Humor and satire in W. Shakespeare's comedies

1.2. satirical genre.
The very word "Satire" comes from the Latin name of mythical creatures, mocking demigods, half animals - satyrs. Philologically, it is also connected with the word satura , which in the common people meant a dish of hodgepodge, which indicated a mixture of different sizes (Saturn verse, along with Greek sizes) and the presence in satire. a wide variety of descriptions of all sorts of facts and phenomena, unlike other lyrical genres, which had a strictly limited and defined area of \u200b\u200bthe image. Roman satire. gave her highest examples in the works of Horace, Persia and especially Juvenal.
Over time, satire has lost its significance as a particular genre, as happened with other classical genres (elegy, idyllic , etc.). Exposing mockery has become the main feature of satire, defining its main essence. Satire fulfilled this purpose with the help of various literary forms and genres. True, whenever the forms of ancient literature were revived in literature, the ancient genre satire was also partially revived. This was the case, for example , in Russian literature of the second half of the 18th century, when the classical form of satire was used by Kantemir, Sumarokov, and others. But at the same time, satirical comedy and satirical magazines existed with their feuilletons, caricatures, stories, etc.
Comic is at the heart of satire, regardless of genre. Laughter is always a huge means of social influence. “... In all morality there is no medicine more real, more powerful than exposing the ridiculous” (Lessing, Hamburg Dramaturgy, Collected Works , vol. V, p. 76, ed. Wolf, 1904).
The social functions of the comic determine its form: humorous, satirical and ironic. The social function of laughter and satire lies in the effective struggle against the comically depicted object. This is the difference between satire and humor and irony. It differs from all forms of comic satire by its activity, strong-willed orientation and purposefulness. Laughter always contains negation. Along with laughter in satire, therefore, indignation and indignation are no less strong. Sometimes they are so strong that they almost drown out the funny, push it into the background. The weakness of the comic element in satire gave rise to some researchers to argue that satire can completely do without comic tricks, that it can expose the insignificant and hostile only by its indignation. But indignation in itself, with the greatest strength and tension, does not create satire.
The specificity of satire is not that it reveals negative, harmful or shameful phenomena, but that it always does this by means of a special comic law, where indignation is unity with comic exposure, the exposed is shown as normal, in order to then discover through the ridiculous that this is the norm - only an appearance that obscures evil. This is confirmed by the whole history of S. It is enough to name such names as Rabelais, Beaumarchais, Voltaire, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin. Therefore, the classical division of S. into “laughing” and “pathetic”, which Schiller makes in his article “On Naive and Sentimental Comedy”, has no sufficient basis.
Satire on the enemy is, firstly, a denial of the entire socio-political system. This type of satire was created by the world's greatest satirists, who in different eras gave brilliant examples of criticism and denial of the social reality of their era. Rabelais, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin - each with their own individual characteristics created this particular type of C.
The main types of satire differ not only in their material and the nature of the writer's attitude to this material. One can observe completely different forms of constructing satire. Bourgeois aesthetics and the history of literature have repeatedly spoken about the tendentiousness of satire, about the fact that satire is a semi- artistic , semi-journalistic genre. Satire is "a borderline type of artistic work" because it combines "visual-contemplative liveliness" with "non-aesthetic goals" ( Jonas Cohn, General Aesthetics). Unfortunately, such views have also penetrated into our Soviet criticism.
Meanwhile, the forms of satirical works are extremely peculiar. We should talk not only about the degree of artistry of satire, but also about its artistic originality.
If we turn to the type of satire that is built on the denial of the social system, we will see that the work of the great satirists - Rabelais, Swift, Saltykov-Shchedrin - separated from each other by time and space, so different in their socio-political genesis, represents a great closeness of form. The main feature of this type of satire is that everything depicted in it is given in terms of complete negation. The positive ideological attitudes of the author, in the name of which this denial takes place, are not given in the work itself. Their essence is clear from the comic revelation of the insignificance of what is depicted. Hence the often encountered vulgar assertion that satirists of this type do not have a positive ideal.
Such satire is usually built on grotesque hyperbolism , which turns reality into fantasy. Rabelais tells about extraordinary giants, about the colossal accessories of their life, about their fantastic adventures, about sausages and sausages coming to life, about pilgrims traveling in the mouth of Gargantua . Swift fantastically shifts all human concepts, confronting his hero in turn with midgets and giants, talks about a flying island, etc. Saltykov-Shchedrin portrays the mayor with a clockwork mechanism in his head, always uttering the same two phrases, etc.
Often they tried to find explanations for hyperbolism and fantasy in the need for the writer to speak Aesopian language. But of course this is not the main thing. Strengthening the comic to the degree of the grotesque, giving it the form of an incredible, fantastic, the satirist thereby reveals its absurdity, its uncertainty, its contradiction with reality.
The realistic-grotesque fantasy of satirists, as the basis of their style, determines a number of separate techniques. The most important of these are that the fantastic is given with an exact and very extensive enumeration of naturalistic details (Rabelais) or even an accurate measurement of its dimensions (Swift).
The desire for a comprehensive realistic critique of the social system determined the very genre of this type of satire. The great satirical writers, who used their talent to expose a hostile socio-political system, made the novel their main genre. The form of the novel made it possible to cover a wide range of reality. At the same time, the usual form of the novel, in connection with its satirical function, received its own characteristics as a form of a satirical novel. A satirical novel is not bound by a specific plot. The plot here is just a canvas on which everything is strung that serves to depict and expose this or that side of life. The satirist does not limit himself to the number of actors, just as he is not obliged to follow their fate to the end.
This determines the special construction of character images and their significance in the overall composition of this kind of satirical work. Not understanding this originality, Hornfeld , for example. believes that “a type in satire is not so much a living poetic image as a schematic image, devoid of individualizing details that give such vitality and charm to the creations of humor ... a mighty preponderance of social and ethical interests over aesthetic ones makes him (satirist - S. N .) lyrics and suppresses in him the creator of objective types.
There is a clear misunderstanding of the methods of satire here. The satirist, no less than any other artist, is capable of artistic embodiment of the reality he reflects. It is enough to recall the images of the Epicurean philosopher Panurge in Rabelais or Judas Golovlev in Saltykov-Shchedrin. But this individualization and typification is achieved by other means than in humor—not through the psychological unfolding of the image, but through the great generalizations on which S. is built and which make it possible in each character, taken over a very short period of place and time, to capture the social typical. But that is precisely why the socially typical does not become a scheme, it is embodied in artistically convincing individualized life images.
The absence of a solid plot allows the satirist not to be constrained by the requirements for the development of a single action, because the compositional movement of satire is determined by the requirements of the location of the system of criticism that the author seeks to give in his satire, and not by the requirements of the compositional development of a single plot intrigue. This is not taken into account by theorists who, not understanding the originality of the satirical form, speak of the compositional precariousness and vagueness of satire as one of its main sins against artistry. The universalism of criticism in a satirical novel determines the need to use the most diverse material. The satirical novel uses comic characters, situations, dialogues and words in equal measure. This is the difference between this type of satire and other types of satire.
Satire is built differently, based on the opposition of positive and negative, virtue and vice. The satirist opposes Starodum to Skotinin and Prostakov , Chatsky to Famusov and Molchalin, Cleante to Tartuffe , Anselm to Harpogon . But the nature of the distribution of negative and positive elements in this satire differs sharply from similar non-satirical works, say, from the philistine tearful drama. Satire brings to the fore negative types and characters, giving the positive only as a background for them, or not giving it at all. This satire is par excellence a satire of types and characters. The satirist embodies the individual negative aspects of the social system in individual characters. Negative types are built for the most part on some one sharply prominent feature; on the stinginess of Harpagon, on the hypocrisy of Tartuffe, on the subservience and servility of Molchalin, on the stupid martinet Skalozub. This satirically pointed character trait sometimes creates a social mask instead of an individualized image. We have talked so far about two main types of satire. Within these types, we find diverse genres of satire: along with the satirical novel, satirical drama, comedy, satire also uses a number of small genres - epigram, anecdote, satirical feuilleton, caricature. We will consider them a little later.
Russian satire. poorer app. - European. In the West, satire developed during the centuries-long struggle of the third estate with the old order. In Russia, S., indignant and scourging, reaches its heights when the ideologists of revolutionary democracy (Saltykov-Shchedrin, Nekrasov) appeared on the stage of Russian history.
In previous eras, satire also more than once became the dominant genre in Russian literature - let us recall the heyday of Russian satire in the second half of the 18th century. But this satire, in the extremely apt expression of Dobrolyubov, "tried to reduce, not to exterminate evil." Not to mention the abundant satirical journalism in which the ruling elites were directly involved (“There were also fables”, “All sorts of things”, “This and that”, “Neither this nor that”, “Day work”, “Useful with pleasant ”, “Mixture”, “Drone”), even Novikov’s publications (“Parnassian Scribbler”, “Evenings”, “Painter”, “Purse”), satires by Kantemir, Sumarokov, Fonvizin’s comedies passed over in silence such egregious phenomena as, for example, serfdom right. A sharp contrast to this type of satire is the satirical revelatory paintings of Radishev 's Travels from St. Petersburg to Moscow .
Griboedov branded the Molchalins and Skalozubs in his comedy. Gogol satirically showed the "dead souls" of landlord Russia. And contrary to Gogol's subjective tendencies, his satire had a profoundly revolutionary significance. The gentry (Griboyedov, Gogol), which objectively played a huge revolutionary role, was replaced by revolutionary democratic satire, containing a resolute denial of the feudal-serf, tsarist-bureaucratic system, no less resolute criticism of predatory Russian capitalism and the cowardice of the liberal bourgeoisie. This satire is fundamentally different from the noble satire, which came not from denial, but from self-criticism. Gogol, for example. strove all his life to create positive images and was dissatisfied with his comic characters. Saltykov found in them the deepest expression of his ideological and artistic ideas . ideas. Saltykov gives complete decomposition, comprehensively shows the worthlessness, and most importantly, the harmfulness of his Judas Golovlev. His best works - the brilliant grotesques "Lord Golovlev", "The History of a City" and "Pompadours and Pompadours" - are extraordinary in their strength and accuracy of exposing autocracy, bureaucratic stupidity and stupidity, feudal barbarism and tyranny, liberal complacency. In the immortal image of Judas Golovlev, Shchedrin gave a great symbol of the degeneration of the entire system.
We also find strong satirical elements in the works of the great poet of revolutionary democracy Nekrasov (“Reflections at the front door”, “Poor and elegant”, “Contemporaries”, etc.). Against the new enemy of the working people, predatory capital and the kulaks, the satire is directed Ch. Uspensky ("Morals of Rasteryaeva Street"). After the years of reaction, S. associated a new flourishing with the revolution of 1905. During the years 1905-1908, a huge number of satirical magazines appeared, mostly liberal-democratic. But in the same years, proletarian journals were already being created, satirical workers' magazines, the direct successor of which was the initiator of proletarian satire Demyan Bedny, and the satire of the Bolshevik newspapers Zvezda and Pravda. Proletarian satire reaches its heights in the work of M. Gorky.
Soviet proletarian satire differs from the satire of the capitalist classes not only in its subject matter. It represents significant qualitative modifications. In a proprietary society, satire was either a denial of the entire social system as a whole or a criticism of certain aspects of this system. Soviet satire is directed primarily against class-hostile reality, against its direct class enemy, who opposes the Soviet socialist system. When Soviet satire is directed at the shortcomings of its class reality, it reveals these shortcomings as alien class stratifications, as the result of a different, hostile social system, for these shortcomings are not created by the socialist society that is being built, but by the inexhaustible consciousness of the owner. M. Koltsov sharply formulates the meaning of Soviet satire: “Is satire possible, the nature of which is dissatisfaction with the existing, an angry or bilious attitude towards the existing reality in a country where there is no exploitation and where socialism is being built? Yes, it is possible. With the blade of satire, the Soviet writer fights against the baseness of sycophancy, ignorance and stupidity. The working class is the last in the history of classes, and it will be the last to laugh” (Speech at the International Congress of Writers). Proletarian satire is aimed not only at criticizing its shortcomings. It exposes, above all, the hostile capitalist system. It is only from proletarian positions that a true satire on the capitalist system is now possible. The bourgeois satirist does not know the recipes for improving and correcting his system and can not reconcile himself to its complete rejection. This makes it a half-hearted satire, deprives it of sharpness and effectiveness. Only by going over to proletarian positions can he give a comprehensive satirical critique. Soviet satire is busy exposing shortcomings in its own ranks. On this path, she managed to conquer a number of very diverse genres: satire fables by D. Poor, Mayakovsky’s satires, short stories by Zoshchenko and great satirical novels by Ilf and Petrov, essays and feuilletons by M. Koltsov, comedies by Bezymensky (“The Shot”), Kirshon (“ A wonderful alloy"), Konstantin Finn. This introduction of satire into almost all genres, this variety of satirical forms, in itself proves how necessary and relevant Soviet satire is.
Now consider the main types of the satirical genre in more detail.
F spruce . The name of this genre comes from the French word " feuille ", which translates as "leaf; leaf." The sheet, in turn, was the name of the supplement to the newspaper, which was usually placed at the bottom of the page and separated from the rest of the newspaper by a bold line. In domestic journalism, this part of the newspaper strip was called the basement. Here were located not only materials that resemble modern feuilletons in their type, but also works that are now called reports, reviews, reviews of literature, etc. The appearance of such cellars in newspapers is attributed by researchers to the 18th century. Over time, the concept of "feuilleton" began to be applied only in relation to one type of text, which is discussed here. Domestic journalism was glorified by such outstanding feuilletonists as M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, V.M. Doroshevich, A.V. Amfiteatrov, M.E. Koltsov, I.A. Ilf and E.P. Petrov, S.D. Narinyani , E.Ya. Parkhomovsky and many others. In Soviet journalism, the feuilleton occupied an exceptionally important place. But with the beginning of reforms in our country, this genre has almost disappeared from the pages of newspapers and magazines. And this did not happen by chance. To a large extent, this "fall" of the genre is due to its features. What are they?
First of all, the feuilleton is a means of ridiculing some kind of evil. It was in this capacity that it was used by the respective founders of the media (represented by Agitprop) for many decades. When the media appeared new founders in the form of "moneybags", all kinds of "administrations", "oligarchs", "financial and industrial groups", etc., it would be strange to expect them to ridicule those things that were done mainly for to their will (or ignorance) and to most of the population of Russia were presented as evil. In addition, against the backdrop of all sorts of "investigations", "leaks", an endless stream of compromising evidence, with the help of which various political forces fought for power for a decade, the feuilleton simply could not look like a "shock" genre. The onset of a certain stabilization in the country, the emerging trend of the revival of moral guidelines in the life of society, will undoubtedly help strengthen the position of the feuilleton.
Not to a small extent, the loss of the once leading positions on the pages of the press by modern feuilleton is also explained by the insufficiently high level of qualification of modern feuilleton writers. Even among those who adequately represent the current feuilleton, one can often find unfortunate blunders.
Pamphlet. Translated from Greek (" pamm fhlego ") the word "pamphlet" means "I ignite everything" or "I incinerate everything." This concept has a mythological basis and is associated with the idea of the wrath of the Olympic gods, primarily their head Zeus the Thunderer, who struck enemies with his lightning. In journalism, a pamphlet is understood as a satirical work aimed at ridiculing certain human vices and humiliating the hero (heroes) who appears to the author as a carrier of dangerous social evil.
Some researchers associate the origin of the pamphlet as a genre with the work of the ancient Greek fabulist Aesop. Among the founders of the European pamphlet of a later time are the names of the outstanding French scientist, philosopher Blaise Pascal (“Letters to a Provincial”), the English writer Bernard Mandeville (“The Grumbled Beehive, or the Fraudsters Who Have Become Honest”). Among the names of domestic pamphleteers, the first is the name of D.I. Pisarev. His famous pamphlet "Bees" is considered a model of political satire on the modern social order. Magnificent pamphleteers who worked for decades in the Soviet press were A.M. Gorky (“City of the Yellow Devil”), L.M. Leonov ("Shadow of Barbarossa"), Ya.A. Galan ("In the service of Satan"), M.A. Sturua ("Legionnaires' Disease") and a number of other masters of the satirical word. A pamphlet on the pages of today's Russian press, like a feuilleton, is a rather rare phenomenon. There is practically no pamphlet on international topics, which, obviously, is explained by the end of the "cold war" that previously existed between the USSR and the "camp of capitalism." Pamphlets on domestic topics (like those sometimes published by V. Novodvorskaya, known for her irreconcilable hostility to the communists) are mainly of a political nature. Nevertheless, this genre exists and, undoubtedly, will be in demand by journalism, as it has been in demand by it for many centuries.
To some extent, the pamphlet resembles a feuilleton. But there is a significant difference between them.
Parody. In satirical journalism, the genre of parody has always been widespread.
Parody is a special kind of satire based on the comic, exaggeratedly emphasized "reproduction of the characteristic individual features of the form of this or that phenomenon, which reveals its comicality and reduces its content."
Parody is a multi-faceted genre associated with understanding the literary and life processes of a certain historical period. Journalism gives parody publicity. A journalist collects material for a parody not as a literary critic, but as a publicist.
Parody is distinguished by a special irony peculiar to it only. The ironic play with logical forms sharpens the satirical parody. Modern publications often parodies newspaper genres, the style of the Soviet press in presenting certain facts and events. In particular, newspaper reports, editorials, interviews, essays, reports, and TASS reports are parodied.
The parody wall newspaper of the "Horns and Hooves" club in the "Literaturnaya Gazeta" focused on an ironic reading of stereotypical information. The newspaper printed several thousand parodies that ridiculed newspaper clichés and pseudo-sensationalism . In the newspaper’s interpretation, the durability of one of the stamps looks like this: “Accident. Late in the evening, citizen N. was returning home. He replied: "In my place, everyone would have done so."
Parody is a means of revealing the inherent failure of what is being parodied. It is comical because it reveals a claim to significance.
With atrial comment. This type of text is a phenomenon related to the analytical commentary. Very often, in its size and polemical sharpness, a satirical commentary resembles the kind of commentary described in Chapter 3, devoted to analytical genres, which is called a replica. However, the satirical commentary differs from the analytical commentary in that the dominant feature of this type of text, which makes it possible to classify it as a family of artistic and journalistic works, is the author's pronounced goal setting - to ridicule the phenomenon that attracted his attention.
Realizing this goal, the journalist first of all turns to the methods of artistic comprehension of reality. Most often, he uses satirical typification for this (it is a type of artistic-figurative typification), irony, litotes, and hyperbolization. Most often, a satirical commentary is currently published following the latest and most ridiculous or harmful actions of various political figures, authorities, institutions, etc., actions that can cause a certain public outcry.
In creativity, as you know, there are no easy ways, but it is especially difficult for a satirist. Perhaps more difficult than any of his fellow writers. The vocation of the satirist is to tear off smiling and pious masks, exposing the predatory grin of Judas hidden under them, to recognize and condemn evil in all its guises. Activities of this kind require both courage, and strength of thought, and warmth of the soul, and tirelessness in the fight against evil, which resists, not wanting to leave life. And we can conclude that satire is still the most powerful weapon of the press.