Nevsky Prospect"

Strolling on Nevsky: Bulgarin, Pushkin, and Gogol's "Nevsky Prospect"

Vladimir Golstein*

"Oh, have no faith in this Nevsky Prospect... It is deception, a dream, nothing is what it seems" (Gogol, 35).1 It is safe to surmise that Gogol's famous words, taken from the conclusion of his Petersburg tale refer not only to the deceptive nature of St. Petersburg's main street, and, by extension, to the capital of the Russian Empire itself, but also to "Nevsky Prospect" (1834), that is, to the actual story. Consequently, if we are not supposed to take for granted anything associated with either the street or the story, then the story's brave conclusion and its seem- ingly perfect correspondence with the plight of Piskarev warrant certain suspicions and reservations. The majority of critics, however, seem to ignore Gogol's playful challenge not to take his story at face value, and continue to focus on Piskarev's predicament and his oscillations between ugly reality and the world of dreams and imagination, finding numerous parallels to this popular Romantic dichotomy in various Romantic texts, ranging from Hoffman and Jules Janin to Maturin and De Quincey.2 Unlike these Gogol specialists, Russian critics and writers appear to be more perceptive, or, better said, more mistrustful, of the novella's overt message. Thus both Belinsky and Dostoevsky focus only on the

* Vladimir Golstein is visiting associate professor of Russian literature at Brown University. He is the author of Lermontov's Narratives of Heroism (Northwestern, 1998) and of numerous articles on major Russian authors, ranging from Pushkin and Tolstoy to Bulgakov and Tsvetaeva. He is currently completing a study of generational conflicts in Russian culture.

29 personage of Pirogov, and see him as a multidimensional character type rather than a mere emblem of the appearance/reality dichotomy. The clue to such a reading is given by Gogol himself, who begins his story of the two friends' adventures with Pirogov's exclamation: "Stop!" (.Stoi/) (8), as if inviting us to pause over the enigma of Pirogov. Belin- sky seems both puzzled and excited by Pirogov's enigma:

Пирогов... Святители! Да это целая каста, целый народ, целая нация! О единственный, несравненный Пирогов, тип из типов, первообраз из первообразов! Ты многообъемлющее, чем Шайлок, многозна- чительнее чем Фауст... это символ, мистический миф, это, наконец, кафтан, который так чудно скроен, что придет по плечам тысяче человек». (Белинский. 1,297)

Dostoevsky - influenced by Belinsky to a greater degree than he ever admitted - followed Belinsky's lead and turned Pirogov into a par- ticular, and quite unexpected type: a shameless Russian intelligent. Dostoevsky's preoccupation with Pirogov is important, since at first glance, the plight of the poor dreamer Piskarev and the exposure of St. Petersburg's deceptions seem more suitable subjects for the novelist's interest. Yet, it is to Pirogov that Dostoevsky repeatedly returns, asserting that Gogol "постиг назначение поручика Пирогова" (ХУШ, 59), while calling Pirogov "the prophesy of a genius" at a later point. In a 1873 piece in A Writer's Diary entitled Нечто о вранье," the novelist articulates the reasons behind his fascination with Pirogov. Dostoevsky recollects a ride on a train, during which an engineer entertains the pub- lic with his discussion of scientific, religious, and other matters, about which - according to Dostoevsky - he knows absolutely nothing. How- ever, this does not preclude the engineer from shamelessly pontificating on these issues. "Вот эта-то известного рода бессовестность русского интеллигентного человека - решительный для меня феномен," Dostoevsky explains, and continues:

Поручик Пирогов, сорок лет тому назад высеченный в Большой Мещанской слесарем Шиллером был страшным пророчеством, пророчеством гения, так ужасно угадавшем будущее, ибо Пироговых оказалось безмерно много, так много что и не пересечь... Это «стоит ли начинать», конечно, с одной стороны намекает на такую способность уживчивости со всем чем угодно, а вместе с тем

30 и на такую широту нашей русской природы, что пред этими качествами бледнеет и гаснет даже все безграничное. (Достоевский, XXI, 124)

In this book on Gogol, Donald Fanger observes that Piskarev and Pirogov are "not characters, but mentalities" (Fanger, 113), that is, they represent two types of consciousness. The consciousness of Piskarev and its roots in Romantic ideology have been well studied, and - at least since the time of Goethe's Young Werther - it has been clear that such excessive or, if you wish, hysterical idealism is nothing but destructive. But what are the alternatives? Pirogov - as was suggested by Gogol and interpreted by both Be- linsky and Dostoevsky - appears as a new and threatening phenomenon, a fascinating character with an equally fascinating mentality. Armed with what Dostoevsky calls "the right to dishonor" (право на бесчестье), with resilience and unscrupulousness, with boundless resourcefulness and moral indifference, Pirogov can go very far indeed. He obviously has what it takes to succeed in St. Petersburg. It is my claim, therefore, that the deception that Gogol challenges his readers to unravel is connected less with St. Petersburg's surreal nature or with Piskarev's failure to differentiate between dreams and reality than with the thoroughly perplexing nature of the officer Pirogov and dangerous cultural repercussions of his deceptively innocuous character and equally innocuous conduct. Rather than being a noble officer (and a gentleman), that is, a person governed by certain codes and principles of behavior, Pirogov proves to be a rather unscrupulous opportunist and - in Dostoevsky's perceptive interpretation - an opportunist in the field of intellectual ac- tivity. I believe that Dostoevsky is hardly off the mark here, since Pirogov's prototype was indeed the opportunistic officer Faddei Bul- garin (1789-1859), who transformed himself into one of St. Petersburg most successful journalists, publishers, and writers. The exploration of this Pirogov/Bulgarin connection will be the primary focus of this essay. Today's readers might be familiar with Bulgarin primarily through footnotes to Russian literary history, which inform us of his conflicts with Pushkin and other major literary figures of that period. From these footnotes Bulgarin emerges as a mediocre but highly entrepreneurial author with government ties and secret-police connections. Recently,

31 however, it has become fashionable to present him as a kind of social and political prophet, a supporter of a strong state and strong middle class, a creator of mass culture, and in general a person whom Russia failed to heed at its own peril.3 Bulgarin's contemporaries, however, responded less to his literary and political insights or blunders than to his intriguing combination of energy, resourcefulness, and the brazen way in which he pursued his goals. A Polish nobleman, an officer of the Russian (1806-1811) and Napoleonic (1812-1813) armies, Bulgarin, in the opinion of Pushkin, Gogol, and their thoughtful contemporaries, seems to capture the new spirit of the age by exemplifying the readiness to ignore moral principles and engage in any form of dishonorable behavior for the sake of material benefit. Bulgarin thus manifests the same amoralism and lack of scruples that at the conclusion of Gogol's story is exhibited by Pirogov. Bulgarin's contemporaries found this mixture of resilience and dishonor, of perseverance and shamelessness, more fascinating than his ties to the Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery (the secret police) or his competent but uninspiring writings. As early as 1824, Bul- garin's contemporary Aleksandr Izmailov associated this quality with the latter's "чугунный лоб" (forehead made of cast-iron):

Нет, не было еще такого из судей, Каков был в старину чугунный лоб Фаддей: Цыгане все ему в бесстыдстве уступали! Служил он в коннице, как ротмистр Брамербас, И из конюшни вдруг переведен в Приказ... (Poety-satiriki, 354; italics added)

That Bulgarin, shamelessly striving for material success, was prac- tically unstoppable, was also observed by Denis Davydov in his 1836 epigram:

Нет, кажется тебе не суждено сразить врага Твой враг - детина чудный В нем совесть спит спокойно, беспробудно Заставить бестию стыдиться - мудрено... (.Russkaia epigramma, 196)

Pushkin, whose hostility toward Bulgarin is well documented, had

32 a similar view of Bulgarin, describing him, in the guise of a review of the memoirs of Vidocq (a French police spy turned journalist): "Представьте себе человека без имени и пристанища, живущего ежедневными донесениями, ...отъявленного плута, столь же бесстыдного, как и гнусного." (Пушкин, XI, 129) It is my claim that in Gogol's skillful treatment, Pirogov embodies the same set of values that by the 1830s began to be associated with Bulgarin's type of behavior. In this sense, there is a certain parallelism in the story's development - while a noble beauty worthy of Perugino's brush turns out to be a prostitute, a noble officer turns out to be the prostitute's equivalent, at least in the moral and intellectual domain. Gogol's parallelism is hardly surprising, of course, since journalism, along with politics, continues to rival prostitution for the title of the world's most ancient profession. Needless to say, all of these profes- sions thrive on a combination of deception and shamelessness. The Dic- tionary of Americanisms, compiled by John Russell Bartlett in 1848, il- lustrates the verb "humbug" - understood as "to deceive" or "to trick" - with the following comic couplets by a certain Brookes:

Of all trades and arts in repute or oppression, Humbugging is held the most ancient profession. 'Twixt nations and parties, and state politicians, Prim shop-keepers, jobbers, smooth lawyers, physicians: Of worth and of wisdom the trial and test Is - mark ye, my friends! - who shall humbug the best.

The text of "Nevsky Prospect" implies that Pirogov, similar to his prototype Bulgarin, is a master of humbugging, competing with the tale's prostitute for the ability to "humbug the best." At a certain moment in the story, Piskarev rushes to bed hoping that his dream will bring him visions of the beautiful stranger, but instead he dreams of "lieutenant Pirogov smoking his pipe" (Gogol, 19). The vulgar prostitute and Pirogov are alter egos, two ugly realizations of a beautiful vi- sion. From the very start of the story, Gogol works hard to surround Pirogov with details related to Bulgarin himself. Let us recall how Pirogov is introduced in the story.

Но прежде нежели мы скажем, кто таков был поручик Пирогов, не мешает кое-что рассказать о том обществе, к которому

33 принадлежал Пирогов. Есть офицеры, составляющие в Петербурге какой-то средний класс общества... Этих хладнокровных девиц черезвычайно трудно расшевелить и заставить смеяться; для этого нужно большое искусство или, лучше сказать, совсем не иметь никакого искусства. Нужно говорить так, чтобы не было ни слишком умно, ни слишком смешно, чтобы во всем была та мелочь, которую любят женщины. В этом надобно отдать справедливость означенным господам... В высшем обществе они попадаются очень редко или, лучше сказать, никогда. Оттуда они совершенно вытеснены тем, что называется аристократами...Они любят потолковать о литературе, хвалят Булгарина, Пушкина и Греча и говорят с презрением и остроумными колкостями об А.А. Орлове. (Гоголь Ш, 35)

What immediately strikes the reader here is that Gogol talks about Lieutenant Pirogov primarily in terms of his preoccupation with literature and verbal expression. He belongs to a group of people who are skillful at small talk, who can entertain their audience with verbal abil- ities which, though limited, suit the audience perfectly. We also learn that Pirogov praises Bulgarin, while criticizing the low-brow produc- tions of Orlov, and that he seems to have been shunned by aristocrats, while finding a home among the middle class. In light of the very heat- ed polemic that had taken place in Petersburg literary circles in 1830-31 - and had split literary society into the so called aristocratic party head- ed by Pushkin and Baron Delvig, and their middle-class opponents, such as Bulgarin, Polevoi, and Grech - Gogol's references become all too obvious. Pirogov belongs to the Bulgarin party without knowing it. Let us therefore focus on Faddei Bulgarin and the values associated with him, since it is with Bulgarin's life and his role in Russia's cultural history that Pirogov is connected. To reconstruct the historical and cultural context that gave rise to the emergence of Bulgarin and his literary alter-ego, Pirogov, I would like to stress a simple historical fact. Although today's readers might view the 1830s as the time of Pushkin, Gogol, and Lermontov, for contemporaries it was the period of the un- questionable supremacy of such epigone writers as Aleksandr Bestuzhev-Marlinskii and Bulgarin, who dominated the literary pro- duction of the day, and who, incidentally, remained very close friends throughout their lives. In my study of Lermontov, I point to "marlinism" as a dangerous cultural phenomenon, which Lermontov had to challenge both in his art

34 and life. One of the most successful of Lermontov's attack on the literary and cultural behavior associated with Marlinskii was the creation and consequent debunking of a character who seemed to embody the values of "marlinism" (Golstein, 133-153). I am referring, of course, to Grushnitsky. I believe that Gogol pursues a similar strategy, with regard to the types of values and behavior that might be called "bulgarinism," embodied in Gogol's fiction by such figures as Pirogov and other resilient and shameless liars and schemers, such as Khlestakov and Chichikov. Gogol's contribution to the dismantling of Bulgarin's literary reputation was acknowledged in 1845 by Belinsky, an astute observer of the Russian literary scene, who writes in his essay on Bulgarin:

Было время, г. Булгарин чуть не попал в русские Вальтер Скотты, но это время давно прошло... А кто виной этому? - Гоголь, который успел своими сочинениями изгладить из памяти публики даже сочинения тех романистов, которые действительно не лишены даровитости и которые своими романами успели изгладить из памяти романы г. Булгарина! Есть из-за чего сделать, из Гоголя свою idee fixe,говор я словами г. Булгарина. (Белинский IX, 649)

Gogol's attack on the whole phenomenon of "bulgarinism" has not been sufficiently studied, however, and the present essay represents an attempt to address this issue. Let us consider Pirogov's story in a nutshell. First he is insulted by a drunken German artisan, Schiller. He ignores this insult and prefers to remain in hot pursuit of Schiller's German wife. He ultimately fails in his love quest and is soundly beaten and humiliated by the same Schiller; yet, after eating a pirozhok and reading Bulgarin's Northern Bee, he is content and ready to undertake new adventures. It is clear that Gogol was intrigued by such resilient strength: think of Chichikov, for example. As I have suggested, in Gogol's time it was Bulgarin who was seen as the epitome of such resilience and success. He is the type of man whom Griboedov describes when he writes: "he is hurt when he falls, but gets up as if nothing happened" (by the way, Pirogov is known to "declaim with great effect lines from...Griboe- dov's Woe from Wit"; Gogol, 26). Bulgarin's life, in fact, fits the same pattern: he falls, gets up, and keeps on climbing the ladder of success. An impoverished child of a Polish aristocratic family, Bulgarin first served in the Russian army, from which he was dismissed in 1811

35 (as a lieutenant). He then joined Napoleon's army and fought against the Russians (reaching the rank of Captain and receiving the Order of the Legion d'honneur). Upon Napoleon's defeat, Bulgarin arrived at St. Petersburg (1816), where he tried his luck as a lawyer, had a rather un- successful marriage, and finally succeeded as a journalist. He then took a radically anti-Polish position during the 1830 uprising, all along claiming to be a good Pole and a good Russian, a liberal and a conserv- ative, a friend of writers, such as Ryleev and Griboedov and a friend of the government and its secret police. As one of the numerous epigrams devoted to him claims:"Ругал он русских, как поляк, и поляков ругал, как русский." (Russkaia epigramma, 286) Sensing that Bulgarin was a curious type worthy of further exploration, Belinsky observed that his character "is very interesting and de- serves if not a whole novella, at least a physiological sketch" (Belinsky IX, 653). In fact, Bulgarin inspired a great number of epigrams, numerous vaudevilles (such as P.Karatygin's "Familiar Strangers" [Znakomye neznakomtsy] and F.Koni's "Petersburg Apartments" [Pe- tersburgskie kvartiry] [1840]), fables (Krylov), and stories ranging from Odoevsky's "The Morning of a Journalist" (1839) to Nekrasov's unfin- ished novel, The Life and Adventures ofTikhon Trostnikov (1843-48), which presents Bulgarin as a dishonorable journalist forever ready to trade his opinions and who is mockingly called "The Most Respected One" (Pochteneishii). Nekrasov, in fact, went even further than Belin- sky and Dostoevsky, viewing Bulgarin, in his 1845 epigram, as "the eighth wonder of the world": Он у нас осьмое чудо - У него завидный нрав. Неподкупен - как Иуда, Храбр и честен - как Фальстаф. (Russkaia epigramma, 371)4

It is hard to deny that Faddei Bulgarin exerted a lasting influence on Gogol's Petersburg Tales; his presence in "The Dairy of a Madman" is well attested by Igor Zolotussky, who points to Bulgarin's own story "Tri listka iz doma sumasshedshikh ili Psikhicheskoe izlecheniie neist- selimoi bolezni" and to other information published in The Northern Bee as the source for Poprishchin's fixation on Spanish affairs and some of the bizarre details of his fantasies (Zolotusskii, 1986). Zolotusskii

36 also perceives traces of Bulgarin in the portrayal of Chichikov, Khlestakov, and the latter's friend, the journalist Triapichkin (Zolo- tusskii, 2000). In general, there always seems to be a Bulgarin story or set of stories lurking behind much of Gogol's fiction. Gilman Alkire, for example, traces the influence that Bulgarin's picaresque novel, Ivan Vyzhigin (1829), had on Gogol in general and his Dead Souls in partic- ular (Alkire, 289-96). Likewise, the presentation of St. Petersburg through contrast with Moscow and the lavish praise of Nevsky Prospect was popularized, if not introduced, into Russian literature by Bulgarin. Scholars, such as Viktor Vinogradov, Nils Ake Nilson, and Mikhail Vaiskopf have explored Gogol's indebtness to Bulgarin's Petersburg texts, including the latter's 1824 sketch "A Stroll on a Sidewalk of Nevsky Prospect" ("Progulka po trotuaru Nevskogo prospekta"). Bul- garin is also present in Gogol's "The Portrait," in the figure of an unscrupulous journalist who sets Chartkov on his financially successful career. Bulgarin's Northern Bee is mentioned twice in "Nevsky Prospect," both times in connection with Pirogov. In fact, The Northern Bee frames his story: first Gogol points to Pirogov's penchant for the journal as a sign of his literary tastes and cultural attitudes, and, finally, his reading of the journal is one of the last things he does in the story, as he comforts himself with a pirozhok and the latest issue of The Northern Bee after his sound thrashing. Nikolai Firtich has commented on the metaphorical significance of pirozhok consumption: Pirogov, so to speak, gets full of himself again, and calms down (Firtich, 40). The same can be said about his reading of Bulgarin's newspaper. Yet I would argue that Bulgarin's presence goes deeper than that. Bulgarin not only reveals the literary tastes of Pirogov; he seems to be the inspiration behind the whole Pirogov affair. It is my contention that various literary and biographical features of Bulgarin are manifested in several events surrounding Pirogov's story. For starters, let us recall that Pirogov's adventures occur in a par- ticular place in St. Petersburg, Meshchanskaia Street. "Passing through the dark Kazan Gates they entered Meshchanskaia Street, a street of to- bacconists and bric-a-brac stalls, of German craftsmen and Finnish wenches" (27). Indeed, Meshchanskaia Street (from "meshchanin" - a city dweller, a petty-bourgeois) was, among other things, a red-light district, notorious for its "establishments." This St.Petersburg street (now Kazanskaia St.) is known in Russian literature primarily through

37 Pushkin, who, in his attack on Bulgarin, called him "The Nobleman of Meshchanskaia Street" (в Мещанской дворянин) (Pushkin, 111:1; 263). Pushkin, as the commentaries reveal, refers here to Bulgarin's German wife, Elena, or to be more precise to Elena's aunt who raised Elena and ran an establishment on Meshshanskaia Street. I suggest that Gogol's elaborating on Pushkin's famous characterization, turns Bulgarin into a King of Meshshanskaia Street. He accom- plishes this by distributing Bulgarin's features among the various denizens of the street, including Pirogov, Hoffmann, and Schiller. Bulgarin, as he himself never tired of stressing, was a military officer, a lieutenant of the Russian army and a captain of the French army. As a member of such an elite class, he was not supposed to have any as- sociation with the values of Meshchanskaia Street and the "meshchanstvo" in general. Any contact with Meshchanskaia Street is dishonorable - that seems to be the verdict of Pushkin. Furthermore, since Bulgarin is presented by Pushkin and like-minded authors as the very epitome of Meshchanskaia Street, the very contact with such a person becomes dishonorable. The suggestion that Bulgarin's personality stains those associated with him was made already in 1831 by Prince Viazemsky, who wrote in response to Bulgarin's shameless support of the Russian government's brutal suppression of the Polish uprising:

Двойной присягою играя, Поляк в двойную цель попал: Он Польшу спас от негодяя И русских братством запятнал. (Russkaia epigramma, 221).

Likewise, in 1834, that is, the year of "Nevsky Prospect," Belinsky wrote in his polemical essay, "Literary Reveries":

Что за блаженство... сказать какому- нибудь пройдохе и Видоку, какому-нибудь литературному торгашу, что он оскорбляет собой и эту словесность, которой занимается, и этих добрых людей, кре- дитом коих пользуется...заклеймить его имя позором отверже- ния,...и показать его свету во всей его наготе! (Белинский, 1, 70).

Such corporative issues and values were important for Gogol as well. In his later essay, "On the Nation's Estates" (O sosloviiakh v go-

38 sudarstve), he claims that the gentry class has to maintain its honor and should act like the officers who cast out a dishonorable officer:

"Они [дворяне] должны поступать так же как в полку общество благородных офицеров поступает с тем, который обесчестит подлым поведением их общество, они приказывают ему выйти из круга, и он не осмеливается преступить этого". (Гоголь VIII, 493)

Through his misadventures on Meshchanskaia, Lieutenant Pirogov has clearly dishonored himself, and not himself, but his whole class. Schiller, who in his drunken stupor addresses Pirogov with the following greeting, "You are a scoundrel (podlets) and not a Russian officer" (Gogol, 33), unwittingly provides the proper evaluation of this character., In suggesting that Bulgarin via Pirogov, is part and parcel of Meshchanskaia Street, Gogol refers less to Bulgarin's family circum- stances and the profession of his in-law relation, and more to his ignoble, shameful behavior. He places the officer in Meshchanskaia Street and then reveals the perfect fit between the two. "Bulgarinism" thus seems to encapsulate all that Meshchanskaia Street stands for - with its foreign artisans and traders, its prostitutes, its drunkards prone to vio- lence, and its shameless Pirogovs. Yet it appears that apart from these moral and cultural concerns, Gogol's attack on Bulgarin was influenced by some additional consid- erations. One such possible motive has to do with the conflict between Pushkin and Bulgarin, a conflict whose impact on Gogol seems to have been underappreciated by Gogol scholars, despite its relevance to both Gogol and "Nevsky Prospect." Pushkin's struggle with Bulgarin is well documented (e.g. by Vasilii Gippius and Vadim Vatsuro, [1994]); it coincides with the 1830- 1831 polemics between Pushkin's Literary Gazette and Bulgarin's The Northern Bee. Some scholars now believe that the aristocratism, culture, and literature that characterized the controversy masked a "turf war," since the Pushkin-Del'vig publication tried to move in on the ter- ritory that used to be under the full control of Bulgarin (Vatsuro, 2000). Be that as it may, Gogol could not help but be aware of the growing controversy. Pushkin's bitter epigram against Bulgarin ("Ne to beda chto ty po- liak" [1830]) was prompted by the publication in the March 11,1830 is-

39 sue of The Northern Bee of the so called "Anecdote" or "Hoffmann Anecdote" (Gippius, 237). Bulgarin here describes a hypothetical situ- ation in which a French poet, an awkward imitator of Byron and Schiller, accuses a German author, who now resides in France after his country had joined the French Empire, for mocking Frenchmen in his comedies and for liking his former compatriots, the Germans, more than the French. Bulgarin gives this imaginary German writer a rather unexpected name, Hoffmann. This Hoffmann, insulted by the chauvin- istic accusations, writes a letter to another French author, asking him to decide who is more patriotic, he, Hoffmann, who loves his new moth- erland and has proved his love with his own blood shed on the battle- field, or his sacrilegious and drunken opponent, whose thoughts and feelings show no traces of the sublime, and who is capable only of throwing rhymes at everything sacred (hinting here at the recent "Gavriliada" scandal) (Severnaia pchela, No. 30,11 March 1830). The fact that the subject of Bulgarin's attack was Pushkin, became immediately clear to such perceptive readers as Stepan Shevyrev and to Pushkin himself (Gippius, 237). Students of this conflict, however, seem to ignore Bulgarin's own self-presentation as Hoffmann, a stranger among the French, who nevertheless likes France more than his French opponent. Bulgarin, in other words, presents himself not as the German Romantic writer Hoffmann, but as another, imaginary Hoff- mann, a French patriot, soldier, and writer. The relevance of Bulgarin's self representation as "another Hoff- mann," to the problematics of "Nevsky Prospect," has eluded Gogol's readers until now. In fact, Gogol clearly elaborates, what I would call, Pushkin's "cultural toponymy" of St. Petersburg - and places his imaginary Hoffmann on a street with another significant name, Offitserskaia Street: "Beside Schiller, stood Hoffmann - not Hoffmann the writer, but a rather good shoemaker from Offitserskaia Street, and a great friend of Schiller's (Gogol, 27). Such an address acquires an additional piquancy since Bulgarin himself, like Hoffmann the shoemaker, is known to have lived on Offitserskaia Street (Grech, 467). (In fact, at one point Gogol also happened to live at 4 Offitserskaia St. [according to the current numeration], while Bulgarin lived at number 3). Bulgarin's trajectory, as both Pushkin and Gogol perceived it, took him from Offitserskaia to Meshchanskaia Street. Like Pirogov, Bulgar- in does not just have a physical or family connection with Meschanska- ia, but rather, he seems to acquire the moral features and values associ-

40 ated with this street, while shedding those associated with the Offitser- skaia Street. The conflict between Pushkin and Bulgarin continued, however. In response to Bulgarin's self-presentation as a misunderstood but patriotic foreigner, Pushkin published his bitter epigram, "Ne to beda, chto ty po- liak" (1830), in which he faults Bulgarin not for his foreign origins or lack of patriotism, but for his treacherous and ignoble behavior.

He то беда, что ты поляк: Костюшко лях, Мицкевич лях! Пожалуй будь себе татарин,-- И тут не вижу я стыда, Будь жид —и это не беда, Беда, что ты Видок Фиглярин. (Pushkin П1:1, 215)

Following his own ingenious comparison between Vidocq and Bulgarin, Pushkin adds to that a sarcastic misreading of his last name as Figliarin (from "figliar" - a vulgar comedian, a self-debasing buffoon). In response, in August of 1830, Bulgarin opened a second attack on Pushkin. This time he mocked Pushkin's aristocratic claims and told the story of some imaginary poet, a follower of Byron and a resident of Latin America, who, because one of his parents was a mulatto, claimed an African prince for an ancestor. In fact, the story goes, a recently found document had revealed that this African ancestor was purchased by some skipper for a bottle of rum. This essay, entitled "Second Letter from Karlov" concludes with an exclamation about human vanity (cf. Pirogov's own: "Oh, dear, the vanity of life!" [Gogol, 26]) and the ob- servation that this story would have provided Moliere with a priceless addition to Gentilhomme (Bulgarin calls the play Meshchanin vo dvo- riantsve, the standard Russian title of Moliere's comedy) (Severnaia pchela 94, 7 August 1830). It was this mockery of Pushkin's ancestor, coupled with Bulgar- in' s juxtaposition of nobility (dvoriantsvo) with the petty-bourgeoisie (meshchanstvo) that provoked the poet to reply with his famous "Moia Rodoslovnaia," in which he declares:

Решил Фиглярин, сидя дома, Что черный дед мой Ганнибал Был куплен за бутылку рома И в руки шкиперу попал...

41 Решил Фиглярин вдохновенный: Я во дворянстве мещанин, Что ж он в семье своей почтенной? Он? он в Мещанской дворянин (Pushkin 111:1,263).

Pushkin takes a reference to МоНёге'в comedy and turns it into a splendid characterization, connected with the concrete realities of St. Petersburg toponymy. It was clear to everyone involved in the controversy that the butt of Pushkin's joke were Bulgarin's German wife and her relatives associated with Meshchanskaia Street. Tynianov in his book on Griboedov and Vladimir Kardin in his book on Marlinskii both claim that Bulgarin prostituted his wife to lure promising authors (Kardin, 38). But it must be said that while Marlinskii is known to have stayed with the Bulgarins at their dacha, and Griboedov was very friendly with both husband and wife, it is far from certain that Tyni- anov's or Kardin's version of the events is accurate. Like her husband, Bulgarin's wife was destined to become the subject of jokes and mockery. Grech, for example, recalls that before her marriage, Bulgarin's wife was known to her friends as Lenchen, and narrates the story of a fist-fight between Bulgarin and his nephew, Aleksandr Iskritskii, brought about by the fact that the latter had ad- dressed Bulgarin's wife as "liebes Lenchen." That form of address provoked Elena's aunt, who used to live with the newly weds, to offer the following reply, which sounds as if it were made up by Gogol himself: "Moi plemianits net est' Lenchen. On est' Frau Capitanin von Boulgar- in." (One might render the broken Russian of this answer into some- thing like: "My niece not is Lenchen. He is Frau Captain von Bulgar- in.") According to Grech, Bulgarin, egged on by this aunt's complaint, then attacked his nephew; they pummelled each other and eventually fell down the stairs. (Grech, 716-717) Pushkin's war with Bulgarin continued, however, with additional repercussions for Gogol's story. To undermine Bulgarin, Pushkin decided to confront him on the literary front, asserting that Bulgarin is as great and as popular a writer as the lubok-author, Alexander Orlov. Such a comparison had to be particularly offensive for Bulgarin, who insisted that he had a different reading base and different literary and cultural as- pirations than Orlov. The very titles of Orlov's novels (he insisted on calling his thin publications novels) suggest that Bulgarin might be right here: "The Falcon Would Have Remained a Falcon Had it not been Eat-

42 en by a Hen, or the Runaway Wife" (Sokol byl by sokol, da kuritsa s"ela, ili Bezhavshaia zhena" (1831) and "A Pig in a Sack or Subjugated Inno- cence" (Porosenok v meshke ili Ugnetennaia nevinnost'). Pushkin's essay, "The Triumph of Friendship, or Alexander Orlov Justified" (1831) mockingly defends Orlov from Grech's dismissal of his writings as "two of the most stupid booklets." Pushkin responds with feigned disbelief:

Произведения Александра Анфимовича, разделяющего с Фаддеем Венедиктовичем любовь российской публики, названы глупейшими книжонками! - Дерзость неслыханная, удивительная, оскорбитель- ная ...

Pushkin then presents himself as a defender of old Moscow and its glorious author, Orlov, vis-k-vis an upstart St. Petersburg and its more famous Bulgarin, even though, in his opinion, Orlov is at least equal to Bulgarin. Pushkin concedes that Orlov might be slightly behind Bul- garin in popularity but attributes this solely to the impressive arsenal of self-promotion available to Bulgarin. (Pushkin VII, 247-252) It is important to stress that Gogol followed the exchanges between Pushkin and Bulgarin with tremendous interest. Both his biography and his writings testify that he decided to participate in this journalistic struggle and tried very persistently to position himself on the side of Pushkin. This can seen in one of his earliest letters to Pushkin (August 21, 1831) in which he spends most of his time developing Pushkin's mock comparisons, which, incidentally, were not yet in print and, therefore, must have been the subject of their conversations. In this letter, Gogol articulates another mock comparison, this time, between Bulgarin and Byron:

To же самоотвержение, презрение всего низкого и подлого принадлежит им обоим. Самая даже жизнь Булгарина есть больше ничего, как повторение жизни Байрона! В самых даже портретах их заметно необыкновенное сходство. (Гоголь 10, 203)

Needless to say, Pushkin immediately appreciated Gogol's support: "The project of your scholarly criticism is amazingly good" (Proekt vashei uchenoi kritiki udivitel'no khorosh) (Pushkin XIV, 215), he wrote back to Gogol. Gogol thus knew from the start that to win Pushk- in's approval, he had to attack and mock Bulgarin as wittily as possible.

43 It is therefore hardly surprising that Gogol submitted his manu- script of "Nevsky Prospect" to Pushkin, while asking him about possible censorship problems. It is equally telling that in his reaction, Pushkin zeroes in on Pirogov. In his October 1834 letter to Gogol he writes:

Прочел с большим удовольствием; кажется, все может быть пропущено. Секуцию жаль выпустить: она, мне кажется, необходима для полного эффекта вечерней мазурки. (Pushkin XV, 198)

In fact, upon his arrival to Petersburg, Gogol tried to establish a friendly relationship with Bulgarin. Even though one might question Bulgarin's assertion that he secured a clerk job for Gogol in the Third Department, or that Gogol, upon his visit brought him samples of his writings and dedicated to him two of his poems, it is clear that they knew each other and that in 1830 Gogol had translated a article for one of the Bulgarin's publications (Reitblat: 1995, 82-83). Gogol was clearly trying to find his place within the warring factions of Petersburg literary society, eventually siding with Pushkin. Gogol's growing hostility toward Bulgarin might have been fueled by some personal reasons as well, since two nasty reviews of his early Gans Kiukhel'garten were published by Bulgarin and Polevoi. By 1833, Gogol began to use ex- pletives when referring to Bulgarin. Commenting on the publication of Bulgarin's Mazeppa, Gogol writes to his fellow Ukrainian, Danilevsky:

Поздравляю тебя с новым земляком - приобретением нашей родине. Это Фаддей Бенедиктович Булгарин. Вообрази себе, уже печатает малороссийский роман под названием "Мазепа". Пришлось и нам терпеть... Попотчевать ли тебя чем-нибудь из Языкова, чтобы закусить... конфетами? (Гоголь X, 260).

1834, the year "Nevsky Prospect" was composed, was also the year of Gogol's increased interest in the state of Russian journalism. Gogol's essays on the subject, "A Few Words on Pushkin," "On devel- opments in Journalism in 1834-1835," and "Business of Journalism" all trace their roots to 1834. As a matter of fact, in the same year Gogol wrote a letter to Pogodin, in which he bemoans the fact that literature is in the hands of Senkovskii and Bulgarin, and explains their success by their tremendous popularity among the clerks and military officers: "Officers read him and say, 'Son of a bitch, how well he writes! (Сукин

44 сын, как хорошо пишет!)" (Gogol X, 293). The officers' admiration for Bulgarin is such that one of them, according to Gogol, had com- pared his face to that of Lord Byron (ibid).5 Gogol revisits the conflict between Bulgarin and Pushkin in The Inspector General as well. The second draft of the play features the following scene of Khlestakov's bragging:

Литераторов часто вижу. А как странно сочиняет Пушкин. Вообразите себе: перед ним стоит в стакане ром, славнейший ром, рублей по сту бутылка, какова только для одного австрийского императора берегут .. .и потом как начнет писать, так перо только: тр...тр...тр...С Булгариным обедаю. (Гоголь, IV, 294)

Gogol's idea of merging together Pushkin, Bulgarin, and the bottle of rum, seems rather unwise when viewed in the context of Bulgar- in's anecdote about Pushkin's ancestor. Furthermore, the unease of the audience to whom Gogol read this variant, convinced him to drop it. Eventually Gogol purged most of his references to Bulgarin, so that the final version of the play reduces Khlestakov's lengthy bragging to a few lines referring to his familiarity with Pushkin. It is important to stress, however, that the very first draft of the play mentions no author but Bulgarin: "I myself compose vaudevilles, I am familiar with Bul- garin, we dine together" (Gogol IV, 180). The progression of the vari- ants is rather telling: Bulgarin alone, then Bulgarin, Pushkin and the anecdote of the bottle of rum, and finally only Pushkin. Bulgarin is thus marginalizes, displaced, and his presence becomes more muted. The changes introduced in Khlestakov's bragging thus follow Gogol's own progression, as he moves from Bulgarin's influence, to the position of Pushkin's ally in the struggle against Bulgarin, to the deliberate ignoring of Bulgarin altogether, as if Pushkin and Bulgarin cannot be mentioned on the same page. Gogol's move was, of course, echoed by Russian literature and criticism itself. Gogol, in fact, had eventually become rather indifferent toward Bulgarin, so that by 1838 he prefers simply to ignore him. Thus, in his 1838 letter he reports to his corre- spondent about the rumor that Bulgarin had been badly beaten by one of the Derpt students, and adds: "Этого наслаждения я не понимаю. По мне поколотить Булгарина также гадко, как и поцеловать его". | Гоголь, XI, 149)

45 * * * * Susanne Fusso sees Gogol's Arabeski, the cycle in which "Nevsky Prospect" appears, as an attempt at mediation, at synthesis between whole and parts, between the telescopic and microscopic visions. Ac- cording to Fusso, the cycle seems to suggest that the truth can be seen only as the result of combination of different perspectives, angles, and points of view. She also views the collection as a chronicle of Gogol's own uncertainty and indecisiveness on the shape of his vocation (popr- ishche): at that moment Gogol seems to be torn between the calling of a historian and a writer (Fusso, 69-80). But Gogol's indecisiveness can be pushed even further. As a provincial arriving in St.Petersburg, the capital of the Empire, he was bound to have his youthful dreams of success crushed. Yet, he did not follow the path of Piskarev, nor did he turn into the absolute cynic and opportunist, Pirogov. The story can be seen as Gogol's attempt to purge himself of these two temptations, of two equally fallacious ways of approaching life's pitfalls. Instead, Gogol simply learned to meditate between two equally dangerous poles of authenticity and inauthenticity (as Lionel Trilling understood them), that is, between the blind persistence in the pursuit of one's dreams and principles, and the total dismissal thereof. Or to put it in terms of the cultural toponymy that Gogol develops in his story - between the Offitsersii and Meshchan- skii path. Which street leads to success, to Nevsky Prospect - is it Offi- serskaia or Meshchanskaia? That is the question that Gogol seems to be asking himself, as he tests his various characters, including the artists, in their confrontation with St. Petersburg. In fact, initial drafts for "Nevsky Prospect," indicate that originally Gogol had envisioned Piskarev and Pirogov as two artists with transparently artistic names: Palitrin (from palitra - palette) and Chertkov (from chertit'—to draw). One can imagine that Cervantes was dealing with the similar problem as he contemplated the roads of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. The truth for Gogol, as it was for Cervantes, lies in the satirical and comic attitude to both of these extremes. By mocking both, Gogol, similar to Cervantes, succeeded in turning himself into a great author. Yet Gogol's greatness can be appreciated only when we consider the whole scope of his mockery. It is not difficult to deal a deadly blow to Piskarev - in fact, he does it to himself. However, to mock and undermine some- one like Bulgarin, "the eighth wonder of the world," an unconquerable "detina chudnyi" of Denis Davydov's epigram, proved a much harder but a much more rewarding task.

46 Notes 1 All translated quotes from Gogol's "Nevsky Prospect" are taken from Nikolai Gogol, Plays and Petersburg Tales. Oxford World's Classics, 1998 with page numbers indicated in parentheses. The Russian Gogol quotes are cited according to N.V. Gogol, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 14 vols. (1937-1952). All transla- tions from this source are mine. 21 refer to a broad range of scholars ranging from Vasiii Gippius and Viktor Vino- gradov to Priscilla Meyer and Andrew Swensen. A few scholars such as Donald Fanger or Vladimir Markovich give equal time to both protagonists. Thus Markovich in his Peterburgskiepovesti N.V. Gogolia points to the fact that both characters deal with the discrepancy between expectations and reality (Markovich, 73). The erotically-oriented dreams of each are shattered by a rude awakening, yet their reaction to the shock is what matters. Markovich also ques- tions the simple-minded (prostodushnyi) narrator and stresses the fact that this narrator, in his desire to philosophize on life's deceptions, refuses to see and ex- plore the differences between the two protagonists and their drastically different reaction's to life's disappointments (Markovich, 74). 3 The main Bulgarin apologist in post-Soviet literary scholarship is A. Reitblat, whose numerous publications had initiated the process of Bulgarin's rehabilita- tion. Reitblat's reassessment of values proved rather successful, as the publications of Alia Marchenko and Aleksandr Ageev testify. Mikhail Zolotonosov, in his turn, has also argued that Bulgarin's literary reputation needs to be revised, and goes on to compare Bulgarin's Ivan Vyzhigin favorably to Griboedov and Saltykov-Schedrin in terms of its satire, and to Akunin in terms of mass literary appeal.) 4. Equally revealing is A.F. Voeikov's description of Bulgarin in his "Mad- house," a bitter satire of his contemporaries: Тут кто? — Тренева собака, Забежала вместе с ним. Так, Булгарин забияка С рыльцем мосичьим своим, С саблей в петле... А французский Крест ужель надеть забыл? Ведь его ты кровью русской И предательством купил—

Что ж он делает здесь? Лает, Брызжет пеною с брыл ей... Да на чем он стал помешан? Совесть ум свихнула в нем: Все боится быть повешен Или высечен кнутом! (Poety-satiriki, 306)

Al 5 Gogol would revisit the connection between Bulgarin and the tastes of military officers not only in "Nevsky Prospect," but also in a much later text, entitled, "Upon Leaving the Theater after the Performance of a New Comedy." Bulgarin functions here in the guise of a writer named "One More Litterateur" (Eshche literator.) This person criticizes the comedy and those who praise it and then proceeds to attack Pushkin himself: "We always have to deal with friends' excessive praises. Take Pushkin, for example. Why is all Russia talking about him now? It was his friends who kept on praising him, and now the rest of the Rus- sia began to scream the same" (Gogol V, 141-142). This outburst is followed by interjections of two military officers, one of whom explicitly agrees with the pervious speaker, that is, with Bulgarin. Two more officers appear, one of whom describes the previous speaker as the blind follower of the latest article in a journal. Thus, Gogol's mind appears to be constantly connecting military officers, and literary opinions with Bulgarin. It is curious to note that the litterateur's ridiculousexplanatio n of Pushkin's success seems to be pushed even further by Mikhail Bulgakov, who in his Master and Margarita has a hack poet, named Riukhin, develop the following explana- tion of Pushkin's fame: "But what did he do?... Is there anything special about his 'The snowstorm covers...'?... Luck, sheer luck...He shot him, that white guard shot him, smashed his hip, and assured his immortality" (Bulgakov, 73). In fact, Bulgakov's portrayal of shameless and pompous authors inhabiting the world of Master and Margarita owes a great deal to Gogol's insights concern- ing Bulgarin. Bulgakov, of course, moves the setting of his novel to the new seat of power, Moscow, but this new setting only underlines the recurrent patterns. Pirogov's suit, as was predicted by Belinsky and Dostoevsky, fits these new Moscow authors perfectly.

Bibliography Ageev, Alexander. "Nota bene" Znamia 12,1999: 220-224. Akimova, N.N., "Bulgarin i Gogol (Literaturnaia biografiia i literaturnaia reputatsiia)" Russkaia literatura 3, 1996: 3-18 Alkire, Gilman, H."Gogol and Bulgarin's Ivan Vyzhigin." Slavic Review 28:2,1969: 289-296 Belinsky, V.G. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 13 tomakh. Moscow, 1953-59 Dostoevsky, Fyodor. A Writer's Diary. Vol. 1. Translated by Ken- neth Lantz. Northwestern University Press, 1994. . Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 30-ti tomakh. Leningrad, 1972-90 Fanger, Donald. The Creation of Nikolai Gogol. Harvard Univ. Press, 1979. Firtich, Nikolai. "'Nevskii prospekt' Gogolia v perspective russko-

48 go alogizma."In: Peterburgskaia tema i 'peterburgskii tekst' v russkoi literature XVIII-XX vekov. Edited by V.M. Markovich. St.Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta. 2002: 35-43 Fusso, Susanne. "Landshaft 'Arabesok'." In: N.V. Gogol: Materi- aly i issledovaniia. Edited by Iurii Mann. Moscow, 1995: 69-82 Gippius, Vasilii. "Pushkin v bor'be s Bulgarinym v 1830-1831 gg. "Vremennik pushkinskoi komissii 6, 1941: 235-255 Gogol, N.V. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. 14 vols. M. 1937-1952 Golstein, Vladimir. Lermontov's Narratives of Heroism. North- western University Press, 1998 Grech, N.I. Zapiski о moei zhizni. M. Academiia, 1930 Kardin, Vladimir. Minuta probuzhdeniia: Povest' ob Aleksandre Bestuzheve (Marlinskom). Moscow, 1984 L'vova, Natalia. "Predislovie." In: Faddei Bulgarin. Izbrannoe. M. 1989 Mann, Iurii. "Skvoz' vidnyi miru smekh..." : Zhizn' Gogolia 1809- 1835. Moscow: MIROS, 1994 Markovich, V.M. Peterburgskiepovesti N.V. Gogolia. Leningrad: 1989 Marchenko, Alia. "Faddei (Tadeush): superagent." Novyi mir 7, 1999: 183-192 Meyer, Priscilla. "The Fantastic in the Everyday: Gogol's 'Nevsky Prospect' and E.T.A. Hoffmann's 'A New Year's Eve Adventure'." In: Cold Fusion: Aspects of the German Cultural Presence in Russia. Edit- ed by Gennady Barabtarlo, New York: Berghahn Books, 2000: 62-73 Poety-satiriki kontsa XVIII-nachala XIX veka. Edited by G.V. Er- makova-Bitner. Leningrad, 1959 Pushkin, A.S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 17-ti tomakh. Moscow, 1937-59 Reitblat, A. "Vidok Figliarin. (Istoriia odnoi literaturnoi reputat- sii)." Voprosy literatury 3, 1990:73-102. "Gogol' i Bulgarin: к istorii literaturnykh vzaimoot- noshenii." In N.V. Gogol: materialy i issledovaniia. Edited by Iurii Mann. M.: Nasledie, 1995: 82-99 Russkaia epigramma (XVIII-XX w.). Edited by M.I. Gillel'son i K.A. Kumpan. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel', 1988 Shaw, J. Thomas. "The Problem of the Persona in Journalism: Pushkin's Feofilakt Kosichkin". In Pushkin: Poet and Man of Letters and his Prose. Los Angeles: Charles Schlacks. 1995: 205-231

49 Svensen, Andrew J. "Vampirism in Gogol's Short Fiction." SEEJ 37:4,1993: 490-510 Trilling, Lionel. Sincerity and Authenticity. Harvard University Press, 1972 Vaiskopf, Mikhail. Siuzhet Gogolia: Mifologiia. Ideologiia. Kon- tekst. Moscow, 1993 Valsuro, V.E. "'Velikii melankholik.'" In his Zapiski kommentato- ra. St. Petersburg, 1994: 313-344 " К vel'mozhe." In his Pushkinskaia pora. St. Pe- tersburg, 2000 Vidok Figliarin. Pis'ma i agenturnye zapiski F.V. Bulgarina v III otdelenie. Edited by A.I. Reitblat. NLO, 1998 Vinogradov, V.V. "O literaturnoi tsiklizatsii (Po povodu 'Nevsko- go prospekta' Gogolia i 'Ispovedi opiofaga' De Kvinsi." In his Evoliut- siia russkogo naturalisma: Gogol i Dostoevskii. Leningrad: 1929. ."Romanticheskii naturalism (Zhul' Zhanen i Gogol')." In his Evoliutsiia russkogo naturalisma: Gogol i Dostoevskii. Leningrad: 1929 Zolotonossov, Mikhail. "Starik Bulgarin nas zametil..." Moskov- skie novosti 24, 2002. Zolotusskii, Igor'. "'Zapiski sumasshedshego' i 'Severnaia pchela'.'Tn his Poeziia prozy. M.: Sovetskii pisatel' 1986: 145-165. . "Faddei Bulgarin" In his Na lestnitse Raskol 'nikova. Esse poslednikh let. M. 2000