 

 

 

I531}’-

2. , . . .1 ..\. .>I.L..I_ .I...
. I
\2

$5.“. .I‘ j.-
u. u~h
" ' 1:“.

. :1(.\Lt. I

 

.

 

.-v n. 44..»
(i;

"II-I

”112211-32...

5 .
.
, ‘1
.
. ’ 3‘
‘ ’ ’ . :1
3 _ - .. 2- 2.-.. _M,2. ‘._5..2.‘3.E:Q5 5.
d ‘ ~ 'I w .4
.
.

 

,..
,. w."

A.:'.r

:7
fr.
;.,.

..,.
l

     

 

. 'ff‘
--55~.

. 7 x.
.2 aa-

 

 

 

.1
,--. w-u . . ,‘-
'3‘ ”I251-

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

.—.
f
-.
,.
., ,
..
-. 71,55. 1. I . ..
«. —. 5/I‘I'I‘I"7A'5 1.;
, ,3 .. .. 4
2 .- ,‘,‘!' , “.33.: . * . , 3_ ,3 _
23 3,, .;:.-‘....-w« , 5 I-J‘; , ,
5., . . 51,31. W}. . 43.3w,“
5; A. ~ -
.» '51:—
u -,2 ,.. w:
n... .,
$215,225": .-r
..-, 3,3,
2
_. ‘..‘
, 1. .-
, I
5 . ‘r’a‘ . ., :
. ,u.....,,.,,._‘
.-
, . _ 3 r” .' ‘13
‘ .5 . .u 9' ‘- . .' ., , . 5 .93.! , .— ‘ . .-
' « 5 I “ - ‘1 .5 .. w . _ up 51 _ ,
3 V ' "*W '5 ‘5. * ﬁx; my.
., 4 7w: ,5
1,791,525,, , L;
I" ".l 1.1 2 .l' tll‘l‘l I'd“
. 11‘"? m3, 1-1:,
’ .Ra .p-L‘ H" .. .12...
333 .3235”: ”‘5 , ' , ' .4 1, , '1‘} . \l . .1. r2: , 3 , , ,1, ' . .4..- ....'f < rm.
"5'1"" 1;“ "H ‘ " ‘1"! 5 11 ,_ —.-. - ‘ :5?! ' "‘3‘ ‘,(J,r7:,.511«2." ‘ '5' ’ ”55:55:33 2224.-
. ‘ ' I . ‘1 5 . '. ., .g. ~9- "u , '. '55:, .5 .-
. .5 ‘ 4,! s 5. .. "£23,353!“ 3.» _ , 1, .. v . 53.41,:
v,7 ~14 " . .. l .3 , - :15; .3 I 2.311;“,
‘ “ 5 .2”: ‘ . m 5. “.2. :4. H .35" a. - 5 :5. 27,“. .51 ’ , ‘3—
5- 55 -. ’ . .. .. . .~. ’., .‘5 , .§ . . n. 5 , ~5‘ ,,. '
a. " ‘ . ‘ 1 ‘5' “(5' J 35- ' ’ 5‘1“." ‘5' ”2,1" 9‘ -‘~- 44"! *"T'ﬁ‘ 1" Wm“ . ‘ 2‘, Y ' . 7.5,. W T‘ 3 JV ‘5)” .
' . 5 . 5 53 .. , , 5. r . , ,... ,-. 5m. ma ,
. 5 "‘0 n 15 55.. ,........ - . . -.~ ,.. ,3 5. .n ,2. . 5.... NWT...
' ' 5 ' 1:55“ 5 1 5': l " I m 1‘ ; . mg». 1),”, - _, ,... ,, .. v #13 ﬁrm-mam:
‘ ‘ ' " {5’ ’ ' 5 ~I ' 5 ' '. H ' ' = .. 55.5.5.1... .1. w: ' “—35 3,
" r _z., ‘I'"‘."‘ 21,—-

, 2H."

.. .1. “'31; ~ -. ,

I .19; . ' I ,, ,.
1 I II II "L T

"‘5 ' 5 5 ... " ‘~.. . ’12... ”.3333,
2'2,

l‘ 1‘- ‘

   

 

1.“..-

~5’-’ ;_,. q... ....'I.
“"“ 15.... 4 ‘. L "3' —n S53?i1'r’m,;l‘k.1.~15‘3!‘ fig-.573-
’ - " mamaswarg‘wvm* T- “.5 -..~-.

3.. :5“ 1... ma“: .
rm. .1”. ..,3,.. ..,1..~..,...: ..
V3.1“..- "7" In. ; 31.. “ff,“ 1

A ‘1". «“37,

2..—
!‘C.
.m—
:4:

     

.--.«.

   

4,, ~ ,f n,
1, ' . 1:5‘ .
,_ _ .- _I,~x4_- 5 5 - , . «v. , . 5 . ,
J .1"? '1 1,3 9 3 35,313,39 .3. . pr .1' 3 9,333.33.“ (1:5! 3,
9‘
9 v s
‘ ,gu . 12 . .
‘ 'l . > ‘ T? r q: .1 . .
‘. :3,“ , f, 4 j ' .I;'. . . l 11.9: 1.476551 1 "‘ ,I- 1" 1... . .' -.. ‘ :‘nvu-m 5: l
I WW I ’ l‘ . 53—. ‘ A "w ' "‘1‘ I '11 gr}: 7“,-
.4'Hl';‘1 '|"uv "”5 Ir - ﬁr‘MK-V: -"' - -n n1 1.; '1‘.
'I n V ‘ . . 1 i1, - '1'. l ‘21"
5 ‘ "' ‘ . .‘J‘, - -5IsI 1; 333. ,3 '4 I 3“,“, £3; 1 ..,,f‘..”1 , .,.,,4 $31.13.? “3,...“
. .5 . , ,

 

 

     

 

   

3
2M 5 I .. .I.,, .
. _ n— . - I " ."\. - .F"
. “5,12”, $235! 5 , , r, , 3'5”, 2 ., , ., 5,3,3, 3 ,l 1" ”£33 713?“:“3‘33323 -,‘ n
’ 5- 5‘!“ ."1~ “ 1' ."J ' F S ' I' "“ 1:5'r- ‘ W 51 ‘ ' "151117“. ‘ !" r21" . . r ..,=.—.
- 5 . . , '55 9 ,1 “a r, - a 513W I 0:1 n: ." . "' a 1" 5 ~55" 1‘ I "' "' “ .J'. 5" {la-r
.4 v . .. -- — Irr‘wj .I' .1. -. I? -. :r r.
. . . I.. .5. ! . n: I, ; 1.1mm . " T". ‘ 7,. 2', - - -. , 4 4 " 1'1f‘"'"“
’1 ~ "~ ~ .- - --. - 13-- ._. 1m in!“ ~-.__~._ ' ~- 1*"

 

 

52?}‘4‘N.
. .. ,3 ,

 

THESIS

Date

E UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

l [ll ll llll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O 031 7802

lllllllllljlllll

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RECEPTION OF GOGOL' IN ENGLISH-
LANGUAGE LITERARY CRITICISM: 1915—1991

presented by

MOONHNANG KIM

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D Russian Literature

degree in

Munliiﬂgmd

 

 

Majoraofessor

19 April 1994

 

MSUMnM. ”A . ,1 m” r}, - 0.12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or botore date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
mmmspn

 

RECEPTION OF GOGOL' IN ENGLISH-
LANGUAGE LITERARY CRITICISM: 1915-1991

By‘

Moonhwang Kim

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic,
Asian and African Language

1 994

ABSTRACT

RECEPTION OF GOGOL' IN ENGLISH-
LANGUAGE LITERARY CRITICISM: 1915-1991
By

Moonhwang Kim

This dissertation consists of seven parts -- Introduction; Chapter One ("Gogol' in
English-Language Literary Criticism (1915-1991): Shifts and Changes"); Chapter Two
("Annotated Bibliography of Major English-Language Criticism"); Conclusion (author's

/ own criticism of criticism); Subject Index; Author Index; and Bibliography (recording 570
entries). Criticism has assiduously examined Gogol, as writer and human being, ﬁnding
innumerable hitherto unexplored qualities of Gogol's craﬁ, associating him with various
"isms" (Romanticism, Symbolism, and Formalism); analyzing him within countless
disciplines (psychology, philosophy, theology, linguistics, etc); focusing on his personality
(through themes of incest, necrophilia, homosexuality, impotence, anxiety, and fear); and
juxtaposing him to other writers and artists, Russian and foreign. Religious approaches
are also examined and credited for their contribution to the study of the relationship
between Gogol's art and worldview. The dissertation concludes that criticism, despite
slight Russian inﬂuence, has contributed new, substantive, remarkable, and lasting
scholarship to Gogol, for its variety, depth and constant shifts and changes. Enumerated
are many innovative approaches and methodologies, with psychological analyses receiving
special mention for their originality and viability. The wealth of comparative criticism

linking Gogol to numerous writers and poets bears witness to Gogol's eminent position in

world literature. The dissertation also examines the especially broad body of criticism of
Gogol's poetics, discussing "internal elements" and stylistic devices of his literary skills --
thematic patterns, plot, structure, narrative devices ("skaz," picaresque, etc.), digressions
(saturated with value judgments), vaudeville, imagery (metaphor, similes, and hyperbole,
in particular), sound instrumentation, grotesque, absurdity, black humor, parody, satire,
"reverse symbolism," intertextuality, a myriad of semantic virtuosities, and typiﬁcation of
characters. Criticism has discerned Dead Souls and The Overcoat as Gogol's most
prominent accomplishments. The profusion and thoroughness of the criticism

notwithstanding, a deﬁnitive interpretation of Gogol has not yet been produced.

Copyn'ght by
MOONHWANG KIM
1994

To the memory of my father

who inspired in me dreams for higher education

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Munir
Sendich, for his advice, guidance, suggestions, and encouragement throughout this study.
His encouragement and belief in me will always be remembered. I wish also to express my
sincere gratitude to the members of my committee, Dr. David Prestel, Dr. Frank Ingram,
and Dr. Felix Raskolnikov. Without their corrections and comments, this ﬁnal manuscript

would not have been possible.

I am also indebted to my father and mother for their love, and their ﬁnancial and
spiritual support. I believe my father, who passed away on Nov. 25th 1993, shall be very

proud of my achievement from Heaven.

Finally, I am deeply indebted to my wife, Mira, and my three children, David,
Elizabeth, and Daniel. Along with the support of my three children, Mira's love, prayers,

and encouragement made this goal a reality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE: GOGOL' IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LITERARY
CRITICISM (1915-1991): SHIFTS AND CHANGES

CHAPTER TWO: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MAJOR
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LITERARY CRITICISM:
(1915-1991)

CONCLUSION

SUBJECT INDEX

AUTHOR INDEX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii

 

5

33

140

157

164

166

INTRODUCTION

A deﬁnitive interpretation of Gogol' has never been reached, although a great
variety of interpretations have appeared in the 150 years since his death. During the
nineteenth century, Gogol' was considered to be a social observer or a realist, due mainly
to the tremendous inﬂuence of Vissarion Belinskij. This idea was strongly supported
by the social, political, and philosophical writings of Nikolaj Cemysevskij, Nikolaj
Dobroljubov, Drnitrij Pisarev, and Konstantin Aksakov in the years immediately following.
In the twentieth century, many critics have explored Gogol', shedding light on innumerable
unexplored aspects of Gogol's art, analyzing his works within various literary movements.
Most English criticism has challenged Belinskij's views, producing signiﬁcant shifts and
changes in Gogol' criticism. This dissertation explores these shifts and changes, careﬁrlly

examining criticism written in English from 1915 through 1991.

Chapter One of the dissertation focuses on how Gogol‘ has been interpreted by
critics writing in English from 1915 through 1991, and how their critiques and views on
Gogol' contributed to shifts and changes in Gogol' criticism. Chapter Two presents the
most valuable English-language criticism as well as prominent Russian criticism, translated
into English. I strived to maintain a strict objectivity while summarizing the contents of
articles and books when making an exhaustive annotated bibliography of Gogol'. The
annotated bibliography was divided into decades from the 19105 through the 19905, then
the entries were classiﬁed and numbered by alphabetical order within each decade. In the
conclusion, my own comments on these shiﬁs and changes from 1915 through 1991 are

presented. The conclusion is followed by alphabetical subject and author indexes listing all

the titles, authors, and important subjects of Gogol's artistic world including poetics,
stylistic devices, genres,and others. The bibliography at the end of the dissertation is the
most extensive and comprehensive Gogol' bibliography (contains 570 entries) published to
date, worldwide (Philip Frantz's Gogol: A Bibliography, published in 1989, contains only

3 5 1 entries).

In the process of searching, collecting, and compiling the bibliography, I have

consulted the following bibliographic sources:

1. The American Bibliography of Slavic and East European Studies.

2. American Book Publishing Record.

3. Arts and Humanities Citation Index.

4. Australian Books in Print.

5. Book Review Digest.

6. British Humanities Index.

7. Canadian Periodical Index.

8. Canadian Theses.

9. Dissertation Abstracts International.

10. East European Languages and Literatures; A Subject and Name Index
to Articles in English Language Journals.

11. Humanities Index.

12. Index Book Review.

13. International Index to Periodicals.

14. MLA International Bibliography.

15. New York Times Index.

16. Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature.

17. Social Science and Humanities Index.

 

18. Twentieth Century Literary Criticism.

I have consulted Kate Turabian‘s A Manual for Writers in compiling bibliography,

and followed the transliteration method of Thomas Shaw's transliteration system 111:

A ----- a P ----- r
B ----- b C ----- s
B ----- V T ----- t
F ----- g y ----- u
II ----- d (I) ----- f
E ----- e X ----- x
E ----- e II ----- c
)K ----- 2 LI ----- E":
3 ----- 2 H1 ----- s
M ----- 1 III ----- SE
171 ----- j ”b ----- "
K ----- k bl ----- y
H ----- l b ----- '
M ----- m 3 ----- e
H ----- n 10 ----- ju
O ----- O 51 ----- ja
H ----- p

This system is used consistently in the dissertation with the following exceptions:

1. Titles and authors presented in original reference.

_____.—__L

2. Geographical names in widely accepted usage in Anglicized spelling.

(e.g., Moscow, St. Petersburg)

 

CHAPTER ONE

GOGOL' IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LITERARY
CRITICISM (1915-1991): SHIFTS AND CILANGES

The body Of twentieth-century English-language criticism of GogOI' is enormous
and multi-faceted. To begin with, it has linked Gogol's craft to various, even polar,
literary movements -- Romanticism, Romantic Realism, Realism, Symbolism, and
Forrnalism. It has analyzed Gogol's works within different disciplines -- psychology,
philosophy, theology, and linguistics, among others. Many critics have painstakingly
scrutinized Gogol's art in all its complexity. Others emphasized Gogol's afﬁnity with
various writers -- Russian and foreign -- such as Homer, Aristophanes, Flaubert,
Cervantes, Dickens, Kaﬂca, Hasek, Poe, Scott, Irving, De Quincey, Belyj, Puskin,
Turgenev, Cexov, and Bulgakov, to name but a few. Others have focused on Gogol's
Ukrainian "connections," comparing Gogol's stories with Ukrainian fairy tales, ballads,
fables, love songs, and Ukrainian folklore in general. Still others have examined speciﬁc
features of Gogol's text, interpreting Gogol' as the most eccentric stylist in the language
and seeing Gogol's poetics as above all deﬁned by his hyperboles, similes, illogical/absurd
linguistic devices, penchant for the grotesque, collisions, "perceptual categories," and
other such qualities. Gogol's personality has also been the subject of many critiques
emphasizing his neuroses and focusing on incest, necrophilia, homosexuality, impotence,
anxiety, and fear as hallmarks of Gogolian themes. Some critics have even argued over
the periodization of Gogol's writings, dividing his works into two periods (before and aﬁer
1840) or classifying the works into three categories -- early Ukrainian stories, the St.

Petersburg tales, and the Dead Souls and Selected Passages period. English-language

criticism of Gogol' is indeed multifarious; it is saturated with shifts and changes that will

be examined in more detail below.

Studies comparing Gogol' to other writers have formed a constant stream of new
English-language literary criticism. Some critics traced other writers' inﬂuence on Gogol,
while others pointed out similarities and differences between Gogol's works and other

writers'.

In the 19105, two critics compared Dead Souls to Dickens's Pickwick Papers,
emphasizing afﬁnity and diﬂ‘erences. One critic (1915: 1)* compared the two works'
external features, while the other (1916: 2) examined their internal elements. The former
pointed out that neither work has a major heroine, and that carriages play a signiﬁcant role
in both works: for the Russian, the troika embodies enthusiastic love of excitement and
careless desire for change, while for the Englishman it represents slow and gradual social
progress. The similar backgrounds of both writers were also pointed out, with Gogol's
experience in a government ofﬁce likened to Dickens' experience in a lawyer's oﬂice. The
latter critic, on the other hand, emphasized similar features in the structure, plot, and
setting of both works: the looseness of their structures, the simplicity of their plots, and
the motif Of coach travel. He found that both writers present their characters in bold
outline. He also found the two works to differ in that Dickens discussed the social evils of
his time in the hope of reform, while Gogol' simply laughed in self-defense to keep from

weeping at tragic hopelessness.

 

* This and all subsequent references are keyed to annotated bibliographic entries
(in Chapter Two). The ﬁrst four digits refer to the year of publication, with number(s)
following the colon keyed to entry enumeration within each section in the annotated
bibliography.

 

 

Comparative studies which traced the inﬂuence of others on Gogol' included one in

which Nevskij Prospekt was thought to be directly inﬂuenced by De Quincey's
Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. Among the several similarities found between
the two works (1931: 3) were their portrayals of the main streets of big cities -- Nevskij
prospekt in St. Petersburg and Oxford Street in London -- their similar ball scenes, and
their protagonists' escape from the reality of life into ecstatic dreams. Another critic
(1937: 2) noted similarities and differences between Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka
and Poe's Tales of the Folio Club. Underlining the inﬂuence of Hofﬁnan's
Serapionsbru'der upon both writers, this critic insisted that Poe's fantasy is modiﬁed by his
supernatural rationality, while Gogol's imagination is controlled by his humor. He found
that both writers' personal inferiority developed into an egotism of superiority and a
tendency toward distortion and exaggeration, contending that both writers died because

they lost their will to live.

In another comparative study, a critic (1934: 1) suggested that in Gogol's
consciousness lie obsessive ideas about the Devil, which might be linked to his religious
complex. Contrasting Gogol's Devil with Dante's Lucifer, Milton's Serpent, Goethe's
Mephisto, Byron's Satan, and Lennontov's Demon, Brasol considered Gogol's Devil
closest to Dostoevskij's Devil: a clairvoyant of human souls, a good-natured and
gregarious creature. Another critic(1954: 8) pointed out similarities between Dead Souls
and the anonymous Hispanic novel Lazarillo de T ormes, noting that the episode in part
two of Dead Souls is especially similar to the that of the third part of Lazarillo de T ormes.
The views of Birkhead and Bowen in the 19105 that Dead Souls was inﬂuenced by
Dickens' Pickwick Papers, discussed above, were disputed by one critic (1956: 3) who
suggested that the source of structural similarities between the two works comes from a
common tradition exempliﬁed by Cervantes, Lesage, and Fielding, ﬁnding no speciﬁc

connections between thematic or stylistic features in both works and noting that the

technique of expressive personal names in both works' characters had been employed by

many forerunners of Dickens.

There has also been criticism treating Ukrainian inﬂuence upon Gogol' (1960: 3),
noting that Gogol' adapted four epigrarns from Ukrainian works, and ﬁnding in Gogol'
such Ukrainian ingredients -- as harsh humor, idealization of woman and the past, and
fantastic elements redolent of fairy tales, ballads, and fables. In 1962 two more critics
focused on comparative studies. One (1962: 33) explored "poslost'" in both Dead Souls
and the Czech writer Hasek's Good Soldier Schweik. He insisted that "poslost'" permeates
both works, making laughter turn to tears of despair and ultimately possessing not only
the heroes, but also the authors of both works. Another critique (1962: 17), concentrating
on the Gogol'-Kaﬂ(a-Nathanael West relationship, stressed afﬁnities among the three
writers. The critic pointed out similarities among the three protagonists -- Kovalev in The
Nose, Samsa in The Metamorphosis, and Simpson in The Day of the Locust, contending
that the three authors make impossibilities become possibilities, then probabilities, which

wind up as inevitabilities.

One critic (1965: 20) analyzed the relationship between T aras Bulba and Homefs
Iliad with respect to parallel themes as well as similar motifs and stylistic devices: humor
in the framework of a heroic epic, decapitations described without pity, death implied by
escape of souls, immolation of the heroes' bodies, exchange of mockery and sneering
before battle, and Homeric similes in Gogol's second version of Taras Bulba. Another
writer found to have inﬂuenced Gogol' was Washington Irving (1968: 22), whose themes,
motifs, and manner of narration were seen to presage much in Gogol's work, such as its
complicated systems of narrators, a method developed by Irving and Scott. Parallels and
contrasts were drawn between Irving's Dolph Heyliger and the Mysterious Picture and

Gogol's The Portrait. The critic also traced Gogol's well-known narrative device, "skaz,

 

 

back to Irving's works. Another critic (1969: 30) showed how Gogol' in T aras Bulba

interweaves Ukrainian humor, melodies, and spirit into the texture of his language, ﬁnding,
for example, that Gogol's poetic and melodious style recalls musical "bandura" chords in
Ukraine "dumas," or historical and love songs. Another source of inﬂuence found by
criticism on Gogol' was Bulgarin's satirical novel Ivan Vyiigin (1961: 1), with such
common features as depictions of the external characteristics of two cities, feminine
Moscow and masculine St. Petersburg, as well as depictions of provincial Ofﬁcialdom,

landowners, and a petty functionary ("Memm moramrx").

A signiﬁcant portion of Gogol' criticism has been devoted to Gogol's considerable
inﬂuence upon many Russian writers. One critic (1969: 25) compared the function of
insanity Of the protagonists in Cexov's The Black Monk and The Diary of a Mad Man. He
points out that Gogol' is more disturbed by the mental nature of his protagonist than is
Cexov. Seeing tension between Gogol's conception of art and his idea of the Christian
message, he insists that at the bottom of Gogol's disturbance lies a failure to absorb the
Christian message. Contrasting Cexov's literary type, concerned. with the achievement Of
happiness, with Gogol's literary type, saturated with the awareness of man's high destiny,
the critic asserts that the insanity in both works overcomes the limitation of the literary
type. In another study tracing Gogol's inﬂuence within the pantheon of Russian writers,
one critique (1972: 66) revealed links between Dead Souls and Gonéarov's Oblomov,
including similarities of the structural techniques of character introductions, delayed
biography, rhetorical questions and interrupted narrative in characterization, the use of
animal imagery to create the eﬁ‘ect of grotesque, and the use of metonymic elements as
leitmotifs. Furthering the study Of Gogol's Russian connections, another critique (1972:
39) focused on similarities in the internal structures of Nevskij Prospekt and Cexov's An
Attack of Nerves, asserting Cexov to be under the inﬂuence of Gogol's syllogistic

technique. He pointed out similarities such as use of idealism as both thematic and

structural factors, authors' unsentimentalized sympathy for their characters, and authors'

vision of art as a vital life force.

Gogol's aﬁinity and differences with Nabokov in the use of black humor were
explored by another critic (1974: 47). He discovered frequent use of topics which are
considered unsuitable, indelicate, and impermissible such as sex, excrement, insanity, and
death, often generating an effect of black humor. He also pointed out several diﬂ‘erences
insofar as Nabokov pays more attention to suicide than simple death and Gogol' treats
insanity as an internal disorder, while Nabokov treats it as a sinister conspiracy from
without. Not that other Russians' inﬂuences on Gogol' were neglected during this period.
Another critic (1974: 50) considered Nikolaj Pavlov's The Demon as a source for The
Overcoat. She pointed out similarities in both works: a theme of confrontation between
the "little man" and the social system, and both protagonists' characteristics --poor clerks
of unspeciﬁed lower rank, copying in a certain department of bureaucracy in St.
Petersburg, living in isolation from real society. Nor were inﬂuences on Gogol' conﬁned
to Russian borders. Another comparison (1976: 42) focused on the role and behavior of
Orestes' ghost in Aristophanes' comedies -- The Birds, The Achamians -- and those of
Akakievié's ghost in The Overcoat: both ghosts appear at night in a large city (Athens and
St. Petersburg respectively) to strip people of clothing. Another critic (1977: 22)
compared Dead Souls to the Hispanic picaresque novel --Cervante5' Don Quixote, .
Entremeses, and Novelas ejemplares. The critic pointed out typical features of the
Hispanic picaresque novel in Dead Souls: a protagonist who travels from inn to inn
plotting, scheming, and living by his wits, a series of unrelated adventures which are
interwoven by a protagonist, and three type of women -- a young innocent maiden, an
aggressive manipulator, and a foolish gossipmonger. Another comparative study (1977:
31) likened Dead Souls to Mervyn Peake's Titus Groan and Gormenghast, focusing on the

creation of their characters: both writers have a common interest in dazzling visual effects.

11

Neither Gogol' nor Peake are seen to concern themselves with the depiction of the human
being, and this results in a methodical dehumanization by means of nomenclature. The
critic notes how the characters in the novels are given distinctive and exaggerated
characteristics for humorous effect, describing how animals in both authors' novels are

ﬁ'equently given human identity and inanimate objects often take on aspects of human life.

Comparative studies occupied the main stream of criticism of the 19805. T aras
Bulba, considered a historical romance, was linked to Panteleirnon Kulis's Black Council,
with both works focusing on the Cossacks (1980: 3). The study claimed that in T aras
Bulba historical characters and events are idealized and fantasized while in Black Council
historical personages and events are depicted in a detailed and individualized way.
Gogol's main source for T aras Bulba is seen as his own mythical conceptions drawn from
folklore and oral literature. Black Council, by contrast, depicts real historical events,
personages, and social struggles. Another comparative study ( 1980: 41) focused on
similarities and diﬁ‘erences between Kazirnierz Orlos' A Marvelous Hangout and Gogol's
Dead Souls and The Inspector General: the plot and atmosphere of grotesque farce in A
Marvelous Hangout is similar to Gogol's works, and both writers depict human vices from
a highly moralistic and puritan viewpoint. Gogol's grotesque characters are unique
reﬂections of his imagination while those of Orlos are the result of distortion by vice. He
also pointed out that Gogol' attributes what is bad in life to spiritual poverty among the
people, while Orlos appeals to basic Christian value, charity, honesty and respect for life.
One critic compared Gogol' to Turgenev (1982: 44), suggesting that both writers were
inﬂuenced by the eighteenth- and nineteenth—century German philosophy and by vaudeville
and puppet theaters, and both writers shared the desire to reform the Russian stage and
create a new drama which would reveal the negative, corrupted side of Russian society.
The critic also pointed out that two themes -— nature and woman -- are a permanent

ﬁxture for both writers. Gogol's inﬂuence on Vladimir Vojnovi‘é was also explored (1984:

12

28) by a critic who placed Vojnovic's Zizn' i neobyéajnye prikljudenija soldata Ivana
Con/cina in Gogol's satirical tradition by virtue of its use of parody, stylization, allusion,
digression, and the motif of mistaken identity. Vojnovié used the device of digression to
introduce the characters of his novel just as Gogol' did; both writers' narrative technique is
marked by a whimsical tone of feigned ignorance. The motif of mistaken identity is both a
mainspring of the plot of Vojnovic's novel, and a consistent element in its structure.
Similarities between Dead Souls and Vojnovic's novel are also found on the thematic level,

with their complicated networks of deception and falsiﬁcation.

Some critics paralleled Gogol' with Scott, Bulgakov, and Belyj. One critic (1989:
2) asserted that Walter Scott inﬂuenced Gogol', pointing out a consistent thematic parallel
between Scott's Redgauntlet and The Lost Letter: both protagonists travel into hell for a
missing document, with their paths directed by strangers. Their depictions of hell are
similar as well, including a banquet with music and dance, and their descriptions of the
return to earth from hell are almost identical word for word. One critique found Bulgakov
to be the true heir to the Gogolian tradition (1989: 24). The critic explored Bulgakov's
biographical, thematic, and stylistic connections to Gogol', ﬁnding that Bulgakov used
Gogolian works to explore his own creativity. Recounting Bulgakov's struggle to stage
Dead Souls in the early 1930's, he deﬁned the Bulgakovian vision as a modernization and
bureaucratization of Gogol's folkloric Ukraine; the vaudeville element is fully articulated
and clearly a forerunner of the demonic scenes in The Master and Margarita. He found
Bulgakov to be intensely aware of the resemblance between his age and Gogol's and
pointed out their mutual longing for Italy as well as Bulgakov's adoption of Gogol's
gastrocentric universe. Connections and afﬁnities between Belyj and Gogol‘ were also
treated (1989: 19). The critic contended that Belyj used Gogolian narrative ambiguities in
his Silver Dove, which has some structural and stylistic features common to Gogol's

narrative ﬁction and also has inter-textual afﬁnities with Evenings on a Farm near

Dikanka and Mirgorod. Another critique (1989: 8) focused on the role of the sorcerers in
The Terrible Vengeance and in Belyj's Moscow, pointing out the basic difference in
depiction of sorcerers: that Gogol' prefers a Christian cosmology, while Belyj favors
Eastern religion and its principle of karma. Belyj's sorcerer's hateﬁrl crimes —- murder,
incest, rape, bondage, madness -- far surpass those of Gogol's sorcerer, and the former
oﬁers a vision of redemption while the latter leaves no hope. The critic concluded that
Belyj does not imitate Gogol', but creates a newly resurrected Gogol' in his world.
Another critic explored the inﬂuence of vaudeville and the transformation of the vaudeville
tradition in The Inspector General and The Marriage ( 1989: 39), insisting that vaudeville
had a strong inﬂuence upon acting styles as well as audience expectations in the Russia of
the 18305-405. The critic pointed out that Gogol' owes a debt to the vaudeville tradition
for the swift pacing of The Inspector General and The Marriage, although he claimed
Russian circumstances unsuitable to vaudeville. He contended that Gogol' rejected the
vaudeville tradition and adapted such vaudevillian trappings as complications of plot, static

dialogue, and comic devices to his own artistic purpose.

Through the examination of both text and context, some critics have explored the
main characteristics of Gogol's artistic world and his views on art and literature -- thematic

patterns, features of humor and satire, views of Romantic, Realism, and Symbolism.

One critic (1925: I) focused on contextual and inter-textual aspects of Gogol's art,
concentrating on stylistic, psychological, ethical, and religious features. The critic insisted
that Gogol's art is characterized by a romantic escape from as well as an indictment of the
reality that Gogol' could not accept. Asserting that Gogol' wished for a renewal of life by
means of ethical and religious values, he also pointed out several of Gogol's stylistic
features: concentration on character at the expense of an involved plot, presentation of

trivial details, agitated style, elements of "skaz." One critique of the integrity of Gogol's

art (1944: 1) made a huge impact on Gogol' criticism with its claims that Gogol' is neither
a humorist nor a realistic painter of Russian life. The critic's sought to restore the
aesthetic elements to Gogol' criticism and to maintain the balance that was lost when
social criticism changed the course of Gogol' criticism. The critic centered on stylistic
devices such as digression, absurdity, irrationality, and the grotesque, in which Gogol's
real art is seen to lie. He saw Gogol's work as poetry in which the irrational is perceived
as rational, a shift he saw as the basis of Gogol's art. Among the stylistic features pointed
out were the digressive paragraphs injected into the narrative of Dead Souls with lack of
concern for relevance, producing ﬂeeting yet vivid characterizations. From the stylistic
point of view, he saw the climactic troika passage of Dead Souls as merely a conjurer's
patter enabling Ciéikov to disappear, claiming that this patter is an integral feature of
Gogol's style. Contending that Gogol's world is invented and has nothing to do with
reality, the critic considered Gogol' a visual writer who primarily excels as a stylist, and
approached Gogol's work as a phenomenon of language, not of ideas. Such an emphasis
on the stylistic aspect of Gogol's art heralded a shift in criticism, bringing about a

sensational attack on Belinskij's views.

Another critic (1952: 9) explored thematic patterns in Gogol's works -- The
Overcoat, Nevskij Prospekt, The Diary of a Madman, The Inspector General, and Dead
Souls -- such as yearning, temporary illusion of possession, and ﬁnally frustration, for
example, the thwarted, illusory, or temporarily gratiﬁed desires of Piskarev, Popriséin,
Xlestakov, Ciéikov and Akakij Akakievic. The critic also pointed out the triangular plot
of The Overcoat: Akakij is attacked ﬁrst by robbers, then by the Very Important Person,
and the VIP is attacked by Akakij’s ghost. He saw the last attack as Akakij's posthumous
vengeance and triumph over the VIP. He claimed that Gogol's original purpose stemmed
from his own compulsions, which developed as a result of demands from his

contemporaries for greatness and immortality. The critic made the point that Gogol' tried

to create a work the likes of which had never been made; however, his work did not
satisfy his purpose, and only frustration remained. Another critic's study (1955: 4)
examined features of humor and paranoia in Gogol's short stories, seeing Gogol's humor
and mockery as the result of an interplay between personal paranoia and dissatisﬁed social
tension in accordance with Freud's formulation of a situation in which three persons are

involved -- a narrator, a mother, and a father.

Shifts and changes in Gogol' criticism were mercurial, never taking a single
direction or coalescing around a dominant pole of criticism. One critique (1956: 12) of
Dead Souls tended to return to Belinskij's views, considering it a universal depiction of
human reality, with the world of serfs embodying tragic reality and the world of the
nobility that of comedy and pseudo-reality. Another critic (1957: 5) focused on stylistic
analyses of Gogol's works, with links to Gogol's biography and personality. He pointed
out some important characteristics of style, noting that Gogol' invented a new narrative
style by assigning the narrative function to the beekeeper in Evenings on a Farm near
Dikanka, which allowed the author to be a contradictory and ironic observer. Rejecting
Nabokov's view (19405. 1) in favor of Belinskij's, a critic (1961: 15) saw The Overcoat as
a satirical description of a poor clerk's relation to a corrupt bureaucracy. He contended
that the main poles of the story are the satiric and sympathetic, although there is absurdity
throughout the story. He also asserted that the absurdity of Gogol's world derives from an
absurd bureaucracy, and the poor clerk's destiny shows that he has lived and died in a

country where there are no provisions for protecting human rights, honor, or property.

Another critic (1965: 23) contended that Gogol's world contains characteristics of
Realism, underlining the uniqueness of Gogol's style and language —- the digressions,
sudden changes of mood, contradictions, and the labyrinthine and twisted psychology of

Gogol's world. He asserted that Gogol', like Flaubert, uses language to protect himself

._______________J

16

ﬁom the conﬂict between his art and his life, and depicts the world's negative aspects
despite his desire to create a positive art. He contended that Gogol's world depicts the
suﬁ‘ering of the Russian people and nation, pointing out that Gogol's exaggeration,
caricature and farce express the reality of life at that time. In 1968, however, another
critic pronounced Romanticism the main characteristic of Gogol's art. This critic (1968:
27) proclaimed the view that Gogol's work contains Romantic elements much more than
Puskin's or Lennontov's, refuting the view that Gogol's work is ﬁrll of realistic elements.
Suggesting that Romanticism is primarily the distortion of reality by fantasy, he insisted
that the world of Dead Souls is a psychological world which reﬂects the changing form

and structure of society.

Gogol's views on art and literature were also explored through new approaches to
Selected Passages from a Correspondence with Friends (1976: 56), noting that Gogol'
was concerned about his views of art and literature throughout his life, with concern
especially shown in Selected Passages and Author's Confession. It was pointed out that
the fundamental motif of the Selected Passages is the juxtaposition of two views of life:
the ideal and heroic (”Honour") and real, everyday life ("nomrrocrb"). Gogol' believes the
main function of art and literature is to confront man with constant conﬂicts between the
real world and the ideal world. The critic endorsed Gogol's view that an artist is endowed
with divine gifts and has the power to uplift. Another critique explored Gogol's art by
analyzing the creative process and the world of vision and perception in Gogol's works
(1976: 48). It asserted that Gogol's writing contains two signiﬁcant features; an
imagination which discloses reality, and a Romantic art which is characterized by fears,
escapes, distorted reﬂections, multiple realities, hyperbole, grotesques, antitheses, and
reversals. Pointed out were three techniques in Gogolian world -- reverse vision, false
focus, and precarious logic - on which Gogolian Romanticism is established. Through

reverse vision, the good turns into the bad, the dead into the alive, imagination into reality,

17

absence into presence, day into night. False focus is presented as a mixture of deceptions,
altered appearances, and dual identities, making the reader aware of a deceptive reality.

The eﬁ‘ects of precarious logic range from absurd humor to insight into reality.

Gogol's art was a subject of another study (1979: 17) emphasizing the unique
features of Gogol's artistic world -- metamorphosis, identity, recognition, and evasion.
The critic claimed that ﬁgurative metamorphosis exists everywhere in Gogol'. Observing
comic elements which consist of a distinctive play of antitheses between something
meaningful and something meaningless, the critic claimed that these antitheses alternate,
with non-sense proving to be sense, or vice versa. The nature of identity is also central to
Gogol's writings: changes of identity occur in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, and
mistaken identity ﬁgures prominently in Nevskij Prospekt, The Diary of a Mad Man, The
Nose, The Inspector General, and Dead Souls. The motif of vision plays an important
role in Gogol's creations, especially in his early works. Gogol's shortsighted characters are
vitalized by means of the creator's own vision. The idea that the role of the creator is
distinct from that of the narrator, with the former remaining above the process of
presentation as carried out by the narrator, carries the implication that the creator has
some larger enterprise of his own, as enigmatic as Cibikov's. Emphasizing Gogol's text,
context, and life, another critic offered a careﬁrl analysis of Gogol's artistic world (1981:
26). The critic saw Gogol's artistic personality as driven by three elements: 1) sexual fears
in the early period, 2) concern about identity and status in the middle period, 3) anxiety
about art and literature in the later period. He insisted that the motif of old woman, sexual
anxiety, and death is encountered in Vi ', The Terrible Vengeance, The Fair at SoroZ'incy,
and The Old- World Landowners. Natural description in Gogol's early stories is not
naturalistic, but contains sexual symbolism which later yields to fear. He contended that

Gogol's artistic view was a negative reconciliation with life in his early years, later

18

becoming a positive reconciliation as a result of his pursuit of the meaningfulness of art

and his growing religious conviction.

Another critique ( 1982: 42) explored symbolic elements in Gogol's works, ﬁnding
a pattern in which the illogical becomes the logical through symbolism. Discerning the
harmonious symbolic elements in ﬁve works --Ivan F edorovié' Sponka and His Aunt, The
Old-World Landowners, The Nose, The Overcoat, and The Carriage, he found at the core
of these works a vision of evil and human imperfection allegorically presented in the form
of sexual conﬂicts. Arguing that the F onnalists' approach to the conventional associations
between words cannot arrive at a harmonious artistic exegesis, he contended that behind a
mask of digression, absurdity, punning, grotesque, etc., lie symbolic meanings, which form
the basis of Gogol's works. He asserted that these meanings create a harmony through the
logic of their repeated patterns. Disorder has been seen as an essential element for pro-
creativity (production) in Gogol's world (1989: 43). The critic asserted that both Sponka's
orderly behavior in the face of the feminine threat and Akakij Akakievié's copying a
document are anti-creativity, while Piskarev’s disorderly studio in Nevskij Prospekt reﬂects
the creativity of an artist. The critic contended that gender disorder and grotesque are so

plentiﬁrl in Gogol's world as to be pro-creativity.

Some critics explored Gogol's art with emphasis on an individually selected text.
One critic (1984: 36) asserted that Dead Souls managed to divide the reading public, as its
comic details were intended to destroy a devitalized way of life. Suggesting that the social
events which bring the characters together, such as visits, dinners and balls, are important
elements of polite society, he insisted that the ideology of polite society forms and molds
the space, the scene, the characters, and their languages through Cibikov's journey in Dead
Souls. He contended that Dead Souls plays a double game with the ideology of polite

society, which makes a spectacular pseudo-event of its death, and also suggests that the

self-satisﬁed world has been dead all along. In another study focusing on a single work, a
critic (1987: 15) examined the theme of boredom and spiritual impoverishment in How
Ivan Ivanovid Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovicv' with respect to Gogol's artistic view.
Pointing out that the story makes the antithesis of the two Ivans' appearance and
characteristics a basic structural principle, he contended that this structure is opposed to
the story's texture. He found a dramatized declension from diversity to simplicity,
presented gradually as the two protagonists' opposing characteristics converge, to be a

basic theme of the story.

Another critique contains contradictory views of Gogol's anachronism in Taras
Bulba (1991: 3). The critic considered the second edition of the tale as Gogol's attempt to
restore chronological precision. After a careful examination of Ukrainian history, he
suggested that the stOry in Taras Bulba begins in 1596 and ends in 1639. He contended
that Gogol' intended to synthesize the events of a half-century to create a historical ﬁction,
and that he analogized the conclusion of the tale. Another critic (1989: 27) focused on the
mirror-like, invented world of Gogol's early stories, Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka
and .Mirgorod. He contended that incest and self-deception are hidden in Gogol's early
stories, arguing that even a surface "beauty" masks hidden demonic forces. He insisted
that these early stories not only contain humor and absurdity, but also have landscapes and
ﬁgures which are threatened by hidden satanic forces. Another critique analyzed Gogol's
"po§lost"' (1988: 25). Considering Gogol's language and art as an exuberant medieval
style of Baroque, the critic insisted that Gogol' as a religious thinker and creative Baroque
artist discovered "poslost'." He pointed out that Gogol' never created "po5lost'" in his
characters, and Gogol' has difﬁculties overcorrring "po§lost"' because of his tendency
toward monolithic unity and his Platonic aesthetics of harmony and "6nar006pa3rre."
Another critic (1989: 14) explored the comfortable yet isolated inside world of "habit and

order" in The Old-World Landowners. This inside world is characterized as rustic,

20

peaceful, pleasant, and remote, with the relationships among its inhabitants innocent and
untroubled. Contrasting this inside world with the outside world of the house and its
garden, the critic pointed out that the space of the narrator and this outside space
interrelate, representing contrasting realms of habit and passion. The outside world of
passionate intensity and time were seen as a threat to the peaceﬁrl inside world. The
Marriage has also been the subject of analysis as a multi-faceted play within a play, with
the main protagonist not only directing but also playing a part within his own play (1990:
2). The critic pointed out several devices of characterization in Kobkarev's play: reduction
(simpliﬁed appearance), exaggeration (exaggerated appearance), and repetition (recurrent
behaviors). He asserted that The Marriage is only a literary artiﬁce which reveals a world

of absurdity, and art can still ﬁrnction in the absence of any social message.

Some critics have mined the riches of Gogol's language and stylistic devices,
producing studies of poetic features from Gogol's text such as narrative style,
composition, similes, imagery, the grotesque, digression, hyperbole, absurdity,

intertextuality, pun, and so on.

One critic (1965: 7) concentrated on several features in the composition of
Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Mirgorod, and The Overcoat. He praised Gogol's
mastery of composition as manifest in his use of two narrators in Evenings. He also
claimed that anxiety is a main subject of Gogol's world, taking various forms not only in
his work, but also in his life. He also proposed that Gogol's illness ﬁrlﬁlled a multiple
function in his life, facilitating the coexistence of anxiety, narcissism, self-dramatization,
self-pity, and guilt. The Overcoat is deemed a story of an unhappy love, through which
Akakij Akakievib discovers himself and comes to life. The critic took the view that
realistic details are drawn into fantasy, thus creating a fake realism -- a joke, the

grotesque, or dead reality. Exemplifying the volatile nature of much Gogol' criticism,

 

21

another critic (1965: 28) claimed that exaggerated biographism is irrelevant in judging
Gogol's works as works of art. The critic analyzed Gogol's works in chronological order,
emphasizing the inﬂuence of German Romanticism, Pu§kin, Stern, and Jules Janin, and
pointing out Gogol's intentional mixing of all elements of tone and expression. He
ﬁrrthermore explored Gogol's stylistic devices of absurdity and hyperbole, rejecting the
view that Gogol' reﬂected Russian reality in Dead Souls. Another critic (1967: 21)
focused on aspects of Gogol's sirrriles, imagery, and value judgments. He focused on the
types of similes described in Dead Souls, including the origin and meaning of Gogol's
Homeric similes and the ﬁrnction of his many humorous sirrriles. He presented a
comparative examination of sirrrile and Homeric sinrile in Taras Bulba and The Iliad,
pointing out that Gogol' had a tendency to decrease hyperbolic and grotesque similes in
the ﬁnal version compared with earlier variants. He contended that the important role
played by similes in Dead Souls is enhanced by their relation to other images in the work.
Another critic (1967: 36) examined stylistic technique in The Overcoat, pointing out
several types of contrast, including not only juxtaposition of the comic and solemn, but
also repeated confrontations between amrmation and negation. He assigned to some

adversative conjunctions ("Ho, a," "Ira," etc.) the function of concentration and
emphasis, while other adversative conjunctions ("ouHaKo," "Bnpoqu," etc.) were seen as
accentuating the adversative intonation, with concessive clauses introduced by "xorsr,"
"XO'I‘b," and "‘ITO," displaying tension or contrast. The frequency of direct and indirect
questions and the mass of indeﬁnite words (indeﬁnite pronouns, prononrinal adjectives and
adverbs) is seen to play an important role in the story's deliberate vagueness. Such a

combination of indeﬁnite words and the adversative intonation is seen as the story's main

feature.

A new study centering on the grotesque in Gogol's works was performed by a

critic (1969: 5) who claimed that a characteristic of the grotesque is its tension between

____——_____I_A

22

the comic and the tragic, the "laughter through tears" which Gogol' regarded as the
essence of his own humor. Comparing two contrasting interpretations of the nature of the
grotesque -- Wolfgang Kayser's and Mixail Baxtin's -- the critic emphasized Gogol's own
interpretation of The Inspector General: to create on the stage a living symbol of evil in
order to destroy it with laughter, bringing about a spiritual rebirth and preparing the
audience for the coming of Jesus Christ. He asserted that disbelief in God is the source of
the oppressive grotesque in Gogol'. Another critic ( 1969: 9) focused on the grotesque in a
general study of Gogol's life and works. He found that Gogol' is one of the best writers to
condense the grotesque imagination fully and boldly. Introducing various artists' views of
the grotesque, such as those of historian Wolfgang Kayser, Wieland, Wilhelm Busch, and
Lee Byron Jenning, the critic examined this element in Gogol's works, pointing out some
examples ﬁ'om Ivan Fedorovic' Sponka and His Aunt, The Old-World Landowners, The
Inspector General, and Dead Souls. He concluded that Gogol' is a great impersonator,
and rejected psychological approaches to Gogol's personality. The essence of Gogol's
laughter and its relation to his personality was treated in one critic's study (1971: 23);
noted were several comic devices such as digression, incongruity, irrelevance, and anti-
climax, which play a signiﬁcant role in creating humor. The critic pointed out that Gogol's
comic manner is an escape from his personal life and idealistic self, as well as a
consequence of his deep depression. The duality of laughter and tears in Gogol's complex
humor suggest that through laughter Gogol' revenges himself on Russian society for the
humiliations he had experienced, and this revenge takes the form of anti-heroes whom

Gogol' endows with his personal neuroses.

Another study (1973: 13) focused on the relationship between author and reader
and the varieties of narrative style in The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovib Quarreled with Ivan
Niszorovib. The critique found in the narrative two voices, that of the beekeeper Rudyj

Pan'ko from Dikanka, and that of a writer of popular romantic literature. The former

23

addresses a local audience; the latter, a mass one. Noting the Ukrainian expressions and
grammar, church related colloquialisms, and bureaucratic language in the narrative, the
critic pointed out mixtures of foreign expressions such as "Kosmarmsr" and "neno
nermxamoe," which creates an effect of absurdity. The critic proposed that there is
another, third narrative voice in the epilogue marked by contrasting ideas and contrasting
stylistic devices, as well as Pu‘s’kinian simplicity. He concluded that this third voice, using
both language varieties, addresses itself more to an educated audience. Another critique
(1974: 11) focused on the craftsmanship and technical signiﬁcance of The Overcoat,
claiming that Gogol' intentionally uses "naxe," "yxe," and "yx" to achieve the comic
effects of digression, absurdity, logical disruption, and grotesque. Through such word-
play, Gogol' is seen to disclose the insigniﬁcance of the real life that he is presenting
because what comes after the word "uaxe" seems to be triﬂing and trivial. The study also
suggested that Gogol' draws attention to Akakij Akakievié's deliberately impoverished
language, which matches that of the narrator. A structural approach was central to
another critique (1974: 37), which proceeding ﬁ'om a description of the narrator's
personality to a consideration of the general viewpoint resulting from narrator's unique
role in The Overcoat, i.e., the narrator shows his own feeling of pathos and the various

characters of the story react in like manner.

Another critic analyzed the narrative structure of The Carriage (1975: 26),
focusing on the character of Certokuckij, to which is ascribed an importance in the
narrative's development: most of the elements of the narrative structure are seen to contain
iconic signiﬁcance. Thus everything that is furnished to create Certokuckij's character is
part of the icon. He described some devices which help build the iconic signiﬁcance of
The Carriage: grotesque, metaphoric and metonymic expressions, parallelism, repetition,
and absurdity, which combine to contribute to the overall effect. Another critic (1976: 33)

pointed out narrative devices in Gogol's Two [vans -- exclamations, digressions, formulaic

24

expressions, apostrophes to the reader, trivial details, and parallelisms. The critic found
the tension-generating disparity in the text between syntax and semantics to reﬂect a
complex interrelationship between reality and appearance, an oscillation between
equilibrium and disequilibrium. He also explored the ﬁrnction of shifts in "skaz" narrative
voices in Two Ivans, asserting that three narrative voices exist in the text. Another
critique (1976: 19) analyzed The Inspector General's simplicity, ﬂuency, dynamics of
language, and use of hyperbole, irony, the grotesque, and colloquial speech. The dual
nature of the mayor's speech (politeness with Xlestakov and coarseness to his
subordinates) is seen to result in mutual misunderstanding between the mayor and
Xlestakov, showing Gogol's facility at creating his protagonists through their verbal
mannerisms. Stylistic devices such as the use of "11a" as a syntactic and pragmatic
connective in the stylized manner of The Overcoat have also been scrutinized (1978: 16).
Explaining that Russian "Ira" is chieﬂy restricted to initial position in a pragmatic role,
which is an indication of more popular and vulgar speech, this critic pointed out that while
Gogol' used "11a" for depicting individuals, he more Oﬁen used "Ila" in describing
situations. Thus Gogol' used "Ha" for grotesque effect in the scene between Petrovié and

Akakij Akakievib.

The narrative voice in The Nose was explored by one critic (1989: 33) who
asserted that the struggle between man and the devil is perhaps the struggle between the
principles of sense-making and sense-destroying nonsense, believing this to be the subject
of The Nose. Another critic explored Gogol's hidden absurdity in The Diary of a Madman
(1989: 37). The critic revealed how Gogol' makes use of an unreliable narrator to handle
the reader's perceptions, and how the frequent contradictions, digressions, and absurdities
in the account, as well as the author's lack of commentary, leave the reader guessing. The
critic pointed out that the voice of the ﬁrst-person narrator is the story, and there is no

authorial intervention at all. Comic eﬁ‘ect comes from the rhythm of the passage,

25

repetition, and absurd juxtapositions. The critic contended that the hidden absurd in The
Diary of a Madman allows Gogol' to connect with the reader more closely, at the same
time adding a comic effect. Another critic (1990: 5) explored intertexuality in the
novelistic dialogue of The Nose from Baxtin's viewpoint of carnivalization and double-
voicing. The critic asserted that The Nose has features of parody, such as a form of
double-voicing, which plays an important role in the composition of language in the comic
novel. He also pointed out that the nose is used as a comic device to reveal the absurdity

of social and textual convention.

Some critics have explored the interrelationship of religion and literature in Gogol's

writings, while others have applied their religious views to his individual works.

One critique (1968: 3 7) of Selected Passages ﬁom Correspondence with Friends
highlighted another critical movement of the 19605 With its religious approach. He
emphasized that to Gogol' the aesthetic and the religious were not separate categories.
Supporting Gogol's claim that his works constitute a unity from beginning to end without
any change of viewpoint, the critic asserted that Gogol's quest for beauty is not a quest of
discovery or a quest for an ideal, but a quest for embodiment of art in life. He pointed out
that Gogol' believes the writer to be not a creator of beauty writing for art's sake or for
himself, but a prophet who reveals beauty and writes for his people and for God. Another
religious study (1969: 4) was attempted by a critic who rejected the view that Gogol's life
was marked by religious fanaticism, unconventional behavior, and mental illness. She
suggested that Gogol's prayers, his pilgrimages to Jerusalem, his shadowy moods, and his
destruction Of part two of Dead Souls indicate not mental insanity, but a strong,
purposeful idealism. She also contended that the theme of banality is strongly linked to a
Gogol's religious quest, for it is a signiﬁcant element that separates humanity ﬁ'om God.

One critic ( 1972: 49) considered The Overcoat a caricature of hagiography, especially of

 

 

 

26

the story of the sixth-century St. Acacius of Sinai, whom Akakij Akakievié is seen to
resemble. Pointing out the lack of a hagiographical description of sincerity and humility in
the Opening part of the story, he saw the introduction to The Overcoat as a satirical
digression. He claimed that Gogol' followed the hagiographical tendency of not
mentioning speciﬁc names, places, and dates and noted that the simple tasks of copying
documents performed by Akakij Akakievic' and St. Acacius are identical. Furthermore,
the downtrodden, alienated Akakij holds many elements in common with St. Acacius's life.
He also pointed out that the most structurally signiﬁcant link between Akakij Akakievib'

and St. Acacius lies in the events after Akakij's death.

Another critique (1976: 24) showed that Gogol's anxiety seems to be religious,
asserting that Gogol's religious belief is strongly connected to his aesthetics. He contends
that the sinner's pursuit of salvation is embodied in Akakij Akakievié's new coat, drawing
upon the idea that clothing is used to symbolize righteousness in the Bible to conclude that
Akakij Akakievié's exchange of clothing ﬁ'om a ﬁlthy coat to a new coat signiﬁes his
transformation into a new man. Seeing the surrounding ﬁost and cold weather as symbols
of Satan, he ﬁrrther asserted that the new coat symbolizes Christ himself. Agreeing with
Schillinger's view of spiritual meaning in The Overcoat, the critic, however, claimed that
Akakij Akakievib' is not a holy martyr, but, a sinner. Gogol's views on art, Russia, religion
and the idea of writer as prophet were also treated in this study. One critic (1976: 56)
observed how various heated polemics surrounding Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends created misunderstandings and misconceptions about
Gogol', and argued that Gogol' considers the theater to be a vehicle for the education of
Russian people and a pulpit for preaching Christianity. The artist is seen as a person
endowed with extraordinary insight and divine gifts. The critic concluded that Gogol'

strived to achieve artistic, moral, and religious perfection with his passionate and

 

 

27

desperate yearning for religious ecstasy, and that Gogol's oeuvre should be re-evaluated in

terms of a correct understanding of his Selected Passages.

Another critic's study of Gogol's religious and aesthetic outlook (1978: 72) made
the claim that Gogol's quest for beauty is not a quest of discovery or a quest for an ideal,
but a quest for embodiment of art in life. Rejecting the theory of "religious crisis" in
Gogol's career claimed by Zenkovskij and Gippius, the critic claimed that to Gogol' the
artistic and religious were not separate categories, but were the same in reality -- the
Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Beauty. He contended that to Gogol' Russia is a
Christian work of art and a thing of beauty. Religious interpretation was also applied to
The Inspector General by a critic (1980: 11) who considered the play's ﬁctional town to
represent humanity's common spiritual city, with its ofﬁcials symbolizing of earthly
passions and trivial vulgarity, and Xlestakov as the trivial conscience of the world.
Viewing The Inspector General as an apocalyptic satire, he observed that Gogol' uses
comic triviality to reveal the emptiness of life and human fear, although the characters in
the play are too ridiculous to consider their disaster seriously. Another religious
interpretation of The Inspector General (1987: 7) treated the play as a medieval allegory
with an eschatological theme. The town in the play was seen to designate man himself,
and the real Inspector General is the awakening conscience -- not a person of this world,
but Jesus Christ, who will destroy all sinners. Seeing the silence of the last scene in the
play as the silence before the triumphant sounds of the Last Judgment, he asserted that
Gogol's preoccupation with the Last Judgment is regarded both ﬁ'om a religious point of

view and as an expression of Gogol's own personality.

Elsewhere another work of Gogol's was found to exemplify the integral quality of
religion in Gogol's artistic world (1987: 10). T aras Bulba was seen to reﬂect Gogol's idea

of the relation between God and man, with the Cossacks representing a divine nature,

MM-—__—__L_d

 

28

through Eastern Orthodox imagery: Ostap's death echoes Christian martyrs, and Bulba's
death scene recalls Christ's cruciﬁxion. The critic deemed the nature of wholeness in the
Cossacks' life, a role of multiplicity-in-unity, to be the reﬂection of the Trinity and the
Russian image of God. Another critic (1990: 4) pointed out certain general themes and
modes of Christian thought which originated with Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite such
as the ideas of place, transﬁguration, and silence. He saw the violation of the idea of place
as the plot of Gogol's stories. He asserted that Gogol's ideas are also lodged in the
Orthodox View of transﬁguration -- transformation of man and society. Gogol's stories

contain the theme of silence, which follows after the failure of transﬁguration.

Gogol's highly idiosyncratic art has also been a mother lode of material for
psychological, especially psychosexual, analysis and criticism. As might be expected, this
area has been a particularly potent catalyst in the generation of trends and countertrends in

Gogol' criticism.

A psychological interpretation of The Nose (1951: 2) dealt with anxieties and
obsessions, concluding that the nightmare in the story is not prosaic, innocent fantasy, but
the substance of real life. The critic also insisted that Kovalev's problem stems not from
his nose, but what the nose represents in the topsy-turvy world of Gogol', contending that
the root of man's psychological problems lies beneath the surface of his physical
complaints. In 1958 a critic (1958: 7) stimulated a new shift in criticism of Gogol' with his
own psychological approach. The critic applied Freudian theory to Mirgorod, focusing on
the role of love: "the ultimate source of energy in human being is the love instinct, Eros."
Claiming that Gogol's inclination to supernatural beings or things as love objects frees him
from fear or threat, the critic pointed out that heterosexual romance occupies only a small

portion in Mirgorod, and Gogol's treatment of heterosexuality takes the form of retreat,

29

regression, and ﬁnally boredom. He concluded that this shift ﬁom love to boredom means

a complete withdrawal ﬁom libido.

Another psychological approach was postulated in a critique of The Diary of a
Madman (1961: 13). Contending that Gogol' depicts man‘s fear and loneliness in an
antagonistic world as well as the triviality of his existence, the critic showed how the two
worlds of poverty and wealth are juxtaposed to dramatize triviality and meaninglessness.
The critic also underlined Gogol's eﬁ‘ort to neutralize the world of terror by shifting it into
the world of absurdity. Another psychological study saw The Nose as a journey through
Gogol's own sexual anxieties under the pretext of both a grotesque farce and a satire on
social climbers (1963: 29). Consenting to Ermakov's view on The Nose, he insisted that
Kovalev's nose symbolizes his sexual organ, making the loss of his nose a dream about the
loss of his sexual organ, or of his sexual power. He suggested that the scene of the nose's
visit to the Kazan Cathedral symbolizes the act of the union between man (the nose) and
woman (the church). He contended that the dream in The Nose is not only Kovalev's and
barber Ivan's dream, butalso Gogol's own drearrr, since it expresses Gogol's personal
sexual failure. Another study (1965: 12) also examined psychological traits in The Diary
of a Madman, rejecting the social and moral approach to the work. The critic claimed
that Popriséin's search for power and love reﬂects his quest for an identity within the
social system. This critic also found that the vagueness and nothingness of the story's

ending makes Gogol's vision one of fear.

Two critiques taking new psychological approaches to Gogol' followed. One
(1976: 43) saw The Overcoat as a product of psychological realism, considering Akakij
Akakievib a psychological nonentity who is not simply a grotesque image, but a product of
the author's narrative devices. Akakievi‘é's new overcoat is deemed to represent the

spiritual sustenance which brings him inner happiness. He pointed out that Gogol' resorts

30

to a purely external method of portraying the inner world, which is psychological realism
in another sense. He insisted that the stylistic devices used in The Overcoat contributed to
a non-rational approach to psychology. His analysis of The Diary of a Madman showed
that the story contains psychological elements as well as an inner logic of madness. He
asserted that Gogol' uses internal as well as external presentations of psychology in order
to precisely reveal human madness. The second critic (1976: 29) pursued homosexual and
psychological themes in Gogol's biography and writings. The critic called Gogol' a closet
homosexual, noting that Gogol' did not have an interest in writing about women and was
never interested in describing heterosexual relationships in his works. He examined the
sexual symbolism of Gogol's nature descriptions in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka
according to which natural phenomena (river, sky, and earth) are thought to have been
assigned speciﬁc genders. He pointed out that Gogol' conveys his visualization of
sexualized nature in The Terrible Vengeance, ﬁnding sexual symbolism in geese. The
critic contended that the comfortable lifestyle of the elderly couple in The Old-World
Landowners showed how to live affectionately with another person while retreating from
the threat of disastrous heterosexual sex or forbidden homosexual sex. The Two [vans
contained for him a story of a sexless homosexual marriage with Ivan Ivanovib's oﬁ‘er of a
pig and two bags of oats in exchange for a riﬂe as a veiled homosexual proposition. He
showed how Gogol's feelings of homosexual guilt result in his religious crisis and strong
ties with Christianity, since religion alone kept Gogol' from acting out his homosexual

impulses.

Criticism of Gogol's links to sexuality (1980: 9) reappeared with Evenings on a
Farm near Dikanka, The contrasts Of countryside and city are paralleled in the pattern of
sexual imagery and death imagery: the urban narrator depicts sexuality and death with
explicit visual imagery, while the rural narrator avoids such visual imagery. Another critic

(1981: 1) underlined the sexual behavior of both protagonists in The Two Ivans as a form

31

of subtext, taking a psychological and symbolic approach to the tension betweei
unsatisﬁed heterosexuality and unﬁrlﬁlled homosexuality. He contended that Ivar
Nikiforovié represents a sexually unstable person as well as a heterosexual. Ivan Ivanovii
is secretive and sexually active, while Ivan Nikiforovic‘i is open and sexually inactive. Ivar
Ivanovié's coat is seen to symbolize a defense mechanism to cover his fear, his sexua
insecurity, and his secretiveness as a closet homosexual. He also contended that Ivar
Nikiforovib's gun symbolizes his penis and the two sacks of cats represent Ivan Ivanovib';
maleness. Considering the cause of their broken relationship to lie in its sexua
underpinnings, he asserted that only impotence remains triumphant due to their withdrawa
from both kinds of sexuality. Considering Gogol' as a psychoanalyst, a critic drew severa
observations about homosexuality, marriage, and death in The Fair at Soroéincy (1982
29). The critic suggested that the narrator is a homosexual for whom marriage i:
unthinkable and tantamount to death, and that death and homosexuality are closely
intertwined in Gogol's art as well as his life. The critic pointed out that Gogol' couple:
erotic imagery coupled with absurdity in Vij, Nevskij Prospekt, and The Overcoat. Ht
also saw Petrovié in The Overcoat as a personiﬁcation of both anal and genital sexuality
He pointed out the "anal triad" of the anal personality type in Akaky Akakievi‘é's behavior

orderliness, parsirnoniousness, and obstinacy.

As surveyed above, twentieth-century Gogol' criticism written in English wa
extensive and comprehensive, with each critic exploring Gogol' in a diﬁ‘erent way
Overall, Gogol’ criticism ﬁom 1915 to 1991 was very comprehensive and substantial. Nt
one can argue its variety, depth, and substance. There were constant shifts and changes i1
Gogol' criticism and a proliferation of approaches and methodologies throughout thi
entire period. Gogol' criticism in English has indeed assiduously examined Gogol' ani
revealed innumerable unexplored aspects of Gogol's art. Criticism has singled out Dear

Souls and The Overcoat as Gogol's most prominent accomplishments. Many critics hav»

32

explored Gogol's works, focusing on his narrative device ("skaz") and stylistic devices (the
grotesque, digressions, word-play, Homeric similes, hyperbole, absurdity). Some critics
paid no heed to Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends, while others
treated it as a tremendously important work which supported their own religious views.
The Nose and The Diary of a Madman were considered important for their psychological
aspects. Certain critics drew sexual analysis (heterosexual and homosexual) from The
Nose and Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. Gogol's views of art were drawn out from
The Portrait, Nevskij Prospekt, Author 's Confession, and Selected Passages. Controversy
prevailed in criticism dealing with literary movements. Some criticism placed emphasis on
Realism, Romanticism, or even Romantic Realism, while others on Gogol's Symbolism, or
F ormalism. Comparative studies also stressed Gogol's afﬁnity with other writers, Russian
and foreign, emphasizing his strong inﬂuence upon Russian and foreign literature. Gogol‘
interpretation, however, has never reached a consensus, although many analyses were
written from 1915 through 1991. Many critics still do not hesitate to address Gogol' as a
mysterious and unsolved writer: "one of the most puzzling transition-ﬁgures between the
romantic and the realistic periods" (1925: 1); "the strangest prose-poet Russia ever
produced" (1944: 1); "the mysterious dwarf“ (1957: 5); "we are still far from agreement as
to the nature of his genius, the meaning of his bizarre art, and his still weirder life" (1969:
9); "a romantic will see the romantic in him, a realist will see the realist." (1972: 6);
"riddle" (1976: 29); "elusiveness" (1979: 17); "the literature on Gogol' is vast....I am
raising problems, not solving them." (1981: 12); "enigma" (1981: 26); "mystery" (1982:

42); and so on. It is obvious that Gogol' continues to resist deﬁnitive interpretation.

CHAPTER TWO

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MAJOR
EN GLISH-LAN GUAGE LITERARY CRITICISM

1910-1919

1. Birkhead, A. "Russian Pickwick." LivingAge, 287 (1915), pp. 312-15.

Points out Gogol's and Dickens' similar backgrounds: both began writing
when they were young. Dickens' experience in a lawyer's ofﬁce helped him
accurately depict the world of Pickwick Papers, while Gogol's work in a
governmental oﬁce informed him concerning the corruption of the Russian
bureaucracy. Sees Dead Souls as much closer to Dickens' Pickwick Papers than to
Cervantes' Don Quixote: just as Ciéikov enjoys a certain sympathy among
Russians, the English have aﬁ‘ection for Samuel Pickwick; neither novel has a
major heroine, etc. Notes the signiﬁcance of coaches in both novels: the troika is
the symbol of the Russian with his enthusiastic love Of excitement and careless
desire for change, while for the Englishman the coach represents slow and gradual

social progress.

2. Bowen, C. M. "Dead Souls and Pickwick Papers. " Living Age, 280, (1916), pp. 369-
73.

Explains that Gogol', though, strongly inﬂuenced by Dickens, is no simple
inritator, seeing in Dead Souls as many differences as similarities to Dickens'
Pickwick Papers. Insists that both works have common features in the looseness of

their structures and the simplicity of their plots. In addition, their settings are quite

33

 

34

similar. Cibikov makes a journey in his "6pm," while Pickwick travels by stage
coach. Both men encounter a variety of character types. Gogol' is closest to
Dickens in his depictions of minor characters such as Pljuskin, Manilov, Nozdrev,
and Sobakevié. Like Dickens, Gogol' presents his characters in bold outline.
Asserts that Gogol's deliberate satires on Russian Ofﬁcialdom echo Dickens'
political caricatures. Claims, however, that Cidikov is quite a different character
than Pickwick. The two works are also seen to diﬁ‘er since the sadness behind the
humor characteristic of Dead Souls is nowhere to be felt in Pickwick Papers.
Argues that Dickens discusses the social evils of his time with hope and desire for
reform, while Gogol' simply laughs in self-defense rather than weeping at tragic

hopelessness.

1920-1929

1. Lavrin, Janko. Gogol. London: Routledge, 1925.

Examines both Gogol's life and works in chronological order. Sees Gogol'
as one of the most puzzling transition-ﬁgures between the romantic and the
realistic periods. Analyzes characteristics of his style and "skaz," taking a Freudian
psychological approach. Asserts that in The Overcoat, Gogol‘ creates out of trivial
details a character replete with comedy, misery and pathos. Surmnarizes Gogol's
main features: 1) concentration on character at the expense of an involved plot, 2)
trivial details, 3) agitated style, 4) element of "skaz," 5) fear of a dehumanized
humanity, 6) a search for vexation of the spirit. Claims that Gogol' wished for a

renewal of life by means of ethical and religious values.

1930-1939

35

 

1. Brasol, Boris. "Gogol." In his 13 Mighty Three: Poushkin-Gogol-Dgstoieﬁlgr. New
York: William Farquhar Payson, 1934, pp. 117-90.

Contains a brief biography of Gogol' and analyzes Gogol's works
chronologically. Deems Gogol' the most tragic ﬁgure in world literature. Suggests
that in Gogol's consciousness lie obsessive ideas about the Devil, which might be
connected with his religious complex. Contrasts Gogol's Devil with Dante's
Lucifer, Milton's Serpent, Goethe's Mephisto, Byron's Satan, and Lennontov's
Demon, ﬁnding him closest to Dostoevskij's Devil: a clairvoyant of human souls, a
good natured and gregarious sort Of creature. Infers ﬁ'om Gogol's claim that
Xlestakov is everywhere that Xlestakov has the three properties Of Divinities;
omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. Thus Xlestakov is the Devil created
by Gogol' and ends up the only winner in the battle of life; all others, including
Gogol', are losers. Contrasts features of Xlestakov and Cic'ikov. Describes how
Gogol's faith in Holy Russia changed his artistic world from a farce to a sermon in
his Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends: The Inspector General
and Dead Souls were "laughter through tears, " Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends "tears without laughter, " lamenting the evils of a

Christian world that had lost its Christ.

2. Kaun, Alexander. "Poe and Gogol: A Comparison." Slavonic and East European
Review, 15, no. 44 (1937), pp. 389-99.

 

Observes similarities and differences in the works and lives of Poe and
Gogol', asserting that both become writers due to ﬁustrated ambition. Gogol's
Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and Poe's Tales of the Folio Club are both seen
as inﬂuenced by Hoﬁinan's Serapionsbru'der. Sees Poe's fantasy as modiﬁed by his
supernatural rationality, while Gogol's imagination is controlled by his humor.

Shows how both writers' personal inferiority develops into an egotism of

 

36

superiority and a tendency to distortion and exaggeration. Compares the paranoiac
tone of Gogol's Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends and Poe's
Eureka, suggesting that it results from their threatened mental balance. Sees in
both writers attitudes of overvaluation toward women resulting from mother-
worship and a search for a shelter from a masculine world. Contends that both

writers died since they lost their will to live.

3. Simmons, Earnest J. "Gogol and English Literature." Modern Langage Review, 26
(1931), pp. 445-50.
Notes several striking similarities between Gogol's Nevskij Prospekt and
De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. Suggests that Gogol' might
have read a French version of Confessions of an English Opium-Eater since there
was no Russian version ofDe Quincey's work when Gogol's Nevskij Prospekt was
published. Points out that both writers portray the main streets of big cities:
Nevskij Prospekt in St. Petersburg and Oxford Street in London. Both Piskarev
and De Quincey escape from the reality of life, and drive themselves into ecstatic
dreams. Both works also contain similar ball scenes. In the ball room, both heroes
catch sight of a pretty woman surrounded by others. Concludes that Gogol's
Nevskij Prospekt was directly inﬂuenced by De Quincey's Confessions of an

English Opium-Eater.

1940-1949

1. Nabokov, Vladimir V. Nikolai Gogol. Norfolk, Connecticut: New Directions Books,
1944.

Contains a biography with a reversed chronological account of Gogol's life

and travels abroad, begining with Gogol's death and ending with his birth.

 

37

Attempts an analysis of Gogol's three most important works: The Inspector
General, The Overcoat, and Dead Souls. Emphasizes the integrity of Gogol's art.
Claims that Gogol' is the strangest prose-poet Russia ever produced -- neither a
humorist, nor a father of the Natural school, nor a realistic painter of Russian life.
Insists that Gogol' was never concerned with real life, and supports his claim by
pointing to stylistic aspects of his writing, such as digression, irrationality,
absurdity, and the grotesque, in which Gogol's art is seen to lie. Demonstrates
Gogol's symbolic use of objects in his stories, novels and plays. Sees Gogol's work
as poetry, in which the irrational is perceived as rational, a shift he saw as the basis
of Gogol's art. Pointing out that ironic incongruity is an essential part of the
texture of Dead Souls, shows how digressive paragraphs, injected into the
narrative with lack of concern for relevance, produce ﬂeeting yet vivid
characterizations. Points out how underlying allusions are artistically combined

with the superﬁcial texture of the narration. Claims that "po§lost personiﬁes
Ciéikov, and sees Cibikov as "the ill-paid representative of the Devil." Contending
that Gogol's world is invented and has nothing to do with reality, concludes that
Gogol' is a visual writer who primarily excels as a stylist, and approached Gogol's

work as a phenomenon of language, not of ideas.

1950-1 959

l. Bowman, Herbert. "The Nose." Slavonic and East European Review, 31, no. 76
(1952), pp. 204-11.

Enumerates certain important features of the nose: ﬁrst, the nose is the

least important member of the human body, but it is located in the most evident

place; second, it is seen not by its owner, but by other people; third, it tends to

appear in expressions of ridicule or detraction. Characterizes Gogol's The Nose as

38

a satire on Russian bureaucracy, a grotesque image of St. Petersburg life. Sees The

Nose as a reﬂection of Gogol's imagination transformed into a dream.

2. Friedman, Paul. "The Nose: Some Psychological Reﬂections." The American Imago, 8
(December 1951), pp. 337—50.

Suggests that Gogol' has a gilt for revealing fears, anxieties, and obsessions
from the dark of night into the bright light of day. Reﬁrses to interpret the story of
Gogol's The Nose as a simple dream. Insists that for Gogol' the nightmare in the
story is not prosaic innocent fantasy, but the substance of real life which is
composed of just such nightmares. In the madman's world a nose can have
mysterious and important meanings. Argues that Kovalev's big problem does not
stem from the pimple on his nose, or his nose itself. The problem is what the nose
represents in the topsy-turvy world of Gogol'. Believes the doctor in the story is
very wise because he reﬁrses to perform the operation on Kovalev when he asks
for it. Contends that the root of man's psychological problems lies beneath the

surface of his physical complaints.

3. Futrell, Michael A. "Gogol and Dickens." Slavonic and East European Review, 34, no.
83 (1956), pp. 443-459.

Rejects the view that Gogol's Dead Souls was inﬂuenced by Dickens'

Pickwick Papers. Accepts the possibility that Gogol' might have read foreign

versions of Pickwick Papers in the two years before the completion of part one of

Dead Souls, but points out that the subject of Dead Souls was provided to Gogol'

by Pu5kin in 1835 and Gogol' started to write it in the same year, while Pickwick

Papers was published in English in 1836. Suggests that the source of structural

similarities between Dead Souls and Pickwick Papers comes ﬁ'om a common

 

39

tradition exempliﬁed by Cervantes, Lesage and Fielding. Insists that there is no
speciﬁc connection between thematic or stylistic features in both works,
suggesting, for example, that the technique of expressive personal names in both
works' characters had been employed by many forerunners of Dickens. Points out
that there might exist some similarities in treating social and economic changes in
Russia and England, since both works were written at the same time. Concludes
that Gogol's artistic world is more extraordinary and individual than Dickens'

world.

4. Kanzer, Mark. "Gogol: A Study on Wit and Paranoia." Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 3, no. 1 (January 1955), pp. 110-25.

Asserts that wit and paranoia are products of social tension. Suggests that
Gogol's mockery and humor result from an interplay between personal paranoia
and dissatisﬁed social tension. Believes that in the development of Gogol's
personality, disharmony and depression inrelationships with his associates created
a mood of instability. Finds that in Gogol's world, an interplay of paranoia is in
accordance with Freud's formulation of a situation in which three persons are
involved: the ﬁrst person, a narrator, provides instinctual aims to the second
person, a mother, who is presented as a hostile character, and the third person, a
father, is a superego. In W, Gogol' depicts a mother's enchantment on her son,
which is answered by his sadistic attack on her. The Nose depicts both a son's
symbolic retreat from his mother, and his preoccupation with triumph over his
father. In Gogol's world, humor is connected to paranoia with its distorted three

person interplay and responses to social tension.

5. Magarshack, David. Gogol: A Life. New York: Grove Press, 1957.

 

 

40

Consists of an introduction and six parts: "The mysterious dwarf," "From
defeat to triumph," "Historian and essayist," "The mature artist," Dead Souls, "The
barren years." Links Gogol's biography and personality with analyses of his works.
Includes many quotations from Gogol's writings, as well as from the memoirs and
comments Of his contemporaries. Agrees with Vikenty Veresaev that Gogol's
works had a direct impact on the uneducated man. Points out some important
characteristics of Gogol's style. Notes how in his early stories, Gogol' invented a
new narrative style in which a beekeeper tells the stories, allowing the author to be

a contradictory and ironic observer.

6. Martin, Mildred. "The Last Shall Be First: A Study of Three Russian Short Stories."

Bucknell Review, 6, no. 1 (1956), pp. 13-23.

Exarrrines Gogol's The Overcoat from a Christian point of view. Points out
that Akakij Akakievib's sorrowful cry -- "Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?"
-- comes not ﬁom his pride, but from his Christian self-respect, which arises from
the knowledge that he is a child of God. Suggests that The Overcoat might be
interpreted as a reminder that human beings are simple, since Akakij's simplicity
prevents him from thinking of himself or thinking unkindly of others. Concludes
that through the cry of Akakij the reader feels a new kind of truth, the dawning of

a feeling of brotherhood.

7. McLean, Hugh. "Gogol's Retreat from Love: Towards an Interpretation ofMirgoro ."

In his American Contributions to the Fourth International Conggess of Slavists,
Hague: Mouton, 1958, pp. 225-45.

Analyzes the role Of love in Gogol's stories in Mirgorod. Observes that

Gogol' uses overtly erotic imagery in his early stories, yet depicts a straightforward

 

41

sexual embrace only when the romantic partner is a supernatural being in nature or
a thing. Claims that Gogol's inclination to things as an object of love frees him
ﬁom fear or threats. Notes that before the publication of Mirgorod, Gogol' had
taken up the theme of love in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, but drops it
entirely after Adirgorod. Sees the love theme in Mirgorod as a source of tragedy,
disaster, death, or farce. Points out that heterosexual romance occupies only a
small portion in Mirgorod. Gogol's treatment of heterosexuality takes the form Of
retreat, regression, and ﬁnally boredom. In this process, a mixture of fear, death,
masochistic delight, and sadistic impulse plays an important role. This symbolic
shift from love to boredom, to which is ascribed a more negative meaning than

hate, means a complete withdrawal from libido.

8. Selig, Karl Ludwig. "Concerning Gogol's Dead Souls and Lazarillo de T ormes. "

Symposium, 8 (1954), pp. 138-40.

Refutes the view of L. B. Turkevib that Gogol's Dead Souls was inﬂuenced
by Cervantes' Don Quixote. Asserts that there is a similarity between Gogol's Dead
Souls and an anonymous Spanish picaresque novel, Lazarillo de T ormes, noting
that the episode in part two of Dead Souls is similar to the episode of the third part
of Lazarillo de T ormes and both protagonists of both works -- Tentetnikov and
Lazarillo -- have a similar reason for leaving their positions. Adds that both novels
contain a balance and a deadlock between society and scoundrel, master and

servant, anti-hero and host.

9. Stilman, Leon. "Gogol's Overcoat: Thematic Pattern and Origins." American Slavic app

EastEuropean Review, 11, no. 2 (1952), pp. 138-48.

 

 

42

Asserts that the thematic pattern of Gogol's The Overcoat is yearning, the
temporary illusion of possession, then ﬁnally frustration. Points out that this
thematic pattern is also present in his other works such as Nevskij Prospekt, The
Diary of a Madman, The Inspector General, and Dead Souls. Piskarev's dream of
changing a prostitute into his spouse is purely illusion and his attempt fails, and the
gratiﬁcation of Popri§5in's passionate desire is short-lived when the illusion is
dispelled. The desire of Xlestakov and Ciéikov for self-aggrandizement attain only
short-lived gratiﬁcation while their illusions are shared by others. Akakij's yearning
for a new coat is realized, but ﬁ'ustrated, the illusion vanished. Points out the
triangular plot of The Overcoat: Akakij is attacked by robbers, then by the VIP,
and the VIP is attacked by Akakij's ghost. Sees the last attack as Akakij's
posthumous vengeance and triumph. Claims that Gogol's original purpose
stemmed from his own compulsions, which developed as a result of demands from
his contemporaries for greatness and immortality. Makes the point that Gogol'
tried to create a work the likes of which had never been made; however, his work
did not satisfy his purpose, and only ﬁ'ustration remained. Concludes that despite
this, Gogol's works are meaningﬁrl enough in their own terms, as genuine art

always is.

10. Strakhovsky, Leonid I. "The Historianism of Gogol." American Slavic and East

European Review, 12, no. 3 (1953), pp. 360—71.

Asserts that Gogol' exhibits qualities of a historian, showing a precise
conception of historical perspective. Suggests that Gogol' developed as a historian
through acquaintance with many historical sources such as chronicles, legends,
folklore, songs, and oral tradition. Points out that Gogol' wished to succeed to a

teaching position in universal history ("BceoOurasr ncropmr"), and also had

43

projected a huge publication on the history of the Ukraine. Gogol', however, wrote
only an introductory article. Draws the main characteristics of Gogol's universal
historianism from his article "On the Teaching of Universal History": he embraces
all of mankind in a hill panorama and depicts the free human spirit struggling
against the power of nature and against human ignorance. Outlines the signiﬁcant
role in Gogol's historianism played by geography. In Gogol's historical novel T aras
Bulba, Gogol' depicts nature in the Ukraine and relates it to the historical
background of the Cossacks' struggle for freedom and the preservation of their
Orthodox religion. Contends that although Gogol' freely uses his romantic
imagination and hyperbolic expression, he fully expresses his quality of a true

historian in T aras Bulba.

11. Strong, Robert L. "The Soviet Interpretation of Gogol." American Slavic and East
European Review, 14, no. 4 (1955), pp. 528-39.

Introduces Soviet literary critics' views of Gogol', and subjects them to
harsh criticism. Among the views discussed are those of A. V. Lunaéarskij, who
asserted that Gogol' was persecuted by Nikolaj's autocracy, P. S. Kogan, who
considered Gogol' to be a revolutionary and a reactionary, A. Starc'akov, who saw
Gogol' irreconcilable contradiction between his world view and the objective
meaning of his art as the source of his tragedy, and M. B. Xrapbenko, who argued
that Gogol' was a romantic and a realist. Points out that during the 1930's the
Soviet view of Gogol' changed from a romantic to a realist, clairrring Gogol' as a
ﬁghter against the vulgarity of gentry existence. Finds a contradiction in V. V.
Errnilov's view that Gogol' depicts conﬂict between the upper and lower classes,

yet also presents the problem of the morality for all classes. Concludes that Soviet

 

44

literary critics apply their interpretation with a utilitarian approach according to the

sociO-political situation of a given time.

12. Weathers, Winston. "Gogol's Dead Souls: The Degrees of Reality." College English,
17 (1956), pp. 159-64.

Sees Gogol's conric-tragic depiction of life in Dead Souls as taking place
not within the conﬁnes of a nineteenth-century Russian town, but in the universal
setting of human reality. The protagonist Ciéikov is the tale's universal hero, and
the town N represents any society which degenerates from a living identity into
hellishness. Points out two classes of society depicted in Dead Souls, the nobility
and the serfs, which Gogol' uses as portraits of what he considers to be degrees of
reality: the world of the serfs is one of tragedy and reality, while the world of the
nobility is one of comedy and pseudo-reality. Finds in the Gogolian concept of
reality a gradation from the very liveliness of the dead serfs to the very deadness of
the living bureaucrats. Suggests that the governor's daughter fulﬁlls the epic
tradition of questing for an ideal, here a two-fold value of eternal, spiritual beauty
and temporary, physical beauty. Contends that Gogol' hopes all men, including

Ciéikov, will ride out of the comedy and illusion into a meaning‘ﬁrl reality.

1 960-1969
1. Alkire, Gilman H. "Gogol and Bulgarin's Ivan Vyzhigin." Slavic Review, 28 (1969), pp.
289-96.
Explores similarities between Gogol's works and Bulgarin's satirical novel
Ivan Vyfz'igin. Places Ivan Vyz'igin in the tradition of the western picaresque novel
with its moral and political didacticism and utopian interlude. Points out that both

writers treat the external characteristics of two cities similarly: Moscow is

 

45

feminine, while St. Petersburg is masculine. Bulgarin, however, does not depict the
internal psyche of St. Petersburg as does Gogol'. Suggests similarities in both
writers' depiction of provincial oﬁicialdom and landowners: Gogol's Kostanioglo-
is of the same type as Bulgarin's Vyzigin, and Nozdrev is a similar type to
Glazdurin. Suggests that Bulgarin's Petr Ivanovic' Vyiigin inﬂuenced Gogol' in its
description of a petty functionary ("Memmﬁ moemrx"). Bulgarin's Romund
Vikentevié Smigajlo has similar characteristics to Gogol's Akakij Akakievib': such
as being slow-witted, self-satisﬁed, and possessing a self-effacing style. Concludes,

however, that Bulgarin has only a generalized inﬂuence on Gogol'.

2. Baumgarten, Murray. "Gogol's The Overcoat as a Picaresque Epic." Dalhousie Review,
46 (1966), pp. 186-99.

Argues that Akakij Akakievié cannot be found in a realistic world of time
and space but in a dreamlike bureaucratic world. Claims that in T aras Bulba there
are two worlds, the lyric and the picaresque, comparable to Homer's Iliad. Insists
that in The Overcoat, the lyrical world penetrates into the picaresque and modiﬁes
it. The lyrical world is in turn modiﬁed by the picaresque in which it is embedded.
Suggests that in The Overcoat the most important character is the narrator, not
Akakij Akakievic'. The narrator is seen as part of the bureaucracy and is unable to
distinguish reality from art. Emphasizes that the VIP in The Overcoat is the
essence of the picaresque world, and that fate is not the choice of Akakij
Akakievié or the narrator, but the necessity of circumstance. Adds that the nature
of the picaresque world has been changed by the lyrical world, and that in this

sense The Overcoat is a picaresque epic.

46

3. Besoushko, Volodymyr. "Nikolas Gogol and Ukrainian Literature." Ukrainian
Quarterly, 16, no. 3 (1960), pp. 263-68.

Finds strong and signiﬁcant mutual inﬂuences between Gogol' and
Ukrainian literature. Points out that in Gogol's early stories, he picked up epigrams
ﬁom other Ukrainian works; four epigrams from his father's plays, three from Ivan
Kotlarevskij, one from Hulak-Artemovskij, others from Ukrainian poetry. Finds in
Gogol' Ukrainian ingredients such as harsh humor, idealization of woman and the
past, fantasy elements redolent of fairy tales, ballads and fables. Points out that
ﬁom Ukrainian plays Gogol' drew such types as Cossacks, a Polish nobleman, a
gypsy, a Jew, a peasant, a quarrelsome old woman, and a devil. Contends that
Gogol' enriched the Russian language with the help of Ukrainian components. Lists
many Ukrainian writers inﬂuenced in turn by Gogol', explaining how and which of
Gogol's works were inﬂuential. Concludes that even though Gogol' writes his

works in Russian, the Ukrainian spirit exists in them.

4. Bogojavlensky, Marianna. Reﬂections on Nikolai Gogol. Jordanville, New York: Holy
Trinity Monastery, 1969.

Refutes the view that Gogol's life was marked by religious fanaticism,
unconventional behavior, and mental illness. Follows the evolution of Gogol's
artistic world as well as his spiritual quest. Believes that Gogol's prayers, his
pilgrimages to Jerusalem, his shadowy moods and his destruction of Part Two of
Dead Souls indicate not mental insanity, but a strong, purposeful idealism. Finds a
main theme in his works: the continual threat of evil. Finds that while evil appears
in some incamated form in Gogol's early works, it later assumes symbolic form.
Contends that the theme of banality is strongly connected with a Gogol's religious
quest, for it is a signiﬁcant element that separates humanity from God. Concludes

that Gogol's religious personality contains the inner agony Of Christian life, and in

47

his tragic belief he fails in an attempt to combine his literary and religious

messages.

5. Bortnes, Jostein. "Gogol's Revizor: A Study in the Grotesque." Scando Slavica, 15
(1969), pp. 47-63.

Suggests that a characteristic of the grotesque is its tension between the
comic and the tragic, the "laughter through tears" which Gogol' regarded as the
essence of his own humor. Compares two contrasting interpretations of the nature
of the grotesque, Wolfgang Kayser's and Mixail Baxtin's and applies them to The
Inspector General. Supports Gogol's own interpretation of The Inspector General:
to create on the stage a living symbol of evil in order to destroy it with laughter,
bringing about a spiritual rebirth and preparing the audience for the coming of
Jesus Christ. Sees the play's double plot as consisting of "beamten" comedy, which
dominates in acts one and ﬁve, and "chevalier d'industrie" comedy, which
dominates in acts two and four. This double plot confuses the action of the play
and creates an ironic dimension. Asserts that in The Inspector General presents a
world in which God is absent and the principle of evil is secularlized and comes to
life in Xlestakov. Concludes that the secularization of evil is a characteristic trait of

the grotesque.

6. Debreczeny, Paul. Nikolai Gogol and His Contemporag Critics. Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1966.

Consists of 4 chapters: 1) Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Mirgorod,

Arabesques. 2) The Inspector Inspector. 3) Dead Souls. 4) Selected Passages

from Correspondence with Friends. Concludes with a selective list of

contemporary articles on Gogol' and an index. Presents all the criticisms of Gogol'

 

 

 

48

by the critics of his time (up to 1848), as well as Gogol's reaction to them.
Examines and summarizes the views of critics such as Senkovskij, Bulgarin,
Belinskij, Puskin, Sevyrev, Polevoj, etc. In the fourth chapter, points out that after
the publication of Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends, it was
hard to tell Gogol's supporters from his detractors, as the old dividing lines
between the various literary circles became confused. Concludes that Gogol's
career offers the sad spectacle of an artist whose great talent was misdirected and
then crushed by critics in an age when aesthetic and social values were chaotically

conﬁrsed.

7. Driessen, Frederik C. Gogol as a Short Stog Writer: A Study Of His Technique of

Composition. Translated by Ian F. Finlay. Hague: Mouton, 1965.

A critical and literary guide to Gogol's short stories, with a detailed
examination of plot, composition, and major themes. Asserts that anxiety is a
mainstay of Gogol's world, taking various forms not only in his works, but also in
his life. Sees anxiety as a form of horror hidden behind grotesque and humor.
Proposes that Gogol's illness ﬁrlﬁlled many functions, facilitating coexistence of
anxiety, narcissism, self-dramatization, self-pity, and guilt. Rejects the view that
there is realism in Gogol', arguing that realistic details are drawn by Gogol' into
fantasy, thus creating a fake realism -- essentially a joke, grotesque, or dead reality.
Praises Gogol's use of two narrators -- Foma Grigorievié’ and Rudyj Pan'ko -- in
Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. Elaborates on the structure of each chapter in
The Terrible Vengeance, concluding that the chapters are interrelated with each
other. Finds two kinds of sexual desire in Vij, animal and demonic. Interprets

Gogol's feminine ideal of beauty as demonic. Rejects ijenbaum's and Cizevskij's

49

interpretations of The Overcoat and insists that The Overcoat is the story of an

unhappy love through which Akakij Akakievié discovers himself and comes to life.

8. Eikhenbaum, Boris. "The Structure of Gogol's The Overcoat." Translated by Beth Paul
and Muriel Nesbitt. Russian Review, 22, no. 4 (1963), pp. 377-99.

Applies a forrnalistic approach to his analysis of The Overcoat. Sees the
ﬁrst person narrative as the foundation of the story, ﬁlled with live speech and
verbalized emotion. Asserts that puns, sounds, etymological toying, and hidden
absurdity play a signiﬁcant role in The Overcoat. Sees absurdity concealed in quite
logical syntax, creating the impression that it is unintentional. Contends that the
melodramatic episode serves as contrast to the comic narration which both
precedes and follows it. Shows how the lack of correspondence between serious
intonation and actual signiﬁcance is used as a grotesque device. Finds that the
pattern in which anecdotal narrative alternates with melodramatic episodes, makes
the entire composition of The Overcoat a grotesque. Akakij Akakievib's death,

related as grotesquely as his birth, is seen to exemplify this pattern of alternation.

9. Erlich, Victor. Gogol. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1969.

Consists of a general study of Gogol's life and works focusing on the
grotesque. Finds that Gogol' is one of the best writers to condense the grotesque
imagination fully and boldly. Introduces various artists' views of the grotesque,
such as those of historian Wolfgang Kayser, Wieland, Wilhelm Busch, and Lee
Byron Jenning. Examines the element of the grotesque in Gogol's works, pointing
out some examples from Ivan Fedoroviﬁ‘ Sponka and His Aunt, The Old-World

Landowners, The Inspector General, and Dead Souls. Concludes that Gogol' is a

50

great impersonator, rejecting recent psycholgical approaches to Gogol's

personality.

10. F anger, Donald Lee. Dostoevsﬂ and Romgntic ReaLsm: A Study of Dostoeviky in
Relation to Balzac, Dickens ﬂd Gogo_l. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1967.

Considers Gogol' a representative of Romantic Realism in which Objective
perception is combined with the subjectivity of the romantic. Treats Gogol' in the
third chapter of the ﬁrst part ("Gogol'; The Apotheosis of the Grotesque") as one
Of the three authors (Balzac, Dickens, and Gogol') seen as Dostoevskij's
forerunners in Romantic Realism. Asserts that the fundamental element of the
works of all three is the modern, urban theme. Asserts that Russian Realism was
born in the decade after Gogol's Dead Souls, and its practitioners rejected more of
Gogol' than they accepted. Sees the demonic elements in the Ukrainian and St.

Petersburg stories as the main point of Gogol's tragic and comic ambiguities.

11. Gifford, Henry. "Gogol's Dead Souls. " In his The Novel in Rusga. London:
Hutchinson University Library, 1964, pp. 42-52.

Places a high value on Gogol's talent, especially his use of language.
Asserts that Gogol's main purpose in Dead Souls is the generalization or
typiﬁcation of milieu and characters, a striving for an inclusiveness which is
strengthened by his unique similes. Discusses Gogol's passion for examining maple
and accumulating plentiful details. Points out the typiﬁcation of main characters.
Observes that throughout the entire story Gogol' makes no attempt to deliberately

condemn the regime or the social structure. Asserts that the last scene of part one

 

51

of Dead Souls symbolizes Russian destiny. Concludes that Gogol' was as a great

writer as Puskin in Russian literature.

12. Gustafson, Richard F. "The Suffering Usurper: Gogol's Diary of a Madman." Slavic

and East European Journal, 9, no. 3 (1965), pp. 268-80.

Interprets The Diary of a Madman as an atypical Gogolian story, points
out that it is the only ﬁrst person narrative among Gogol's works. Rejects the
social and moral approach to the work in favor of a psychological view. Suggests
that the protagonist Popriséin's search for power and love reﬂects his quest for an
identity within the social system as Gogol' guides him through a series of
discoveries. Finds two Popri§éins in The Diary of a Madman: the suﬁ‘ering clerk
who is ﬁustrated by man's inhumanity, and the irnpostor who usurps a fantasy
throne to make his dream come true. Poprisc'in's attempt to ﬁnd his identity was
thus destined from the beginning to fail. Concludes that the vagueness and

nothingness of the story's ending makes Gogol's vision one of fear.

13. Juran, Sylvia. "Zapiski Sumasshedshego: Some Insights into Gogol's World." Slavic

and East European Journal, 5 (1961), pp. 3 31-33.

Contends that Gogol's The Diary of a Madman depicts man's fear and
loneliness in an antagonistic world as well as the essential triviality of his existence.
Shows how the two worlds of wealth and poverty are juxtaposed to dramatize
triviality and meaninglessness. Believes that the two dogs play an important role in
connecting these two worlds. Traces the causes of Popriséin's loneliness and fear in
the real world and the path by which he seeks love and meaningﬁrlness in the other
world. Observes that Gogol' tries to neutralize the world of terror by shitting it

into the world of absurdity. The man residing in the world of absurdity also

52

becomes absurd. Concludes that Gogol's vision of the world can be found in this

insight into madness.

14. Kent, Leonard Joseph. The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its
Antecedents. Hague: Mouton, 1969.

Divided into three chapters: 1) "Towards the literary 'discovery' of the
subconscious," giving an exposition of the subconscious in folklore and literature
since the dawn of time, 2) "Nikolaj Vasilievié Gogol'," 3) "Fedor Mixajlovié
Dostoevskij." Rejects Ernest Simmons' claim that Gogol' was scarcely inﬂuenced
by Western literature. Claims there is adequate evidence that Gogol' and
Dostoevskij were at least exposed to the inﬂuence of German Romanticism,
especially Hoffmann. Emphasizes that the subconscious has long been a traditional
part of literature. Contends that in Gogol' the conscious use of the subconscious is

prominent, although less developed and complex than in Dostoevskij.

15. Landry, Hilton. "Gogol's The Overcoat." Emlicator, 19 (1961), item 54.

Partly rejects Vladimir Nabokov's view of The Overcoat as a depiction of
Gogol's irrational ﬁrtile world, seeing The Overcoat a5 a satirical description of a
poor clerk's relation to a corrupt bureaucracy. Admits that while there is absurdity
throughout the story, the main poles of the story are the satiric and sympathetic.
Agrees with Belinskij in his view that the absurdity of Gogol's world derives from
an absurd bureaucracy, and the poor clerk's destiny shows that he has lived and

died in a country where there are no provisions for protecting human rights, honor,

or property.

 

 

 

53

16. Oulianoff, Nrcholas I. "Arabesque or Apocalypse? On the Fundamental Idea of
Gogol's Story The Nose." Canadian Slavic Studies, 1, no. 2 (Summer 1967), pp.
158-71.

Rejects the view that Gogol's The Nose is neither Hofﬁnannian fantasy, nor
social satire, nor sexual delusion, nor ﬁivolous jest, nor arabesque. Points out that
Kazan Cathedral, where Kovalev and the nose talk, has an important meaning in
the work. States that for Gogol', stupidity and vulgarity are a sin against God as
well as conditions for the appearance of the powers of evil in the world. Asserts
that in The Nose, the world as God's creation is transformed into an illusion
created by the devil; the appearance of the nose shows the illusory nature of the
world. Asserts that The Nose contains much that recalls Hieronymus Bosch's
paintings. According to Bosch's view, which stems from the medieval tradition,
every incarnation of the Devil is realized in a grotesque way. Asserts that in
Gogol', the world belongs to the Devil, and evil force saturates man's inner mind,

destroying every image and achieving triumph.

17. Parry, Idris. "Kaﬂ<a, Gogol and Nathanael West." In Kaﬂta. Edited by Ronald Gray.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962, pp. 85-90.

 

Likens Gogol' more to Kaﬂ<a, Poe, and Nathanael West, than to Gonbarov,
Dostoevskij and Tolstoj. Points out similarities between the protagonists ofKatka's
The Metamorphosis, and in The Nose, both of whom wake up one morning not
from a nightmare, but into one. While Kovalev and his nose have an independent
relationship, (one of hunter and hunted), Gregor Samsa's cockroach form,
however, is the pure expression of his own personality, making him an amalgam of
hunter and hunted. Both works are seen as characterized by a precise and detailed
yet deceptive realism. Claims that Gogol' and Kaﬂca are concerned with something

more ﬁrndamental than everyday life. Likens the protagonist of Nathanael West's

54

The Day of the Locust, Homer Simpson, to both Kovalev and Gregor Samsa, for
his hands are independent from his brain. Concludes that the three authors make
impossibilities become possibilities, then probabilities, which then wind up as

inevitabilities.

l8. Proﬂ‘er, Carl Ray. "Dead Souls in Translation." Slavic and East European Journal. 8,
no. 4 (1964), pp. 420—33.
Lists translations of Gogol's Dead Souls in Britain, France and the United
State, oﬁ‘ering details on their early history. Finds all the early translations very
poor. Compares and examines the ﬁve English translations: B. G. Guemey's, A. R.
MacAndrew's, David Magarshack's, Helen Michailoﬁ‘s, and Constance Gamett's.
Suggests that Guemey's translation is stylistically the best although it is not
without serious defects. Criticizes MacAndrew's translation as incorrect and
incomplete. Finds Gamett's translation to be better than MacAndrew's but
stylistically indistinguishable. Considers Michailoﬁ's translation comparable to
Gamett's, while Magarshack's is deemed much better than either. Contends that
Magarshack's is the most careﬁrlly prepared and accurate among the all

translations.

19. Proﬂ‘er, Carl Ray. "Gogol's Deﬁnition of Romanticism." Studies in Romanticism, 6,
no. 2 (1967), pp. 120-27.

Explores Gogol's relationship with "Romanticism." Notes that although

Gogol' himself hardly uses the word "Romanticism" in his articles, he did offer his

own deﬁnition of "Romanticism" in his essay "Petersburg Notes of 1836,"

published in The Contemporary in 1837. Here Gogol' extols "Classicism" while

criticizing "Romanticism." Points out that by "'Classicism" Gogol' means perfect

 

 

55

qualities, such as discretion, intellect, and natural harmony, while "Romanticism"
implies something unpolished and disharrnonious that is separated from reality.
Finds Gogol' to be antagonistic attitude toward Janin, Hugo, Dumas, and Ducange
by his own deﬁnition of "Romanticism," while praising Schiller and Scott as

excellent examples of "Classicism," as he interprets it.

20. Proﬂ‘er, Carl Ray. "Gogol's Taras Bulba and the Iliad. " Comparative Literature, 17,
no. 2 (1965), pp. 142-50.

Analyzes the relationship between Gogol's Taras Bulba, (in the second
edition published in 1842) and Homer's Iliad with respect to parallel themes,
similar motifs, and stylistic devices. Notes that Gogol' considered The Iliad and
The Odyssey the only universal works of literature. Finds no Homeric similes in
Gogol's ﬁrst version of T aras Bulba, whereas there are ten similes in his second
version: like a rock, like a hawk, like eagles, like a hound, like so many suns, like a
star, like the young lamb. There are also similarities between Gogol' and Homer in
imagery and tone. The device of a long catalogue of heroes is seen as common to
both writers, but Gogol' pays far less attention to the lineage of heroes than Homer
does. Lists several similarities between both works such as decapitations described
without pity or regret, death implied by escape of soul, immolation of the heroes'
bodies, and exchanges of mockery and sneering before battle. Concludes that both

works are heroic epics containing humor.

21. Proffer, Carl Ray. The Sirrrile and Gogol's Dead Souls. Hague: Mouton, 1967.

Analyzes aspects of Gogol's similes, imagery, and value judgments.
Discusses types of similes described in Dead Souls, including the origin and

meaning of Gogol's Homeric sinriles and the ﬁrnction of the many humorous

_____—__—J

56

similes. Asserts that Gogol' uses images of smoothness, roundness, and cleanliness
in depicting Ciéikov in order to cover his internal impurity. Considers the wheel
and Ciéikov‘s habit of sideways movement to be another leitmotif. Insists that
Gogol' had a tendency to decrease hyperbolic and grotesque similes in the ﬁnal
version compared with earlier variants. Presents also a comparative examination of
simile and Homeric simile in Taras Bulba and The Iliad. Contends that the
important role played by sinriles in Dead Souls is enhanced by their relation to

other images in the work.

22. Proffer, Carl Ray. "Washington Irving in Russia: Pushkin, Gogol, Marlinsky."
Comparative Literature, 20, no. 4 (1968), pp. 329-42.

Suggests that Washington Irving inﬂuenced Pu§kin and Gogol' in their
themes, motifs, and manner of narration. Points out how Irving, along with Scott,
developed a narrative method using a complicated system of narrators. Cites
Cudakov's and Polevoj's remarks on the inﬂuence of Irving's device upon Gogol'.
Points out several parallels and contrasts between Irving's Dolph Heyliger and
Mysterious Picture and Gogol's The Portrait. Traces Gogol's well-known narrative
device, "skaz," back to Irving's works. Making the point that Russian writers like
Pu5kin, Gogol', and Marlinskij had an interest in American literature, calls for more

research on Irving's inﬂuence on these three writers.

23. Rahv, Philip. "Gogol as a Modern Instance." In Russian Literature and Modern
English Fiction. Edited by Donald Davie. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1965, pp. 239-44.

Contends that Gogol's world still contains characteristics of Realism,

criticizing in part Nabokov's view on Gogol'. Underscores the uniqueness of

57

Gogol's style and language. Emphasizes the digressions, sudden changes of mood,
contradictions, and the labyrinthine and twisted psychology of Gogol's world.
Finds that Gogol', like Flaubert, utilizes language to protect himself ﬁom the
conﬂict between his art and his life, and depicts the world's negative aspects
despite his desire to create a positive art. Asserts that Gogol's exaggeration,
caricature and farce express the reality of life at that time. Concludes that Gogol's

world depicts the suffering of the Russian people and nation.

24. Reeve, Franklin D. "Dead Souls." In his The Russian Novel. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1966, pp. 64-103.

Claims that Gogol's Dead Souls lives in its own rhythm, that is, Gogol's
own perception of pattern. Discusses deﬁnitions of the terms "noraecrb" (tale,
story), "pomarr" (novel), "paccrcaa" (short story) and "arrvrqecrcasr noes/Ia" (epic
poem). Assays criticisms of Dead Souls by Russian critics Errnakov, Tirnofej ev,
and Sklovskij. Asserts that the function of digression in Dead Souls is to delay and
complicate the action. Digression becomes the means of continual movement in the
story and the narrative action in Dead Souls proceeds by means of digression.
Argues that Dead Souls is not a picaresque novel, because Cic'ikov does not climb
the social ladder. Finds that Gogol' creates the absurd and the illogical through
logical means, that is, the device of language expressing consciousness. Contends
that the whole of Dead Souls is centered on Ciéikov's travels. Views Ciéikov as an

extension of Gogol'.

25. Rosebacher, Peter. "The Function of Insanity in Chekhov's The Black Monk and
Gogol's Notes of a Madman." Slavic and East European Journal, 13, no. 2
(1969), pp. 191-99.

 

58

Compares and analyzes the ﬁrnction of insanity in the protagonists in
Cexov's The Black Monk, and Gogol's The Diary of a Madman. Finds that Gogol'
is more disturbed by the mental nature of his protagonist than is Cexov, and that
this disturbance plays an important role in understanding Gogol's world. Insists
that at the base of Gogol's disturbance lies the failure to absorb the Christian
message. Also sees tension between Gogol's view of the artistic world and his idea
of the Christian message. Contrasts Gogol's literary type, saturated with the
awareness of man's high destiny, with Cexov‘s, which is concerned with the
achievement of happiness. Asserts that the insanity of both Cexov's The Black

Monk and Gogol's The Diary of a Madman overcomes the limitations of the

literary type.

26. Rozanov, Vassily. "How the Character Akaky Akakiyevich Originated." Translated by
Spencer E. Roberts. Ohio Universigy Review, 10 (1968), pp. 42-56.

Suggests a possible source for the hero Akakij Akakievib. According to
Gogol's ﬁiend Annenkov, an anecdote about a poor clerk who has a passion for
hunting gave Gogol' the idea for The Overcoat. The ﬁrst manuscript, discovered
by professor Tixonravov, contains only a kind of artistic sketch of a nameless
person with characteristics similar to those of Akakij Akakievié: he is
downtrodden, ugly and oppressed. Exploring the difference between the ﬁrst
manuscript and the other manuscripts, ﬁnds that in the last manuscript many
necessary objects are eliminated, while only simpliﬁed and concentrated objects are
left. Believes that Gogol' makes the reader believe that he is not depicting a lonely
world but a bright life, which Gogol' has never felt. Gogol's lyricism always
contains pity, sorrow, and "invisible tears through visible laughter. " Concludes that

Gogol' expresses delight in his own lyricism even while hating it at the same time.

59

27. Seeley, Frank F. "Gogol's Dead Souls. " Forum for Modern Langpage Studies, 4
(1968), pp. 33-44.

Reﬁrtes the view, held by both Gogol's contemporary social critics and later
Soviet critics, that his work is hill of realistic elements. Asserts that Gogol's novel
contains romantic elements much more than those of Puskin or Lennontov do.
Suggests the view, developed by Rozanov, the Symbolists, and the F orrnalists, that
Romanticism is primarily the distortion of reality by fantasy. Insists that the world
of Gogol's Dead Souls is a psychological world, which reﬂects the changing form
and structure of society. Points out the psychological differences between Gogol's
world and those of Puskin and Lennontov. Points out the similarity between R. H.
Tawney's idea of individual rights, social functions and property rights in Western
society and Gogol's new social type. Observes three types of women in Dead
Souls: simple wives who are a mirror image of their husbands; women as
individuals working outside the family, who are interested in gossip, fashion and
men, but are powerless; powerful women as a group. Asserts that the protagonist
Ciéikov is neither virtuous nor villainous, but is a specimen of economic man.
Emphasizes Gogol's idea that old moral categories become outmoded where

econorrric rights and interests become a standard of measure.

28. Setchkarev, Vsevolod. ngol: I-Ii_s Life and Works. Translated by Robert Kramer.
New York: New York University Press, 1965.

Broken down into a biography of Gogol' and an analysis of Gogol's works.
The ﬁrst part chronicles Gogol's life from his birth through his jobs in St.

Petersburg as a government clerk, professor, and poet. Includes also his life

abroad, creative failure and spiritual crisis, and suicide. The plots of all Gogol's

60

works are thoroughly summarized. The second part presents a critical analysis of
Gogol's works in chronological order. Describes Gogol's style in his early works as
an intentional mixing of all elements of tone and expression. Discusses the
inﬂuence of Hofﬁnann, Sterne, and Jules Janin. Rejecting psychoanalysts' view,
considers The Nose and The Carriage to be purely linguistic and literary works:
the former as a work playing with the technical narrative device and the latter as a
work of terse composition. Explores Gogol's stylistic devices of absurdity and
hyperbole, rejecting the claim that Gogol' reﬂected Russian reality in Dead Souls.
Argues that in The Overcoat, Gogol' develops not social sympathy, but ironic
misanthropy. Views Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends as
Gogol's idealized reconstruction of a divinely ruled social hierarchy where the poet

is chosen by God to interpret his time.

29. Spycher, Peter C. "N. V. Gogol's The Nose: A Satirical Comic Fantasy Born of an
Impotence Complex." Slavic and East European Journal, 7, no. 4 (1963), pp.
361-74.

Refutes the View of V. Setchkarev that Gogol's The Nose is merely a
nonsensical jest. Asserts that The Nose is a dramatization of Gogol's own sexual
anxieties under the pretext of both a grotesque farce and a satire on social
climbers. Shows that Gogol' originally planned to present The Nose in the form of
a dream, pointing out that the story begins on March 25 and ends on April 7, and if
the former date is counted by the Julian calendar, and the latter date by the
Gregorian calendar, no time has elapsed. Searches for answers to the questions:
Does Kovalev have a dream? What is the meaning of the nose, its loss, and its
recovery? Hypothesizes that Kovalev's nose symbolizes his sexual organ, making
the loss of his nose a dream about impotence. Concludes that in The Nose there is

one more dream besides Kovalev's and the barber Ivan's -- Gogol's own.

61

30. Stromecky, Ostap. "Ukrainian Elements in Mykola Hohol's Taras Bulba." Ukrainian
Quarterly, 25, no. 4 (1969), pp. 350-61.

Explores Ukrainian linguistic elements in Gogol's T aras Bulba, and asserts
that Gogol' interjects these Ukrainian components of humor and language into
Russian literature. Insists that in Taras Bulba, Gogol' interweaves Ukrainian
words, melodies, and spirit into the texture Of his language. Points out that in

T aras Bulba there are 1,085 Ukrainian words, such as "CMyTHo cronrm, cmy'rHo

H II II II II 1'

Ha ceprruy, CMyTHeHKO xormna, qyrrHo-HMBHO, qynHO-HOBo-npexpacno," etc.
Gogol' blends Russian thought into Ukrainian grammatical structure, or vice verse.
Gogol's style is poetic and melodious like musical "bandura" chords. Insists that a
stylistic device of repetition is densely employed in Ukrainian "dumas," historical
and love songs. Points out that the three heroes have symbolic number and
meaning. The names of Taras and Ostap are found in Ukrainian folklore in the
meaning of faithfulness; on the other hand, there is no connection to Ukrainian in
the name Andrei, who becomes a traitor. Asserts that Taras Bulba is not a

mockery, but a story of the Cossack loyalty and brotherhood.

31. Timmer, Charles B. "Dead Souls Speaking." Slavonic and East European Review, 45
(1967), pp. 273-91.

Contends that Gogol' wants the reader to enter into the context of Dead

Souls, and to compare and combine historical facts which are extended throughout

the work. Insists also that Gogol' deliberately uses the title "poema," for he

believes Dead Souls contains a true image of certain people in certain conditions at

a certain historic point. Through the examination of the text, explores the place of

the town of N, the season and the historical period, in which the events take place.

62

Asserts that the place is a town about 250 miles north east of Moscow in the
provincial capital Vologda. Determines the season that the action took place to be
late spring or early summer. Insists that the period in which the events happen is

sometime between 1821 and 1825.

32. Vinogradov, Victor Vladirnirovich. "The Language of Gogol." In The History of the
Russian Literag Langgage from the Seventeenth Centug; to the Nineteenth.

Translated by Lawrence L. Thomas. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1969, pp. 209-36.

Explores Gogol's language and style. Cites linguistic research on the
various components of Gogol's idiom and his innovative use of the the Russian
literary language. Finds Gogol's linguistic system exceptionally comprehensive.
Divided into eight chapters: 1) The position of Gogol's language in the literary
conﬂicts of the thirties, forties, and ﬁfties. 2) The dialectal and stylistic
composition of Gogol's language up to the second half of the thirties. 3) Gogol's
campaign against anti-national styles of the Russian literary language in the name
of national Realism. 4) The unrnasking and disclosure of ofﬁcial rhetoric and
Stylistics. 5) Gogol's conception of the principle of mixture of literary styles with
various dialects of the spoken language as a base for a national Russian language
system. 6) The breadth of inclusion of class, professional, and regional dialects in
Gogol's language. 7) Gogol's conception of the structural bases and stylistic norms
of an all-national Russian language. Idealization of Church Slavonic and the "folk"
language in Gogol's publicistic works. 8) Gogol's inﬂuence on the ﬁrrther

development of the Russian literary language.

33. Vlach, Robert. "Gogol and Hasek: Two Masters of Poshlost." Etudes Slaves et Est
Europeennes, 7 (1962), pp. 239-42.

63

Gives an interesting comparative study of Gogol's Dead Souls and the
Czech writer Hasek's Good Soldier Schweik. Asserts that Gogol' and Hasek
present "poslost'" respectively in Dead Souls and Good Soldier Schweik. Points
out both writers have in common their source of inspiration. Insists that both
novels are comic epics, galleries of portraits, travel stories with little psychology,
and both have no tragic conﬂicts, no positive heroes, and no arguments about
Christianity and immorality. "Poslost'" spreads out through the stories, making

laughter turn into tears of despair. Contends that "po5lost possesses not only
heroes in the novels, but also the authors. In real life both authors become victims
of "po§los "' even though they are masters of "poslost'" in their writings. Asserts

that both writers despise humanity because of its "po5lost.

34. Vogel, Lucy. "Gogol's Rome." Slavic and East European Journal, 11, no. 2 (1967),
pp. 145-58.

Discusses the dispute between Belinskij and Gogol' concerning Gogol's
unﬁnished novel Rome, ﬁnding that Rome plays an important role in Gogol's life
and art. Suggests that for Gogol' Rome is not only a place, but a spiritual state.
Contends that Gogol' arranges his stylistic devices so as to express the emotional
ecstasy which he had experienced through the beauty of Rome. Thus, in Rome
Gogol' paints an impressive, emotional picture of Rome with words like

'1 N

"rcpacora," "rapmorrmr, TOpXCCTBO," "cornacne," and "cnoxolicrrao." Asserts
that Gogol' might intend to convey the symbolic meaning of Rome as a divine and
eternal idea of beauty and spiritual motherland. Suggests that Gogol'

communicates his personal message of Christ through the message of Rome.

35. Wittlin, Joseph. "Gogol's Inferno." Polish Review, 7, no. 4 (1962), pp. 5-20.

64

Draws several Observations from a Christian viewpoint. Points out that
Gogol's Hell is quite diﬁ‘erent from Dante's Inferno in The Divine Comedy. Dante's
Hell is located below the earth's surface; on the other hand Gogol's Hell is within
himself. Asserts that Gogol' feared death, life, women, sickness, Russia, the Tsar,
the Tsar's oﬁcials, but most of all he feared himself which is his Hell. Believes that
Gogol' had a tormented soul. Observes that in Gogol's world there are fear,
boredom, and absurdity. Gogol' tries to remove them with laughter. Gogol',
however, is ﬁightened by his laughter because it is a laughter bred in Hell. Insists
that Gogol' intensely needs the love of God. When Gogol' writes the second part
of Dead Souls, a tragedy takes place: He fails in his depiction of Christianity.
Contends that in Gogol's last years he continued to search for God in order to

emerge from Hell.

36. Woodward, James B. "The Threadbare Fabric of Gogol's Overcoat. " Canadian Slavic
Studies, 1 (1967), pp. 95-104.

Examines the stylistic technique in Gogol's The Overcoat. Asserts that The
Overcoat depicts the gradual reduction of Akakij Akakievii': to pure spirit, whereas
The Diary of a Madman describes the Poprisbin's slip into insanity. Describes
several devices of contrast in The Overcoat. These devices include not only
juxtaposition of the comic and solemn, but also repeated confrontations between
afﬁrmation and negation. Classiﬁes some adversative conjunctions and counts the
number of uses in the text; "HO"-64 times, "a"-53 times, "ua"-12 times. Asserts that
these are used for the purpose of concentration or emphasis. Other adversative
conjunctions are also used to accentuate the adversative intonation: "OnHaKO"-8
times, "Bnpoqu"-12 times, "Bce TaKM"-3 times, "3aTO"-2 times, "Bce xe"-l time.

Several concessive clauses, which are introduced by "xorsr," "XOTb," "necMOTpsr

65

Ha To, l1T0," display tension or contrast, which is usually reinforced by the insertion
of an adversative conjunction at the beginning of the main clause. Asserts that both
the ﬁ'equency of direct and indirect questions and the mass of indeﬁnite words;
such as, indeﬁnite pronouns, prononrinal adjectives and adverbs, play an important
role in creating vagueness in The Overcoat. Furthermore, such created vagueness
is intensiﬁed by the use of the adversative conjunctions. Claims that the
combination of indeﬁnite words and the adversative intonation is the main feature
of The Overcoat. Concludes that such intonations and stylistic features are very
apparent characteristics in The Overcoat, and they play a major role in displaying

the unreality of Gogol's world.

37. Zeldirr, Jesse. "A Reevaluation of Gogol's Selected Passages. " Russian Review, 27, no.
4 (1968), pp. 421—31.

Points out that most critics did not accept the real message Of Gogol's
Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Even a Christian critic,
Mocul'skij, makes only passing mention of Selected Passages. Asserts that the
essays on literature in Selected Passages are important and inﬂuential to Russian
literature. Points out that Gogol' believes the writer to be not a creator Of beauty,
but a prophet who reveals beauty. Also a writer writes not for himself or for art's
sake, but for his people and for God, who gave him the gift and the insight to tell
the truth. Contends that Gogol' never attempted to turn himself from art to
religion, but to return to traditional religion-based views of the writer. Emphasizes

the Christianity of Gogol'.

1970-1 979

 

66

1. Annenskii, Innokentij F. "The Aesthetics of Gogol's Dead Souls and Its Legacy. " In
Twentieth Centugg Russian Literagy Criticism. Edited by Victor Erlich, Translated
by Elizabeth Traham and John Fred Beebe. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale
University Press, 1975, pp. 51-60.

Explores Gogol's aesthetics in Dead Souls, and discusses its inﬂuences on
Russian writers. Points out several examples of Gogol's imagery from Dead Souls.
Observes that all characters in the novel have two persons inside themselves which
are tied together by life -— a substantial being, i.e., voice, color, gesture, laughter,
and a mysterious, secret being. The former creates a typicality, and the latter a
personality. Believes that Gogol' disconnects these two persons, making the former
a distinct typicality, while the latter fades away. Cites examples Of this typicality in
characters: Cié'ikov, Nozdrev, Manilov, and Petruska. Compares Gogol' and
Puskin: Pu§kin is the delight and joyﬁrlness of Old Russia, Gogol' the agony and
torment of Future Russia. Argues that writers inﬂuenced by Gogol' moved away
from him (Dostoevskij, Gonéarov, Turgenev, L. Tolstoj, Saltykov-Sbedrin, Cexov,
Sologub, and Nekrasov). Discusses characteristics of their works displaying

features of Gogol's aesthetics.

2. Asch, Laurie. "The Censorship of Nikolai Gogol's Diary of a Madman." Bil-9M
Literature T riguarterly, 14 (1976), pp. 20-35.

Compares and analyzes the original version published in 1835 with four

diﬁ‘erent versions of The Diary of a Madman: Tixonravov's (1894), Komarovib's

(193 8), Muratova‘s (1960), and Zalilova's (1966). In the original version, published

under Tsarist censorship, elements of political and social satire are kept to a

minimum and remain subordinate to the theme of propressive insanity. Concludes

that all four versions have succeeded more in conﬁmring the problems of textual

authenticity than in detemrining the real version of Gogol's story. Contends that

67

versions appearing before and alter the Revolution portray conﬂicting ideologies:
the pre-revolutionary versions contain few unfavorable references to Nikolaj I,
while post-revolutionary versions underline Gogol's ridicule of the monarchy by

adding passages unﬂattering to the Tsar.

3. Bailey, James. "Some Remarks about the Structure of Gogol's Overcoat. " In
Mnemozina: Studia Litteraria Russica in Honorem Vsevolod Setchkarev. Edited
by Joachim T. Baer and Norman W. Ingham. Munich: Fink, 1974, pp. 13-22.

Supports ideas of ijenbaurn, Slonimskij, and Ciievskij concerning
language eﬁects in Gogol's "skaz" technique. Claims that the structure of The
Overcoat is found in the text itself, dividing it into three sections: 1) descriptions
of the department, Akakij Akakievié's birth, and his way of life, 2) Akakij's
purchase of a new coat, 3) fantastic ending. Explains the shift from "mpox" to
"MMp" and from "mp" to "MMpOK." Claims that Gogol' uses Petrovic to shift
Akakij from his "WpOK" to "mp" and uses the Very Important Person to shock
Akakij out of the "MMp" which he has just entered. Points out that Petrovié, like
other Gogolian demonic characters, is given an eastern coloring (he is shown with
his legs crossed under him "like a Turkish pasha"). Discusses the importance of
time, opposition, and the shocking extremes in the structure and overall effect of

the story.

4. Bakhtin, M. M. "The Art of the Word and the Culture of Folk Humor: Rabelais and
Gogol." In Semiotics and Structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union. Edited

by H. Baran. New York: White Plains, 1976, pp. 284-96.
Asserts that Gogol's laughter is not inﬂuenced by Rabelais, but has a direct
connection to the Ukrainian folk-festival forms. Points out that in Vij and T aras

Bulba, the laughter of grotesque seminarian realism is organically blended with

68

Ukrainian folk-festival laughter, since both are strongly related to each other.
Contends that the style of Gogol's St. Petersburg stories has ingredients of folk-
festival humor, and that his alogisms and absurdities are also connected with folk
humor and grotesque realism. In Gogol's world, a carnival perception is pre-
eminent. Finds that Gogol's grotesque violates and rejects the absolute and eternal
norms, for the sake of a new creation of unanticipated quality. Gogolian laughter
remains the sole positive hero in his artistic world. Concludes that his uniquely

bright, positive, lofty laughter puriﬁes banality and triumphs over all.

5. Barksdale, E. C. "Gogol: The Myth and the Grotesque." In his The Dacha and the
m. New York: Philosophical Library, 1974, pp. 105-12.

Explores Gogolian myth and the role of grotesque in his myth. Finds in
Gogol's world a pastoral myth which is dispelled by the non-pastoral actions of his
characters, as well as by Gogolian grotesque and the theme of unexplained death.
The digressions and irregularities in Gogol's world also have the effect of deviating
from the Levi-Strauss' view of myth. Asserts that in Dead Souls a pastoral world
becomes a unreal evil world, and becomes a grotesque schematization of pastoral
myth. Points out that folk tales in Gogol's world mirror everyday life, but
metamorphose into myth by mixing reality and the grotesque. Contends that the
Gogolian myth reﬂects his distorted mind, and his death is a pastoral myth of the

grotesque.
6. Belyi, Andrei. "Gogol." Translated by Elizabeth Trahan. Russian Literature
T riquarterly, 4 (1972), pp. 131-44.

Explores who Gogol' is through a careful examination of his textual

Stylistics. Sees Gogol's art as hill of bountiful images such as glittering sounds,

69

dazzling colors, and ﬁ'agrant smells. Points out that when Gogol' combines these
images, a new, unreal image suddenly emerges: for example, a Cossack is dancing,
and suddenly a fang juts out from his mouth. Suggests that Gogol' can be seen as a
Realist, a Symbolist, a Romantic, or a Classicist. Gogol's forests, like a
Symbolist's, are not forests, and his mountains are not mountains. As a Romantic,
like Hoﬁinann or Poe, he presents the fantastic as reality; his epic is compared to a
Classicist such as Homer; and Gogol's world, like that of the Symbolists, contains
' mysteries of rapture and horror; his ecstasy is rapturous yet has ominous delight.
Contends that to Gogol', Mother Russia is a mysterious ﬁgure, comparing Gogol's
relation to Russia with the sorcerer's relation to his daughter Katerina. Declares
Gogol' to be the best stylist of his time, and admires the dazzling expressiveness he
achieves when he combines crude and meaningless language with the most
intricate similes and metaphors. Points out Gogol's alliteration, masterful use of
word order, compound epithets, similes, repetitions, parallelisms, semi-

parallelisms, etc.

7. Bemheimer, Charles C. "Cloaking the Self: The Literary Space of Gogol's Overcoat."
Publications 01 the Modern Language Association at America, 90, no. 1 (January

1975), pp. 53-61.
Asserts that the self which is embodied in Gogol's literary works is a false,
masked self. Suggests that the story of The Overcoat reveals Gogol's conﬂicting
feelings concerning the role of writing in relation to the external world and to the
author's own world. Argues that if Akakij Akakievic' can't get an overcoat, he will
be destroyed by the frost; on the other hand, if he gets an overcoat, he will be
demolished by the force of external reality. Contends that, in turn, the reﬂexive
structure of The Overcoat serves as a defense mechanism for Gogol's own fear of

being demolished. Claims that Gogol' does not resolve his story, leaving the reader

7O

ambivalent. In the end, Akakij Akakievii': is left with an empty feeling, and Gogol'

returns to the realm of fantasy.

8. Boyd, Alexander. "In the Town of N: Nikolai Gogol and Dead Souls." In his Aspects of
the Rusiiarn Novel. London: Chatto and Windus, 1972, pp. 46-67.

Chronologically presents Gogol's biography, including explanations of his
works. Praises Gogol's Dead Souls as his greatest masterpiece. Asserts that the
title Dead Souls refers to the sub-human personalities of its characters, who are
motivated by greed, envy, and selﬁshness. Suggests the characters in Dead Souls
are dead in the sense that they belong to the ﬁctitious and unreal world.
Enumerates the main characteristics of the characters, citing the text. Treats K.
Aksakov's comparison of Gogol's Dead Souls to Homer's Iliad, and Belinskij's
rejection of Aksakov's claim and his criticism of Dead Souls. Introduces the
second part of Dead Souls, analyzing its new characters, in particular Tentetnikov,
who is seen as a forerunner of Turgenev's characters. Sees Konstanioglo, an
energetic and super-eﬁicient landowner, as the ﬁrst positive character in Dead
Souls. Describes Gogol's didactic preface in the second edition of Dead Souls in
1848, and the harsh criticism by Aksakov and Belinskij of Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends. Believes that although Gogol' had taken on the role
of teacher and remained a ﬁrm believer in Orthodoxy, his humor and satire are still

alive with greatness.

9. Bryusov, Valery. "Burnt to Ashes." In Gogol from the Twentieth Century. Edited and
translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1974, pp. 103-32.

71

Interprets Gogol' not as a realist, but as a dreamer and a fantasist. Believes
that in his works Gogol' depicts his own ideal world through hyperbole and
exaggeration. Cites several conversations in Gogol's works as evidence that in
Gogol's world of parody and satire the ridiculous side of human relationships is

outrageously exaggerated. Declares that Gogol's description of the "po5lost and
the absurdity of life is beyond the normal person's imagination. Analyzes the
extraordinary depictions of nature in the Ukrainian stories as exemplary of his skill
of exaggeration. Supports V. Rozanov's claim that Gogol‘ presents and depicts all

objects not realistically, but in extreme condition. Contends that such extremes and

exaggeration were also present in Gogol's own life.

10. Byrns, Richard. "Gogol and the Feminine Myth." Etudes Slaves et Est Europeennes,
nos. 20-21 (1975-1976), pp. 44-60.

Sees two types of woman --demonic and vulgar or beautiful and idealized--
as hindering and helping, respectively, in Gogol's religious quest. Emphasizes two
contradictory aspects in Gogol's world: an earthly forbidden desire and a yearning
for spirituality. Points out that Gogol' tries to deﬁne the ideal woman in his Hans
Kjuxelgarten and Woman. Maintains that for Gogol' love is not only a state of
innocence unspoiled by sin or desire, but the homeland of a godlike soul, and a5 a
result Gogol' conceptualizes his ideal woman spiritually. Gogol's other stories are
dominated by negative feminine images because this world has no place for a
spiritual ideal and beauty is inevitably prostituted. Tells how Gogol', late in life,
mixes his conception of the ideal woman with his conception of Christianity,
presenting a new earthly ideal woman in Dead Souls part two and Selected

Passages from Correspondence with Friends -- not a spiritual ideal, but an active

 

 

72

and compassionate Madonna ﬁgure, arguably a completely developed feminine
vision of Gogol'.

11. Chizhevskii, Drnitrii. "About Gogol's Overcoat." In Gogol from the Twentieth
m. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 295-322.

Emphasizes the craftsmanship and technical signiﬁcance of The Overcoat.
Sees Gogol's repetition of the meaningless word "name" as part of a deliberate
comic word-play of contrasts between the meaningful and the meaningless in
which "uaxe" frequently represents the meaningless or introduces ideas which lack
the anticipated logical conjunction. Through word-play, Gogol' discloses the
insigniﬁcance of the real life that he is presenting since what comes after the word
"naxe" is really triﬂing and trivial. Thus the insigniﬁcant is represented as the
signiﬁcant in life. Points out that the story of The Overcoat is told not by the
author himself; but by a narrator whom Gogol' deliberately keeps at a certain
distance ﬁ'om himself. Suggests that Gogol' draws attention to Akakij Akakievié's
deliberately impoverished language, which matches that of the narrator. Asserts
that the theme of The Overcoat is the rebirth of the human soul under the inﬂuence

of love, especially love for an insigniﬁcant object -- the overcoat.

12. Clyman, Toby W. "The Hidden Demons in Gogol's Overcoat." Russian Literature, 7,
no. 6 (1979), pp. 601-10.

Explores the hidden demons in Gogol's The Overcoat through a close
examination of the text. Claims that the sly tailor, Petrovié', is a hidden demon.
Mentions the remarks of Dmitrij Cizevskij and James Bailey regarding the devil
and Petrovib’. Provides detailed research on Petrovié. Points out that Petrovié's

formal name, Grigorij, means "watcher" in Greek. Insists that in the apocryphal

 

73

story of Enoch, the angels who revolt against God are named watchers. Asserts
that Gogol' switched the tailor's name to Petrovib in order to mask his demonic
identity. Adds that Petrovié's environment, physical appearance, and behavior are
strongly connected with a conception of the demonic. The descriptions of
Petrovié's apartment, such as dark, smoke-ﬁlled, and containing a spirituous odor,
have the same features as the place where evil spirits reside in common folk belief.
Petrovié's pock—marked face, one eye, and foot with a large toe nail are tied to folk
belief about the devil. Descriptions of his behavior and appearance, such as
"crooked," "bent," and "deformed," have a connection with demonic features.
Adds that words which have the same root as four ("qe'r‘brpe") appear more than
eleven times. Suggests that the word "HC'I'blpe" contains all the letters of the
alphabet which spell devil ("tiépT"). Concludes that the frequent appearance of the
oblique form of the word "t1e1'b1pe" and the word "qépT" is important in the fact

that demons are everywhere in Gogol's works.

13. Debreczeny, Paul. "Gogol's Mockery of Romantic Taste: Varieties of Language in the

Tale of the Two Ivans." Canadian American Slavic Studies, 7 (1973), pp. 327-41.

Analyzes the relationship between author and reader, and the varieties of
narrative style in The Tale of How Ivan IvanoviE Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovic'.
Finds in the narrative two voices, i.e., that of the beekeeper Rudyj Pan'ko from
Dikanka, and that of a writer of popular romantic literature. The former addresses
a local audience; the latter, mass one. Notes the Ukrainian expressions and
grammar, church related colloquialisms, and bureaucratic language in the narrative.
Points out mixtures of foreign expressions such as "Korvmarmsr" and "neno
nemamoe," which creates an effect of absurdity. Proposes that there is another

third narrative voice in the epilogue marked by contrasting ideas and contrasting

 

74

stylistic devices, as well as Pu5kinian simplicity. Concludes that this third voice,

using both language varieties, addresses itselfmore to an educated audience.

14. Eikhenbaum, Boris. "How Gogol's Overcoat is Made." In Dostoevsb; and Gogol:
Text and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy. Translated by
Peter B. Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, pp. 119-35.

This structural analysis of Gogol's The Overcoat asserts that the texture of
the story depends on the role of the author's personal tone. Maintains that the
personal tone of the narrator in The Overcoat does not reﬂect Gogol's inner mind,
serving instead as a simple technical device which creates "skaz" and thus plays a
more important role than the plot. Since "skaz" eschews a simple narration to
repeat words with stress on mimetic and articulated sounds, the words in The
Overcoat play a signiﬁcant role in carrying out comic effects. Discusses a variety
of puns composed of acoustic similarities, plays on etymologies, and hidden
absurdities, which are important in The Overcoat. Contends that Akakij
Akakievié's language is a part of Gogol's own language, well designed and
prepared in advance. Sees plot as merely a prop around which are interwoven
stylistic devices. Refutes the view that the ending of The Overcoat makes it a
touching story with melodramatic episodes, seeing it instead as ﬁlled with "skaz"

comic devices and the grotesque.

15. Emerson-Topornin, Alexis E. "Shinel: The Devil's Ovals: Motif of the Doubles."
Forum at Iowa on Russian Literature, 1, no. 1 (1976), pp. 34-56.

Asserts that a double motif can be found at the core of The Overcoat.

Furthermore, at the very center of the story lies the motif of seduction by the

demon. Sees Akakij Akakievii'; as an embodiment of nothingness and as an anti-

 

 

75

Faust, while the tailor, Petrovié, is a kind of devil. For Akakij Akakievib the
overcoat symbolizes security, warmth, and a sense of power, but possessing the
overcoat ruins him. For Gogol', the overcoat is also ascribed a prophetic function:
to live as an artist means a life of loneliness, self-deprivation and emotional
starvation in a world which is the devil's own creation. Asserts that the Very
Important Person symbolizes a nothingness and a faceless lack of individuality.
Views the VIP as a wearer of a symbolic "rumrerm." Points out the motif of the
double: Akakij Akakievic is close to the narrator, while the VIP is far removed; the
former is more positive, while the latter is more negative; the character of
Akakievié is the Ego, whereas the VIP is the alter Ego. Concludes that the
overcoat is a symbol not of love, but of anti-love, like the devil's own tortoise

shell, Petrovié's carapace-like toe nail.

16. Even-Zohar, Itamar. "The Tailor Petrovich Pronounces the Verdict on Akakij: A Note

on a Stylised Scene and a Pragmatic Connective." Slavica Hierosolymitam, 3
(1978), pp. 1-7.

Analyzes the role of "Ira" as a syntactic and pragmatic connective in the
stylized manner of Gogol's The Overcoat. Explains that Russian "11a" is chieﬂy
restricted to initial position in a pragmatic role, which is an indication of more
popular and vulgar speech. Points out, however, that while Gogol' used "Ila" for
depicting individuals, he more often used "Ha" in describing situations. Notes that
"Ila" appears in scenes of great excitement in Dead Souls. Points out the use of
"11a" for grotesque effect in the scene between Petrovic! and Akakij Akakievib in
The Overcoat. Concludes that any conventional use of "11a" becomes an apotheosis
of the grotesque, and the entire syntactic and pragmatic connective is semanticised,

then ironised and even reversed to a certain degree.

II

76

17. Fanger, Donald Lee. The Creation of Nikolai Gogol. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1979.

Divided into four chapters: "Approaches," "Irnprovising a Vocation,"
"Embracing a Calling," and "The Surviving Presence." The ﬁrst part emphasizes
the uniqueness of Gogol's world and describes the Russian cultural context; the
second and third parts analyze Gogol's works. Claims that ﬁgurative
metamorphosis exists everywhere in Gogol's works. Observing comic elements
which consist of a distinctive play of antitheses between something meaningful and
something meaningless, contends that these antitheses alternate, with non-sense
proving to be sense, or vice versa. The nature of identity is also central to Gogol's
writings: changes of identity occur in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, and
mistaken identity ﬁgures prominently in Nevskij Prospekt, The Diary of a Mad
Man, The Nose, The Inspector General, and Dead Souls. The motif of vision plays
an important role in Gogol's creations, especially in his early works. Gogol‘s
shortsighted characters are vitalized through the creator's vision with power.
Pointing out that the road oﬁ‘ers views of landscapes, characters, and events,
contends that Cidikov in Dead Souls, like a mirror moving down the road, is all
surface. Also investigates (in Part Four) the peculiarity of Gogol's poetic message
and discems several features of the Gogolian universe —- metamorphosis (sudden
change), evasion (the road), identity, and recognition (motifs of vision). Argues
that Gogol's achievement is to demonstrate as nearly as possible the power of a
medium without a message, and concludes that his great works are self-reﬂexive
and ultimately "about" the nature of their own literary beings. Agrees with Andrej
Sinjavskij's view that Gogol' created his (and Russian) prose out of the colloquial

language.

 

 

77

18. F anger, Donald Lee. "Dead Souls: Mirror and Road." Nineteenth Centpry Fiction, 33,
no. 1 (1978), pp. 24-47.

Claims that Gogol's Dead Souls is not an ordinary novel, but a provocative
and enigmatic masterpiece. Asserts that Dead Souls cannot be called a picaresque
novel, although it is dominated by the road. Argues that the road serves not as
pretext for Cibikov's adventure, but rather oﬁ‘ers views of landscapes, characters,
and events. Sees Cibikov, the featureless hero, as a mirror moving down the road.
Like a mirror, Cibikov is all surface, and his mirroring of the other characters is
shown to be mutual; for example, Manilov appears as a hyperbolic parody of
Cicikov's own main feature. The role of the author is seen as distinct from that of
the narrator, with the former remaining above the process of presentation as
carried out by the narrator, with persistent implication that the author has some
larger enterprise of his own, as enigmatic as Cibikov's. Thus the author is himselfa

creature of the road.

19. Fedorenko, Eugene. "Gogol's Revizor: A Reexamination of Language Characteristics."
Russian Langyage Journal, 106 (1976), pp. 39-50.

Closely examines variances among the three versions of Gogol's The
Inspector General: the original version, the version published in 1836, and the ﬁnal
version of 1842. Points out that although Gogol' alters almost all of the acts in
various ways, the development of the plot and the fundamental characters remain
unchanged. Makes several observations on Gogol's simplicity, ﬂuency, dynamics of
language, and successful use of hyperbole, irony, the grotesque, and colloquial
speech. Explains the dual nature of the mayor's speech (he is polite with Xlestakov,
coarse to his subordinates) which results in mutual misunderstanding between him

and Xlestakov. Discusses Gogol's depiction of provincial ladies' speech and

 

 

78

actions. Concludes that Gogol' was an expert at creating his protagonists through

their verbal mannerisms.

20. Freeborn, Richard. "Dead Souls. " In his The Rise of the Russian Novel. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp. 74-114.

Asserts that for Gogol' nothing is more profoundly real than the
relationship between his creative spirit and the literary creation to which it gives
life. Sees the seriousness of the endeavor as an integral part of the laughter-
dominated atmosphere of Gogol's art. Asserts that in Dead Souls the true message
is that Gogol's characters are literal projections of his own spirit as well as the
embodiment of the "po5lost'" in his own character, capable of exorcism and
sublimation only through the power of laughter, which is not only self-purifying,
but also exorcises the devil of Russia. Points out that Gogol's Dead Souls is very
subjective, and bears some resemblance to a poem in the subjectivity of its lyricism
and the looseness of its structure. Nonetheless, it can be recognized as a novel
under Gogol's own deﬁnition of that genre. Adds that narrative digressions take
the form of the extended or Homeric simile. Claims that in Dead Souls Gogol' is
present as a ﬁrst person commentator rather than as a narrator, making more

lyrical digressions possible.

21. Gippius, Vasilii V. " The Inspector General: Structure and Problems." In Gogol from
the Twentieth Centugg. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton,

New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 216-65.
Examines Russian drama prior to Gogol's The Inspector General, in terms
of its failure to reﬂect social problems and to develop ﬁ'om the level of vaudeville

comedy. Argues that The Inspector General contains social denunciation whether

79

or not Gogol' wanted it to. Sees the Russian oﬁicial as an important theme in
Gogol's View of Russian social life in the mid 1830's, asserting that Xlestakovism
serves as a social commentary on the confusion of life as well as a typical and
generalized phenomenon. Finds the social theme in Gogol' to be strongly tied to
the aesthetic theme. Names ﬁve characteristic features of The Inspector General:
1) the elaboration of the traditional "ofﬁcial abuses" plot but with the elimination
of malevolent individuals, 2) the absence of positive character types, 3) the
assignment of an oppositional role to lower class characters, 4) an ingenious
structure which removes the possibility of sympathetic or praiseworthy approaches
to government and leaves no room for softening the satirical and realistic tone, 5)
the weaving throughout the play's structure of the motif of power and the abstract

idea of punishment.

22. Glass, Elliot S. "Dead Souls and the Hispanic Picaresque Novel." Revista de Estudios

Higpanicos, 11 (1977), pp. 77-90.

Explores how Gogol' was inﬂuenced by the Hispanic picaresque novel,
especially Cervantes' Novelas ejemplares, Entremeses, and Don Quijote. Supports
Ludmilla B. Turkevié's assertion that Gogol' had Don Quijote in mind when he
wrote Dead Souls. Compares Gogol's Dead Souls to the Hispanic picaresque
novel, whose protagonist is "un hidalgo de apariencia," a great manipulator who
travels from inn to inn plotting, scheming, and living by his wits. Asserts that
Cibikov, like the 16th and 17th century "hidalgos de apariencia," embodies the
collective personality of his land and culture, a personality characterized by
spiritual and physical hunger, self-deception, arrogance, self-indulgence, and
opportunism. Suggests that both Dead Souls and the Hispanic picaresque novel

contain a series of unrelated adventures which are woven together by a

80

protagonist, with the road and the inn as integral elements common to both.
Classiﬁes three types of women in Dead Souls: the young innocent maiden
(Governor's daughter), the aggressive manipulator (KoroboEka), and the foolish
pretentious gossipmonger (a host of provincial ladies), ﬁnding women of these
types to be abundant in the Hispanic picaresque novel. Concludes that Gogol'
might have been inﬂuenced by the Hispanic picaresque novel, since he was in Italy

when he was ﬁnishing Dead Souls.

23. Hallet, R. W. "The Laughter of Gogol." Russian Review, 30, no. 4 (1971), pp. 373-84.

Analyzes the essence of Gogol's laughter and its relation to his personality.
Finds several comic devices, such as digression, incongruity, irrelevance, and anti-
climax, which play a signiﬁcant role in creating humor. Points out that Gogol's
comic manner is an escape from his personal life and idealistic self, as well as a
consequence of his deep depression. Explores the duality of laughter and tears in
Gogol's complex humor. Suggests that by laughter Gogol' revenges himself on
Russian society for humiliations he had experienced. This revenge in part takes the
form of anti-heros whom Gogol' endows with his personal neuroses. Concludes
that these elements of Gogol's personal psyche cause readers to feel nervousness in

the presence of his humor.

24. Hippisley, Anthony. "Gogol's The Overcoat: A Further Interpretation." Slavic and
East European Journal, 20, no. 2 (Summer 1976), pp. 121-9.

Examines the spiritual signiﬁcance of The Overcoat and its relationship to

Gogol's life. Emphasizes a spiritual and religious approach to the story, which he

feels represents the sinner's pursuit of salvation as embodied in Akakij Akakievib's

o I u a n v o u- I
new coat. Drscusses several 1nterpretatrons, 1nclud1ng those of Crievskrj, Dnessen,

k__

81

Rozanov, ijenbaunr, Mereikovskij, Nabokov, Mob'ul'skij, and Zenkovskij,
ﬁnding the religious interpretation most persuasive. Draws upon the idea that
clothing is used to symbolize righteousness in the Bible (Revelation 7:14, Isaiah
64:6, Isaiah 61:10, Psalms 132:9, and Mark 2:21). Argues that John Schillinger's
criticism of The Overcoat concentrates predominantly on extemals. Agrees with
Schillinger's view of spiritual meaning in The Overcoat, but rejects his claim that

Akakij Akakievié is a holy martyr.

25. Holquist, James M. "The Burden of Prophecy: Gogol's Conception of Russia. " Review
0fNationa_l Literatures, 3, no. 1 (1972), pp. 39-55.

Explores the source of Gogol's concept of Russia, emphasizing the
tormenting contradiction between the real Russia and Gogol's ideal Russia. Points
out that Gogol's personal history consists of attempts and failures to achieve a
religious view of world. Links Gogol's ideal Russia to his conception of the ideal
writer, who has a messianic calling to bridge the gap between ideal Russia and real
Russia. Points out that Gogol' saw both the Tsar and the Russian church as
important instruments to stimulate and revive Russia. Concludes that Gogol's
attitude to Russia stems from his platonic nationalism, and his prophetic idea of the

writer stems from his religious concepts.

26. Hulanicki, Leo. "The Carriage by N. V. Gogol." Russian Literature, 12 (1975), pp.
61-77.

Analyzes the narrative structure of Gogol's The Carriage, beginning with
its two-part exposition. Emphasizes the character of Certokuckij, to which is
ascribed an importance in the narrative's development. Most of the elements of the

narrative structure are seen to contain iconic signiﬁcance. Thus everything that is

 

. . _ ,,_ .2 EW-

82

ﬁrrnished to create Certokuckij's character is part of the icon. Observes that the
background details depicting the town and the society greatly enhance the iconic
structure of The Carriage. Finds that among the two essential elements of "skaz,"
namely "orality" and "individualization," the former is present in The Carriage, but
the latter is absent. Describes some devices which help build the iconic signiﬁcance
of The Carriage: grotesque, metaphoric and metonymic expressions, parallelism,

repetition, and absurdity, which combine to contribute to the overall effect.

27 . Ivanov, Viacheslav. "Gogol's Inspector General and the Comedy of Aristophanes." In
Gogol from the Twentieth Centugg. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 200-14.

Asserts that Gogol' in his The Inspector General portrays a world in the
tradition of ancient Greek comedy, as well as a metaphysical and spiritual one.
Comparing Gogol's "The Denouement" of The Inspector General with ancient
Aristophanic comedy, explains how the aesthetic and social ﬁrnctions of The
Inspector General merge in the chorus. Insists that the action in The Inspector
General is reﬂected not in the personal relationships, but in the social and
collective confederation. Finds in The Inspector General a universal laughter
which is not simple and unmindful, but healthful and pure. Asserts that Gogol's
universal laughter is the real collective character of the people who are associated
through their minds and spirits. Adds that Gogol's comedy is musical, as is the
ancient comedy of Aristophanes, since it combines the important feature of direct
declamation with humorous singing. This choral element is seen as a source of

inner vitality.

28. Jennings, Lee B. "Gogol's Dead Souls Grotesqueries." In Vistas and Vectors: Essays
Honoring the Memogg of Helmut Rehder. Edited by Lee B. Jennings and George

83

Schulz-Behrend. Austin, Texas: Department of Germanic Languages, University of
Texas at Austin, 1979, pp. 136-41.

Raises the question of the clarity of the term "grotesque" in literature, and
attempts to apply the term to Gogol's works clearly. Emphasizes the role of visual
imagery in the grotesque. Argues that a satirical and absurd view of life may
support manifestations of the grotesque, but cannot be considered an essential
element since the grotesque can be well presented without it. Supports the idea
that most of Gogol's works are dominated by the religious theme of man's
possesion by the devil. Concludes that the grotesque in Gogol's Dead Souls, while
adhering to the "Victorian" pattern of European middle class realism, at the same
time strangely deviates ﬁ'om it, drawing closer to the earlier styles of Byron's
Weltschmerz, yet approaching a more modern conception of absurdity than that

provided by nrid-century realism.

29. Karlinsky, Simon. The Sexual Labyp'pth of Nikolai Gogol. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1976.

Explores homosexual and psychological themes in Gogol's biography and
writings. Noting that Gogol' did not have an interest in writing about women and
was never interested in describing heterosexual relationships in his works,
considers Gogol' a closet homosexual. Examines the sexual symbolism of Gogol's
nature descriptions in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. In a description of a hot
summer day in The Fair at Soror‘fincy, natural phenomena -— river, sky, earth -- are
assigned speciﬁc genders and allowed to engage in explicit acts of sexual intimacy.
In A May Night, a nocturnal pond tries to make love to distant stars. Also points
out that Gogol' conveys his visualization of sexualized nature in The Terrible
Vengeance: female images of summer earth and a beautiful river, and male images

of the Dnieper are personiﬁed in a old sleeping man with impotence and petulance.

84

Geese were seen as sexual symbols: Afanasij' chasing the geese in The Old-World
Landowners, the goose-faced wives in Ivan Sponka's dream, the sexual role of
ganders in The Tale of How Ivan IvanoviE Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovic'.
Contends that the comfortable lifestyle of the elderly couple in The Old-World
Landowners shows an example of how to live aﬁ‘ectionately with another person
while retreating from the threat of disastrous heterosexual sex or forbidden
homosexual sex, and that The Two Ivans also containes a story of a sexless
homosexual marriage. Considering the gander, the riﬂe, a pig as a phallic symbol,
sees Ivan Ivanovié's offer as a veiled homosexual proposition. Contends that The
Old-World Landowners and Taras Bulba contemplate heterosexuality, The Two
Ivans turns to homosexuality, and Vij takes in both and adds a touch of sado-
masochism. Shows how Gogol's feelings of homosexual guilt result in his religious
crisis and strong ties with Christianity since only religion kept Gogol' from acting

out his homosexual impulses.

30. Lindstrom, Thais S. Nikolay Gogol. New York: Twayne, 1974.

Divided into eight chapters which follow Gogol's literary career in
chronological order: 1) Establishment of Identity, 2) First Creative Realizations, 3)
Mirgorod Stories, 4) The St. Petersburg Cycle, 5) A Theater of the Absurd, 6)
Years Abroad, 7) Dead Souls, 8) Disintegration of Creativity. Combines analyses
of Gogol's works with a description of his life. Attempts to elucidate various
puzzling aspects of Gogol's world, taking mainly a Formalist approach. Sees The
Overcoat as an unprepared, uninhibited verbal narrative, replete with
colloquialisms, repetition and lapses of memory, which creates the impression of
natural, unhurried speech. Finds Dead Souls to represent the pinnacle of Gogol's

art. Asserts that Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends shows that

85

Gogol' never shifted from his deeply conservative ideological view, that is, the

acceptance of serfdom and the Tsar's power.

31. Little, Edmund. "Gogol's Town of N N and Peake's Gormenghast: The Realism of
Fantasy." Journal 0 Russian Studies, 34 (1977), pp. 13-8.
Discusses similarities between Gogol's Dead Souls and Mervyn Peake's
Titus Groan and Gormenghast; both writers are seen to devote more energy to
creating the characters than to designing the plot. Both writers have a common
interest in painting and create dazzling visual eﬁ‘ects. Neither Gogol' nor Peake are
seen to concern themselves with the depiction of the human being, and this results
in a methodical dehumanization by means of nomenclature. Both authors'
characters have names with absurd meanings that reﬂect their background or
physical appearance. The characters in the novels are given distinctive and
exaggerated characteristics for humorous effect. Decribes how animals in both
authors' novels are frequently given human identity, and inanimate objects often
take on aspects of human life. Adds that their novels do not depict the beauty of

landscape or love in human relationships.

32. Little, T. E. "Dead Souls. " In Knaves and Swindlers: Essays on the Picaresque Novel
in Europe. Edited by Christine J. eritboum. London: Oxford University Press,

1974, pp. 112-38.

Asserts that Gogol's Dead Souls is a picaresque novel, although certain
critics, like F. D. Reeve and D. E. Tamaréenko, claim it is not. Finds traditional
picaresque elements in Dead Souls to be plentiﬁrl: for example, the protagonist
Ciéikov is a knave and swindler, the novel is episodic rather than plot-oriented,

and humor is a dominant element. Sees Dead Souls not as autobiography, but as a

 

86

ﬁrst person narrative faithfully recording its milieu, but lacking depictions of love
affairs. Believes the accurate description of society is an important element for the
picaresque novel. Explores Gogol's artistic instincts and religious views. Concludes
that Ciéikov is a hero of a picaresque Odyssey, traveling through a moral, rather

than social hell.

33. Maguire, Robert A. "Some Stylistic Approaches to Gogol's Two Ivans." Teaching
Langyage Through Literature, 15, no. 2 (1976), pp. 25-39.

Proposes Gogol's The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovic" Quarreled with Ivan
Niszorovié as an example of teaching Russian literature with a stylistic approach
to college students. Emphasizes that a simple dictionary meaning of Russian
vocabularies is not enough to understand the text. Points out and annotates
narrative devices such as exclamations, digressions, formulaic expressions,
apostrophes to the reader, trivial details, and parallelism. Finds the tension-
generating disparity in the text between syntax and semantics reﬂecting a complex
interrelationship between reality and appearance, an oscillation between
equilibrium and disequilibrium. Notes the contrast between the two Ivans'
language: IvanoviE's delightﬁrl language is used to cover reality and evade action,
while Nikiforovié's is dull, direct and rough, and contains earthy Russian
expressions. Explores the ﬁrnction of shifts in "skaz" narrative voices. Asserts that
three narrative voices exist in the text. Each is quite different in its educational
background and its approach to the readers. Concludes that the story, through its

different voices, maintains the theme of "unchanging change."

34. Matthews, Irene. "Gogol's Early Satire." Satire Newsletter, 9, no. 1 (1971), pp. 6-17.

87

Asserts that Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and Mirgorod, as
early satires, are based on Ukrainian folklore, legend, fairy tale, and Gogol's own
romantic imagination. Points out that Ivan Fedorovic' Sponka and His Aunt is
autobiographical in its theme of fear of woman. Details how Sponka's life and
journey are presented with comic exaggeration. Points out that his way of life is
summarized in one word "po5lost'," characterized by triviality, ugliness,
pretentiousness, and petty conceits. Insists that Evenings, except Sponka and His
Aunt, are purely comic feature. Contends that in The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovir‘.‘
Quarreled with Ivan NikiforoviE, Gogol' expresses a moral and social aim as a

writer, i.e., elimination of universal failure and revival of human nature.

35. McFarlin, Harold A. "The Overcoat As a Civil Service Episode." Canadian American
Slavic Studies, 13 (1979), pp. 235-53.

Emphasizes the importance of administrative jargon in The Overcoat.
Argues that V. V. Vinogradov has identiﬁed Gogol's bureaucratic style, but has
not made a deep investigation into its deﬁnitions and artistic ﬁrnctions. Shows how
Gogol' accumulates bureaucratic reference and creates an overpowering
bureaucratic ethos. Suggests that Gogol' intentionally reﬂects Akakij Akakievié's
rank and occupation in all his private activities and thoughts. Contends that Akakij
Akakievib is not at the very bottom, but in the middle of the ranks, and represents
both lower and middle civil servants who have ambitions for promotion, but can
not be promoted according to the reform of 1809 due to lack of education.
Concludes that Akakij Akakievic' is not a simple "little man," but an ordinary
example of Gogol's governmental ﬁgures, who fawn over high ranking oﬂicials and

show rudeness toward lower ranking ones.

88

36. Merezhkovskii, Dmitrii. "Gogol and the Devil." In _G_ogol from the Twentieth Century.
Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974, pp. 57-102.

Declares that the Devil depicted in Gogol's works is not an object of
substance but a personiﬁcation of Gogol's own dynamic impulses masked by
humorous devices. Declares that in Gogol‘s works there is a dualism, a struggle
between God and Satan. All of Gogol's characters serve as symbols of good or
evil. Low language is seen to reﬂect the power of evil, while loﬁy language reﬂects
goodness. Contends that Xlestakov and the bourgeois, Anti-Christlike Ciéikov are
medians of a universal demonisrn, two real substantiations of the Devil, man's
immortal "po§10st'." Sees Ciéikov as an unmoving realist, the embodiment of the
prose of real life, while Xlestakov is progressive, an idealist, embodying the poetry
of real life. Praises Gogol's struggle to turn his literature ﬁ'om pure art to

Christianity, concluding that as the poet disappeared, the prophet emerges.

37. Mills, Judith Oloskey. "Gogol's Overcoat: the Pathetic Passages Reconsidered."
ﬂibliccyions of the Modem Langyage Association of America. 89 (1974), pp.
1106-12.

Deals with two controversial points in Gogol's The Overcoat: the pathetic
passages and humor. Asserts that the divergence in critical interpretation results
from a sharp contrast between sentimentality and humor in the work. Underlines
the structural focus, proceeding from a description of the narrator's personality to
a consideration of the general viewpoint resulting from the narrator's unique role.
Exploring the implications of the narrator's point of view for the structure and the

pathetic passages, asserts that the pathetic passages in The Overcoat create the

logical structural elements in the story. Contends that the narrator expresses his

89

own feelings of pathos in the structure and the various characters of the story react

in like manner.

38. Moyle, Natalie K. "Folktale Patterns in Gogol's Vij." Russian Literature, 7, no. 6
(1979), pp. 665-88.

Examines Gogol's intentional connection between Vij and folklore,
rejecting the view that the story has no pattern of folklore. Supports Gogol's idea
as expressed in his footnote: "...This whole tale is folklore. I did not want to alter it
in any way..." Points out several motifs of typical folklore: the three brothers,
departure from a secure home, losing one's way and entering a realm of
enchantment, and an enchanted beautiful girl with an ugly appearance. One
departure from folklore patterns is the order in which the brothers experience their
adventures, which proceeds not from the oldest to youngest, as in the folklore
pattern, but from the oldest immediately to the youngest and then to the middle
brother, the hero Xoma. Notes another departure from folklore, the curious death
of Xoma. Asserts that this intentional digression creates irrationality in logical
prediction, thus reﬂecting Gogol's idea that life does not operate according to any
principle of rational thought. Asserts that in this sense Gogol' uses folldore as a
vehicle to project his idea. Concludes that folklore patterns are used as the basic in

Vij.

39. Nagle, John J. "Idealism: The Internal Structure in Gogol's Nevsky Prospekt and

Chekhov's An Attack of Nerves." West Virginia University Philologz'cal Papers,
19 (1972), pp. 20-8.

Explores similarities in the internal structures of Gogol's Nevskij Prospekt

and Cexov's An Attack of Nerves, ﬁnding Cexov to be under the inﬂuence of

90

Gogol's syllogistic technique. Asserts that both works contain their authors' visions
of art. Explains that in Nevskij Prospekt there are two aspects of Nevskij prospekt:
the life of day and the life of night in which the street's true nature is revealed.
Contends that a pretty prostitute's dark beauty at night embodies Gogol's artistic
sense of idealism and his view of the function of art in life. Believes that the ﬁrst
episode plays a more important role than the second episode, which merely
underscores the grotesque and furthers the tragedy. Disscusses the philos0phica1
and psychological meanings of Nevskij Prospekt. Observes that Cexov's An Attack
of Nerves also depicts the dark reality of life. Compares and contrasts the two
stories' characters. Concludes that in spite of some differences, both stories

basically follow the same internal structural principles.

40. Nilsson, Nils Ake. "Gogol's The Overcoat and the Topography of Petersburg." Scando
Slavica 21 (1975), pp. 5-18.

 

Notes that although the ﬁrst part of The Overcoat lacks topographical
details while maintaining a general realism, Gogol' puts topographical details in the
epilogue which is a fantastic episode. Links this technique with a new literary
device introduced in the 1830's by Victor-Joseph Jouy to which Gogol' gave a
twist by adding a simple tone of casualness to the device. Does not see The

Overcoat as related closely to the genre of ghost stories.

41. Obolensky, Alexander P. Food-Notes on Gog_o_l. Winnipeg, Canada: Trident Press
Ltd, 1972.

Offers a chronological analysis of instances of food and drink in Gogol'
supported by excerpts from Gogol's correspondence, memoirs and conversations

with many friends. Consists of 12 chapters: 1) Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka,

91

2) The Crucial Years: 1829-1836, 3) 1835-Mirgorod, 4) History, Legend,
Witchcraﬁ, 5) Arabesques, 6) Two Anecdotes and one Short Masterpiece, 7) The
Theater, According to Gogol', 8) Wandering, 9) The Author and his Hero, 10)
Joumeying with Cicikov, 11) Gogol' tums to Preacher, 12) Saved from the
Burning. Insists that food for Gogol' is not a trivial matter, but an obsession. Finds,
in Gogol's works, that food ﬁmctions as skeletal plot, character delineations,
thematic threads, linguistic and stylistic devices, and socioeconomic
diﬂ‘erentiations of characters. Notes that many Gogolian characters are named after

food or drink. Claims that Gogol's metaphors are also linked to food items.

42. Oinas, Felix J. "Akakij Akakievic's Ghost and the Hero Orestes." Slavic ad East
European Journal, 20 (1976), pp. 27-33.

Suggests several literary connections to the ghost scenes in The Overcoat.
Posits a relationship between the jumping furniture in Puskin's diary and the ghost
scenes in the epilogue. Also suggests possible inﬂuence from E. T. A Hoﬁ‘mann.
Finds similarity between Das Majorat and The Overcoat in both descriptions of the
night when the ghosts hang around the city. Points out that the role and behavior
of Orestes' ghost in Aristophanes' comedies -- The Birds, The Achamians --
closely resembles those of Akakievic's ghost in The Overcoat: both ghosts appear
at night in large city, Athens and St. Petersburg respectively, and strip people.
Noting Gogol's interest in Greek folklore and Aristophanes, asserts that the ghost
episode in The Overcoat has a strong connection with the vindictive Orestes in

Greek folldore.

43. Peace, Richard A. "Gogol and Psychological Realism: Shine!" In Russian and Slavic
Literature. Edited by Richard Freebom, R. R. Milner-Gulland, and Charles Ward.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Slavica Publishers, 1976, pp. 63-91.

92

Sees The Overcoat as a product of psychological realism. Makes the point
that the cliché "We have all come out of Gogol's The Overcoat" has a kernel of
truth. Explains the protagonist, Akakij Akakievic', as a psychological nonentity
composed not only of grotesque reality, but also of the author's narrative devices.
Points out that the poverty of Akakij Akakievic is not credible in real terms, and is
thus grotesque. Observes that Akakij Akakievic is not materially, but spiritually
poor. Asserts that Akakij Akakievid's main problem is an inability to communicate
due to lack of words. Later he ﬁnds a friend with whom he easily communicates --
a new overcoat, which represents the spiritual sustenance which brings him inner
happiness. Reﬁrtes the Formalists' view that puns in The Overcoat contribute to
humor only at face value, ﬁnding in them a hidden content. Believes that Gogol'
resorts to a purely external method of portraying the inner world, which is
psychological realism in another sense. Concludes that the stylistic devices used in

The Overcoat contributed to a non-rational approach to psychology.

44. Peace, Richard A. "The Logic of Madness: Gogol's Zapiski Sumasshedshego." M
Slavonic Pagers, 9 (1976), pp. 28-45.

Fully supports Belinskij's view of Gogol's The Diary of a Madman: "a
psychological case history in poetic form, which is remarkable for its truth and its
proﬁmdity..." Believes that The Diary of a Madman contains not only
psychological elements, but also an inner logic of madness. Sees the story as a
realistic record of a developing progression into madness. Asserts that Gogol' uses
internal as well as external presentations of psychology in order to precisely reveal
human madness. Contends that in so far as the story depicts man's agonizing

struggle to preserve human value in a society where worth is measured by outward

93

forms such as social rank, the story can be included in a category of Realism.

45. Pereverzev, Valerian Fedorovich. "The Evolution of Gogol's Art." In Gogol from the
Twentieth Century. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 134-54.

Explores the stages of evolution of Gogol's art from an aesthetic viewpoint.
Analyzes the elements of Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, pointing out
its two different types of life: one bright and festive yet ﬁlled with triviality,
passionlessness, and impotence; the other fearful and dangerous yet joyful,
dynamic, and meaningful. Draws several contrasts between the stories in Evenings
on a Farm near Dikanka such as petty versus profound passions and triviality
versus heroic deeds. Sees this principle embodied in the language as well, through
the contrast between plain, natural, crude language, and ceremonious, lofty
language. Points out that Gogol' was not actually familiar with these two kinds of
life. Refers to several of Gogol's unﬁnished works, such as The Hetman and The
Dread Wild Boar to show how Gogol's artistic milieu moves from the fantastic to
the real, with the trivial and comic characters and language growing more
prominent. Concludes that Gogol' discards elements which reﬂected the life of the
Cossack concentrating instead on the milieus of the small landowner and civil

servant with which he was familiar.

46. Profﬁtt, Edward. "Gogol's Perfectly True Tale: The Overcoat and Its Mode of
Closure." Studies in Short Fiction, 14, no. 1 (Winter 1977), pp. 35-40.

Sees The Overcoat as realistic from the beginning to the end with no shift

to the fantastic in the epilogue, which he sees as a parody of literary convention,

that is, a parody of poetic justice. Asserts that every aspect of the epilogue points

94

to the conclusion that the "ghost" is only the product of the minds of the
inhabitants of St. Petersburg, so trapped by superstition that they cannot see what
is before their eyes.

47. Rowe, William Woodin. "Observations on Black Humor in Gogol and Nabokov."
Slavic and East European Journal, 18, no. 4 (1974), pp. 392-9.

Explores similarities and differences in the use of black humor between
Gogol's and Nabokov's works. Asserts that both writers frequently use topics
which are considered unsuitable, indelicate, and impemrissible such as sex,
excrement, insanity, and death, often generating an effect of black comedy. Insists
that their humors, woven by ironic reversal words, create the weakness of the
reader's world, then stimulate the reader's full participation. Points out several
differences in both writers: Nabokov pays more attention to suicide than simple
death; Gogol' treats insanity as an internal disorder, while Nabokov treats it as a
sinister conspiracy without an internal disorder. Concludes that Gogol's dark

humor is less consciously created than Nabokov's.

48. Rowe, William Woodin. Through Gogol's Looking Glass: Reverse Vision, False
Focus, and Precarious Logic. New York: New York University Press, 1976.

Analyzes Gogol's creative process, emphasizing the world of vision and

perception in Gogol's works. Asserts that Gogol's writing contains two signiﬁcant

features: an imagination which discloses reality, and a Romantic art which becomes

life. Gogolian Romanticism is characterized by fears, escapes, distorted reﬂections,

multiple realities, hyperbole, grotesques, antithesis, and reversals. Names three

techniques --reverse vision, false focus, and precarious logic-- on which Gogolian

Romanticism is established. Through reverse vision, the good turns into the bad,

the dead into the alive, imagination into reality, absence into presence, day into

95

night. The false focus is presented with a mixture of deceptions, altered
appearances, and dual identities. Insists that the false focus causes the readers to
pay attention to a deceptive realty. The effects of precarious logic range from

absurd humor to insight into reality.

49. Schillinger, John. "Gogol's The Overcoat as a Travesty of Hagiography." Slavic and
East European Journal, 16, no. 1 (1972), pp. 36-41.

Argues that The Overcoat may be considered a caricature of hagiography,
especially a caricature of the story of the sixth-century Saint Acacius of Sinai,
whom Akakij Akakievic is seen to resemble. Pointing out the lack of a
hagiographical description of sincerity and humility in the opening part of the
story, sees the introduction to The Overcoat as a satirical digression. Asserts that
Gogol' follows the hagiographic tradition of generality, i.e., the tendency to not
mention speciﬁc names, places and dates: people are not mentioned by name (the
terms "civil servant," "ofﬁcial," "landlady," "director," and "VIP," among others,
are used instead) and geographical references are vague and obscure. The simple
tasks of copying of documents by Akakij Akakievid and St. Acacius are identical.
Akakij's diligence, his acceptance of torrnents and sufferings at the hands of his
fellow workers, his ﬁlthy clothes, and his alienation from everyday life in the street
are elements held in common with St. Acacius's life. Just as Akakij Akakievié
undergoes suffering at the hands of his fellow workers, St. Acacius was tormented
by his brethren. Like a saint who reﬁrses worldly activities and devotes himself to
spiritual pursuits, Akakij Akakievid is oblivious to everyday life in the street. Points
out that the most structurally signiﬁcant link between Akakij Akakievid and St.
Acacius lies in the events after Akakij's death, seeing the VH"s considerate attitude

to his subordinates as repentance for his cruelty.

96

50. Shepard, Elizabeth C. "Pavlov's Demon and Gogol's Overcoat. " Slavic Review. 33, no.
2 (1974), pp. 288-301.

Finds The Overcoat to be curiously reminiscent of Nikolaj Pavlov's The
Demon. Points out some interactions between the two texts and oﬁ‘ers evidence
for considering The Demon as a source for The Overcoat. Both the protagonists of
The Demon and The Overcoat are poor clerks of unspeciﬁed rank, who copy
documents in a certain department of the bureaucracy in St. Petersburg, and live in
isolation from real society. Like The Overcoat, The Demon has a theme of
conﬁ'ontation between the "little man" and the social system. Claims the diﬁ‘erent
endings of the stories indicate their opposite resolution of the confrontation:
Pavlov depicts human nature as materialistic and human life as a ceaseless
deception, while Gogol' presents human nature and life as the perfectable even

though they are tainted with corruption.

51. Sherry, Charles. "The Pit of Gogol's Overcoat: An Ontological View of Narrative
Form." Genre, 7 (1974), pp. 1-29.

Claims that formal and stylistic elements in artistic works are linked to an
ontology, for the presence of things is disclosed in language. Discusses opposing
interpretations of two incidents in The Overcoat, one involving the sudden reaction
of a fellow worker who tries to have some fun teasing Akakij Akakievié’, and the
Very Important Person's sudden change of attitude toward his subordinates after
having his coat snatched off by Akakij Akakievié's ghost. The Fonnalists' claim
that these incidents are models of the stylistic grotesque and the social
interpretation that these incidents disclose man's inhumanity to man are said to

cancel one another out. Sees Gogol' as using Akakij Akakievic' to disclose the

97

cruelty of life. Claims that in Gogol's world tragedy can not arise, although the
grotesque can, for there is no device to confront reality except illusion or retreat to
madness. Sees the grotesque in Gogol's work as having an ontological origin:
Objects which are emptied of their meaning become grotesque, so that there is no
more hidden meaning to be disclosed. Concludes that the Formalists' interpretation
of the stylistic grotesque is ﬁilﬁlled with an ontological view, while the social
interpretation is not, for it is hard to ﬁnd how a polemic against the existing social
conditions can be made ﬁom a View of existence which treats it as unreal and

whimsical.

52. Sirskyj, Wasyl. "Ideological Overtones in Gogol's T aras Bulba." Ukrainian Quarterly,
35, no. 3 (1979), pp. 279-87.

Examines the values of Cossacks in Gogol's two versions of T aras Bulba:
loyalty to the Cossack brotherhood, loyalty to the Ukrainian Orthodox faith, and
loyalty to the Cossack fatherland. Points out that in the ﬁrst version these three
loyalties are well described, while in the second version Gogol' replaces them with
the Russian spirit, Russian Orthodoxy and Russian imperial grandeur. Asserts that
such changes delighted the Russian people and Tsar Nikolaj I. Contends that
Gogol's ideological alteration of T aras Bulba was unrelated to his religious crisis
and resulted from pressure exerted by Russian ﬁiends who ﬁnancially and
politically supported him. Concludes that Gogol' never changed his conception of

Ukrainian spirit.

53. Slonimskii, Aleksandr. "The Technique of the Comic in Gogol." In Gogol ﬁ'om the
Twentieth Centug. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 324-73.

98

Broken down into two sections: 1) Humor and grotesque, and 2) Comic
alogism. Explores comic devices in Gogol's works, emphasizing semantic and
structural gravity. Introducing several theoretical deﬁnitions of humor, insists
Gogol's humor is intimately associated with J can-Paul Richter's claim that totality -
- the whole of life -- is the ﬁmdamental characteristic of humor. Believes that
humor requires above all that the comic and serious elements be mixed. The
transition from the comic to the serious is seen to create a change in the author's
tone, view and attitude, and the transition intensiﬁes when a comic element
combines with grotesque or lyrical digressions. Asserts that the main element of
the grotesque in Gogol' is absurdity, which is created by a basic comic device, that
is, comic alogism, used in the language of the narrator and characters. Concludes
that the device of absurdity is spread throughout Gogol's world and saturates his
language. It is the main factor which creates the effect of humor and destroys

logical and causal connections.

54. Smith, Thomas A. "Gogol's Hollow Men: Teaching Dead Souls. " English Jaumal. 61
(1972), pp. 32-5.

Deems Gogol's shifting point of view in Dead Souls as the most striking
aspect of his style. Claims that the author interrupts the narrator's speeches from
time to time to present his own ideas about characters or people in general,
suggesting that the main reason for such continuous inten'uption by the author is
to prove that Dead Souls is a satire. Observes that most of the characters in Dead
Souls are hollow men or "dead souls" of a sort. Believes that Gogol' utilizes humor
to mask his grief over the characters' vices. Asserts that in Dead Souls Gogol'
reﬂects hope for the Russian people. Comments that the protagonist Ciéikov is

victimized by his milieu in Russian society.

99

55. Snyder, Harry Charles Jr. "Airborne Imagery in Gogol's Dead Souls. " Slavic and East
European Journal, 23 (1979), pp. 173-89.

Asserts that a sense of exhilaration exists in Gogol's Dead Souls from the
beginning to the end of the story which can be explained not by earthly description,
but in terms of airborne imagery. Citing Gaston Bachelard's view of the airborne
movement of the imagination, claims the structure of Dead Souls is connected to
the psychic state in which Gogol' wrote. Claims that in Dead Souls the dynamic
airborne psyche tends to focus upon the moral aspect of upward movement, an
elevated vision motivated by inner movement and aspirations toward communal
feeling of well-being beyond individual need. Concludes that through his dynamic

airborne imagination, Gogol' comes close to Heaven.

56. Sobel, Ruth. "Gogol's Views on Art and Literature in Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends." Journal 01 Russian Studies, 31 (1976), pp. 29-37.
Asserts that Gogol' was concerned about his views of art and literature
throughout his life, and shows this concern especially in his Selected Passages
from a Correspondence with Friends and his Author's Confession. Points out that
the fundamental motif of the Selected Passages from a Correspondence with
Friends is the juxtaposition of two views of life: the ideal and heroic life
("podvig") and the real and everyday life ("poslost'"). Divides Gogol's letters into
four groups: 1) the letter about Dead Souls, 2) letters about poems, 3) letters
concerning theater and drama, 4) letters discussing his view about the ideal writer.
Believes that the ﬁrst group, Gogol's letters on Dead Souls, shows his own view
about a writer who depicts "poslost'," then helps people come closer to the ideal.

Suggests that the second group, his letters about Russian poetry, is closely linked

100

with Russian history and the development of Russian society, with Gogol' believing
that the task of poetry is subordinated to the vision of an ideal society. Argues that
Gogol' considers the theater to be a vehicle for the education of Russians and a
pulpit for preaching Christianity. Points out that to be an ideal writer, Gogol'
strives to achieve artistic, moral, and religious perfection. Concludes that Gogol's
view on art and literature shows a keenly-felt, constant conﬂict between the real

world and the ideal world.

57. Sobel Ruth. "Gogol's Vij." Russian Literature, 7, no. 6 (1979), pp. 565-84.

Points out various criticisms of Gogol's Vij such as the inadequacy of its
fantastic and folkloric elements, while also noting the generous praise given the
story for its realistic depiction of seminary life and well-drawn main protagonist.
Rejects the appeal to folldore introduced Vifs epilogue by Gogol', arguing that the
creature Vij sprang ﬁ’om Gogol's own imagination. Finds that although gnomes are
not known in Ukrainian mythology, they might have been borrowed from German
demonology by Gogol'. Finds the hero, Xoma, is unsuitable as a folk-tale hero
since there is no description of his exploits and attributes. Xoma is seen as destined
for victirnhood rather than triumph. Asserts that Xoma is not a hero of folk-tale,
but a parody of one, citing several parodic features: the selection of the second
brother as a hero, lack of innocence in Xoma, occurrence of sexual relations in the
middle rather than the end of the story. Believes that Gogol' skillfully conceals this
parody, evoking a fairy tale world in his epigraph, parodying it in the story, then
transforming it to the real world in the epilogue. Concludes that Vij is an

experimental parody in which various elements are blended.

101

58. Stilman, Leon. "The All Seeing Eye in Gogol." In Gogol from the Twentieth Century
Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974, pp. 376-89.

Emphasizes his view that repeated motifs spring from the author's
unconscious prompting which is frequently concealed. Asserts that the vision is a
fundamental and important image in all of Gogol's works. Explains and analyzes
two motifs which are linked to vision. The ﬁrst motif is that of fear and horror,
examples of which are provided from Vi”, The Portrait, and The Terrible
Vengeance. The other motif is that of an expanded vision which resembles the
vision of an all-seeing divinity. This motif usually has no organic relation to the
structure of the work itself. Points out that the image of the tower or tall building
is a means of parody for Gogol's ideas, with several examples ﬁ'om Dead Souls,
The Terrible Vengeance, Arabesques, and Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends. Concludes that these motifs were present in Gogol's

conscious mind and life.

59. Stilman, Leon. "Men, Women and Matchmakers." In Gogol from the Twentieth
Centug. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 390-403.

Carefully examining the text of Gogol's work, explores the various
recurring motifs which are concealed in the forms of genre, mode and style. Points
out that the pattern of "a man, a woman, and a third man -- a matchmaker" is one
of Gogol's motifs in the stories of Ivan Fedorovid Sponka and His Aunt, The
Marriage, and The Nose. Suggests that in these three stories there is a connection
between the themes of matchmaking, marriage, and the danger that threatens the
suitor. Adds that in Vij and Nevskij Prospekt, the image of the matchmaker and the

image of the bride-to-be are integrated in a single character. Concludes that there

102

is another recurrent motif -- a troika -- in the ending of Gogol's stories: Part One
of Dead Souls, The Diary of a Madman, The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovié'
quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovié', Scene 21 of The Marriage, and Act IV of The

Inspector General.

60. Stromecky, Ostap. The How of Gogol: Ia_k Tvoriv Hohol. Huntsville, Alabama:
University of Alabama Huntsville Press, 1975.

Consists of nine chapters arranged chronologically and thematically into
three distinct periods: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Asserts that each period is
organically related to the others. Contains a study of Ukrainian inﬂuences upon
Gogol' with several excerpts from Ukrainian folklore. Compares Gogol's early
works with Ukrainian folklore, folk legend and song. Asserts that in both Vij and
The Terrible Vengeance, Gogol's presentation of Ukrainian folldore is so dazzling
that the embodiment of supernatural situations is natural to the point that the
reader cannot separate reality from fantasy. Concludes that Gogol' creates a very
complex camouﬂage in his works, in which the conﬂict of two opposite forces,

natural force and "poslost'" force, comes together.

61. Struc, Roman. "Categories of the Grotesque: Gogol and Kaﬂra." In Proceedings of the
Comparative Litggrture Symposium. Edited by Wolodymyr T. Zyla. Lubbok,
Texas: Texas Tech University press, 1971, pp. 135-54.

Explores characteristics of the grotesque in Gogol' and Kaﬂra. Finds both
writers under Hoﬁinann's Romantic inﬂuence. Points out that details in Gogol's
world create an effect of diversion and distortion in the mode of Rabelaisian
grotesque. Gogol' displays his grotesque imagination through an alternation of

humor and horror, and comments on the absurdity of the human condition, the

103

demonic forces present in common situations, and the failure of predictability and
normalcy. Gogol's humor is thus seen as an integral part of the grotesque, creating
a positive eﬁea. In Kaﬂca's world, reality is distorted and probability is abandoned.
Kaﬂ<a presents absurdity not in the form of romantic grotesque, but as a
straightforward intrusion, just as with Gogol’. The style of narrative in Kaﬂra is
ﬁghting against its content, and the protagonist's reaction produces a great
grotesque effect in the story. Contends that the main function of Kaﬂca‘s grotesqe

is to expose absurdity.

62. Tabakov, Oleg. "A Soviet Actor and Director Looks at Gogol and the Government
Inspector. " Journal of Russian Studies, 35 (1978), pp. 24-8.

Draws on experience as a director and an actor in Gogol's The Inspector
General, to characterize Gogol' as a complex and controversial writer. Asserts that
Gogol' precisely depicts human failure, defects and shortcomings through laughter
and mockery. Finds Gogol's lyrical style strange and awkward, yet so perfect it is
reminiscent of poetry. Thinks Gogol' implies that his despicable and worthless
characters will change in the ﬁrture, feeling that this is the most prominent feature
in Gogol'. Finds that the quality of creating oneself through heavy torment is the

most signiﬁcant characteristic of Xlestakov.

63. Troyat, Henri. Divided Soul: The Life of Gogpl. Translated by Nancy Amphous.
Garden City, New York: Double Day and Company, 1973.

Divided into three parts: Part one contains Gogol's childhood, civil servant
period, and Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Arabesques, Mirgorod, The
Inspector General, etc. Part two deals with Gogol's journey abroad and Dead

Souls. Part three treats Selected Passages ﬁom Correspondence with Friends,

104

Gogol's last travel, and the end of Dead Souls. Contains a dramatized written
biography of Gogol', consisting of a chronicle of events and excerpts from his
letters and memoirs. Places special emphasis on Gogol's life outside Russia.

Includes psychological speculation, sociological research, and literary analysis.

64. Tynianov, Iurii Nikolaevich. "Dostoevsky and Gogol: Towards a Theory of Parody."
In Dostoevs and Go 01: Text and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and
Stephen Rudy. Translated by Peter B. Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979,
pp. 101-17.

Asserts that Dostoevskij's The Manor of StepanEikovo is a parody about
Gogol's personality. Insists that Dostoevskij had a negative view of Gogol's
Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Believes that Gogol', as the
author of Selected Passages, serves as a prototype for Dostoevskij's main
protagonist, Foma Opiskin. Foma is a writer, a preacher, and a moralist just like
Gogol' in the late period of his life. Foma is a knave, a two-faced person, a
practical person, and a sort of poet. Contends that certain materials which are used
in depicting Foma can be discovered in Gogol's biography. Believes that Foma's
physical appearance is also an imitation of Gogol's. Citing the last sermon of Foma
Opiskin, insists that it contains the same idea as Gogol: "...You are a landowner of
Russia...You ought to shine like a diamond in your estate...Zealous work, zealous
toward God, zealous toward sovereign, and zealous toward your country!..Hard
work is the duty of the landowner..." Asserts that there is a similar feature in both
Foma's style and Gogol's style: a combination of lofty style with vulgar
expressions. Pointing out several similar elements in both works, explains a
possible reason why these similarities escaped the critics' attention. The Manor of

Stepanéikovo is seen essentially as a comic work with elements of parody.

105

However, the parodistic trend tends to fade out as the comic element strongly

emerges.

65. van Schooneveld, C. H. "Gogol and the Romantics." In Slavic Poetics: Egays in
Honor of Kiril Taranovsky. Edited by R. Jakobson, C. H. van Schoonerveld, and
D. S. Worth. Hague: Mouton, 1973, pp. 481-4.

Enumerates the characteristics of the Russian Romantic movement: The
relationship between hero and conﬁgurants, and the relationship between hero and
author. Believes that in Romanticism, the hero eliminates the conﬁgurants, then
ﬁnally the author removes the hero from the stage of the story. Cites examples
ﬁ'om the stories of Puskin and Lennontov. Contends that in Romanticism the hero
has an initial triumph and a ultimate downfall. Asserts, however, that Gogol' rejects
this Romantic formula in his works, especially in The Overcoat. Suggests that in
The Overcoat, conﬁgurants destroy the hero Akakij Akakievié. The author then
retains the hero instead of eliminating him. Calls this pattern Gogol's inversion

technique, concluding that Gogol's relationship to Romanticism is one of inversion.

66. Vroon, Ronald. "Gogol in Oblomovka." Russian Literaﬂre T rigyarterlv. 3 (1972),
pp. 282-96.

Presents a comparative study of Gogol's Dead Souls and GonEarov's
Oblomov. Points out similarities of structural techniques in them, including the
techniques of character introduction and the delayed biography. Observes that both
authors use rhetorical questions, interrupt narrative in order to describe characters,
and make use of animal imagery, which ampliﬁes the effect of the grotesque. For
example, Gogol' depicts Sobakevié with the image of a bear and Goncarov

characterizes Zaxar with the image of a dog. Insists that both authors use

106

metonymic elements as leitmotifs. Suggests that in Oblomov the hero's anxiety is
expressed by an epic simile just as in Dead Souls. Sees Oblomov's character as the
embodiment of several characters in Dead Souls. Points out similarities between

the mental conditions of Oblomov and Tentetnikov.

67. Waszink, Paul M. "Mythical Traits in Gogol's The Overcoat." Slavic and East
European Journal, 22, no. 3 (Fall 1978), pp. 287-300.

Examines mythical elements in Gogol's The Overcoat, ﬁnding two
important motifs: that of oblivion, which Levi-Strauss considered a lack of
communication with the self; and the mythical phenomenon of Konkreszenz, which
was developed by Ernst Cassirer. In The Overcoat, Konkreszenz is displayed by
the use of metonymy. The author's speech has the functional value of simply
expressing a symbolic language system. The mythical motif of oblivion opposes the
non-mythical motifs of understanding and knowing. When the confrontation of
these oppositional elements occurs, the protagonist becomes conﬁised and forgets
himself. Thus as long as Akakij Akakievié' occupies himself with meaningless
language, which he himself does not understand, everything goes well. However,

he has to experience death when he breaks the established rules.

68. Wolterstorﬂ‘, Nikolas. "Characters and Their Names." Poetics, Vol.8, No.1-2, ( 1979),
pp.lOl-127.

Asserts the theory that ﬁctional characters are not persons, but kinds of
persons, that is, person-kinds. Explores how the proper names of characters in
Gogol's Dead Souls function both inside the ﬁction and outside the ﬁction in
predications. Points out that John Woods‘ naive theory of ﬁction hardly applies to

Dead Souls, for Gogol' indicates the state of affairs by referring to the non-existent

107

person, Cib'ikov, and by predicating his property. Refuting the naive theory of
ﬁction, proposes basic ontological principles: the Principle of Exempliﬁcation and
the Principle of Completeness. Asserts that with the name "Cicikov" Gogol'
portrays a certain kind of person; that is, not a person of a certain kind, but a
certain person-kind, i.e., the Ciéikov-in—Dead Souls kind. Suggests that a character
in a ﬁctional world is a person-kind, which is a component; The Cibikov character
is a component within the world of Dead Souls. Concludes that the Ciéikov
character in Dead Souls does have the property of existence, and that property is

fundamental and analytic within the character.

69. Woodward, James B. "Allegory and Symbol in Gogol's Second Idyll." Modern
Language Review, 73 (1978), pp. 351-67.

Underscores the signiﬁcance of Gogol's The Old-World Landowners in the
development of his allegorical art. Treats Gogol's use of digressive narrative in
creating Gogolian symbolism. Explains the ambiguity of femininity among his
characters, ﬁnding femininity and masculinity to have no relationship with sexual
distinction: women are usually depicted with a masculinized personality, while men
display effeminate characteristics. Contends that the combination of men's
feminization and women's masculinization is a vehicle of allegorizing the main
theme in Gogol's world. Asserts that sexual distinction constitutes the basis of

Gogolian symbolism.

70. Woodward, James B. Gogol's Dead Souls. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1978.

Analyzes images in detail to show that Gogol's digressions are not

digressions at all, but are vital to the central theme of Dead Souls. Declares

 

108

Gogol's Dead Souls with its central theme developed and supported by interrelated
symbolic themes, the most complex moral allegory in the Russian language. Finds
in chapter ﬁve its main symbolic theme, the relationship between feminine
spirituality and masculine bestiality, a duality around which the whole work is
organized. Sees the work as an allegory of spiritual perversion and a prediction of
eventual rebirth. Details how Gogol' introduces the ﬁve main types of perversion
individually in chapters two through six, then presents their symbolic indicators in
chapters seven through ten in his portrayal of the town and its inhabitants. The
portrait of Ci‘éikov is also interwoven with these indicators, chieﬂy Manilov,
Korobobka, Nozdrev, Sobakevid and Pljuskin. Suggests that the ﬁgurative is

simply a mask which Gogol' uses to hide the allusive force of literal meaning.

71. Yerrnakov, Ivan. "The Nose." In Gogol from the Twentieth Centugg. Edited and
translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University

Press, 1974, pp. 156-98.

Explores Gogol's psyche as manifest in The Nose, using Freud's concept of the
creative process. Finds two important characteristics in the story: the fear of
emasculation, which goes along with the restrained wish to possess a large sex
organ; and the desire for unlimited sexual pleasure. Finds the story to be a dream
which is not quite a dream, ﬁll] of meaningless and nonsensical conversation.
Contends that Gogol' uses dreams not only to reveal his characters but also to push

his readers to examine themselves.

72. Zeldin, Jesse. Nikolai Gogol's Quest for Beauty: An Exploration into His Works.
Lawrence, Kansas: Regents Press of Kansas, 1978.

109

Agrees with Gogol's claim that his works constitute a unity from beginning
to end without any change of view-point. Claims that Gogol' is primarily interested
in the nature of reality, which he identiﬁes with beauty. Asserts that Gogol's quest
for beauty is not a quest of discovery or a quest for an ideal, but a quest for
embodiment in art and life. Concludes that in the long run Gogol' does not succeed
in this quest. In the chapter entitled "The Artist," claims that Gogol's "poslost'"
gives rise to both horror and laughter, which do not conﬂict or even interweave
but become aspects of each other. In the chapter entitled "The Christian," rejects
the theory of "religious crisis" in Gogol's career claimed by Zenkovskij and
Gippius, asserting that to Gogol' the religious and the aesthetic were not separate
categories, but were the same in reality. In the chapter entitled "The Russian, "
contends that to Gogol' Russia embodies artistic unity and reconciles all things.
Thus Russia is a ChriStian work of art and a thing of beauty. Concludes that Gogol'
fails in his quest for beauty because the modern world can not allow the Gogolian

vision that unity and beauty are ultimately in reconciliation and harmony.

73. Zoshchenko, Mikhail. "Woe to Wit." In his Before Sunrise, pp.270-282. Translated by
Gary Kern. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1974.

Explores the cause of Gogol's tragedy. Believes that Gogol' depicts the life
of landowners, the regime of Nikolaj I, and the vulgar morality of society.
Maintains that Gogol' has a huge conﬂict between real life and his desires. Insists
that this conﬂict makes Gogol' create a terrible tragedy in the long run. Points out,
ﬁrrthermore, that Gogol's psychological disorder creates more serious tragedy.
Suggests that Gogol's fear, in his personal life, has a connection with his attitude
toward women. His fear is related to women, especially his mother. Asserts that

Gogol's reluctance to meet his mother creates more objects of fear: mother, home

110

and women. A mother in the infant's mind is not simply a mother, but a source of
nourishment and food. Observes that Gogol's attitude toward food was odd, just
like his attitude toward his mother. Gogol's psychological disorder results from
women, mother, food, home, night, and bed. Points out Gogol's odd attitude
toward beds: He never lay down on a bed or a sofa, instead he used to nap in an
armchair. Contends that these oddities come ﬁom his sufferings, which ﬁnally

created a tragedy of death.

1 980-1 989

1. Alexander, Alex E. "The Two Ivans' Sexual Underpinnings." Slavic and East European
Journal 25 (1981), pp. 24-37.

 

Analyzes the sexual behavior of Ivan Ivanovid and Ivan Nikiforovid as a
form of subtext, taking a psychological and symbolic approach to the tension
between unsatisﬁed heterosexuality and unfulﬁlled homosexuality. Points out that
Ivan Nikiforovié represents a person of sexual instability as well as a heterosexual
person. Ivan Ivanovid is secretive and sexually active, while Ivan Nikiforovié is
open and sexually inactive. Ivan Ivanovié's coat is seen to symbolize a defense
mechanism to cover his fear, his sexual insecurity, and his secretiveness as a closet
homosexual. Contends that Ivan Nikiforovib’s gun symbolizes his penis and the
two sacks of oats are presented as a Ivan Ivanovid's maleness. Their tension comes
to an end when Ivan Ivanovié's offering is rejected by Ivan Nikiforovié, and the
latter calls the former a gander. Their relations are crushed by action of their sexual
underpinnings. Concludes that only impotence remains triumphant due to their

withdrawal from both kinds of sexuality.

111

2. Altshuller, Mark. "The Walter Scott Motifs in Nikolay Gogol's Story The Lost Letter."
Oxford Slavonic Papers. 22 (1989), pp. 81-8.

Asserts that there is a consistent thematic parallel between Walter Scott's
novel Redgauntlet and Gogol's The Lost Letter. Speculates that Gogol' must have
read a Russian version of Redgauntlet in 1828. Points out a similarity of motif --
both protagonists travel into hell for a missing document, and in both stories
strangers direct the path to hell. The depictions of hell in both stories are similar as
well: a banquet with music and dance. Finds the description of the return to earth
from hell in both works almost identical word for word. Notes that Scott draws
this theme from a Scottish legend; moreover, there is no such theme in Russian or

Ukrainian legends.

3. Bahrij-Pikulyk, Romana. "Superheros, Gentlemen or Pariahs?: The Cossacks in Nikolai
Gogol's T aras Bulba and Panteleirnon Kulish's Black Council." Journal of
Ukrainian Studies, 5, no. 2 (Fall 1980), pp. 30-47.

Compares Gogol's T aras Bulba and Kulis's Black Council, which both
treat Cossacks. Deﬁnes two types of historical ﬁction: historical romance and
historical novel. The former is characterized by the contradiction that although
historical characters and events are presented, they are idealized and fantasized,
while historical personages and events in the latter are depicted in a detailed and
individualized way. Claims that T aras Bulba is a historical romance while Black
Council is a historical novel. Discusses several characteristics of historical romance
in T aras Bulba: the personal and complex myth of the Ukraine, the domination of
heroic personalities over historical process, and an inaccurate depiction of the
religious conﬂict between Cossacks and Poles. Points out that Gogol‘s main source
for T aras Bulba is his own mythical conceptions drawn from folldore and oral

literature. Black Council, by contrast, depicts real historical events, personages,

112

and social struggles. Cossacks in Black Council are depicted not mythically or

ideally, but analytically or critically.

4. Bakhtin, M. M. "Verbal Art and the Folk: Culture of Laughter." In Dead Souls: The
Reavey Translatiop, Backggounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by

George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 569-77.
Discusses elements of the folk culture of laughter in Gogol'. Asserts that
the basic theme of Gogol's Dead Souls is a carnival journey through the world
beyond the grave, and that in Gogol's works there are many traditional elements of
the carnival underworld. Introduces Gogol's own idea of laughter ("Laughter is
signiﬁcant and more profound than people think"), and claims that Gogol's
laughter has arisen from the folk culture of laughter as disclosed in the structure of
Gogol's language with its exotic, enigmatic, and ambivalent words. Claims that the
folk culture of laughter restores forgotten meanings. Notes that in Gogol' there are
two worlds: one completely legitimate and oﬁicial world, the other a world of
absurdity, nonsense, and humor. Gogol' rejects the former world for the sake of
the unexpectedness and the unpredictability of truth. Concludes that Gogol' creates
a certain puriﬁcation of vulgarity through laughter stemming from the folk culture

of laughter.

5. Belinsky, V. G. "Chichikov’s Adventures, or Dead Souls: Gogol's Epic Poem." In Dead

Souls: The Reavey Translation, Backgrgounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism.
Edited by George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp.

453-7.
Claims that the Russian spirit in Gogol's Dead Souls lies in its humor,
irony, the sweeping power of emotions, the lyricism of the digressions, and the

pathos of the whole poem. Strongly asserts, however, that Gogol's humor is not

113

merely funny or jocular: in Gogol's world everything is serious, profound, calm,
and genuine, and as a result Gogol's Dead Souls is a lofty and inspired poem, not
a comic one. Protests Konstantin Aksakov's claim that Dead Souls is a Russian
Iliad. Shows that Gogol' explains the mystery of how Cidikov turns into an

"acquirer" through trivialties, digressions, and absurdities.

6. Bely, Andrei. "The Figure of Fiction in Dead Souls." In Dead Souls: The Rem
Translatiog Backgrgounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George

Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 517-31.

Claims that the accurate development of the ﬁgure of ﬁction is the main
technical device in the writing of Dead Souls. The ﬁgure in Dead Souls is
described as hill of mysterious individuality. Asserts that Gogol' depicts not a
portrait, but a sort of expressive sketch, like a screen or a mask which nevertheless
results in a three dimensional portrait, for the ﬁrnction of the ﬁctitious ﬁgure is
precisely to suggest the hidden realities which are arnbiguously disguised in
superﬁcial images. Asserts that Ciéikov has no distinguishing characteristics,
making him a neat, present, and generalized space without progeny. Sees the motif
of roundness (Ciéikov has a round chin, a roundness of body, a round cheek, and a
round belly) as correlated with pleasantness and neatness. Contends that in Dead
Souls the stream of events ﬂows smoothly by; even though Gogol' eschews
pinpointing exact time and distance, it is enough to say "at a certain time" or "at a

certain distance."

7. Bodin, Per-Arne. "The Silent Scene in Nikolaj Gogol's The Inspector General. " Scando
Slavica, 33 (1987), pp. 5-16.

114

Refutes the many interpretations of the ﬁnal silent scene in The Inspector
General over the past 150 years, including that of conservative 19th century critics
who saw the scene as a sign of the effectiveness of the central government and the
characters' imminent punishment. Presents Andrej Belyj's view that the scene
depicts characters who are no longer living, and the views of other critics who
interpreted the scene as a psychologically motivated reaction to a real new
inspector who is dangerous but can also be cheated. Points out that most
interpretations have not dealt with the fact that the silent scene is completely
different in character from the rest of the play. Points out the fact that Gogol'
himself regarded The Inspector General as a medieval allegory in which the little
town is humanity and the real Inspector General is the awaking conscience. Insists,
while supporting Gogol's own view, that The Inspector General be simultaneously
interpreted on several levels, including those of social satire, eschatological vision,
and allegory. Concludes that the Inspector General is not a person of this world,

but Jesus Christ, and the inspection signiﬁes the future Last Judgment.

8. Cooke, Olga Muller. "Gogol's Strashnaja mest' and Belyj's Prose Fiction: The Role of
Karma. " Russian Langage Journal. 43, nos. 145-146 (1989), pp. 71-84.

Compares the role of the sorcerers in The Terrible Vengeance and in
Belyj's Moscow, noting the basic difference that Gogol' prefers a Christian
cosmology while Belyj favors Eastern religion and its principle of karma. Discusses
Belyj's analysis of The Terrible Vengeance, including his interpretation of Gogol's
love for Russia as the sorcerer's love for Katerina, and his view that the negated
particles ("He" and hm") are analogues of the nihilistic plot. Finds similarities and
diﬁ‘erences between Belyj's sorcerers in Kust, Gornaja vladicica, Kubok metelej,

Silver Dove, and Gogol's sorcerer in The Terrible Vengeance. Concludes that

115

Belyj does not imitate Gogol', but creates a newly resurrected Gogol' in his own

world.

9. Cox, Gary Duane. "Geographic, Sociological, and Sexual Tensions in Gogol's Dikanka
Stories." Slavic and East European Journal, 24, no. 3 (Fall 1980), pp. 219-32.

Through the analysis of sociological, sexual, and stylistic contrasts, asserts

that a conﬂict between static rural and active urban values is reﬂected in Gogol's

Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. Suggests that the contrasts of countryside and

city also are paralleled in the pattern of sexual imagery and death imagery: the

urban narrator depicts sexuality and death with explicit visual imagery, while the

rural narrator avoids such visual imagery. Finds that the narrative structure of

Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka underlines this contrast.

10. Deutsch, Judith E. "The Zaporozhian Cossacks of Nikolaj Gogol: An Approach to
God and Man." Russian Literature, 22, no. 3 (1987), pp. 359-77.
Asserts that Gogol's Taras Bulba reﬂects his idea of the relation between
God and man. Finds that Gogol' considers Cossacks to represent neither their own
culture nor the Ukrainian nation. Gogol' depicts them rather as representing a
divine nature, making use of Eastern Orthodox imagery: Ostap’s death echoes
Christian martyrs, and Bulba's death scene recalls Christ's cruciﬁxion. Sees the
description of Cossacks as bigger, better, and purer than any other heroes as a
product of Gogol's idea of Christian soldiers. Gogol' emphasizes the nature of
wholeness in the Cossacks' life, a role of multiplicity-in-unity, which recalls the
Trinity and reﬂects the Russian image of God. The Polish army, by contrast, is
presented as a non-organic unit, and the Polish milieu is fragmented and lifeless.

Concludes that Gogol's religious approach is an integral part of his artistic world.

116

11. Ehre, Milton. "Laughing Through the Apocalypse: The Comic Structure of Gogol's
Government Inspector." Russian Review, 39 (1980), pp. 137-49.

Applies a religious interpretation to The Inspector General, strongly
supporting Gogol's own views of this play. After Gogol's "Denouement" in 1846,
he turned his focus toward the end of the world. Thus the town in The Inspector
General becomes humanity's common spiritual city, its oﬂicials symbolize passions
and trivial vulgarity, and Xlestakov represents the trivial conscience of the world.
Suggests two possible interpretations of The Inspector General, as a social
comedy or as an apocalyptic satire, choosing the latter view. Observes that Gogol'
uses comic triviality to reveal the emptiness of life and human fear, although the
characters in the play are too ridiculous to consider their disaster seriously. Points
out that Gogol's apocalypse takes on the aspect of reproof, while concluding that
in spite of the play's apocalyptic character, its laughter creates reconciliation,

tolerance and forgiveness in human society.

12. Gippius, Vasilii V. @ggl. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ardis, 1981.

Divided into 14 chapters: 1) The ﬁrst inﬂuences and the ﬁrst idyll, 2) The
demonic and the farcical, 3) Aesthetics, 4) History, 5) The contemporary world
and the second idyll, 6) The mission of a comic writer, 7) New esthetic
manifestoes, 8) Moralism, 9) The poem, 10) An assemblage of freaks, 11) The
Third idyll, 12) Defeat 13) The ﬁnal course, 14) Death. Explores the essential
elements of Gogol's life and work. Rejects the attempt to put Gogol' into a single
category, reinterpreting him instead on the basis of several polarities; realist versus

romanticist, reactionary versus exposer, humorist versus preacher, etc. Discusses

117

Gogol's relation to the Ukrainian tradition, asserting that Gogol' did not reﬂect
reality in Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. Explains that Gogol' had a relatively
poor knowledge of the Ukrainian world and had been raised on the Romantic tales
of iukovskij, Washington Irving, and Hoﬂinann. Examines Gogol's awareness of
aesthetics during the 1830s. Finds that throughout Gogol's life three main ideas --
realism, religion, and individualism -- occupied his mind in various degrees at
various times. Sees aesthetic faith as the foundation of Gogol's sense of life. Raises
the question of Gogol's true intentions as to the continuation of Dead Souls along
the lines of Dante's Divine Comedy, arguing it is almost impossible to imagine a

description of "inferno" or "paradise" in terms of the realistic psychological novel.

13. Gippius, Vasilii V. "An Introduction to Dead Souls. " In Dead Souls: The Reav_ey
Translatiop, Backgrounds and Sources. Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 489-517.

Considers Gogol's Dead Souls to be a work of the highest order, citing
Puskin's support and his call for a Russian epic equivalent to Cervantes' Don
Quixote. Asserts that the basic theme of Dead Souls is the portrayal of "poslost',"
or the portrayal of "poslost' poslogo beloveka," also found to be the fundamental
theme of other Gogolian works. Contends that the design of Dead Souls has no
relation to Dante's Divine Comedy, for in the second part of Dead Souls there is
no equivalent to Dante's "purgatory" for Gogol's characters. Asserts that Dead
Souls is a poem about all of Russia, for its separate elements all have a relation to
Russia. Claims that Gogol' has two plans in creating his poem, the psychological
and historical, with the conscious goal of creating typical characters. Analyzes the
characterizations of six landowners, including Cibikov. These six portraits
represent the bulk of Gogol's "accusatory material" and the basic social-

psychological problems raised in the novel. "Cicikovism" is deﬁned as a passion for

118

life in all its fullness and a readiness to use any means to achieve this goal, from
common adaptability to eccentric speculation. Suggests that Gogol' observes the
positive potential of the Russian people not in these main six characters but in
other folk characters. Asserts that the author is not a simple conventional ﬁgure
who draws together separate elements, but a uniﬁed personality. The author has to
uncover the "po§los "' of men, and Gogol' unmasks it through laughter. Finds
Gogol's principles to be the analysis of "poslost'," the synthetic creation of
generalized images, the unmasking of these images through laughter, and the

author's subjectivity.

14. Graﬁy, Julian. "Passion versus Habit in Old World Landowners." In Nikolay Gogol:
Text apd Com. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1989, pp. 34-49.

Explores the comfortable yet isolated inside world of "habit and order" in
The Old- World Landowners. Points out that the moral and emotional shapes of
this world are created by means of certain recurrent adjectives, adverbs and
abstract nouns. This inside world is characterized as rustic, peaceful, pleasant, and
remote, and the relationships among its inhabitants are innocent and untroubled.
Contrasts this inside world with two external spaces: the outside world of the
house and its garden. The space of the narrator and this outside space interrelate,
representing contrasting realms of habit and passion. Sees the outside world of

passionate intensity and time as a threat to the peaceful inside world.

15. Gregg, Richard. "The Curse of Sameness and the Gogolian Esthetic: The Tale of the
Two [vans as Parable. " Slavic and East European Jgimal. 31 (1987), pp. 1-9.

119

Examines the theme of boredom and spiritual impoverishment in Gogol's
The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovic' Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovic' in relation to
Gogol's artistic view. Points out that the story makes the antithesis of the two
Ivans' appearance and characteristics a basic structural principle. This structure is
opposed to texture. Finds a dramatized declension ﬁom diversity to simplicity,
presented gradually as the two protagonists' opposing characteristics converge, to
be a basic theme of story. They share the same approach and progress toward
simplicity, disability, and impotence. Sees the disappearance of the two Ivans'

diversity as a result of boredom.

16. Heldt, Barbara. "Dead Souls: Without Naming Names." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, pp. 83-91.

Illustrates the tension existing in Dead Souls between spurious ideas of
harmony and disharmony. Sees the opposite of harmony not as a harmonious
negativity, but menacing atmosphere and amorphousness. Notes how Dead Souls
plays tricks with secrecy and disclosure. Suggests that part of the strategy of
secrecy in Dead Souls involves "not naming names," that is, Gogol‘s use of generic

common nouns ("qenoraex, nama," "repoﬁ," "Lunarerrb," "crapyunca," etc.) as

quasi-pronominal substitutes for more speciﬁc designators.

17. Herzen, Alexander 1. "Diary Entries on Dead Souls." In Dead Souls: The Reavey
Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George

Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 458-9.
Asserts that Dead Souls has a realistic, not a romantic basis, praising
Gogol's portrait of Russia. Finds Dead Souls to be a harsh condemnation of

Russia, but with hope for the future of Russia. Claims that the title refers not only

120

to the dead serf-souls, but also landowners like Nozdrev and Manilov. Explores
the question of why and how Ciéikov is chosen as a protagonist in Dead Souls.
Concludes with the speculation that in ten years Cidikov will have ﬁnished his

education and become intelligent, but will still be a Manilov.

18. Jackson, Robert Louis. "Two Views of Gogol and the Critical Synthesis Belinskij,
Rozanov, and Doestoevskij: An Essay in Literary Historical Criticism." 1%
Literature, 15, no. 2 (1984), pp. 223-42.

Discusses two views of Gogol' by Belinskij and Rozanov, emphasizing
Rozanov's interpretation. Contrasts Belinskij's view that Gogol's irony is revelatory
of negative aspects of Russian life, and that Gogolian grotesque is thus a perfect
aesthetic embodiment of social life, with Rozanov's claim that Gogol' does not
reﬂect reality, but simply draws a series of caricatures. Contends that Dostoevskij's
view on Gogol' is seen as a complicated artistic synthesis of these two opposing
views. Points out that Gogol‘s art presents an antithesis of Puskin's pure and
natural description, and creates a separation from reality with Gogolian irony and

aimless lyricism blending with humor.

19. Keys, Roger. "The Unwelcome Tradition: Bely, Gogol and Metaﬁctional Narration."
In Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989, pp. 92-108.

Presents a history of Gogol's reaction to V. Belinskij's critique of the
unrealistic aspects of Gogol's works. Oﬁ‘ers an analysis of the connections and
afﬁnities between Belyj and Gogol'. Views Belyj and Gogol' as creators of a
ﬁctional world which challenged the prevailing idea in nineteenth century Russian
criticism that ﬁction was intended to pronounce truths about the real world.

Contends that Belyj used Gogolian narrative ambiguities in his Silver Dove.

121

Suggests that Silver Dove has some structural and stylistic features which are
found in Gogol's narrative ﬁction and also has some intertextual afﬁnities with the
Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and Mirgorod cycles. Discusses Belyj's spiritual
and psychological afﬁnities with Gogol'.

20. Lotman, Iurii M. "Gogol's Chlestakov: The Pragmatics of a Literary Character." In
The Semiotics of Russian Culture. Edited by Ann Shukman. Translated by Ruth

Sobel. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Slavic Contributions, 1984, pp. 177-212.
Explores the fundamental essence of Xlestakov's character, noting that
Gogol' originally intended him to be the main character in his The Inspector
General. Compares Xlestakov to two historical ﬁgures known for lying and deceit,
Ippolit Zavalisin and Roman Medoks. Asserts that Xlestakovism is related to a
deﬁnite historical psychological type. Suggests that historically Xlestakovism
consumed rather than generated Romanticism. In Romanticism a situation of "an
image within an image" is less dynamic than in Realism. Concludes that the

pragmatics of the Realist text is the most complicated problem.

21. Lotman, Yuri M. "The Problem of Artistic Space in Gogol's Prose." In Dead Souls:
The Reavey Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by

George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 577-83.

Finds an inconsistency in Gogol's artistic space consisting of a non-
directionality of space. Suggests that space in Dead Souls must not only be
unlimited, but also directional in order to resolve the problem of its spaciousness.
Believes that the road in Dead Souls reﬂects the artistic space becoming the
general form for its organization, and the journey is the movement of a literary
character inside that space. Points out that in Dead Souls the author, the characters

and the reader have different views of the artistic space: the characters stand on

 

122

earth, the reader has a broader view than the characters, and the author tends to
direct the reader from above. Concludes that Gogol' might be the ﬁrst writer to

expose Russian literature to the artistic power of spatial models.

22. Mann, Yuri. "On the Two Opposing Structural Principles of Dead Souls." In Dead

Souls: The Reavey Translatiop, Backggounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism.
Edited by George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp.

482-9.

Sees two opposing structural principles in Gogol's Dead Souls: rationality
and absurdity. Asserts that Gogol' developed and applied the idea of generalization
since his early works. In Dead Souls the scale of generalization broadens
considerably to encompass the claim that all events in the world are interlinking
parts of one universal idea. This is seen to reﬂect Gogol's artistic view of
rationality, which is one of his structural principles. The other structural principle
found in Dead Souls consists of unexpected digression, illogicality and absurdity.
Contends that Gogol' uses these contrasting principles to depict the deviation of
humanity from rationality and eternal truth. Adds that in Dead Souls there are

other examples of duality: epic and lyric, satire and tragedy.

23. Mersereau, John Jr. "Gogol's Dead Souls." In his Russian Romantic Fiction. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1983, pp. 319-23.

Views Gogol's Dead Souls as a romantic work, rejecting the realistic
approach. Sees Dead Souls as a variant of the picaresque novel, supporting
Gogol's view that Dead Souls is a divine comedy consisting of three parts: Hell,
Purgatory, and Paradise. Believes the title of Dead Souls refers to Ciéikov and the
landowners, the incarnations of the "poslost'" of life, created by the Devil.

Observes that Gogol' uses humorous devices to expose the Devil. Points out that

 

 

123

Gogol' uses stylization and conventionalization in depicting his characters, using
comparisons to intensify the metaphorical essence. Contends that the "skaz"
narrative exhibits non-realistic features and departs from neutral reportage.
Concludes that the characters in Dead Souls are descendants of other literary
types: Pljuskin is Charles Maturin's Sir John Melrnoth or Narezny's miser Tarax,
Nozdrev is Narezny's hunter Sylvester, Cidikov is Perovskij's "posljak" Klirn
Djundik.

24. Milne, Lesley. "Gogol and Mikhail Bulgakov." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context.
Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989,
pp. 109-26.

Explores Bulgakov's biographical, thematic, and stylistic connections to
Gogol', ﬁnding that Bulgakov used Gogolian works to explore his own creativity.
Recounts Bulgakov's struggle to stage Dead Souls in the early 1930's. Deﬁnes the
Bulgakovian vision as a modernization and bureaucratization of Gogol's folkloric
Ukraine; the vaudeville element is fully articulated and clearly a forerunner of the
demonic scenes in The Master and Margarita. Discusses Bulgakov's intense
awareness of the resemblance between his age and Gogol's, their mutual longing
for Italy, and Bulgakov's adoption of Gogol's gastrocentric universe. Concludes
that while Bulgakov does not stand entirely under the sign of Gogol', he is the true

heir to the Gogolian tradition.

25. Nebolsine, Arcadi. "Gogol and Poshlost: Some Question," In Studies in Slavic
Literatures and Culture in Honor of Zoya Yurieﬂ‘. Edited by Munir Sendich. East
Lansing, Michigan: Russian Language Journal, 1988, pp. 225-30.

Presents two opposite interpretations of Gogol's "poslost'": that of

Vladimir Nabokov and Soviet scholar I. Katarskij, who criticized the vice of

124

"poslost'," and that of Konstantin Modul'skij and Ilija Glazunov, who praised it.
Considers Gogol's language and art as an exuberant medieval style of Baroque,
and insists that Gogol' as a religious thinker and creative Baroque artist discovered

"poslost. Points out that Gogol' never created "poslost

in his characters,
whereas Dostoevskij, Tolstoj, and Cexov did -- in Luzin, Anatolij Kuragin, and
Natasa (in Three Sisters). Discusses Gogol's difﬁculties in overcoming "poslost'" in
view of his tendency toward absolute unity and monolithism, and his Platonic
aesthetics of harmony and "6nar006pa3Me." Concludes that Gogol' with his

conﬂict-ridden nature could not challenge "poslost.

26. Peace, Richard Arthur. The Enigma of Gogol: An Examination of the Writings of N.
V. Gogol and Their Place in the Russian Literarv Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Divided into seven sections: 1) Introduction, 2) Mirgorod, 3) The St.
Petersburg Stories, 4) Theater, 5) The Carriage and Rome, 6) Dead Souls, 7)
Conclusion. Reﬁrtes three Western interpretations of Gogol's work by Simon
Karlinsky, Donald Fanger and James Woodward. Offers a careﬁil analysis of
Gogol's artistic world, examining both text and context. Finds that the motif of old
woman, sexual anxiety, and death is encountered in Vi', The Terrible Vengeance,
The Fair at Soroéincy, and The Old-World Landowners. Natural description in
Gogol's early stories is not naturalistic, but contains sexual symbolism which later
yields to fear. Self-mockery and anxiety about status underlie in The Overcoat, The
Diary of a Madman, The Inspector General, and The Nose while anxiety about art
and writing is paramount in The Portrait, Dead Souls, and Selected Passages from
Correspondence with Friends. Asserts that Gogol's artistic concern is with
disparity and disharmony, seeing his artistic personality as driven by three

elements: 1) sexual fears in the early period, 2) concern about identity and status in

125

the middle period, 3) anxiety concerning art and literature in the later period.
Concludes that Gogol's artistic view was a negative reconciliation with life in his
early years while later it became a positive reconciliation with life, a result of his

pursuit of the meaningfulness of art and his growth in Christianity.

27. Peace, Richard Arthur. "The Mirror-World of Gogol's Early Stories." In Nikolay
G_ogol: Text an_d Con_t_e_x_t. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1989, pp. 19-33.

Explores the mirror-like, invented world of Gogol's early stories, Evenings
on a Farm near Dikanka and Mirgorod. Interprets the love story in The Fair at
Soroéincy as a complex and ambiguous sexual affair which is parodied by the illicit
and absurd romance between Paraska's evil stepmother, the demonic Xivrja, and
her ecclesiastical lover. Suggests that incest and self-deception are hidden in
Gogol's early stories, arguing that even a surface "beauty" masks hidden demonic
forces. Insists that these early stories not only contain humor and absurdity, but

also have landscapes and ﬁgures which are threatened by hidden satanic forces.

28. Peppard, Victor. "Gogolian Substrata in Zhizn' i Neobmhcy'nve Prekliucheniia
Soldata Ivana Chonkiﬂ." Russian Language Journal, 131 (1984), pp. 131-8.

Places Vladimir Vojnovid's Zvizn' i neobyc'ajnye prikljuc‘enija soldata Ivana
Conkina in Gogol's satirical tradition. Asserts that Vojnovié's work owes much to
Gogolian parody, stylization, and allusion. Notes, for example, how Vojnovié' uses
the device of digression to introduce his characters just like Gogol' does. Points
out that especially Gogol's The Inspector General has much in common with

Vojnovié's novel, such as the motif of mistaken identity. Also points out several

differences between Vojnovié's novel and Dead Souls in narrative structure,

126

character scheme and use of fantastic elements. Contends, however, that both
novels are similar on the thematic level with their complicated deception and
falsiﬁcation. Concludes that VojnoviE's world is saturated with Gogol's style,

themes, and motifs.

29. Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. "All the World's a Vertep: The Personiﬁcation
/Depersoniﬁcation Complex in Gogol's Sorochinskaja Jarmarka." HM
Ukrainian Studies, 6, no. 3 (1982), pp. 339—71.

Deals with homosexuality in Gogol's world. Points out that Gogol' tends to
treat erotic imagery coupled with absurdity, citing the protagonists of Vi ', Nevskij
Prospekt, and The Overcoat, in which Akakij Akakievid dies because of sick sexual
relations with a ferninized overcoat. Finds that in Gogol's world persons are
depersoniﬁed, while objects are personiﬁed, citing Cicikov and the overcoat,
respectively. Presents several examples of personiﬁcation and depersoniﬁcation
from The Fair at Soroc'incy. Draws several observations about homosexuality,
marriage, and death in the closing passage of The Fair at Sorodincy, suggesting
that the narrator is a homosexual for whom marriage is unthinkable and
tantamount to a death. Concludes that death and homosexuality are closely
intertwined in Gogol's life as well as his art.

30. Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. Out from Under Gogol's Overcoat: A Psychoanalﬂic
My. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1982.

Offers a psychoanalytic study of Gogol's The Overcoat not from the
standpoint of Gogol' as a psychoanalyst, but under the premise that all literature
appeals to the reader's inner world and offers a complex kind of satisfaction within
that world. Discusses the contradicting claims of Modul'skij, who said Gogol' was

not a psychologist at all, and Driessen, who declared Gogol' a masterful

127

psychologist. Sees "skaz" as a special type of psychological mask intended to
deceive readers with what ijenbaum called "the illusion of skaz," or what Baxtin
called "a double voiced utterance." Finds it crucial to determine the purpose of the
illusion of "skaz." Comments that from a psychoanalytic point of view, what is
masked by fantastic material might create anxiety if expressed directly or bluntly.
Compares Baxtin's study of Gogol's humor and Freud's approach to humor.
Emphasizes both anal and genital sexuality in psychoanalyzing the text of The

Overcoat.

31. Shapiro, Gavriel. "The Hussar: A Few Observations on Gogol's Characters and Their
Vertep Prototype." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 9 (1985), pp. 133-8.

Notes that Rozanov‘s study of the relationship between the 'vertep"
(Ukrainian puppet theater) and Gogol's works, left out a type of "vertep," which
appears in Gogol's works: the mustached, boasting, cursing Hussar. Cites the chief
of the Polish uhlans in The Hetman, the leader of the Polish detachment in the
fragment A Bloody Bandura-Player, the head prison guard in Taras Bulba as
examples. Proposes that there is also a relatively weak attachment between this
type and Gogol's characters in The Gamblers and Dead Souls: Utesitel'nyj and
Svoxnev in the former, and Nozdrev in the latter. Concludes that Gogol' depicts
the above mentioned characters with some characteristics of the "vertep" Hussar,

although he inclines toward psychological depiction of his characters in later years.

32. Shklovsky, Victor. "The Literary Genre of Dead Souls. " In Dead Souls: The Reavey

Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 564-9.

128

Analyzes the genre of Gogol's Dead Souls, rejecting various aspects of the
traditional novelistic convention. Likens the "Tale of Captain Kopejkin" to Gogol's
Nevskij Prospekt, since both tales provide plentiful details of everyday life in St.
Petersburg through the eye of a poor man. Points out the difference from the
traditional novel in the ordering of the plot in Dead Souls. Believes that as a genre,
the novel has a conventional and artiﬁcial plot of limited range, while the epic is a
work of unlimited range with accurate descriptions of reality. Contends that
Gogol's Dead Souls stands between theses two genres and calls it a "lesser form of

the epic" which escapes the restrictions of the conventional novelistic ﬁamework.

33. Shukman, Ann. "Gogol's The Nose or the Devil in the Works." In Nikolay Gogol: Text
and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1989, pp. 64-82.

Introduces and examines a whole series of possible explanations of The
Nose: Roman Jakobson's, Baxtin's, Donald Fanger's, Ermakov's, Stilman's,
Karlinsky's, Woodward's and Peace's. Insists that the narratorial voice is in a
position to play tricks on the reader even while managing the narration itself
Asserts that the struggle between man and the devil is perhaps the struggle
between the principles of sense-making and sense-destroying nonsense, believing
this to be the subject of The Nose. Concludes that any attempt to demand logic and
causality of The Nose is misguided, because the only consistency of the story lies in

the principle of non-consistency.

 

34. Sobel, Ruth. Gogol's Forgotten Book: Selected Passages and Its Contemporagy
Readers. Washington D. C.: University Press of America, 1981.

 

129

Asserts that Gogol's Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends
was misunderstood by contemporary critics. Examines Gogol's view on art and
Russia, his relationship to Russian authority, the role of a writer as prophet. Points
out that various interpretations of Gogol' result ﬁom his unique way of writing,
and the polemics concerning Gogol' mirror the literary life of the time. States that
Gogol' viewed Russia as a spiritually united nation of brotherhood where quarrels,
hatreds and enmities never exist, and that he saw an ideal ruler as a person inspired
by divine nature. Discusses Gogol's view of an artist as a person endowed with
extraordinary insight with divine gifts. Explores Gogol's passionate and desperate
yearning for religious ecstasy. Observes how various heated polemics surrounding

Selected Passages created misunderstandings and misconceptions about Gogol'.

35. Stromecky, Ostap. "Gogol‘s Reverse Symbolism." Ukrainian Quarterly, 38, no. 2
(1982), pp. 151-63.

Asserts that Gogol's The Terrible Vengeance and Vij contain reverse
symbolism. Suggests that Gogol' uses a natural mirror, the Dnieper, in creating
reverse images. Through its water's reﬂections Gogol's characters perceive various
dimensions such as physical appearance, mind, soul, and emotions. In The Terrible
Vengeance the Dnieper is a source of life and death, while in Vij its reﬂection gives
an old woman beauty and youth. Insists, thus, that the water of the Dnieper is a
vehicle of Gogol's reverse symbolism, and like him, it is a creator of life and death.
Following the principle of reverse symbolism, declares that Gogol's depiction of

the supernatural is not a fantasy, but reality in the form of fantasy.

 

130

36. Todd, William Mills III. "Dead Souls: Charmed by a Phrase." In his Fiction and
Societyin the Age of PuglLkin: Ideology, Institutions, and Narrative. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986, pp. 164-206.

Asserts that Gogol's Dead Souls manages to divide the reading public, and
the comic details in it destroy a devitalized way of life. Presents both the criticisms
by S. Aksakov and V. Belinskij, and the interpretations by the Modernists.
Pointing out the characteristics of ambiguity and uncertainty in Dead Souls,
presents a new question concerning the ideology of polite society. Suggests that
the social events which bring the characters together, such as visits, dinners and
balls, are important elements of polite society. Insists that the ideology of polite
society forms and molds the space, the scene, the characters, and their languages
through Cibikov's journey in Dead Souls. Points out that the world of N, depicted
by polite society, gradually collapses as the narrator's language increasingly shifts
into everyday language from the reﬁned language of polite society. Concludes that
Dead Souls plays a double game with the ideology of polite society, which
predominated in Russian elite groups. It makes a spectacular pseudo-event of its

death, and it also suggests that the self-satisﬁed world has been dead all along.

37. Trott, Liz. "Diary of a Madman: the Hidden Absurd." In Nikolay Gogol: Text arid
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, pp. 50-63.

Explores the hidden absurd in Gogol's The Diary of a Madman. Asserts
that the voice of the narrator is the story and there is no authorial intervention at
all, since the madman is the only ﬁrst person narrator in Gogol's ﬁction. Shows
how Gogol' makes use of an unreliable narrator to handle the reader's perceptions.
Shows how the frequent contradictions, digressions, and absurdities in the

account, as well as the author's lack of comment, leave the reader guessing.

131

Contrasts several aspects of the narrator's role in The Nose and The Diary of a
Madman. Concludes that the hidden absurd in The Diary of a Madman allows
Gogol' to connect with the reader more closely, and comic effect comes from the

rhythm of the passage, repetition, and absurd juxtapositions.

38. Vinogradov, Victor Vladimirovich. Gogol and the Natural School. Translated by
Debra K. Erickson and Ray Parrott. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1987.

Divided into two parts: the ﬁrst part deals with the relationship between
Vinogradov and the Formalists, and the second part examines Vinogradov's Gogol ’
and the Natural School. Criticizes Mandel'stam for not fully exploring Gogol's
stylistic devices and for misunderstanding Gogol's place in the Russian literary
tradition. Also considers the views of the Syrnbolists and F onnalists, asserting that
all these studies miss the essence of Gogolian style as well as its source in literary
tradition. Praises Gippius's interpretation for its mixture of Gogol's personal and
artistic histories and for its combined treatment of Gogol's spiritual and artistic
world. Discusses the views of the German critic, Stender-Peterson on plot
structure in Gogol's works. Points out that the poetics of Classicism,
Sentimentalism, and Romanticism are basic elements in Gogol's art, and that they
coexist in varying forms and styles. Asserts that Gogol' combines Naturalism with

Sentimentalist elements.

39. Wigzell, Faith. "Gogol and Vaudeville." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited
by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989, pp. 1-18.

Asserts that Gogol' is an ethical and moral artist. Considers the context of
Gogol's own time in her examination of the relationship between the comedies The

Inspector General and The Marriage and the contemporary genre of vaudeville.

132

Insists that vaudeville, imported from France, had a strong inﬂuence upon both
acting styles and upon audience expectations in the Russia of Gogol's time.
Explains that vaudeville is viewed as an ephemeral creation in the 183 Os and
18403. Demonstrates characteristics of the vaudeville genre, introducing some
vaudevilles. Argues that Gogol‘ strongly refuses vaudeville in his own plays, for he
believes that Russian character and social circumstances are unsuited to the
vaudeville. However, insists that in the speed of action in The Inspector General
and The Marriage, Gogol' indebted to the vaudeville tradition. Concludes that
while imitating the speed of action, Gogol' rejects, transforms and tones down the

complications of plot, static dialogue, and comic devices.

40. Wilson, Edmund. "Gogol: The Demon in the Overgrown Garden." In Dead Soals: The
Reavey Translatiop, Backggounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by

George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, pp. 542-6.
Explores Gogol's style, especially his queer, enormous, and comprehensive
vocabulary. Asserts that Gogol's style is a variety of the viscous prose which was
popular in his time, for example a narrative style of Hawthorne or Herman
Melville. Finds Gogol' to be the master of complicated prose, likening his style to
an overgrown garden. Rejects the views of Nabokov and Mirsky that Gogol's early
stories such as Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and Mirgorod are merely fairy
tales or farces. Points out that in Gogol's works there is a sudden and unexpected
falling out of the bottom: The dissolution of the old fashioned landowners, the loss
of Taras Bulba's sons, the outburst between Ivan Ivanovié and Ivan Nikiforovi‘c',
the disclosure of the deception in The Inspector General, and the collapse of
Cibikov's deceit. Asserts that Gogol's life is likewise characterized by unexpected

sudden collapse. Contends that Gogol's defeat comes ﬁom the failure of his sexual

133

life. Points out that Gogol' never succeed in depicting the ideal woman. Both

Gogol' and his heroes try to ﬁnd her, but never succeed.

41. Wilson, Reuel K. "A Marvelous Hangout or Dead Souls Revisited." World Literaﬂg
Ipday, 54 (1980), pp. 376-81.

Compares Polish writer Kazimierz Orlos' Cudowna melina (A Marvelous
Hangout) with Gogol's Dead Souls and The Inspector General. Finds the plot and
atmosphere of grotesque farce in Cudowna melina similar to Gogol's works. Finds
that while Gogol's grotesque characters are unique reﬂections of his imagination,
those of Orlos are the result of distortion by vice. Emphasizes that both Gogol' and
Orlos depict human vices ﬁ'om a highly moralistic and puritan viewpoint. Asserts
that Gogol' attributes what is bad in life to spiritual poverty among the people,

while Orlos appeals to basic Christian value, charity, honesty and respect for life.

42. Woodward, James B. The Symbolic Art of Gogol: Essays on His Short Fiction.
Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1982.

Finds in Gogol's work a pattern in which the illogical becomes the logical
through symbolism. Discems the harmonious symbolic elements in ﬁve works:
Ivan F edoroviE Sponka and His Aunt, The Old- World Landowners, The Nose, The
Overcoat, and The Carriage. Finds at the core of these works a vision of evil and
human imperfection allegorically presented in the form of sexual conﬂicts.
Maintains that the F ormalists' approach to the conventional associations between
words cannot arrive at a harmonious artistic exegesis. Contends that behind a mask
of digression, absurdity, pun, grotesque, etc., lie the symbolic basis of Gogol's
works. Concludes that these meanings create a harmony through the logic of its

repeated patterns.

134

43. Woodward, S. "Pro-Creative Disorder in Gogolian Fiction." Russian Literature, 26
(1989), pp. 297-303.

Contends that in Gogol's work disorder is an essential element for
production or pro-creativity. Points out that in Ivan Fedorovic' Sponka and His
Aunt, Sponka resists marriage, feeling it will demolish his identity. Thus Sponka's
orderly behavior in the face of the feminine threat does not create productivity. In
Nevskij Prospekt, the painter Piskarev's disorderly studio shows chaos, but reﬂects
an artist's creativity. In The Overcoat Akakij Akakievié's copying of documents is
the opposite of creative writing. Sees the grotesque to be most characteristic for
the excess of expression in Gogol's world. Contends that the style of disorder and

the grotesque in Gogol's world are associated with pro-creativity.

44. Worrall, Nick. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Tuggenev. London: Macmillan Press, 1982.

Divided into eight chapters: 1) two lives, 2) two worlds, 3) theatrical
theories and inﬂuences, 4) Gogol's plays 1832-1842, 5) The Inspector General, 6)
Turgenev's plays 1834-1848, 7) Turgenev's plays 1848-1850, 8) A Month in the
Country. Compares Gogol' and Turgenev as playwrights. Points out several
similarities in life experience such as a strong maternal inﬂuence, unmarried status,
and extensive stay in foreign countries. Discusses the inﬂuence on both writers of
eighteenth and nineteenth-century German philosophy and the central role of
nature in both writers' work. Points out that both writers are inﬂuenced by
vaudeville and puppet theater. Both writers have in common the desire to reform
Russian stage, and to create a new way of drama. Another common feature
discussed is their effort to reveal the negative, corrupt side of society, although

with the difference that Turgenev offers hope for a positive future. Both writers

135

also are seen to differ in religiosity: Gogol' views art as a semi-divine mission,

while Turgenev does not.

45. Yelistratova, Anna. Nikolai Gogol and the West European Novel. Moscow: Raduga
Publishers, 1984.

Compares Gogol's Dead Souls with novels by Western writers such as
Fielding, Smollett, Rousseau, Goethe, Scott, Thackeray, Dickens and Balzac. Also
criticizes the views of Western critics such as Vladimir Nabokov, Victor Erlich,
and Janko Lavrin toward Gogol's Dead Souls. Rejects Nabokov's view that Gogol'
is not a realist, but a master of the irrational world view. Asserts that Gogol's
humor is an integral part of his realism. Supports that French poet Paul Eluard's
remark that "the true historical signiﬁcance of Gogol's lyrical digressions in Dead

Souls only became manifest alter the Great October Socialist Revolution."

1 990-1991

1. Aksakov, Konstantin. "A Few words on Gogol's Poem Cicikov’s Adventures or Dead
Souls." Translated by Ruth Sobel. Russian Literatpre T riauarterly, 23 (1990), pp.
253-62.

 

Claims that Gogol's Dead Souls is an epic of antiquity. Argues that in Dead
Souls Gogol' depicts images of nature and man profoundly and truly, conveys them
in an artistic manner. Points out that Dead Souls presents a whole sphere of life, as
Homer's epic does. Asserts that every single object in Dead Souls has its own life
no mater how shallow that life is. Also points out that no matter who Ciéikov is,
he is still a Russian, riding in his troika. Believes that Gogol' presents the essential

Russian feeling. Contends that the similes in Dead Souls recall those of Homer's

136

Iliad. Considers Ukraine as a part of the Great Russian spirit, concludes that the

element of the Ukrainian language has been introduced by Gogol' into Russian

language.

2. Galperina, Inna. "Critical Relativism: Gogol's Marriage, a Multifaceted Play or Playing
in a Play. " Russian Literature, 28, no. 2 (1990), pp. 155-74.

Sees Gogol's The Marriage not as a simple play, but a play within a play,
with the main protagonist Koékarev not only directing but also playing a part
within his own play. Points out parallels between devices of characterization in
KoEkarev's play and in traditional puppet theater: reduction (simpliﬁed
appearance), exaggeration (exaggerated appearance), and repetition (recurrent
behaviors), all of which are manifest not only in each individual character, but in
the ensemble as a whole. Finds ﬁrrther parallels the way the space of the theater is
created by speech and intonation, change of object functions, movements and
gestures, pantomime, etc. Criticizes The Marriage for its lack of value judgment,
and lack of social dimension. Asserts that The Marriage is only a literary artiﬁce
which reveals-a world of absurdity. Concludes that art can still function in the

absence of any social message.

3. Karpuk, Paul A. "Reconciling Chronological Inconsistencies in Gogol's Taras Bulba."
Russian Langyage Journal, 45, nos.151-152 (1991), pp. 93-110.

Disputes the view that Gogol's Taras Bulba is marred by anachronism.

Bases his views on ﬁve sources of the Ukrainian history -- Bantys-Kamenskij's

Istorija Maloj Rossii, Beauplan's Opisanie Ukrajny, Koniskij's Istorija Rusov ili

Maloj Rossii, Rigel'man's Letopisnoe povestvovanie o Maloj Rossii, and

Safonskij's Cemigovskogo namestnirl‘estva topograﬁdeskoe Opisanie. Sets up a

137

historical framework centering on several events: the foundation of the Kiev
Academy in 1588, the establishment of the Uniate Church during 1589-1596, the
Ko§ynskyj's uprising in 1593, the Nalyvajko‘s uprising in 1596-97, the Taras'
uprising in 16205, the Ostrjanycja's rebellion in 1638, and the Poltora-Koiuxa's
rebellion in 1639. Proposes that Taras Bulba begins in 1596 and ends in 1639.
Sees the siege at Dubno as an artistic invention of Gogol'. Speculates that events in
Chapters IX and XI are a synthesis of three historical events -- Taras' uprising in
16205, the Cossacks' attack on Poland in 1635, and Pavljuk's uprising in 1637.
Observes that Gogol' analogized the conclusion of the tale. Considers the second
edition of the tale as Gogol's attempt to restore a chronological precision.
Concludes that Gogol' intended to synthesize the events of a half-century to create

a historical ﬁction.

4. Maguire, Robert A. "Gogol and the Legacy of Pseudo-Dionysius." In Russianness:
Studies on a Nation's Identig. Edited by Robert L. Belknap. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Ardis, 1990, pp. 44-55.

Asserts that Gogol' shares traditional Christian thought with Pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite, a Greek mystical author of the sixth century. Points out
certain general themes and modes of thought originated from Pseudo-Dionysius
such as the ideas of place, transﬁguration, and silence. The idea that a person has a
suitable place in the world allotted to him by God is applied to Gogol's lost
characters, who are seen as seeking their rightﬁrl place. Applies to Gogol' the
concept of "person" and "individual" as deﬁned in the language of Orthodoxy, i.e.,
a "person" is one who has the image of God, while an "individual" is one who is
separated from God because of sin. Sees Gogol's characters in this scheme as
"individuals." Points out that while in The Portrait, Dead Souls part two, and

T aras Bulba, Gogol' offers the possibility of transﬁguration, most of his characters

138

unchanged because of sin and persistence in staying out of their place. Finds that in

Gogol' the theme of silence follows after the failure of transﬁguration.

5. Sicher, Efrairn. "Dialogization and Laughter in the Dark, or How Gogol's Nose Was
Made: Parody and Literary Evolution in Bachtins Theory of the Novel." Russian
Literature, 28, no. 2 (1990), pp. 211-33.

 

Explores the intertextuality in novelistic dialogue of Gogol's The Nose from
Baxtin's viewpoint of carnivalization and double-voicing. Presents Baxtin's
deﬁnition of parody and the role in novelistic discourse. Suggests the reader
reconstruct the ﬁrnctional structure of The Nose in order to examine the absurdity
in the story. Asserts that The Nose contains a feature of a parody, as a form of
double-voicing, which plays an important role in the composition of language in
the comic novel. Points out that the nose is used as a comic device to reveal the
absurdity of social and textual convention. Concludes that The Nose contains
literarily subversive text even though it delivers a social and moral message

through that text.

6. Sobel, Ruth. "K. Aksakov's Essay on Gogol's Dead Souls: A Short Evaluation."
Russian Literature T riquarterly, 23 (1990), pp. 263-8.

Analyzes Konstantin Aksakov's essay on Gogol's Dead Souls, published in
the summer of 1842. Asserts that Aksakov considers Gogol's Dead Souls not only
to be a work of literature, but also a work of the national spirit. Lists the four
literary elements discussed by Aksakov: the universe, the work, the author, and the
readers. Aksakov contends that the essence of Gogol's artistic method is plenitude,
that is, a desire to cover a totality and to recreate it in his work, and argues that

Gogol' is equal to Homer and Shakespeare in terms of the act of creation, but falls

139

behind them in terms of the content of creation. Evaluates Aksakov's style as
vague, ambiguous, repetitive, replete with exaggeration and hard to understand.
Concludes that even though Aksakov's study did not enjoy success, it is important

to Russian intellectual history.

7. Toumanoff, Susan. "Aﬁerword to Yury Lotman's Artistic Space in Gogol's Prose."

Russian Literature T riguarterly, 23 (1990), pp. 243-51.

Elaborates Yury Lotman's view of artistic spatial system, and explains it
with several examples. Asserts that semiotics and stnrcturalism cannot be
separated. Traces Lotman's linguistic background: The Kazan School in the 18705,
OPOYAZ (Society for the Study of Poetic Language) in the 19105, and The
Prague School in the 19305. Makes several observations on the diﬂ‘erence between
the Structuralists and the Formalists: the Structuralists consider language to be a
system, while the Forrnalists treat literature as a system. The latter analyze only
artistic devices, while the former ﬁirther explore these devices in social and
cultural relationships. Cites Gogol's The Old-World Landowners as an example of
Lotman's claim that language is a primary modeling system, on which literature -- a
secondary modeling system -- is based; that is, language creates the structure of
the world, while literature combines these structures with the author's views on art,

love, death, etc. by means of imagery, plot, characterization and digression.

CONCLUSION

When Robert Maguire surveyed English Gogol' criticism in 1974 (in his Gogol’
from the Twentieth Century), he lamented its lack of substantial scholarship. My own
study of English Gogol' criticism reveals different ﬁndings. Indeed, many English studies
contributed both essential and new scholarship to Gogol'. As a whole, criticism of Gogol'
in English was marked by constant shifts and changes, and displayed a proliferation of
approaches and methodologies. In this conclusion, I will comment on these shifts and
changes, focusing on criticism's major aspects, such as comparisons of Gogol' to other
writers, religious and psychological interpretations of Gogol', and, above all, on criticism

of Gogol's poetics.

Criticism of comparative studies of Gogol' can be divided into ﬁve categories: the
explorations of picaresque elements, of Ukrainian motifs and elements, of Gogol's
inﬂuence on others, of others' inﬂuence on him, and of poetic features (plots, themes,
structures, narrative devices, tropes, among others). Among them, Carl Proﬂ‘er's
exploration of Homeric similes, Roger Key's stylistic devices, Victor Peppard's digression
and the motif of mistaken identity, and Peter Rosebach's the ﬁrnction of insanity

represented shifts and changes in Gogol' criticism.

A. Birkhead's comparison of Dead Souls to Dickens' Pickwick Papers was the ﬁrst
English criticism of Gogol'. The critic saw the similarities in treatment of bureaucratic
corruption and his study investigated external features in both works. His study ignores

artistic elements in analyzing Dead Souls, and is essentially another social interpretation.

140

141

Since Birkhead's remarks on general links between Gogol' and Dickens, criticism has
repeatedly addressed their aﬁinities and diﬁerences. Another comparative study between
Dead Souls and Pickwick Papers was made by Bowen, who focused more on artistic
features than Birkhead. He found convincing similarities in three categories: the looseness
of their structures, the simplicity of their plots, and the common theme of travel by coach.
His consideration of Dead Souls as a satire on Russian oﬂicialdom, and of Gogol' as a
spectator laughing at tragic hopelessness seems to stem from the inﬂuence of social
approaches. Bowen's study, however, was not enough to precipitate a shift in Gogol'
criticism. In 1956, Michael Futrell presented criticism of criticism, attacking the two
former critics' comparisons, claiming that there are no inﬂuences or mutual relationships
between Dead Souls and Pickwick Papers. He centered on Gogol's extreme individuality

and uniqueness, contributing to the rise of psychological approaches in Gogol' criticism.

Ernest Simmons' comparison of Nevskij Prospekt to De Quincey's Confessions of
an English Opium-Eater pointed out similar structures and explored the theme of escape
from reality into ecstatic dreams. His focus on external elements such as themes,
structures, and the prototype of woman contributed to another shift in criticism.
Emphasizing the role of dream in Gogol's world pointed in another new direction. Boris
Brasol's study more speciﬁcally found Gogol's obsessive idea of the Devil, contrasting it
with other writers' Devils. Brasol's views were strongly connected with Gogol's religious
complex, which might have changed the directions of his artistic world. He elaborately
explored Gogol's spiritual mood and religious emotions in comparative studies. An
examination of the Gogol'-Poe relationship by Alexander Kaun focused on both
similarities and differences, emphasizing the inﬂuence of Hoﬁinan. The critic aptly
pointed out the differences in the nature of both writers‘ fantasy: Poe's fantasy as modiﬁed
by his supernatural rationality, while Gogol's imagination as controlled by his humor. He

also showed how both writers' personal inferiority develops into an egotism of superiority

142

and a tendency toward distortion and exaggeration. Thus the critic touched upon the
impact of the writers' threatened mental balance upon their artistic worlds. This criticism
can be seen as a more comprehensive comparative study than any other, signaling a new
shift toward psychological approaches, especially with respect to Evenings. Comparative

criticism, thus, began to take on a more comprehensive and extensive scope.

Some critics proposed a new change in criticism in the course of treating
picaresque elements in Dead Souls. Karl Selig's comparison of Dead Souls to the
anonymous Hispanic novel Lazarillo de T ormes explored the features of the picaresque
novel in Gogol's works, rejecting the inﬂuence of Cervantes. Whether Gogol' was under
the inﬂuence of Cervantes or any Hispanic picaresque novel, it is obvious that some of
Gogol's works contain some features of the picaresque novel. This study pioneered the
exploration of picaresque features in Gogol'. Since then many critics such as Murray
Baumgarten, Elliot Glass, T. E. Little, and John Mersereau put Gogol's works, especially
Dead Souls, in the category of the picaresque novel. Murray Baumgarten's claim that The
Overcoat is a picaresque epic is not convincing, because it is hard to ﬁnd any picaresque
features in The Overcoat. On the other hand, Elliot Glass's study clearly pointed out some
typical features of the Hispanic picaresque novel in Dead Souls, supporting the inﬂuence
of Cervantes on Gogol': a protagonist who travels from inn to inn plotting, scheming, and
living by his wits, a series of unrelated adventures which are interwoven by a protagonist,
and three types of women -- a young innocent maiden, an aggressive manipulator, and a
foolish gossipmonger. The critic's assertion that Ciéikov is a type of "hidalgos de
apariencia" (a personality characterized by spiritual and physical hunger, self-deception,
arrogance, self-indulgence, and opportunism) is exceptionally well-defended. Glass's
study is supported by T. E. Little and John Mersereau. Thus, treatments of picaresque

elements in Dead Souls amounted to a signiﬁcant accomplishment in Gogol' criticism.

143

Another new shift of comparative studies evolved from analyses of Ukrainian
ingredients in Gogol's works, especially in Evenings and Taras Bulba. Volodymyr
Besoushko's critique explored Ukrainian ingredients in Evenings (harsh humor,
idealization of women and the past, fantasy elements redolent of fairy tales, ballads and
fables) while Ostap Stromecky explored Ukrainian linguistic elements in Taras Bulba,
asserting that Gogol' interweaves Ukrainian words, melodies, and spirit into the texture of
his language. Both critics expanded criticism by blending Ukrainian linguistic elements
with Russian. However, it seems to me that their views are somewhat contaminated by
Ukrainian nationalism, and they missed the most important feature -- Gogol's own
imagination which was saturated in Ukrainian elements and the recreation of his artistic
world through his fantastic imagination. Such ideal and fantastic features were mentioned
later by another critic: Bahrij-Pikulyk. He compared T aras Bulba to Kuli5's Black
Council, deﬁning Taras Bulba as historical romance, in which historical characters and
events are idealized and fantasized. His treatment of the personal and complex myth of
the Ukraine, the domination of heroic personalities over historical process, and an
inaccurate depiction of the religious conﬂict played a signiﬁcant role in determining that

Gogol's main source was his own mythical conception of folklore and oral literature.

Two critics (Gilman Alkire and Elizabeth Shepard) put forth a reﬂection of
Belinskij's views on art under the name of comparative studies. Bulgarin's inﬂuence was
seen in Gogol's description of a petty functionary ("Merriam WOBHMK"), landowners, and
provincial ofﬁcialdom by Alkire in a study of the generalized inﬂuence of Bulgarin's
satirical novel Ivan Vyéigin. It is hard to agree with Alkire's claim that Gogol', like
Bulgarin, does not depict the internal psyche of St. Petersburg. Another critic saw Nikolaj
Pavlov's The Demon as a source of The Overcoat, pointing out similarities such as theme
of confrontation between the "Merriam mar—roam" and the social system. The claim that

Gogol' presents human nature and life as perfectible even though they are tainted with

144

corruption is awkwardly made, and these two criticisms failed to take into account new
shifts and changes in criticism, reverting instead to nineteenth-century Realism. On the
other hand, a more artistically elaborated criticism also emerged in comparing Gogol' to
Kaﬂta and Irving. Idris Parry pointed out a similar absurdity and the repetition of some
precise details in The Nose and Kaﬂra's The Metamorphosis along with psychological
approaches. Carl Proffer's study, "Washington Irving in Russia: Pu§kin, Gogol',
Marlinskij," reﬂected the inﬂuence of Irving in themes, motifs, and manner of narration.
His comparison of The Portrait and Irving's Dolph Heyliger and Mysterious Picture
expanded in comparative studies on Gogol', emphasizing the narrative device of "skaz."
Both critics helped to create a tendency to treat poetic features in comparative studies.
Proffer‘s comparison of Taras Bulba to Homer's Iliad with respect to parallel themes,
similar motifs, Homeric similes and stylistic devices contributed to the ﬁrrther development
of Gogol' criticism. His criticism revealed many features hitherto unexplored in

comparative studies.

Some critics studied Gogol's inﬂuence upon other Russian writers such as Cexov,
Goné'arov, Turgenev, Bulgakov, Belyj, Vojnovié, and Nabokov, scrutinizing Gogol's
poetics, artistic technique, and psychological features. Their critiques expanded upon
various changes in Gogol' criticism. Peter Rosebach analyzed the function of insanity in
Cexov's The Black Monk, and The Diary of a Madman. His study of the mental nature of
Gogol's protagonist reveals Gogol's own mental tension between his artistic views and
religious ideas. He properly pointed out Gogol's struggle in search for his view of art in
this research. John Nagel's critique of the internal structures of Nevskij Prospekt and
Cexov's An Attack of Nerves demonstrated the similarities of Gogol's syllogistic technique
upon Cexov. He clearly revealed Gogol's artistic views through comparison with Cexov,
treating both authors' visions of art through the depiction of two aspects -- the life of day

and the life of night -- and a prostitute's dark beauty at night as embodiment of Gogol's

145

artistic sense of idealism and his view of the function of art. Ronald Vroon's ﬁndings in
comparing Dead Souls to Gonéarov's Oblomov led directly toward text analysis in
comparative studies, with its exploration of structural techniques of character introduction
and delayed biography, the use of metonymic elements as leitmotifs. the use of rhetorical
questions and interruption of the narrative in describing characters, and the effect of the
grotesque -- all of which contributed a great deal to our understanding of Gogol'. Nick
Worrall's comparative study traced both Gogol' and Turgenev to their sources in the
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century German philosophy, vaudeville and puppet theaters.
He accurately juxtaposed both writers' parallel two themes (nature and woman). Victor
Peppard placed Vojnovié's Zizn' i neobydajnye prikljuEenija soldata Ivana Conkina in
Gogol's satirical tradition with its use of parody, stylization, allusion, digression, and the
motif of mistaken identity. The motif of mistaken identity is correctly seen as both a

mainspring of the novel's plot, and a consistent element in the structure.

In the 19805, two critics compared Gogol' and Belyj, focusing on stylistic devices
and religious preferences. Roger Key found Belyj's tendency of Gogolian narrative
ambiguities in his Silver Dove: certain structural and stylistic features in narrative
mannerism and some inter-textual afﬁnities with Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and
Mirgorod. On the other hand, Olga Cooke treated different features of the role of the
sorcerers in The Terrible Vengeance and in Belyj's Moscow along with the different
orientations of religion: the hateﬁrl crimes of Belyj's sorcerer -- murder, incest, rape,
bondage, madness -- far surpass those of Gogol's sorcerer, and the former offers a vision
of redemption while the latter leaves no hope. It is remarkable in its application of the role
of their different religious preferences to the depictions of their sorcerers. As discussed
above, the criticism of the early period in comparative studies only dealt with external

features or social approaches. Since the late 19605 and the early 19705, however, Gogol'

 

146

criticism has become more comprehensive, increasingly emphasizing Gogol's artistic

features and poetics.

Psychological approaches by Paul Friedman, Hugh McLean, Peter Spycher, Simon
Karlinsky, and Daniel Rancour-Laferriere, exerted a huge inﬂuence in Gogol' criticism.
All of them turned their attention not only to Gogol's text but also his personal character,
concentrating on moods, fears, emotions, moral, as well as sexual, and spiritual problems.
Some used the text of The Nose and The Diary of a Madman in their psychological
treatments, while others Evenings and Mirgorod. They exceptionally developed
psychological criticism in Gogol' ﬁom the early studies of Ermakov and established a new

trend of psychological approaches in Gogol' criticism.

In the early 19505, Paul Friedman's psychological reﬂections on The Nose made
the ﬁrst signiﬁcant advance in criticism, showing Gogol's gift for revealing fears, anxieties,
and obsessions. His Freudian interpretation of dreams is the major factor in his criticism
of The Nose: the nightmare in the story is seen as the substance of real life, which is
composed of nightmares. Arguing that Kovalev's problem does not stem from his nose
itself, he insisted that the problem is what the nose represents in the topsy-turvy world of
Gogol'. From Friedman's assertion, we can draw an assumption that the root of man's
psychological problems lies beneath the surface of his physical complaints. Friedman's
research overemphasized context at the expense of Gogol's text. It is, however, a unique
approach which deﬁnitely brought about a new change in criticism. Another critic, Hugh
McLean, analyzed the role of love in Gogol's Mirgorod, applying Freudian theory to
Gogol's works -- "the ultimate source of energy in human being is the love instinct, Eros."
His observation that Gogol' uses overtly erotic imagery in Evenings, yet depicts a
straightforward sexual embrace only when the romantic partner is a supernatural being in

nature or a thing, was remarkable in developing sexual themes in Gogol'. Noticing the

147

huge change in erotic themes from Evenings to Mirgorod, he saw the love theme in
Mirgorod as a source of tragedy, disaster, or death taking the form of retreat, regression,
and ﬁnally boredom. In this process, a mixture of fear, death, masochistic delight, and
sadistic impulse plays an important role. The argument is quite convincing in showing that

Evenings is full of open erotic imagery, whereas it is entirely dropped inMirgorod.

In the 19605, two critics applied psychological approaches to The Diary of a
Madman, emphasizing context rather than text. Juran Sylvia treated the relationships
between man's fear and loneliness and the role of absurdity in the artistic world. The
critic's observation that Gogol' tries to neutralize the fearﬁrl world by shifting it into the
world of absurdity is another advance in psychological interpretation. Richard Gustafson's
criticism reﬂected the protagonist's quest for human identity with psychological
approaches. He proposed two Popri§5ins: the suffering clerk ﬁustrated by man's
inhumanity and the impostor who conﬁscates a fantasy throne to make his dream come
true. Gustafson's conclusion that the vagueness of the story's ending makes Gogol's vision
one of fearfulness bears similarity to Sylvia's treatment. It is obvious, thus, that both
critics saw Gogol's vision of fear as a signiﬁcant factor in The Diary of a Madman. Peter
Spycher saw The Nose as a dramatization of Gogol's own sexual anxieties under the
pretext of both a grotesque farce and a satire on social climbers. His claim that Kovalev's
nose symbolizes his sexual organ leans on Errnakov's views. His sexual interpretation of
The Nose goes too far: he assumed the beggar-women, standing in front of the Kazan
Cathedral are syphilitics, and he saw the nose's visit to the Kazan Cathedral as a symbol of
the act of the union between man (the nose) and woman (the church) -- two speculations
which are groundless. His idea that the dream in The Nose might be Gogol's own dream
and might depict his personal sexual downfall is convincing, although the idea is not

original.

 

148

Since the late 19705, three Western critics have dealt with heterosexual and
homosexual themes in the framework of psychological approaches. Simon Karlinsky's
exploration of homosexual orientation in Gogol's early works deﬁnitely created a new shift
in criticism. His ﬁndings of the sexual symbolism in the description of nature in Evenings
on a Farm near Dikanka were new and convincingly portrayed. The natural phenomena
of a hot summer day in The Fair at Sorob’incy which are assigned speciﬁc genders and
allowed to engage in explicit acts of sexual intimacy, a nocturnal pond that tries to make
love to distant stars in A May Night, and female images of summer earth and beautiful
river, and male images of the Dnieper personiﬁed as a old sleeping man, who is sexually
impotent and petulant, in The Terrible Vengeance -- are all well-supported and
convincing. One of the most interesting interpretations of The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovid
Quarreled with Ivan Nikrforovic' treats the hidden homosexual theme, seeing the story as
one of a sexless homosexual marriage. Such an interpretation of Ivan Ivanovié's offer (a
pig and two bags of oats in exchange for the riﬂe) as a veiled homosexual proposition was
supported by another critic. Alex Alexander also pointed out the tension between
unsatisﬁed heterosexuality and unﬁrlﬁlled homosexuality in Two Ivans: Ivan Nikiforovic'
represents a heterosexual while Ivan Ivanovié is a closet homosexual. Both critics'
interpretations are almost identical, especially where Two Ivans is concerned. Karlinsky's
suggestion of interrelationship between Gogol's homosexual guilt and his religious crisis
pointed in a new direction for religious-psychological approaches. Rancour-Laferriere
revealed new elements in "skaz" as a special type of psychological mask intended to
deceive readers. Hi5 study focuses on text rather than context. His observations about
homosexuality, marriage, and death in The Fair at SoroEincy were utterly convincing: the
narrator is a homosexual for whom marriage is unthinkable and tantamount to death,
which is closely linked to homosexuality not only in Gogol's art but also in his life.

Rancour-Laferriere's further claims that anal and genital sexuality is supposedly depicted in

149

The Overcoat, and that Petrovi'c' is a personiﬁcation of anal and genital sexuality seem,

however, to be extreme.

To conclude, most psychological criticism was original, and provided another
method in treating Gogol's enigmatic works, creating sensational shifts and changes in
criticism. In this area, two critics were preeminent: Hugh McLean, scrutinizing Gogol's
early works from the psychological viewpoint, and Karlinsky, discovering explicit
homosexual themes -- all of which provided further psychoanalytic insight and opened the

door wide to psychosexual approaches to Gogol'.

Religious approaches precipitated another shift in criticism, treating Gogol's main
works such as The Overcoat, The Inspector General, part two of Dead Souls, and
Selected Passages. Several critics applied their religious views to The Overcoat and The
Inspector General: some critiques seem to be groundless speculation, while others seem
to be well-supported. In The Overcoat, Akakij's attitude, his environment, and the
symbolic meaning of his new coat were treated, whereas in The Inspector General Biblical
symbolic meanings were applied to the last scene of the play. Jesse Zeldin and Ruth Sobel
exhibited solid scholarship in their careful reexamination of Selected Passages, which had
been disregarded by most Russian critics (including Realists, Symbolists, and Forrnalists).
All religious studies had focused not on texts but on context, elaborating Gogol's spiritual
longing from his work. These studies signiﬁed another new change in criticism,
reconstructing Gogol's artistic views with his religious searching. The religious
approaches to Gogol', thus, revealed many unexpected and unexplored features of Gogol's

works.

In 1956, Mildred Martin's study introduced the ﬁrst religious interpretation,

examining The Overcoat from a Christian point of view. His approach focused mainly on

150

Christian brotherhood, ﬁnding Christian self-respect in Akakij's memorable cry -- "Leave
me alone! Why do you insult me ?" His study failed to provide a new direction in
criticism, echoing Belinskij's social approaches. The criticism of John Schillinger and
Anthony Hippisley developed excellent religious interpretations to The Overcoat, pointing
out more detailed interrelationships between religion and art. Schillinger saw The
Overcoat as a caricature of hagiography, considering the opening part of the story as a
satirical digression. Comparing The Overcoat to the story of the sixth-century St. Acacius
of Sinai, Schillinger clearly demonstrated the afﬁnity of the works' structures and the
similarities between Akakij and St. Acacius such as their simple tasks, similar
environments, ﬁlthy clothes, sufferings, and death. His discovery of the hagiographical
tendency in the story was most signiﬁcant. This criticism provided another new approach
to The Overcoat from a religious standpoint. Another religious interpretation was applied
to The Overcoat by Hippisley, who asserted that Gogol's religious belief is strongly
connected to his aesthetic concept. He appropriately adapted several Biblical quotations
to support his claims: new clothing symbolized righteousness and Christ himself, and
severe cold weather symbolized Satan. Akakij's searching for a new coat was seen as a
sinner's pursuit of salvation. It is a remarkable application of unexpected yet apt symbolic
meanings to Akakij and his new coat. His criticism contains an interesting spiritual
approach, but requires further explanation, especially on the epilogue of the story, for the

revenge of Akakij's ghost in the epilogue is quite unsuitable in terms of Christianity.

Some critics picked up symbolic meanings in Gogol's work, choosing to analyze it
as a religious and moral statement, while others properly applied Christianity to Gogol's
life and artistic world. In 1967, Lucy Vogel saw the unﬁnished tale Rome as playing an
important role in Gogol's spiritual life and art, asserting that Gogol' might intend to convey
the symbolic meaning of Rome as a divine and eternal idea of beauty and spiritual

motherland. Vogel's study traced Gogol's subjective religious ideas as they shifted from

151

1837 to 183 9. This signiﬁed a new shift in the religious approach, emphasizing not style
or lyricism but Gogol's spiritual desire and his treatment of themes in Rome. In the
interpretation of the unﬁnished second part of Dead Souls, Joseph Wittlin applied a
Christian viewpoint to Gogol's fear of death, women, and weakness, as well as other
personal features. \Vrttlin's claims that Gogol's Hell was within him have a relation to
Gogol's psychological anxiety and fear. His assertion that Gogol' had struggled to have
contact with God and to emerge from Hell, which is in his own mind, seems to reﬂect the
lack of real Christianity in Gogol'. Wittlin's critique pointed in another direction: the
interrelationship between Gogol's personal features and his desire for Christianity might
play a signiﬁcant role in the interpretation of Gogol's inner world. Marianna
Bogojavlensky's 1969 study refocused the mutual relationships between Gogol's religious
searches and his art, rejecting views of religious fanaticism, unconventional behavior, and
mental illness. Bogojavlensky's ﬁndings that Gogol's prayers, his pilgrimages to
Jerusalem, his shadowy moods, and his destruction of part two of Dead Souls indicate not
mental insanity, but a strong, purposeful idealism, provided new insight on how Gogol's
religious drive affected his ﬁnal work. Her views are convincing because most Christians
are struggling to discover the real meanings of life as Gogol' did. Her treatment of
banality in Gogol' as a signiﬁcant element that separates humanity from God, was an
excellent insight within the Christian approach. Per-Ame Bodin's identiﬁcation of an
eschatological theme in the last scene of The Inspector General was another new
interpretation ﬁom the Christian point of view. The town in Gogol's play was seen as the
human being, the real Inspector General as Jesus Christ who will destroy all sinners, and
the silence of the last scene in the play is the silence before the triumphant sounds of the
Last Judgment. His criticism is quite unique in so far as it uses only the last part of the
whole work. It seems to me quite possible that the ﬁnal silent scene can be interpreted as
a strong Christian message. Bodin's exploration provided another view of the religious

approach in criticism, and his claims could be supported from Gogol's spiritual conviction.

152

Another critic, Judith Deutsch, dealt with the theme of Christianity in T aras Bulba, ﬁnding
the Cossacks representative not of their own culture but of a divine nature. The critic's
claims are supported by new interpretations of several scenes: Ostap's death was seen as a
Christian martyrdom, Bulba's death as Christ's cruciﬁxion, and the nature of wholeness in
the Cossacks as the Trinity and the image of God. This critique opened another avenue of
religious approach, suggesting also that Gogol's own religious approach is an integral part

of his artistic world.

The most memorable religious criticism was performed by two critics who
combined Gogol's artistic views and his religious views ﬁ'om Selected Passages. In 1968,
Jesse Zeldin reevaluated Selected Passages, emphasizing Gogol's views of literature and
the artist, including his Christianity. He presented his discovery of Gogol's ﬁmdamental
purpose in art: the unity of the aesthetic and the religious; the writer as a prophet for his
people and God, revealing beauty, with the Kingdom of Beauty and the Kingdom of God
one and the same. His criticism provided a new direction not only in a religious
framework but also for general artistic approaches to Gogol'. Zeldin's views were strongly
supported by another critic, Ruth Sobel, in 1976. Sobel also pointed out that for Gogol',
theater was deemed a vehicle for the education of Russian people and a pulpit for
preaching Christianity, while the artist was a person endowed with divine gifts. The unity
of the aesthetic and the religious became one of their achievements, and provided a new
direction for religious approaches which contradicted the interpretations of Konstantin
Mocul‘skij's and V. Zenkovskij'. Religious approaches, to sum up, did not give rise to as
many shifts and changes in Gogol' criticism as did other approaches. Early religious
approaches tended to draw symbolic meanings which might relate to Biblical messages. In
some cases, critiques seem far-fetched. Later approaches, however, such as those of
Zeldin and Sobel, contain solid scholarship, which fruitﬁrlly explores the interrelationships

of religion and literature in Gogol's writings.

153

Many new shifts and changes occurred in English-language criticism's tendency to
center on poetics and stylistic devices. Many critics, thus, discovered features of poetics
in Gogol' such as similes, metaphors, imagery, puns, among others, and also pointed out
stylistic devices such as digression, absurdity, hyperbole, the grotesque, narrative
mannerism especially "skaz," and triviality. A new direction was paved by Nabokov in
1944. His study of the integrity of art, focusing on the stylistic devices such as digression,
absurdity, irrationality, and the grotesque, made a lasting impact on Gogol' criticism. He
strived to restore the aesthetic elements to Gogol' criticism and maintain the balance that
was lost in social criticism. Considering Gogol's work to be poetry, he also gave rise to
the tendency of textual analysis in criticism. Nabokov's stylistic notion of Gogol's art
heralded a new shift in criticism, dealing a sensational and devastating blow to Belinskij's

views.

In the 19605, Frederik Driessen's discovery of Gogol‘s mastery of composition in
his early work led to another shift. He found the source of grotesque and humor in Gogol'
to be anxiety in the form of horror, grotesque or humor, thus grafting the stylistic with the
psychological approach. Although his criticism has been received well, Driessen does not
mention Gogol's most important works such as The Inspector General and Dead Souls.
Vsevolod Setchkarev's stylistic study produced another new approach to The Nose and
The Carriage: the former was seen as a work playing with narrative devices and the latter
as a work of compact composition. His study of absurdity and hyperbole in Dead Souls
completely rejected the realistic approaches in Dead Souls. Carl Proffer thoroughly
explored imagery in Dead Souls with emphasis on similes. Comparing Homeric similes in
Taras Bulba to The Iliad, he pointed out Gogol's tendency to decrease hyperbolic and
grotesque similes. James Woodward's criticism produced another shift in criticism of

poetics, ﬁnding new stylistic techniques in The Overcoat such as contrasting devices,

154

juxtaposition of the comic and solemn, and repeated confrontations between affirmation
and negation. He also saw the frequency of direct and indirect questions and the mass of
indeﬁnite words as important to the story's deliberate vagueness. His criticism contains
some features common to Formalist approaches. Victor Erlich oﬂ‘ered a general study of
Gogol's life and works, including criticism of poetics, focusing on the grotesque. He
correctly noted that Gogol' is one of the best writers to condense the grotesque
imagination fully and boldly, rejecting psychological approaches dealing with Gogol's
personality. Most of his claims, however, look like a reﬂection of Nabokov's views. In

that sense, Erlich's explorations were not inﬂuential.

In the 19705, James Bailey explored Gogol's technique of composition in The
Overcoat as a broad symmetry -— a story within the framework of introduction and
conclusion. His ﬁndings concerning the role of time, opposition, and shocking extremes in
structure signalled yet another new approach. Criticism by Paul Debreczeny also dealt
with poetics, with emphasis on stylistic devices, narrative mannerism, and language
varieties in Two Ivans. Leo Hulanicki's critique pointed out stylistic devices in The
Carriage: parallelism, repetition. absurdity, the grotesque, and narrative structure. Lee
Jennings emphasized the role of visual imagery in the grotesque of Dead Souls. Another
critic, Robert Maguire, examined narrative devices in Two Ivans, including digression,
triviality, and parallelism. Ciievskij's criticism contributed a new direction in criticism,
emphasizing both form and content in The Overcoat. His claims pioneered a new
direction in criticism of poetics, providing a close link between the story's verbal texture
and its moral universe, stressing form, pattern, ﬁmction and content. His criticism can be
considered a reaction to stylistic approaches, and a convincing one. Donald Fanger also
revealed new keys to Gogol's artistic world such as metamorphosis, identity, recognition,
and evasion. His search for the artistic value of Gogol's universe is well-balanced, since he

investigated not only stylistic devices but also poetic messages. In the 19805, rebuttals by

155

some critics appeared which emphasized text and context equally: Richard Peace's
characterization of Gogol's artistic world as a reconciliation with life, and James
Woodward's exploration of the Gogolian pattern of symbolism which converts the illogical
to the logical. Woodward also contended that at the basis of Gogol's works, behind a
mask of digression, absurdity, and puns are the grotesque, lie symbolic meanings which

create harmony through the logic of their repeated patterns.

Overall, Gogol' criticism from 1915 throughout 1991 was utterly positive and most
comprehensive. No one can dispute its variety, depth, and substance. Most scholarship,
represented in the conclusion of this dissertation, laboriously explored the features of
Gogol's artistic world, and unveiled countless facets of Gogol's literary legacy. There
were constant shifts and changes in Gogol' criticism and a proliferation of approaches and
methodologies throughout the entire period. Criticism singled out Dead Souls and The
Overcoat as Gogol's most celebrated accomplishments. Among the approaches in
criticism, psychological approaches deserve credit for their originality. They provided a
new method in treating Gogol's enigmatic works, yet they often fell short in backing up
their claims. Focusing on context, religious approaches elaborated Gogol's spiritual
longing from his work and gave critics another new look, interpreting Gogol's artistic
views in terms of his religious searching. They contributed to criticism by exploring the
interrelationships of religion and literature in Gogol's writings. The wealth of comparative
criticism that has been amassed bears witness to Gogol's eminent position in world
literature. Comparative studies dealing with internal elements —- plots, themes, structures,
narrative devices, similes, among others —- have served to shed light on the unique features
of Gogol's stylistic mastery. Many critics thoroughly scrutinized his poetics, and praised
his stylistic devices -- absurdity, the grotesque, digression, hyperbole, triviality, "skaz,"
and many others. Gogol' was a many-faceted writer quite deserving of a wealth of

diﬁ‘ering interpretations and analyses. Such variety, even controversy, became a unique

156

feature of Gogolian scholarship. Finally, it is still ﬁtting that a deﬁnitive interpretation of
Gogol' has never been achieved despite the voluminous scholarship published in the 150
years since Gogol's death. Many scholars are still addressing Gogol' as a mysterious,
unsolved writer, a puzzling ﬁgure, the strangest prose-poet, bizarre, weird, ambiguous,
elusive, and, above all, enigmatic, among many other attributes. Gogol', thus, continues to

remain terra incognita, awaiting never-ceasing interpretations.

SUBJECT INDEX

Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeevi‘c', 19705.
8; 19805. 5; 19905. 6

Aksakov, Sergej Tirnofeevib, 19805. 36

Annenkov, Pavel VasilieviE, 19605. 26

Arabesques, 19605. 6; 19705. 41, 58, 63

Areopagite, 19905.4

Aristophanes, 19705. 27, 42

Author’s Confession, 19705. 56

Bachelard, Gaston, 19705. 55

Balzac, Honore de, 19605. 10; 19805. 45

Banty5-Kamenskij, Dmitrij, 19905. 3

Baroque, 19805. 25

Baxtin, Mixail Mixailovi‘c', 19605. 5;
19805. 4, 30, 33; 19905. 5

Beauplan, Guillaume, 19905.3

Belinskij, Vissarion Grigorievié, 19605.
15, 34; 19705. 8, 44; 19805. 18, 19,
36

Belyj, Andrej, 19805. 7, 8, 19

Becuiev, Aleksandr Aleksandrovié,
19605. 22

Bible, 19705. 24

Biographical information, 19205. 1;
1930. 1; 19505. 5; 19605. 9; 19705. 63

3100662 Bandura-Player, A, 19805. 31

Bulgakov, Mixail Afanaseevié, 19805.
24

Bulgarin, Faddej Vasilievid, 19605. 1, 6

Byron, George, 19305.1; 19705. 28

Carriage, The, 19605. 28; 19705. 26;
19805. 26, 42
characters in, 19705. 26
composition in, 19605. 28
narrative in, 1970s. 26

Cassirer, Ernst, 19705. 67

Cervantes, Miguel, 19105. 1; 19505. 3;
v 19505. 8; 19705. 22; 19805. 13
Cemigovskogo namestniéestva
topograﬁdeskoe Opisanie, 19905. 3

157

Cexov, Anton Pavlovid, 19605. 25;
v 19705. 1, 39; 19805. 25
Cudakov, Gregorij, Ivanovic, 19605.
22
Comparative studies, 19105. 1, 2; 19305.
1, 2, 3; 19505.3, 8; 19605. 1, 17, 20,
22, 25, 33; 19705.22, 31, 39, 42, 47,
50, 61, 66; 19805.3, 8, 19, 24, 28, 41,
44, 45
Contemporary, The, 19605. 19
Cossack theme in, 19505. 10, 19605. 3,
30; 19705. 6, 52; 19805. 3, 10; 19905.
3
Dante, Alighieri, 19305. 1; 19605. 35;
19805. 12, 13
DeadSouls, 19105. 1, 2; 19305. 1;
19405. 1; 19505. 3, 8, 12; 19605. 4,
11,18, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 35; 19705.
1, 8, 10, 18, 20,22, 28, 31, 32, 54, 55,
66, 68, 70; 19805. 4, 5, 6, 13, 16, 17,
21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 32, 36, 41; 19905.
1, 6
aesthetics in, 19705. 1
airborne imagery in, 19705. 55
characters in, 19105. 2; 19505. 8;
19605. 1; 19705. 1, 8, 18, 22, 66,
., 70; 19805. 17, 23, 31
Ciéikov, 19105. 2; 19305. 1; 19505.
12; 19605.21, 27; 19705. 1, 17, 18,
22, 32, 36, 41, 54, 68; 19805. 5, 6,
13, 17, 23, 29, 40; 19905. 1
comparison to, 19505. 8; 19605. 33;
19705. 22, 31, 66; 19805. 5, 24, 28,
41; 19905. 1
comparison to Pickwick Papers,
19105. 1, 2; 19505.3
digression in, 19605. 24; 19705. 70
feminine images in, 19705. 10
grotesque in, 19705. 28

mirror images in, 19705. 18

picaresque elements in, 19705. 32;
19805. 23

poshlost' in, 19805. 13

religious views in, 19605. 35

romantic elements in, 19605. 27

satire in, 19705. 54

similes in, 19605. 21

social views in, 19505. 12; 19805. 17,
36; 19905. 1

structure in, 19805. 22

themes in, 19605.4; 19805. 4

translation of, 19605. 18

typiﬁcation of characters in, 19605. 11

Diary of a Madman, The, 19505. 9;
19605. 12, 13, 25, 36; 19705.2, 17,
44, 59; 19805. 37

absurdity in, 19605. 13; 19805. 37

insanity theme in, 19605. 25, 36;
19705. 2

comparison to, 19605. 25

Popriséin, 19605. 12, 13,36

psychological views in, 19605. 12;
19705. 44

Dickens, Charles, 19105. 1, 2; 19505. 3;
19605. 10; 19805. 45

Divine Comedy, The, 19605. 35; 19805.
12, 13

Dostoevskij, Fedor Mixailovic', 19305.
1; 19605. 10, 14, 17; 19705. 1, 64;
19805. 25

Dread Wild Boar, The, 19705. 45

Ducange, Victor, 19605. 19

Dumas, Alexandre, 19605. 19

"dumas," 19605. 30

ijenbaum, Boris Mixailovid, 19605. 7,
8; 19705. 3, 14, 24; 19805. 30

Eluard, Paul, 19805. 45

Ermakov, Ivan Dmitrievib, 19605. 24;
19705. 71; 19808. 33

Ermilov, Vladimir Vladimirovié', 19505.
1 1

Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka,

158

19305. 2; 19505. 7; 19605. 6; 19705.
34, 41, 45, 63; 19805. 9, 12, 19, 27,
40

characters in, 19605. 7; 19705. 13
comparison to, 19305. 2; 19805. 19
fairy tales in, 19805. 40

love theme in, 19505. 7

satire in, 19705. 34

sexual imagery in, 19805. 9

Fair at Soroc'incy, The, 19805. 27, 29
characters in, 19805. 27
sexual theme in, 19805. 27, 29

Fielding, Henry, 19505. 3; 19805. 45

Flaubert, Gustave, 19605. 23

Formalism, views of, 19605. 8, 32;
19705. 14, 16,33, 51, 53,64; 19805.
32,38

Freud, Sigmund, 19505. 4; 19705. 71;
19805. 30

Gamblers, The, 19805. 31
characters in, 19805. 31

Gamett, Constance, 19605. 18
genre
black humor, 19705. 47
caricature, 19605. 23; 19705. 49
comedy, 19205. 1; 19605. 5, 33;
19705. 27, 34, 42, 53; 19805. 11,
23, 39; 19905. 5
farce, 19605. 23, 29
folklore, 19705. 38, 60
parody, 19605. 5; 19705. 9, 46, 57,
64; 19805. 28; 19905. 5
picaresque novel, 19505. 8; 19605. 2;
19705. 22, 32; 19805. 23
satire, 19105.2; 19505. 1; 19605. 15;
19705. 9, 54; 19805. 11, 22
vaudeville, 19805. 24, 39, 44

Gippius, Vasilij Vasilievié, 19705. 21,
72;1980$. 12,13, 38

Glazunov, Ilija SergeeviE, 19805. 25

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 1930. 1;

19805. 45
Gogol and the Natural School, 19805. 38
Gonéarov, Ivan Aleksandrovié, 19605.
17; 19705. 1, 66
Guemey, Bernard Guilbert, 19605. 18
Hans Kjuxelgarten, 19705. 10
Hasek, Jaroslav, 19605. 33
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 19805. 40
Hetman, The, 19705. 45; 19805. 31
Cossack theme in, 19705. 45

historianism in, 19505. 10
Hoffmann, E. T. A., 19305. 2; 19605. 14,
28;19705.6,42,61;1980s.12
Homer, 19605. 2, 20, 21; 19705. 6, 8;
19805. 5; 19905. 1, 6
Hugo, Victor, 19605. 19
Hulak-Artemovskij, Petro, 19605. 3
Hussar, 19805. 31
Inspector General, The, 19305. 1; 19405.
1; 19605. 5; 19705. 19, 21, 62; 19805.
7, 11, 20, 28, 39, 40, 41
apocalyptic theme in, 19605. 5; 19805.
7, 11
comparison to, 19805. 28, 41
social theme in, 19705. 21
motifs in, 19805. 28
verbal mannerisms in, 19705. 19
Xlestakov, 19305. 1; 19705. 19, 36,
62; 19805. 11, 20
Xlestakovism in, 19705. 21; 19805. 20

Irving, Washington, 19605. 22; 19805. 12
Istorija Maloj Rossii, 19905. 3
Istorija Rusov iliMaloj Rossii, 19905. 3
Ivan F edorovid Sponka and His Aunt,
19705. 34, 59; 19805. 42, 43
motifs in, 19705. 59
Sponka,19705.34;l9805.43
themes in, 19705. 34

Jakobson, Roman, 1980s. 33
Janin, Jules, 19605. 19, 28

Jouy, Victor-Joseph, 19705. 40
Kaﬂca, Franz, 19605. 17; 19705. 61

159

Katarskij, Ivan. 19805. 25

Kiev Akademy, 19905. 3

Kogan, Petr Semenovid, 19505. 11

Komarovid, Vasilij Leonidovic', 19705.
2

Koniskij, Georgij, 19905. 3

Kotljarevskij, Ivan Petrovic', 19605. 3

Kuli5, Panteleirnon AleksandroviE,
1980s. 3

Kuragin, Anatolij, 19805. 25

Lermontov, Mixail Jurievic', 19305. 1;
19605. 27; 19705. 65

Lesage, Alain Rene, 19505. 3

Letopisnoe povestvovanie o Maloj
Rossii, 19905. 3

Levi-Strauss, Claude, 19705. 5, 67

"little man." See "melkij éinovnik"

Lost Letter, The, 19805. 2

Lunaéarskij, Anatolij Vasilievid, 19505.
1 1

MacAndrew, Andrew Robert, 19605. 18

Mandel'5tam, Osip Emilievié, 19805.
38

Manor of Stepand’ikovo, The, 19705. 64

Marlinskij, Aleksandr Aleksandrovib, See
Becuiev, Aleksandr Aleksandrovii':

Marriage, The, 19805. 39; 19905. 2
Koc'karev, 19905. 2
vaudeville inﬂuence in, 19805. 39

Maturin, Charles, 19805. 23

"melkij éinovnik," 19605. 1; 19705. 35,
50

Melville, Herman, 19805. 40

Mephisto, 19305. 1

Mereikovskij, Dmitrij Sergeeviz,
19705. 24, 36

Michailoff, Helen, 19605. 18

Milton, John, 19305. 1

Mirgorod, 19505. 7; 19705. 34; 19805.
27,40
comparison to, 19805. 19
love theme in, 19505. 7
Ukrainian elements in, 19705. 34

Mirsky, D. S., 19805. 40
Modul'skij, Konstantin, 19605. 37;
19705. 24; 19805. 25, 30
Modernism, views of, 19805. 36
Month in the Country, A, 19805. 44
Moscow, 19605. 1, 31
Muratova, Ksenija Dmitrievna, 19705. 2
Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovid,
19605. 15, 23; 19705. 24, 47; 19805.
25, 40, 45
Nareirny, Vasilij T., 19805. 23
Natural school, 19405. 1
Naturalism, views of, 19805. 38
Nekrasov, Nikolaj Alekseevié, 19705. 1
Nevskij Prospekt, 19305. 3; 19705. 39;
19805. 32, 43
comparison to, 19305. 3; 19705. 39;
19805. 32
Piskarev, 19805. 43

Nikolaj I (Emperor), 19505. 11; 1970. 2,
52

Nose, The, 19505. 1, 2, 4; 19605. 16, 17,
28,29;19705.71;19805.33,37;
19905. 5
comparison to, 19605. 17
fantasy elements in, 19605. 29
grotesque image in, 19505. 1
intertexuality in, 19905. 5
illusion in, 19605. 16
Kovalev, 19505. 2; 19605. 16, 17, 29
narrative device in, 19605. 28; 19805.

33,37
psychological views in, 19505. 2;
19705. 71

October Revolution, 19805. 45

Old-World Landowners, The, 19705. 69;
19805. 14; 19905. 7
allegory in, 19705. 69

Opisanie Ukrainy, 19905. 3

Orlos, Kazimierz, 19805. 41

Overcoat, The, 19205. 1; 19405. 1;
19505. 6, 9; 19605. 2, 7, 8, 15, 26, 28,
36; 19705.3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17,

160

24,30,35,37,40,43,46,49,50,5L

67;19805.30

Akakij Akakievic', 19505. 6, 9; 19605.
1, 2, 7, 8, 26, 36; 19705.3, 7,11,
14, 15, 16, 24, 35, 42, 43, 49, 51,
65,67;19805.29,43

caricature in, 19705. 49

characters in, 19705.3, 12, 15, 16, 51

comparison to, 19705. 42, 50

Formalist views in, 19605. 8; 19705.
14

Greek folklore, inﬂuence of, 19705. 42

lyricism in, 19605. 26

motifs in, 19705. 15, 67

parody in, 19705. 46

picaresque epic in, 19605. 2

psychoanalytic views in, 19805. 30

psychological realism in, 19705. 43

religious views in, 19505. 6; 19705. 24

satire in, 19605. 15

social views in, 19705. 35

structures in, 19705. 3

stylistic devices in, 19605. 36; 19705.
16, 51

themes in, 19505. 9; 19705. 11, 12, 37

Pavlov, Nikolaj Vasilievid, 19705. 50
Peake, Mervyn, 19705. 31
Perovskij, Vasilij, 19805. 23
Petersburg Notes of 1836, 19605. 19
Poe, Edgar Allan, 19305. 2; 19605. 17;
19705. 6
poetics
allegory, 19705. 69, 70; 19805. 42
composition, 19605. 7, 8
imagery, 19505. 7; 19605. 21; 19705.
55; 19805. 9;
intertextuality, 19905. 5
language, 19605. 32; 19705. 19, 45;
lyric, 19605. 2; 19805. 22
metaphors, 19705. 26, 41
motifs, 19705. 15, 59; 1980s. 2, 28
parallelism, 19705. 6, 26, 33
plot, 19605. 5, 7; 19805. 41
similes, 19605. 11, 20, 21; 19705. 20

themes, 19505. 7, 9; 19605. 4, 7, 10,
20; 19705. 5, 11, 21, 28, 29, 34, 70;
19805.2, 4,13, 15; 19905.4

value judgment, 19605. 21

Pogodin, Mixail Petrovié, 19705. 29
Polevoj, Nikolaj Aleksandrovid, 19605.
6, 22
Portrait, The, 19605. 22; 19705. 58;
19905. 4
comparison to, 19605. 22
horror motif in, 19705. 58
Pseudo-Dionysius, 19905. 4
psychological Realism, views of, 19705.
43,44
psychological views in, 19505. 2, 19605.
12, 13, 29; 19705.71; 19805. 1, 30
Pu§kin, Aleksandr Sergeevié, 1930. 1;
19505. 3; 19605. 6, 22, 27; 19705. 1,
65; 19805. 13, 18
De Quincey, Thomas, 19305. 3
Rabelais, Francois, 19705. 4, 61
Rabelaisian grotesque, 19705. 61
Realism, views of, 19505. 11, 12; 19605.
23; 19805. 5, 17, 45; 19905. 1
Reeve, Franklin D., 19605. 24; 19705. 32
Religious views in, 19505. 6; 19605. 4,
34, 35, 37; 19705. 24, 49, 56, 72;
19805. 7, 10
Richter, Jean-Paul, 19705. 53
Rigel'man, Aleksandr, 19905. 3
Romantic Realism in, 19605. 10
Romanticism, views of, 19605. 19, 27;
19705. 48, 65; 19805. 23
Rome, 19605. 34; 19805. 26
religious views in, 19605. 34
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 19805. 45
Rozanov, Vasilij Vasilievic', 19605. 26,
27; 19705. 9, 24; 19805. 18, 31
Saint John's Eve, 19705. 29
sexual theme in, 19705. 29
Saltykov—Scedrin, Mixail Evgrafovic,
19705. 1
Schillinger, John, 19705. 24, 49
Scott, Walter, 19605. 22; 19805. 2, 45

161

Selected Passages from Correspondence
with Friends, 19305. 1, 2; 19605. 6,
28, 37; 19705. 8, 10, 30, 56, 58, 63,
64; 19805. 34
artistic views in, 19705. 56; 19805. 34
comparison to, 19305. 2
religious views in, 19305. 1; 19605.

37; 19705. 10

Senkovskij, Osip, 19605. 6
Setchkarev, Vsevolod, 19605. 28, 29
sexual theme in, 19505. 7; 19605. 7, 29;
19705. 29, 71; 19805. 1, 9, 29, 30
Shafonskij, Afanasij, 19905. 3
Shakespeare, William, 19905. 6
Shevyrev, Stepan R, 19605. 6
Sklovskij, Victor Borisovié, 19605. 24;
1980s. 32
Simmons, Earnest J., 19305. 3; 19605. 14
Sinjavskij, Andrej, 19705. 17
Slonirnskij, Aleksandr, 19705. 3, 53
Smollett, Tobis George, 19805. 45
Sologub, Fedor, 19705. 1
St. Acacius of Sinai, 19705. 49
St. Petersburg, 19605. 1, 28; 19705.4,
42, 46, 50; 19805. 32
St. Petersburg stories, 19605. 10; 19705.
17
Stender-Peterson, Adolf, 19805. 38
Sterne, Laurence, 19605. 28
Structurist, 19905. 7
stylisic devices
absurdity, 19405. 1; 19605. 8, 13, 15,
28, 35; 19705.4, 14, 28, 53, 61;
19805. 4, 22, 27, 29, 37, 42; 19905.
5
banality. See stylistic devices - po§lost'
digression, 19405. 1; 19605.23, 24;
19705.5,20,23,33,38,53,69,7O;
19805. 5, 22, 28, 37, 42, 45; 19905.
7
exaggeration. See stylistic devices -
hyperbole
grotesque, 19405. 1; 19505. 1; 1960s.
5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 21, 29; 19705.4,

5, 14, 16, 19, 26, 28, 39, 43, 48,
51, 53, 61, 66;19805. 18, 41, 42
hyperbole, 19305. 2; 19505. 10; 19605.
21, 23, 28; 19705. 9, 19, 34, 48;

19905. 2, 6

narrative, 19505. 5; 19605. 8, 12, 22,
28; 19705. 13, 14, 26, 30, 32, 33,
37, 43, 54, 69; 19805. 19, 23, 37,
40

po§lost', 19605. 4, 33; 19705. 9, 20,
34, 36, 56, 60, 72; 19805. 4, 11, 13,
23, 25

pun, 19605. 8; 19705. 11, 14, 43;
19805. 42

repetition, 19605. 30; 19705. 6, 26, 30;
19905. 2

skaz, 19205. 1; 19605. 22; 19705. 3,
14, 26, 33; 19805.23, 30

triviality, 19205. 1; 19605. 13; 19705.
11, 33, 34, 45; 19805.5, 11

vulgarity. See stylistic devices -
po§lost'

word—play. See stylistic devices - pun

Symbolism, views of, 19705. 6, 9, 36;
19805. 6

Tale of Captain Kopejkin, 19805. 32

Tale of How Ivan Ivanovic' Quarreled
with Ivan Nikiforovic', The, 19705.
13, 29, 33, 34, 59; 19805. 15
boredom theme in, 19805. 15
characters in, 19705. 33; 19805. 1,

4O

narrative style in, 19705. 13, 33
sexual theme in, 19705. 29
social views in, 19705. 34

Tamardenko, Dmitrij E., 19705. 32
Taras Bulba, 19505. 10; 19605. 2, 20,
21, 30; 19705.4, 52; 19805.3, 10, 31;
19905. 3, 4
characters in, 19805.10, 40
comparison to, 19605. 2, 20, 21;
19805. 3
Cossack theme in, 19505. 10; 19705.

162

52

religious views in, 19805. 10

similes in, 19605, 21

Taras Bulba, 19805. 10, 40

Ukrainian folklore, inﬂuence of,
19605. 30; 19705. 4

Ukrainian history in, 19905. 3

Ukrainian puppet theater, inﬂuence of,
19805. 31

Tawney, Richard Henry, 19605. 27
Terrible Vengeance, The, 19605. 7;
19705. 29, 58, 60; 19805. 8, 35

comparison to, 19805. 8
horror motif in, 19705. 58
Katerina, 19705. 6; 19805. 8
reverse symbolism in, 19805. 35
sexual theme in, 19705. 29
structure in, 19605. 7
Ukrainian folklore, inﬂuence of,
19705. 60

Thackeray, William Marepeace, 19805.
45

Tixonravov, Nikolaj Sergeevid, 19605.
26; 19705. 2

Tolstoj, Lev Nikolaevic, 19605. 17;
1970s. 1; 19805. 25

Trinity, 19805. 10

Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevié, 19705. 1, 8;
19805. 44

Turkevid, Ludmilla Buketoff, 19505. 8;
19705. 22

Ukrainian elements in, 19505. 10; 19605.
3, 30; 19705. 4, 13, 34, 60; 19805. 12;
19905. 3

Ukrainian writers, inﬂuence of, 19605. 3

Uniate Church, the, 19905. 3

vertep, 19805. 31

V1], 19505. 4; 19605. 7; 1970s. 4, 29, 38,
57, 58, 59, 60; 19805. 29, 35
horror motif in, 19705. 58
parody in, 19705. 57
reverse symbolism in, 19805. 35
sexual theme in, 19605. 7; 19705. 29;

163

19805. 29

Ukrainian folklore, inﬂuence of,
19705. 4; 38, 60

Xoma, 1970s. 38, 57

Vinogadov, Victor Vladimirovid,
19605.32; 19705. 35; 19805.38

Vojnovié, Vladimir, 19805. 28

West, Nathanael, 19605. 17,

Woman, 19705. 10

Xrap'c'enko, Mixail Borisovid, 19505.
1 1,

genkovskij, Vasilij, 19705. 24, 72,

Zukovskij, Vasilij Andreevié', 19805.
12,

AUTHOR INDEX

Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeevié', 19905.
1

Alexander, Alex E., 19805. 1

Alkire, Gilman H., 19605. 1

Altshuller, Mark, 19805. 2

Annenskij, Innokentij Fedorovib, 19705.
1

Asch, Laurie, 19705. 2

Bahrij-Pikulyk, Romana, 19805. 3

Bailey, James, 19705. 3, 12

Barksdale, Ethelbert Courtland, 19705. 5

Baumgarten, Murray, 19605. 2

Baxtin, Mixail MixailoviE, 19705. 4

Belinskij, Vissarion Grigorievié', 19805. 5

Belyj, Andrej, 19705. 6; 19805. 6

Bemheimer, Charles C., 19705. 7

Besoushko, Volodymyr, 19605. 3

Birkhead, Alice, 19105.1

Bodin, Per-Ame, 19805. 7

Bogojavlensky, Marianna, 19605. 4

Bortnes, Jostein, 19605. 5

Bosch, Hieronymous, 19605. 16

Bowen, C. M., 19105.2

Bowman, Herbert, 19505. 1

Boyd, Alexander, 19705. 8

Brasol, Boris, 19305. 1

Brjusov, Valerij, 19705. 9

Byms, Richard, 19705. 10

Ciievskij, Dmitrij, 19705. 11

Clyman, Toby W., 19705. 12

Cooke, Olga Muller, 1980s. 8

Cox, Gary D., 19805. 9

Debreczeny, Paul, 19605. 6; 19705. 13

Deutsch, Judith E., 19805. 10

Driessen, Frederik C., 19605. 7

Ehre, Milton, 19805. 11

ijenbaum, Boris Mixailovié, 19605. 8;
19705. 14

Emerson-Topomin, Alexis E., 19705. 15

164

Erlich, Victor, 19605. 9

Ermakov, Ivan Dmitrievid, 19705. 71

Even-Zohar, Itarnar, 19705. 16

Fanger, Donald Lee, 19605. 10; 19705.
17, 18,

Fedorenko, Eugene, 19705. 19

Freebom, Richard, 19705. 20

Friedman, Paul, 19505. 2

Futrell, Michael A., 19505. 3

Galperina, Inna, 19905. 2

Gifford, Henry, 19605. 11

Gippius, Vasilij Vasilievié, 19705. 21;
19805. 12, 13

Glass, Elliot S., 19705. 22

Graffy, Julian, 19805. 14

Gregg, Richard, 19805. 15

Gustafson, Richard F., 19605. 12

Hallet, R. W., 19705. 23

Heldt, Barbara, 19805. 16

Herzen, Alexandr, 19805. 17

Hippisley, Anthony, 19705. 24

Holquist, James M., 19705. 25

Hulanicki, Leo, 19705. 26

Ivanov, Viaéeslav Ivanovid, 19705. 27

Jackson, Robert, L., 19805. 18

Jenning, Lee Byron, 19705. 28

Juran, Sylvia, 19605. 13

Kanzer, Mark, 19505. 4

Karlinsky, Simon, 19705. 29

Karpuk, Paul A., 19905. 3

Kaun, Alexander, 19305. 2

Kent, Leonard Joseph, 19605. 14

Key, Roger, 19805. 19

Landry, Hilton, 19605. 15

Lavrin, Janko, 19205. 1

Lindstrom, Thais S., 19705. 30

Little, Edmund, 19705. 31

Little, T. E., 19705. 32

Lotman, Jurij Mixailovid, 19805. 20, 21

Mann, Jurij, 19805. 22

Maguire, Robert A., 19705. 33; 19905. 4

Margarshack, David, 19505. 5; 19605. 18

Martin, Mildred, 19505. 6

Matthews, Irene, 19705. 34

McFarlin, Harold A., 19705. 35

McLean, Hugh, 19505. 7

Mereikovskij, Dmitrij Sergeevié',
19705. 36

Mersereu, John Jr., 19805. 23

Mills, Judith Oloskey, 19705. 37

Milne, Lesley, 19805. 24

Moyle, Natalie K., 19705. 38

Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovié,
19405. 1

Nagle, John J., 19705. 39

Nebolsine, Arcadi, 19805. 25

Nilsson, Nils Ake, 19705. 40

Obolensky, Alexander R, 19705. 41

Oinas, Felix J ., 19705. 42

Oulianoff, Nikolas I., 19605. 16

Parry, Idris, 19605. 17

Peace, Richard Arthur, 19705. 43, 44;
19805. 26, 27

Peppard, Victor, 19805. 28

Pereverzev, Valerian Fedorovic', 19705.
45

Proffer, Carl Ray, 19605. 18, 19, 20, 21,
22

Proﬂitt, Edward, 19705. 46

Rahv, Philip, 19605. 23

Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel, 19805. 29,
30

Reeve, Franklin D., 19605. 24

Rosebacher, Peter, 19605. 25

Rowe, William Woodin, 19705. 47, 48

Rozanov, Vasilij Vasilievid, 19605. 26

Schillinger, John, 19705. 49

Van Schooneveld, C. H., 19705. 65

Seeley, Frank R, 19605. 27

Selig, Karl Ludwig, 19505. 8

Setchkarev, Vsevolod, 19605. 28

Shapiro, Gavriel, 19805. 31

Shepard, Elizabeth C., 19705. 50

Sherry, Charles, 19705. 51

165

Sklovskij, Victor Borisovic', 19805. 32

Shukman, Ann, 19805. 33

Sicher, Efraim, 19905. 5

Simmons, Earnest J., 19305. 3

Sirsky, Wasyl, 19705. 52

Slonimskij, Aleksandr, 19705. 53

Smith, Thomas A., 19705. 54

Snyder, Harry Charles Jr., 19705. 55

Sobel, Ruth, 19705. 56, 57; 19805. 34;
19905. 6

Spycher, Peter C., 19605. 29

Stilman, Leon, 19505. 9; 19705. 58, 59

Strakhovsky, Leonid I., 19505. 10

Stromecky, Ostap, 19605. 30; 19705. 60;
19805. 35

Strong, Robert L., 19505. 11

Struc, Roman, 19705. 61

Tabakov, Oleg, 19705. 62

Timmer, Charles B., 19605. 31

Todd, William Mills, 19805. 36

Toumanoff, Susan, 19905. 7

Trott, Liz, 19805. 37

Troyat, Henri, 19705. 63

Tynjanov, Jurij Nikolaevie, 19705. 64

Vinogadov, Victor Vladimirovid,
19605. 32; 19805. 38

Vlach, Robert, 19605. 33

Vogel, Lucy, 19605. 34

Vroon, Ronald, 19705. 66,

Waszinlg Paul M., 19705. 67,

Weathers, Winston, 19505. 12,

Wigzell, Faith, 19805. 39

Wilson, Edmund, 19805. 40

Wilson, Ruel K., 19805. 41

Wittlin, Joseph, 19605. 35

Wolterstorff, Nikolas, 19705. 68

Woodward, James B., 19605. 36; 19705.

’ 69,70; 19805.42

Woodward, S., 19805. 43,

Worrall, Nick, 19805. 44,

Yelistratova, Anna, 19805. 45

Zeldin, Jesse, 19605. 37; 19705. 72

Zoééenko, Mixail, 19705. 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1910-1919

Anon. "The Cloak." Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, 92 (1913), 249-62.
Birkhead, A. "Russian Pickwick. " Living Age, 287 (1915), 312-15.
Bowen, C. M. "Dead Souls and Pickwick Papers. " Living Age, 280, ( 1916), 369-73.

Hapgood, Isabel F. Introduction to T aras Bulba: A Tale of the Cossacks. Translated by Isabel F.
Hapgood. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1915, 7-30.

Kropotkin, P. "Gogol." In his Ideals and Realities in Russian Literature. New York: Alﬁ’ed A
Knopf, 1919, 67-87.

Noyes, George Rapall. "Gogol, a Precursor of Modern Realists in Russia." Nation, 101 (18
November 1915), 592-94.

Phelps, William Lyon. "Gogol." In his Essays on Russian Novelists. New York: The MacMillan
Co., 1912, 35-61.

. Introduction to Revizor: A Comedy. Translated by Max S. Mandell. New Haven,
Connecticut: Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor Company, 1910, vii-ix.

Shedden-Ralston, William Ralston. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievich." In Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Vol. 12, 11th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910, 190-91.

Tsanoff, Radoslav Andrea. "The Russian Soil and Nikolai Gogol." Rice Institute Pamphlet, 4, no.
2 (1917), 119-43.

De Vogue, Vicomte E. M. "The Realistic and National Evolution: Gogol." In The Russian Novel.
Edited and translated by H. A. Sawyer. London: Chapman and Hall, 1913, 87-142.

1920-1929

166

167

Coleman, Arthur P. Humor in the Russian Comedy ﬁ'om Catherine to Gogol. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1925.

. "Humor in Russian Comedy ﬁ'om Catherine to Gogol." Ph. D. Dissertation,
Columbia University, 1925.

 

Graham, Stephen. Introduction to Dead Souls. Edited by Edward G. Hawke. London:
Ernest Benn LTD.,1929, v-ix.

Lavrin, Janko. Gogol. London: Routledge, 1925.
Littell, Robert. "Gogol." The New Republic. 48 (13 October 1926), 218-19.

Manning, Clarence Augustus. "Nikolas Gogol." Slavonic and East European Review, 4
(1926), 573-87.

Mirsky, D. S. Review of Gogol, by Janko Lavrin. In Slavonic and East European Review,
5 (1926/1927), 223.

Olgin, Moissaye J. "N. V. Gogol." In his A Guide to Russian Literature: 1820-1917. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920, 41-8.

Rapin, Rene. "Comparison of Chichikov in Dead Souls and Lavengro." Revue de Geneve,
(November 1926), 601-10.

Shakhnovski, I. K. "Gogol." In his A Short Histog of Russian Literature. New York: E.
P. Dutton and Company, 1921, 106-16.

Waliszewski, K. "Gogol." In his A Histogg of Russian Literature. New York: D. Appleton
and Company, 1927, 246-65.

1930-1939

Brasol, Boris. "Gogol." In his The Mi h Three: Poushkin-Go ol-Dostoievs . New
York: William Farquhar Payson, 1934, 117-90.

Charques, R. D. "Nikolay Gogol." Fortnightly Review, 130 (1931), 230-42.

Coumos, John. Introduction to T aras Bulba and Other Tales. Edited by Ernest Rhys. New
York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1930, vii-xvi.

Hutton, John A. "A Story ﬁ'om Gogol." In his Guidance on Russia from Her Literature.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930, 57-66.

Kaun, Alexander. "Poe and Gogol: A Comparison." Slavonic and East European Review,
15, no. 44 (1937), 389-99.

168

Odets, Clifford. Introduction to Dead Souls. Translated by Edward Gamett. New York:
Modern Library, 1936, iii-vi.

Simmons, Earnest J. "Gogol and English Literature." Modern Langpage Review, 26
(1931), 445-50.

1 940-1 949

Bertensson, Sergei. "The Premiere of The Inspector General." Russian Review, 7, no. 1
(1947), 88-95.

Fadirnan, Clifton. Foreword to Chichikov's Joumeys: or Home Lite in Old Russia.

Translated by Bernard Guilbert Guemey. New York: The Readers Club, 1942, v-

Guemey, Bernard Guilbert. Review of Nikolai Gogol, by Vladimir Nabokov. In New
Republic, (25 September 1944), 376-78.

Hare, Richard. "The Age of Pushkin, Lermontov and Gogol." In his Russian Literature
from Pushkin to the Present Day. London: Methuen and Co., 1947, 42-9.

Lavrin, Janko. "Gogol and Realism." In his An Introduction to the Russian Novel. New
York: Whittlesey House, 1947, 25-39.

. "Nikolai Gogol." In his From Pushkin to Mayakovsﬂ. London: Sylvan Press,
1948, 33-62.

Lefevre, Carl A. "Gogol and Anglo-Russian Literary Relations During the Crimean War."
American Slavic and East European Review, 8 (April 1949), 106-25.

"Gogol's First Century in England and America (1841-1941)." Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1944.

Manning, Clarence Augustus. "The Neglect of Time in the Russian Novel." In Slavic
Studies. Edited by Alexander Kaun, and Ernest J. Simmons. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1943, 99-116.

Nabokov, Vladimir V. Nikolai Gogol. Norfolk, Connecticut: New Directions Books,
1944.

Sandomirsky, Vera. Review of Nikolai Gogol, by Vladimir Nabokov. In Russian Review,
4, no. 2 (1945), 99-101.

Wellek, Rene. Introduction to Dead Souls. Translated by Bernard G. Guemey. New York:
Rinehart and Company, 1948, vi-ix.

169

Whitﬁld, F. J. Review of Nikolai Gogol, by Vladimir Nabokov. In Slavic Review, 4, nos.
1—2 (1945), 217-18.

Wilson, Edmund. "Nikolai Gogol." The New Yorker, 20 (9 September 1944), 72-3.

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm. Introduction to Chichikov's Journeys: or Home Life in Old Russia.
Translated by Bernard Guilbert Guemey. New York: Heritage Press, 1944, vii-xvi.

1 950-1 959

Anon. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilyevich." In The Centug Cyclopedia of Names, Vol. 2, New
York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1954, 1773.

Anon. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievitch." In The New Theatre Handbook and Digest of Plays.
New York: Crown Publishers, 1959, 319.

Benson, Morton. "The Development of Predicate Adjective Usage in Russian Literary
Prose from Pushkin." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1954.

Bowman, Herbert. "The Nose." Slavonic and East European Review, 31, no. 76 (1952),
204-11.

Brodiansky, Nina. "Gogol and his Characters." Slavonic and East European Review, 31,
no. 76 (1952), 36-57.

Bryner, Cyril. "Gogol's The Overcoat in World Literature." Slavonic and East European
Review, 32, no. 79 (1954), 499-509.

 

Chizhevsky, Dmitry. "Gogol: Artist and Thinker." Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of
Arts and Sciences in the US, 2, no. 4 (Summer 1952), 261-78.

. "The Unknown Gogol." Slavonic and East European Review, 30 (June 1952),
476-93.

 

Chizhevsky, Dmitry and Philip Hofer. "An Illustrated Manuscript of Gogol." Harvard
Librag Bulletin, 6 (1952), 397-400.

Erlich, Victor. "Gogol and Kaﬂca: Note on Realism and Surrealism." In For Roman
Jakobson. Edited by Morris Halle. Hague: Mouton, 1956, 100-08.

Friedman, Paul. "The Nose." The American Imago, 8 (December 1951), 337-50.

Futrell, Michael A. "Dickens and Three Russian Novelists: Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy."
Ph. D. Dissertation, University of London, 1954.

170
"Gogol and Dickens." Slavonic and East European Review, 34, no. 83 (1956),
443-459.

Harkins, William Edward. "Gogol, Nikolay Vasilyevich." In Dictionagg of Russian
Literature. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956, 131-42.

Hasenclever, Nora. "Gogol and Dostoevsky." Ph. D. Dissertation, Bennington College,
1951.

Kanzer, Mark. "Gogol: A Study on Wit and Paranoia." Journal of the American
Psychoanalﬁic Association, 3, no. 1 (January 1955), 110-25.

Lavrin, Janko. "Nikolai Gogol." In his Russian Writers: Their Lives and Literature, New
York: D. van Nostrand Company, 1954, 55-79.

Magarshack, David. Gogol: A Life. New York: Grove Press, 1957.

. Introduction to Tales of Good and Evil, translated by David Magarshack. New
York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957, 1-11.

. Introductory to Gogol: A Life, by David Magarshack. New York: Grove Press,
1957, 13-6.

 

Malkiel, Yakov. "Cervantes in Nineteenth Century Russia. " Comparative Literature, 3, no.
4 (1951), 310-29.

Manning, Clarence Augustus. "Gogol and Ukraine." Ukrainian Quarterly, 6, no. 4 (1950),
323-30.

Martin, Mildred. "The Last Shall Be First: A Study of Three Russian Short Stories."
Bucknell Review, 6, no. 1 (1956), 13-23.

Masson, Edmond. "Russia's Gogol: A Centenary." Paciﬁc Spectator, 7, no. 3 (1953), 322-
3 l.

McLean, Hugh. "Gogol's Retreat from Love: Towards an Interpretation of Mirgorod. " In

his American Contributions to the Fourth International Conggess of Slavists,
Hague: Mouton, 1958, 225-45.

Mirsky, D. S. "The Age of Gogol: Gogol." In his A Histogy of Russian Literature from Its
Beginnings to 1900. New York: Vintage Books, 1958, 149-62.

Montagu-Nathan, M. "Gogol and Music." Monthly Musical Record, 82 (May 1952), 92-8.
Poggioli, Renato. "Realism in Russia. " Comparative Literature, 3, no. 3 (1951), 253-67.

Posin, Jack A. Review of Gogol: A Life, by David Magarshack. Russian Review, 17, no. 4
(1958), 318-20.

171
Selig, Karl Ludwig. "Concerning Gogol's Dead Souls and Lazarillo de Tonnes."
Smposium, 8 (1954), 138-40.

Spector, Ivar. "Nikolai Vasilyevitch Gogol." In his The Golden Age of Russian Literature,
Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, 1952, 70-83.

Spilka, Mark. "Kaﬂ<a's Sources for the Metamorphosis." Comparative Literature, 11, no.
4 (1959), 289-308.

Stilman, Leon. "Gogol's Overcoat: Thematic Pattern and Origins." American Slavic and
East European Review, 11, no. 2 (1952), 138-48.

"Nikolai Gogol: Historical and Biographical Elements of His Creative
Personality." Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1953.

Strakhovsky, Leonid I. "The Historianism of Gogol." American Slavic and East European
Review, 12, no. 3 (1953), 360-71.

 

Strong, Robert L. "The Soviet Interpretation of Gogol." American Slavic and East
European Review, 14, no. 4 (1955), 528-39.

Weathers, Winston. "Gogol's Dead Souls: The Degrees of Reality." College English, 17
(1956), 159-64.

Young, Murray. Review of Gogol: A Life, by David Magarshack. New World Review, 26
(April 1958), 37.

Yurieff, Zoya. "Gogol as Interpreted by the Russian Symbolists." Ph. D. Dissertation,
Rodcliffe College, 1956.

1960-1969

Adarnov, Arthur. Dead Souls: A Dramatic Version of Gogol's Novel. Translated by Peter
Meyer. New York: Studio Duplicating Service, 1961.

Alkire, Gilman H. "Gogol and Bulgarin's Ivan Vyzhigin." Slavic Review, 28 (1969), 289-
96.

Annenkov, Pavel Vasilevich. The Extraordinagg Decade: Literag Memoirs. Edited by
Arthur P. Mendel. Translated by Irwin R. Titunik. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press, 1968.

Anon. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilyevich." In The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1968, 421.

172

Anon. Review of Gogol a5 a Short Stogy Writer, by Frederik C. Driessen. Times Literagg
Supplement, (2 June 1966), 496.

Anon. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. Booklist, 62 (1
February 1966), 514.

 

Anon. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. Choice, 2
(February 1966), 863.

 

Anon. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. New York Times
Book Review, 71 (2 January 1966), 20.

Anon. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. Saturday Review,
49 (11 June 1966), 57.

Anon. Review of The Simile and Gogol's Dead Souls by Carl R. Proffer. Times Literar_'y
Supplement, (10 October 1968), 1153.

 

Baring, M. "Gogol and the Cheerﬁrlness of the Russian People." In his Landmarks in
Russian Literature. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960, 26-49.

Baumgarten, Murray. "Gogol‘s The Overcoat as a Picaresque Epic." Dalhousie Review,
46 (1966), 186-99.

Belknap, Robert. Review of Dostoevsﬂ and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsg
in Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol, by Donald Lee Fanger. Slavic Review,
24 (1965), 561-62.

Besoushko, Volodymyr. "Nikolas Gogol and Ukrainian Literature." Ukrainian Quarterly,
16, no. 3 (1960), 263-68.

Bogojavlensky, Marianna. Reﬂections on Nikolai Gogol. Jordanville, New York: Holy
Trinity Monastery, 1969.

Bortnes, Jostein. "Gogol's Revizor: A Study in the Grotesque." Scando Slavica, 15 (1969),
47-63.

Bowra, C. M. Introduction to Dead Souls. Translated by George Reavey. London: Oxford
University Press, 1961, v-ix.

Brustein, Robert. "Russian Evenings: Dead Souls Adapted by Mikhail Bulgakov from the
Novel by Nikolai Gogol." New Republic, 152 (27 February 1965), 26-8.

Bryner, Cyril. "Gogol, Dickens and the Realistic Novel." Etudes Slaves et Est
Europeennes, 8 (1963), 17-42.

Cook, Albert. "Reﬂexive Attitudes: Sterne, Gogol, Gide." Criticism, 2 (Winter 1960),
164-74.

173
Costello, Bella. Introduction to Marriage. Translated by Bella Costello. New York:
Barnes and Noble, 1969, ix-xix.

David, Donald. "Tolstoy, Lermontov and Others: Gogol and Dickens." In his Russian
Literature and Modern English Fiction. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1965, 172-76.

Davies, Ruth. " Gogol and the Dead Souls. " In his The Great Books of Russia. Norman,
Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968, 26-49.

Debreczeny, Paul. Nikolai Gogol and His Contemporag Critics. Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1966.

. "A Study of Gogol's Style." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of London, 1960.

. "Nikolay Gogol and His Contemporary Critics." Transactions of the American
Philosophical SocieLy, 56, no. 3 (1966), 5-68.

Driessen, Frederik C. Gogol as a Short Stoi'y Writer: A Study of His Technique of
Composition. Translated by Ian F. Finlay. Hague: Mouton, 1965.

. Introduction to Gogol as a Short Story Writer: A Study of his Technique of
Composition, by F. C. Driessen. Hague: Mouton, 1965, 13-5.

Ehrhard, Marcelle. "Gogol." In his Russian Literature. Translated by Philp Minto. New
York: Walker and Company, 1963, 63-9.

Eikhenbaum, Boris. "The Structure of Gogol‘s The Overcoat." Translated by Beth Paul
and Muriel Nesbitt. Russian Review, 22, no. 4 (1963), 377-99.

Erlich, Victor. Gogol. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1969.

. "A Note on the Grotesque. Gogol: A Test Case." In his To Honor Roman
Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, October 11, 1966.
Vol. 1, Hague: Mouton, 1967, 630-33.

 

. "Some Western Interpretations of Gogol." In Actes du Ve Congyes de
L'Association Internationale de Litterature Com aree. Edited by Nikola
Banashevich. Belgrade: U. de Belgrade, 1969, 595-602.

 

Fanger, Donald Lee. "Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism: Balzac, Dickens, Gogol." Ph.
D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1962.

. Dostoevsbr and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsg in Relation to
Balzac, Dickens and Gogol. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

174

. "Gogol: The Apotheosis of the Grotesque." In his Dostoevsbl and Romantic
Realism: A Study of Dostoevsbg in Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol.

Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1967, 101-26.

Florovsky, Georges. "Three Masters: The Quest for Religion in Nineteenth Century
Russian Literature." Comparative Literature Studies, 3 (1966), 119-3 7.

Gifford, Henry. "Gogol's Dead Souls. " In his The Novel in Russia, London: Hutchinson
University Library, 1964, 42-52.

Gregorovich, Andrew. Introduction to Taras Bulba. Edited by Andrew Gregorovich.
Toronto: Acropolis Press, 1962, 5-13.

Guemey, Bernard G. Foreword to Dead Souls. Translated by Bernard G. Guemey. New
York: Modern Library, 1965, viii-x.

Gustafson, Richard F. Review of The Simile and Gogol's Dead Souls, by Carl R. Proffer.
Russian Review, 28 (1969), 110-11.

. "The Suffering Usurper: Gogol's Diary of a Madman." Slavic and East European
Journal, 9, no. 3 (1965), 268-80.

Hlobenko, N. "Ukraine in Literary Works Written in the Russian Language." In Ukraine:
A Concise Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963,
1089-90.

Holquist, James Michael. "The Devil in Mufti: the Marchenwelt in Gogol's Short Stories. "
Publications of the Modern Langpage Association of America, 82 (1967), 352-62.

. "Non-Realistic Modes in the Prose Fiction of Gogol and Dostoevsky." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Yale University, 1968.

Ivask, Astrid. Review of Nikolai Gogol, by Vladimir Nabokov. Books Abroad, (Autumn
1961), 391.

Juran, Sylvia. "Zapiski Sumasshedshego: Some Insights into Gogol's World." Slavic and
East European Journal, 5 (1961), 331-3.

Kent, Leonald Joseph. Introduction to The Collected Tales and Plays of Nikolai Gogol.
Edited and translated by Leonard J. Kent. New York: Pantheon, 1964, vi-ix.

Introduction to The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its
Antecedents, by Leonald J. Kent. Hague: Mouton, 1969, 11-4.

. The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its Antecedents. Hague:
Mouton, 1969.

175
. "The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevsky, and Its Antecedents." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Yale University, 1965.
Kropotkin, P. "Gogol." In his Russian Literature. New York: Benjamin B., 1967, 67-87.

Landolﬁ, Tommaso. "Gogol's Wife." In his Gogol's Wife and Other Stories. Edited by
Raymond Rosenthal. Translated by Wayland Young. Norfolk, Connecticut: New
Directions, 1963, 1-16.

Landry, Hilton. "Gogol's The Overcoat. " Explicator, 19 (1961), item 54.

Lindstrom, Thais S. "Nikolay Gogol: Genius of the Comic-Grotesque." In his A Concise
Histogr of Russian Literature. Vol.1, New York: New York University Press,
1966, 129-42.

MacAndrew, Andrew R. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilevich." In The Reader's Encyclopedia of
World Drama. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969, 362-3.

Magarshack, David. Introduction to Mirgorod. Translated by David Magarshack. New
York: F arrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1962, vii-xi.

 

Magidoff, Robert. Review of Letters of Nikolai Gogol. Edited by Carl R. Proﬂ‘er. Russian
Review, 27 (1968), 374-5. ‘

Maguire, Robert A. Review of Letters of Nikolai Gogol. Edited by Carl R Proffer. Slavic
Review, 28 ( 1969), 674-5.

Markov, Vladimir. "The Poetry of Russian Prose Writers." California Slavic Studies, 1
(1960), 77-82.

Maurois, Andre. "Nikolas Gogol." In his The Art of Writing. New York: Dutton and
Company. 1960, 265-94. '

Muchnic, Helen. Review of Dostoevsbg and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsbz in

Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol, by Donald F anger. Comparative
Literature, 19, no. 1 (Winter 1967), 78-80.

. The Unhappy Consciousness: Gogol. Poe. Baudelaire. Baltimore, Maryland:
Smith College Press, 1967 .

Ohloblyn, Oleksander. "Ancestry of Mykola Gogol (Hohol)." Ann_als of the Ukrainian
Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United Stags, 12, nos. 1-2 (1969-1972), 3-
43.

Ostrander, Sheila and Lynn Schroeder. "Off Stage with The Inspector General in the
USSR. " Texas Quarterly, 11, no. 2 (1968), 209-13.

176
Oulianoﬁ‘, Nicholas 1. "Arabesque or Apocalypse? On the Fundamental Idea of Gogol's
Story The Nose." Canadian Slavic Studies, 1, no. 2 (Summer 1967), 158-71.

Ovcharenko, Maria M. Hohol and Osmachka. Winnipeg, Canada: UVAN, 1969.

Panichas, G. A. Review of Dostoevsg and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsky in
Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol, by Donald Fanger. Modern Langpage
Journal, (January 1967), 50.

 

Pany, Idris. "Kaﬂ(a, Gogol and Nathanael West." In Kafka. Edited by Ronald Gray.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962, 85-90.

Passage, Charles E. "Gogol: the Moral Artist." In his The Russian Hoffmannists. Hague:
Mouton, 1963, 140-75.

Poggioli, Renato. "Gogol's Old Fashioned Landowners: An Inverted Eclogue." Indiana
Slavic Studies, 3 (1963), 54-72.

Proffer, Carl Ray. "The Comparisons in Gogol's Dead Souls." Ph. D. Dissertation, The
University of Michigan, 1963.

. "Dead Souls in Translation." Slavic and East European Journal. 8, no. 4 ( 1964),
420-33.

. "Gogol's Deﬁnition of Romanticism." Studies in Romanticism, 6, no. 2 (1967),
120-27.

 

. "Gogol's Taras Bulba and the Iliad." Comparative Literature, 17, no. 2 (1965),
142-50.

 

. Introduction to Letters of Nikolai Gogol. Edited by Carl R. Proffer. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1967, 1-21.

. Review of Dead Souls. Translated by Bernard G. Guemey. Slavic and East
European Journal, 11, no. 1 (1967), 115-6.

. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. Russian Review,
25 (1966), 211.

. Review of Nikolay Gogol and His Contemporag Critics, by Paul Debreczeny.
Slavic and East European Journal, 11, no. 3 (1967), 363-64.

. The Simile and Gogol's Dead Souls. Hague: Mouton, 1967.

. "Washington Irving in Russia: Pushkin, Gogol, Marlinsky." Comparative
Literature, 20, no. 4 (1968), 329-42.

 

177

Pushkin, Aleksandr S. "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka." In The Critical Prose of
Alexander Pushkin. Edited and translated by Carl R. Proffer. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1969, 172-3.

Rahv, Philip. "Gogol as a Modern Instance." In Russian Literature and Modern English
Fiction. Edited by Donald Davie. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1965, 239-44.

 

Reeve, Franklin D. "Dead Souls. " In his The Russian Novel. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1966, 64-103.

Rosebacher, Peter. "The Function of Insanity in Chekhov's The Black Monk and Gogol's
Notes of a Madman. " Slavic and East European Journal, 13, no. 2 (1969), 191-9.

. Review of Nikolay Gogol and His Contemporm Critics, by Paul Debreczeny.
Russian Review, 26 (1967), 416.

 

. Review of The Simile and Gogol's Dead Souls, by Carl R. Proffer. Slavic and
East European Journal, 13, no. 2 (1969), 247-8.

Rozanov, Vassily. "How the Character Akaky Akakiyevich Originated." Translated by
Spencer E. Roberts. Ohio Universigg Review, 10 (1968), 42-56.

Seeley, Frank F. "Gogol's Dead Souls. " Forum for Modern Langpage Studies, 4 (1968),
33-44.

Setchkarev, Vsevolod. Gogol: His Life and Works. Translated by Robert Kramer. New
York: New York University Press, 1965.

Simmons, Ernest J. "Gogol: Live or Dead Souls." In his Introduction to Russian Realism.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1965, 44-90.

Slonim, Marc. "Gogol." In his The Epic of Russian Literature. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1964, 159-81.

Spycher, Peter C. "N. V. Gogol's The Nose: A Satirical Comic Fantasy Born of an
Impotence Complex." Slavic and East European Journal, 7, no. 4 (1963), 361-74.

Stilman, Leon. Aﬁerword to The Diary of aMadman and Other Stories. Translated by A.
MacAndrew. New York: New American Library, 1961, 145-9.

. "Nikolaj Gogol and Ostap Hohol." In Orbis Scriptus. Edited by Dietrich
Gerhardt, Wiktor Weintrauss, and Hans-Jurgen zum Winkel. Munchen: Wilhelm
Fink Verlag, 1966, 811-25.

Stromecky, Ostap. "Ukrainian Elements in Mykola Hohol's Taras Bulba." Ukrainian
Quarterly, 25, no. 4 (1969), 350-61.

178

Strong, Robert L. Review of Dostoevsg and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsky
in Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol, by Donald Lee Fanger. Slavic and East
European Journal, 10, no. 4 (1966), 469-71.

. Review of Gogol: His Life and Works, by Vsevolod Setchkarev. Slavic Review,
25 (1966), 358-59.

 

Struve, Gleb. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilevich." In Chamber's Encyclopaedia. Vol. 6, Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1967, 410.

. Review of Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsﬂ in
Relation to Balzac, Dickens and Gogol, by Donald Lee Fanger. Russian Review,
25 (1966), 419-21.

 

Thorlby, A. K. "Gogol, Nikolay Vasilyevich." In The Pengpin Companion to European
Literature. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Timmer, Charles B. "Dead Souls Speaking." Slavonic and East European Review, 45
(1967), 273-91.

Titunik, Irwin Robert. "The Problem of 'Skaz' in Russian Literature." Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, 1963.

Vinogradov, Victor Vladimirovich. "The Language of Gogol.’l In The Histog of the
Russian Literag Langpage from the Seventeenth Century to the Nineteenth.

Translated by Lawrence L. Thomas. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1969, 209-36.

Vlach, Robert. "Gogol and Hasek: Two Masters of Poshlost'." Etudes Slaves et Est
Europeennes, 7 (1962), 239-42.

Vogel, Lucy. "Gogol's Rome." Slavic and East European Journal, 11, no. 2 (1967), 145-
58.

Vuchich, Olga Victoria. "Stylistic Contrasts in Gogol's Artistic Works: An Analysis." Ph.
D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1969.

Wiener, Leo. "Nikolay Vasilievich Gogol." In his Anthology of Russian Literature. New
York: Benjamin Blom, 1967, 185-7.

Wittlin, Joseph. "Gogol's Inferno." Polish Review, 7, no. 4 (1962), 5-20.

Woodward, James B. Review of The Simile and Gogol's Dead Souls, by Carl R. Proffer.
Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 3 ( 1969), 141-2.

. "The Threadbare Fabric of Gogol's Overcoat. " Canadian Slavic Studies, 1 (1967),
95-104.

179

Yarrnolinsky, Avrahm. "Gogol's Masterwork." In his The Russian Literature: Imagination.

New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1969, 43-55.

Zaslove, Jerald. "The Ideology and Poetics of Poshlost: The Work of Nikolai Gogol and

Its Importance in Our Time." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Washington, 1968.

Zeldin, Jesse. Introduction to Selected Passages ﬁom Corregondence with Friends.

Translated by Jesse Zeldin. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press,
1969, vii-xxvii.

. "A Revaluation of Gogol's Selected Passages." Russian Review, 27, no. 4
(1968), 421-31.

1 970-1 979

Annenskii, Innokentij F. "The Aesthetics of Gogol's Dead Souls and Its Legacy." In

Anon.

Anon.

Anon

Anon

Anon

Twentieth Centugg Russian Litera_ry Criticism. Edited by Victor Erlich. Translated
by Elizabeth Traham and John Fred Beebe. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale
University Press, 1975, 51-60.

"Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievich." In Britannica Junior Encyclopedia. Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press, 1975, 2859-60.

. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol. by Donald Fanger. Booklist, 76 (1
December 1979), 534.

 

. Review of Gogol from the Twentieth Centugg. Edited by Robert A. Maguire.
Choice, 12 (September 1975), 852.

. Review of Gogol ﬁom the Twentieth Centugl. Edited by Robert A. Maguire.
Russian Literature Triguarterly, 10 (Fall 1974), 429.

. Review of Gogol from the Twentieth Centug. Edited by Robert A. Maguire.
Virginia Quarterly Review, 51 (Summer 1975), 108.

Review of Gogol's Dead Souls, by James B. Woodward. Choice, 15 (January
1979), 1526.

 

. Review of Gogol: A Life, by David Magarshack. Choice, 6 (February 1970), 1758.

 

. Review of The How of Gogol: Iak Tvoriv Hohol. by Ostap Stromecky. Russian
Literature Triguarterly, 14 (Winter 1976), 508-9.

 

. Review of Nikolay Gogol, by Thais S. Lindstrom. Choice, 11 (January 1975),
1642.

 

 

180

Anon. Review of Nikolai Gogol's Quest for Beaug: An Exploration into His Works, by
Jesse Zeldin. Choice, 16 (March 1979), 86.

 

Anon. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its Antecedents, by
Simon Karlinsky. Choice, 14 (March 1977), 69.

 

Anon. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its Antecedents, by
Simon Karlinsky. Virginia Quarterly Review, 53 (Spring 1977), 54.

Anon. Review of Twentieth Centui'y Russian Literm Criticism, edited by Victor Erlich.
Choice, 13 (March 1976), 78.

 

Anon. Review of Twentieth Centug Russian Literm Criticism, edited by Victor Erlich.
Virginia Quarterly Review, 52 (Autumn 1976), 120.

Asch, Laurie. "The Censorship of Nikolai Gogol's Diary of a Madman." Russian
Literature Triguarterly, 14 (1976), 20-35.

Bahrij-Pikulyk, Romana Myroslawa. "Taras Bul'ba and The Black Council: The
Adherence to and Divergence from Walter Scott's Historical Novel Pattern." Ph.
D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1978.

Bailey, James. "Some Remarks about the Structure of Gogol's Overcoat." In Mnemozina:
Studia Litteraria Russica in Honorem Vsevolod Setchkarev. Edited by Joachim T.
Baer and Norman W. Ingham. Munich: Fink, 1974, 13-22.

Bakhtin, M. M. "The Art of the Word and the Culture of Folk Humor: Rabelais and

Gogol." In Semiotics and Structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union. Edited
by H. Baran. New York: White Plains, 1976, 284-96.

Barksdale, E. C. "Gogol: The Myth and the Grotesque." In his The Dacha and the
Duchess. New York: Philosophical Library, 1974, 105-12.

Barratt, Andrew. "Plot as Paradox: The Case of Gogol's Shinel" New Zealand Slavonic
Journal, 2 (1979), 1-24.

 

Barrett, Constance Mclintock. "Artist as Missionary: A History of Gogol's Literary
Development in Terms of His Attitude Towards the Reading Public." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1975.

Bazhenov, N. N. "Gogol." In The Complection of Russian Literature. Compiled by
Andrew Field. New York: Atheneum, 1971, 83-99.

Belinskii, Vissarion G. "Letter to N. V. Gogol." In Belinsbi, Chemyshevsbi and
Dobrolmbov. Edited by Ralph Matlaw. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Press, 1976, 83-92.

 

181

Belyi, Andrei. "Gogol." In The Complection of Russian Literature. Compiled by Andrew
Field. New York: Atheneum, 1971, 100-2.

. "Gogol." Translated by Elizabeth Trahan. Russian Literature Triguarterly, 4

(1972), 131-44.

. "Gogol." In Twentieth Centuiy Russian Literagi Criticism. Edited by Victor
Erlich. Translated by Elizabeth Trahan and Fred Beebe. New Haven,

Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1975, 35-50.

Bern, Alfred Liudvigovich. "The Nose and the Double." In Dostoevsg and Gogol: Text
and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy. Translated by Peter B.
Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 229-48.

Bemheimer, Charles C. "Cloaking the Self: The Literary Space of Gogol's Overcoat. "

Publications of the Modern Langpage Association of America 90, no. 1 (January
1975), 53-61.

Berry, Thomas E. "Arabesques, N. V. Gogol." In his Plots and Characters in Major
Russian Fiction. Vol. 2, Hamden, Connecticut: Shoe String, 1978, 8-13.

. "Dead Souls, N. V. Gogol." In his Plots and Characters in Major Russian Fiction.
Vol. 2, Hamden, Connecticut: Shoe String, 1978, 26-30.

. "ll/Iirgorod, N. V. Gogol." In his Plots and Characters in Major Russian Fiction.
Vol. 2, Hamden, Connecticut: Shoe String, 1978, 46-53.

. "The Overcoat, N. V. Gogol." In his Plots and Characters in Major Russian
Fiction. Vol. 2, Hamden, Connecticut: Shoe String, 1978, 59-61.

Beyer, Thomas R. "Belyj's Serebrjanyj Golub: Gogol in Gugolevo." Russian Langpage
Journal, no.107 (1976), 79-88.

Binyon, T. J. Review of Twentieth Centug Russian Literagi Criticism. Edited by Victor
Erlich. Times Literag Supplement, (12 March 1976), 293.

Bonnet, Gail. "Deity to Demon: Gogol's Female Characters." In Proceedings of the Paciﬁc

Northwest Conference on Foreigp Langpages. Edited by Walter C. Kraft,
Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, 1973, 253-67.

Boyd, Alexander. "In the Town of N: Nikolai Gogol and Dead Souls. " In his Aspects of
the Russian Novel. London: Chatto and Windus, 1972, 46-67.

Brown, Clarence. "The Not Quite Realized Transit of Gogol." In Mnemozina: Studia
Litteraria Russica in Honorem Vsevolod Setchkarev. Edited by Joachim T. Baer
and Norman W. Ingham. Munich: Fink, 1974, 41-5.

182

Bryusov, Valery. "Burnt to Ashes." In Gogol from the Twentieth Centug. Edited and
translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1974, 103-32.

. "Burnt to Ashes." Translated by Robert A. Maguire. Russian Literature
Triguarterly, 3 (1972), 106-25.

 

Bulgarin, Mikhail A. "The Adventure of Chichikov." In Diaboliad and Other Stories.
Edited by Ellendea Proffer and Carl R. Proffer. Translated by Carl R. Proffer.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1972, 159-74.

Buyniak, Victor 0. Review of Food-Notes on Gogol, by Alexander P. Obolensky,
Canadian Slavonic Papers, 16, no. 1 (1974), 133-4.

Byms, Richard Howard. "Gogol and the Feminine Myth." Etudes Slaves et Est
Europeennes, nos. 20-21 (1975-1976), 44-60.
. "Memory and Myth in Thomas de Quincey, Gerard de Nerval, and Nikolai

Gogol." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1973.

Calder, Angus. "Literature and Serfdom: Gogol, Lermontov and Goncharov." In his

Russia Discovered: Nineteenth-Centugi Fiction from Pushkin to Chekhov. New
York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1976, 47-63.

Chances, Ellen. Review of Through Gogol's Looking Glass, by William Woodirr Rowe.
Modern Fiction Studies, 23 (Summer 1977), 326-8.

Chizhevskii, Dmitrii. "About Gogol's Overcoat." In Gogol from the Twentieth Centugi.
Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974, 295-322.

. "On Gogol's the Overcoat." In Dostoevsbi and Gogol: Text and Criticism.
Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy. Translated by Peter B. Stetson. Ann

Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 137-60.

 

. "Romantic Prose." In his Histogi of Nineteenth-Centugi Russian Literature. Vol.
1, Edited by Sergei A. Zenkovsky and translated by Ricth Noel Porter.

Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 1974, 110-30.

Christensen, Julie Ann. "The Shaping of the Russian Philosophical Heroine. Feminine
Images of Beauty in Russian Philosophical Aesthetics and the Heroines of Nikolaj
Gogol." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1978.

Clayton, J. Douglas. "Soviet View of Parody: Tynianov and Morozov." Canadian
American Slavic Studies, 7, no. 4 (Winter 1973), 485-93.

183
Clive, Geoffrey. "Gogol and the Absurd." In his The Broken Icon. New York: MacMillan
Company, 1972, 1-29.

Clyman, Toby W. "The Hidden Demons in Gogol's Overcoat. " Russian Literature, 7, no. 6
(1979), 601-10.

Cohen, Barry Mendel. Review of Divided Soul: The Life of Gogol, by Henri Troyat.
Southwest Review, 59 (1974), 334-5.

Cosman, Tatiana M. "The Letter as a Literary Device in the Fiction of Pushkin,
Lermontov and Gogol." Ph. D. Dissertation, New York University, 1973.

Cox, Gary Duane. Review of Gogol's Dead Souls, by James B. Woodward. Russian
Review, 38, no. 1 (1979), 124-5.

 

. "A Study of Gogol's Narrators." Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1978.

. "The Writer as a Stand-up Comic: A Note on Gogol and Dickens." Ulbandus
Review, 2 (1979), 45-61.

Debreczeny, Paul. "Gogol's Mockery of Romantic Taste: Varieties of Language in the
Tale of the Two Ivans." Canadian American Slavic Studies, 7 (1973), 327-41.

Edgerton, William B. Review of Between Gogol and Shevcenko: Polarigi in the Literg
Ukraine: 1798-1847, by George S. N. Luckyj. Slavic Review, 34, no. 1 (1975),

189.

Eikhenbaum, Boris. "How Gogol's Overcoat is Made." In Dostoevsbi and Gogol: Text
and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy. Translated by Peter B.
Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 119-35.

Emerson-Topomin, Alexis B. "Shinel: The Devil's Ovals: Motif of the Doubles." Forum at
Iowa on Russian Literature, 1, no. 1 (1976), 34—56.

Erlich, Victor, ed. Twentieth-Centugi Russian Literagi Criticism. New Haven,
Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1975.

. Introduction to Twentieth Centug Russian Literagi Criticism. Edited by Victor
Erlich. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1975, 3-30.

Even-Zohar, Itamar. "The Tailor Petrovich Pronounces the Verdict on Akakij: A Note on
a Stylised Scene and a Pragmatic Connective. " Slavica Hierosolmitana, 3 (1978),
1-7.

Fanger, Donald Lee. The Creation of Nikolai Gogol. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1979.

 

184

. "Dead Souls: Mirror and Road." Nineteenth Centug: Fictiop, 33, no. 1 (1978),
24—47.

 

. "Dickens and Gogol: Energies of the Word." In Veins of Humor. Edited by Harry
Levin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972, 131—45.

. "Gogol and His Reader." In Literature and Sociery in Imperial Russia, 1800-
1914. Edited by William Mills Todd HI. Stanford, Califonia: Stanford University

Press, 1978, 61-95.

 

. "Gogol as a Man of Letters: Writer and Audience in 19th Century Russia." In

Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the International Comparative Literature
Association. Edited by Michel Cadot. Stuttgart, Germany: Bieber, 1975, 421-5.

. "The Gogol Problem: Perspectives ﬁom Absence." In Slavic Forum: Essays in
Lingpistics and Literature. Edited by Michael S. Flier. Hague: Mouton, 1974, 103-
29.

Fedorenko, Eugene. "Gogol's Revizor: A Reexamination of Language Characteristics."
Russian Langpage Journal, no.106 (1976), 39-50.

Feher, Zoltan. Review of Gogol from the Twentieth Century. Edited by Robert A.
Maguire. Librm Journal, 100 (1 March 1975), 483.

Fiene, Donald M. "The Story of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich."
Explicator, 34 (1976), item 55.

Freebom, Richard. "Dead Souls: A Study." Slavonic and East European Review, 49
(1971), 18-44.

. "Dead Souls." In his The Rise of the Russian Novel. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1973, 74-114.

. Review of "Gogol", by A. De Jonge. In Nineteenth Century Russian Literature,
edited by John Fennell. Slavonic and East European Review, 52, no. 127 (1974),
277-80.

. Review of Gogol, by Victor Erlich. Modern Langpage Review, 65, no. 4

(October 1970), 958-9.

. Review of Gogol, by Victor Erlich. Times Literary Supplement, (6 November
1970), 1290.

. Review of Gogol's Dead Souls, by James B. Woodward. Times Literary
Supplement, (20 October 1978), 1204.

 

185

. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij and Its Antecedents, by
Leonald Joseph Kent. Slavonic and East European Review, 48 (1970), 443 -5.

 

Garrad, John G. Review of "Gogol", by A. De Jonge. In Nineteenth Centugi Russian
Literature. Edited by John Fennel]. Russian Review, 33, no. 3 (1974), 331-2.

. "Worm's Eye View in Gogol's Fiction." In Expressiop, Communication and
Experience in Literature and Langpage. Edited by Ronald G. P0pperwell. London:
Modern Humanities Research Association, 1973, 166.

. "Some Thoughts on Gogol's Kolyaska." Publications of the Modern Langpage
Association of America, 90, no. 5 (October 1975), 848-60.

Gippius, Vasilii V. " The Inspector General: Structure and Problems." In Gogol from the
Twentieth Centug. Edited and translated by Robert A Maguire. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, 216-65.

Glass, Elliot S. "Dead Souls and the Hispanic Picaresque Novel." Revisit; de Eatudios
Hispanicos, 11 (1977), 77-90.

Goodliffe, J. D. "Dead Souls and the Mock Epic." In Proceedings and Papers of the 16th

Congress of the Austra_lian Universities Langpage and Literature Association.
South Australia: University of Adelaide, 1974, 330-41.

 

Green, Benny. "The Comedy of a Dead Soul." Spectator, 234 (17 May 1975), 614.

Grumbach, D. Review of The Sexual Labm'rlth of Nikolai Gogol, by Simon Karlinsky.
New York Times Book Review, (12 June 1977), 16.

Hallet, R. W. "The Laughter of Gogol." Russian Review, 30, no. 4 (1971), 373-84.

Hart, Pierre R. "In Search of a Real Ideal: Gogol's Critical Prose." Canadian American
Slavic Studies, 7, no. 3 (1973), 342-9.

Harussi, Yael. "Gogol's Dead Souls: A Reading." Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia
University, 1974.

Hippisley, Anthony. "Gogol's The Overcoat: A Further Interpretation." Slavic an_d Eas_t
European Journal, 20, no. 2 (Summer 1976), 121-9.

Hitchcock, D. R. Reading the Russian Text of the 'Memoirs of a Madman' of N. V. Gogo_l.
Washington, D. C.: V. P. Kamkin, 1974.

 

Holquist, James M. "The Burden of Prophecy: Gogol's Conception of Russia. " Review of
National Literatures, 3, no. 1 (1972), 39-55.

Hrishko, Wasyl I. "Gogol's Ukrainian-Russian Bilingualism and the Dualism of Gogolian
Style." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Washington, 1973.

186

. "Nikolai Gogol and Mykola Hohol: Paris, 1837." Annals of the Ukrainian

Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 12, nos. 1-2 (1969-1972),
1 13-42.

Hughes, Olga Raevsky. "The Apparent and the Real in Gogol's Nevsky Prospekt."
California Slavic Studies, 8 (1975), 77-91.

Hulanicki, Leo. "The Carriage by N. V. Gogol." Russian Literature, 12 (1975), 61-77.

Ingham, Norman W. "Gogol." In his E. T. A. Hoffmann's Reception in Russia. Wurzburg,
Germany: Jal-verlag, 1974, 165-76.

Ivanov, Viacheslav. "Gogol's Inspector General and the Comedy of Aristophanes." In
Gogol from the Twentieth Centugr. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, 200-14.

Jennings, Lee B. "Gogol's Dead Souls Grotesqueries." In Vistas and Vectors: Essays
Honoring the Memogr of Helmut Rehder. Edited by Lee B. Jennings and George
Schulz-Behrend. Austin, Texas: Department of Germanic Languages, University of
Texas at Austin, 1979, 136-41.

De Jonge, A. "Gogol." In Nineteenth-Centugi Russian Literature: Studies of Ten Russian
Writers. Edited by John Fennel]. Berkely, Califonia: University of Califonia Press,

1973, 69-129.

 

. Review of Divided Souls: The Life of Gogol. by Henri Troyat. New York
Review of Books, (18 April 1974), 30.

 

. Review of Gogol from the Twentieth Centugr. Edited by Robert A. Maguire.
Times Literag Supplement, (7 March 1975), 251.

Karlinsky, Simon. "Portrait of Gogol as a Word Glutton, with Rabelais, Sterne, and
Gertrude Stein as Background Figures." Califomia Slavic Studies, 5 (1970), 169-
86.

. The Sexual Labiajnth of Nikolai Gogol. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1976.

Karriker, Alexandra Wojcechowsky. "The Grotesque Metamorphosis: Gogol's
Anthroponyms and Toponyms." Ph. D. Dissertation, Brown University, 1970.

Keefer, Lubov. "Gogol and Music." Slavic and East European Journal, 14, no. 2 (1970),
160-81.

Kirkoff, Milicia Dorceska. "The Impact of Gogol upon the Works of Milovan Glisic,
Steven Serenac and Branislav Nusic." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Toronto,
1974.

187

Kolb-Seletski, Natalia M. "Gastronomy, Gogol, and His Fiction." Siayic Review. 29
(1970), 35-57.

. Review of Gogol, by Victor Erlich. Slavic Review 30 (1971), 43 8-40.

 

Konick, Willis. "The Theme of Brotherhood in Gogol's The Overcoat. " In Proceedings of
the ﬁciﬁc Northwest Conference on F oreigp Langpages. Edited by Walter C.
Kraft. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, 1973, 253-8.

Lavrin, Janko. Gogol. New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1973.

. "Nikolai Gogol." In his A Panorama of Russian Litergure. London: University of
London Press, 1973, 64-78.

Leong, Albert. "Idea and Technique in Gogol's Notes of a Madman." In Proceedings of
the Paciﬁc Northwest Conference on Foreign Langpages. Edited by Walter C.
Kraft. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, 1973, 247-53.

Levitsky, Illor. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij, and Its
Antecedents, by Simon Karlinsky. World Literature Today, 51 (Autumn 1977),
639.

 

Lindstrom, Thais S. Nikolay Gogol. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974.

. Preface to Nikolay Gogol, by Thais S. Lindstrom. New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1974, 7-9.

Little, Edmund. "Gogol's Town of N N and Peake's Gormenghast: The Realism of
Fantasy." Joumal of Rusgan Studies, 34 (1977), 13-8.

Little, T. E. "Dead Souls. " In Knaves and Swindlers: Essays on the Picaresque Novel in
Europe. Edited by Christine J. Whitboum. London: Oxford University Press, 1974,
1 12-38.

. Review of Gogol's Dead Souls, by James B. Woodward. Modern Langpage
Review, 74, no. 3 (July 1979), 764-5.

Lotman, Iurii M. "Gogol and the Correlation of 'The Culture of Humor' with the Comic
and Serious in the Russian National Tradition." In Semiotics and Structuralism:
Readings from the Soviet Union. Edited by H. Baran. New York: White Plains,
1976, 297-300. ‘

Luckyj, George Stephen Nestor. Between Gogol and Shevchenko: Polariry in the Literm
Ukraine: 1798-1847. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1971.

. "Gogol's Ukrainian Interests: A Reappraisal." In Smbolae in Honorem Georgﬁ
Y. Shevelor. Edited by William E. Harkins. Munchen: Logos, 1971, 285-96.

188

Magarshack, David. Introduction to Dead Souls. Translated by David Magarshack.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1975, vii-x.

. Introduction to The Overcoat and Other Tales of GoocL and Evil. Translated by
David Magarshack. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Robert Bentley Inc., 1979, l-l 1.

Maguire, Robert A, ed. Gogol from the Twentieth Century. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1974.

. Introduction to Gogol ﬁ'om the Twentieth Century. Edited and translated by
Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, 3-
56.

. "Some Stylistic Approaches to Gogol's Two Ivans." Teaching Langpage Through
Literature, 15, no. 2 (1976), 25-39.

 

Massey, Irving. "Metamorphosis in Gogol: The Nose." In his The Gaping Pig: Literature
and Metamorphosis. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1976, 59-
75.

Matthews, Irene. "Gogol's Early Satire." Satire Newsletter 9, no. 1 (1971), 6-17.

 

McFarlin, Harold A. " The Overcoat As a Civil Service Episode. " Canadian American
Slavic Studies 13 (1979), 235-53.

 

McLean, Hugh. "Gogol and the Whiting Telescope. " In Russia: Essays in History and
Literature. Edited by L. H. Legters. Seattle, Washingtdn: Leiden, 1972, 79-99.

. Review of Gogol from the Twentieth Centugi. Edited by Robert A. Maguire.
Slavic Review, 35, no. 2 (1976), 383-4.

Merezhkovskii, Dmitrii. "Gogol and the Devil." In ng01 ﬁom the Twentieth Century.
Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974, 57-102.

Mersereau, John Jr. "The Chorus and Spear Carriers of Russian Romantic Fiction." In
Russian and Slavic Literature. Edited by Richard F reeborn, R. R. Milner-Gulland,
and Charles A. Ward. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Slavica Publishers, 1976, 38-62.

. "Normative Distinctions of Russian Romanticism and Realism. " In American
Contributions to the Seven Intemﬂw] Congress of Slavists. Vol. 2, Edited by
Victor Terras. Hague: Mouton, 1973, 393-417.

Miller, J. Hillis. Review of Twentieth Centug Russian Literagi Criticism. Edited by Victor
Erlich. New Republic, 173 (29 November 1975), 30—2.

189

Mills, Judith Oloskey. "Gogol's Overcoat: the Pathetic Passages Reconsidered."

Publications of the Modern Langpage Association of America, 89 (1974), 1106-
12.

Milne, Lesley M. "M. A. Bulgakov and Dead Souls: The Problems of Adaptation."
Slavonic and East European Review, 52, no. 128 (1974), 420-40.

Monter, Barbara H. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij and Its
Antecedents, by Leonald Joseph Kent. Slavic Review, 30 (1971), 703-4.

Moyle, Natalie K. "Folktale Patterns in Gogol's Vij." Russian Literature, 7, no. 6 (1979),
665—88.

Muchnic, Helen. Review of Divided Soul: The Life of Gogol. by Henri Troyt. New York
Times Book Review, (23 December 1973), 7.

. Review of The Sexual Labm'nth of Nikolai Gogol, by Simon Karlinsky. New
York Review of Books, (31 March 1977), 10.

. "The Unhappy Consciousness: Gogol, Poe, Baudelaire." In her Russian Writers:
Notes and Essays. New York: Random House, 1971, 22-46.

Nagle, John J. "Idealism: The Internal Structure in Gogol's Nevsky Prospect and

Chekhov's An Attack of Nerves. " West Virginia University Philological Papers, 19
(1972), 20-8.

Nebolsine, Arcadi. "Poshlost': A Study of the Writings of Gogol, Dostoevsky and
Annensky." Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1972.

Nilsson, Nils Ake. "Gogol's The Overcoat and the Topography of Petersburg." Scando
Slavica, 21 (1975), 5-18.

 

 

Nordby, Edward Lamar. "Gogol's Comic Theory and Practice in the Inspector General. "
Ph. D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1971.

Noyes, George Rapall. "Gogol, a Precursor of Modern Realists in Russia. " Nation, 101
(18 November 1915), 592-4.

 

Obolensky, Alexander P. Food-Notes on Gogol. Winnipeg, Canada: Trident Press Ltd.,
1972.

. "Nikolas Gogol and Hieronimous Bosch." Russian Review, 32, no. 2 (1973),
158—72.

Ohloblyn, Oleksander. "Ancestry of Mykola Gogol (Hohol)." Annals of the Ukrainian

Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 12, nos. 1-2 (1969-1972), 3—
43.

190

Oinas, Felix J. "Akakij Akakievich's Ghost and the Hero Orestes." Slavic and East
European Journal, 20 (1976), 27-33.

Olson, Kenneth James. "Gogol and the Natural School." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1972.

Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky, D. N. "Gogol and Ivan Goncharov." In The Complection of
Russian Literature. Compiled by Andrew Field. New York: Atheneum, 1971, 102-
4.

Peace, Richard A. "Gogol and Psychological Realism: Shinel" In Russian and Slavic
Literature. Edited by Richard Freebom, R. R. Milner-Gulland, and Charles Ward.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Slavica Publishers, 1976, 63-91.

. "The Logic of Madness: Gogol's Zapiski Sumasshedshego." Oxford Slavonic
Papers, 9 (1976), 28-45.

Pereverzev, Valerian Fedorovich. "The Evolution of Gogol's Art." In Gogol from the
Twentieth Centugr. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, 134-54.

Pickle, Charles DeWitt. "Nikolaj Gogol and Black Humor." Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of Colorado, 1974.

Posell, Elsa Z. "Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol." In his Russian Authors. Boston,
Massachusetts: Houghton Miﬁlin Company, 1970, 44-64.

Proﬂ‘er, Carl R. "Nikolai Gogol." In his Russian Romantic Prose: An Anthology. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Translation Press, 1979, 231-2.

. Review of The Subconscious in Gogol and Dostoevskij and Its Antecedents, by
Leonald Joseph Kent. Slavic and East European Journal, 14, no. 3 (1970), 375-7.

Proffltt, Edward. "Gogol's Perfectly True Tale: The Overcoat and Its Mode of Closure."
Studies in Short Fiction, 14, no. 1 (Winter 1977), 35-40.

Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. "The Identity of Gogol's Vij." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 2
(1978), 211-34.

Reilly, Robert T. Review of Divided Soul: The Life of Gogol. by Henri Troyat. America,
130 (23 February 1974), 139.

 

Rowe, William Woodin. "Gogolesque Perception: Expanding Reversals in Nabokov."
Slavic Review, 30 (1971), 110-20.

191

. "Gogol's Descriptive Double Image and Its Use in Dead Souls." In his Nabokov
and Others: Patterns in Russian Literature. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 37-
46.

. "Observations on Black Humor in Gogol and Nabokov." Slavic and East
European Journal, 18, no. 4 (1974), 392-9.

. Through Gogol's Looking Glass: Reverse Visiop, False Focus, and Precarious
Logic. New York: New York University Press, 1976.

Schillinger, John. "Gogol's The Overcoat as a Travesty of Hagiography." Slavic and East
European Journal, 16, no. 1 (1972), 36-41.

Van Schooneveld, C. H. "Gogol and the Romantics." In Slavic Poetics: Essays in Honor
of Kiril Taranovsbi. Edited by R. Jakobson, C. H. van Schoonerveld, and D. S.
Worth. Hague: Mouton, 1973, 481-4.

Shepard, Elizabeth C. "Pavlov's Demon and Gogol's Overcoat. " Slavic Review, 33, no. 2
(1974), 288-301.

Sherry, Charles. "The Fit of Gogol's Overcoat: An Ontological View of Narrative Form."
Genre, 7 (1974), 1-29.

 

Shevyrev, Stepan. " The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls, A Narrative Poem by N.
Gogol." In Literature and National Identitv. Edited and translated by Paul
Debreczeny and Zesse Zelden. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press,
1970, 17-64.

Sirskyj, Wasyl. "Ideological Overtones in Gogol's Taras Bulba." Ukrainian Quarterly, 35,
no. 3 (1979), 279-87.

Slonimskii, Aleksandr. "The Technique of the Comic in Gogol." In Gogol from the
Twentieth Centug. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, 324—73.

Smith, G. S. Review of Gogol, by Victor Erlich. Journal of European Studies, 2 (1972),
229.

Smith, Thomas A. "Gogol's Hollow Men: Teaching Dead Souls." English Journal, 61
(1972), 32-5.

Snyder, Harry Charles Jr. "The Airborne Imagery in Gogol's Dead Souls." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Brown University, 1974.

. "Airborne Imagery in Gogol's Dead Souls." Slavic and East European Journal, 23

(1979), 173-89.

192

Sobel, Ruth. "Gogol's Selected Passages and Its Contemporary Critics: An Analysis of Its
Contents and the Reactions of the Literary Critics and the Readers of the Time."
Ph. D. Dissertation, Leeds University, 1976.

. "Gogol's Views on Art and Literature in Selected Passages from Correspondence
with Friends." Journal of Russian Studies, 31 (1976), 29-3 7.

. "Gogol's Vij." Russian Literature, 7, no. 6 (1979), 565-84.

Stahlberg, Lawrence. "The Grotesque in Gogol and Poe." Ph. D. Dissertation, State
University of New York at Bingharnton, 1978.

Steiner, G. Review of The Sexual Labm'rlth of Nikolai Gogol, by Simon Karlinsky. New
Yorker, (28 February 1977), 99.

Stilman, Leon. "The All Seeing Eye in Gogol." In Gogol from the Twentieth Centugr.
Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1974, 376-89.

. "Men, Women and Matchmakers." In Gogol from the Twentieth Centug. Edited
and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1974, 390-403.

 

Stromecky, Ostap. The How of Gogol: Iak Tvoriv Hohol. Huntsville, Alabama: University
of Alabama Huntsville Press, 1975.

Strong, Robert L. Review of Nikolay Gogol, by Thais S. Lindstrom. Slavic Review, 34,
no. 2 (1975), 430-1.

Struc, Roman. "Categories of the Grotesque: Gogol and Kaﬂra." In Proceedings of the

Comparative Literature Smposium. Edited by Wolodymyr T. Zyla. Lubbok,
Texas: Texas Tech University press, 1971, 135-54.

. "Petty Demons and Beauty: Gogol, Dostoevsky, Sologub." In Essays on

European Literature in Honor of Liselotte Dieckmann. Edited by Peter U.
Hohendahl. St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University press, 1972, 61-82.

Tabakov, Oleg. "A Soviet Actor and Director Looks at Gogol and the Government
Inspector." Journal of Russian Studies, 35 (1978), 24-8.

Thomson, R. D. B. Review of Twentieth Centugr Russian Literary Criticism, edited by
Victor Erlich. Slavic Review, 35, no. 4 (1976), 773-4.

Todd, William Mills. "Gogol's Epistolary Writing." In Columbia Essays in International
Affairs. Vol. 5, Edited by Andrew W. Cordier. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1970, 51-76.

 

193

. Review of Divided Soul: The Life of Gogol, by Henri Troyat. Russian Review,
33, no. 3 (1974), 334-5.

Troyat, Henri. Divided Soul: ThegLife of Gogo_l. Translated by Nancy Amphous. Garden
City, New York: Double Day and Company, 1973.

Tschizhewskij, Dmitrij. "The Composition of Gogol's Overcoat." Translated by Edward
V. Lawler and Elizabeth W. Trahan. Russian Langpage Triquarterly. 14 (1976),
378-401.

Turkevich, Ludmilla. Review of F ood-Notes on Gogpi, by Alexander P. Obolensky.
Russian Review. 32 (1973), 453.

Turner, Charles Edward. "Life and Genius of Gogol." In his Studies in Russian Literarure.
New York: Kraus, 1971, 155-77.

. "The Works of Gogol." In his Studies in Russian Literature. New York: Kraus,
1971, 178-208.

Tynianov, Iurii Nikolaevich. "Dostoevsky and Gogol: Towards a Theory of Parody." In
Dostoevsky and Gogol: Text and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen
Rudy. Translated by Peter B. Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 101-17.

. "Dostoevsky and Gogol." In Twentieth Centugr Russian Literg Criticism.
Edited by Victor Erlich. Translated by Elizabeth Trahan and John Fred Beebe.

New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1975, 102-16.

. "Fydor Dostoevsky and Nikolai Gogol." In The Complection of Russian
Literature. Compiled by Andrew Field. New York: Atheneum, 1971, 66-83.

 

Vamai, Paul. Review of Divided Soul: The Life of Gogo_l, by Henri Troyat. Canadian
Slavonic Papers, 16, no. 4 (1974), 666-8.

Vinogradov, Victor V. "The School of Sentimental Naturalism: Dostoevsky's Novel I_JQ_0_r
F_olk Against the Background of the Literary Evolution of the 1840's" In
Dostoevsbi and @gol: Text and Criticis_rr_l_. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen
Rudy. Translated by Peter B. Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 161-
215.

. "Towards a Morphology of the Naturalist Style." In Dostoevsbi and Gogol: Text
and Criticism. Edited by Priscilla Meyer and Stephen Rudy. Translated by Peter B.
Stetson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1979, 217-28.

 

Vinokur, G. O. "The Literary Language in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." In
The Russian Langpage: A Brief @tory. Translated by Mary A. Forsyth.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, 126-38.

194

Vroon, Ronald. "Gogol in Oblomovka." Russian Literature Triguarterly, 3 (1972), 282-
96.

Waszink, Paul M. "Mythical Traits in Gogol's The Overcoat." Slavic and East European
Journal 22, no. 3 (Fall 1978), 287-300.

 

Wilson, Edmond. "Gogol: The Demon in the Overgrown Garden." In his A Window on
Russia. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972, 38-51.

 

Wolterstorﬁ‘, Nikolas. "Characters and Their Names. " Poetics, 8, nos. 1-2 (1979), 101-27.

Woodcock, George. Review of Gogol's Dead Sou_l_._s, by James B. Woodward. Sewanee
Review 87 (July 1979), 486-7.

. Review of Nikolai Gogol's Quest for Beaug: An Exploration into His Works, by

Jesse Zeldin. Sewanee Review. 87 (July 1979), 489-90.

 

. Review of The Sexual Labm' th of Nikolai Gogol, by Simon Karlinsky. Sewanee
Review, 85 (April 1977), 324-6.

Woodward, James B. "Allegory and Symbol in Gogol's Second Idyll." Modern Langpage
Review, 73 (1978), 351-67.

. Gogol's Dead Souls. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978.

. Introduction to Gogol's Dead Sou_ls, by James B. Woodward. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 197 8, ix-xvii.

. "The Symbolic Logic of Gogol's the Nose." Russian Litergure. 7, no. 6 (1979),
537-64.

 

Worrall, Nick. "Meyerhold Directs Gogol's Government Inspector." Theatre Quarterly, 2,
no. 7 (July-September, 1972), 75-95.

Wright, A. Colin. "Three Approaches to Russian Nineteenth Century Literature, and the
Purpose of Reading." The Humanities Associagm Review. 30 (1979), 322-7.

Yerrnakov, Ivan. " The Nose. " In Gogol ﬁ'om the Twentieth Century. Edited and translated
by Robert A. Maguire. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974,
156-98.

Young, Donald Allen. "N. V. Gogol in Russian and Western Psychoanalytic Criticism."
Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1977.

Zeldin, Jesse. Nikolai Gogol's Quest for Beaugi: An Exploration into His Works.

Lawrence, Kansas: Regents Press of Kansas, 197 8.

 

 

195

M

Ages, Rose Shoshana. "Gogol's Correspondence and Selected Passages ﬁom
Correspondence with Friends." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1980.

Alexander, Alex E. "The Two Ivans' Sexual Underpinnings." Slavic and East European
Journal 25 (1981), 24-37.

 

Altshuller, Mark. "The Walter Scott Motifs in Nikolay Gogol's Story The Lost Letter."
Oxford Slavonic Papers, 22 (1989), 81-8.

Andrew, Joe. "Nikolay Gogol." In his Writers and Sociegr During the Rise of Russian
Realism. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities, 1980, 76-113.

. "Nikolai Gogol: The Russian Malleus Maleﬁcarum." In his Women in Russian
Literature. 1780-1863. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988, 79-111.

Anon. Review of Gogol and Natural School, by V. V. Vinogradov. Choice, 25 (January
1988), 773.

Anon. Review of Out from Under Gogol's Overcgt: A Psgzhomlytic Study. by Danial
Rancour-Laferriere. Choice, 20 (January 1983), 709.

 

Anon. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, by Donald Fanger. Choice, 17 (March
1980), 80.

 

Anon. Review of The Enigma of Gogol: An Examination of the Writ'mg of N. V. Goggl
and Their Place in the Russian Literary Tradition. by Richard A. Peace. Choice, 19
(July 1982), 1565.

Anon. Review of The Smbolic Art of Gogol: Essays on His Short Fiction. by James B.
Woodward. Choice 20 (February 1983), 837.

 

Bahrij-Pikulyk, Romana. "Superheroes, Gentlemen or Pariahs?: The Cossacks in Nikolai
Gogol's T aras Bulba and Panteleirnon Kulish's Black Council." Journal of
Ukrainian Studies 5, no. 2 (Fall 1980), 30-47.

 

Bakhtin, M. M. "Verbal Art and the Folk: Culture of Laughter. " In Dead Souls: The

Reavey Translatiop, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by
George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 569-77.

Bamstead, John A. "Nabokov, Kuzrnin, Chekhov and Gogol: Systems of Reference in
'Lips to Lips'." In Studies in Russian Literaﬁe in Honor of Vse_volod Setchkarev.
Edited by Julian W. Connolly and Sonia I. Ketchian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica
Publishers, 1986, 50-60.

196

Bayley, John. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, by Donald F anger. Times
Literary Supplement, (22 February 1980), 195.

. "The Vacancies of Gogol." Times Litera_ry Supplement, (22 February 1980), 195-
7.

Belinsky, V. G. "Chichikov's Adventures, or Dead Souls: Gogol's Epic Poem." In Dead

Souls: The Reavey Translatiorr, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism.
Edited by George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 453-7.

 

Bely, Andrei. "The Figure of Fiction in Dead Souls." In Dead Soals: The Rea_y_ey

Translatioa, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 517-31.

 

Beresford, M. Review of Gogol's Dead Souls, by James Woodward. Durham University
Journal, (December 1981), 148. "

Bodin, Per-Arne. "The Silent Scene in Nikolaj Gogol's The Inspector General. " Scando
Slavica, 33 (1987), 5-16.

Bowie, Robert. "Nabokov's Inﬂuence on Gogol." Journal of Modern Literamre. 13
(1986), 251-66.

Brown, William Edward. "Gogol's Dead Souls and Selected Passages." In his A Histogi
of Russian Literature of the Rcmantic Period. Vol. 4, Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Ardis, 1986, 341-78.

. "Nikolai Gogol: Poem and Ukrainian Tales." In his A History of Russian
Literature of the Romantic Period. Vol. 4, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1986,
266-92.

. "Nikolai Gogol: St. Petersburg Stories and Comedies." In his A History of
Russian Literature of the Romantic Period. Vol. 4, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis,
1986, 293-340.

Busch, Robert L. "Gogol and the Russian Freneticist Cycle of the Early 18305." Canadian
Slavonic Papers, 22 (1980), 28-42.

. "Russian Freneticism." Canadian AmericJan Slavic Studies, 14 (1980), 269-83.

Cave, Richard Allen. Review of Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Trugenev. by Nick Worrall.
British Book News, (May 1983), 324-5.

Chizhevsky, Dmitry. "Gogol: Artist and Thinker. " In Dead Soals: The Reavey Translatioa,
Backgrounds and Sources. Essays in Criticism. Edited by George Gibian. New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 558-64.

197

Clardy, Jesse V. and Betty S. Clardy. "Gogol and Dostoevsky." In their The Superﬂuous
Man in Russian Letters. Washington, D. C.: University Press of America, 1980,
3 1-51.

Connolly, Julian W. "Boris Vakhtin's The Sheepskin Coat and Nikolai Gogol's Overcoat."
In Studies in Russian Literature in Honor of Vsevolod Setchkarev. Edited by
Julian W. Connolly and Sonia I. Ketchian. Columbia, Ohio: Slavica Publishers,
1986, 74-86.

Cooke, Olga Muller. "Gogol's Strasnaja mest’ and Belyj's Prose Fiction: The Role of
Karma. " Russian Langnage Journal. 43, nos. 145-146 (1989), 71-84.

Corbett, G. G. "A Note on Grammatical Agreement in Shinel." Slavonic and East
European Review, 59 (1981), 59-61.

Corliss, Frank J. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, by Donald Fanger. Criticism,
22 (Summer 1980), 286-7.

Cornelia, Elizabeth. "Speaking for not Spoken by: Contractual Representation in Balzac,
Austen, and Gogol." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley,
1988.

Cox, Gary Duane. "Geographic, Sociological, and Sexual Tensions in Gogol's Dikanka
Stories." Slavic and East European Journal, 24, no. 3 (Fall 1980), 219-32.

David, Hugh. Review of Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, by Nick Worrall. Times
Educational Supplement, (26 November 1982), 30.

Deutsch, Judith E. "The Cossack Hero in Russian Literature: Topoi and Change." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1985.

. "The Zaporozhian Cossacks of Nikolaj Gogol: An Approach to God and Man."
Russian Literature, 22, no. 3 (1987), 359-77.

Edmunds, Catherine J. "Pushkin and Gogol: As Sources for the Librettas of the Fantastic
Fairy Tale Operas of Rimskijkorsakov." Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University,
1985.

Ehre, Milton. Introduction to The Theater of Nikolay Gogol. Translated by Milton Ehre.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, ix-xxvi.

"Laughing Through the Apocalypse: The Comic Structure of Gogol's
Government Inspector." Russian Review, 39 (1980), 137-49.

Fanger, Donald Lee. "Dead Souls: The Mirror and the Road." In Dead Souls: The Reavey

Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 459-82.

198

. "Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievich." In Handbook of Russian Literature. Edited by
Victor T erras. New Haven, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1985, 174-7.

. Review of The Enigma of Gogol, by Richard Peace. Times Literm Supplement,
(4 June 1982), 621.

Finke, Michael. "Metapoesis in Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevskii and Chekhov." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Indiana University, 1989.

Frantz, Philip Edward. "A. A. Perovskij: Gentleman and Litterateur." Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1981.

Fusso, Susanne Grace. "Cicikov on Gogol: The Structure of Oppositions in Dead Souls. "
Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1984.

Gibian, George. ed. Dead Soyls: The Reavey Translation Backgrounds and Sources,
Essays in Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985.

Gippius, Vasilii V. Gogol. Edited and translated by Robert A. Maguire. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ardis, 1981.

. "An Introduction to Dead Souls." In Dead Soals: The Reavey Translation,

Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George Gibian. New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 489-517.

Grabowicz, George G. "Three Perspectives on the Cossack Past: Gogol, Shevchenko,
Kulish." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 5, no. 2 (1981), 171-94.

Graﬂ‘y, Julian. "Passion versus Habit in Old World Landowners." In Nikolay Gogol: Text
and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1989, 34-49.

Grayson, Jane, and Faith Wigzell. ed. Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1989.

Grayson, Jane. Introduction to Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson
and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989, xi-xiii.

Gregg, Richard. "The Curse of Sameness and the Gogolian Esthetic: The Tale of the Two
Ivans as Parable." Slavic and East European Journal, 31 (1987), 1-9.

. "An Inquiry into the Genealogical and Onomastic Origins of The Nose." Russian
Review, 40 (1981), 365-77.

 

Heldt, Barbara. "Dead Souls: Without Naming Names." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, 83-91.

199

Herzen, Alexander 1. "Diary Entries on Dead Souls." In Dead Souls: The Reavey

Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 458-9.

Hurych, Jitka. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, by Donald Fanger. Reprint
Bulletin Book Reviews, 25, no. 1 (1980), 21.

Jackson, Robert Louis. "Two Views of Gogol and the Critical Synthesis Belinskij,
Rozanov, and Doestoevskij: An Essay in Literary Historical Criticism." Mian
Literature, 15, no. 2 (1984), 223-42.

Johnson, C. A. Review of The Enigma of Gog]: An Examination of the Writing of N. V.
Gogol and Their Place in the Russian Litermy Tradition, by Richard A. Peace.
British Book News, (May 1982), 323.

 

Karlinsky, Simon. "Portrait of Gogol as a Word Glutton." In Dead Souls: The Remy

Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 546-58.

Karpuk, Paul Anton. "N. V. Gogol's Unﬁnished Historical Novel The Hetman." Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. 1987.

Karriker, Alexandra H. Review of @gol's Dead Sou__ls, by James B. Woodward. Russian
Langnage Journal, 36, nos. 123-4 (Winter/Spring 1982), 291.

 

Katz, Michael R. "Gogol's Mixed Vegetable Salad." In his Dreams and the Unconscious in
Nineteenth-Century Russian Fiction. Hanover, New Hampshire: University of New
England Press, 1984, 66-83.

Kent, Leonard Joseph. Introduction to The Complete Tales of Nikolai Gogal. Edited by
Leonard J. Kent. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1985, xiii-xxxix.

Keys, Roger. "The Unwelcome Tradition: Bely, Gogol and Metaﬁctional Narration." In
Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1989, 92-108.

Little, T. E. "Gogol and Romanticism." In Problems of Russian Romanticism. Edited by
Robert Reid. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company, 1986, 96-126.

Lotman, Iurii M. "Concerning Khlestakov." In The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History.
Edited by Alexander D. Nakhimovsky and Alice Stone Nakhimovsky. Translated
by Louisa Vinton. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1985, 150-87.

. "Gogol's Chlestakov: The Pragmatics of a Literary Character." In The Semiotics
of Russian Culture. Edited by Ann Shukman. Translated by Ruth Sobel. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Slavic Contributions, 1984, 177-212.

200

. "Gogol's Tale of Captain Kopejkin: Reconstruction of the Plan and Ideo-
Compositional Function." In The Semioticsmn‘ a Russian Culture. Edited by Ann
Shukman. Translated by Julian Graffy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Slavic
Contributions, 1984, 213-30.

 

. "The Problem of Artistic Space in Gogol's Prose. " In M Sou_ls: The Reavey
Translation, Backgrounds and Sourcesr Essays in Criticis_m_. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 577-83.

Maguire, Robert A. "The Forrnalists on Gogol." In Russian Formalist: A Retrospective
G_lance. A F estschrift in Honor of Victor Erlich. Edited by Robert Louis Jackson
and Stephen Rudy. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1985, 213-30.

. "Gogol's 'Confession' as a Fictional Structure." Ulbandus Review, 2 (1982), 175-
90.

. "The Legacy of Gogol Criticism." In Dead Soyls: The Reavey Translation,

Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George Gibian. New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 441-53.

Mann, Yuri. "On the Two Opposing Structural Principles of Dead Souls." In Dead Souls:
The Reavey Translating Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by
George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 482—9.

Markof-Belaeﬂ‘, Olga. "Dead Souls and the Picaresque Tradition: A Study in the
Deﬁnition of Genre." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley,
1982.

McLean, Hugh. "Gogol's Retreat ﬁom Love: Toward and Interpretation of Mirgorod. " In
Russian Literatureﬁand Psychoanalysis. Edited by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989, 101-22.

. Review of Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and
Wigzell Faith. S_lavic and East European Joumm, 33, no. 3 (1989), 453-4.

Mersereau, John Jr. "Gogol's Dead Souls. " In his Russian Romantic Fiction. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ardis, 1983, 319-23.

. "Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka." In his Russian Romantic Fiction.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1983, 163-73.

. "Gogol's Mirgorod and Petersburg Tales." In his Russian Romantic Fiction. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1983, 247-65.

. "Gogol's Overcoat. " In his Russian Romantic Fiction. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Ardis, 1983, 301-6.

201

Milne, Lesley. "Gogol and Mikhail Bulgakov." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context.
Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989,
109-26.

Nabokov, Vladimir. "Nikolay Gogol: Dead Souls and The Overcoat." In Vladimir
Nabokov: Lectures on Russian Literature. Edited by Fredson Bowers. New York:
Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1981, 15-62.

. "Our Mr. Chichikov." In Dead Souls: The Reavey Translation, Backgrounds and
Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton
and Company, 1985, 531-41.

Nebolsine, Arcadi. "Gogol and Poshlost: Some Question," In Studies in Slavic Literatures
and Culture in Honor of Zoya Yurieff. Edited by Munir Sendich. East Lansing,
Michigan: Russian Language Journal, 1988, 225-30.

Peace, Richard Arthur. The Enigma of Gogol: An Examination of the Writings of N. V.
Gogol and Their Place in the Russian Literary Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981.

. "Gogol: The Greatcoat (1842)." In The Voice of A Giant. Edited by Roger
Cockrell and David Richards. Great Britain: A. Wheaton and Company, 1985, 27-
40.

. Introduction to The Enigma of Gogol, by Richard Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981, 1—27.

. "The Mirror-World of Gogol's Early Stories." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, 19-33.

. Review of Gogol, by Vasilii V. Gippius. Edited and translated by Robert A.
Maguire. Times Literam Supplement, ( 18 December 1981), 1470.

Pearson, I. "Raphael as Seen by Russian Writers from Zhukovsky to Turgenev." Slavonic
and East European Review, 59 (1981), 354—8.

 

Peppard, Victor. "Gogolian Substrata in Zhizn' i Neobychajnye Prekljuchenija Soldata
Ivana Chonkina." Russian Langnage Journal, 131 ( 1984), 131-8.

Pomorska, Krystyna. "On the Problem of Parallelism in Gogol's Prose: A Tale of the Two
Ivans." In The Structural Analysis of Narrative Text: Conference Papers. Edited by
Andrej Kodjka, Michael J. Connolly, and Krystyna Pomorska. Columbia, Ohio:
Slavica Publisher, 1980, 31-43.

202

Ponomareff, Constantin V. "Gogol and Lermontov: Two Russian Demons." In his On the
Dark Side of Russian Literature: 1709-1910. New York: Peter Lang, 1987, 95-
116.

Popkin, Cathy Lynn. "The Pragmatics of Insigniﬁcance." Ph. D. Dissertation, Stanford
University, 1985.

Proffer, Carl Ray. Introduction to Arabesques. Translated by Alexander Tulloch. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1982, 6-10.

Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. "All the World's a Vertep: The Personiﬁcation
/Depersoniﬁcation Complex in Gogol's Sorochinskaja Jarmarka." Harvard
Ukrainian Studies, 6, no. 3 (1982), 339-71.

. Out from Under Gogol's Overcoat: A Psychoanalyric Study. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ardis, 1982.

Rowe, W. W. "Gogolesque Perception-Expanding Reversals in Nabokov." In his Patterns
in Russian Literature H: Notes on Classics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1988,
1 14-24.

. "Gogol's Phonetic Emphasis." In his Patterns in Russian Literature H: Notes on
Classics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1988, 104-13.

. "On Black Humor in Gogol and Nabokov.” In his Patterns in Russian Literature
II: Notes on Classics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1988, 125-33.

Saunders, D. B. "Contemporary Critics of Gogol's Vechera and the Debate about Russian
Narodnost (1831-1832)." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 5, no. 1 (1981), 66-82.

Shapiro, Gavriel. "The Hussar: A Few Observations on Gogol's Characters and Their
Vertep Prototype." Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 9 (1985), 133-8.

. "N. V. Gogol and the Baroque." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1984.

Shklovsky, Victor. "The Literary Genre of Dead Souls. " In Dead Souls: The Reavey

Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by George
Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 564-9.

Shukman, Ann. "Gogol's the Nose or the Devil in the Works." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, 64-82.

Simmons, Ernest J. "Gogol, Nikolai." In Collier's Encyclopedia. Vol. 11, New York:
Macmillan Educational Co., 1988, 195-7.

203

Sobel, Ruth. Gogol's Forgotten Book: Selected Passages and Its Contemporary Readers.
Washington D. 0: University Press of America, 1981.

. Introduction to Gogol's Forgotten Book, by Ruth Sobel. Washington D. C.:
University Press of America, 1981, 1-12.

Sosa, Michael. "Gogol's ﬁ'om the 19205: Tynjanov's Scenario for Shinel." Slavic and East
European Journal, 30 (1986), 553-8.

Spitzer, Catherine Anne. "The Image of the City in the Novels of Gogol, Dostoevsky and
Bely." Ph. D. Dissertation, McGill University, 1982.

Stableford, Tom. "N. V. Gogol." In his The Literary Appreciation of Russian Writers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 10-6.

Stephen, Halina. "Tynjanov's Film Theory in Practice: Tynjanov's Film of Gogol's
Overcoat." In Purdue Universigi Fifth Annual Conference on Film. Oct. 30-Nov. 1
L80. Edited by Maud Walther. West Lafayette, Indiana: Department of Foreign
Languages and Literatures, Purdue University, 1980, 193-9.

Stevenson, Joan Nabseth. "Literary and Cultural Patterns in Gogol's Arabeski." Ph. D.
Dissertation, Stanford University, 1984.

Stromecky, Ostap. "Gogol's Reverse Symbolism." Ukrainian Quarterly, 38, no. 2 (1982),
151-63.

Terras, Victor. "The Russian Short Story 1830—1850: Gogol as the Early Master." In T_he
Russian Short Story: A Critical Histom. Edited by Charles A. Moser. Boston,
Massachusetts: Twayne Publishers, 1986, 21-8.

Todd, William Mills 111. "Dead Souls: Charmed by a Phrase." In his Fiction and Socie’ry in
the Aga of Pushkin: Ideology, Institutions, and Narrative. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986, 164-206.

Toomre, Joice S. Review of The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, by Donald Fanger. Librmy
Journal, 105 (15 January 1980), 205.

Trott, Liz. "Diary of a Madman: the Hidden Absurd." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and
Context. Edited by Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1989, 50-63.

Tulloch, Alexander. Introduction to Arabesques. Translated by Alexander Tulloch. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1982, 11-20.

Vasilaky, Ludmilla Jakowenko. "Irony as Device in Gogol's Short Stories." Ph. D.
Dissertation, New York University, 1983.

204

Vinogradov, V. V. Gogol and the Natural School. Translated by Debra K. Erickson and
Ray Parrott. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1987.

Weiss, Robert Mark. "The Hidden World of Gogol: A Study ‘of the Irrational in Dead
Souls." Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1985.

Wigzell, Faith. "Gogol and Vaudeville." In Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context. Edited by
Jane Grayson and Faith Wigzell. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989, 1-18.

Wilson, Edmund. "Gogol: The Demon in the Overgrown Garden." In Dead Souls: The

Reavey Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Essays in Criticism. Edited by
George Gibian. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1985, 542-6.

Wilson, Reuel K. "A Marvelous Hangout or Dead Souls Revisited." World Literature
Today, 54 (1980), 376-81.

Woodward, James B. Preface to The Symbolic Art of Gogol: Essays on His Short Fiction,
by James B. Woodward. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1981, 5-6.

. The Smbolic Art of Gogol: Essays on His Short Fiction. Columbus, Ohio:
Slavica Publishers, 1982.

 

Woodward, S. "Pro-Creative Disorder in Gogolian Fiction." Russian Literature, 26
( 1989), 297-303.

Worrall, Nick. Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev. London: Macmillan Press, 1982.

Yelistratova, Anna. Nikolai Gogol and the West European Novel. Moscow: Raduga
Publishers, 1984.

1990-1991

Aksakov, Konstantin. "A Few words on Gogol's Poem Chichikov’s Adventures or Dead
Souls." Translated by Ruth Sobel. Russian Literature Triguarterly, 23 (1990), 253-
62.

Frank, Joseph. "From Gogol to the Gulag." In his Through the Russian Prism: Essays on
Literature and Culture. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990,
89-91.

Galperina, Inna. "Critical Relativism: Gogol's Marriage, a Multifaceted Play or Playing in
a Play. " Russian Literature, 28, no. 2 (1990), 155-74.

Goodliffe, John. Review of Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context, by Jane Grayson and Faith
Wigzell. New Zealand Slavonic Journal, 14 (1991), 178-80.

205

Karpuk, Paul A. "Reconciling Chronological Inconsistencies in Gogol's Taras Bulba."
Russian Langnage Journal, 45, nos.151-152 (1991), 93-110.

Kopper, John. Review of Nikolay Gogol: Text and Context, by Jane Grayson and Wigzell
Faith. Russian Review, 49 (April 1990), 212-4.

Lotman, Yury. "Artistic Space in Gogol's Prose." Russian Literature Triguarterly, 23
(1990), 199-241.

Maguire, Robert A. "Gogol and the Legacy of Pseudo-Dionysius." In Russianness: Studies
on a Nation's Identigr. Edited by Robert L. Belknap. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis,
1990, 44-55.

Meyer, Ronald. Introduction to Hanz Kuechelgarten, Leaving the Theater and Other
Works. Edited by Ronald Meyer. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ardis, 1990, 9-15.

 

Sicher, Eﬁ'aim. "Dialogization and Laughter in the Dark, or How Gogol's Nose Was
Made: Parody and Literary Evolution in Bachtins Theory of the Novel." Russian
Literature, 28, no. 2 (1990), 211-33.

Sobel, Ruth. "K. Aksakov's Essay on Gogol's Dead Souls: A Short Evaluation." Russian
Literature Triguarterly, 23 (1990), 263-8.

Terras, Victor. "Gogol." In his A History of Russian Literature. New Haven,
Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1991, 254-63.

Terras, Victor. "Gogol's Theater." In his A Histogr of Russian Literature. New Haven,
Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1991, 277-80.

Toumanoff, Susan. "Aﬁerword to Yury Lotman's Artistic Space in Gogol's Prose.
Russian Literature Triguarterly, 23 (1990), 243-51.

Waddington, Patrick. Review of Gogol: A Bibliography. Compiled and edited by Philip E.
Frantz. New Zealand Slavonic Journal, 14 (1991), 227-9.

 

 

 

 

 

4.1.“ r
a..- - no.4.”
244.127.11.9—
.V‘J.

; .

l’lICHIGQN STQTE UNI

- . '. .l
'....l_:;..:‘ r. J” .. .. - ' '. v . '
a“) ' ' -.r T ' ‘ - I‘ -—-— - ~ A
.4 . ,._. 4 y ,_ . .1... .' , . . .r r - .
- - . _. , .5 , _ . '_ j
.-...u - 1-. . .1 1. '11. -. 1 . -. .
...1. ﬂow". _ _ ,. - .3 . . u ...1... _ . .
..-» -3 - . - . . . .. . j
.3 1. . ,._- r . _ ,. . a .z. . .' ., . .4
.-.... : r ... .- : “r . .... v.34 . V.
"... six. ‘ _ . .‘ o . » » ._. j . ,
-......,’.::... . .. 2 -5 p .. .. ' ‘_ .
12.3. -1- * ~ '1, . .. 1 . - . . . *:- ,. . . » . - .
n ‘ I" 7’ I . — . ‘1 v - l _ r’ . ‘ . ' ' _' . . .
. 1' ». "... ' , ., _ . . . . _
J . . _ l , .
1. . , 1 , .
..

 

 

 

r
1-.-1 - 'r‘y,
.-- 11; ~25!

-1>1-'y1~1~-5 .
rrl'y'l'll'i'lt - gt.
.1 ..., . ..,.

m-rv .-
wi‘rl'V'vrr'rr'rw‘ Mfrs“!

.m':r‘:;"1'l"r""‘" I1
. on m “Sax—rYr-u-rr _~r
Wrs'rrr
r1 n—wr, 1
.- 1_ .
1- _ ‘13-»..— n 7.1-1, ' I» . ,. '1' t1
. 3.. .,
w .. ...-1 :‘I‘rn‘ ml J’r‘i' f; w >11~ I'1-1- .-
"3».- .w 1;‘r';‘-r-1—y1—. r.-d¢;l.‘-'-;-1;:;yr-wur- mus-n.” :g-WP-rw v“ “'rr “I"
n m,- ",1..- .r .121 .1 I 1- > ._
I "‘ l "I ' . . . . ,
* ' I

Elgar.
!

r 11
1 - . t 1 «
' v-ii-‘rn'rrlr-E ..- L‘ 1.”.
nr’r'nvv- rwu- m-m- -1 or:
.,,,_,.,. ,. ., .. j. v . . ., ,. ,
~r rrrv‘ rr‘r'r . - .1. r
1“,, » T I", Lira-WE, "I“. r '1 mew -.-v ...:z'r I: . ’= . .
m. 1, 7'er -r #7 . . 1.» , . .» .111 .-
mhrﬁngzx...'.:.7.cn. r u I,~;v.r.rzi- fr}, 1 ... . . ~ 3...,
"W I 1 f1; 1 g-
"' "‘ 1 1 1‘1.

1

u r
r17 _ ‘
“""V' I ll" I")? . . ,vr... "LUV; .L; I'..,’,I
rv‘l‘ 1'11: r vku v

frvu'f :1:er "7
"1-1 c L“ -.,I.1- ' .Ir.
{:3 1:1:"11‘ m-l'r- .- r uh- r“, , :..... «En-1V...“ 14
mm ”111-“'3 ' I'I‘gw 1"” {Wm-1.11 'vv'I'
Wrr n- . wr .ua" - -- -~- « 1“ n
., Jin‘q' . .mpr N. . rr' ~11. :
v ~ .- ”. *v'rr 1 ’r