THE COMIC ART OF SALTYKOV-SHCHEDRIN. (RUSSIAN TEXT) (MIKHAIL EVGRAFOVICH SALTYKOV)

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a better understanding and evaluation of Saltykov-Shchedrin's comic art by analysing his comic technique in the light of modern theories of the comic. Presently, there is no one universally recognised theory that explains all manifestations of the comic in the satirist's work. In the course of this study, those theories that provide the most adequate explanation of a particular comic effect are discussed.; Shchedrin's comic devices are studied on the level of satirical characterization and language. Special effects, such as the grotesque, comic names, and "apocryphal" appearances of borrowed literary heroes are also discussed. The basic procedure employed is to analyse (a) the cause of laughter with reference to the assumed theoretical explanation of the comic, (b) the literary means utilized by the satirist to achieve the comic effect.; The analysis shows that the main comic device employed by the satirist is degradation which he implements with the utmost versatility. Two basic sets of degradation devices--metaphorical and non-metaphorical--are discussed. Metaphorical degradation consists of devices that imply a character's similarity to an animal, a plant, puppet (a moving object), or a thing (non-moving). Non-metaphorical degradation is achieved by infantilizing a character, making him look foolish or reducing his mentality to one obsessed with sensual excesses such as gluttony and sex.; At the level of language, Saltykov-Shchedrin plays with the form and semantics of words and set phrases, as well as with different styles. He does this in part by creating comic neologisms and utilizing ungrammatical speech and repetition of words (or their parts) in close proximity.; The satirist is always careful to balance the comic in his work with the invective, or employs other means to avoid a purely humorous presentation of facts and events. Careful examination of the satirist's style provides no justification for the view entertained by some of his contemporary and later critics that he is primarily a humorous writer seeking to create laughter for laughter sake.