Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Nikolai Gogol''s Self-Fashioning in the 1830s: The Postcolonial Perspective Author(s): Yuliya Ilchuk Source: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 51, No. 2/3, THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF NIKOLAI GOGOL'/MYKOLA HOHOL' (1809-1852) ( June-September 2009), pp. 203-221 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871407 Accessed: 21-10-2015 18:15 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871407?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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

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

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions YuliyaIlchuk

Nikolai Gogor's Self-Fashioningin the 1830s: The PostcolonialPerspective

Abstract: Thisstudy examines Gogol"s complex self-fashioning during the time of the creationand reception of his Ukrainiantales Vecherana khutorebliz Dikariki [Evenings on a Farmnear Dikan'ka] (1831-1832) in lightof thepostcolonial concept of mimicry. Gogol"s self-fashioning is studiedthrough his submissionto the symbolicpower responsiblefor branding him as theOther in imperialRussian culture, as well as through his deliberatestrategy of mimicry.Not onlydid Gogol"s marginalsocial statusand his Ukrainianethnicity create a social hierarchyresponsible for fashioninghim as "an outsiderwithin" imperial culture, Gogol' himself engaged in thecolonial mimicry, trying to reversethe colonialgaze thatimagined him as a "sly" Ukrainian.Challenging the acceptedview of Gogol' as one who internalizedthe colonial stereotypeof a "sly" Ukrainian,this study treats Gogol"s identity as strategic,positional, and ambivalent.The firstpart of thestudy focuses on themanipulation of stereotypesof theOther within the Russiannationalist imagination in theearly 1830s; the secondpart examines Gogol" s ambivalentvisual self-representationand social performancethat simultaneously mimickedand menaced the colonial authority.

Theearly years of Gogol" s careerwere marked by the negotiation of his cultural identitywithin Russian cultural and social space. This negotiationrequired continualchanging and adjustmentof Gogol"s culturalperformances and resultedin his representationby imperialsociety as the Other.Not only did Gogol"s marginalsocial statusand his Ukrainianethnicity create a social hierarchyresponsible for fashioninghim as the hybridwho is always "an outsiderwithin" imperial culture, but Gogol' immersedhimself in thecolonial mimicry,trying to reversethe colonial gaze thatimagined him as a "sly" Ukrainian.The theoreticalframework of this studyis informedby Steven Greenblatt'sconcept of self-fashioning1 and Homi Bhabha's theoretizationof mimicry,2which can be effectivelyapplied to Gogol"s complexself-fashioning

In hisstudy Renaissance Self-Fashioning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), the scholarhas claimed that"self-fashioning is achieved in relationto something perceivedas alien,strange, or hostile...;self-fashioning always involves some experience of threat,some effacementor undermining,some loss of self...; we maysay thatself- fashioningoccurs at thepoint of encounter between an authorityand an alien,that what is producedin thisencounter partakes of boththe authority and thealien that is markedfor attack."Greenblatt 9. In a nutshell,mimicry discloses "the desire for a reformed,recognizable Other, as a subjectof a differencethat is almostthe same,but not quite."Mimicry exercises its authorityover the colonial Other; however, its ambivalence arises from the fact that the

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 204 YULIYA ILCHUK duringand immediately after the publication of his Ukrainian tales - Vecherana khutorebliz Dikariki[Evenings on a Farmnear Dikan'ka] (1831-1832). Both conceptscan elucidatehow Gogol" s hybrididentity was fashionedas theOther bothby itssubmission to thesocial power and knowledge of theempire and by his self-consciousstrategy of mimickingthis power. Throughout this process, Gogol'arose as themimic man who "passed" as a Russiansociety man through theadoption of thelanguage, cultural behaviour and dressof imperialculture. However,the very act of mimickingsplit him as theOther when he consumed and inscribedRussianness upon and withinhimself. Being a weak copyof the original,the mimic man "becomes transformed into an uncertaintywhich fixes the colonial subject as a "partial presence."3Gogol' appropriatedthe performativeidentity strategies of mimicryto gain inclusioninto the diverse imperialand national spaces of Russia.His hybrididentity was fashionedas the colonial/ethnicOther through discourses and practicesof transgressionand imposture.Gogol' was quiteunique in thishybridization; although many non- Russianmigrants participated in a varietyof boundarycrossings, many of them refashionedthemselves, trying to eradicatetheir ethnic and social differenceby adoptingimperial disguises.4 In contemporaryGogol' studies,the writer'snegotiation of his national identityin the 1830s has been usuallydiscussed within the frameworkof colonialtheory, as onethat proceeded along the lines of the powerful tradition of 5 kotliarevshchyna.Many scholarshave emphasizedthat Gogol' not only continuedthis tradition by presentingUkraine in compliancewith the imperial paradigm,but also internalizedthe colonial stereotype of a "sly"Ukrainian by playingthe fool through the mask of a simple-heartedUkrainian narrator Rudy

colonial subject is always "partial," "incomplete," and "virtual" in its representation. Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse," in The Location of Culture(London: Routledge, 1994) 88. 3 Bhabha 86. For example,Nestor Kukol'nik,Gogol" s classmate fromthe NizhynLyceum, presentsa more typical case of Romantic self-fashioning.Kukol'nik made the Renaissance Italian poet Torquato Tasso a role model in his literarycareer. In tune with literaryfashion, he oftenassumed the mask of Tasso, which laterwon him fame in the top aristocraticsalons. The mask of Tasso helped Kukol'nikbecome accepted into elite Russian literarysociety, despite his Ukrainianorigin and provincialeducation. 5 This traditionis a referenceto the Ukrainian author Ivan Kotliarevs'kyiwho in his travestyof Virgil's Aeneid developed a model of Ukrainian identitythat allowed the authorto mock the imperialcenter "without direct risk." See George Grabowicz's article "Between Subversion and Self-Assertion:The Role of Kotliarevshchynain Russian- UkrainianLiterary Relations," in Culture,Nation, and Identity:The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1 600-1945), edited by Andreas Kappeler et al. (Edmonton: Canadian Instituteof UkrainianStudies Press,2003) 215-228.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol" s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 205

Pan'ko.6It has becomea commonplaceto considerGogol' sly and dodgyby nature7and to thinkof the mask of Pan'koas themarketing strategy used by the writerto capitalizeon a fashionableliterary tradition of the time.8 Thus, George Luckyj applied Pletnev's characterizationof Ukrainiansas sly careerists (prolazd)to Gogol',arguing that the writer sought "to cash in on theUkrainian vogue" as most of the otherUkrainian writers of the period.9Similarly, Bojanowskahas assertedthat Gogol' "fullyembraced" the classic Russian stereotypeof Ukrainiansas "sly malorossy"by "hidingsubversive actions or meaningsbehind a maskof naïve obtuseness."10Myroslav Shkandrij also has characterizedGogol" s oeuvreas one existingharmoniously in the imperial culture,while at thesame time emphasizing the unexpected result that Vechera hadproduced. According to thescholar, Gogol" s talesnot only pleased Russian elitesbut also presenteda "resistantUkrainian identity" as a case of "imperial indigestion."11Although both Shkandrij and Bojanowskastress that Gogol"s malorossiistvorevealed resistantcultural behaviour that provoked the hierarchicalimperial structures, their analysis has remainedconfined by the colonialtheory, resulting in the view of Gogol' as the"sly maloross" By placing responsibilityfor legitimization of the colonialstereotype on Gogol' himself, thisview is basedon essentialism,or theidea thatthere was somethinginherent inGogol" s identity.In contrastto thisview, this study treats Gogol" s identityas strategic,positional, and always in process. The writerhad escaped identificationin terms of "either"/"or"and creativelyplayed out this ambiguity inhis self-fashioning. The taskof the present study is twofold.First, it presentsthe history of the creationand receptionof the fictionalpersona of Rudy Pan'ko as the

Edyta Bojanowska,Nikolai Gogol: BetweenUkrainian and Russian Nationalism (Cambridge,London: Harvard University Press, 2007) 206. This is preciselythe argument made by AlexanderZholkovsky, claiming that Gogol1 "slavishlyadapted to thetastes of his 'superiors'(e.g., [thoseof] Pushkin)."For further referencesee AlexanderZholkovsky, "Reading Gogol's MiswrittenBook: Notes on SelectedPassages from Correspondence with Friends," in Essays on Gogol: Logos and theRussian Word, edited by Susan Fusso and PriscillaMeyer (Evanston: Northwestern 174. Universityo Press, 1992) CompareVictor Erlich, Gogol (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1969); Vladimir Nabokov,Nikolai Gogol (Norfolk, Connecticut: New DirectionsBooks, 1944); Vsevolod Setchkarev,Gogol: His Lifeand Works(New York:New YorkUniversity Press, 1965). 9 GeorgeLuckyj, Between Gogol' and Shevchenko:Polarity in the LiteraryUkraine. 1798-1847(Munich: W. Fink,1971) 101. Bojanowska77. MyroslavShkandrij, Russia and Ukraine:Literature and theDiscourse of Empire from Napoleonicto PostcolonialTimes (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001) 108.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 206 YULIYA ILCHUK manifestationof both the colonizer's and the colonized's pursuitfor l2 "exoticism." It will be demonstratedthat Gogol"s ethnicityand class performancewas basedon manipulatingstereotypes of the Other by the Russian nationalistimagination. And second, it studies Gogol"s visual self- representationand social performanceas highlyambivalent, that is, as simultaneouslymimicking and menacing the colonial authority. Let us firstanalyze how Russiansociety racialized Gogol' as thecolonial Other.First, Pavel Svin'inassumed the positionof Gogol"s patronwhen, in 1830,the young author submitted his firsttale, "Bisavriuk ili Vecheranakanune Ivana Kupala"[Bisavriuk or theEve of St. Johnthe Baptist], for publication in Svin'in'smagazine Otechestvennye zapiski [Annals of the Fatherland].At the time,Svin'in worked as an editorof Otechestvennyezapiski, which welcomed youngprovincial talents unspoiled by the tastes of Europeanized Russian society. Aimingto presentthe varioussides of imperiallife, Otechestvennye zapiski publishedroughly a dozen shortstories about the customsof variousethnic 13 groupsof the Russian empireover the course of 1826-1830. Gogol"s "Bisavriuk"appeared in the February 1830 issue of the journal. In fact,Svin'in's rolein exoticizing Ukraine and Gogol' as theauthor of the Ukrainian tale is hard to overestimate.Svin'in was one of thefirst to introduceGogol' to theRussian audienceas theOther. In hisforeword to Gogol"s"Bisavriuk," Svin'in presented Gogol'as an exoticUkrainian author by emphasizingthe contrast between the Russianand Ukrainian people: Malorossiiane[Ukrainians] more than Velikorossiiane [Russians] resemble the magnificentAsian people. They look likeAsians..., but do nothave such an ungovernablecharacter...; their phlegmatic carelessness protects them from blusteringemotions, and often the fiery and audacious European intellect sparkles fromtheir bushy eyebrows; ardent love of the Motherland... fills their breasts.14 Svin'in'scomparison of Ukrainians with Asians was symptomaticofnineteenth- centuryRussian literature. In thetravelogues and literarytexts of the 1810s- 1830s,Ukraine was generallyrepresented as a "violentand oftendegenerate place thatconstitutes the limits of civilizationand theboundary with Asia - a zone of dangerouscultural confrontation and mingling."15This image of

As FrantzFanon argues, "exoticism is one of the formsof thissimplification [the determinationto objectify, to confine,to imprison,to harden]"that "allows no cultural confrontation."See FrantzFanon, "Racism and Culture,"in Toward the African Revolution(New York:Grove Press, 1964) 35. These includeP. M. Kudriashev'stales "Kirgizskiiplennik" (1826), "Abdriash, bashkirskaiapovest'" (1827), "Darzha,Kalmytskaia povest1" (1829), "Iskak,tatarskaia povest1"(1830), and I. T. Radozhitskii's"Kyz-Brun, cherkesskaia povest'" (1828). Quotedin VladimirZviniatskovskii, Nikolai Gogol': Tainynatsional'noi dushi (Kyiv: Likei,1994) 172.All Englishtranslations inthe article are mine unless otherwise noted. Shkandrij6.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol"s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 207

Ukrainianshelped the Russian elite overcome their own sense of inferiorityvis- 16 à-vis their European peers, allowing them to shape Russian national consciousnessagainst an inferiorOther. To thisend, Russians developed several stereotypesto establisha hierarchybetween themselves as a civilizednation and Ukrainians,who were imaginedas either"bucolic rustics"or "anarchic bandits."17Another popular colonial stereotype of Ukrainianswas "slyness." Russiannobles systematically applied this notion to theUkrainian petty gentry who had been endowedwith the same titlesand benefitsas the Russian nobility.18More thana hundredthousand Ukrainian families obtained noble 19 status,making Russian nobles deeply unsatisfied. They began to use an offensivelabel "malorossiiskaiaprolaza" (pushy Little Russians) to characterizethe newly fledged nobles.20 This stereotypewas widespreadin the circleof literaryaristocrats who promoted Gogol' on theliterary market. Pletnev, forexample, called "khitrost'i prolaznichestvo" (slyness and careerism) as one of the definingqualities of Ukrainians.21Pushkin, in his poem "Moia rodoslovnaia"[My Genealogy](1830), also expressedhis contemptfor Ukrainianswho obtained quick promotion in governmentadministration, saying thathis grandfather"did notjump fromthe ranksof khokholsto becomea prince."22

AndrewWachtel has claimedthat in thebeginning of thenineteenth century Russia itselfwas thecolonized because of theweak and derivativenature of its own national culture."[In] sharpcontrast to otherpolitically strong imperializing modern states, Russia founditself in a culturallysubordinate, one mighteven say colonized,position..." AndrewWachtel, "Translation, Imperialism, and NationalSelf-Definition in Russia," PublicCulture 11.1 (1999): 50. Bojanowska33. 18 Thisbecame possible due to Catherine'sII edict"Zhalovannaia gramota dvorianstvu" (1785), whichwas intendedto providenoble statusonly to thoseLittle Russians who couldprove their aristocratic origins in thePolish szlachta. But the process of converting intothe Russian nobility took years, as was thecase withthe Gogol's who managedto provetheir noble status onlv at theend of the 1 840s. 19 StephenVelychenko, "Empire Loyalism and Minority Nationalism in Great Britain and ImperialRussia, 1707 to 1914: Institutions,Law, and Nationalityin Scotlandand Ukraine,"in ComparativeStudies in Society and History 39.3 (1997): 421. StephenVelychenko 42 1. Quotedin VasiliiGippius, N. V. Gogol': Materialyi issledovaniia,vol. 1 (Leningrad: Izd-voAkademii nauk SSSR, 1936) 170. In general,Pushkin approved of maintaininga differentiationbetween classes in Russiansociety and was protectivetoward the purityof the Russian nobility.He expressedhis opinion on this topic on 22 December 1834 at Khitrovo'ssalon: "Nobility...should be limitedand inaccessible[to others- Yu. I.]... If anyother class canjoin nobles,climbing from one rankto another...then soon it will cease to exist..." (DnevnikA. S. Pushkina:1833-1835, edited by B. L. Modzalevskiiet al [Moscow:Izd-

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 208 YULIYA ILCHUK

The roleof Russianaristocrats in thecolonial self- fashioning of Ukrainian writerscan be illustratedby Pushkin'srelationship with another Ukrainian poet, Vasilii Tumanskii,which also sheds lighton Pushkin'sattitude toward the youngGogol'. Tumanskii,like Gogol',arrived in St. Petersburgin the 1820s, seekinga job andrecognition inthe imperial centre. Fortunately, he metPushkin, who introducedTumanskii to Petersburgpolite society. Taking a cue fromhis fellowpoet Baratynskii, who at thetime had appointedthe minor poet Nikolai Konshinas hispageboy, Pushkin consecrated Tumanskii as one ofhis "vassals." In a letterto his brother(January 1825), Pushkinpejoratively described Tumanskiias "My Konshin"and accusedhim of filchinghis verses.In another letter(12 January1824), Pushkincomplained to AleksandrBestuzhev that Tumanskiiand his brotherAndrei were "stealing" from him.23 Later, in 1831, Pushkinattributed this feature of Tumanskii's character to his Ukrainianorigin. In his letterto Pletnev,Pushkin pointed to "plentyof beautifulqualities in Tumanskii's personality despite some peculiarities of his Ukrainian character."24 Pushkinpresented his personalpatronage of Tumanskiias the salvagingof a potentiallyvaluable human being fromwhat would have been an otherwise worthlesslife. A fewyears later Pushkin used the same logic,characterizing Gogol'as a "slyLittle Russian" who had takenadvantage of his bestideas for his ownplots.25 Created in Pushkin'scircle, the idea of Gogol'"stealing" from Pushkinspread in Russiansociety and became a powerfulmyth among Gogol" s contemporaries.In his memoirsof 1841 Annenkovquoted Pushkin as saying thathe neededto be "carefulwith that Little Russian [Gogol']" who "kept 26 fleecing"him. Accordingto the memoirsof Pushkin'ssister, the poet complainedto hiswife Natalia Goncharova that the "sly Little Russian used his vo Tri veka, 1997] 24). Pushkinillustrates very well Greenblatt'sidea thataristocrats, to a greaterdegree thanmembers of otherclasses, have an identitythat is so rooted in their rank,so embedded in the structuresof theirculture, that they are ultimatelyincapable of turningagainst it (Greenblatt9). 23 See Pushkin's letterto Bestuzhev: "He is a greatguy, but I do not like him as a poet. . . Vasilii does not steal anythingexcept verses, while Andrei steals everythingexcept verses" (Aleksandr Pushkin, Polnoe sóbrame sochinenii v desiati tomakh, vol. 10 [Leningrad:Izd-vo "Nauka," 19771 64). 24 See Pushkin's letter to Pletnev (31 January 1831) in Pushkin, Polnoe sobrante sochinenii 10: 262. In his "Avtorskaiaispoved1," Gogol' confirmedthat the idea of the plot forhis comedy Revizor [The InspectorGeneral] was suggestedby Pushkin. Annenkovin his recollectionspresented Pushkin's view regardingthe "stealing": "It is known thatGogol1 borrowed from Pushkin the idea of Revizor and Mertvyedushi [Dead Souls], but it is less knownthat Pushkin gave him his property(dostoianiie) [the plots of the above works- Yu. I.] not quite willingly.However, in his familycircle, Pushkinsaid laughing: "I should be careful [dealing] with this maloross: he robs me withoutscruple (chto i krichat'nel'zia)" (Vikentii V. Veresaev, Gogol' v zhizni: sistematicheskiisvod podlinnykhsvidetel'stv sovremennikov (Moskva: Moskovskii rabochii, 1990) 179.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol" s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 209 plot."27Pushkin's general attitude toward Gogol' in the 1830swas by and large determinedby the colonialpatronage that allowed Pushkin,as a privileged memberof Russiansociety, to exercisepower over the subaltern Gogol'.28 The mythof Gogol"s dependingon Pushkin'spromotion was furtherperpetuated in themid- 1830s, when Gogol' had achievedgreat popularity and Pushkin,as the olderpoet, claimed credit for the younger writer's professional success.29 Besides Pushkin,Aleksandra Smirnova, a courtlady and Gogol"s close friend,also racializedand presented him to Russiansociety as a stubbornand sly Ukrainian.In herdiary and correspondence,she repeatedlyreferred to herself and to Gogol' as khokhlachkaand khokhol.30Smirnova' s firstencounter with Gogol'occurred in 1830in thehouse of Princess Elizaveta Repnina (also known as Warette)when Gogol' was tutoringRepnina' s daughterMaria. Complaining thatRepnina prevented her from talking to the"shy khokhol,'9 Smirnova presents Gogol'within a frameworkof colonialproprietorship: "From a distanceI saw Warette's khokhol.9'31 Smirnova' s amusementat seeingan "authentickhokhoT9 turnsimmediately into a desire to "tame" him. Her repeatedattempts to

"My tongueis myenemy. Gogol1 is a sly maloross;he tookadvantage of my plot" (Qtd. in SemenMashinskii, Gogol' v vospominaniiakhsovremennikov [Moskva: Gosud. izd. khudozh.literatury, 19521 630). Pushkin'sassociate, Pavel Nashchokin, for example, emphasized Pushkin's patronage: he "set Gogol1up in the world,"fostered Gogol" s professionaldevelopment and promotedhim as a writer.Veresaev 179. Accordingto Sollogub,Pushkin called himself"a god-father"of Gogol"s comedy Revizor.Veresaev 178. 30 GeorgeLuckyj's assertion that Gogol1 often used "khokhol"(The Anguishof Mykola Hohol a.k.a. as NikolaiGogol [Toronto:Canadian Scholars' Press, 1998] 2) does not pass the test by Gogol"s text and correspondence.In fact,Gogol' neverused the derogatory"khokhol" in his literarytexts or his essaysand letters.The exceptionis his famousletter to Smirnovadated 24 December1 844, which he requestedbe readpublicly in Repnina'ssalon. Here,Gogol' confessedthat he could not give preferenceto his Russiansoul overhis Ukrainiansoul and vise versa.The letteris theonly documented examplewhen Gogol' applied"khokhol" to designatehimself (Nikolai Gogol', Polnoe sóbramesochinenii v chetyrnadtsatitomakh, vol. 12 [Moscow: Izd-voAkademii nauk SSSR, 1937-1952] 418^19). One should take into account that Gogol' used "kokhlatskaia[dusha]" [khokhol-like]when answering Smirnova' s own questionin her letterof 3 November1844: "Reachto thedepth of yoursoul and ask yourself,are you reallya Russian,or are you a khokhlikV(Gogol', Polnoe sobraniesochinenii 12: 357). Therefore,Gogol" s use of "khokhorshould be treatedas a "traceof somebodyelse's word"("otgolosok chuzhogo s lova"), to use Bakhtin'sformulation, in whichGogol' echoed,or rather mimicked Smirnova' s discourse. 31 VladimirShenrok, A. O. Smirnovai N. V. Gogol' v 1829-1852godakh (Petrograd, 1888)52.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 210 YULIYAlLCHUK domesticatea "stubbornkhokhor are documentedin the diary.32The passage quoted below presentsthe curious discussion thatoccurred in the 1840s among Smirnova,Ivan Aksakov and Gogol': ([Aksakovasks] - AleksandraOsipovna, tell us howyou met Nikolai Vasil'evich. [Smirnovasays] - I am boredwith you, Ivan Sergeevich! Leave me alone! I do not rememberat all. Whatdoes itmatter to you?.. [Gogol1says] - Well, listento me. I was givinga lessonto a lady,a veryboring lesson.I am nota goodteacher. . . My poorstudent was yawning,when Aleksandra Osipovnaand thestudent's sister came and immediatelyrecognized the khokhol in me. We [Ukrainians]are twinswith Great Russians, but apparently every khokhol has a special physiognomy,as well as everyMuscovite. Aleksandra Osipovna instantlynoticed that the sky of theNorthern Palmyra burdens and depressesthe khokhol.She alreadyknew thatP. A. Pletnevwelcomed me, and thatV. A. Zhukovskiiand A. S. Pushkinwere favourably disposed towards the khokhol. The nextday she orderedPletnev to bringthe khokholto her... A. S. Pushkinsaid: "AleksandraOsipovna, shelter the khokholand scold him when he becomes depressed,"and Vasilii Andreevichmumbled [to me]: "Do you see, brother,that Pletnevwas rightwhen he railedat you foryour foolishness: you did notwant to comeand now you are happy that you came and will be gratefulthat we grabbedand broughtyou, the khokhol [Smirnova].)33 At firstglance, this account seems to show how Gogol1 "played up" to the "domesticating"colonial discourse developed in the circle of Russian literary aristocrats.But one should not ignorethat Gogol"s "recollection"in the passage above is double-framed;it is Smirnova's daughterwho recorded her mother retellingGogol"s storyof his entréeinto the high Petersburgsociety. Although Smirnova's accountsproved to be a popular source of informationabout Gogol', her recollectionof a conversationthat happened about thirtyyear earlier (the account was writtenin the 1850s) cannot be literallyattributed to the writer's own perceptionof himself.Furthermore, the ironic tone of Gogol" s indirect speech and the repetitionof the word khokhol seven times within a short paragraph suggest that Gogol', to an extent, "played up" to the Russian

See Smirnova's diary in Shenrok,A. O. Smirnova i N. V. Gogol': "CßepnoK oneHb flo6p, oh õbiCTponpHpyHHJi õeflHoro xoxjia" [Sverchok [Pushkin's nickname] is very kind, he immediately tamed the poor khokhol [Gogol1]] (Shenrok 54); "Ohh TaK Äpa3HHJiHForojifl 3a ero flHKOCTbh 3acTeHHHBOcn>,hto oh HaKOHeu nepecraji CTecHHTbca"[They [Pushkinand Zhukovskii]teased Gogol1so much forhis wildness and shynessthat he eventuallystopped being shy] (Shenrok 55); "Bcjihkhh KH5i3broBopHJi co MHoño forojie; oh npo3B&jiero 'Majiopocc, npHpyneHHbiHflOHbeñ Cojib [Smirnova]'" [The GreatPrince [Mikhail] talked with me aboutGogol'; he called hima "maloross tamedby donna Sol1 [Smirnova's nickname]] (Shenrok 84). Quotedin Shenrok46^18.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol" s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 21 1 aristocrats'view of him.34Moreover, it pointsto mechanismsof colonial stereotypingwhich operates as "a formof knowledgeand identificationthat vacillatesbetween what is always"in place,"already known, and something that "^ mustbe anxiouslyrepeated The presentationof Gogol1as the colonialOther by Russiansociety in 1830-1831played a crucialrole in the development and subsequent reception of the fictionalmask of Pan'ko,which in effectwas the productof colonial patronage.When scholars inquire into the problemof Gogol"s authorshipin Vechera, they usually emphasize the pragmaticreasons for Gogol"s concealmentof his authorshipbehind the mask of Pan'ko.36One shouldnot forgetthat Gogol' had alreadyused his real name in the essay "Woman" (publishedin early 1831), when his Vecherahad not yet been finished. Therefore,it is likelythat, when Gogol' finished the tales in thespring of 1831, he was initiallyprepared to signthe book with his ownname. There are several factsthat support this hypothesis. First, the history of thecreation of Vechera indicatesthat Gogol' wrote the tales with several unidentified narrators in mind and did notintend to publishthem as a separatebook until he metPletnev. The plan to collectthe tales in a book appearedbefore the springof 1831 when Gogol' began to collaboratewith Pletnev's LiteraryGazette and Delvig's NorthernFlowers. Second, in March 1831 he requesteda large amountof moneyfrom his motherto financethe publication of his "porosia"(a piglet), whichin all likelihoodreferred to thefinalized manuscript of Vechera.Finally andmost importantly, there is theevidence of Panteleimon Kulish, Gogol" s first biographer,who recorded Pletnev' s versionof the creation of the fictitious mask forGogol': ByMay 1 83 1 he [Gogol1]had completed several of the tales that were to formthe firstvolume of Eveningson a Farmnear Dikan'ka. Not sure how to go about publishingthese tales, Gogol1 turned to P. A. Pletnevfor advice. Pletnev wanted to

34 Anotherstereotype about the laziness of Ukrainiansbecame an occasionto ingratiate himselfwith another of Gogol"s literaryidol, the Russianpoet Ivan Dmitriev.In his letterto Dmitriev(30 November1 832), Gogol'blamed himself for "laziness" which he attributedto the place of his origin- Ukraine:("jieHb..., BbiBe3eHHajimhok) h3 MajiopoccHH")(Gogol', Polnoe sobrante sochinenii 10: 247). Homi Bhabha,"The OtherQuestion," in ContemporaryPostcolonial Theory: A Reader,edited by PadminiMongia (London,New York,Sydney, Auckland: Arnold, 1996)38. StephenMoeller-Sally cites Gogol"s use ofpseudonyms as evidenceof theanxiety he developedas an author"after the embarrassingly poor reception" of his firstwork, Ham Kuechelgarten(1829). See StephenMoeller-Sally, "0000; or,The Signof theSubject in Gogol's Petersburg,"in RussianSubjects: Empire, Nation and theCulture of the Golden Age, editedby MonikaGreenleaf and StephenMoeller-Sally (Evanston: Northwestern UniversityPress, 1998) 325-346.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 212 YULIYAlLCHUK

shieldthe young man from the pull of literary parties and to protecthim from the preconceivednotions of people who had met Gogol' personally orhad read his first literaryexperiments and had not made a favorableimpression. For these reasons he advisedGogol1 to observe on thisfirst occasion a strictincognito, and he invented forthe tales a subtitlethat would arouse the public's curiosity. Thus the "Stories" appearedas havingbeen edited by the beekeeper Rudy Pan'ko, who was supposed to livenear Dikan'ka, which belonged to Prince Kochubei.37 It followsfrom this account that Gogol1 did notinitially conceive of thestories withinthe framework of thefictitious editor Rudy Pan'ko. The title and the mask of Rudy Pan'ko were suggestedby Pletnevand servedthe interestsof the aristocrats" Pletnevand others)who triedto win "literary (Pushkin,Del'vig, " overthe reading public from the so-called "literaturnye kommersanty (literary entrepreneurs)Faddei Bulgarinand Osip Senkovskii.The beginningof the 1830sindicated a rapiddecline of the "literary aristocrats'" popularity due to the emergenceof middle-classreaders. So, Pletnevbelieved that Gogol's tales orientedtoward this new audience could help the literary aristocrats to increase thecirculation of their publications and used Gogol"s Rudy Pan'ko to provethat literaryaristocrats could also satisfythe tastes of a broaderreadership. Thus, as the rewardfor servingthe interestsof his patron,Gogol' gained access to Russianmetropolitan culture. Yet theresult of this mystification was quiteunexpected both for the patron, Pletnev,and forthe patronized Gogol'. The purelyfictional device of Pan'ko extendedbeyond the textand blurredthe boundariesbetween the fictional identityof Pan'koand Gogol"s own.The voidthat emerged between the absent author38and the textcreated space forwhat Michel Foucault termed as "the authorfunction,"39 to which Gogol" s readersreductively attributed the features of thetext. For about three years (from the publication of Book One in 1832 to thepublication of Mirgorodin 1835),the actual name of theauthor of Vechera was keptsecret, and thereading public metonymically connected the fictional personaof Pan'kowith the real author.More informedreaders like Vladimir

37 Veresaev 100. 38 It is importantto keep in mindthat Rudy i Pan'kois notthe legitimate author of the tales.Only the two Prefacesto Book One and Two and the introductionsto "Vecher nakanuneIvana Kupala" and "Ivan Fedorovich Spon'ka i ego tetushka"belong to him. 39 In his essay"What is an Author?"(1969), Foucault,claiming that an author'sname refersnot to a concretereal-life person but to literarydiscourse, announced the authorship a contingentaffair and replacedit withthe concept of theauthor- function. The author- function,according to Foucault,is a social constructprojected onto the author's verbal productsand servingsome ideological purpose. It can be also said aboutGogol" s Rudyi Pan'kowho circulatedin Russianculture as a projectionof the imperialquest for the Other.Michele Foucault, "What is an Author?"in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: SelectedEssays and Interviews,translated by D.F. Bouchardand Sh. Simon(Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity Press, 1977).

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol"s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 213

Odoevskiiand Nikolai Iazykov had learnedthe author'sidentity through hearsay.40Less informedreaders, like the minorwriter Nikolai Mukhanov, couldnot guess who was hidingbehind the guise of RudyPan'ko.41 Critics who were not initiatedinto the secretof Vechera's authorshipreconstructed the author'sidentity arbitrarily. Nikolai Polevoi, a rivalof Pushkin and other literary aristocrats,thought that the mask of Pan'ko concealed some Russian writer from Pushkin'scircle, and called Pan'ko a Muscovitewho had never been to Ukraine.42Even when the author of Vecherarevealed himself to thepublic, the book was stillassociated not with the real man,Nikolai Gogol', but with the fictitiouspersona, Rudy Pan'ko.43 The criticVladimir Ushakov in the introductionto his own book Dosugi invalida [Invalid's Entertainment,1832-1835] jocularly asked Pan'ko to "zasvidetel'stvovat'pochtenie" (pay his respects)to Ivan FedorovichShpon'ka and his aunt, Madam Tsupchevskaia,the charactersin "Ivan Fedorovich Shpon'kaand ego tetushka"of Book Two of Vechera.Three years after the publicationof Gogol"s tales,Odoevskii still attributed the success of thebook notto the real authorGogol', but to the "romanisf(novelist) Pan'ko, whose simple-heartedpersonality in the best way correspondedto the spiritof the 44 book. Moreover,popular printbooks under the name "Rudyi Pan'ko"

40 In 1832,Odoevskii wrote to his friendAleksandr Koshelev: "Ha chx ähsx bwiiijih «Benepa Ha xyrope»- MajiopoccHHCKHeHapo^Hbie CKa3KH. Ohh, roBopjrr,HanHcam>i MOJioflbiMnejiOBeKOM, no HMeHH FoaoneM" [The other day, Evenings on a Farm- Little Russianfolk tales came out. They,as peoplesay, are writtenby a youngman, named Gogol'].Quoted in AlekseiChicherin, "Neizvestnoe vyskazyvanie V. F. Odoevskogoo Gogole,"Russkaia literatura 1 (1975): 47. 41 Mukhanovwrote to hisbrother: "3^ecb bhuijih^Be khhhcohlkh,Benepa Ha Xyrope, He 3HaK)KeM, KOTopbie oneHb xBajurr." [Here (in St. Petersburg)two books came out, Eveningson a Farm,(written by) I do not knowwho, but which are highlypraised.] Quotedin E.E. Dmitrieva,"'Pozhiv v takoitesnoi sviazi s ved'mamii koldunami'(ob osobennostiakhgogolevskogo fol'klorizma: 'Vechera na khutorebliz Dikan'ki'),"in Gogol' i mirovaiakul'tura: Vtorye gogolevskie chteniia, edited by Vera P.Vikulova (Moscow:Knizhnyi dom "Universitet," 2003) 138. See Polevoi'sreview of Vecherana khutorebliz Dikanki, vol. 1, in Moskovskiitelegraf 5(1831)91-95. Thiscan be explainedby the act of naming, a powerfuldevice in literarymystifications thatserves not so muchto concealbut to highlighta writer'sbiographical legend. As MargaretRusset aptly notes, the authority of thename is enhancedby itsposition as an objectof desire:it "holdsthe place of a certainlack" and thereforeis "perceivedas a pointof supremeplentitude." Margaret Russett, Fictions and Fakes: ForgingRomantic Authenticity,1760-1845 (Cambridge,UK, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006) 162. 44 VladimirOdoevskii, "Dve zametkio Gogole,"in Gippius 223.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 214 YULIYAlLCHUK circulatedwidely even in thesecond-half of thenineteenth century.45 Therefore, Gogol"s publicpersona, received by a broadaudience as Rudyi Pan'ko,became reducedto a kindof object,alienated from the self. The publicationof Vechera launchedthe mythopoeticprocess by which the author'spersonality was constructedinreaders' minds out of the projection of the literary legend. Russiansociety not only transposed Gogol" s strategicOtherness from the literarytext onto his personality,but also envelopedit in a colonialdiscourse. The memoirsabout Gogol' of 1832-1834 abound withdescriptions of the writer'sexotic Ukrainian appearance and speech.One of theearliest accounts belongsto SergeiAksakov who metGogol1 in 1832. AlthoughAksakov was informedby MikhailPogodin of "who RudyiPan'ko was," he was shockedat theappearance of Gogol': SuddenlyPogodin, without any notice, entered the room accompanied with a stranger,a very young man... and said: "May I introduceyou to Nikolai Vasil'evich Gogol1!"The effect was powerful. I became very embarrassed and ran to put on my frockcoat, mumbling empty words of trite introduction. Atany other time I would nothave met Gogol1 in this way. All of my guests... were also somehow perplexed andsilent.46 The reasonsfor Aksakov' s reactionare revealedin thesame paragraph:in the eyes of Moscow's aristocracy,Gogol" s appearance47and manners48corresponded neitherwith the image of a dandythat Gogol' cultivated as his publicpersona, nor withthe image of RudyiPan'ko, the light-heartedUkrainian. Yet, it is importantto stressin Aksakov'saccount the colonial discourse that "mapped out"Gogol' as theexotic Other. Throughout the reception of Vechera,Gogol" s identitywas shapedsimultaneously as "svoi" (ours) and "zwo/" (alien), becoming a site of bothincorporation into, and rejectionby, the hierarchicalimperial

45 AbramReitblat discusses the remakingof Gogol"s texts,primarily Vechera and Mirgorod,in lubochnyi[popular print] editions in the second halfof the nineteenth century.For furtherreference see his book Ot Bovyk Bal'montu(Moscow: Izd-voMPI, 1991).Damiano Rebecchini also presentsan interestingaccount of transformations ofthe plotsof some tales (particularly,"Noch' peredrozhdestvom" and "Strashnaiamest'") producedby anonymousauthors for peasant readers. See Damiano Rebecchini,"Kak krest'ianechitali Gogolia: Popytka rekonstruktsiiretseptsii," Novoe literaturnoe obozreniie49 (2001): 508-525. SergeiAksakov, Istoriia moego znakomstva s Gogolem(Moscow: Izd-voAkademii NaukSSSR, 1960)10. "Gogol"s appearancethen was absolutelydifferent and unattractive:a khokhol on his head,clean-cut temples, shaven mustaches and chin,big and stiffcollar - all imparteda completelydifferent expression to his face.We saw somethingkhokhol-Mke and cunning in it."Aksakov 1 0. 48 Aksakovreferred to his brotherKonstantin's impression of Gogol1,who "did notlike Gogol"s manners"and to everybodyelse's opinionthat "Gogol' made an unfavorable, unpleasantimpression on everyonewithout exception." Aksakov 1 1 .

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol"s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 2 15 culture.In so faras Russianaristocracy looked for the Other in Gogol',Gogol' himselfneeded an audienceto performhis selfhood. From roughly 1831 to 1834, Gogol"s self-representationand social performanceunderwent a significant transitionfrom mere reproduction of thecultural code of thehonnête homme to the visual coding of his Otherness.The visual aspect of Gogol"s self- representationduring the earlycareer (1828-1836) offerssome insightsinto how he manipulatedhis appearance,depending on his artisticand ideological goals.49 Let us firstconsider the role of imperialfashion in Gogol"s own self- fashioningin 1828-1831,i.e., beforethe publication of Vechera.The 18-year- old graduateof a provincialUkrainian town began to inquireabout Petersburg fashioneven before his migration to St. Petersburgin 1828.In a letterof 1827to hisolder school friend Gerasim Vysotskii, who had moved to thecapital earlier, Gogol'asked him about the latest fashion trends and entrustedhim to ordera frockcoat for him.50 Upon his arrival in St. Petersburg,Gogol' began to smarten himselfup withthe necessary accoutrements of theRussian dandy: the suit, the hat,a pairof gloves, and the fur collar for his coat. In a letterto his motherof 3 January1829, Gogol' provided a detailedaccount of his expenses: On theway [to St. Petersburg]I spent more than three hundred rubles, and here I paidtwo hundred for a suitand pants, one hundred for a hat,and about 80 rublesfor a pairof boots and gloves, for a caband other small but necessary things, and also forthe alteration ofmy overcoat and for the fur-collar toit.51 It is evidentthat Gogol' maintained a great interest in newstyles of clothingand used fashionto claim his statusas a Russiandandy. At first,Gogol' merely imitatedthe dress code of Russiandandies, which had changed drastically since the beginningof the nineteenthcentury. If in the eighteenthcentury, dress (officialor civil) designateda certainsocial rankand prescribedthe proper behaviour,in the 1830s,fashion, as well as everydaybehaviour and official

49 Gogol"s heightenedconcern with his visual appearancein these years clearly correspondedto thetheatricality of everydaybehaviour developed in theRomantic age "as an essentiallymoral activity, one necessaryfor social harmony" because "members of societyexpected to maintaina varietyof costumes,properties, personae, and literary styles."For furtherreference, see WilliamMills Todd III, "A Russian Ideology," StanfordLiterature Review 1 (1984): 108. "May I ask you fora favour:could you order for me a tailcoatat thebest tailor in St. Petersburg?Find out how much an excellentcustom tailored fashionable tailcoat costs. I am dyingto havemy tailcoat done by the end of [October]or by 1 November.Write to me, please,about fashionable fabrics suitable for vests and trousers.What colour of tailcoatis fashionable?I would like very much to makea blueone withmetal buttons; I have plentyof black tailcoatsand I am bored by them"(Gogol1, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii10: 102-103). Gogol',Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 10: 136.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 216 YULIYAlLCHUK rituals,was becomingmore free and symbolic.52The changesin the fashion code liberatedimperial gentlemen and made them"personalities," not the functionsof theirsocial positions.A new aestheticof theatricalitymanifested itselfin the1830s in theproliferation of all kindsof fops,dandies and flaneurs. By meansof fashionattributes, non-nobles and membersof thepoor Ukrainian gentrylike Gogol' himself,who weredowngraded in theirnoble statuswhen LittleRussia becamepart of the Russianempire, now had theopportunity to demonstratetheir membership with one or anothersocial group,without ever belongingto it. Petits-maîtres(fops) and flaneurs(saunterers) invaded the Russiancapital, imposing a newfashion code on therest of Russian society. Thereis no doubtthat imperial fashion exerts the power of circumscribing theself; it also confirmsthe fact that identity is somethingowned apart from one's self,something that must continuously be "puton" and displayed.53As earlyas 1830,Gogol1 began to realizethe power of imperialfashion. The motif of the totalizingpower of dressfor social statusappears already in Gogol"s unfinishedtale Strashnyi kaban [A TerribleBoar] (1830). In thistale, the frock coat metonymicallysignifies the imperialpower that provokesfear and venerationin thelocals. The storybegins with the description of theuniform of a new teacher,Ivan Osipovich,who arrivesfrom the imperialcenter in the Ukrainiancountryside. The teacher'sfrock coat serves to establishthe hierarchy betweenthe imperial authority and the villagers: Thefrock coat in general (not to mention the blue one), as longas itnot made from a gloomy-colouredcloth, produces a stunningeffect in villages:whenever it [the frockcoat] shows up, hatsfrom the most sluggish heads fall into hands, and imposingfaces, armed with black and gray mustaches, reverently bow from the waistto it [the frock coat]. There were three frock coats in the village, including the sexton'schlamys, but our fellow's frock coat outshined allthe rest.54

Olga Vainshteinin hercomprehensive study of dandyism Dendi: Moda,literatura, sul' zhizni(Moscow: Izd-vo "Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie," 2006) has analyzedhow English dandyfashion penetrated all ranksof Russiansociety and becameespecially popular amongRussian nobles released from mandatory state service. As the resultof these changesin fashion,the mundir, a traditionalcourt dress-coat, was graduallygiving way to a fashionablesiurtuk, a frockcoat. Russianintellectuals used thisnew dresscode to expresstheir liberal views: Pushkin, as a titularcounselor in governmentadministration, was compelledto weara mundirdecorated with galloons inside and outsideof court,but he oftenviolated this code by appearingin a frockcoat in highsociety. Ivan Panaev, anotherGogol' contemporary, tried to avoidwearing a uniformand cameto workin his statedepartment wearing fashionable trousers underneath his official uniform. JeanComaroff, "Fashioning the Colonial Subject: The Empire'sOld Clothes,"in Of Revelationand Revolution,vol. 2., edited by Jean Comaroffand JohnComaroff (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1991) 220. Gogol',Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 3: 265.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol" s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 217

In "Noch1pered Rozhdestvom," the ritual of exchangingindigenous clothes for newimperial dress discloses an importantideological context. At theend of the eighteenthcentury, when Ukrainiangentry (formed mostly from the former Cossackmilitary elite) were granted equality with Russian aristocrats, they were subjectnot onlyto politicalsubordination but also to the dresscode of the Russiannobility.55 In thetale, this symbolic changing of clothesis playedout in theepisode when Cossacks, preparing to meetwith the tsarina, order Vakula to changehis peasant-likedress into the appropriate court attire: "Put on clothsof thetype we are wearing."56Once Vakulais dressedin courtattire, he wantsto showoff his proficiencyin thegramotnyi iazyk, i.e., Russian,but, in fact,he "corrupts"it withincorrect forms.57 At thesame time,the Cossacks, who also dressedin courtattire, demonstrate their defiance of the imperiallanguage. Whilespeaking with the empress, the Cossacks intentionallyintersperse their discourseswith Ukrainian phrases,58 which perplexes Vakula59 and incurs Count

The tensionsbetween the self-assertion of theUkrainian gentry and their obedience to the imperialdress code are thoroughlyanalyzed by the Ukrainianscholar Tamara Hundorovain herrecent book Kitch i literatura:Travestii (Kyiv: Fakt, 2008). Gogol',Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 1: 234. "Mto )k, 3eMJiHK»,- CKa3aji npHOcaHJicb 3anopo>Keu h acejiaa noKa3aTb,hto oh mohcct roBOpHTbh no-pyccKH.«Ulmo, ôœiuiou eopod?» Ky3Heu h ce6e He xoTeji ocpaMHTbca h noKa3aTbcahobhhkom, npHTOM >Ke, ok hmcjihcjiynañ BH^eTbBbiiue cero, oh 3H&nh caM rpaMOTHbiHjbmk. «ToôepHUH 3HaTHaa!» OTBenaji oh paBHO^yuiHo: «Henero CKa3aTb,doMbi ôcuiiuyujue, KapTHHbi bhcjit cKpo3b BaacHbie.MHorne òomu HcnHcaHbi öyKBaMH H3 cycajibHoro 3OJiOTajxo Hpe3BbiHaHHOCTH.Henero CKa3aTb, ny^Hafl nponopuHfl!"[emphasis added] (Gogol', Polnoe sobranie sochinenii1: 233-234). ["'Now then,our fellow-countryman',said the Cossack, drawinghimself up and showingoff his knowledgeof theRussian tongue, 'Big city,aren't it?' The blacksmith did not wantto show himselfup as a completegreenhorn, and anyway,as we have alreadyhad occasionto see, he toocould turn a prettyphrase. 'It's a splendidprecinct!' he repliedin a nonchalantmanner. 'There's no denyingit: thehouses are mightybig, you see some decentpictures hanging in them.Many of the housesare excessively adornedwith lettersof gold leaf. But there'sno gainsayingit; the proportionis marvelous!'"]English translation taken from: Nikolai Gogol, VillageEvenings near Dikankaand Mirgorod,translated by ChristopherEnglish (Oxford, New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 1994) 131. 58 CountPotemkin asks the Cossacks in Russian:"Bee jih bm3ziecb?" The Cossacksreply in Ukrainian:"Ta ecu,ôambKyT (Gogol1, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 1: 235). Similarly, in thescene with the Empress Catherine they speak Ukrainian("Ta cnacHÖH,MaMo!"; ">Ik ace, MaMo!"[Gogol1, Polnoe sobraniesochinenii 1: 236, 238]) or use Ukrainian forms(e.g., the vocative case, which is absentin Russian)when speaking Russian ("ße^b HejioBeKy[In Ukrainian"cholovik" refers to a genderedman and a husband,while in Russianit is genderless,meaning 'a humanbeing'] caMa 3Haeuib,6e3 hœhkhHejib3a acHTb"[Man cannot do withouta wife][Gogol1, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 1: 2381). 59 Listeningto theCossacks occasionally using Ukrainian phrases makes Vakula wonder why "3TOT3anopo>Keu, 3Haa TaK xopouio rpaMOTHbiñ«3biK, roBOpHT c uapHLjeio,KaK

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 218 YULIYAlLCHUK

Potemkin'sdispleasure.60 The hybridlanguage of Vakula and the Cossacks mimicsthe imperial discursive conventions: by pretendingto "fitin" withthe imperialauthority, the Ukrainiancharacters in factturn against its formsand structures. Likewise,Gogol', by fashioninghimself as a memberof politesociety, did morethan merely copy the colonizing culture, its behaviour, manners and values; he createda "blurredcopy" of a Russiansociety man, which ultimately mimics and mocks the colonial authority.Gogol" s self-fashioning right after the publicationof Vecherawas aimedat makinghimself visible and disclosedhis engagementin colonial mimicry. This was manifestedin two aspects of Gogol" s self-representation:hisambivalent hairstyle and his provocative behaviour in St. Petersburgsalons. It was not by chancethat around 1832 - the year of the publicationof Book 2 of Vechera,which secured for Gogol1 the reputation of an entertaining,sly Ukrainianauthor - a curious detail appeared in Gogol"s appearance:a tuftof hair elevated over his forehead,which Gogol"s contemporariesunanimously labeled the "khokhol"61 This detailfigured in the descriptionsof Gogol"s appearance,captured by MikhailLonginov,62 Pavel Annenkov,63and SergeiAksakov.64 The khokholwas perceivedas something exotic,a deviationfrom what was perceivedas the"norm" in Russiansociety. It was also thepernicious mark of UkrainianOtherness and a signifierof negative valuesrooted in theempire's racist social practices.It is especiallyevident in Aksakov's recollectionwhere the khokhol is usedboth in itsdirect meaning and metonymicallyintune with the common imperial naming of Ukrainians.

ovato HapoHHO, caMbiM rpyõbiM, oõbiKHOBeHHO Ha3biBaeMbiM MV5KHUKHMHapeHHeM. 'XHTpbiH Hapofl!' noAVMaji oh caM ceöe: 'BepHO, He aapoM oh 3to ¿jejiaeT'" [The blacksmithwas amazed to hear this Cossack, who could speak such good, correct Russian,talking to thetsarina in themost uncouth language, just likepeasant. 'The wily fox!'he thoughtto himself,'I bethe has a specialreason for doing that.']. Gogol', Polnoe sobraniesochinenii 1: 238. Potemkinremarks to himselfduring the Cossacks' meeting with the empress that they "say notat all whathe taughtthem" ("roBopjrr coBepiueHHo He to, neiviyoh hx vhhji"). Gogol',Polnoe sobranie sochinenii 1: 236. The directmeaning of khokhol designates a longlock of hairleft on topor on thefront of an otherwiseclean-shaven or shortlycut hairstyle- a hairstylethat was widely employedby UkrainianCossacks. From the eighteenthcentury forward, the word khokholhas been used metonymicallyfor any inhabitantof Ukraineand gradually acquireda pejorativeconnotation. Longinovrecalled a "khokholok"on thetop of Gogol"shead in 1832when the writer was tutoringhim. Veresaev 1 18. Annenkovmentioned "the tall, curledand whippedup tuftof hair" on Gogol"s forehead,making him look like a rooster.Veresaev 141. Aksakovretrospectively recorded his impressionafter his firstmeeting with Gogol' in 1832,emphasizing the khokhol in Gogol"sappearance. Aksakov 10.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol"s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 219

RichardGregg has assertedthat Gogol', by fashioninghis khokholor "quiff,"made a statementabout his ethnicallegiance.65 It is hard,however, to establishaffinity between Gogol" s haircutand the traditionalhaircuts of UkrainianCossacks, as wellas to claimthat his quiff was hisconscious strategy of an ethnicdisguise.66 Gogol" s khokholwas rathera discursiveconstruct that croppedup in memoirsof his acquaintancesin the 1840s- 1850s, when Russian societybecame extremely preoccupied with the question of Gogol"s allegiance to Russiannational identity. The khokholbetrayed the fantasyof imperial societyabout cunning Ukrainians who only pretend to be loyalimperial subjects. Russiansociety reconstructed Gogol"s appearancealong recognizable "bodily" lines:thanks to his ambiguoushaircut Gogol' was claimedto lookand act as an eccentricUkrainian. Gogol"s urgeto fashionhimself on theedge, however, was evidentonly in the firsthalf of the 1830s. Neitherin the yearspreceding the publicationof Vecheranor in the 1840sdid Gogol'have sucha culturallyambiguous hairdo. His classmatesdepicted the young Gogol' of the 1820s withhis hairplastered closelyto his head,67while already in 1836 Vera Nashchokinarecalled Gogol' wearinga skobka,a kindof longbob, which was traditionalfor Russian peasants (and whichin the 1830s had becomevery popular among Slavophiles).68 In 1842, Longinov,who ten yearsearlier was impressedwith Gogol"s exotic haircut,69hardly recognized Gogol' who now sporteda haircut"a la muzhik."70 In theportraits of Gogol1from the 1840s (forinstance, by FyodorMöller), his appearancelacks any provocativedetail; he is dressedin theblack frock coat traditionalfor Russian intellectuals and has a mustacheand longerhair. At that time,Gogol" s appearanceand fashion resembled that of the Russian Slavophiles, particularlythat of thebrothers Aksakov, Shevyrev, Pogodin and others,with whomthe writer began to shareideas concerning a renewal of Russiannational

RichardGregg, "The Writerand His Quiff:How YoungGogol' Sought To Shape His PublicImage," Russian Review 63.1 (2004): 63-69. A portraitsof theRussian poet EvgeniiBaratynskii (made by Sheval'ein the 1820s) and of Gogol"s Ukrainianfriend Mykhailo Maksymovych captured them wearing very similarhaircuts, reminiscent of theone Gogol' had in theportrait painted by Aleksandr Venetsianovin 1834(Gogol', Polnoe sóbrame sochinenii 2: 3). See, forexample, recollections of Gogol"s teacherIvan Kul'zhynskii(Veresaev 76) andclassmate Vasilii Liubich-Romanovich (Veresaev 79). Nashchokinawrote retrospectively about Gogol" s appearanceat theirfirst meeting in 1836: "[forojib] hochji ^OBOJibHOßjiHHHbie bojiocw, ocrpHHœHHbieb CKOÕKy,h Macro BCTpaxHBajitojioboh" [[Gogol'] was wearinglong skobka hair cut [a hairstylesimilar to a bob- Yu. I.I andoften tossed his head"!. Veresaev 175. 69 Veresaev118. 70 Veresaev339.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 YULIYA ILCHUK identity.71Therefore, only in the early 1830s did Gogol' have an ambiguous haircutthat differentiated him from the rest of the Russian literary elite. The ambivalenceand marginalityof Gogol"s positionin Russiansociety was conditionednot only by his exoticfashion and hairstyle,but also by his eccentricverbal behaviour and by his masterfuloral performance of his stories, plays,and anecdotes.As WilliamMills Todd III asserts,Gogol' remaineda misfitin polite society because he didnot take part in thefree-flowing exchange of repartee,gossip, and lightverse.72 Moreover, Gogol' consciously intensified his marginalityby demonstratinghis inabilityto mastersocial graces, particularlysociety "talk." There are manyrecords of Gogol"s contemporaries whowere shocked by his oral anecdotes, which were often considered too spicy for a societyman. Efim Kurganovhas thoroughlyexamined Gogol" s oral novellasand anecdotes,which often were inappropriatein politesociety and workedto "demolish"its expectations.73Gogol"s repertoireof oral anecdotes consistedof both Ukrainian74 and international75 sources that the writer creatively reworkedevery time to fitthe situation. Many Gogol' contemporaries pointed to thefact that Gogol" s oral storieswere "unique, but sometimes not entirely in goodtaste,"76 "almost always quite obscene,"77 and "never fit to print."It should be noted,however, that spicy anecdotes were in fashionamong salons attendee at thattime, and obviouslyGogol' imitatedhis olderfellow poets, particularly Zhukovskii,in his provocationsof "good taste." The differencebetween Zhukovskii'sand Gogol"s oral performancesresided firstof all in the

Partof theirideological program was to heal the breachbetween the eliteand the peasantry,and to thisend Slavophilesproposed that the elite dress in less fashionable attire.Konstantin Aksakov, for example, wore a traditionalRussian dress in salons in orderto demonstratehis rejectionof westernizationand his solidaritywith the people. For furtherreference see ChristineRuane, "Subjects into Citizens:The Politicsof Clothingin ImperialRussia," in Fashioning theBody Politic: Dress, Gender,Citizenship, editedby Wendy Parkins (Oxford, New York:Berg, 2002) 49-70. William Mills Todd III, Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin: Ideology, Institutions,and Narrative (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1986) 172-173. EfimKurganov, "Gogol as a Narratorof Anecdotes,"in ReflectiveLaughter: Aspects ofHumor in Russian Culture, edited by Lesley Milne (London: Anthem Press, 2004) 27. 74 Ivan Panaev mentionedhow "Gogol"s Malorussianoral tales... made a strong impressionon Belinskii"in Mashinskii218. SergeiAksakov attributed the originality of Gogol"s anecdotesto the peculiaritiesof his Ukrainianmentality ("iskliuchitel'no osobennost1malorossov"). See Veresaev1 34. See, forexample, a variationof Gogol"s anecdoteabout Khodzha Nasreddin, which was recordedby VladimirSollogub. For furtherreference see VladimirSollogub, Povesti:Vospominaniia (Leningrad: "Khudozhestvennaia literatura," 1988) 551-552. See A. F. Afanas'ev'srecollection in Veresaev238. See FedorChizhov's memoirs in Veresaev353.

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol"s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 221 extensivenessof the repertoire78 and in an inimitablenatural tone of thelatter.79 Yet, Gogol"s obscenejokes and anecdoteswere toleratednot because he managedto shocksociety in an unexpectedway,80 but because Gogol' was acceptedinto Russian high societyas a Ukrainianjester {"malorossiiskii zhartovnik"as definedby Osip Senkovskii),and, therefore,as such he was "allowed"to transgressand was excusedfor jokes thatother members of society would have been censured.81Gogol1 deliberately subverted the requirements imposedupon the honnêtehomme. In a sense, Gogol1became a burlesque versionof the honnêtehomme that strove to participatein politesociety by simultaneouslyimitating and ridiculing its codes. This deliberate self-fashioning andsocial behaviour was a signifierof colonialmimicry. "Almost the same, but not quite," Gogol' took advantageof the ambivalenceof his positionto transformmimicry of the imperialcenter into its mockeryand therebyto undermineits control over his self- fashioning. In conclusion,it is necessaryto pointout thatalthough conceived as a projectof legitimizingthe imperial stereotypes about Ukrainians, Gogol's self- fashioningproceeded along the lines of colonialmimicry. Gogol mimickedand mockednot only the values,attitudes and culturalcodes of the hierarchical imperialsociety, but also the expectationsof thatsociety that a Russianized Ukrainianwould play up to itscolonial stereotypes. By creatinga virtualcopy of a Russian societyman, Gogol' not only assertedhis ethnicand cultural differencebut also subvertedthe project of "domesticating" the Other.

78 As Kurganovclaims, Zhukovskii "offered his listenersalways the same repertoireof storiesand theyknew what to expect,"whereas Gogol' "always took his listeners unawares,Gogol' "employeda moresubtle and calculatedstrategy than Zhukovsky" in hisoral performances. Kurganov 30. 79 See, forexample, Gogol"s anecdoteabout a brothel,which he relatedto a sternlady Louisa KarlovnaVielgorskaia, neé PrincessBiron, pretending it to be in unisonwith a seriousconversation on a spiritual-mythicaltopic. The whole situationis recordedin Sollogub441-442. 80 Kurganov30. Compare,for example, the reactionof highsociety to Odoevskii'sand to Gogol"s indecentanecdotes, as recordedby Sollogub:"[Odoevskii] was distinguishedby the peculiaritythat he told ladies the most indecentthings in the most innocentway, completelysincerely and withoutany ulterior motive. In thissense, he was notat all like Gogol',who had thegift of narratingthe most salacious anecdotes, without provoking angerfrom his femalelisteners, whereas poor Odoevskii was angrilycut short,Gogol', meanwhile,always transgressed deliberately." Sollogub 441^42.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009

This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions