GOGOL AND THE CHEERFULNESS OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE
The first thing that strikes the English reader when he dips into
translations of Russian literature, is the unrelieved gloom, the
unmitigated pessimism of the characters and the circumstances
described. Everything is grey, everybody is depressed; the atmosphere
is one of hopeless melancholy. On the other hand, the first thing that
strikes the English traveller when he arrives in Russia for the first
time, is the cheerfulness of the Russian people. Nowhere have I seen
this better described than in an article, written by Mr. Charles Hands,
which appeared in the summer of 1905 in _The Daily Mail_. Mr. Hands
summed up his idea of the Russian people, which he had gathered after
living with them for two years, both in peace and in war, in a short
article. His final impression was the same as that which he received on
the day he arrived in Russia for the first time. That was in winter;
it was snowing; the cold was intense. The streets of St. Petersburg
were full of people, and in spite of the driving snow, the bitter wind,
and the cruel cold, everybody was smiling, everybody was making the
best of it. Nowhere did you hear people grumbling, or come across a
face stamped with a grievance.
I myself experienced an impression of the same kind, one evening in
July 1906. I was strolling about the streets of St. Petersburg. It was
the Sunday of the dissolution of the Duma; the dissolution had been
announced that very morning. The streets were crowded with people,
mostly poor people. I was walking with an Englishman who had spent some
years in Russia, and he said to me: “It is all very well to talk of
the calamities of this country. Have you ever in your life seen a more
cheerful Sunday crowd?” I certainly had not.
The Russian character has an element of happy consent and submission
to the inevitable; of adapting itself to any circumstance, however
disagreeable, which I have never come across in any other country. The
Russians have a faculty of making the best of things which I have never
seen developed in so high a degree. I remember once in Manchuria during
the war, some soldiers, who were under the command of a sergeant,
preparing early one morning, just before the battle of Ta-Shi-Chiao,
to make some tea. Suddenly a man in command said there would not be
time to have tea. The men simply said, “To-day no tea will be drunk,”
with a smile; it did not occur to any one to complain, and they put
away the kettle, which was just on the boil, and drove away in a cart.
I witnessed this kind of incident over and over again. I remember one
night at a place called Lonely Tree Hill. I was with a battery. We
had just arrived, and there were no quarters. We generally lived in
Chinese houses, but on this occasion there were none to be found. We
encamped on the side of a hill. There was no shelter, no food, and
no fire, and presently it began to rain. The Cossacks, of whom the
battery was composed, made a kind of shelter out of what straw and
millet they could find, and settled themselves down as comfortably and
as cheerfully as if they had been in barracks. They accomplished the
difficult task of making themselves comfortable out of nothing, and of
making me comfortable also.
Besides this power of making the best of things, the Russians have a
keen sense of humour. The clowns in their circuses are inimitable. A
type you frequently meet in Russia is the man who tells stories and
anecdotes which are distinguished by simplicity and by a knack of just
seizing on the ludicrous side of some trivial episode or conversation.
Their humour is not unlike English humour in kind, and this explains
the wide popularity of our humorous writers in Russia, beginning with
Dickens, including such essentially English writers as W. W. Jacobs
and the author of _The Diary of a Nobody_, and ending with Jerome K.
Jerome, whose complete works can be obtained at any Russian railway
station.[5]
All these elements are fully represented in Russian literature; but
the kind of Russian literature which is saturated with these qualities
either does not reach us at all, or reaches us in scarce and inadequate
translations.
The greatest humorist of Russian literature, the Russian Dickens,
is Nikolai Vasilievitch Gogol. Translations of some of his stories
and of his longest work, _Dead Souls_, were published in 1887 by Mr.
Vizetelly. These translations are now out of print, and the work of
Gogol may be said to be totally unknown in England. In France some
of his stories have been translated by no less a writer than Prosper
Mérimée.
Gogol was a Little Russian, a Cossack by birth; he belonged to the
Ukraine, that is to say, the frontier country, the district which lies
between the north and the extreme south. It is a country of immense
plains, rich harvests, and smiling farms; of vines, laughter, and song.
He was born in 1809 near Poltava, in the heart of the Cossack country.
He was brought up by his grandfather, who had been the regimental
chronicler of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, who live in the region
beyond the falls of the Dnieper. His childhood was nursed in the warlike
traditions of that race, and fed with the tales of a heroic epoch, the
wars against Poland and the deeds of the dwellers of the Steppes. Later
he was sent to school, and in 1829, when he was twenty years old, he
went to St. Petersburg, where after many disillusions and difficulties
he obtained a place in a Government office. The time that he spent
in this office gave him the material for one of his best stories.
He soon tired of office work, and tried to go on the stage, but no
manager would engage him. He became a tutor, but was not a particularly
successful one. At last some friends obtained for him the professorship
of History at the University, but he failed in this profession also,
and so he finally turned to literature. By the publication of his first
efforts in the St. Petersburg press, he made some friends, and through
these he obtained an introduction to Pushkin, the greatest of Russian
poets, who was at that time in the fullness of his fame.
Pushkin was a character devoid of envy and jealousy, overflowing with
generosity, and prodigal of praise. Gogol subsequently became his
favourite writer, and it was Pushkin who urged Gogol to write about
Russian history and popular Russian scenes. Gogol followed his advice
and wrote the _Evenings in a Farmhouse on the Dikanka_. These stories
are supposed to be told by an old beekeeper; and in them Gogol puts
all the memories of his childhood, the romantic traditions, the fairy
tales, the legends, the charming scenery, and the cheerful life of the
Little Russian country.
In these stories he revealed the twofold nature of his talent: a
fantasy, a love of the supernatural, and a power of making us feel it,
which reminds one of Edgar Allan Poe, of Hoffmann, and of Robert Louis
Stevenson; and side by side with this fantastic element, the keenest
power of observation, which is mixed with an infectious sense of humour
and a rich and delightful drollery. Together with these gifts, Gogol
possessed a third quality, which is a blend of his fantasy and his
realism, namely, the power of depicting landscape and places, with
their colour and their atmosphere, in warm and vivid language. It is
this latter gift with which I shall deal first. Here, for instance, is
a description of the river Dnieper:
“Wonderful is the Dnieper when in calm weather, smooth and wilful,
it drives its full waters through the woods and the hills; it does
not whisper, it does not boom. One gazes and gazes without being able
to tell whether its majestic spaces are moving or not: one wonders
whether the river is not a sheet of glass, when like a road of crystal
azure, measureless in its breadth and unending in its length, it
rushes and swirls across the green world. It is then that the sun
loves to look down from the sky and to plunge his rays into the cool
limpid waters; and the woods which grow on the banks are sharply
reflected in the river.
“The green-tressed trees and the wild flowers crowd together at the
water’s edge; they bend down and gaze at themselves; they are never
tired of their own bright image, but smile to it and greet it, as
they incline their boughs. They dare not look into the midst of the
Dnieper; no one save the sun and the blue sky looks into that. It is
rare that a bird flies as far as the midmost waters. Glorious river,
there is none other like it in the world!
“Wonderful is the Dnieper in the warm summer nights when all things
are asleep: men and beasts and birds, and God alone in His majesty
looks round on the heaven and the earth and royally spreads out His
sacerdotal vestment and lets it tremble. And from this vestment the
stars are scattered: the stars burn and shine over the world, and all
are reflected in the Dnieper. The Dnieper receives them all into
its dark bosom: not one escapes it. The dark wood with its sleeping
ravens, and the old rugged mountains above them, try to hide the river
with their long dark shadows, but it is in vain: there is nothing in
all the world which could overshadow the Dnieper! Blue, infinitely
blue, its smooth surface is always moving by night and by day, and is
visible in the distance as far as mortal eye can see. It draws near
and nestles in the banks in the cool of the night, and leaves behind
it a silver trail, that gleams like the blade of a sword of Damascus.
But the blue river is once more asleep. Wonderful is the Dnieper then,
and there is nothing like it in the world!
“But when the dark clouds gather in the sky, and the black wood is
shaken to its roots, the oak trees tremble, and the lightnings,
bursting in the clouds, light up the whole world again, terrible then
is the Dnieper. The crests of the waters thunder, dashing themselves
against the hills; fiery with lightning, and loud with many a moan,
they retreat and dissolve and overflow in tears in the distance. Just
in such a way does the aged mother of the Cossack weep when she goes
to say good-bye to her son, who is off to the wars. He rides off,
wanton, debonair, and full of spirit; he rides on his black horse with
his elbows well out at the side, and he waves his cap. And his mother
sobs and runs after him; she clutches hold of his stirrup, seizes the
snaffle, throws her arms round her son, and weeps bitterly.”
Another characteristic description of Gogol’s is the picture he gives
us of the Steppes:
“The farther they went, the more beautiful the Steppes became. At that
time the whole of the country which is now Lower New Russia, reaching
as far as the Black Sea, was a vast green wilderness. Never a plough
had passed over its measureless waves of wild grass. Only the horses,
which were hidden in it as though in a wood, trampled it down. Nothing
in Nature could be more beautiful than this grass. The whole of the
surface of the earth was like a gold and green sea, on which millions
of flowers of different colours were sprinkled. Through the high and
delicate stems of grass the cornflowers twinkled--light blue, dark
blue, and lilac. The yellow broom pushed upward its pointed crests;
the white milfoil, with its flowers like fairy umbrellas, dappled the
surface of the grass; an ear of wheat, which had come Heaven knows
whence, was ripening.
“At the roots of the flowers and the grass, partridges were running
about everywhere, thrusting out their necks. The air was full of a
thousand different bird-notes. Hawks hovered motionless in the sky,
spreading out their wings, and fixing their eyes on the grass. The cry
of a flock of wild geese was echoed in I know not what far-off lake. A
gull rose from the grass in measured flight, and bathed wantonly in
the blue air; now she has vanished in the distance, and only a black
spot twinkles; and now she wheels in the air and glistens in the sun.”
Of course, descriptions such as these lose all their beauty in
a translation, for Gogol’s language is rich and native; full of
diminutives and racial idiom, nervous and highly-coloured. To translate
it into English is like translating Rabelais into English. I have given
these two examples more to show the nature of the thing he describes
than the manner in which he describes it.
Throughout this first collection of stories there is a blend of broad
farce and poetical fancy; we are introduced to the humours of the fair,
the adventures of sacristans with the devil and other apparitions; to
the Russalka, a naiad, a kind of land-mermaid, or Loreley, which haunts
the woods and the lakes. And every one of these stories smells of the
South Russian soil, and is overflowing with sunshine, good-humour, and
a mellow charm. This side of Russian life is not only wholly unknown
in Europe, but it is not even suspected. The picture most people have
in their minds of Russia is a place of grey skies and bleak monotonous
landscape, weighed down by an implacable climate. These things exist,
but there is another side as well, and it is this other side that
Gogol tells of in his early stories. We are told much about the
Russian winter, but who ever thinks of the Russian spring? And there
is nothing more beautiful in the world, even in the north and centre
of Russia, than the abrupt and sudden invasion of springtime which
comes shortly after the melting snows, when the woods are carpeted with
lilies-of-the-valley, and the green of the birch trees almost hurts the
eye with its brilliance.
Nor are we told much about the Russian summer, with its wonderful warm
nights, nor of the pageant of the plains when they become a rippling
sea of golden corn. If the spring and the summer are striking in
northern and central Russia, much more is this so in the south, where
the whole character of the country is as cheerful and smiling as
that of Devonshire or Normandy. The farms are whitewashed and clean;
sometimes they are painted light blue or pink; vines grow on the walls;
there is an atmosphere of sunshine and laziness everywhere, accompanied
by much dancing and song.
Once when I was in St. Petersburg I was talking to a peasant member of
the Duma who came from the south. After he had declaimed for nearly
twenty minutes on the terrible condition of the peasants in the
country, their needs, their wants, their misery, their ignorance, he
added thoughtfully: “All the same we have great fun in our village;
you ought to come and stay there. There is no such life in the world!”
The sunshine and laughter of the south of Russia rise before us
from every page of these stories of Gogol. Here, for instance, is a
description of a summer’s day in Little Russia, the day of a fair:
“How intoxicating, how rich, is a summer’s day in Little Russia! How
overwhelmingly hot are those hours of noonday silence and haze! Like
a boundless azure sea, the dome of the sky, bending as though with
passion over the world, seems to have fallen asleep, all drowned in
softness, and clasps and caresses the beautiful earth with a celestial
embrace. There is no cloud in the sky; and the stream is silent.
Everything is as if it were dead; only aloft in the deeps of the sky
a lark quivers, and its silvery song echoes down the vault of heaven,
and reaches the lovesick earth. And from time to time the cry of the
seagull or the clear call of the quail is heard in the plain.
“Lazily and thoughtlessly, as though they were idling vaguely,
stand the shady oaks; and the blinding rays of the sun light up the
picturesque masses of foliage, while the rest of the tree is in a
shadow dark as night, and only when the wind rises, a flash of gold
trembles across it.
“Like emeralds, topazes and amethysts, the diaphanous insects flutter
in the many-coloured fruit gardens, which are shaded by stately
sun-flowers. Grey haycocks and golden sheaves of corn stand in rows
along the field like hillocks on the immense expanse. Broad boughs
bend under their load of cherries, plums, apples, and pears. The sky
is the transparent mirror of the day, and so is the river, with its
high green frame of trees.... How luscious and how soft is the summer
in Little Russia!
“It was just such a hot day in August 18--, when the road, ten versts
from the little town of Sorochinetz, was seething with people hurrying
from all the farms, far and near, to the fair. With the break of day
an endless chain of waggons laboured along, carrying salt and fish.
Mountains of pots wrapped in hay moved slowly on as if they were
weary of being cut off from the sunshine. Only here and there some
brightly-painted soup tureen or earthenware saucepan proudly emerged
on the tilt of the high-heaped waggon, and attracted the eyes of
lovers of finery; many passers-by looked with envy on the tall potter,
the owner of all these treasures, who with slow steps walked beside
his goods.”
Why are we never told of these azure Russian days, of these laden
fruit-trees and jewelled insects?
In 1832, Gogol published a continuation of this series, entitled
_Stories of Mirgorod_. This collection contains the masterpieces of
the romantic, and the fantastic side of Gogol’s genius. His highest
effort in the romantic province is the historical history of _Taras
Bulba_, which is a prose epic. It is the tale of an old Cossack
chieftain whose two sons, Ostap and Andrii, are brought up in the
Zaporozhian settlement of the Cossacks, and trained as warriors to
fight the Poles. They lay siege to the Polish city of Dubno, and starve
the city. Andrii, the younger son, discovers that a girl whom he had
loved at Kiev, before his Cossack training, is shut up in the city. The
girl’s servant leads him into Dubno by an underground passage. Andrii
meets his lady-love and abandons the Cossack cause, saying that his
fatherland and his country is there where his heart is.
In the meantime the Polish troops arrive, reinforce the beleagured
garrison; Andrii is for ever lost to Cossack chivalry, and his country
and his father’s house shall know him no more. News then comes that in
the absence of the Cossacks from their camp in the Ukraine, the Tartars
have plundered it. So they send half their army to defend it, while
half of it remains in front of the besieged city. The Poles attack the
Cossacks who are left.
There is a terrific battle, in which Andrii fights against the
Cossacks. He is taken prisoner by his own father, who bids him
dismount. He dismounts obediently, and his father addresses him thus:
“I begot you, and now I shall kill you.” And he shoots him dead.
Immediately after this incident Taras Bulba and his elder son, Ostap,
are attacked by the enemy. Ostap, after inflicting deadly losses on
the enemy, is separated from his father,--who falls in a swoon, and
owing to this escapes,--and taken prisoner. Ostap is taken to the city
and tortured to death. In the extremity of his torment, after having
endured the long agonies without a groan, he cries out: “Father, do you
hear me?” And from the crowd a terrible voice is heard answering: “I
hear!” Later, Taras raises an army of Cossacks to avenge the death of
his son, and lays waste the country; but at the end he is caught and
put to death by the Poles.
This story is told with epic breadth and simplicity; the figure of the
old warrior is Homeric, and Homeric also is the character of the young
traitor Andrii, who, although he betrays his own people, never loses
sympathy, so strong is the impression you receive of his brilliance,
his dash, and his courage.
In the domain of fantasy, Gogol’s masterpiece is to be found in this
same collection. It is called _Viy_. It is the story of a beautiful
lady who is a witch. She casts her spell on a student in theology, and
when she dies, her dying will is that he shall spend three nights
in reading prayers over her body, in the church where her coffin
lies. During his watch on the first night, the dead maiden rises from
her coffin, and watches him with glassy, opaque eyes. He hears the
flapping of the wings of innumerable birds, and in the morning is found
half dead from terror. He attempts to avoid the ordeal on the second
night, but the girl’s father, an old Cossack, forces him to carry out
his daughter’s behest, and three nights are spent by the student in
terrible conflict with the witch. On the third night he dies. The great
quality of this story is the atmosphere of overmastering terror that it
creates.
With these two stories, _Taras Bulba_ and _Viy_, Gogol took leave
of Romanticism and Fantasy, and started on the path of Realism. In
this province he was what the Germans call a _bahnbrecher_, and he
discovered a new kingdom. It may be noticed that Gogol, roughly
speaking, began where Dickens ended; that is to say, he wrote his
_Tale of Two Cities_ first, and his _Pickwick_ last. But already
in this collection of Mirgorod tales there are two stories in the
humorous realistic vein, which Gogol never excelled; one is called
_Old-fashioned Landowners_, and the other _How Ivan Ivanovitch
quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovitch_.
_Old-fashioned Landowners_ is a simple story. It is about an old
couple who lived in a low-roofed little house, with a verandah of
blackened tree-trunks, in the midst of a garden of dwarfed fruit-trees
covered with cherries and plums. The couple, Athanasii Ivanovitch and
his wife Pulcheria Ivanovna, are old. He is sixty, she is fifty-five.
It is the story of Philemon and Baucis. Nothing happens in it, except
that we are introduced to these charming, kind, and hospitable people;
that Pulcheria dies, and that after her death everything in the house
becomes untidy and slovenly, because Athanasii cannot live without
her; and after five years he follows her to the grave, and is buried
beside her. There is nothing in the story, and there is everything. It
is amusing, charming, and infinitely pathetic. Some of the touches of
description remind one strongly of Dickens. Here, for instance, is a
description of the doors of the house where the old couple lived:
“The most remarkable thing about the house was the creaking of the
doors. As soon as day broke, the singing of these doors was heard
throughout the whole house. I cannot say why they made the noise:
either it was the rusty hinges, or else the workman who made them
hid some secret in them; but the remarkable thing was that each door
had its own special note. The door going into the bedroom sang in a
delicate treble; the door going into the dining-room had a hoarse
bass note; but that which led into the front hall made a strange
trembling, groaning noise, so that if you listened to it intently you
heard it distinctly saying, ‘Batiushka, I am so cold!’”
The story of the two Ivans is irresistibly funny. The two Ivans were
neighbours; one of them was a widower and the other a bachelor. They
were the greatest friends. Never a day passed without their seeing each
other, and their greatest pleasure was to entertain each other at big,
Dickens-like meals. But one day they quarrelled about a gun, and Ivan
Nikiforovitch called Ivan Ivanovitch a goose. After this they would not
see each other, and their relations were broken off. Hitherto, Ivan
Nikiforovitch and Ivan Ivanovitch had sent every day to inquire about
each other’s health, had conversed together from their balconies, and
had said charming things to each other. On Sundays they had gone to
church arm in arm, and outdone each other in mutual civilities; but now
they would not look at each other.
At length the quarrel went so far that Ivan Ivanovitch lodged a
complaint against Ivan Nikiforovitch, saying that the latter had
inflicted a deadly insult on his personal honour, firstly by calling
him a goose, secondly by building a goose-shed opposite his porch,
and thirdly by cherishing a design to burn his house down. Ivan
Nikiforovitch lodged a similar petition against Ivan Ivanovitch.
As bad luck would have it, Ivan Ivanovitch’s brown sow ate Ivan
Nikiforovitch’s petition, and this, of course, made the quarrel worse.
At last a common friend of the pair attempts to bring about a
reconciliation, and asks the two enemies to dinner. After much
persuasion they consent to meet. They go to the dinner, where a large
company is assembled; both Ivans eat their meal without glancing at
each other, and as soon as the dinner is over they rise from their
seats and make ready to go. At this moment they are surrounded on all
sides, and are adjured by the company to forget their quarrel. Each
says that he was innocent of any evil design, and the reconciliation is
within an ace of being effected when, unfortunately, Ivan Nikiforovitch
says to Ivan Ivanovitch: “Permit me to observe, in a friendly manner,
that you took offence because I called you a goose.” As soon as the
fatal word “goose” is uttered, all reconciliation is out of the
question, and the quarrel continues to the end of their lives.
In 1835, Gogol retired definitely from the public service. At this
point of his career he wrote a number of stories and comedies, of a
varied nature, which he collected later in two volumes, _Arabesques_,
1834, and _Tales_, 1836. It was the dawn of his realistic phase,
although he still indulged from time to time in the fantastic, as in
the grotesque stories, _The Nose_--the tale of a nose which gets lost
and wanders about--and _The Coach_. But the most remarkable of these
stories is _The Overcoat_, which is the highest example of Gogol’s
pathos, and contains in embryo all the qualities of vivid realism which
he was to develop later. It is the story of a clerk who has a passion
for copying, and to whom caligraphy is a fine art. He is never warm
enough; he is always shivering. The ambition, the dream of his life, is
to have a warm overcoat. After years of privation he saves up the sum
necessary to realise his dream and buy a new overcoat; but on the first
day that he wears it, the coat is stolen from him.
The police, to whom he applies after the theft, laugh at him, and the
clerk falls into a black melancholy. He dies unnoticed and obscure, and
his ghost haunts the squalid streets where he was wont to walk.
Nearly half of modern Russian literature descends directly from this
story. The figure of this clerk and the way he is treated by the author
is the first portrait of an endless gallery of the failures of this
world, the flotsam and jetsam of a social system: grotesque figures,
comic, pathetic, with a touch of tragedy in them, which, since they
are handled by their creator with a kindly sympathy, and never with
cruelty or disdain, win our sympathy and live in our hearts and our
affections.
During this same period Gogol wrote several plays, among which the
masterpiece is _The Inspector_. This play, which is still immensely
popular in Russia, and draws crowded houses on Sundays and holidays,
is a good-humoured, scathing satire on the Russian Bureaucracy. As
a translation of this play is easily to be obtained, and as it has
been performed in London by the Stage Society, I need not dwell on
it here, except to mention for those who are unacquainted with it,
that the subject of the play is a misunderstanding which arises from
a traveller being mistaken for a government inspector who is expected
to arrive incognito in a provincial town. A European critic in reading
or seeing this play is sometimes surprised and unreasonably struck
by the universal dishonesty of almost every single character in the
play. For instance, one of the characters says to another: “You are
stealing above your rank.” One should remember, however, that in a
translation it is impossible not to lose something of the good-humour
and the comic spirit of which the play is full. It has often been a
matter of surprise that this play, at the time when Gogol wrote it,
should have been passed by the censorship. The reason of this is that
Gogol had for censor the Emperor of Russia himself, who read the play,
was extremely amused by it, commanded its immediate performance, was
present at the first night, and led the applause.
Hlestakov, the hero of _The Inspector_, is one of the most natural
and magnificent liars in literature. Gogol himself, in his stage
directions, describes him as a man “without a Tsar in his head,”--a man
who speaks and acts without the slightest reflection, and who is not
capable of consecutive thought, or of fixing his attention for more
than a moment on any single idea.
In 1836, Gogol left Russia and settled in Rome. He had been working for
some time at another book, which he intended should be his masterpiece,
a book in which he intended to say _everything_, and express the whole
of his message. Gogol was possessed by this idea. The book was to be
divided into three parts. The first part appeared in 1842, the second
part, which was never finished, Gogol threw in the fire in a fit of
despair. It was, however, subsequently printed from an incomplete
manuscript which had escaped his notice. The third part was never
written. As it is, the first fragment of Gogol’s great ambition remains
his masterpiece, and the book by which he is best known. It is called
_Dead Souls_. The hero of this book is a man called Chichikov. He has
hit on an idea by which he can make money by dishonest means. Like all
great ideas, it is simple. At the time at which the book was written
the serfs in Russia had not yet been emancipated. They were called
“souls,” and every landlord possessed so many “souls.” A revision of
the list of peasants took place every ten years, and the landlord had
to pay a poll-tax for the souls that had died during that period, that
is to say, for the men; women and children did not count. Between
the periods of revision nobody looked at the lists. If there was
any epidemic in the village the landlord lost heavily, as he had to
continue paying a tax for the “souls” who were dead.
Chichikov’s idea was to take these “dead souls” from the landlords,
and pay the poll-tax, for them. The landlord would be only too pleased
to get rid of a property which was fictitious, and a tax which was
only too real. Chichikov could then register his purchases with all
due formality, for it would never occur to a tribunal to think that he
was asking them to legalise a sale of dead men; he could thus take the
documents to a bank at St. Petersburg or at Moscow, and mortgage the
“souls,” which he represented as living in some desert place in the
Crimea, at one hundred roubles apiece, and then be rich enough to buy
living “souls” of his own.
Chichikov travelled all over Russia in search of “dead souls.” The book
tells us the adventures he met with; and the scheme is particularly
advantageous to the author, because it not only enables him to
introduce us to a variety of types, but the transaction itself, the
manner in which men behave when faced by the proposition, throws
a searchlight on their characters. Chichikov starts from a large
provincial town, which he makes his base, and thence explores the
country; the success or failure of his transactions forms the substance
of the book. Sometimes he is successful, sometimes the system breaks
down because the people in the country want to know the market value of
the “dead souls” in the town.
The travels of Chichikov, like those of Mr. Pickwick, form a kind of
Odyssey. The types he introduces us to are extraordinarily comic;
there are fools who give their “souls” for nothing, and misers who
demand an exorbitant price for them. But sometimes Chichikov meets
with people who are as clever as himself, and who outwit him. One of
the most amusing episodes is that where he comes across a suspicious
old woman called Korobotchka. Chichikov, after arriving at her house
late at night, and having spent the night there, begins his business
transactions cautiously and tentatively. The old woman at first thinks
he has come to sell her tea, or that he has come to buy honey. Then
Chichikov comes to the point, and asks her if any peasants have died
on her land. She says eighteen. He then asks her to sell them to him,
saying that he will give her money for them. She asks if he wishes to
dig them out of the ground. He explains that the transaction would only
take place upon paper. She asks him why he wants to do this. That, he
answers, is his own affair.
“But they are dead,” she says.
“Whoever said they were alive?” asked Chichikov. “It is a loss to you
that they are dead. You pay for them, and I will now save you the
trouble and the expense, and not only save you this, but give you
fifteen roubles into the bargain. Is it clear now?”
“I really can’t say,” the old woman replies. “You see I never before
sold _dead_ ‘souls.’” And she keeps on repeating: “What bothers me is
that they are _dead_.”
Chichikov again explains to her that she has to pay a tax on them just
as though they were alive.
“Don’t talk of it!” she says. “Only a week ago I had to pay one hundred
and fifty roubles.”
Chichikov again explains to her how advantageous it would be for her to
get them off her hands, upon which she answers that she has never had
occasion to sell dead souls; if they were alive, on the other hand, she
would have been delighted to do it.
“But I don’t want live ones! I want dead ones,” answers Chichikov.
“I am afraid,” she says, “that I might lose over the bargain--that you
may be deceiving me.”
Chichikov explains the whole thing over again, offering her fifteen
roubles, and showing her the money; upon which she says she would like
to wait a little, to find out what they are really worth.
“But who on earth will buy them from you?” asks Chichikov.
“They might be useful on the estate,” says the old woman.
“How can you use dead souls on the estate?” asks Chichikov.
Korobotchka suggests that she would rather sell him some hemp, and
Chichikov loses his temper.
Equally amusing are Chichikov’s adventures with the miser Plushkin,
Nozdref, a swaggering drunkard, and Manilov, who is simply a fool.
But when all is said and done, the most amusing person in the book is
Chichikov himself.
At the end of the first volume, Gogol makes a defence of his
hero. After having described the circumstances of his youth, his
surroundings, and all the influences which made him what he was, the
author asks: “Who is he?” And the answer he gives himself is: “Of
course a rascal: but why a rascal?” He continues:
“Why should we be so severe on others? We have no rascals among us
now, we have only well-thinking, pleasant people; we have, it is true,
two or three men who have enjoyed the shame of being thrashed in
public, and even these speak of virtue. It would be more just to call
him a man who acquires; it is the passion for gain that is to blame
for everything. This passion is the cause of deeds which the world
characterises as ugly. It is true that in such a character there is
perhaps something repulsive. But the same reader who in real life will
be friends with such a man, who will dine with him, and pass the time
pleasantly with him, will look askance at the same character should
he meet with him as the hero of a book or of a poem. That man is wise
who is not offended by any character, but is able to look within it,
and to trace the development of nature to its first causes. Everything
in man changes rapidly. You have scarcely time to look round, before
inside the man’s heart a hateful worm has been born which absorbs
the vital sap of his nature. And it often happens that not only a
great passion, but some ridiculous whim for a trivial object, grows
in a man who was destined to better deeds, and causes him to forget
his high and sacred duty, and to mistake the most miserable trifle
for what is most exalted and most holy. The passions of mankind are
as countless as the sands of the sea, and each of them is different
from the others; and all of them, mean or beautiful, start by being
subject to man, and afterwards become his most inexorable master.
Happy is the man who has chosen for himself a higher passion ... but
there are passions which are not chosen by man: they are with him
from the moment of his birth, and strength is not given him to free
himself from them. These passions are ordered according to a high
plan, and there is something in them which eternally and incessantly
summons him, and which lasts as long as life lasts. They have a great
work to accomplish; whether they be sombre or whether they be bright,
their purpose is to work for an ultimate good which is beyond the ken
of man. And perhaps in this same Chichikov the ruling passion which
governs him is not of his choosing, and in his cold existence there
may be something which will one day cause us to humble ourselves on
our knees and in the dust before the Divine wisdom.”
I quote this passage at length because it not only explains the point
of view of Gogol towards his creation, but also that which nearly
all Russian authors and novelists hold with regard to mankind in
general. Gogol’s _Dead Souls_ is an extremely funny book; it is full
of delightful situations, comic characters and situations. At the
same time it has often struck people as being a sad book. When Gogol
read out to Pushkin the first chapter, Pushkin, who at other times
had always laughed when Gogol read his work to him, became sadder and
sadder, and said when Gogol had reached the end: “What a sad country
Russia is!”
It is true, as Gogol himself says at the end of the first volume of
_Dead Souls_, that there is probably not one of his readers who,
after an honest self-examination, will not wonder whether he has not
something of Chichikov in himself. And if at such a moment such a man
should meet an acquaintance in the street, whose rank is neither too
exalted for criticism nor too obscure for notice, he will nudge his
companion, and say with a chuckle: “There goes Chichikov!” Perhaps
every Russian feels that there is something of Chichikov in him, and
Chichikov is a rascal, and most of the other characters in _Dead Souls_
are rascals also; people who try to cheat their neighbours, and feel no
moral scruples or remorse after they have done so. But in spite of all
this, the impression that remains with one after reading the book is
not one of bitterness or of melancholy. For in all the characters there
is a vast amount of good-nature and of humanity. Also, as Gogol has
pointed out in the passage quoted above, the peculiar blend of faults
and qualities on which moralists may be severe, may be a special part
of the Divine scheme.
However this may be, what strikes the casual student most when he has
read _Dead Souls_, is that Gogol is the only Russian author who has
given us in literature the universal type of Russian; the Russian “man
in the street.” Tolstoy has depicted the upper classes. Dostoievsky
has reached the innermost depths of the Russian soul in its extremest
anguish and at its highest pitch. Tourgeniev has fixed on the canvas
several striking portraits, which suffer from the defect either
of being caricatures, or of being too deeply dyed in the writer’s
pessimism and self-consciousness. Gorky has painted in lurid colours
one side of the common people. Andreev has given us the nightmares
of the younger generation. Chekov has depicted the pessimism and the
ineffectiveness of the “intelligenzia.”[6] But nobody except Gogol
has given us the ordinary cheerful Russian man in the street, with
his crying faults, his attractive good qualities, and his overflowing
human nature. In fact, it is the work of Gogol that explains the
attraction which the Russian character and the Russian country exercise
over people who have come beneath their influence. At first sight
the thing seems inexplicable. The country seems ugly, dreary and
monotonous, without art, without beauty and without brilliance; the
climate is either fiercely cold and damp, or excruciatingly dry and
hot; the people are slow and heavy; there is a vast amount of dirt,
dust, disorder, untidiness, slovenliness, squalor, and sordidness
everywhere; and yet in spite of all this, even a foreigner who has
lived in Russia (not to speak of the Russians themselves), and who has
once come in contact with its people, can never be quite free from its
over-mastering charm, and the secret fascination of the country.
In another passage towards the end of _Dead Souls_, Gogol writes about
this very thing as follows:
“Russia” (he writes), “I see you from the beautiful ‘far away’ where
I am. Everything in you is miserable, disordered and inhospitable.
There are no emphatic miracles of Nature to startle the eye, graced
with equally startling miracles of art. There are no towns with high,
many-windowed castles perched on the top of crags; there are no
picturesque trees, no ivy-covered houses beside the ceaseless thunder
and foam of waterfalls. One never strains one’s neck back to look at
the piled-up rocky crags soaring endlessly into the sky. There never
shines, through dark and broken arches overgrown with grapes, ivy,
and a million wild roses,--there never shines, I say, from afar the
eternal line of gleaming mountains standing out against transparent
and silver skies. Everything in you is open and desert and level; like
dots, your squatting towns lie almost unobserved in the midst of the
plains. There is nothing to flatter or to charm the eye. What then is
the secret and incomprehensible power which lies hidden in you? Why
does your aching melancholy song, which wanders throughout the length
and breadth of you, from sea to sea, sound and echo unceasingly in
one’s ears? What is there in this song? What is there that calls and
sobs and captures the heart? What are the sounds which hurt as they
kiss, pierce my very inmost soul and flood my heart? Russia, what do
you want of me? What inexplicable bond is there between you and me?”
Gogol does not answer the question, and if he cannot put his finger
on the secret it would be difficult for any one else to do so.
But although he does not answer the question directly, he does so
indirectly by his works. Any one who reads Gogol’s early stories, even
_Dead Souls_, will understand the inexplicable fascination hidden
in a country which seems at first sight so devoid of outward and
superficial attraction, and in a people whose defects are so obvious
and unconcealed. The charm of Russian life lies in its essential
goodness of heart, and in its absence of hypocrisy, and it is owing to
this absence of hypocrisy that the faults of the Russian character are
so easy to detect. It is for this reason that in Gogol’s realistic and
satirical work, as in _The Inspector_ and _Dead Souls_, the characters
startle the foreign observer by their frank and almost universal
dishonesty. The truth is that they do not take the trouble to conceal
their shortcomings; they are indulgent to the failings of others, and
not only expect but know that they will find their own faults treated
with similar indulgence. Faults, failings, and vices which in Western
Europe would be regarded with uncompromising censure and merciless
blame, meet in Russia either with pity or good-humoured indulgence.
This happy-go-lucky element, the good-natured indulgence and scepticism
with which Russians regard many things which we consider of grave
import, are, no doubt, to a great extent the cause of the evils which
exist in the administrative system of the country--the cause of nearly
all the evils of which Russian reformers so bitterly complain. On the
other hand, it should not be forgotten that this same good-humour
and this same indulgence, the results of which in public life are
slackness, disorder, corruption, irresponsibility and arbitrariness,
in private life produce results of a different nature, such as pity,
charity, hospitality and unselfishness; for the good-humour and the
good-nature of the Russian proceed directly from goodness, and from
nothing else.
Gogol never finished _Dead Souls_. He went on working on the second
and third parts of it until the end of his life, in 1852; and he twice
threw the work, when it was completed, into the fire. All we possess is
an incomplete copy of a manuscript of the second part, which escaped
destruction. He had intended the second part to be more serious than
the first; his ambition was to work out the moral regeneration of
Chichikov, and in doing so to attain to a full and complete expression
of his ideals and his outlook on life. The ambition pursued and
persecuted him like a feverish dream, and not being able to realise
it, he turned back upon himself and was driven inward. His nature was
religious to the core, since it was based on a firm and unshaken belief
in Providence; and there came a time when he began to experience that
distaste of the world which ultimately leads to a man becoming an
ascetic and a recluse.
He lived in Rome, isolated from the world; he became consumed with
religious zeal; he preached to his friends and acquaintances the
Christian virtues of humility, resignation and charity; he urged them
not to resist authority, but to become contrite Christians. And in
order that the world should hear him, in 1847 he published passages
from a correspondence with friends. In these letters Gogol insisted on
the paramount necessity of spiritual life; but instead of attacking the
Church he defended it, and preached submission both to it and to the
Government.
The book created a sensation, and raised a storm of abuse. Some of
the prominent Liberals were displeased. It was, of course, easy for
them to attack Gogol; for here, they said, was the man who had, more
than any other, satirised and discredited the Russian Government and
Russian administration, coming forward as an apostle of orthodoxy
and officialdom. The intellectual world scorned him as a mystic,
and considered the matter settled; but if the word “mystic” had the
significance which these people seem to have attached to it, then
Gogol was not a mystic. There was nothing extravagant or uncommon in
his religion. He gave up writing, and devoted himself to religion and
good works; but this does not constitute what the intellectuals seem to
have meant by mysticism. Mysticism with them was equivalent to madness.
If, on the other hand, we mean by mysticism the transcendent common
sense which recognises a Divine order of things, and the reality of an
invisible world, then Gogol was a mystic. Therefore, when Gogol ceased
to write stories, he no more _became_ a mystic than did Pascal when he
ceased going into society, or than Racine did when he ceased to write
plays. In the other sense of the word he was a mystic all his life; so
was Racine.
At the age of thirty-three his creative faculties had dried up, and at
the age of forty-three, in February 1852, he died of typhoid fever.
The place of Gogol in Russian literature is a very high one. Prosper
Mérimée places him among the best _English_ humorists. Gogol’s European
reputation is less great than it should be, because his subject-matter
is more remote. But of all the Russian prose writers of the last
century, Gogol is perhaps the most national. His work smells of the
soil of Russia; there is nothing imitative or foreign about it. When he
published _The Inspector_, the motto which he appended to it was: “If
your mouth is crooked, don’t blame the looking-glass.” He was a great
humorist. He was also a great satirist. He was a penetrating but not
a pitiless observer; in his fun and his humour, there is often a note
of sadness, an accent of pathos, and a tinge of wistful melancholy.
His pathos and his laughter are closely allied one to another, but in
his sadness there is neither bitterness nor gloom; there is no shadow
of the powers of darkness, no breath of the icy terror which blows
through the works of Tolstoy; there is no hint of the emptiness and the
void, or of a fear of them. There is nothing akin to despair. For his
whole outlook on life is based on faith in Providence, and the whole of
his morality consists in Christian charity, and in submission to the
Divine.
In one of his lectures, Gogol, speaking of Pushkin, singles out, as
one of the qualities of Russian literature, the pity for all who are
unfortunate. This, he says, is a truly Russian characteristic.
“Think,” he writes, “of that touching spectacle which our people afford
when they visit the exiles who are starting for Siberia, when every man
brings something, either food or money, or a kind word. There is here
no hatred of the criminal; no quixotic wish to make him a hero, or to
ask for his autograph or his portrait, or to regard him as an object of
morbid curiosity, as often happens in more civilised Europe. Here there
is something more: it is not the desire to whitewash him, or to deliver
him from the hands of the law, but to comfort his broken spirit, and to
console him as a brother comforts a brother, or as Christ ordered us to
console each other.”
This sense of pity is the greatest gift that the Russian nation
possesses: it is likewise the cardinal factor of Russian literature,
as well as its most precious asset; the inestimable legacy and
contribution which Russian authors have made to the literature of the
world. It is a thing which the Russians and no other people have given
us. There is no better way of judging of this quality and of estimating
its results, than to study the works of Russia’s greatest humorist,
satirist, and realist. For if realism can be so vivid without being
cruel, if satire can be so cruel without being bitter, and a sense of
the ridiculous so broad and so strong without being ill-natured, the
soil of goodness out of which these things all grow must indeed be rich
and deep, and the streams of pity with which it is watered must indeed
be plentiful.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] I met a Russian doctor in Manchuria, who knew pages of a Russian
translation of _Three Men in a Boat_ by heart.
[6] The highly educated professional middle class.