glupovians into cultivating and using mustard, but they put up such a defens 84 against the mustard that Borodavkin had to use his army, and when this army became demoralized he used the tin soldiers. The reasons for this were mainly economic (HnpOBHSHTV He npocHT, a MapuiHpoBKy H OH ncnojiHHTb MosceT") . When needed, the tin soldiers came to life: 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 soacfleM no^TH yace CMH^acb, OTTO-nnpHJiHCb H H3taBJiajiH HaMepeHHe ne^TO npon3HecTH. noaBHJiHeb H03flpa, - o. KOTopHx. npeacfle n B .noMHHe, He 6H.JIO, H HaMa^iH pa3flpaTbCfl H CBHABTejihcTBOBHTB O H.B TepneHHH. -- :^TO CKaaceTe, cjiyacHBHe? -- cnpocHji EopoflaBKHH. 8. Here Saltykov shows a man-made object becoming alive, acting like a man. Blood fills the bodies of the tin soldiers and they cease to be mechanical contraptions. In a different place, Saltykov shows real soldiers acting like mechanical ones, in contrast with the "tin soldiers": IIpoxoflHJiH nepe3 TjiynoB BoMcKa neinne, npoxoflHJiH BOHCKa KOHHtie . — Kyfla, ro^iyfiHHKH? -- c BOJiHeHHeM cnpaiiiHBaji EopoflaBKHH COJIfl.aTHKOB. Ho cojiflaTHKH B: TpydBi: ipydHJiH, necHH He*™, HOCKawi canoroB nrpajra, nmib :CTOJI6OM Ha yjraii.ax noflHHMajin, H Bee npOXOflHJIH, H Bee npOXOflHJTH. -- BajioM BajiHT COJIAHT! -- roBopHJiH rjiynoBHH, H Ka3a^IOCb HM, HTO .'3TO JIIOflH KaKHe-TO ocodeHHtie, "H TO OHH caMoS npHpofloM co3flaHH fljia: Toro, ^.TO6 xoflBTb 6e3 KOHqa, XOAHTB no BCSM HanpaBJieHHHM. ' HTO OHH cnycKaioTca c OAHOH njiocKofi B03BHiueHHo:cTH RJISI: Toro, HTO6H Jie.3T£ Ha .npyryio njiocKyio Bo3BHiiieHHO.CTBJ nepe-XOflHT Hepe3 OflHH MO.CT RJISi TOrO, HTOCJH nepeMTH BCJiefl 3a. TeM nepe3 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 characteristic of these soldiers is motion devoid of purpose (ltcnycKaioTCfl c oflHoM njioc-KoM BO3BH-uieHHO.cTH RJLSZ: Toro, "H:TO(3H jie3Tb Ha /ipyryio . . ."), stressed by the use of repetition (,tn Bee npoxoflHJin, H Bee npoxoflHJiH, . . . flpyrofi MOCT. H eine MO.CTV: H eine njiocKaa 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 is one of a detachment of toy soldiers who, once wound up, march until the spring is released and the mechanical action stopped. The above examples offer a whole scale of possibili ties of puppet-like behaviour of characters. V. V. Gippius, who studied the "motif of mortification or mechanization""1"^ in the entire work of Saltykov, organized the puppet-like characters in the following manner: 1. Living Man, 2. Mechanized Man: a) organism creating an impres sion of being an automaton, b) having in his organism some mechanical parts, 3. Living Puppet: a) automaton, b) talking puppet, c) talking, but immobile puppet, d) non-talking puppet, ^* Irnmobile Puppet (non-talking) . 86 In T^e History, we find the mechanized man (an exam ple of the variety a) is Ugryum-Burcheyev; of the variety b) Brudasty—Organchik). In the living puppet category we could include the tin soldiers of Borodavkin, and perhaps also the soldiers that march through Glupov, as described in the last quotation (both cases would come under b), as "talking puppets", although the other soldiers do not talk, but sing and play the trumpets). The exposition of the "mechanical on the living" brings the Shchedrinist to a discussion of the grotesque, 12 which is closely connected with it. The grotesque, K. S. Guthke says, . . . implies ludicrous horror or horrifying ludi-crbusness. Its fantastic distortions of reality make us apprehend, in a cold shudder, something abysmally uncanny and demonic, an awareness which generates the feelings of estrangement, stupefying bafflement, strained laughter and gruesome fright and anguish all at the same time.13 Another critic tells us about the two basic types of the grotesque: the "fantastic" and the "satiric". (Wolfgang Kayser in The Grotesque in Art and Literature14) .. Examples of the fantastic grotesque are contained in the,work of E. 15 T. A. Hoffmann and Gogol (e.g., Nos); the satiric grotesque can also be found in Gogol (e.g., Mertvye dushi). In The' History we find the grotesque as defined by Guthke above, but we.find also another kind of grotesque, which is achieved by the juxtaposition of a. cruelly realistic 87 incident with a context which is.opposed to it (a humorous, comical situation), so that our laughter becomes strained, not by the "fantastic distortion of reality", but by, its unexpected intrusion into the humorous, satirical domain. This is an example of a technique used profusely in The  History. The following quotation illustrates the "usual" kind of grotesque. It follows the discovery, by a marshal of the nobility, of Pryshch's mincement-stuffed head: 3aBH3ajiacb dopbda; HO npeflBOflHTejib BOineji yace B npo.'CTb H He noMHHJi ce6a. rjia3a ero CB.epKajiH, dpioxo cjiaflo.cTHO: HHJIO. OH 3aflHxajica, .CTOHaji, Ha3HBaji rpaflOHanajibHHKa ,tflyniKOHn, „MHJIK.OHM, H ApyrHMH HeCB.oMcTBeHHHMH .3TOMy caHy HMenaMHj jiH3aji ero, Hioxaji H: T.fl. HaKOHen; c HecjiHxaHHHM o.c Tep Be He HHeM dpocHJica npeflBOflHTejib Ha CBOIO acepTBy, OTpe3aji HQSCOM JIOMOTb TOJIOBH H HeMeflJieHHO nporjiOTHJi. . . 3a nepBHM jioMTeM HacjieflOBaji flpyroM, n.oTOM TpeTHM, flo. Tex nop, nona He o.CTajiocb HH KPOXH.,.1^ The strangeness of this fight was achieved by utilizing the • imagery of a hungry („dpioxo cjiaflocTHO- HHJIO") and sexually aroused man (m0H 3aflHxajic5i, .CTOHaji, Ha3HBaji rpaAOHanajibHHKa „flyiiiKoS", „MHJIK.OH" , " etc.). The latter is more effective since the erotic element is of a homosexual nature. The grotesque image is the gruesome cutting, up of the governor's head, and mainly his agony: Torfla rpaflOHanajibHHK Bflpyr BCKOHHJI H CTaji' odTH-' p.aTb jianKaMH' Te Me.CTa CBoero Tejia, KOTopne npeflBO-flHTejib nojiHJi yKcycoM. IIOTOM OH 3aKpyacHJiCH Ha OAHOM Me.CTe H Bflpyr BceM KopnycoM rpoxHyjica Ha rj.oji.17. 88 Here we have both "fantastic distortions of reality" and "ludicrous horror",, expressed by calling the governor's hand "paws" (lapki) and by the death of the governor, respectively. On another occasion, the grotesque results from a description of a cruel act committed by a Glupovian mob: A^ieHKa ocTajiacb CHapyacn c npo.CTe.pTHMH Bpo3b pyKaMH. B: TaKOM nojioaceHKH 3a:cTajia ee: TOJinaj 3av' CTajia S^ieflHyio, Tpenenryio Bceic TejioM, n OM TH de3yMHyio. -- IIoacajieHTe, aTaMaHH-MOJIOAIIH, Moe: Tejio 6ejioel -- roBopHJia AjieHKa ocjiadeBiiiHM OT yacaca rojrocoM, --BeflOMO BaM caMHM, ?i TO OH Me HH CHJIKOM OT Myaca yBeji! Ho: TOJina HHiero yac HecjiHiiiaJia. -- CKa3HBaM, BeflbMa! -- ryfle^ia oHa, -- ^epe3 Kanoe: TBoe KOJIAOBC TBO Ha Ham ropoa cyxodb Hanuia? AjieHKa CJIOBHO odecnaMHTe jia. OHa MSTajiacb H, KaK 6hi yBepeHHaa B HeH3deacHOM ncxose CBoero flejia, : TOJIBKO noBTopHjia: tIToniHO MHe! ox, d.aTioiiiKH,' TOIUHO MHe ! " Tor^a coBepuiHJiocb Hec/ibixaHHoe flejio. AjieHKy pa3 0M, CJIOBHO pyx, B3HecjiH Ha BepxHHH apyc KOJIO-KOJIBHH H dpocHJiH o.TTyfla Ha pacKaT c BBIIIIHHBI dojiee nHTHaflnHTH caaceHeM. . . „H Heo.cTajioch OT: TOH dpHraflnpoBOH cjiaflKoM yiexn ffaace HH eflHHoro JiocKyTa. B OAHO MEHOBeHHe OKa pa3HecjiH ee npHdjryziHHe rojioflHHe ncH."18 Here the fantastic element is absent. The death of Alenka is described in a very brisk, economical way. Alenka, the mistress of the governor Ferdyshchenko, is forced to live with the governor after he has sent her husband to Siberia. She is a sympathetic character, but Saltykov does not make 89 her entirely blameless: after she learns that her husband has been arrested, she no longer opposes Ferdyshchenko1s advances. She is a clever girl, and the little game that she plays can be seen from the way she talks with the governor: -- HTO, flypbH nopofla, HaflVMajiach? -- cnpocnji OH ee. -- Huib. Teda, CTaporo nca, yuieMH^o! HJIH. MSLJIO Ha :cTHflofiyiiiKy MOIO HacMOTpejica! -- orpN3Hyjiacb AjieHKa. -i q -- JIaflHo! -- CKa3aji dpnraflnp, [Ferdyshchenko]. One does not expect her to die in such a terrible way after an introduction like this. The sudden death of Alenka, then, is a grotesque incident, which the reader could not antici pate. The cause of the mob's anger directed against her is the hungry year which has already killed many Glupovians. They take the irrational view that the relationship of Alenka and Ferdyshchenko has brought a curse upon Glupov. The incident itself is a very cruel one. Ferdyshchenko does not protect Alenka, and locks her out while he is safely hidden inside his mansion, waiting for the storm to pass by. The climax of the whole incident is introduced by „Torfla coBep-uiHJiocb HecjrbixaHHoe Rejio; to make it realistic, Saltykov gives us the height of the bell-tower from which she was thrown down („c BHIUHHH dojiee iraTHafliraTH caxceHeM"). Suddenly the reader realizes Alenka's agony („3aMOK "mejiKHyji, H-AjieHKa d.CTajiacb CHapyxcH c npocTepTHMH Bpo3b pynaMH. . . djieflHaa, ;. . . IIO.^TH de3yMHaa . . . OHa MBTajiacb", etc.). The comment 90 of the chronicler, brief as it is, supplies a touch of irony ( „H He ociajiocB OT: TOH 6pHraflHpoBoM cjiaflKoM yTexn flaace HH e/iHHoro JiocKyTa"). But the irony cannot relieve the impact of the bloody incident, and the result is an uneasy feeling of bafflement: is this comedy, is this satire? It is satire, or—in N. Frye1s words-- militant irony (it assumes stand-20 ards against which the grotesque and absurd are measured. ). The militancy of this touch of irony rests in its being a comment to a tragic incident; the uneasy feeling of baffle ment, the strained laughter tell us that we were dealing with the grotesque. The world of Glupov is inhabited by puppets as well as people; they coexist by virtue of necessity. This often grotesque world reaches beyond Saltykov's model—Russia. Yet, it was the only world available for Glupovians. CHAPTER IX GLUPOVIANS AND THEIR WORLD Ho MepKH.eT fleHB--HacTajia HO^b; npHUIJia--H C MHpa pOKOBOTO TnaHb djiaroflHTHyio. nonpoBa CopBaB, OT-CpacHBaeT npoHB... H'6e3flHa HaM odHaaceHa , C CBOHMH CTpaXaMH H 'MPJiaMH, H HBT nperpa/i; Mesc eM H HaMH: B.OT OTHero. HaM HOHB CTpaniHa! — Tyutchev Throughout the satire, the most common terms used for the people inhabiting the town of Glupov are: the Glupovians (glupovtsy), average men (obyvateli), and citizens (grazh-dane). On many occasions the Glupovians are presented as a crowd, or as "stunned ones", "subordinate ones", "authority-loving people", etc.1 This partial list gives us the flavour of the derision with which Saltykov etches the crowded por trayal of the people. We know from the concept of the "two kinds of narod", which Saltykov explained in his letter to Vestnik Evropy, that the people who "produce" the Ugryum-Burcheyevs and the Borodavkins do not deserve other treat ment. In the first chapter which deals with the chronicle of Glupov, called Organchik, the author introduces the Glu povians to the reader: JKHTeJIH JiHKOBajiH; eme He BHflaB B'rjia3a BHOBB Ha3HaHeHHoro npaBHTe JIH, OHH yace paceKa3HBajin 06 neM aHeKflOTH H Ha3HBajra ero „KpacaBHHKOM" H „yMHH-.iieH". no3flpaBJiHjiH flpyr flpyra c paflo.c TBK>, iiejiOBajiHC B, 92 npOJIHBajIH CJie3H, 3aXOflHJIH B KafiaKH, CHOBa BHXOAHJIH H3 HHX H OHHTb 3 aXOflHJIH . 3 , The Glupovians seem to be flourishing; their unwarranted joy, soon to be disappointed by the "krasavchik" and "umnitsa" Brudasty., the governor with a "little organ" in his head, is the joy of naive children. From the very beginning, the author sets the rules for the relationship between the Glupo vians and the world. The immature behaviour of Glupovians is shown by their reactions (t,irejroBajiHCb, npojiHBajiH cjie3H, 3aXO#HJIH B Ka6aKH, CHOBa BHXOflHJIH H3 HHX H OHHTB 3aXOflHJIH") ; their coming in and out of the drinking house (kabak) sug gests, with its apparent aimlessness, certain primitive qualities which, rather than their stupidity . (such as shown in the genealogy of the Glupovians in 0 koreni proiskhozh-4 deniya glupovtsev ), will remain their main characteristic 5 . in The History. Their primitivism is a device that renders them unable to defend themselves; it almost absolves them from being accountable for their actions and their general passivity as social beings. Whenever they act, they do so as a mob which, as we saw in the case of Alenka, does not deliberate, but kills. Saltykov has no sympathy for this mob, and attacks it in the chronicle by exaggerating in Glu povians that which is so characteristic of a mob: unconscious, instinctive, impulsive action. All these features are recog nizable as those of a lower being, a homo primitivus, as it 93 were. They are present, furthermore, even where Saltykov does not depict a crowd, and so his message there is even more forceful. The Glupovians live in a world which remains, in the whole chronicle, sternly hierarchical. By imposing hier archy even where it is not applicable (e.g., the area of psychological reaction), he ridicules the concept of hier archy in general: TpaffOHaHajibHHK 6e3MOJiBHO o6omeji paflH IHHOBHHX' apxH'cTp.aTurOB, CBepKHyvi rjia3aMH, npoH3Hec : „He n.OTepnjiK)! " -- H CKPHJICH B Ka6MHB T. ^IHHOBHHKH  Q'CTOJideHejiH; 3 a HHMH op TO.a6eHe.7iH H o6BIBa Te JIH . 6 Here the Glupovians adhere strictly to the ethic; they are dumbfounded, as the officials are, but being of a lower rank (commoners) they react in a way proper to the table of ranks. This is an especially illustrative example of. the interplay of the. humorous and the satirical, based on the incongruity of the situation, with our knowledge of human reaction. One of the overtones (possibly not intended) is again the slower reaction of the Glupovians compared to that of the officials. The governor (gradonachal'nik) is the sun of the Glupovian solar system,-his authority unquestionable; but in order to be pleasing, the governor should have certain qualities about which the Glupovians are outspoken: . . .: TH no Aynie c HaMH nor oBopid TH .aacKOH-TO, jiacKOH-TO npoHHM.aM!:.TH npHrpo3.HTb.-TO npnrpo3H, fla noTOM H noMHJiyM! -- TaK TOBOPHJIH r.aynoBHH, H co cjie3aMH npnnoMajiH, Ka.Kne 6HBa.7iH y HHX npeacfle Ha^ajib-94 HHKH, BCe npHBB TJIHBHe , p,& aoCpLie, fla KpacaBHEKE --Bce.-TO B MyHAHpax! 7 After this, the reader expects that an example of a governor who fulfills the above requirements will follow, but the governor they mention appears to be no different from any other governor. Here is what the mentioned governor, Baklan, says about his programme: -- HaTHCK, — CKa3aji OH,-- H npnTOM 6H:C Tp.OTa, CHHCXOflHTejIBHO.C Tb, H np.HTOM "CTporOCTb. H npETOM 6jiaropa3yMHaa' TBep,a;o:c Tb. B.OT, MHJIO.CTHBBie rocyziapn, : Ta iiejib HJIH,: TOiHee CKa3.aTb,: Te EHTL iiejiefi, KOTOPHX . a, c doacteio noMouibio, Haaeiocb flacTHrHjTTb npn nocpefl-CTBe He KO TOpHX aflMHHHC Tp.HTHBHHX MeponpEHTEH, COCia-BJIHIOIUHX cynj,Ho:cTb HJIH, jiyHine CKa3.aTb, a/ipo odflyMaHHoro MHOB njiaHa KaMnaHHH! 8 After enumerating three sets of irreconcilable opposites (a parody of the notion which existed in Russia: b a ty us hk a-ts a r was supposed to be the father of his people, and as a father, his paternal love should find expression In both discipline and love), which in themselves are sarcastic enough, Baklan shows his true colours: like all governors before him, he will flog the Glupovians, for no matter what other whims the governors of Glupov invented, the collecting of arrears and consistent flogging headed the list of priorities. The euphemism for flogging, here, is "administrative measures" (trafliEHKCTp:aTHBHHe MeponpHflTHfl") , which are as far from flogging as ubornaya from nuzhnik. The last quotation is noteworthy from another point of view: from the way Saltykov, here uses the oratorical 95 cliche and officialese (calling the Glupovians „MHJIO:C THBHC rocyaapn, . . . c doacbeio noMombio, . . . flocTurHyTb . . . nejib . . . ruiaH Ka.Mna.Mn") 9. Saltykov's derision of the sentimental attitude of the people (illustrated by the expression batyUshka-1sar) reaches its tenor in the chapter Fantasticheskiy puteshest-vennik,10 when the governor Ferdyshchenko travels around Glupov in the best tradition of his "patron" Potemkin,11 and instructs his people to welcome him "as if he came from who-12 knows-where1" This is what the Glupovians do: LTjiaKajiH: T.yT Bee, n^iaKaJiH H n.OTOMy, HTO acaJiKO, H noTOMy, .TJTO paflo.c THO. B ocodeHHOCTH pa3jiHBa^racb oflHa speBHHfl CTapyxa.. . • — 0 neM TBI, CT'apyuiKa, njianeiiib?-- cnpocHJi 6pn-ra^Hp [Ferdyshchenko] , jiacKOBO Tpenjin ee no njieny. -- Ox .TH Hani d.aTiouiKa! KaK HaM He nJiaKaTH— TO, KopMHJieir TH . Haiu! BeK MH CBOH Bce'.-TO njianeM. . . ' BC e njianeM!-- BcxjinnHBajia B OTBST CTapyxa.13 The absurdity of all these tears is revealed by calling Ferdyshchenko kormilets, for it was under his governorship that Glupov suffered the worst hunger in its history. The governor, on the whole, is for Glupovians only one of the elements which, if put together, would make up their world.Their struggle with the governor is a part of their total struggle for survival. Some of the obstacles in their way are: a bad crop, resulting in hunger and fire (discussed earlier); and "civilization" represented in the chronicle by the enforced cultivation and use of mustard, olive oil, etc. The last is modelled on the actual "potato wars" of 1839-1840, when the government ordered out the troops to enforce the cultivation of potatoes which, at the 14 time, the peasants considered "poisonous". In the description of hunger, Saltykov achieved great effect by the use of understatement and economy: Ea3apH onycTejin, npoflaBHTB dmio He^ero, fla il HeKOMy, noTOMy .HTO ropo/i, o6e3jnop,eji. • „KOH noMepjiH,-- roBopm JieTonHceu;,-- KOH, ofiecnaMHTeB, pa3deacajiHCb KTO Ky/ia:."-" 15 To show how the town of Glupov was depopulated by a terrible famine, he first uses the image of an empty shop, and only then adds that there were no people left to patronize it. Once again Saltykov changes the narrator (presumably from an editor to a chronicler) and gives us a brief comment of the chronicler („KOH noMepjiH, -- roBopHT jreToriHceii,-- KOH, odec-naMHTeB, pa36escajiHCb KTO Kyaa"). This combination of under statement and economy of expression, or, in other words, Of the powerful image and simplicity, shows Saltykov's crafts manship at its best. Here we can also note the absence of any irony, or derision of the Glupovians, on the part of Saltykov. The fierce mockery of the satirist is applied where he thinks it will help him to combat passivity or, as he called, it,.a commitment to the forms of life that are obsolete, a certain conservatism shared by both the 97 administration and the Glupovians. There, Saltykov does not hesitate to use his whip. From time to time the Glupovian world was disturbed by some governor's desire to bring some "civilization" to Glupov. The governor Borodavkin tried to force mustard and olive oil on the Glupovians, and met with what appeared to be a strong "energy of inaction": . . . rjiynoBiiH: Toxce 6HJIH cede Ha yMe. 3Hepr.HH fleacTBaa OHH c 6 ojibinoK) HaxoflHHBO'CTbio np:oTHBono.c Ta-BHJIH aHepr.HK) <5e3fleMcTBHH. -- HTO xouib B HaMH flejiaH!-- roBponJiH OAHH, - -XOUIB . -- Ha KycKM peact; XOUIB -- c KaineM euiB, a MH He corjiacHH! -- C. Hac 6p.aT, .He ..HTO B03MeuiB!--TOBOPHJIH flpyrne, -- MH He. TO' HTO nponne, KOTOpne: TejioM odpocjin! Hac, dpaT, H yKOJiyriHyTB • Herfle ! S. ynoPHO CTOHJIH npH :3TOM Ha KQJieHax. The target of the satirist's attack here is the slave men tality of the Glupovians, as he shows that the bravado of their dissent finds expression in kneeling down in front of Borodavkin. But Glupovians, opposed as they are to mustard, symbolize the. attitude of people in general, their cautious ness when faced with a novelty. Saltykov expressed this with a touch of humour when he let the Glupovians think this: flyMaioT: cTaHyT OHH: Tenepb ecib ropHHixy,-- KaK CH Ha fiy-flymee BpeMa eine KaKyio HH Ha e.CTB Mepao.CTB e.CTb He 3acTaBHJiH; . . . Ka3ajiocb, HTO KOJieHH B .3TOM cjiynae npeflCTaBJiaioT cpe/iHHH nyTb, KOTOPHH MOaceT yMHp.O TBOpH Tb H Ty H flpyryiO .CTOpOHH. 17 Yet, peaceful as their reaction might seem to us, the 98 compromising attitude of the Glupovians was explained by Borodavkin as a rebellion (bunt). That these rebellions were many times only, products of the governors': imagination is evident from a conversation between Borodavkin and an old Glupovian: -- CTajio 6HTB, CHJIH 6y.HTH? — cnpauiHBaji EopoflaBKHH. -- Majio JIH <5HJIO 6yHToB! y Hap, cya,apb, nac HBT 3Toro: TaKaa npniceTa: KOJIH ceKyT -- Tan yac H 3Haeuib, .TITO dy.HT! 1° It is precisely because the satirist gives us a complex picture of the Glupovians (he shows their stupidity and cunning, their animal behaviour as a mob, and disarming and touchingly good-natured simplicity) that we begin to glimpse the reality behind the often absurd and grotesque facade, and at the same time feel that the author hit a substantial and universal issue when he concentrated upon the seemingly insignificant plight of the Glupovians. His treatment of the Glupovians' predicament, their situation, presents a problem which is still topical, as it most probably will be in the future, since it is the problem of the relationship between state and society. In an unsigned article, written for the occasion of the appearance of a new edition of the 19 collected works of Saltykov, we read: As a treatise on the relationship of state and society The History of a Town is important not only for the student of Russian history (for whom it should be required reading) but also for its rele vance to twentieth-century totalitarianism:.the i final chapter on the administration of the arch-leveller Ugryum-Burcheyev (a notable fore-runner df the 19 84 school of political satire) had had fearsome echoes in Russia and elsewhere in modern times.2u . In many ways, then, The History is more closely related to the twentieth century (mainly its periods of totalitarianism) than to the nineteenth. This is very para doxical ,. because we have seen that the subject of Saltykov's satire was by no means a ridiculing of the "old times". Yet ' 21 Arsenev writes in 1888, - that The History does not concern 22 itself with contemporary Russian society: he believes it is concerned entirely with its past. Unfortunately for mankind, it was Russia's future (the period of Stalinism) that served as a model.for George Orwell's 19 84. More terrible than fire, hunger, or campaigns for "civilization", 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 pletely new position, one which made any attempt for a decent life superfluous, because Ugryum-Burcheyev changed the whole structure of Glupovian life in an unusual way. He arrived in Glupov with detailed plans. These called for a Utopian city par excellence: from a square in the middle of the city the streets issued radially, each having the same number of houses. Each house in its turn accommodates two old people, two adults, two youngsters and 100 two little 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 this was attempted under the "Euthanasia" programme), schools are abolished, and so is the past and the future, and so there is no need for a chronicler. Each house has its commander and a spy. Ugryum-Burcheyev insisted especially on the spies. The Glupovians have to do everything together. Together they get up as ordered, meet in gymnasiums for morning exercise, and leave together for work. While working, they move in 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 spirit of Ugryum-Burcheyev hovers above the town and vigilantly guards the sleep of the Glupovians. There is no God, no idols, nothing: B 3TOM (f)a.HTa.C THHeCKOM MHpe HBT HH CTpaCTeM, HH VBJieHeHHH, HH npHBH3aHHO.CT.e2. Bee 3KHBVT KaacAyio MHHVTV BMe.GTe, H BCHKHH HVBC TBVB T CeCfl OflHHOKHM. . JKH3Hb HH Ha MrHOBeHbB He OTBJieKae TC H OT HCnOJIHeHHH .decHHCjieHHoro MH-oacecTBa .flypaiiKHX o6H3aHHO.CTeH, H3 KOTopBix Kaacflaa: paccH.HTaHa 3apaHee H "OHa KascflHM nejioBeKOM THr.OTe.eT KaK poK. SCeHmHHH" HMeKT npaBO poacaTb flBTefi TOJibKO 3HM.OH, n.OTOMy .HTO HapyuieHHe 3Toro • npaBHJia MOSCBT BocnpensTCTBOB.aTb ycneniHOMy xo/i;y JIBTHHX. pad.OT. COM3H Meacay MOJIOAHMH jnoflbMH y:cTpanBaioTCH He HHane, KaK coodpa3Ho pocTy H: TBJIO-c jioaceHHK), : TaK KaK BTO yflOBJie TBOPHB T Tpe6 OBaHHflM npaBHJibHoro H KpacnBoro dppo.HTa.24 With the coming of Ugryum-Burcheyev, the Glupovian world takes upon itself a significance which reaches far 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 political developments which held a large part of the world spellbound before World War II. We find 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 straight line continues in Zamyatin's We: "To unbend the wild curve, to 25 straighten it out to a tangent—to a straight line!" This world is no longer "fantastic" after the storm of the total itarian regimes of this century. Hannah Arendt's dictum about the totalitarian regime: "Totalitarian movements are 27 mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals", was expressed by Saltykov in the passage, „Bce JKHBVT Kaacflyio MHHVTy BMe.CTe, H BCHKHM nyBCTByeT ce6a OAHHOKHM" '-and one can only wonder at the accuracy with which the satiric Utopia of Saltykov characterized the future. The accuracy with which Saltykov parodies Utopian socialism shows the extent of his understanding of the poli tical process, the new ideas which this process produced and which are now termed variously as Utopian socialism, utili tarianism, egaliterianism (Saltykov himself used the term "nivellator" and "kantonist" for Ugryum-Burcheyev). The very fact that this final part of The History seems so 102 topical now shows to what extent modern politics and ideas are tributaries of the nineteenth century. We can see that the governorship of Ugryum-Burcheyev has more in common with the satire of Utopia than with the military settlements advocated by Arakcheev. The grand design of Ugryum-Burcheyev, the total dictatorship and the-striking similarities with the totalitarian rule of Hitler and Stalin, 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 in the introduction, the main body of this thesis was concerned with the development of The History and partly with the analysis of its satirical devices. The stress throughout this work was on those aspects of Salty kov's satire which have universal validity. This explains, among other things, why the conventional readings of The  History were accorded a brief comment instead of more exten sive treatment. Moreover, this course resulted from follow ing the author's suggestions as expressed in the letters which he wrote after the publication of The History, and also from the impression that to indulge, if only briefly, in repeating the traditional interpretations would mean to go beyond the scope of this study. Instead, I have tried to ft/ show how Glupov developed from a little joke with which < Saltykov wanted to pique his readers. With time, and poli tical changes, this joke began to take on more and more body, and eventually grew into a group of stories which I have called the Glupovian cycle. From unidentifiable and vague characters, two basic types evolved: the Glupovian and the governor. Their characteristics, as well as their activi ties, were coloured by the prevailing atmosphere of konfuz: political instability marked by a temporary absence of firm control over Russian society after 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 satiric chronicle of both the past and the present. Saltykov found that this chroni cle was an ideal platform from which he could conveniently satirize the phenomena which seemed incompatible with the ideals he shared with the progressive and liberal group of Russian intelligentsia. He took an extreme stand when he disowned the people who produce and tolerate tyrants, know ing that in this way he separated himself from the real people for the sake of the ideal ones. This misanthropic stance, reminiscent of that of Swift, with whom he is often compared, was a positive feature in a satirist who strove for the improvement of the lot of those who suffered most, the simple folk. Since everything depended on the whims of those who possessed power, Saltykov concentrated his atten tion on them in the chronicle, calling them governors. The actions of these characters are occasionally comic, but are always set against a broader background, the essentially tragic suffering 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 ideal of the free man and his caricature as a mechanical contraption. 105 To stress the latter, Saltykov created puppets and puppet like characters and let them act among the people to show the people's helplessness and to attack their passivity, which he likened to a state of unconsciousness. The depravity of the governors and the meek passivity of the Glupovians often reach a grotesque proportion, as we witness the gradual deterioration of the situation of the Glupovian world. The most powerful and adequate expression of this we find in the satire of Utopia which, for many reasons, is very close to the modern reader. We find 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 satirical works of the present century: Zamyatin's We, Huxley's Brave New World, and Orwell's 19 84. It is here that the timeless message of The History is felt with the greatest vigour. The nightmare of the totalitarian regime is invoked here with the satir ist's tour de force. Because Saltykov ridiculed such vices as the mechanical encrusted on the living—to borrow Berg-son's phrase—and political corruption, his satire is still alive, inasmuch as these phenomena are a constant threat to modern man as well. Thus, The History of a Town manifests the universal application of its satire, and goes beyond the history of a particular age and nation while remaining, paradoxically, an anathema of the typically Russian situation FOOTNOTES FOOTNOTES TO INTRODUCTION "'"Discussion of this commentary can be found in I. P. Foote, "Reaction or Revolution", Oxford Slavonic Papers, Vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968. 2 B. Eikhenbaum, "Istoriya odnogo goroda M. E. Salty-kova-Shchedrina"^ (Kommentariy), in 0 proze, Khudozhesven-naya literature, Leningrad, 1969, p. 455. 3 v ' Xv. . C. Kulesov, "Saltykov-Scednn, Istoriya odnogo goro da : an annotated edition with an introduction", Ph.D., Indiana, 1969. 4 . In his letter 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 neimel v vidu istoricheskoy satiry." 5 I. P. Foote, "Reaction or Revolution", p. 105. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I. ''"D. S. Mir sky, A History of Russian Literature, p. 293. 2 .  . . This was pointed out by Skabichevsky in his editorial published in Iskra, reprinted in M. S. Goryachkina, red., M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v russkoy kritike, p. 226. 3 N. Strelsky, Saltykov and Russian Squire, p. 5. 4 • ' '' . Mentioned in D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskiy, Istoriya russkoy literatury XIX v., p. 231. 5 Turgenev's review in The Academy, II, London, March 1, 1871, pp. 151-152. ^M. S. Goryachkina, Op.' cit., p. 193. 7N. Strelsky, Op. cit., p. 29. Q G. Lukacs, Probleme des Realismus II, p. 36. 107 9 • T. S. Lindstrom, Concise History of Russiari Litera ture , p. 161. It is not the brevity which is questionable, but the lack of understanding of Saltykov's work. 10I. P. Foote, Op. cit., p. 105. 1 "''Saltykov expressed this wish in his letter to Vest-nik Evropy, Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 451; L. Grossman's ideas were expressed in his article "Rossiya Saltykova", published in his book Borba za stil', p. 169. 1 2 V. V. Gippius, Ot Pushkina do Bloka, p. 295. 13Ibid., 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). 16Ibid., p. 175. 17 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. cit., p. 223. 18Ibid., p. 191. 19In the Introduction to the 1970 edition of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin,.Istoriya odnogo goroda, p. 8. 20 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. cit., p. 159. 21 This was demonstrated in the negative review of Fet's poetry, published in V. Y. Kirpotin, N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov) o literature, p. 188. 22 M. S. Goryachkina, Op. cit., p. 223. 2 3 D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, Op. cit., p. 24 7. 24Ibid. 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 critique of the relationship of the main groups of society, as in the Glupovian cycle, but rather a critique of an ascendant class of parvenus in the wake of the industrialization of Russia. 30 Thus, talking 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 partii ..." (Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 456). 31 R. Pletnev, Entretiens sur la literature Russe des  18e et 19e siecles, p. 486. 32 D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, Sobranie sochmeniy, Tom 8, Part 2, p. 1. 33 D. V. Grishin, "The Problem of Dictatorship in the Work of Dostoevsky and of S. Shchedrin", p. 85. 34Mi E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. IV, p. 249. 35Ibid., p. 250. 36Ibid., p. 234. 37 V. Kirpotin, Saltykov-Shchedrin, zhizn' i_ tvor-chestvo, p. 281. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II. "''S. Vilinskij, 0 literarni c'innosti M. Jev. Saltykova-Scedrina, is the only work which discusses konfuz in detail. 2 F. Venturi, Op. cit., p. 208. 3 Y. Elsberg, Saltykov-Shchedrin, p. 106; the peasant disturbances mentioned in this paragraph occurred both before and after 1861. 4 Quoted from Y. Elsberg, Op. cit., p. 67. 5 This hate Saltykov shares with Swift. In a letter 109 to Alexander Pope (September 29, 1725), Swift wrote: "I hate and detest the animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth." (Jonathan Swift, Gulli ver's Travels and Other Writings, p. 494). FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III. "'"E. Pokusaey, Revolyutsionnaya satira Saltykova-Shchedrina, p. 23. 2 M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. Ill, p. 267. 3Ibid., p. 503. 4As in the nineteenth century, we again witness the division progressive-conservative;. as before, the climate is controlled by dictatorship. 5 E. Pokusaev, Op. cit., p. 30. ^Ibid., p. 31. 7M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 475. 8Ibid., p. 516. g E. Pokusaev, Op. cit., p. 126. 10Ibid., p. 125. 1:LM. . E. S.-Shch. , Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 462. 12Ibid., p. 463. 13Ibid., p. 220. 14T, . , Ibid. . 15Ibid., p. 429. 16M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. IV, p. 210; italics are mine. (Henceforth, whenever italics appear in quotations from Russian, they are mine.) 17 K. K. Arsenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, p. 87. 18M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 281. 110 19V. Kirpotin, Op. cit., p. 281. 20A. S. Bushmin, SatIra Saltykova-Shchedrina, p. 75. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV. •"•M. E. S.-Shch. , Sobr. soch. IV, p. 203. 2E. Pokusaev, Op. cit., pp. 31-32. 3V. Kirpotin, Op_. cit. , p. 282. 4F. Venturi, Op. cit., p. 199. 5M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 265. 6Ibid., p. 549. 7Ibid., pp. 535-536. o E. Pokusaev, Op_. cit., p. 33. 9A. I. Efimov, Yazyk satiry Saltykova-Shchedrina, as well as C. Kulesov, Op. cit., discuss this feature in detail. 10M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 265. 11Ibid., p. 267; the interpretation of the quotation comes from B. Eikhenbaum, Op_. cit. , p. 464. 12B. Eikhenbaum, Op. cit., p. 465. 13M. E. S.-Shch., Op.•cit., p. 269. 14Ibid. 15A. D. Stokes, Anthology of Early Russian Literature, p. 62. 16B. Eikhenbaum, Op_. cit. , pp. 465-467. 17V. Kirpotin, Op_. cit. , p. 291. 18Ibid. • 19M. E. S.-Shch., 0£. cit., p. 270. Ill 20lbid., p. 452. 21Ibid., p. 453. 22 . .... A detailed account of this is available in the com mentary by G. V. Ivanov, in H. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 555, 23 M. E. S.-Shch.,' pp. cit., p. 271. 24Ibid., p. 272. 25Ibid.,p* 275. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER V. 1Ibid., p. 454. 2 Ibid., p. 451 (letter to Vestnik Evropy), p. 455 (letter to A. N. Pypin). 3Ibid., p. 454. 4Ibid., p. 277. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VI. 1 "M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 452. Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya, Tom 12, p. 396, 2, 3Ibid., pp. 278-279. 4Ibid., p. 79. 5T. S. Eliot, Use of Poetry, p. 153. 6M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 456. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VII. 1C. Kulesov, Op. cit. 2 W. F. Thrall and Hibbard, A Handbook to Literature, pp. 490-491. 112 N. I. Sokolov, Russkaya literatura r narodnichestvo, p. 166, quoting P. N. Tkachev. 4B. Eikhenbaum, "Kak sdelana 'Shinel'' Gogolya". 5Ibid. 6C. Kulesov, Op. ext., p. 36. 7 • • "Slonimsky in his study provides a discussion dealing with the serious philosophical element implicit in the Gogol-ian humour, his smekh skvoz slezy." C. Kulesov, Op. cit., p. 37. Q K. Sanine, Saltykov-Ghtchedrine, Sa vie et ses  oeuvres, p. 169. 9 • • Karl D. Kramer elucidates the role of the invective in his article, "Satiric form in Saltykov's Gospoda  Golovlevy". 10M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 278. 11Ibid., pp. 288-289. 12Ibid., p. 284. 13Ibid., pp. 333-334. 14A. I. Smirnitskiy, Russko-Angliyskiy slovar', p. 104. 15 Petrov, red., Istoriya russkoy literatury XIX veka, Tom II, p. 423. 16M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 336. 17Ibid., pi 423. 18Ibid., p. 323. 19M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VI, pp. 382-383. 20Ibid., p.'384. 21Ibid., p. 389. 22M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 423. 23 . I. P. Foote, Op. cit. 113 24 Although Nietzsche lived approximately in the same time as Saltykov, he was younger; and by the time his philo sophy became known Saltykov was no longer living. However, Nietzsche, in his philosophy, continued the work of Schopen hauer (see;;note 25; below) and so Nietzsche's Theory of Eternal Recurrence (an introduction to this theory is found in B. C. Van Fraasen, An Introduction to the Philosophy of  Time and Space) is only a more up-to-date version of the cyclical the pry known from Schopenhauer's widely-read work. 25 "Schopenhauer has written that history is an inter minable and perplexing dream of human generations; in the dream there are recurring forms, perhaps nothing but forms." (italics are mine) quoted from J. L. Borges, Other Inquisi tions 1937-1952, tr. R. Simms, pp. 155-156. This accurately expresses Saltykov's beliefs, mainly his ideas on forms and phantoms as expounded in Sovremennye prizraki, Sobr. soch. VI, pp. 382-383. 2 6 Such is the arrangement of Satire among other myths in N. Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. 37M. 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, Satire, p. 52. 31 H. Bergson, Op. cit., p. 63. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER VIII. 1A. Koestler, The Act of Creation. 6Ibid., p. 398. 7Ibid., p. 39 7. 114 8Ibid., p. 346. 9Ibid., p. 335. 1(V. V. Gippius, "Lyudi i kukly v satire Saltykova". 1:LIbid. , p. 305. 12 I do not wish to suggest here that the grotesque is necessarily a part of the mechanization motif in general, but in some cases (as in the following excerpt about the governor Pryshch) it is. Also, I will abstain from treating the absurd as a category in itself, because it is inherent in the context of Saltykov's grotesque. 13 K. S. Guthke, Modern Tragicomedy, p. 73. 14This critic traces the origin of the grotesque back to Romanticism (and ultimately to Roman architecture), where he discusses E. T. A. Hoffman as one of the writers who utilized the grotesque in that period, and shows how the Romantic writers drew their material from the Gothic novel (Castle of Otranto by H. Walpole, Vathek by William Beck-ford, etc.). 15 • V. V. Gippius, Op. cit., p. 304, mentioned Hoff mann's "Sandman".in connection with the puppet motif. Ibid. 18Ibid., p. 318. 19Ibid.', p. 30 8., 20 N. Frye, Op. cit.,. p. 223. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IX. This partial list comes from C. Kulesov, Op. cit., p. 58. 2 M. E. S.-Shch., Sobr. soch. VIII, p. 454. 3Ibid., p. 280. 115 4Ibid., p. 269. 5 V. V. Gippius, Op. cit., treated as one of the satirist's motifs. 6M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 281. 7Ibid. 8Ibid., p. 282. 9 • V. V. Vinogradov, The History of the Russran Lit er-ary Language from the Seventeenth Century to the Nineteenth, discusses Saltykov from the point of view of the development of the literary language on pp. 236, 237, 239, 241, 253. Also A. E. Efimov, Op. cit. 10M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 329. "'""'"Here Saltykov mentions Potemkin as being the patron of Ferdyshchenko (see the List) in order to suggest the parallel between the journeys of Catherine the Great and those of Ferdyshchenko, and also to hint at the arrangements, by Potemkin, of the "theatrical" villages built to please Catherine. 12M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 330. 13Ibid., p. 332. 14B. Eikhenbaum, "Kommentariy", p. 482. 15M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., p. 311. 16Ibid., p. 338. 17Ibid., p. 339. 18Ibid., p. 337. 19 "Coded Satire", Times Literary Supplement, August 18, 1966. 20Ibid., p. 733. 21 K. K. Arsenev, Kriticheskie etyudy po russkoy  literature, Tom I. 22lbid., p.. 36. M. E. S.-Shch., Op. cit., pp. 404-406. Ibid., p. 406. G. Orwell, 19 84. E. Zamyatin, We^ p. 4. H. Arendt, The Origin of Totalitarianism, 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. Kriticheskie etyudy po russkoy literature. Tom I. St. Petersburg: 1888. . Saltykov-Shchedrin. St. Petersburg: 1906. Aykhenvald, Y. Siluety russkikh pisateley. Berlin: 1923. Baskakov, V.N. . M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v portretakh, illyustratsiyakh, dokumentakh. Leningrad: Prosveshche-nie, 1968. Bol'shaya.sovetskaya entsiklopediy. Vvedenskiy, B.A., red. Tom XII~. Izdanie 2-e, gos. nauch. izd. Moscow!: ; Sovet skaya entsiklopediya, 1952. Bushmin, A. S. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Leningrad: Izd. ProsveshchenTe, 1970. • . Satira Saltykova-Shchedrina. Leningrad: Izd. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959. Cannan, Gilbert. Satire. London: Martin Seeker, [n.d.]. Dobrovol'skiy, A. M. Bibliografiya literatury 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 satiry Saltykova-Shchedrina. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo universitete, 1953. Eliot, T. S. Use of Poetry. Cambridge, Mass.: 1933. Elliott, Robert C. The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art. Princeton: 1960. 118 Elsberg, Y. Nasledie Gogolya 1 Shchedrina i sovetskaya satiira. Moscow: Sovetskiy pisatel" , 1954. S altykov-Shchedrin. Moscow: Goslitizdat, 19 53.. Ershov, L. F. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin o literature i iskusstve. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1953. Feibleman, J. K. In Praise of Comedy (Study in its Theory and Practice). 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 Criticism. Four Essays. New York: Atheneum, 196 8. Glicksberg, Ch. I. The Ironic Vision in Modern Literature. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969. Gorelov, A. Podvig russkoy literatury.. Leningrad: Sovet skiy pisatel', 1957. Goryachkina, M. S. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin v russkoy  kritike. Moscow: Gosizd. khud. lit., 1959. . Satira SaTtykova-Shchedrina. Moscow: Prosveshche-nie, 1965. Grossman, L. Borba za.stil'. Moscow: Nikitinskie Subbot-niki, 1927. Guthke, Karl S. Modern Tragicomedy. An Investigation into the Nature of the Genre. New York: Random House, 1966. Highet, Gilbert. The Anatomy of Satire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962. Kayser, Wolfgang. The Grotesque in Art and Literature. V. Weisstein (transTH New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Kernan, Alvin B. The Plot of Satire. New Haven: 1965. Kirpotin, V. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Literaturno-kriti-cheskiy ocherk. Moscow: Sovetskiy pisatel1, 1939. __, red. N. Schedrin (M. E. Saltykov) o literature. Moscow: Gos. izd. khud. lit., 1952. 119 . Saltykov-Shchedrin, zhizn' i tvorchestvo. Moscow: Sovetskiy pisatel', 1955. ~ Koestler, Arthur. The' Act of Creation. A study of the conscious in science and art. New York: Dell Paperbacks, 1964. Kulesov, Catherine. Saltykov-Scedrin, "Istorija odnogo  goroda": An Annotated Edition wITh an Introduction. Ph.D. Indiana: 1969. Lindstrom, Thais S. A Concise History of Russian Literature. New York: New York University Press, 1966. Lukacs, G. Probleme des Realismus II. Berlin: Luchterhand, 1967. ~~ Makashin, S. Saltykov-Shchedrin: biografiya. Moscow: Gos. izd. khud. lit., 1951. Mirsky, D. S. A History of Russian Literature. New York: Vintage Books, 1958. Orwell, G. 1984. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, D. N. Istoriya russkoy literatury XIX  veka. Tom IV. Moscow: 1910; [American Council of Learned Societies reprints: 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 Fictions of Satire. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967. Pletnev, R. Entretiens sur la literature Russe des 18e et 19e siecles. Montreal: Les Presses de L'universite de Montreal, 1967. Pokusaev, E. Revolyuts ionnaya satira Sa1tykova-Shchedrina, Moscow: Gos~. izd. khud. TTti , 1963. Prozorov, V. 0 khudozhestvennom myshlenii pis atelya-s atirika. Saratov: Izdatel'stvo Saratovskogo universiteta,. 1965. Pushkin, A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy. Tom VI. Moscow: Gos. izd. khud. lit., 1949. 120 Riasanovsky, N. V. A History of Russia. London: Oxford Press, 1969. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. E. Istoriya odnogo goroda. Moscow: Izd. detskaya literatura, 1970. ' . Sobranie.sochinenii v 201 tomov. (Vols. 1-10). Moscow: Izd. khudozhestvennaya lit., 1965. M. E. Sa1tykov-Shchedrin v •vospominaniyakh sovremennikov. S. A. Makashin, red. Moscow: Gos. izd. khud. lit., 1957. Sanine, Kyra. Saltykov-Chtchedrine, Sa vie et ses oeuvres. Paris: Instltut d1Etudes Slaves de 1"University de Paris, 1955. ' '" " Schopenhauer, Arthur. The Essential Schopenhauer. London: Unwin Books, 1962. Shtein, A. Kritlcheskiy realizm i_ russkaya drama XIX veka. Moscow: Gos. izd. khud. lit.,-1962. Slonimsky, Aleksandr. Tekhnika komicheskogo u Gogolya. Petrograd: Academia, 1923. Sokolov, N. I. Russkaya literature i_ narodnichestvo. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1968. Stokes, A. D. Anthology of Early Russian Literature. Letchworth: Bradda Books, 196 3. Stone, Christopher. Parody. London: Martin Seeker, [n.d.]. Strelsky, Nikander. Saltykov and the Russian Squire. Columbia: 1941. Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels and Other Writings. L. A. Lauda, ecL Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1960. Thrall, W. F. and A. Hibbard. A Handbook to Literature. 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 sity, 1959. Vilinskij, Sergij G. 0 literarni cinnosti M. Jev. Saltykova-Scedrina. Brno: FTl. Fak. Masarykovy Univerzity^ 1928. Vinogradov, V. V., and Lawrence L. Thomas. (Vinogradov) The  History of the Russian Literary Language from the Seven teenth Century to the Nineteenth" Madison: The Univer sity of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Wren, M. C. The Course of Russian History. New York: Mac-Millan, 1963. Yakovleva, N. V. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, neizdannye pisma  18 84-1889. Moscow: Academia, 19 32. Zolotnitskiy, D. Shchedrin—dramaturg. Leningrad-Moscow: Gos. izd. Iskusstvo, 1961. B. ARTICLES Bergson, Henri. "Laughter," Comedy, W. Sypher (ed.). New York: Anchor Books, 19 56. Bushmin, A. S. "Iz istorii vzaimootnosheniy M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina i Emilya Zolya," Russko-Evropeyskie litera-turnye svyazi. Moscow: 1966. "Roman v teoreticheskom i khudozhestvennom istol-kovanii Saltykova-Shchedrina," Istoriya russkogo romana. Tom II. Moscow-Leningrad: Izd. 'Nauka', 1964. "Coded Satire," Times Literary Supplement, August 18, 1966. Eikhenbaum, B. "Istoriya odnogo goroda M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina (Kommentariy)", 0.proze. Sbornik statei. Leningrad: Khudozhesvennaya lit., 1969 ' "Kak sdelana 'Shinel11 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 satire Saltykova," Ot Push kin do Bloka. Moscow^Leningrad: Izd. Nauka, 1966. 122 Grishin, D. V. "The Problem of Dictatorship in the Work of Dostoevsky and of S.-Shchedrin," Australi an Quarterly, XXXI, iii, pp. 82-91. Ivanov, G. V. "Kommentariy" to the text of Istoriya odnogo  goroda, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Sobr. soch. Tom VIII. Moscow: Khud. lit., 1969. Kramer, Karl D. "Satiric Form in Saltykov's Gospoda Golov-levy," The Slavic and East European Journal, Winter 1970, Vol. XIV, No. 4. Voronsky, Alexander. "Evgeny Zamyatin," P. Mitchell (trans.), Russian Literature Triquarterly, Number 2, Winter 1972. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 38 0
Russia 18 10
China 16 4
Macedonia 7 4
Indonesia 5 0
Ghana 4 0
Ukraine 3 2
Poland 3 0
United Kingdom 2 0
Ireland 2 0
Unknown 2 0
France 2 0
Japan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 40 13
Shenzhen 8 4
Beijing 8 0
Skopje 7 4
Ashburn 5 0
Saint Petersburg 4 0
Penza 4 5
Mountain View 4 0
Blora 4 0
Moscow 3 3
Buffalo 3 0
Philadelphia 2 0
Fremont 2 0

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



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items