1

Liam Cornwell
Professor Raab
Hist 5200
29 April 2022

The Educated Environment Under Nicholas I

The period of Nicholas I, and to an extent the entire 19th century, is marked by steady

repression in public writing. Existing within a period of growing meaningful public opinion the

tsar faced an unprecedented task of keeping dissent at bay. Nicholas began his reign after a failed

insurrection against him and was forever cautious of revolutionary ideas being spread in Russia.1

Indeed, in 1848 when revolution abroad in France threatened to spill over into other European

states, more repressive censorship measures came into place. Generally, the entirety of Nicholas’

reign is marked by reaction, from the Decemberists, to the Polish rebellion in the 1830s, to 1848,

ending in the Crimean War and the end of his life.2 This period is considered one of steady

repression. Even Nicholas’ successor, Alexander II’s who is thought to have helped establish a

period of relative openness never dismantled the censorship apparatus. Police raids occurred

under Alexander late in his administration. 3 Nevertheless, despite constant complaints of

Imperial thinkers on the paltriness of Russian literature, the period of Nicholas I occurs during

what is still considered the Golden Era. Writers like Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Pushkin,

Gogol, and others, though often abroad, still published in Russia and attained notoriety and love

from the people. This paper aims to understand how in such a repressive environment can

brilliant literature exist and flourish. Despite the restrictiveness of censorship under Nicholas I,

1
Lesley Chamberlain, Ministry of Darkness: How Sergei Uvarov Created Conservative Modern Russia. London,
UK: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. 147
2
Marianna Tax Choldin, A Fence around the Empire: Russian Censorship of Western Ideas under the Tsars.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1985. 25
3
Andrew Donskov, “On The Censorship of Tolstoy’s Early ‘Stories for the people’: An Unpublished «Доклад
Цензора П.Е. Астафьева».” Russian Language Journal / Русский Язык 49, no. 162/164 (1995): 224
 2

the educated population still put out great works. At times, the tenants of strict censorship

themselves were cause for increased circulation and respect for literary figures. To understand

this contradiction it is important to gain a sense for what the educated environment of Russia was

like in the 19th century through personal sources and writings of those educated writers who

made up the intelligentsia of 19th century Russia.

Primary sources such as diaries, letters, and books offer a key insight into the feelings of

the intelligentsia which cannot be obtained simply through policy or data. One of the most

famous sources on Imperial censorship comes from Nikitenko, a serf-born member of the

intelligentsia who studied his way into freedom and among many other lifetime duties was a

censor during both Nicholas I and Alexander II’s reign. Nikitenko wrote consistently in his diary

until his death in 1877 which focused extensively on his work duties. Nikitenko provides a large

window into what the life of a censor consisted of. What kinds of people surrounded him, his

troubles, his philosophy, and concerns are all available to be pieced together. No source is better

positioned to give an intimate understanding of the intellectual atmosphere in this period and

combats negative associations with censors.

Nikitenko’s journal presents a life fighting to make his country better, whether through

his teaching or his position on the censorship committee. As Nikitenko describes his method of

instruction to the minister of Internal Affairs, he attempts to “stay clear of politics and religion”

while inspiring his students with love for Russia, to get “them to like our language, our

traditions, our way of life.” The minister tells Nikitenko approvingly that he is following the

desires of the emperor.4 However, Nikitenko’s national pride also put him often at odds with the

government. Nikitenko is separated from many other censors with a strong sense of moral duty.

4
A.V. Nikitenko, The Diary of a Russian Censor: Abridged, Ed. and Transl. by H. Saltz Jacobson. Amhurst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1975. 132.
 3

While the figure of Nikitenko provides the historian with a more nuanced understanding

of the life of a censor, Nikitenko did not care for many of the censors that he had to work with. In

fact, Nikitenko’s diary provides many instances where Nikitenko seems completely fed up with

the state of censorship and even threatens to resign. In January 1843, Nikitenko writes:

I am seriously considering resigning from the censorship department. It is

impossible to serve; one can’t conceivably do good under such conditions….Everyone
approves of my motives, but they don’t approve of my intentions, feeling that my
resignation would be disastrous for literature.5

Nikitenko understands himself to be an exception. Not defined by his role as a censor,

Nikitenko’s mingling with writers, journalists, publishers, teachers, and students demonstrates

that there is more comradery between the intelligentsia of Imperial Russia than among those who

have the same job. As we see with Nikitenko and others, qualified individuals seem to shift

around, often occupying several positions throughout their lives. Gogol was once a professor of

medieval history before deciding to become a writer, as was Katkov a professor of philosophy

before department cuts in 1850 and then made editor of Moscow News.6 Nikitenko complains

about other censors constantly. He said of one Krylov: “one day he will ban the most innocent

piece, the next he will pass things which are considered dangerous.” Since Krylov had a good

relationship with the chairman of the Censorship Committee, his job was safe.7 Even Count

Uvarov, Minister of Education, the ministry in charge of overseeing the censorship apparatus,

was having trouble with censors. Uvarov’s book on Greek antiquities found in Russia was caught

up with the censorship department, the censor overviewing the work had a problem with the

Greek word ‘demos’ (meaning: people) being used. The censor “would simply not permit this

translation and replaced it with ‘citizens’.”8 The censor also forbade any mention of Roman

5
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 93
6
Susanne Fusso. Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. Northern Illinois University Press, 2017. 49
7
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 114
8
Ibid, 127.
 4

emperors being assassinated, though having nothing to do with Russia, which Nikitenko finds

ridiculous. Even at the beginning of Alexander II’s reign these sorts of deeply removed

references to assassination of Roman Emperors remained. In 1856, a censor on foreign books

excised the famous assassination of Julius Casesar from a German’s account of a journey through

Italy.9 Censors in this way, while to Nikitenko seeming idiotic, were sensitive at least as much for

their job security of references however veiled or irrelevant to assassinations in an century when

autocracy was under threat.

At times the logic of a censor could be more costly than incompetence. There was

incompetence when it came to following the rules of censorship, but at times, the rules which

censors observed were rules of fear. In one case, Nikitenko ran into problems of his own when he

tried to get published. When Nikitenko wrote an obituary for Zhukovsky in 1852, he had to visit

his fellow censor Freigang in order to get it published. Freigang had objected to some of the

article but also conversed with Nikitenko about the incompetence of other censors. There was a

rumor that a censor had not passed the term “forces of nature” from a physics text. Nikitenko

noted that earlier in his career, Freigang had been considered one of the most restrictive censors

yet in 1852 he was considered among the most lenient.10 This is representative of the late

Nicholas years, when Buturlin’s secret committee of censorship made publishing especially

difficult. Nikitenko, despite getting along with Freigang was forced to rewrite much of his article

but it eventually passed as a whole. Nikitenko noted that this was the better of two evils. There

are men like Freigang who at least have a system, other censors are worse and only work out of

fear. Freigang himself admits to “guessing how the enemies of literature and education will

interpret a given article.” Nikitenko is disturbed by this confession and remarks:

9
Choldin. A Fence around the Empire. 170
10
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 131
 5

So one can imagine what the conclusions of such censors must be like, censors who are
guided by this kind of guesswork rather than by the real sense of an article, by directives,
or their own personal convictions. It means that everything depends on the interpretation
of ignoramuses and malevolent individuals who are ready to see a crime in every idea.11

The quote, regardless of pessimistic substance, demonstrates how censors visited each

other and openly discussed their work methods. Due to the especially repressive system in place

during the Committee of April 2nd (Buturlin’s Committee), or “secret committee,” from 1848 to

1855 censors often erred on the side of caution. Not only did censors have to fear more for

themselves but because of their fear the literary output now had a narrow space of subjects to

discuss. What is more, those who were most opposed to new literature now held its reins. The

later years of Nicholas are the darkest in terms of output in all of the Imperial era. Ivan Turgenev

wrote about the 1840s as a “dark cloud” where bribery, denunciations, rumors of university

closures, serfdom, and lack of justice were rampant, not even mentioning the trouble with

censorship.12 However, repression lurked throughout the 19th century, not just in the later years

of Nicholas. In 1836, Pushkin complained of the harassment of censor Krylov who had been

appointed to review the new journal the Contemporary (where Pushkin now published), pleading

for a second censor to balance out Krylov’s harshness. His wish only this made things worse

when Gaevsky was appointed, a man who had been thrown in jail for not being strict enough in

the past who Nikitenko noted now “is so afraid of the guardhouse, where he once spent eight

days, that now some innocuous item like the death of a king” wouldn’t get past him.13 Indeed it

was this same kind of censorship innovation one year later that would cause Nikitenko to very

nearly resign from his censorship post. In 1837, a new censorship law was passed which said that

“every magazine article must be examined by two censors, and either of them can exclude

11
Ibid.
12
Nick Worrall. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. Grove Press, 1983. 23
13
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 64
 6

whatever he pleases.”14 Nikitenko lamented change and the seemingly worsening the state of

Russian literature, when, even in 1837 before the terror of the secret committee, he felt it was

nearly impossible to write or publish anything.

Not only, then, was incompetence a problem in censorship but deliberate attacks on

knowledge and the spread of ideas too. The 1848 disturbances abroad, as mentioned before,

boded even worse for liberal leaning intelligentsia. In 1850, the philosophy departments at

universities were cut down and reserved for members of the clergy. Philosophy was now seen as

a “potentially subversive topic.”15 Uvarov took the line of argument that while the benefits of

philosophy teaching are not apparent the “possibility of it being harmful is a fact.”16 Changes

outside the Ministry of Public Education were even more influential. During the Crimean war,

censorship did not even allow for the war to be discussed.17 The emperor had formed a new

secret committee with Buturlin as chairman which acted closely with the emperor as another step

in censorship which was especially afraid of dissent or anything that could be skewed as being at

all not in full support of the government. The Ministry of Education which was in charge of the

censorship committee had its power slowly corroded. The Buturlin committee while clashing

with the authority of Uvarov nevertheless influenced the Ministry of Education to become more

intolerant. Some like literary critic Ivan Kireevsky understood the state of terror as being a short

term, necessary evil which would eventual subside, overall for the greater good by being

overcautious to protect Russia from war.18

Nikitenko understood the changes in censorship differently and was horrified by his

observing the Buturlin committee in action. Nikitenko notes that the uniquely qualified work of
14
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 72
15
Fusso. Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. 49
16
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 125
17
Fusso. Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. 49
18
Charles A. Ruud. Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906. University of Toronto
Press, 2009. 88-89
 7

historian Soloviev whose work appeared in the more liberal journal the Contemporary was

harmless yet the uncompromising Buturlin committee still found issue, because of Soloviev’s

inclusion of Bolotnikov, a revolutionary from the 17th century. The censor responsible for

reviewing Soloviev’s work was reprimanded. This sort of attitude had extended into the

Censorship Committee where censors are now excising the names of republican leaders from

Greco-Roman period. Nikitenko remarks that this “intimidation of the censors was inspired by

Buturlin.”19 Nikitenko uses his journal to vent his frustration: “These people are blind; they don’t

see that by keeping learned ideas from being advanced through the printed word, they are forcing

them to be transmitted by word of mouth.” For Nikitenko, the censorship apparatus only worked

when it actively encouraged the promotion of good literature. The censorship code of 1828 had

stated that censors be wary, it stressed censors to not read meaning into text.20 Nikitenko had also

heard from the minister who first hired him as a censor in 1833 to adhere to the codes but also to

not give off the impression “that the government is a hounding culture.”21 By keeping literature

within the censorship apparatus, it could be regulated, whereas when works are too strictly

denied publication, the ideas are restrained to public discussion. Nikitenko notes, however, that

“it is wrongly assumed that only what is printed can be evil; what people think can be evil too.”

This astute observation points to a fundamental flaw in the strict censorship of Nicholas I, the

repressive measures, while on the surface preventing “dangerous” articles, don’t actually do a

service to the emperor because the ideas are still floated around. Choldin notes that it was taken

for granted the more a work was forbidden the more widely circulated it was among the educated

19
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 121
20
Ruud. Fighting Words. 58
21
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 42
 8

classes of Russia, to be a good member of the gentry requires that one have read these banned

works.22

It is also a question whether such public condemnations or attacks against literaries like

Turgenev only built sympathy. On April 16th, 1852, Turgenev was arrested for his obituary on

Gogol, the newspaper Moscos News had held the article, while Turgenev had tried to print it in

another journal in St. Petersburg but the editor had refused out of fear of censorship

reprimands.23 Despite Turgenev’s brilliant reputation, he was not immune to being jailed and

exiled. However, brilliant writers carry with them reputations. On top of being a great writer,

Turgenev was also a member of the nobility and his arrest reflected poorly on the government as

an insult to “both the nobility and all educated people.”24 Nikitenko stresses that such attempts to

scare off others end up being exponentially more damaging than an article. The secret committee

and censorship as a whole doesn’t realize, according to Nikitenko, that by antagonizing talented

writers the government strays further away from being able to exercise control. Influential

writers like Turgenev already have followers and influence. When the government punishes such

distinguished figures they lump all writers together, by attempting to scold the best they reveal

that they indiscriminately punish, “you are all dangerous people simply because you think and

publish your thoughts.” Speech cannot be controlled, a liberal perspective rests on the notion that

ideas cannot be stopped while the conservatives in Russia believe that restraint, even temporary

restraint is useful. Nikitenko is then among those who believe that there is no helping the spread

of enlightenment ideas, only there is hope to curb excessively liberal ideas by allowing censors

to interact with them, not reject it outright and leave it to oral discussions where there is no hope

to control anything. Nikitenko sees the spreading of enlightenment in Russia as something

22
Choldin. A Fence around the Empire. 174
23
Worrall. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. 12
24
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 129
 9

important for the improvement of the country.25 Uvarov on the other hand, a conservative

statesman, was eager to defend his anti-liberal stance.26 Even Uvarov does not envision Russia

completely detached from the rest of Europe forever, stubbornly Uvarov wishes to stave off

enlightenment ideals for as long as possible. As recorded by Nikitenko, Uvarov claims that

“Russia is young and virgin…. If I can succeed in delaying for fifty years the kind of future that

theories are brewing for Russia, I shall have performed my duty.”27

Uvarov, the Minister of Education, developed his theory of official nationalism which set

the parameters for his understanding and application of censorship. In Uvarov’s time as minister

of education he worked to create an image of calm, steady progress in order to keep his

university system intact.28 Official nationalism was an ideology to adhere to which characterized

much of the Nicholas era. The idea is best represented in the case study of Kostomarov’s failed

dissertation. In 1842, Kostomarov was still in Khar’kov University, not yet a historian or

professor. Kostomarov’s dissertation was reported to contain dangerous views. Once Uvarov had

read the dissertation he ordered for all existing copies to be destroyed and for Kostomarov to

write a new dissertation. What is exceptional about this case is that Uvarov would later approve

the appointment of Kostomarov to the faculty of St. Vladimir University four years later, a

school which Uvarov had labored to make a nationalist stronghold. What changed?

Kostomarov’s dissertation touched on a sensitive contemporary event having to do with

the Uniate Church. One faculty at the university had alerted the assistant minister of education

because of the potential for the “injudicious” paper to spark controversy.29 However, Tsertlev, the

curator who had sent the dissertation, admitted that while the paper might be potentially harmful
25
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 26
26
Chamberlain. Ministry of Darkness. 151
27
Nikitenko. The Diary of a Russian Censor. 62
28
James T. Flynn. “The Affair of Kostomarov’s Dissertation: A Case Study of Official Nationalism in Practice.” The
Slavonic and East European Review 52, no. 127 (1974): 194
29
Flynn. “The Affair of Kostomarov’s Dissertation.” 191
 10

it did adhere to Official Nationalism and did not go against the Orthodox Church. Uvarov

himself agreed that the dissertation lacked a strict adherence to facts. Uvarov’s reservations

rested on two main points with the subject matter, that it was too contemporary and that it was

hastily written. As James Flynn states, it was not enough for Uvarov that Kostomarov had

arrived “at the right conclusions from the point of view of Official Nationalism,”30 he was more

concerned with not having any public disturbances brought up from his universities. Uvarov’s

policy sought to please Nicholas at all costs and the files on Kostomarov were never revealed to

the emperor. Uvarov’s method is emblematic of his and Nicholas’ larger philosophy on

censorship, that there be no public discussion on controversial matters. Further, that an adherence

to nationalist ideas did not save a writer from having their work censored or being punished.

Kostomarov would later be allowed to join the faculty of St. Vladimir because his mistake, while

scandalous, was not egregious. Just as students were expected to align with tsarist ideology, they

were also expected to grow out of poor scholarship. Kostomarov already wrote along the correct

ideas of nationalism but wasn’t shut out of academia because he had potential to become a better

historian. Amidst Russian insecurity with European Enlightenment thought, they not only tried to

secure their separate ideology but also cared a lot about fostering good, studious thinkers.31

Official Nationality itself can best be encapsulated in the “triad of ‘Orthodoxy,

Autocracy, and Nationality’.” Uvarov uses these three characteristics to describe what Russia is.

Russians are defined by their faith, in their subjection to autocracy, and love for their country as

separate and superior to others.32 Any written work attempting to undermine any of these traits

was to be stopped. It was in this spirit in which journalists like Katkov would have to form

30
Flynn. “The Affair of Kostomarov’s Dissertation.” 194
31
James T. Flynn. “The Affair of Kostomarov’s Dissertation,” 196.
32
Edyta Bojanowska, Nikolai Gogol between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, (2007): 21
 11

themselves in order to get what they wanted. Katkov’s proposal to start the journal that would

become the Russian Herald was based on his perceived need for a journal which offered a

particularly Russian view, a journal which might represent Russia maturing past the need for

“foreign thought.”33 This Official Nationality was established as an opposing force to

enlightenment which was generally religiously tolerant and democratic.

Though Kostomarov’s dissertation may have had many real factual flaws, adherence to

real Russian history did not always mean one was following Official Nationalism. As Nicholas

would soon let editors Bulgarin and Grech of the Northern Bee know. The two editors had

worked on a review of the Zagoskin novel Iurii Milkoslavsky in which they pointed out that the

main character, a Cossack who was a Russian patriot at the time of the Time of Troubles, was a

historical inaccuracy. The critical review attempted to make clear that the Cossacks during this

period were enemies with Russia, setting the score straight about the history of patriotism.

However, unknown to the editors, the book happened to be a favorite of Nicholas who

appreciated works which envisioned a more inclusive understanding of who could be a good

Russian subject, even if a story might have anachronistic details. Nicholas was offended by the

review and both editors were imprisoned briefly.34

While the ideology of the tsar and his ministers like Buturlin and Uvarov are easy enough

to piece together, they reveal little about their supposed opposition, the great intelligentsia

writers of the period. Returning to Turgenev, a writer who had been imprisoned and exiled, it is

interesting to understand what political formations he had as a writer. Turgenev was born to a

family of aristocats in 1818. Like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Turgenev was sympathetic to the

plight of peasants. Part of the reason for Turgenev’s punishment was for his earlier publishing of

33
Fusso, Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy, 50
34
Bojanowska, Nikolai Gogol, 94.
 12

Hunter’s Sketches,35 which among other things, has sympathetic portrayals of serfs and gives the

reader a sense for the evils of serfdom. Meanwhile, Turgenev had little sympathy for the

emerging middle class who had won a victory in the French Revolution. Turgenev, being a noble

at heart, was opposed to social and political revolution. His final novel, Virgin Soil, with a

characteristic detachment and in the style of Russian realism, depicted various educated young

people of the Populist movement who “had thrown up the life of their class ‘to go the people,’

live among them, dress in the clothes of workers and peasants, and to work with them and even

to conspire with them.”36 Part of Turgenev’s goal of the novel is to represent the younger

generation in a balanced way, not as villains but not idealized either. Turgenev’s aim, in a letter

to his publisher was to portray the younger generation sympathetically but also demonstrate their

path as an immature and false one.37

Markelov’s monologue in the middle of the novel illustrates Turgenev’s sympathetic

sentiment towards the young revolutionary. Markelov preaches action, not thinking, arguing that

if one considers all the consequences of a dramatic action they are surely to find certain negative

ones. Markelov likens his actions to that of the emancipation of the peasants, where peasants

were turned into a new kind of labor force but relates that the emancipation was nevertheless a

positive38 Aside from commenting suspiciously on revolutionary thought, Turgenev’s motif of

acting before thinking appears again when Turgenev is trying to get the book passed by censors.

Turgenev released the book in two parts, passing the first, less dramatic, less controversial half of

the book through censors and then later on presenting the more controversial second half. The

censors, having already passed half the book, were in a tough position. The chairman of the

35
Worrall. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. 12
36
V.S. Pritchett. “Turgenev and ‘Virgin Soil.’” Review of Virgin Soil, by Ivan Turgenev. The New York Review.
March 17, 1977.
37
Ibid.
38
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, and Constance Garnett. Virgin Soil. New York: Grove Press, 1956. 152
 13

censorship committee said that he would have banned the book as a whole had he seen the whole

book at once. Turgenev’s trick worked and his second half made it through censorship.39 Just like

Markelov, the censors end up acting prematurely, without fully considering what they were

passing. At the end of the novel, Turgenev celebrated a different kind of character, one who is

“not trying to cure all the social diseases all in a minute.”40 The character Solomin, an idealized

factory owner. Solomon, like Turgenev, is sympathetic to the populists and helps when he can

but advises caution and prefers gradual improvement.

A contemporary and friend of Turgenev was Gogol, equally concerned with the state of

the peasantry but nevertheless artistically and ideologically opposed to Turgenev. Gogol’s style,

while Turgenev is a realist, is more absurd. Gogol’s politics were radically different as well.

Gogol revealed to the world in 1847 just how surprisingly conservative he was with the release

of a series of letters of correspondence entitled Selected Passages. Even though Gogol, unlike

Turgenev, was enthusiastically in-tune with government policy, the collection of letters ended up

being his most censored book.41 The problem with Selected Passages was that while it was

unabashedly nationalist it still conceived that there existed problems within Russia, a notion

irreconcilable with Official Nationality. In one excised section called “The Terrors and Horrors

of Russia” Gogol responds to a countess who complains about Russia and seeks to go abroad.

Instead of rejecting her claims, Gogol leans into them and doesn’t defend Russia, only so far as

Europe is even worse and that one might as well work for the betterment of Russia than try to

escape. However, the idea that a countess would have any reason to flee from Russia was clearly

offensive enough to draw censorship. Gogol complained heavily of the intense censorship that

his book had received. Gogol likened the published version of the book to a bone gnawed clean

39
Pritchett. “Turgenev and ‘Virgin Soil.’”
40
Turgenev. Virgin Soil. 300
41
Bojanowska, Nikolai Gogol, 344.
 14

by Nikitenko.42 Gogol claims that all Russians should serve their state as if they are serving

Christ, providing a pious solution to perceived social ills.43 Gogol also uses God to justify the

position of serfs, a particular shock to his fans who had previously seen a sympathetic portrait of

the peasant in his works. Gogol now said that “there is no power which is not from God”44 and

therefore peasants and landowners should both understand their place in society.

The critical lashing that Gogol received after publication plays out a conservative-liberal

battle for the ages. There would be criticism from many but the most famous critic was Vissarion

Belinsky, who was abroad with Turgenev at the time of writing his scathing review Letter to

Gogol.45 In this response letter, Belinsky turned Gogol’s claims against him. Gogol, who had

urged in his letter for others to remain in Russia, had himself, as Belinsky argued, lost touch with

Russia from a distance. Belinsky spat “you failed to realize that Russia sees her salvation not in

mysticism or asceticism or pietism, but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, and

humanity.”46 The letter becomes a rallying cry against serfdom and the old ideas of power which

Gogol holds onto. Gogol's inflammatory remarks about peasants being naturally condemned

below landowners seemed especially outrageous and hurtful to Belinsky. The literary critic sums

up his position by undercutting Gogol’s main method of reasoning, religion, and using Christian

morals to reveal the falsity in Gogol’s own preaching:

Had you really been inspired by the truth of Christ and not by the teaching of the devil
you would certainly have written something entirely different in your new book. You
would have told the landowner that since his peasants are his brethren in Christ, and since
a brother cannot be a slave to his brother, he should either give them their freedom or, at
least, allow them to enjoy the fruits of their own labor to their greatest possible benefit,

42
Ibid.
43
Ibid, 344-45.
44
Nikolai Gogol, Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Translated by Jesse Zeldin. (Vanderbilt
University Press, 1969), 138
45
Worrall. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. 10.
46
V.G. Belinsky, Letter to Nikolai Gogol. Salzbrunn, 15 July, 1847.
 15

realizing, as he does, in the depths of his own conscience, the false relationship in which
he stands toward them.47

Belinksy’s response demonstrates that while writers had to be wary of censorship they

also had literary criticism to contend with. Gogol seems to have dealt unfavorably in both

criticism and censorship in this instance. It is telling that despite Gogol and Turgenev’s

differences there was still a mutual appreciation of each other's talent that overshadowed their

political disagreements.48

From 1826 and into the 20th century, the course which one had to take to get published

was often confusing and exhausting. Even being a nationalist did not save you from having your

work butchered. Often, one’s fortune depended on the competence of a random censor or who

was willing to come to your aid. The confusion did not deter writers from publishing, even

loyalists spent nights in the guardhouse, even great writers went into exile. The period was so

heavily focused on literature that those works that survived censorship were devoured in

criticism. While the conditions seem bleak, a culture with such an intense fear and obsessive

focus on literature would no doubt allow for great works to make their way through.

47
Ibid.
48
Worrall. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. 11
 16

Bibliography

Belinsky, V.G. Letter to Nikolai Gogol. Salzbrunn, 15 July, 1847.

Bojanowska, Edyta M. Nikolai Gogol between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Chamberlain, Lesley. Ministry of Darkness: How Sergei Uvarov Created Conservative Modern

Russia. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.

Choldin, Marianna Tax. A Fence around the Empire: Russian Censorship of Western Ideas under

the Tsars. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1985.

Donskov, Andrew. “ON THE CENSORSHIP OF TOLSTOY’S EARLY ‘STORIES FOR THE

PEOPLE’: An Unpublished «Доклад Цензора П.Е. Астафьева».” Russian Language

Journal / Русский Язык 49, no. 162/164 (1995): 223–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/

43675328.

Flynn, James T. “The Affair of Kostomarov’s Dissertation: A Case Study of Official Nationalism

in Practice.” The Slavonic and East European Review 52, no. 127 (1974): 188–96.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206866.

Fusso, Susanne. Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. Northern Illinois University Press,

2017.

Gogol, Nikolai. Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Translated by Jesse

Zeldin. Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

 17

Nikitenko, A. V. The Diary of a Russian Censor: Abridged, Ed. and Transl. by H. Saltz

Jacobson. Amhurst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975.

Pritchett, V.S. “Turgenev and ‘Virgin Soil.’” Review of Virgin Soil, by Ivan Turgenev. The New

York Review. March 17, 1977. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1977/03/17/

turgenev-and-virgin-soil/?lp_txn_id=1344807.

Ruud, Charles A. Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906.

University of Toronto Press, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2tttkm.

Tolstoy, Leo. A Russian Proprietor, the Death of Ivan Ilyitch and Other Stories. New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922.

Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevich, and Constance Garnett. Virgin Soil. New York: Grove Press, 1956.

Worrall, Nick. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. Grove Press, 1983.