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

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

In what may prove to be a shock for some readers, Bojanowska sets out to show that Dead Souls "is unsurpassably grim as a national panorama" (p. 214) and "is singularly ineffective as a nationalistic paean. The novel fails as both a national and a nationalistic novel" (p. 214). Much of tiiis conclusion is based on a contrast between Gogof's descriptions of Ukraine and his portrayal of Russia. Bojanowska also takes pain to show that the nationalistic lyrical digressions (the purported proof of his Russian nationalism)-when carefully scrutinized and contextualized-are hardly the basis for national pride. "The vices described in the novel are not just social or political but pointedly nationar (p. 217), she writes. Comparisons of Russia to Europe ("a staple of Russian nationalism" [p. 220]) "is not to Russia's favor" (p. 220). "The novel parodies the very desire to establish superiority over the West" (p. 221). Gogof's famous paean to the Russian 'word' in Chapter 5 of the novel (popular with nationalistic interpreters), proves to be, under closer scrutiny (pp. 226-227), ambiguous, since it appears to be a reference to "an unprintable swearword" and "to reside exclusively in the lower classes" (p. 226). Ironically, Bojanowska points out: "Gogol's Russian word... derives its strength from the linguistic and stylistic heterogeneity, not the least of it of Ukrainian provenance, with which he himself infused it" (p. 227). She, of course, comments also on the famous-idealized-image of Russia as a troika, convincingly showing it to be "ambiguous like all otiier lyrical interludes" (pp. 231-232). She points out that the troika bears associations with Chichikov's vehicle, which "opens up an interpretive can of worms that mars the sublimity of Russia's final image" (p. 232). For Bojanowska all the central lyrical digressions tiiat supposedly signal "nationalistic fervor" are ultimately deflated by Gogof's irony (p. 233). She concludes that the nationalism of Dead Souls is "profoundly tenuous" (p. 233), that much of the novel's content is "antinationlistic, injurious to any self-respecting nation's ego. What makes Russians Russian... is a set of rather uncomplimentary traits..." (p. 233). She calls the novel "ideologically, profoundly out of joint" (p. 233). "Despite appearing intent on flattering the national ego, Gogol at the same time injures it" (p. 233). Although Gogol' ends his novel with a preview of forthcoming positive and heroic images of Russia in future volumes, Bojanowska reminds us that "despite the author's pained, decade-long labor, Gogol's Russian material simply refused to bode forth this apotheosis" (p. 236) of Russians. Ironically, the "best manifestation of 'Russian' heroic prowess, the 'richness of the Russian spirit... are provide by Gogol's Ukrainian Cossacks in the Russified Taras Bulba of 1842" (p. 236), to which she will turn in the next chapter.

Dead Souls was received by readers both positively and negatively: the former opinion was held by those who were captivated by Gogof's lyrical digressions, while the latter was expressed by tiiose who either put no stock in them or were tired of waiting for a complimentary image of Great Russians. Depending on the point of view, the work was construed either as a masterpiece or a slander. At any rate, it failed to put an end to speculation about Gogof's Russian patriotism and nationality. Bojanowska recounts, for example, how Count F. I. Tolstoy called Gogol' an "enemy of Russia" (p. 237), and how Nikolai Grech called the novel's language "barbaric" and "non-Russian" (p. 238). The "author's Ukrainian identity to a large extent explained and magnified his transgression against the Russian people" (p. 239).