Nationalism of Nikolai Gogol': Betwixt and Between?1, The

Canadian Slavonic Papers, Sep-Dec 2007 by Ilnytzkyj, Oleh S

Even though Dead Souls on its surface aspires to nationalist revelation, it continuously balances on the edge of parodic implosion. It presents Russian uniqueness as a catalog of faults and vices. The novel's nationalistic digressions collapse upon contextual ization; the preview of optimist future volumes, which never materialized, only draw attention to the nationalist inadequacies of the book he did publish (pp. 368369).

Bojanowska also concludes that".. .Gogol's notions of what constitutes a worthy, viable nation were rooted in his conception of Ukraine, as he developed it in the years 1830 to 1836. When trying to create a sympathetic image of Russianness, Gogol kept reaching for the Ukrainian particulars that he held dear: folk songs, love of revelry, Cossack abandon, variegated southern nature. His lifelong cultural belonging to Ukraine contrasted with his civic commitment to Russian nationalism (P- 371)."

Bojanowska's book is not an 'either/or' tract, with simplistic answers to longstanding questions about Gogof's nationality and his relationship to two national cultures. It is a helpful primer for anyone who is interested in objectively reassessing Gogof's purported "Russianness" and his relationship to Ukraine in an imperial context. Her book's major achievement lies not in the frequent references to him as a "Ukrainian," but in the elimination of the categorical and homogenizing tendencies that have put him forward as a clear-cut "Russian." Bojanowska situates Gogol' between Ukrainian and Russian nationalism; the former, we are told, came to him naturally, while the latter evolved as a professional writer's duty which, try as he might, he never was able to discharge with the same love and spontaneity he showed Ukraine. Bojanowska places Gogol', quite appropriately, in the in-between space of the empire (rather than in a "Russian national" setting), showing that his work and personal drama transpired in the frenetic atmosphere that characterized the construction of modem national cultures among Ukrainians and Great Russians. To the Ukrainian Gogol' fell the unenviable and complex task of trying to gratify both nationalities through his writings, while trying to remain true to his ethnic self. Gogof's good faitii effort to please the Great Russians in their national quest caused no amount of frustration for both Gogol' himself and for the Great Russians. One of the more interesting aspects of the book is the evidence Bojanowska marshals, which shows that many Great Russians were suspicious of Gogof's motives when he tackled Russian themes and unconvinced about his "Russian" credentials.

The book consists of six chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. It does not follow a strict chronological order but rather moves back and forth through Gogof's oeuvre to nail down the main tiieme, i.e., an analysis of "the nationalist discourse he produced" (p. 369), placed in the "larger social and political context" (p. 10) of the empire; it shows that nationalism "was also central to the contemporary reviews of Gogol's work" (p. 10). "The book paints a picture of growing complexity in Gogol's handling of nationalist ideology, particularly pre- and post-1836" (p. 11).