Wherefore Oblomovshchina: The Relationship Between Geography and National Identity in Four Seminal Novels of Russian Literature The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37945087 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Wherefore Oblomovshchina: The Relationship Between Geography and National Identity in Four Seminal Novels of Russian Literature Alexandra Hanson A Thesis in the Field of Foreign Literature, Language & Culture for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2018 Copyright 2018 Alexandra Hanson Abstract Russian writers played a key role in the initiation of national conversations about the country’s geography and identity in the early part of the nineteenth century. This study examines one particular component of Russian national identity—the trait of oblomovshchina—and its relationship to geography as presented through the voices of four famous Russian authors in novels written over a span of 150 years. Through the lens of literature, this study addresses the following questions: How is the geography of Russia depicted in novels by Russian authors? How do Russian authors portray oblomovshchina? In what ways do the authors connect oblomovshchina and landscape in their works? How do these depictions change with the passage of time? The literary representation of Russia’s geography, especially in terms of landscape and weather, leaves no doubt that geography is partially culpable for the prevalence of oblomovshchina in many Russian people. The discussion about Russian national identity remains a topic of interest in the post-Soviet Russian Federation, and Russia’s literary voices continue to be involved and thoughtfully contribute to the dialogue. Frontispiece iv Acknowledgments Спасибо большое to my dad for starting me down the Russian path so many years ago. Because of our time in Moscow during middle school, I chose to study Russian in undergrad, which aligned the stars during my semester abroad for the catalyst conversation with my host family that ultimately inspired this thesis. Thank you to my mom for your intuitive understanding of what it takes to accomplish a project like this: hours of undisturbed quiet. You kept me well-stocked with tea and snacks so that I could stay locked in the basement for as long as I needed. I especially appreciate the ultimatum you laid down on my friends to stop inviting me out to do things—they wouldn’t take my ‘no’ for an answer, but they listened to yours! To the myriad family members and friends who feigned interest in Russian literature and my thesis process and let me babble on about it for hours—thank you. Every time I answered the “What’s your thesis about?” question, my argument became clearer. You helped me to write and rewrite this entire paper in my head long before I started typing. Thank you to Sarah Powell for suggesting, before I even wrote my proposal, that Professor John R. Stilgoe might be the perfect advisor for my topic. And a million thanks to Professor Stilgoe, who was indeed the perfect advisor. I am very grateful that you chose to guide me through this process. Mwenzie—you were there at the beginning. In my heart, you are still here at the end. v Table of Contents Frontispiece ........................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v Background ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter I. Dead Souls ........................................................................................................12 Chapter II. The Golovlyov Family .....................................................................................23 Chapter III. Cement ............................................................................................................36 Chapter IV. Farewell to Matyora ......................................................................................50 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................59 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................62 vi Background As Winston Churchill once pointed out, Russia is an enigma. The West is consistently befuddled by Russia, but Russia is a mystery to her own people as well. Russians seem to be interminably in the midst of an identity crisis. Are they European or Asian? Do they embrace Western ideals or Eastern philosophy? Is religion important to them or is it a relic of their past? Are they vanguards of scientific and industrial progress or are they an underdeveloped, ‘backward’ nation? Do they work hard or are they lazy? Are they stone-faced stoics or an emotive, friendly populace? What exactly is it that makes them Russian? For centuries, Russians have struggled to define themselves and their country with characteristics that they can embrace as wholly Russian rather than reflections of or comparisons to their neighboring cultural powerhouses. In the nineteenth century, this national conversation gained significant traction—a time marked by debates and discussions among scholars, artists, philosophers, and other educated Russians that resulted in the identification and embrace of a unique Russian national landscape, as well as the development of a broadly accepted Russian national identity. Even today, these two topics remain deeply intertwined in the Russian consciousness. The sheer physical size of Russia, the tremendously broad scope of people encompassed therein, and the inherent subjectivity of the topic make it virtually impossible to scientifically and conclusively define THE Russian national identity. As Ely points out, national identity is “a process, the attempt to limit and shape the collective imagination, rather than a fixed phenomenon that can be limited and defined” (14). However, some motifs regularly appear in the ongoing discussion and debate. A common characteristic presented as central to the Russian national identity is a mindset marked by fatalism, “the typical Russian toska (melancholy),” “indolence and sluggishness,” “Russian lethargy” (Olgin 42, Fedotov 15, Ragsdale 125). Baring notes, “The first thing that strikes the English reader of Russian literature, is the unrelieved gloom, the unmitigated pessimism of the characters . Everything is gray, everybody is depressed; the atmosphere is one of hopeless melancholy” (26). A 2009 study interviewing individuals from six neighboring countries of Russia to learn how the ‘typical’ Russian is perceived in those places concludes that “Russians are often depicted as lazy and lacking conscientiousness” (Realo 246). This characteristic is poshlost, a “word for the complacent and the trivial” (Gifford 43). Fedotov’s “pure image of the Russian” is of “profound calm, taciturnity . even apathy . a strain of fatalism . He is likely to come to a grim and tragic end” (Fedotov 6, 11). The stereotypical Russian has an “infinite capacity for sitting still and doing nothing . the vast mountain weight of inertia of the whole Russian people” (Johnston 727, 733). Krizhanich comments that Russians “don’t want to help themselves till they are forced to . they have no pride or spirit or sense of personal worth” (qtd. in Pares 212). This pessimism, inertia, passivity, melancholy, lethargy, etcetera clearly prove difficult to designate in a single word, but is a critical and common component in Russian national identity and sense of self. In the nineteenth century, this motif of national identity appeared in Russian literature in the form of the ‘superfluous man.’ These characters, brought to life by well- known writers such as Alexander Pushkin, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Ivan Turgenev, and other well-known writers are marked by their inability to take action, affect change, or attribute 2 significance to their lives. They are known for “words, words, and no actions,” the best men of Russian society but “condemned to inactivity and—words” (Kropotkin 97-98). One of Dostoevsky’s themes is “men who have been brought so low by the circumstances of their lives that they have not even a conception of there being a possibility to rise above these conditions” (Kropotkin 165). Turgenev too uses his works to show “the sense of lives of deprivation and stoicism in the face of death” of ordinary Russians (Todd 244). In Russia during Turgenev’s life there was “a lot of flinging-oneself-down- on-one’s-bed-without-undressing-and-sinking-into-a-heavy-slumber stuff,” which inspired Turgenev’s creation of Rudin, a man who spends all his energy “in passionate streams of idealistic babble . [he is] a busybody incapable of action” (Nabokov 65-66). The ‘superfluous man,’ exemplified by “Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov and Rudin,” reached a new level of significance with the introduction of Oblomov in 1859 (Harjan 289). Oblomov, like other superfluous men, thinks, dreams, and plans, but proves utterly incapable of actually taking action.