August 14, 2013
It is difficult for me to judge this book, simply for the fact that it was never completed. I think I'd heard that once, that Gogol had died before he could finish Dead Souls, but I had forgotten that going in. I was sucked into the first part of the story, especially with my theories about what Chichikov was planning to do with the "dead souls." I had imagined, at first, that Chichikov was the devil himself. He didn't seem fully human in the first part of the book; he got along with everyone he met, he always gave "vague" details about himself and always did things just to please others, and he of course didn't tell anyone his actual reasons for wanting the dead souls. Then, as his past (very human) life was revealed, it just seemed to me like he was a very greedy person. I still wonder if Gogol would go on to have Chichikov sell those "souls" to the devil, but there's no way of knowing this; when we last see Chichikov, he has been driven out of yet another town, with a little more money in his pocket and the papers for the dead souls still in his possession.
Gogol actually explains, at one point, what Chichikov's plan is to get money off of these "dead souls," who were purchased as though they were living souls (here I'll point out that I'm talking about Russian serfs, essentially slaves...Gogol came a few decades before Tolstoy, and died before the serfs were legally freed), but the whole thing about mortgaging them and having falsified papers for the government didn't really make much sense to me. Serfdom didn't really work quite the same way as slavery in the United States; for instance, it seems like serfs belong to the land, not to the landowner himself, though that person does have the right to rent them out or sell them at will, I guess? Even that I wasn't clear about. But to extent, that's not really important here.
The tone of this book shifts quite dramatically between social satire and preachiness. When it was satirical, it was Gogol at his best. Some of the people whom Chichikov encounters in his schemes are very silly, and through them, he does not display Russian society in a very flattering light. On the other hand, at places Gogol preaches outright to the reader about hard work and morality in the government. These two tones, though they were sending the same message, clashed. It seemed to me that, with this incomplete work, Gogol knew what he wanted it to say, but he hadn't worked out yet what he wanted it to be.
Most of the first part maintains the sillier social commentary; it's especially absurd when Gogol inserts himself into the text (addressing himself as "the author"). He makes some pretty sexist comments, and though at one point he praises women for having certain strengths that men lack, overall he seems to take a very negative view of the female gender. At the same time, though, I wonder if these comments themselves were supposed to be satirical. Maybe if he'd maintained the tone throughout the story, it would have been less confusing.
Part two of the text is incomplete. There were whole scenes of the story skipped, and the ending cuts off as the Governor-General is giving a (preachy) speech to some government officials, many of whom have been involved in scandals that he is seeking to sniff out. This Governor-General, and a couple of characters whom Chichikov encounters, seem to represent morality, in Gogol's view. The landowner with whom Chichikov becomes friendly (who also loans him money to purchase a run-down estate...unknown what happens there, as it skips over much of this) is a hard-worker, who is constantly working and trying to find ways to make the best use of what he has (like taking polluted water from his river and making glue, or turning the leaves from his timber into fertilizer). He is in contrast to Chichikov, who swindles people to make a living, and always leeches off of the generosity of others. Chichikov is not meant to be a likable character. He commits some sort of fraudulent crime involving a wealthy woman's will and estate, but the details of this are unclear because, again, a huge chunk of it is missing.
When reflecting on the morals of these "good" characters, especially the industrious farmer, I was reminded of Levin from Anna Karenina. He seems to be modeled after this particular character, though he is at the beginning stages; he takes a hand in his work, he makes sure to pay his workers (no longer serfs/slaves) in a way that seems reasonable, and he does not allow himself to be distracted by vice. Tolstoy was rather preachy, in the same way, in that text, but he was consistently so. I don't disagree with Gogol's overall message (at least, what I THINK his overall message is!): that crime doesn't pay, that rewards come with hard work, blah blah blah. I believe it. And I think that the message is still relevant today. I've written here before about how too many Americans have gotten themselves into trouble by trying to live beyond their means. There are others who make excuses for why they can't get out from under their debt. The characters in Dead Souls reminded me of people that I know, and the scenes with these characters are the most entertaining of the text.
I will note here that I was hoping for (though, having researched Gogol in the past, wasn't really expecting) that this book would have an anti-serfdom message. After all, it was pretty messed up that Chichikov "rejoiced" whenever he heard of estates where many serfs had died out, due to harsh conditions or lack of food. Gogol does touch on the absurdity, at one point, of landowners (wealthy or in terrible debt) living it up while their serfs starve to death, and the most admirable characters had well-clothed, well-fed serfs, but he didn't seem to have a problem with the institution of slavery itself. He definitely supported the idea that serfs should not be educated, that indeed, education for them would be a dangerous thing! Definitely a conservative in his views, and in that, I certainly could not agree with him.
This incomplete book has been widely read (this version that I read was the first translation in English; I would be interested to read Pevear and Volokhonsky's take on it sometime) and studied, and apparently there are many different takes on it. I feel fairly confident about my analysis of it, though I would maybe need to read that other version to get a deeper feel for it. But this book is definitely not an easy one to pin down. I would be curious to see the fate of Chichikov. Had Gogol figured it out himself? What kind of changes would he have made to the story, if he had lived long enough to finish it? WOULD the devil have come into play here? After all, Hogarth translated many ejaculations and interjections made by the characters into "the devil only knows" or "to the devil with...". I do not know if his translation was accurate, as I know absolutely no Russian whatsoever, so maybe his personal take on the text led him to put it that way. Or, maybe it was Gogol's intention. "The devil only knows," indeed.
 |
| I wanted to find a picture that would represent the vehicle in which Chichikov traveled about with his servants, Petrushka and Selifan. But searches for "britchka" or "koliaska" came to nothing. This is a "troika." It is drawn by three horses, it seems, and would be large enough to fit Chichikov and his crew, but I'm not sure... |
 |
| One old man whom Chichikov encounters on his travels is a hoarder. According to good old Wikipedia, today in Russian people with hoarding tendencies are maybe called "Plushkin" in reference to this character. |
No comments:
Post a Comment