298

p One of the most remarkable phenomena in the literature of the second half of the seventeenth century is the formation and development of satire as an independent literary genre,  [298•1  brought about by specific social conditions prevailing at the time.

p The formation of a single all-Russian market in the second half of the seventeenth century created a greater role for merchants and craftsmen of the cities in the economic and cultural life of the country. But 299 politically this part of the population still had no rights and was subject to merciless exploitation and oppression. The trade community responded to this increase in oppression with frequent uprisings in the cities, which helped to increase class consciousness. The appearance of democratic satire was a consequence of the active participation of democratic strata in the trade community in the class struggle. Satire also served the cause of this struggle.

p Thus the reality of insurrectionist tendencies in Russia in the seventeenth century served as the soil for the Srowth of satire. Its keen social conscience and antieudal orientation made it akin to poetic folk satire, which was an inexhaustible source of artistic means and devices.

p Satire exposed the most important aspects of life in a feudal society of serfs and masters; these included unjust and venal courts; social inequality; the immoral life of the clergy and monastic community, their hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness and cupidity; the “state system" of turning the people into drunkards through the “tsar’s taverns".

Two tales, Tale of an Unjust Trial (Shemyakin sud) and Ruff Ruffson, the Son of Bristle (Yorsh Yershovich, Syn Shchetinnikov), expose the evils of the court system based on the 1649 Assembly Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The Tale of an Unjust Trial

In the Tale of an Unjust Trial (Shemyakin sud) the object of satirical exposition is the judge Shemyaka, a bribe-taker and pettifogger. Enticed by the possibility of a large bribe, he interprets the law casuistically. While formally levelling accusations against the defendant, a poor peasant, Shemyaka applies the re compensatory form of punishment prescribed by the Code of 1649. He does not in any way deviate from legal norms, but his verdict puts the plaintiffs—a rich peasant, a priest and a city dweller—in a comical position, and they are obliged to pay off the poor peasant so that he will not demand

300 the implementation of the court’s verdict.

p Thus the poor man triumphs over the world of greed, cupidity and the arbitrary rule of the court. Thanks to his wits and resourcefulness the poor man receives justice in court. He places a stone wrapped up in a kerchief in his bosom and pulls it out to show to the judge as each suit is being decided. If the court had not decided in his favour, that stone would have undoubtedly been sent flying at Shemyaka’s head. So when the judge finds out that instead of a fat bribe the poor man was holding a stone under his coat, he begins to “praise God for judging in his favour".

p So in the story the poor man triumphs over the powerful, and Right triumphs over Wrong due to a mistake on the part of the corrupt judge.

The artistic structure of the tale is based on the Russian satirical folk tale about the unjust judge, and the fairy tale about the “Wise Diviners”; the plot develops rapidly, the series of crimes committed by the poor man lack any verisimilitude, and the judge and plaintiffs end up in a comical position. The apparently dispassionate tone of the narrative, which reads like a stenographic report of court proceedings, heightens the satirical effect of the tale.

The Tale of Ruff Ruff son,
Son of Bristle

p The Tale of Ruff Ruff son, Son of Bristle (Povest o Yershe Yershoviche, syne Shchetinnikove), written some time between 1660 and 1690 and extant in four different versions, presents a graphic satirical picture of the practices of the voyevoda’s (governor’s) court. The first and oldest version is the most interesting because it reflects most fully the social conflicts of the period.

p The tale deals with one of the characteristic features of the time, the property suits brought by peasants—in this case the suit brought by “God’s orphans" Bream and Chub (Leshch and Golavl) against that “evil man”, “slanderer” and “brigand”, Ruff the boyar’s son.

p Bream and Chub declare that Rostov lake rightfully 301 belongs to them and that it has been forcefully taken away from them by Ruff, and for this reason they are petitioning the great judges, “boyar” Sturgeon, White Sturgeon and voyevoda Sheatfish, to redress their grievances.

p Ruff denies the charge; he not only tries to prove that the property he has seized is legally his, but also files a counter suit against Bream and Chub, declaring that they were his father’s serfs. In this fashion Ruff not only has their suit withdrawn (serfs had no legal rights) but also tries to transform free peasants into his own serfs.

p But when witnesses are questioned they establish Ruff’s guilt; it turns out that he is not a “boyar’s son" at all, but a simple peasant. The court sentences Ruff to the pillory, to “hang in the sun on hot days for his robbery and slander".

p The tale unmasks the cunning, ambitious and arrogant Ruff who has tried to appropriate the property of others through force and deceit and to make the peasants around him his bond serfs. But at the same time the author of the tale shows Ruff’s superiority over the sluggish, stupid and greedy judges. In another version of the story the author concludes by scoffing at the decision of the court. After hearing the sentence, Ruff announces that the judges did not come to a judgement on the basis of the law, but because they were bribed; he spits in their eye and “jumped into the brushwood, and that was the last they saw of him”. Thus the object of satire in the story is not only the “evil” Ruff, but also the distinguished judges.

p I. P. Lapitsky calls this tale a satirical fable where allegory has no place; the satire stems from the whole complex of purely mundane relationships depicted by the author.   [301•1 

p The tale represents the first example of literary Aesopian satire wherein the fish act exactly as fish should, but their relations mirror human relations in 302 society. The author makes use of images from folk animal tales, increasing their social significance through satire. The satirical impact of unmasking vices is heightened by the successful form of the tale, that of a legal document, a stenographic record of the court proceedings. By adhering strictly to the legal jargon the author achieves a splendid satirical effect.

Belinsky called this tale and the Tale of an Unjust Trial “historical documents of inestimable value”, seeing in them a clear reflection of Russian wit with its subtle irony and sarcastic tone.  [302•1 

The ABCs of a Poor Man

The ABCs of a Poor Man (Azbuka o golom i nebogatom cheloveke), written in the traditional form of didactic ABCs, bitingly reveals social injustice and inequality. Its hero, a poor man, describes with bitter sarcasm all his misfortunes for whom he blames the “rich evildoers”, those who possess “plenty of everything, both money and clothing”, who “live in luxury and spare nothing for us poor”. This socially topical tale, with its terse and aphoristic idiom, was widely popular in the democratic strata.

The Kalyazin Petition

p The anticlerical theme is one of the most important in the satirical literature of the seventeenth century. The Tale of Savva the Priest, written in rhymed verse, reveals the avarice and greed of priests. Another clearly denunciatory document, this one dealing with the life and mores of monasticism, is The Kalyazin Petition. It ridicules the satisfied, drunken, debauched life of monks. In withdrawing from the world and its vanities, their intention is by no means to subjugate the desires of the flesh and give themselves over to prayer and 303 penance. Behind the stone walls of the monastery they eat their fill and lead a life of drunken revelry. The tale selects as the object of satire one of the greatest monasteries of Rus, the Kalyazin monastery, which allows the author to disclose typical traits of Russian monasticism in the seventeenth century.

p The monks of the monastery write a tearful petition to Simeon, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin, to complain about their new archimandrite Gabriel. The monks have been used to a life of drunkenness, gluttony and debauchery, not prayer and fasting. Therefore they are roused to indignation by their new archimandrite, who suddenly introduces the old order and demands that the monastic rule be strictly observed. They complain that the new archimandrite does not give them any peace, “forces us to go early to church and torments us, your devout servants”. The monks are also indignant about the fact that Gabriel has begun to strictly watch over their morals. “According to the archimandrite’s command the crooked Falalei has been stationed by the gates with a whip, and he does not allow us, your devout servants, to go past the gates, to go into town— to watch over the cattle in the courtyard, drive the calves back to the herd, to set the cocks in the cellar and give our blessing to the cowgirls.”

p The petition stresses that the main source of income for the monastery is brewing beer and wine, and Gabriel’s ban can only bring ruin to the monastery treasury.

p The petition also unmasks the formal piety of the monks, who are displeased about having to go to church and pray. They complain that the archimandrite “does not watch over the treasury, lights lots of candles and incense, and in so doing he, the archimandrite, has made the church musty and blackened the censers, and for us, your devout servants, it irritates our eyes and sticks in our throats”. The monks themselves are quite willing not to attend church.

p Nor does the author of the satire bypass the social differences typical for the monastic brotherhood, between the novices, the lowest ranking monks, and the ruling circle headed by the archimandrite.

p The cruel, greedy, mercenary-minded archimandrite 304 is also the object of satirical exposure in the tale. The monks hate him for his oppressive treatment. He introduces a system of corporal punishment in the monastery, forcing the monks in his fanaticism to “bellow out the canons under a whip”. “He himself lives in grand style, but makes us monks put on penitential irons both on holiday and weekday. He has broken many a stick and torn many a whip on our backs.” The greedy archimandrite starves the monastic brotherhood, serving up “boiled turnips, dried radishes, home-brewed kissel, cereal that tastes like hemp and carrot soup, and he pours kvass into the winebowls".

p In the petition the monks not only complain about the archimandrite, but demand that he be replaced by a man who is much more “inclined to drink beer and wine and not go to church”. They even threaten to rise up in rebellion against their oppressors.

p Behind the jesting of the drunken monks one senses the hatred of the people toward the monasteries and feudal ecclesiasts. The main satirical device is caustic irony concealed within the tearful complaint of the petitioners.

One of the characteristic traits of the style of the petition is its aphoristic quality; the sarcasm is often expressed in the form of popular rhymed ditties, which reveal in the author of The Kalyazin Petition “the sly Russian wit, so inclined to irony, so goodhearted in its slyness".  [304•1 

The Tale of the Cock and the Fox

p Employing the allegorical images of the Russian folk fable, the Tale of the Fox and the Cock unmasks the hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness of priests and monks, the inner falsehood of their external piety. In the sly hypocrisy of the Fox one can easily make out the typical priest, who hides his greedy, mercenary goals behind the facade of unctious “divine words”. As soon as the Fox manages to fool the Cock and has him in her 305 clutches, her mask falls off and she is no longer the confessor mourning over the sins of the Cock. Now the Fox lists the personal insults levied by the Cock against her in preventing her from ravaging the henhouse.

p The tale also subjects Holy Scripture to criticism, underscoring its contradictions. In their logomachy the Fox and the Cock both quote Scripture to prove their case. The Fox accuses the Cock of committing the mortal sin of polygamy and failing to love his neighbour, basing her accusations on the Gospels. The Cock counters by quoting from the book of Genesis. The tale convincingly demonstrates that texts from Holy Scripture can be used to justify any sort of morality.

All these things point to the development of social consciousness, a critical spirit beginning to take hold in man’s intellect as he attempts to put Christian dogmas to the test.

The Tale of the Drunkard

p The Tale of the Drunkard is constructed on a bold antithesis between a drunken reveller and the saints dwelling in heaven. The tale demonstrates the moral superiority of the reveller over the “righteous”. Among those accounted worthy of bliss in paradise are the apostle Peter, who denied Christ three times, the apostle Paul, who murdered the first Christian martyr Stephan, adulturous King David, a sinner whom God rescued from hell, King Solomon, and the murderer Bishop Nicholas. Setting up the drunkard in contrast to them, the author not only makes them equals, but stresses the moral superiority of the drunkard over the “holy fathers”. The reveller, after all, finds them guilty of transgressions, whereas he has never committed such sins: he has not killed, or committed adultery, or denied God—on the contrary, every time he raises the cup he sings praises to Christ.

p The reveller even accuses the saints of transgressing against the Gospel’s law of love when they try to prevent him from entering paradise: “Along with Luke you wrote in the Gospels, ’Love one another’; God loves 306 everyone,, but you hate the newcomer! " the reveller boldly says to St. John. Driven into a corner, John is forced to admit, “You’re our man, reveller! Join us in paradise! " And in paradise the reveller occupies the highest position, which the “saints” would not dare to contest.

In this jesting, fairy-tale-like situation we find a wrathful satire on the church and the reverence it pays to the saints.

The Festival of Tavern Drunks

p The satirical Festival of Tavern Drunks, or Service to the Tavern, is constructed on a daring parallel between a drunkard and a Christian martyr. The tale denounces the “state system" of promoting drunkenness through the “tsar’s tavern”. In order to supplement its income the state established its monopoly on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in the middle of the seventeenth century. A network of “tsar’s taverns" was established across the country, governed by “ osculators”, who were so called because they vowed—by kissing the cross to “fearlessly await the state’s favour in working for profit.”

p The “tsar’s tavern" became a source of deprivation for the people. Taking advantage of their rights, the “escalators” had no qualms about getting the working masses drunk and robbing them. For this reason the Festival of Tavern Drunks, in exposing this system, represents a keen and relevant commentary.

p The tale does not take a religious, moralistic approach to drunkenness, but attacks the “tsar’s tavern" head on as an “evil teacher" and “robber of Christian souls”. Taking the form of a worship service (Greater and Lesser Compline) in honour of “wine, beer and mead, the three blinders, fleecers of Christians and befoggers of human minds”, the tale allows the author to freely develop his theme. He denounces the tsar’s tavern, that “house of ruin”, the source of “unending poverty”, an evil “teacher” leading men into “poverty and despair".

307

p In denouncing the “tsar’s tavern" the author pours out his wrath on those who promote drunkenness, the ruling circles of society. The tale warns people about the evils of drunkenness, which can only bring misery and unhappiness, depriving men of their humanity and human dignity.

p The caustic irony of the satire stems from the incongruity between the elevated form of the workchurch hymns and chants—and the “tsar’s taverns" which constitute the subject. The author speaks with irony of the “new martyrs" of the tavern and concludes his tale with the vita of a drunkard. Employing the form of a saint’s vita, the work paints a terrible picture of man’s moral degeneration.

p Seventeenth century satirical literature was planted in the reality of the times and was the result of the growth of class consciousness within the democratic strata of Russia’s urban population. Its appearance demonstrates that the church was losing its former authority in all spheres of human life.

p Democratic satire treated the most critical aspects of feudal society, and it developed hand in hand with folk satire. Both had a common ideological orientation and definite class message, and both avoided abstract moralising.

p Democratic literary satire borrowed from folk satire in its frequent use of chancellory forms (court records, minutes of legal proceedings, petitions) and ecclesiastical genres (the form of the worship service and the vita). The basic tools of satire were parody, exaggeration, and Aesopian language. A broad artistic picture was presented in the depiction of nameless satirical personae. It is true, of course, that these characters were lacking in individual traits and were merely collective images of the social milieu being depicted; but they were shown under everyday life conditions, and their inner world was revealed for the first time in satirical form.

p One of the great achievements of democratic satire was its depiction—for the first time in Russian literature—of the downtrodden, the “naked and barefoot" in 308 all their undisguised misery.

Democratic satire of the seventeenth century made enormous strides in bringing literature close to life, and it laid the foundations for the further development or satire in the eighteenth century and the unprecedented heights it achieved in the nineteenth century. Herein lies its significance.

Sources

p 1. F. I. Buslayev, “Povest o Gore-Zloschastii" (“The Tale of WoeMisfortune”), in Istoricheskie ocherki russkoi narodnoi slovesnosti i iskusstva (Historical Essays on Russian Folk Literature and Art), vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1861.

p 2. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi (Man in

p Old Russian Literature), M., 1970 (chapters 8, 9 and 10).

p 3. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz (ed.), Russkaya demokraticheskaya satira XVII veka (Russian Democratic Satire of the Seventeenth Century), M.-L., 1954.

4. Russkaya povest XVII veka (Russian Tales of the Seventeenth Century). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1954.