Canadian Slavonic Papers

The Nationalism of Nikolai Gogol': Betwixt and Between?

Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism by Edyta M. Bojanowska; Between
Gogol' and Ševčenko by George S.N. Luckyj
Review by: Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj
Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 49, No. 3/4 (September-
December 2007), pp. 349-368
Published by: Canadian Association of Slavists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871207 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Review Article
Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj

The Nationalismof Nikolai Gogol?: Betwixt and

Between?1
Mr.Nicolasde Gogol,Ukrainien,établi
a Moscou,auteurde quelquescomédies
russes.
Almanackde Carlsbad(1846)
On lui reproche, m'a-t-ondit,certain
patriotisme provincial.Petit-Russien,il
auvraitje nesaisquellepredilection
pour
la Petite-Russieau prejudicedu restede
l'empire.
ProsperMérimée( 1851)2

Eversincehis firststorieswerepublishedin 1831-1832muchhas beenwritten

aboutGogol1 as a Ukrainian andhisrelationship toUkrainian culture.Nevertheless,
Gogol"s dominant imagetodayremainsthatof themonolithic "GreatRussian
Writer" (yelikiirusskiipisatel*).It is amazinghow manyreadersand students
(especiallyRussiansfrom theformer SovietUnion)areunawarethatGogol'was a
Ukrainian andthathehadstrong Ukrainian sympathies. Perhapsthisshouldnotbe
surprisinggiven that much of Gogolianscholarship considershisUkrainian origins
tobe nomorerelevant than,say,ifhe wereborn in Tula orKaluga.Studiesofthis
kindgivetheimpression of deliberatelyweavinga torturously complexthread
through thefabric of hislifeand work inordertoavoid bumping itsUkrainian
into
aspects.The latterare regularly as
marginalized something andshort-
insignificant
lived- ortreated as a variantofanill-defined"Russianness." Whilethere hasbeen
seriousscholarship, bothUkrainianand Russian,thathas demonstrated the
of Gogol"s Ukrainian
centrality background to an understanding of his lifeand
work - onethinks ofpeopleas diverseas Panteleimon Kulish,IevhenMalaniuk,
GeorgeLuckyj,IuriiBarabash,IosifMandelshtam, VasiliiGippius,to namea
few- virtually no one todayin mainstream criticism identifieshim,as did,say,

Reviewof EdytaM. Bojanowska,NikolaiGogol: BetweenUkrainianand Russian

Nationalism.
Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity
Press,2007. 460 pp. Bibliography,
Index,IndexofWorksCited.$59.95,cloth.
Bothepigraphsare fromGeorgeS.N. Luckyj,BetweenGogol'and Sevcenko(Munich:
WilhelmFinkVerlag,1971) 122.

CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue
canadienne
des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350 Review Articles

Piksanovinthe 1930s,as a "Ukrainian-Russian"writer.3

The prevalenttendencyis
stillto distanceGogol1fromUkraineand toplace himinan unambivalentlyRussian
nationalcontext.In 1999 Boris Gasparov expressedtheview that
Itwouldbe futiletocharacterizeGogolas an ardentUkrainian a champion
patriot, of
its landand people. Such a depictionof Gogol sharesthefateof otherofficious
portraitsof thewriterthatview him,forexample,as a "criticalrealist"or as the
defender ofthe"smallman.. ."4

Gasparov adds: "Gogol's Romantic mythologizationof his double national

allegiance offerslittleto those who would like to see him as a champion of
Ukrainianhistory, language,and literature"
(p. 122). ClarenceBrown,writingsoon
afterthe collapse of the Soviet Union, expressed in a feuilletonthe hope that
"...perhapsUkrainianswill feel sufficiently secure in thepossession of theirown
state,theirown languageand theirown literature to cease claimingNikolai Gogol'
as an ornamentoftheirnationalculture...."5The patronizingtonewe see hereis not
untypicalforthose who see Gogol' as an archetypalRussian writerwhose only
naturalplace is in Russian literatureand culture.
It is preciselyagainstsuchpositionsthatEdytaM. Bojanowska's bookNikolai
Gogol: Between Ukrainianand Russian Nationalismis written.Diplomatically,
elegantly,and withsharpintelligence,she setsoutto underminethis"Russocentric
view of Gogol" (p. 5):
Thestandard RussianviewofGogolholdsthathewas an ardent andsincereRussian
HisUkrainian
patriot. heritage, forall thefruititprovidedhisinspiration,amounted to
no morethanan accidentof birththathe shedlikea cocoononcehe foundhistrue
place in Russianculture...Gogol's overriding allegianceto Russiannationalism,
according tothiscanonicalview,shinesthrough andunambiguously
brilliantly inhis
writings,whichfurnish ample'proofs'forreconstructing thewriter'snational
psyche.
The artisticintegrityof Gogol's works,theirembeddedness in largersocial and
nationalist theirirony,
contexts, andthecomplexdevicesofnarratorial misdirection
anddistancing thatGogolpracticed withconsiderable asidein
skillcanall be brushed
thisgrandprojectofnationalistic exegesis....
Farfroman arguedposition, thisviewofGogolis oneofthecardinalaxiomsof
Russiancultural criticism,implicitly underlying virtuallyall ofRussianandWestern
scholarship on thewriter.
. . (pp. 3-4).
IfGasparovand Brownappearedto be makingan extraeffort tobringclosuretothe
annoying debate on whetherGogol' was a Ukrainian or - by
Russian writer
authoritatively the
declaring issue settledin Russia's -
favour Bojanowskagivethis

N. K. Piksanov,"UkrainiskiepovestiGogolia,"Ο klassikax.Sbornikstatei(Moscow:
Moskovskoe T-voPisatelei,1933)47.
4
BorisGasparov,
"AlienationandNegation:Gogol'sViewofUkraine," inGogol:Exploring
Absence(Slavic:Bloomington, Indiana,1999) 115-116.
ClarenceBrown,"Ukrainians GetNo Respect,"Princeton AlumniWeekly, 9 December
(1992): 17.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 351

complexproblem newlifethrough a scrupulous analysisofGogol"s works,letters

and receptionhistory.Much of the groundshe coversis familiarbut it is
constructively 'madestrange'through themulti facetedway she unitesRussian
nationalistconcerns with the Ukrainian. Her data allows herto concludethat
"Gogolindubitably retainssignificance for both RussianandUkrainian literature.
inflected
His nationalistically fictionandnonfiction participatein bothUkrainian
andRussiannationalism" (p. 375). Shealsobelieves,thatearlynineteenth-century
criticslikeFaddeiBulgarin - critics whodeclinedtobestowon Gogol'themantel
of a nationalRussianwriter - were"largely justified"(p. 368) in theirposition.
"[M]y analysis," continues Bojanowska,"suggeststhat Gogol's Russian
nationalism was nota deeplyandsincerely heldconviction, buta rathercontrived
aspect of hispublicpersona. . . While professing complete conformance to various
popular orthodoxies of Russian nationalism, Gogol often subverted them. His
treatment ofRussiannationalism is as farfroman uncomplicated apotheosis as it
canbe. On thecontrary, nearlyall ofhispronouncements onthissubjectfeature a
treacherous falsebottom"(pp. 369-370). "Gogol's fictionon Russia offersa
national rebukerather thanapotheosis" (p. 368),sheadds.
EventhoughDeadSoulsonitssurface tonationalist
aspires itcontinuously
revelation,
ontheedgeofparodie
balances Itpresents
implosion. Russian
uniquenessasa catalog
of faultsand vices. The novel's nationalistic collapse upon
digressions
thepreview
contextualization; future
ofoptimist which
volumes, never materialized,
tothenationalist
onlydrawattention ofthebookhedidpublish
inadequacies (pp.368-
369).
Bojanowskaalso concludesthat". . .Gogol'snotions ofwhatconstitutes a worthy,
viablenationwererootedinhisconception ofUkraine, as he developeditinthe
years1830to 1836.Whentrying to createa sympathetic imageof Russianness,
Gogolkeptreaching fortheUkrainian thathehelddear:folksongs,love
particulars
of revelry, Cossackabandon,variegated southern nature.His lifelongcultural
belonging toUkraine contrastedwithhisciviccommitment toRussiannationalism
(p. 371)."
Bojanowska'sbook is notan 'either/or' tract,withsimplistic answersto
longstanding questions about s
Gogol" nationality and his relationshipto two
national Itis a helpful
cultures. for
primer anyone who is interestedinobjectively
reassessing Gogol"spurported "Russianness" andhisrelationship toUkraineinan
imperial Herbook'smajorachievement
context. liesnotinthefrequent references
tohimas a "Ukrainian," butintheelimination ofthecategorical andhomogenizing
tendencies thathaveputhimforward as a clear-cut"Russian."Bojanowska situates
Gogol1between Ukrainian andRussiannationalism; theformer, we aretold,came
tohimnaturally, whilethelatter evolvedas a professional writer'sdutywhich,try
as hemight, heneverwas abletodischarge withthesameloveandspontaneity he
showedUkraine. BojanowskaplacesGogol',quiteappropriately, inthein-between
spaceoftheempire(rather thanina "Russiannational"setting), showingthathis
des slavistes
canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3^, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 ReviewArticles

workandpersonaldramatranspired inthefrenetic atmosphere thatcharacterized

theconstruction ofmodern national cultures amongUkrainians andGreatRussians.
To theUkrainian Gogol'felltheunenviable andcomplextaskoftrying togratify
bothnationalities his while
through writings, trying to remain trueto hisethnic self.
s
Gogol" good faith effort
to please the Great Russians in theirnationalquest caused
noamount offrustration forbothGogol'himself andfortheGreatRussians.Oneof
themoreinteresting aspectsof thebook is theevidenceBojanowskamarshals,
whichshowsthatmanyGreatRussiansweresuspicious ofGogol"s motives when
hetackledRussianthemesandunconvinced abouthis"Russian"credentials.
Thebookconsists ofsixchapters, anintroduction anda conclusion. Itdoesnot
followa strictchronological order but rathermoves back and forththrough Gogol"s
oeuvretonaildownthemaintheme, i.e.,ananalysisof"thenationalist discourse he
produced" (p. 369),placedinthe"largersocialandpoliticalcontext" (p. 10)ofthe
empire;itshowsthatnationalism "wasalsocentral tothecontemporary reviewsof
Gogol's work"(p. 10). "The book paintsa pictureof growingcomplexity in
Gogol'shandling ofnationalist ideology, particularly pre-andpost-1836" (p. 11).
Thefirstchapter, following a short theoretical section, outlines nationalism in
RussiaandUkrainefrom approximately thefirst quarter ofthenineteenth century.
"Nationalism" is used "in thesenseof a discourse"(p. 17) as definedby Craig
Calhoun.SlavophileandWesternizers' notions oftheRussiannation arediscussed,
as is OfficialNationality, witha briefoverviewof Gogol"s attitude towardsall
three.More important, in myview,is theemphasison "thenational-imperial
complex," thatis,theprojectofcreating a Russiannationonthebasisof"thenon-
RussianEastSlaviclands,especially Ukraine" (p. 24). HereBojanowskadeclares:
"Formypurpose, theriseofGogolas a writer from theUkrainian periphery toan
icon of Russiannationalism demandsan analyticalframework thatpaysequal
attentionto imperialand nationalissues.Certainly, Gogol himselfoverlaidan
explorationof the nationaldifferences between Ukraine andRussiawithan acute
awareness oftheimperial connection thatlinkedthem"(p. 26).
TheriseoftheUkrainian cultural movement during thisperiodis succinctly
describedas well as the reactionto it by imperialauthorities and Russian
nationalism:"Theimperial center viewedUkrainian nationalism as apostasyfrom
theRussiannation"(p. 32). "Theincreasingly assertive Russiannationalism cum
imperialism founda separateUkrainianidentity unacceptable and proliferated
forRussia'sdomination
justifications overUkraine" (p. 33). Gogol'is presented as
contributing to "Russia's imperial-national ideology"(p. 34), "of successfully
transplanting intoRussianliterature" "a Ukrainian visionofnationaluniqueness
andwaysofencodingitinart.. ." (p. 35).
ChaptertwoexaminesGogol'as he moves"froma Ukrainian to a Russian
author"(p. 37), providing relatively familiar background about his earlywriting
periodandrelationship toUkraine.Thecoreofthechapter is a verygoodanalysis
ofEveningson a FarmNearDikankaas a "Ukrainian-Russian contactzone"(p.
40). Here forthe firsttime,en passant,we hearof Gogol"s "pro-Mazepist

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 353

sympathies," whichwillbe givengreater attention later.Atthisstage,Bojanowska

establishes a keypoint:"Intranslating hisnativeUkrainian culture intotheRussian
imperialone," she writes,"Gogol takestheutmostcare to makehis material
palatable and attractive" (p. 42; emphasismine).For Bojanowska,Gogol"s
"discursive nationalisms" - Ukrainian andRussianinturn - arecontingent basically
on hisattitude ormoreprecisely, description of, Ukrainian andRussianrealiain
eithera positiveornegative way.Evenings, according toBojanowska, is a "major
manifestation ofGogol'sUkrainian nationalism thatsprings from an anti-imperial
impulse" (p. 37) precisely becauseoftheaffirmative andaffectionate nature ofthe
narrative. This particular use and understanding of "nationalism," it shouldbe
stressed,is not only Bojanowska's methodology but also a reflection of
contemporary attitudes. As she it,
puts "early critics saw it [Evenings] as an
emanation ofUkrainian nationalism andtreated Gogolas a Ukrainian writer. . ." (p.
37; emphasismine).She also sees otherinteresting thingsintheDikankastories,
suchas "ambiguity and subversive mockery" (p. 43) in relationto theempire,
especiallyitscentre,St. Petersburg. Bojanowskasummarizes herverydetailed
reading ofEvenings bystating that"Gogol'sworkparticipates inthediscourse of
Russianimperialism onlysuperficially..." (p. 74). He "contrasts theinsignificant
imperial present withthepreimperial gloryandbydoingso undermines theimperial
project" (p. 74). "Russia'scivilizing missionis showntobe anabysmalfailure. . ."
(p. 75). "In thecontext ofRussia'simperial drivetoannihilate Ukrainian alterity,
thisaccentuation ofseparate identityplayeda decidedly nationalistic role"(p. 76).
Thissecondchapter alsocontains a veryengaging survey of how critics reacted
toEvenings. Itisprefaced by theobservation that "the author of Evenings taken
was
tobe a Ukrainian, rather thana Russian,writer." Bojanowska adds: "Russian
then
literary history hasbeen very successful in forgetting thisfact"(p. 78). Shenotes
thereactions, amongothers, of V. A. Ushakov (he "locatestheworkwithin
contemporary Ukrainian literature despiteGogol's oftheRussianlanguage"[p.
use
79]); and Nikolai Nadezhdin (who "classifiesGogol as a Ukrainian writer and
comments onUkraine as a nation"[p.80]).Evenings servesas anoccasion(e.g.,for
NikolaiPolevoi)todrawcomparisons between Ukrainians andRussians(cf.p. 82).
We see inthischapter also thefirst attempts (i.e.,by StepanShevyrev) to claim
"Gogol's extraordinary talentforRussianletters"(p. 84). Gogol' earnsthis
"promotion" (p. 84) "byvirtueofhistalent, originality andimperviousness tothe
affliction thatplaguesRussianliterature: theimitation ofEuropean models"(p. 84).
Shevyrev "encourages Gogolto depictRussianhighsocietyandto abandonthe
topicofUkraineanditssimplefolk"(p. 84). "Thede-Ukrainization ofGogolian
humor beganbyShevyrev was continued byBelinsky..."(p. 85). Bojanowskaat
thispointcitesother examples ofhow criticstransformed Gogol'"from a Ukrainian
toa Russianwriter" (p. 86).
Chapter3 is titled"The Politicsof WritingHistory,"a focuson "the
nationalism of Gogol'shistorical writings" andhowhe "opposedthenotionsof

canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 ReviewArticles

officialRussianhistoriography" (p. 89). The chapterhas 80 pages (thesecond

longestin the book) and containsnine sections,amongthem:"Gogol the
Professional Historian," "TeachingUniversalHistoryin the Spiritof Official
Nationality,""AncientRome:Parallelsto theRussianEmpireand theCossack
Ukraine,""TheOriginoftheUkrainian Nation."Overall,thisis anexcellent survey
of Gogol's historical Of
writings. particular interestis thesectiontitled"From
OstranitsatoMazepa:Abandoned Literary Projects,"whichbeginswiththistelling
statement: "WhileRussianhistory did notinspireGogol to composea single
scholarlyorfictional text,thewriter's engagement withUkrainian historyproduced
a varietyof worksof bothkinds"(p. 155). Here Bojanowskafocuseson the
unfinished novel "The Hetman"and an unpublishedfragment, "Mazepa's
Meditations,"whichI havenotseenanalyzedthiscarefully anywhere. Bojanowska
characterizes the "Meditations"as "the most curiousspecimenin Gogol's
miscellaneaon Ukrainian history" (p. 161),a "pieceoffictionthatgrewoutof
Gogol's historical research, ratherthana scholarlynote"(p. 161) as previous
editorsofhisworkbelieved.Bojanowskacallsthisone ofGogol"snationalistic
"indiscretions"(p. 161) in thatit "radicallydepartsfromthedenunciations and
personalvilification thatwerethestapleof Mazepa's Russianimage"(p. 163).
Gogol'"portrays Mazepaas a statesman anda prudent politician,motivated notby
greed,treachery, or revengebutbythoughts ofhispeople'swelfare.Farfroma
Machiavellian schemer, Gogol'sMazepais a nationalleader"(p. 163)."WhileΆ
Glanceat theMakingof LittleRussia'was tentative andevasiveon theissueof
Ukrainian statehood, 'Mazepa's Meditations' unequivocally affirms it"(p. 163),
saysBojanowska.
Chapter3 concludesby sayingthat"Gogol's engagement withUkrainian
history the
represented pinnacle of his Ukrainian nationalism" (p. 167)andposits
thathis failureto receivea professorship in Kyivas a historian leads himto
embraceliterature andthepathofa "seriouswriter" (p. 168). This apparently self-
consciouscareerdecisionis connectd "notmerely withliterature butspecifically
withRussianliterature concerned withRussianlife"whichinturn"prompted him
to enterthesphereof Russiannationalist concerns..."(p. 169; italicsadded).
"Unlikethecozy butprovincialUkraine,onlyRussiacouldprovidethisnew,
prophetlike Gogol withthe properculturalmatrixin his quest foruniversal
significance"(p. 169).
"Confronting Russia"(chapter 4) is abouthowGogol·"fullyventured intothe
Russianthematic. . . after histransformation from anamateur toa professionalman
whichtookplacearound1836"(p. 170;italicsadded).Theemphasis
ofletters, on
"theme"is significant becauseitis through thisthatGogol'willbe recognized as a
"Russianwriter"by his GreatRussiancontemporaries and treatedas suchby
Bojanowska. But if such are thecriteria for 'Russianness,' thenGogol"s"scanty
experience" 1
(p. 70) and "limited knowledge" 1
(p. 70) of Russia actuallybrings his
'Russianness'intoquestion."UntilafterDead Souls,he also hadlittleinterest in
learningaboutRussia"(p. 170).ThesevenyearshelivedinPetersburg "ledhimto

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 355

regardRussiaas an inorganic culture.. ." (p. 170) andtoconcludethatit"lackeda

national
character"(p. 170).YethisRussianreaders expectednationalisticRussian
worksin thespiritof his Evenings.Bojanowskagoes on to showthatGogol'
"depictedRussia in eminently unnationlistic" ways, i.e., "Insteadof proud
we
affirmation,get acerbic ridicule"(p. 171). She continues:
Though thenegative aspectsofGogol'sportrayal ofRussiaaretypically in
discussed
termsoftheauthor's socialcritique,I willdemonstratethat- tosomeextent inthe
stories
Petersburg butespecially inDeadSouls - thecritique
isnational.
.. Thenovel's
ofthenation's
prognosis future
glory collapses .. Whilesome
uponcontextualization.
arguedforthecorrectness ofthisimage[ofRussia]andcrowned Gogolas anoriginal
Russian others
talent, accusedhimofcaricature andantinational
calumny. Thusas
GogolmovesintoRussianthemes, he simultaneously enters Russia'snationalist
cultural (p. 171).
politics...
Thenext82 pagesofthischapter makeforverycompelling reading as Bojanowska
carefully analyzesthePetersburgtales,TheGovernment Inspector, andDead Souls,
whichsheterms "a parodyofa national novel"(p. 2 10). Twoseparate sectionsalso
examinethereception ofthelasttwoworks.Attheriskof simplifying thisvast
material, itcanbe saidthatRussia(anditshouldbe emphasized thatinmostcases
BojanowskameansGreatRussia,notthe empire)comes acrossin less than
flattering termsfromunderGogol"spen.Petersburg, "as a place of socialrifts,
superficiality, and
dehumanization, fragmentation" "stands in opposition to the
cultural wholeness andcommunality ofUkraine. . ." (p. 174). The"Russiancapital
[is] a multinationalratherthana 'Russian'locus"(p. 174). "A nationalist rather
thana multiculturalist,Gogolperceived such lack of unified and
identity organic
culture andevendemonic"
as unsettling (p. 176).Nevertheless, criticslikeBelinsky
were"pleasedtonotethat'everyone is Russian'"(p. 187) instorieslike"Nevsky
Prospect"and "Diaryof a Madman,"althoughBojanowskasuggeststhatthe
protagonist, Poprishchin,mayactually be Ukrainian (cf.pp. 184-186). Be thatas it
may,through thePetersburgstories(perceived as "Russian," thatis,GreatRussian)
"Gogol'sstatusas a Ukrainian writer.. . [is]redefined [byBelinsky]: heis nowseen
as majorRussianauthor ofUkrainian provenance" (p. 187).
About The Government InspectorBojanowskawrites:"Gogol1laughs
maliciously, or,toputitmoreprecisely, Gogol'sscathing satireis notbalancedby
thelayerof sympathy thatcharacterizes hisportrayal of provincial Ukraine"(p.
190).Theplay"showsRussiaas infected withthePetersburg ethos..."(p. 196).
"ThoughthemissionofPetersburg wastocivilizetheperiphery, thecomedyshows
thatitcorrupts,ratherthancivilizes,theRussianheartland. Thenational capitalisa
canceron thebodyof Russia"(p. 197). On thepublicreception oftheplay,she
notes:"Itis a testamenttohowintensely Russiacraveda nationalself-image that
thiscontemporary socialsatire, a
hardly genre that can gratify patriotic pride,came
tobeviewedinterms ofa nationalicon.Inpart, theauthor's Ukrainianness inspired
a feeling ofdefensivenessaboutbeingportrayed insuchanuncomplimentary way

canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3^, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 ReviewArticles

byanoutsider, andthisappearstounderlie thewidespread chargesofslander" (pp.

197-198)."Themediamogulsingeniously asserted thatthecomedy portrayed nota
Russianbuta Ukrainian ora Belorussian town"(p. 199).Theresponses totheplay
andthereaction oftheaudiencedismayed Gogol' Bojanowskagoesintosome
and
detailto showhisresponses andrationalizations, as he setoutto 'neutralize' "the
politicsof his play"(p. 207). She concludes: "His struggle with The Government
Inspector ismarked bypersistent reinterpretations ofthework'smeaning inorder to
makeitlessnoxiousto Russiannationalpride"(p. 208).
ThesectiononDead Souls(p. 2 10) beginswitha quotation from a letterGogol'
wroteto M. PogodinfromGenevain 1836.Therehe complainsaboutthe"ugly
mugsinRussia.""Nowbeforemeandaroundmeareforeign lands,"hesays,"but
inmyheartthereis onlyRussia[Rus'],notrepulsive Russia,buta beautiful one"
madeofselectfriends andpeoplewith"theright taste"(p. 2 10). Thisis a period
whenDead Soulswasanticipated as a majorliterary andnational event.Through a
portrayal oftheGreatRussianheartland, Gogol'was to ease his "integration in
Russianmetropolitan culture" (p. 211),satisfy thenational needsofRussiansand
helprelievesociety'sfretfulness abouthisownnational orientation. "[A]sfaras the
Russianswereconcerned, Gogol'sUkrainian background wasbecoming a liability
inthe1840s,allthemoreso sincehisworksonRussianthemes failedtoconjure up
the nationalisticaffirmation that Russia craved" (p. 211). "Gogol's
uncomplimentary literaryimagesofRussiamadeitall themoreimperative forhim
to provehis love forit..." (p. 211). "Gogol thusstarted a campaignaimedto
convince hisRussianfriends andsupporters ofhisloyalty toRussia.He painted the
taskofwriting Dead Soulsas hishighest patriotic . ."
duty. (pp.211-212). "All the
whileGogolcultivated hisfeebleloveforRussia,oratleastpretended todo so,he
keptreferring to hisactual experience of itas a nightmare" (p. 213).
In whatmayproveto be a shockforsomereaders,Bojanowskasetsoutto
showthatDead Souls"is unsurpassably grimas a national panorama" (p. 214) and
"is singularlyineffective as a nationalistic paean.Thenovelfailsas botha national
anda nationalistic novel"(p. 214). Muchofthisconclusion is basedon a contrast
between Gogol"s descriptions ofUkraine andhisportrayal ofRussia.Bojanowska
alsotakespaintoshowthatthenationalistic lyricaldigressions (thepurported proof
ofhisRussiannationalism) - whencarefully scrutinized andcontextualized - are
hardly thebasisfornationalpride."Thevicesdescribed inthenovelarenotjust
socialor politicalbutpointedly ηαύοηαΓ(ρ. 217), she writes.Comparisons of
Russiato Europe("a stapleofRussiannationalism" [p. 220]) "is not to Russia's
favor"(p. 220)."Thenovelparodiestheverydesiretoestablish superiority overthe
West"(p. 221). Gogol"sfamouspaeantotheRussian'word'inChapter5 ofthe
novel(popularwithnationalistic interpreters), provestobe,undercloserscrutiny
(pp. 226-227),ambiguous, since it appears be a reference
to to "an unprintable
swearword" and"toresideexclusively inthelowerclasses"(p. 226). Ironically,
Bojanowskapointsout:"Gogol's Russianword...derivesitsstrength fromthe
linguisticandstylistic heterogeneity, nottheleastofitofUkrainian provenance,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 357

withwhichhe himself infused it"(p. 227). She,ofcourse,comments also on the

famous - idealized - imageof Russiaas a troika,convincingly showingitto be
"ambiguous likeall otherlyricalinterludes" (pp.231-232).Shepointsoutthatthe
troika bearsassociations withChichikov's vehicle, which"opensupaninterpretive
can of worms that mars the sublimity of Russia's finalimage"(p. 232). For
Bojanowska all the central that
lyricaldigressions supposedly signal"nationalistic
fervor" areultimately deflated byGogol"sirony(p. 233). She concludesthatthe
nationalism of Dead Souls is "profoundly tenuous"(p. 233), thatmuchof the
novel'scontent is "antinationlistic, injurious to anyself-respecting nation'sego.
WhatmakesRussiansRussian...is a setofrather uncomplimentary traits..."(p.
233). She calls the novel "ideologically, out of
profoundly joint"(p. 233)."Despite
appearing intent onflattering thenational ego,Gogolatthesametimeinjures it"(p.
233). Although Gogol· ends his novel with a preview of forthcoming positive and
heroicimagesofRussiainfuture volumes, Bojanowska reminds usthat"despite the
author'spained,decade-long labor,Gogol's Russianmaterial simplyrefusedto
bodeforth thisapotheosis" (p. 236) ofRussians.Ironically, the"bestmanifestation
of 'Russian'heroicprowess,the'richnessoftheRussianspirit...areprovideby
Gogol's Ukrainian Cossacksin theRussifiedTarasBulhaof 1842"(p. 236), to
whichshewillturninthenextchapter.
Dead Soulswasreceivedbyreaders bothpositively andnegatively: theformer
opinionwas heldbythosewhowerecaptivated byGogol"s lyricaldigressions,
whilethelatter was expressedbythosewhoeitherputno stockinthemorwere
tiredofwaitingfora complimentary imageofGreatRussians.Dependingon the
of
point view, the work was construed either as a masterpiece ora slander.Atany
rate, it failed to put an end to speculation about Gogol" s Russian patriotism and
nationality. for
Bojanowskarecounts, example, how Count F. I. Tolstoy called
Gogol'an "enemyofRussia"(p. 237),andhowNikolaiGrechcalledthenovel's
language"barbaric" and"non-Russian" (p. 238). The"author's Ukrainian identity
to a largeextentexplainedand magnified his transgression againsttheRussian
people"(p. 239).
"The positivereviews"of Dead Souls, writesBojanowska,"did notfind
Gogol'simageofRussiaoffensive orviewtheauthor as a Ukrainian fifth columnin
Russianculture.HoweverapartfromBelinsky, withwhomGogol was merely
acquainted, all of Gogol's majordefenders werehis personalfriends, certainly
inclined togivehimthebenefit ofthedoubt..."(p. 240). Thesereviewsspokeof
Gogol"s genius,emphasized thenovelas art,anddiscovered inittheRussianspirit.
In drawingattention to the diametrically oppositeresponsesto Dead Souls,
Bojanowskaarguesthat"thesecontemporary voices perceivedthe genuine
complexity at the heart of Gogol's approach Russiaand offera refreshing
to
contrast totheaxiomatic conviction ofGogol'sunquestionable loveforRussiathat
laterformed inRussianculture. Gogol'searly readers. . . were truer tothespirit of
Gogol's work. . ." (p. 253). From herself she writes: "I have shown. . . thatGogol's

canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 ReviewArticles

treatment ofRussiarepresents a national critiqueratherthananaffirmation; itoffers

a catalogofthenation'svices,rather thanan idealization" (p. 253).
"Nationalizing the Empire"(chapter5)- whichis devotedto a detailed
discussion ofthe1842redaction ofTarasBul'ba- restsonthepremise that,since
Gogol' was not ableto portray Russia as he didhis idealized Ukraine, createda
he
positiveimage of the empireby Russifying "his Ukrainian Cossacks"(p. 255;
emphasis added).Bojanowska concurs with Carl Profferthat the Russified version
of Taras Bul'ba "was meantto preempt theaccusationsof lack ofpatriotism
[emphasis mine]thatGogolexpectedfrom thereception ofDead Souls"(p. 255).
The 1842 TarasBul'ba,according to Bojanowska'sreading, becomes"hisonly
fictionthatglorifies Russiannationalism" (p. 255). "This is theonlyfictionin
whichGogolmakestheideology of Russian nationalism [emphasis added]integral
totheactualnarrative anddoesnotrelegateit,as inDead Souls,tomerepreviews
offorthcoming volumesorto ironically compromised digressions" (p. 255). The
corollaryoftheaforementioned is thatTarasBul'bais alsotakentobe anovertsign
ofGogol"s drift awayfromUkraine.Bojanowskais emphatic thatthe"Russified
TarasBulbaof 1842contrasts starkly withitsUkrainofile [sic] 1835version.As
suchitdemonstrates thedistance thatGogoltraveled inhisnational allegianceas a
writer.WhiletheGogolofEveningona Farm,Ά GlanceattheMakingofLittle
Russian,'andthe1835TarasBulbaparticipated inthefirst stirringofUkrainian
nationalism, theGogolofthe1842TarasBulbalostall connection tothenational
ferment" (p. 257). She elaborates:
The1842TarasBulbamarks a crucial turnforGogol,as hesacrifices hisUkrainian
nationalism onthealtar oftheRussian one.Inthe1842edition theCossacks nolonger
celebrate their
Ukrainian uniquenessbutrather their totheconcept
loyalty ofRus.Rus
hereisnotprimarily a historic
entity,though suchwereitsorigins, buta supratemporal
culturalcommunity ofOrthodox EastSlavs.Thisisprecisely thesenseinwhich this
's TarasBulba willuse theterms ' and'Russian
'Russia '
chapteranalysis of [emphasis
added;seemycomments below].Under theleadershipofthemighty GreatRussian
tsars,such'Russians' areprojectedontothepastandcometorepresent theRussian
nation ofGogol'sownday.Gogolaimstoreconcile empireand nationin the work (p.
256).
At firstglance,therefore,theopeningof chapter5 mightremindus of the
nationalistic
traditional ofGogol·,whoseehimas a quickconvert
interpreters from
the Ukrainianto Russian nationalfaith,and who emphasizehis alleged
abandonment ofUkraineforRussia.Whatis suspect aboutBojanowska'saccenton
Gogol"s national is thatsheactually
about-face trying toemphasize hisorientation
on theempire, butwithoutadequately explainingthatthishasnothing todo with
sortof"Russiannationalism"
"Russia,"i.e.,GreatRussia,andis a different than
hitherto
described.Up tothispointinthebook"Russiannationalism," byandlarge,
was aboutGreatRussianthemesand Gogol"s inability to renderthemin a
nationally
upliftingmannerto suitGreat In
Russians. the 1842 TarasBul'ba,Gogol1
shifts
fromGreatRussianthemes (i.e.,Petersburgtale,Dead Souls,etc.)backto

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 359

Ukrainian themes, givingthema broaderEast Slavic (imperial)treatment. The

questionis: Can thisrevisedUkrainian theme legitimately be called "Russian
nationalism"without confusing whatGogol'is about?Is itproofthathe reversed
hisnationalallegiance?Is therereallyno ideologicaldifference betweenGogol"s
GreatRussiansubjectmatter the
(and way Great Russians wanted himto depict
them), andhis theme of a Ukraine-centred East Slavic realm? In otherwords,can
between
thedissimilarities theGreatRussianthemes andTarasBul'babeaccounted
forbythephrase"Russiannationalism"?
BojanowskawritesthatGogolwantsto "reconcileempireandnationin the
work."Indeed.The 'reconciliation' obviously takesplacebetweentheUkrainian
nationandtheempire, through thehead-of-state, thetsar.However, GreatRussia
andGreatRussianness as suchplayno role!Thisis worth emphasizing becauseit
meansthatthebinary opposition betweena positiveUkraineanda negative (orin
thiscase,irrelevant)GreatRussiaremainsintact, evenas Gogol'seeksto define
Ukraine'spositionin theEast Slavic space of theempire.Bojanowskaherself
writesthatthe"...Taras Bulhaof 1842achievesan affirmation ofthe 'greater1
Russiannationwithout havinga singleethnically Russiancharacter init"(p. 256;
emphasisadded).If he is reconciling Ukrainians to theempire,thensomething
otherthan"theideologyofRussiannationalism" is speaking inTarasBul'ba:itis a
Ukrainian ideology of accommodation with the state, somepaeanto Great
not
Russianness.As Bojanowskastatesintheblockquoteabove,Ukraine morphs into
Rus'andrepresents "a supratemporal cultural community ofOrthodox EastSlavs"
in theempire.In championing "the'greater'Russian[i.e.,East Slavic]nation"
Gogol'istrumpeting a "Russian[i.e.,Slavic]nationalism" thatisdifferent from the
GreatRussianvariety forwhichsomeinhisreadingpublichadbeenclamouring.
Bojanowskapretty muchadmitsthisby placing"Russia/Russian" in quotation
marksandredefining thetwowords(see theitalicsentencein theblockquote).
Thuson closerexamination of hermeaningwe see thatTarasBul'ba is notan
exampleof "Russiannationalism" but " 'Russian' nationalism," in effectnot
Russiannationalism atall. Ifwe go through thechapter andinsert "Orthodox East
'
Slavs"inplaceof 'Russia' and 'Russian(as Bojanowskaencourages us todo by
herdefinition)thisbecomesobvious.Forexample, Gogol'"sacrifices hisUkrainian
nationalismonthealtar"ofOrthodox EastSlavicnationalism - nottheRussianas
Bojanowskawrites. Moreover, ifGogol"s TarasBul'bais an"affirmation" ofRus'
and "a supratemporal culturalcommunity" (notGreatRussiaper se) thenthe
questionarises:aretheextreme oppositesbywhichthischapter characterizes his
lifeand"nationalallegiance as a writer"(p. 257) warranted? In otherwords, his
is
earlier"Ukrainiannationalism" so totallyincompatible with'OrthodoxEast
Slavdom'andloyalty toRus'thatitamounts toa "rift," "a crucialturn"andserves
as a signof thegreat"distance"thatGogol'traveledfromEveningsto Taras
Bul'ba? I thinkthe answeris obviously'No'- if only because Ukrainian

canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3^l·,September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 ReviewArticles

nationalism eveninthisperiodembraced Rusfandtoyedwithpanslavism (moreon

thisbelow).
Besides,letus notethattherevisedTarasBul'ba does virtually nothing for
GreatRussiannationalism andpride(Bojanowska recognizes after
this),which, all,
was thebigstumbling blockto Gogol"s fulladvancement as a "Russian"writer.
Thematically thenovelis nota responseto demandsthatGogol'writenicelyon
GreatRussianthemes.Giventheobviousemphasison GreatRussiansin Dead
Soulsandhis"Petersburg" tales,thisis animportant pointtobearinmind.Gogol'is
apparently still stuckon hisUkrainians in 1842, imagining themconstructively in
terms ofRus'.WhensayingthatGogol''Russified' hisTarasBui'ba,Bojanowska (I
am assuming)is notsayingthathe turnedhis Ukrainians intoGreatRussians.
Strictly speaking, andaccording to herownuse of 'Russian'inquotation marks,
' ized' or'Slavicized'theCossacks.He didthisbycontextualizing
Gogol' imperial
andbroadening theindisputably Ukrainian Cossackculture within a framework of
Orthodoxy andEastSlavdom - hardly an actoftreachery. The"'greater'Russian
nation"(p. 256) [read:greater Slavicnation]thatheextolsis "Little"and"Great"
Rus'unitedina singleempire, withUkrainian Cossackfeatures andUkraineitself
(thewordUkrainaappearsinthe1842 edition)typifying thestate,whilethetsar,
whoappearsexnihilo,presidesas itshead- andeventhismaynotnecessarily be
true(see below).
Contrary towhatBojanowskasuggests, thisis notradicalretreat from Gogol"s
earlierwritings. Letus note,as shedoesonpage70,that"Christmas Eve" (a story
inthesecondvolumeofEvenings)alreadyshowedtheZaporozhian Cossacksas
but even
aggrieved faithful, servile, servants of the empire. I would arguethat
ideologically, on such questions as "autonomist leanings"(p. 256) and "anti-
imperial impulses"(p. 37), the distance between theearlyGogol' and theone of
1842is notall thatsignificant. Itis truethatinthenewTarasBuVbaGogol'is not
blindtotheshortcomings oftheCossacks;anditis truethattheyacquiregreater
intellectual horizons,so to speak, as theireyes are openedto Orthodoxy,
Christianity and Slavic brotherhood, but it is a stretch to suggestthatthese
additional qualitiesthereby denythemtheirUkrainian uniqueness (let'srecallthe
myriad ofUkrainian details,fromthebanduryst to thebursd).The simultaneous
andoftensynonymic use ofrusskii, Ukraina, andRus'inthenoveldoesnoterase
thedifferences betweenUkrainians andGreatRussians(Moskoviiainthenovel),
whichforGogol'is central. Thesewordsillustrate thebroadrangeoftermsthat
wereappliedtoUkraineduring Gogol" s timeand mayhavebeenintended tomake
theworkmorepalatableforGreatRussianconsumption. Thenovelmaybemaking
a case forthecoexistence ofUkrainians andGreatRussiansina singlestate,but
Bojanowska errs when she treatsanyexpression of"loyalty totheconceptofRus"
(p. 256),oreventherecognition ofthetsar'ssuzerainty, as anunequivocal signof
Russiannationalism. Gogol"s novelsearchesfora modusvivendi forUkrainians in
animperial space;and,exceptforthetsar,hasnothing tosayaboutGreatRussians.
How,then,is this"Russiannationalism"?

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 361

The truthis thatGogol1alwaysinsistednotso muchon autonomy as on

difference intheempire, resisting GreatRussianinterpretations ofUkrainians as a
'tribe'ina singleRussiannationdominated byGreatRussians.His 'Russian'(i.e.,
Slavic) nationis dominated by Ukrainians. The emphasison difference makes
Gogol'verymuchlikemostofhisUkrainian contemporaries andspecifically recalls
Mykola(Nikolai)Kostomarov's writing onthetwo'Russian'nationalities. Inshort,
therevisednovelof 1842reiterates a verycommonpositionamongUkrainians:
Ukraineis a distinct member oftheempire, a preeminent constituent oftheEast
Slavicfamily (afterall, it is the true descendant of Rus' [cf.p. 315] and boastsa
livelyCossack -
past) but it is also a loyalpart of the imperial state and,as the
Zaporozhians argue in "Christmas Eve," should be respected for this bytheCrown.
Thisis an earlyformof Ukrainian - notRussian - nationalism. Loyaltyto the
empire was completelycompatible with assertions of Ukrainian cultural
distinctiveness sinceatleastthebeginning ofthenineteenth century, ifnotearlier.
This was the messageof Istoriia Rusov {Historyof the Rusians [sic] in
Bojanowska'sapt translation). Even theby-lawsof theCyriland Methodius
Brotherhood spokeabout"theunification of Slavs" "as theirhistorical purpose"
whileatthesametimeidentifying eachnationbyname(Ukrainians andRussians
are,respectively, "Iuzhno-Rusy" and "Severno-Rusy," verysimilarto Gogol"s
usageinTarasBul'ba).Gogol',as a member ofthegentry andtheoldergeneration,
maynothavebeenmovinginstepwiththequicklyevolving Ukrainian movement,
buttoclaimthathe"lostall connection tothenational ferment" (p. 257)- andthat
TarasBul'bais a symbolofthis - is an extreme exaggeration.
Thus, ifwe take into consideration theUkrainian cultural context andthrow in
the "perilousambiguities"(p. 303) that "compromise"Gogol"s "Russian
messianism" and "nationalistic pieties"in the1842 TarasBul'ba- all of which
Bojanowska is correctin foregrounding - wearepretty muchforced totheconclude
thatthereis no dramatic reversalin Gogol"s Ukrainian nationalism andthatthe
novelitselfis notanexampleof"Russiannationalism." Thereception ofthenovel
(discussedvery well on pp. 307-313) would seem to support that conclusion as
well.Readersreferred to itas a "wholeUkrainian wilderness" (p. 307) andeven
aftertheappearanceof Dead Souls,somekeptcallingtheauthora "Ukrainian
humorist" (p. 307). Bojanowskaultimately seemsto retreat fromhercategorical
remarksat the startof thischapter,admitting thatif Taras Bul'ba was "an
apotheosis of Russianness" (p. 308), thenthis"messageseemsto havefallenon
deafears.Whilenationalissueswereparsedanddebatedinthereception ofDead
Souls,theCossackepicfailedto inspire sucha reaction" (p. 308). Sheelaborates:
IfTarasBulhawas meantas a proclamation
ofGogol's Russianpatriotism,itproved
andGogolwasneverpattedontheshoulder
unsuccessful, forit.As anexperimentwith
nationalistic itdemonstrated
fiction, toGogolthathisRussianaudiencewasnotlikely
tobe takenwithRussiannationalism
thatsprings
fromUkrainian subjectmatter.
For

CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue
canadienne
des slavistes
Vol. XLIX,No. 3^, September-December
2007

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 Review Articles

boost,hewouldhavetodeliveritinRussiantopics,
theRussianstogeta nationalistic
orno onewouldtakenote(p. 308).
On thebasis of theseobservations,one is inclinedto say that,perhaps,Taras
Bul'ba was never"meantas a proclamationof Gogol's Russian patriotism"butof
his East Slavic or imperialpatriotismthatsimultaneouslyinsistedon Ukrainian
exceptionalism.In Gogol" s case itis important to drawa contrastbetweentheway
he depictedGreat Russians and how he viewed the imperialstate(Bojanowska
shows thisto some extent).Gogol"s "Russian patriotism" was actually'imperial';
his"Russianaudience"was bothUkrainianand GreatRussian(again, 'imperial').It
is theGreatRussians(notsimply'Russians') who neededthe"nationalisticboost"
from"GreatRussian"topicssinceUkrainianswerereceivingitalreadyfromGogol1
in spades. The revised novel, to reiterate,was an example of a specifically
Ukrainiantype of 'imperial/state'or civic patriotism,orientedtowarda mixed
Ukrainian/Great Russianaudience.To subsumeitunder"Russiannationalism"is to
readGogol' fromtheGreatRussian-imperial perspective,notfromtheUkrainian-
imperialone.
fromthe first
It is possible to admitthattherevised Taras Bul'ba is different
versionwithoutpositingthedifference as an embraceof"Russiannationalism." The
latterinthiscontext,byand large,is a terminological that
fiction stemsfrom a very
loose usage of the word "Russian." Bojanowska is obviously aware thatshe is
dealing withthreecategoriesin this chapter(i.e., Great Russia [ethnicRussia],
Empire[East Slavdom],and Ukraine)butoftenuses one term("Russia/Russian")to
signalthefirsttwocategories,eitherindividuallyor as a combinednotion.She sets
up and triesto maintaina binaryterminologicalopposition(Ukrainiannationalism
vs. Russian nationalism),but her analysis keeps pushingherto recognizea third
"supratemporal culturalcommunity ofOrthodoxEast Slavs." She keepsattributing
to Gogol' theidea of 'Russian' nationalismeven as itbecomes obvious to herthat
Gogol' rejectsGreatRussian nationalismin favorof an imperialstatethatwould
respectUkrainianuniqueness.Unfortunately, thismessage finallycomes through
notin chapter5 butonly in thesixth,whereshe writes:
It deservesemphasisthatGogolneverformed a viewofRussia[read:empire]as an
actuallyexistingnation.Russiaalwaysappearedto himas an ongoingproject,a
community andself-definition.
thatwas intheprocessofformation he
As a nationalist,
viewedthisas themostessentialtaskfacingthecountry, and he mobilizedall his
resources Timeandagain,however,
toguideitinthistransformation. Russiarejected
Gogol's solutionsand suggestions.Russian nationalism[read: Great Russian
nationalism]wasdevelopinginthedirection
ofgranting GreatRussians
ethnic primacy,
whereasGogolencouraged modelsthataimedtotranscend
theborders oftheRussian
ethnos[read: Great Russianethnos]to includeOrthodoxEast Slavs... [read:
Ukrainians] (p. 364).
complexis difficult
The national-imperial with
to discussbecause itwas Janus-like,
a Ukrainianand GreatRussian face. The empire,as Bojanowska says, did in fact
link Ukrainiansand Russians (p. 26), but the prospectof creatinga "Russian

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 363

nation"onthefoundation ofEastSlaviclandswasbasedontwodistinct Ukrainian

andGreatRussianperspectives, meaning thattheprojectitselfwas contested and
debated - and,inGogol·view,alsoprojected intothedistant future (cf.hisletterto
Smirnova, model
p. 2). TheUkrainian-imperial (often called the"Little Russian"
complex)facedoffintheempireagainsttheGreatRussian-imperial modelofthe
"Russiannation."Thesetwomodelssharedtheempireas a commondenominator
butathearttheyweresignificantly different,a factBojanowskaoften recognizes in
herbook,butforwhichshedoesnotcreatea clear-cut separatecategory. Early in
thebook,however, as I indicatedalready, shecorrectly hasGogol·contributing to
"Russia's imperial-national ideology"(p. 34),highlighting his"Ukrainian visionof
nationaluniquenessand ways of encodingit in art..." (p. 35). When this
observation is combined withhislackofsympathy forallthings GreatRussian,his
opposition toofficial Russianhistoriography (p. 86),histreatment oftheimperial
capitalas a "multinational ratherthana 'Russian'locus"(p. 174),thenitbecomes
clearthatwe aredealingwitha specifictypeof 'imperial-national' ideologythat
slightsGreatRussiannationalist concerns andcannotbe equatedwiththem.While
itis convenient fortheGreatRussian-imperial modelto overlookthisdifference
andemphasize thecommonimperial element - so as to foster theimpression ofa
holisticnational psycheandnation - everything aboutGogol·criesforrecognizing
thathe soughtto injectUkraineas an activebutdistinct element intotheimperial
discourse.
Chapter5, I hastento add,also has verygood sectionson "Gogoland the
Poles,""TheCossacksas IdealRussians," "Taras:TheEvolution ofa Nationalist"
(a close analysis of the main protagonist), "Religious Conflict and Ethnic
Cleansing" and "Andrii's Choice, or Alternative Forms of Comradeship." The
virtue ofBojanowska' s analysisinthesesectionsis herwillingness toexplorethe
subtletiesofa novelthat,morefrequently thannot,hasbeentreated as something
self-evident. Bojanowska fleshes out many nuances, arguingagainsta surface
reading, andstressing: "If TarasBulhaidealizestheCossacks,theirwarwiththe
Poles,and theirideologyof militant nationalism, it does so whilecontinuously
subverting itself(p. 306). InthisI largely agreewithher.Shealsodrawsattention
totheenigmatic ending, whenTarasBul'bainvokesthe"tsar"(svoitsar)anddraws
on IuriiBarabash'sintriguing suggestion thatwiththisphraseGogol1is perhaps
invoking "theancientdreamofUkrainian Cossacksaboutitsownstatehood - the
directdescendant of thestatetraditions If
of KievanRus..." (p. 304). true,this
would,ofcourse, nullify Bojanowska'searlier statement- "Undertheleadership of
themighty GreatRussiantsars,such'Russians'areprojected ontothepastand
cometo represent theRussiannationof Gogol'sownday"(p. 256)- sincenow
therewouldbe no tsars,just nativeCossackselfrule.In thislight,again,the
purported radicalshiftin Gogol"s Ukrainiannationalism would seem to be
seriously overstated.

canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue des slavistes
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December
2007

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 ReviewArticles

Somewhat unexpected, perhaps,is thelastsectionofchapter 5, whichends

witha discussion of"Rome"underthetitle:"Dead,LivingandReviving Nations"
(p. 313). The of
logic moving from Taras Bul'ba to "Rome" becomes clear when
Bojanowska writes: "Gogolexplores in 'Rome' what can happen to a 'dead' but
once historical nation,charting an alternative to the scenario he envisagedfor
Ukraineinthe1842 TarasBulha.In Taras,thehistorical Ukrainian nationmerges
withanotherone to forma morepowerful, synthetic, contemporary nation.In
'Rome,'a historic though now 'obsolete' Italiannation revives independently, from
is ownrootsand foritselfalone"(p. 313). Bojanowskaarguesthatthe"Roman
people...remind oneofGogol'sUkrainians" (p. 313),butpointsoutthatRobert
Maguiresawa paralleltoRussians.WhileBojanowska ispersuasive inarguing that
Ukrainemakesa better paralleltoRome(cf.p. 315),sheultimately compromises
between herownandMaquire'sview,bydeclaring thatGogol'"imagines theideal
Russianfolkaccording toUkrainian patterns. He makesa trialrunofthestrategy
thathewillpursuein TarasBulha,thatis,ofimbuing theRussiannationwiththe
qualitiesthathe appreciated in Ukrainians" (p. 314). The sameidea has a more
piquantformulation a littlelater:"Bothin Taras Bulha and in 'Rome,' Gogol
crossdresses hisUkrainians as Russians"(p. 316).Attheriskofrepeating myself,I
drawattention towhatwillhappenwhenwe takeintoconsideration thattheword
"Russian"aboveis notidentifying GreatRussiansbutthetwoEastSlavicpeoples
oftheempirecollectively. ThatwouldmeanthatGogol1is modeling theempire-
statenotonGreatRussiannational characteristics buttheUkrainian. Forsomethis
manynotbe an adequatesignof Ukrainianpatriotism or nationalism (which
is
purportedlyrequired to show evidence of and
autonomy separatism), butinthe
firsthalfofthenineteenth century, whenneither RussiansnorUkrainians hada
clearpicture oftheirnationalidentity intheimperial state,this,inmyview,was
prettyclosetotherealdeal.
The sixthand finalchapteris titled"The Failureof Fiction,"a reference to
Gogol"s inability toembodyinartistic form a positiveandlovingimageofRussia,
i.e.,GreatRussia,forwhichthe"preachy anddogmatic" SelectedPassagesfrom
Correspondence withFriends(1847) becomesa substitute. "Though as a citizenhe
cherished theidea of Russiannationalism, as an artisthe provedincapableof
delivering itsmessage"(p. 321),saysBojanowska. Following thecriticism ofDead
Souls,Gogol1immersed himselfin thehistory of GreatRussiaandpesteredhis
friendsandacquaintance forinformation abouther.His "doggedquestforsuch
knowledge seems additionally motivated byhis insecurity as a Ukrainian andin
somewaysresembles an educationabouta foreign country" (p. 318), explains
Bojanowska.Beforeproceeding to SelectedPassages she briefly outlinesthe
struggle Gogol1 had in the
writing sequel to Dead Souls and dedicates aboutten
pagestoa reviewoftheextant fragments ofthesecondvolume, concluding: "While
Gogolmayhavefoundpositiveheroesto conveya senseofpatriotic concernfor
Russia,hispicture ofitis nonetheless farfrom rosy"(p. 330). "As hisworkonthe

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 365

continuation of Dead Souls grewincreasingly difficult, Gogol transferred his

energiestoletterwriting" (p. 331), whicheventually resulted inSelectedPassages.
In dealingwiththisstrange work,Bojanowskacarefully considersboththe
publishedversionandthecensor'scuts.Thelatter showthat, despitebeingwritten
inthespiritofOfficialNationality, SelectedPassages "turned outto be Gogol's
mostcensored book"(p. 344).Gogol1himself referred tothepublished versionas a
"bonethatwas gnawedcleanby [thecensor]Nikitenko" (p. 344). Bojanowska
statesthat"Gogol'soutrage wasjustified: fivearticleswerenotpassed,andothers
sufferednumerous changesandcuts,whichresulted in a muchblandertext"(p.
344). "The censor managed to blunt much ofGogol'scritical edgewithregardto
circumstances in Russia whilehe leftfairlyintacthis propheciesof national
greatness and his invocation of theidealsof OfficialNationality" (p. 351). A
sectiondevotedtothebook'sreception - aptlytitledina Futurist vein,"A Public
SlapintheFace"(p. 351)- demonstrated thatSelectedPassagesnotonlyfailedto
upgradeGogol'to thestatusof "a nationalMessiah"(p. 351), butalso led to
accusations thathe was a Catholic,andthathisbookwas a "falsehood." Readers
raisedquestionsaboutthe"mentalstateof itsauthor"(p. 353). "One reviewer
suspected Gogolofsomevaguecalculation orof'LittleRussian'trickery todupe
the audience"(p. 353). A notableexceptionwas Shevyrev,who expressed
"appreciation forGogol'sloveforRussia"(p. 354) butwasexasperated thathedid
itintheformofessaysinsteadina workofart.He speculated thatGogol'didnot
feel"inhimself enoughstrength to seal inan artistic creation thehighersideofa
Russian"andhenceexpressed it"atleastdidactically" (p. 355). Bojanowskasays
Shevyrev "appearsclearlyincensedthatGogolexpressed beautyandnobility so
effortlesslyinhisUkrainian works. . ., whilethe same goalposes such tremendous
problems to thewriter in hisRussianworks"(p. 355). As one mightexpect,this
sectionalso providesa goodsummary ofBelinsky'sfamousreaction to Selected
Passages, as well as Gogol"sresponse. The finalpart ofthis chapter demonstrates
howGogol'setouttodefend himself inhis"AnAuthor's Confession," bybasically
redefining SelectedPassages "as a mirror of a man,hisdesireforgoodandhis
innerstrugglewithimperfections" (p. 361). "The retreatinwardexemplifies
Gogol'stypicalresponseto attacks, as, forexample,whenhe attempted torecast
thecharacters ofTheGovernment Inspector orDead Soulsas theemanations ofhis
deeplyflawedsoul" (p. 361). "WhileUkrainian subjectmatter is whattypified
Gogol's earlyworksforhis critics,Gogol redefinesit by references to his
immaturity, whichis aimedto discourage thenationalistic comparisons withhis
workson Russia"(p. 361). Bojanowskareminds us thatitwas in thisverylate
'author'sconfession' (published onlyposthumously butcirculated inmanuscript)
thatGogol'"forthefirsttimeannouncesthathe receivedtheplotsof hismajor
worksfromPushkin, bywhichhe seemsintent on enveloping hismuchcriticized
creationsin theesteemedpoet'smantle"(p. 362). Gogol"s linkto Pushkin(an
important subjectin its own right),naturally, is a favorite clichéof Gogolian

CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue
canadienne
des slavistes
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 ReviewArticles

criticism,ofteninvokedtoalignhimbetter withRussianliterature. Thepurported

artisticimmaturity ofhisearlyworksalso getsfrequent playas, forexample,in
Nabokov'sreadingof Gogol'.Thatthesestatements arosein circumstances of
personal crisis and appeared in a text that"represents a mix of factsand
dissimulations, psychologicallyplausiblemotivationsandpuremystifications" (p.
361) is lessoften acknowledged.
SelectedPassages, writesBojanowska,was forGogol' "a featof civic
patriotism," a desireto"emphasize hiscommitment
[innonfiction] toRussia,which
waswidelyquestioned afterthefirstvolumeoï Dead Souls.. ." (p. 331)."Yetinthe
end no measureof patriotic educationand moralreconstruction made Gogol
of
capable completing his magnum opus,theplanned trilogy oï Dead Souls"(p.
364). "In theend,Gogolleftnationalist politicsandtookrefugein religion"(p.
365).
***

Bojanowska'sconclusionthat"Gogol indubitably retainssignificance forboth

RussianandUkrainian literature"
(p. 375) is notrevolutionary (exceptperhapsin
relationtocriticslikeGasparovandBrown),butherbroadandall-encompassing
analysis,whichharnesses previousresearch, includingthatofUkrainianists (a very
welcomedevelopment indeed),andcombinesitwithfreshobservations, careful
readingoftheentireoeuvreandperceptive contextualization, makesherbooka
majoraccomplishment inRussianandGogolianstudies, a noteworthy antidote to
thetreatment of Gogol*as an exclusiveRussianpossession.This book should
becomerequired readingforscholarsandstudents alike.
We cannowsee moreclearly thattheconstruction ofGogol'as a Russianwasa
contentious processandwasverymuchtiedtoGreatRussia'ssubjective searchfor
nationalidentity underimperialconditions. The multicultural and multiethnic
processesoftheempire werediscursively adaptedbyGreatRussianstoensurethat
'high' cultural activityin theempire came out lookingprimarily like Russian
'national'culture. Thisdiscursivecreation of"Russiannationalculture" from the
combined GreatRussianandImperial (inthis instance,Ukrainian) elements was so
successful the
among subjects who the
pursued goal that the historicityof that
formation hasrecededintotheunconscious, withthe'nationalculture'obstructing
any traceof the 'empire.'In Gogol"s case, thismeanterasingUkraineand
Ukrainians toa greater orlesserdegree.ThishelpsexplainwhyGogol'is formany
a 'natural'Russianwriter. WhatBojanowska hassuccessfully shownisthatthere is
nothing 'natural'aboutGogol'as a 'Russianwriter' andthatthere weretimesinfact
thathe was simplya Ukrainian writer participatingin an imperial processalong
withGreatRussians.As a citizenoftheempirewithstrong civicreflexes, Gogol',
likea majority ofUkrainians, hada stakein,andwas loyalto,thestate - and,it
turnsout,was mostlyindifferent to GreatRussiaas such,whichhe hardlyknew.
His efforts GreatRussiannationalaspirations
to satisfy led to mixedresults.In
typicalUkrainian conservativefashion, Gogol'appears tohave beendevotedmore
to theideaoftheRussianCrownthanto "Russiannationalculture" as such;this

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewArticles 367

mightexplainhis greaterpenchantforOfficialNationality ratherthanGreat

Russianness. The only'nationalculture'(narodonost1) he reallyappreciated was
Ukrainian and,as Bojanowskaproves,hopedtotransfer itsfeatures tothestate.
Giventhatlanguageplayedno roleindefining Gogol1as a national writer for
hiscontemporaries, itis interesting tosee inBojanowska' s worktheextent towhich
thematics andsubjectmatter influenced thatdefinition. Russiansevidently were
to
prepared acceptGogol' as their own writer not so much on the basis of language
oreventhequalityofthewriting as onhisability toreflect theirownlives.Gogol"s
adoptionof GreatRussianthemeswas a precondition forbeingacceptedas a
"Russianwriter." Literary scholarship stillmimics this requirement tosomeextent,
either bydesignating the Ukrainian works as or
juvenilia byrelegating themtoa
short-lived period that is 'abandoned.' For many, the 'real' Gogol' and the 'really
good'Gogol' is the one who writes about Russians. The very popular Taras Bui 'ba
is easiertodigestwhenthecharacters andcountry canbe conceivedas 'Russian.'
Bojanowskashowsthiscuriouscriterion at workbutdoes notreallyspeakto its
substance. Sheherself hasGogol'movingfrom a Ukrainian toa Russianwriter on
thebasisofhisthematic shifts. However, shedoesnotquestionthepremiseitself:
Does a writer's nationality actuallychangewhenhe switches nationalthemes(as
GreatRussianswereprepared tobelieveinthefirst halfofthenineteenth century)?
Of course,itis enoughto pose thequeryforthrightly to see theabsurdity ofthe
proposition, yetitremains a majorunderlying thesis for callingGogol' a Russian.
(BythislogicRyleevandmanyother GreatRussianwriters wouldbe Ukrainian). If
we acceptthata Ukrainian canwriteaboutRussianswithout his
loosing identity
(and vice versa),thenwhatmakesGogol' a 'Russianwriter'?Afterreading
Bojanowska'sbook,thismaybethemorepressing anddifficult question toanswer,
sincehisUkrainianness is starkly obviousevenwhenheis trying towritethegreat
GreatRussiantrilogy. To saythatGogol'has"significance" forRussianliterature is
absolutely true,but that avoids the issue, because this significance can be readily
attributed toa "Ukrainian writer." Gogol'waswithout doubta "Russian-language"
writer, butthereweremanyofthoseamongUkrainians, butonlyhe is claimedso
vigorously by Russians. It could be said,and Bojanowska does,thatGogol'worked
"in" Russianliterature andtherefore thatmakeshima "Russianwriter." Butthe
verynotion of"RussianLiterature" as an"Institution" is problematic fortheperiod
inquestion. DonaldFänger(TheCreation ofNikolaiGogol,pp.24-26)emphasizes
thatmodernRussianLiterature was onlybeginning in the1820sand 1830s.He
quotesPushkinas sayingin 1824:"We haveneither literature norbooks."The
-
culturalsituationcharacterized "a
by general absence of criticism as well as
literaryproduction" (Fänger26) - was neither fixed nor a priori 'national';typically
itinvolved theparticipation ofUkrainians whowereviewedas theverycarriers of
'nationality.' Ifwe add to this the
picture generally accepted notion that Russian
national identity was severely stunted (cf.Geoffrey Hosking, RonaldSunyamong
others), then the for
argument positing a less specifically ("Russian") national

des slavistes
canadienne
CanadianSlavonicPapers/Revue
2007
Vol. XLIX,No. 3-4, September-December

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
368 ReviewArticles

institution
literary becomesstronger (I wouldcallit'imperial'). Inmyview,Gogol',
a Ukrainian, participated "in" an imperialliterary processalong withother
Ukrainians andGreatRussians,interacting andcompeting tocapture theattention
ofa multiethnicreadership. The circumstances in factwere ideal fora "Ukrainian
writer"tostepoutontheimperial stage inthe 1830s. As I tried to pointoutabove,
was
Gogol1 caught notbetween two nationalism but three,the third beingthecivic
orimperial, whichcannotbe equatedwiththeGreatRussianvariety. His personal
andcreative drama - thetugofwarbetween periphery andcentre - wasa typically
Ukrainian phenomenon intheempire.
IfGogol'is to be calleda "Russianwriter," thenitis becausehe has entered
Russianculture andconsciousness so thoroughly thatitseemsimprobable thathe
mightbe rejectedno matter howmanybookscall hima Ukrainian. Evenso, his
presence thereas a "Russian"continues tobe strainedbyhisUkrainian dimension,
whichneedstobeperiodically subordinated toRussianness orrationalized awayin
someotherway,inordertomakehima better fitfortheRussiannational psyche.
Bojanowska'sgreatserviceliesinshowing thattheRussianreadings ofGogol'as a
Russiannationalist writerare highlypartisan,and almostwittingly blindto
ambiguities,ironies andculturaldifferences,both inhis works and inthe empire.In
releasingGogol' from this
"Russocentric" procrustean bed, she does not takeGogol'
'out'ofRussianliteraturebutshedoesreturn himthere moreofa Ukrainian thanhe
has everbeenbeforein Russianor Westernscholarship. The questionnow is
whether theRussianconsciousness canembrace himas warmly inthisnewguiseas
itdidwhenhe was knowas the'greatRussianwriter.'

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:18:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions