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

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

Chapter 3 concludes by saying that "Gogol's engagement with Ukrainian history represented the pinnacle of his Ukrainian nationalism" (p. 167) and posits tiiat his failure to receive a professorship in Kyiv as a historian leads him to embrace literature and the path of a "serious writer" (p. 168). This apparently self-conscious career decision is connectd "not merely with literature but specifically with Russian literature concerned with Russian life" which in turn "prompted him to enter the sphere of Russian nationalist concerns..." (p. 169; italics added). "Unlike the cozy but provincial Ukraine, only Russia could provide this new, prophetlike Gogol with the proper cultural matrix in his quest for universal significance" (p. 169).

"Confronting Russia" (chapter 4) is about how Gogol' "fully ventured into the Russian thematic... after his transformation from an amateur to a professional man of letters, which took place around 1836" (p. 170; italics added). The emphasis on "theme" is significant because it is through this that Gogol' will be recognized as a "Russian writer" by his Great Russian contemporaries and treated as such by Bojanowska. But if such are the criteria for 'Russianness,' then Gogof's "scanty experience" (p. 170) and "limited knowledge" (p. 170) of Russia actually brings his 'Russianness' into question. "Until after Dead Souls, he also had little interest in learning about Russia" (p. 170). The seven years he lived in Petersburg "led him to regard Russia as an inorganic culture..." (p. 170) and to conclude that it "lacked a national character" (p. 170). Yet his Russian readers expected nationalistic Russian works in the spirit of his Evenings. Bojanowska goes on to show that Gogol' "depicted Russia in eminently unnationlistic" ways, i.e., "Instead of proud affirmation, we get acerbic ridicule" (p. 171). She continues:

Though the negative aspects of Gogol's portrayal of Russia are typically discussed in terms of the author's social critique, I will demonstrate that-to some extent in the Petersburg stories but especially in Dead Souls-the critique is national... The novel's prognosis of the nation's future glory collapses upon contextual ization... While some argued for the correctness of this image [of Russia] and crowned Gogol as an original Russian talent, others accused him of caricature and antinational calumny. Thus as Gogol moves into Russian tiiemes, he simultaneously enters Russia's nationalist cultural politics... (p. 171).

The next 82 pages of this chapter make for very compelling reading as Bojanowska carefully analyzes the Petersburg tales, The Government Inspector, and Dead Souls, which she terms "a parody of a national novel" (p. 210). Two separate sections also examine the reception of the last two works. At the risk of simplifying this vast material, it can be said that Russia (and it should be emphasized that in most cases Bojanowska means Great Russia, not the empire) comes across in less than flattering terms from under Gogof's pen. Petersburg, "as a place of social rifts, superficiality, dehumanization, and fragmentation" "stands in opposition to the cultural wholeness and communality of Ukraine..." (p. 174). The "Russian capital [is] a multinational rather than a 'Russian' locus" (p. 174). "A nationalist rather than a multiculturalist, Gogol perceived such lack of unified identity and organic culture as unsettling and even demonic" (p. 176). Nevertheless, critics like Belinsky were "pleased to note that 'everyone is Russian'" (p. 187) in stories like "Nevsky Prospect" and "Diary of a Madman," although Bojanowska suggests that the protagonist, Poprishchin, may actually be Ukrainian (cf. pp. 184-186). Be that as it may, through the Petersburg stories (perceived as "Russian," that is, Great Russian) "Gogol's status as a Ukrainian writer... [is] redefined [by Belinsky]: he is now seen as major Russian author of Ukrainian provenance" (p. 187).