In September of 2022 it was my turn to host a book club meeting, which meant I had the privilege of selecting the book. I chose Gogol’s Dead Souls because it was given to me as a gift by a former student with whom I have kept in touch over the years, and I felt morally obligated to read the book; of course, I was also looking forward to reading another classic by a 19th century Russian author, given how much I have enjoyed reading the work of his contemporaries such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Pushkin. As usual, while reading the text I underlined important passages and commented in the margins, mostly with the aim of discovering a connecting thread or an overarching theme which would provide me with a general impression upon which I would base my evaluation.
That’s not what I discovered in Dead Souls. There is a main plot (see below) and a key character, but his adventures and exploits do not seem to convey a deeper and singular truth; in this blogpost, therefore, I will briefly summarize the plot, and highlight the jumble of themes to which it is connected, which appears to be a rickety assemblage of contradictory elements about Russian identity and Russian society in the mid-19th century. Adding to the sense of general lack order—but not necessarily lack of artistic quality—is Gogol’s strange writing style, in which the story does not unfold in a chronologically logical sequence of events. Rather, there are several detours and multiple twists and turns. Throughout the text, moreover, Gogol periodically seems to engage in a kind of Freudian free association directly with reader, as if in the process of writing, there arose sudden and urgent needs for cathartic releases which spontaneously found their way onto the text and which remained in the published version.
Russia: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma
The context of the story is early 19th century Russia, and it revolves around the personage of Chichikov, who is on a mission to purchase dead souls, by which it is meant serfs who had died but who still existed on paper for the purposes of paying taxes. Landowners were obliged to pay taxes on their serfs, and the census was done infrequently; in the interim, between officials’ collection and updating of information about estates in the realm, many serfs died, while the owner was obligated to pay taxes on the assumption that they were capital generating agricultural value. When the reader meats Chichikov, he or she knows nothing about him other than the fact that he is trying to purchase the title to the dead serfs. The reader accompanies Chichikov as he meets various landowners and tries to convince them to make the sale for the lowest price, and they, as well as the reader, suspect it is a swindle with some nefarious purpose. Nonetheless, they have an incentive to make the transaction, given they are paying taxes for non-physically existing serfs.
In Dead Souls, the relatively recent French invasion is frequently connected to a theme about the nefarious influence of France and Western Europe on Russia’s supposedly more morally pure culture, a pattern which is still visible almost 200 years later (more on this below). In several scenes, the reader encounters soliloquies about the glories of Russian feudalism, and how attachment to the land, and closeness with nature, helps to forge the best of elements of Russian character. This is juxtaposed with the enervating and spiritually shallow consequences of liberal ideas emanating from the West and particularly France, ideas that many Russians themselves attempted to export to the motherland. Here, there are echoes of Tolstoy, who also posited an existential clash between Russia and France (my review of Tolstoy’s War and Peace which touches upon this theme can be found here).
But—and here is one area where the text is very contradictory—Dead Souls also highlights the corruption at the heart of the Russian system which is what ultimately pressured Chichikov to carry out his big swindle. The first clue is that the authorities continued to tax peasants even after they had died; this inefficient bureaucracy gave owners an incentive to sell them to Chichikov. The second is the development of financial instruments which created opportunities to use peasants, even dead ones, to generate revenue. What is more, Dead Souls highlights how even those who were well off, and did not need more wealth, were driven by ambition and avarice to increase profits, and this often involved greasing the wheels of the system in one way or another, via bribes, or intrigues, or cheating. In other words, another lesson of Dead Souls is that Russian society was corrupt from top to bottom. A consequence of this corrupt system is those without the fortune to be born in well-to-do families must cut corners to get ahead, and so Chichikov’s swindle was not out of place; indeed, it was in many ways, less harmful than other scams frequently occurring. After all, he did not steal any peasants. All transactions were mutually voluntary, and he was helping landowners to lighten their tax burden, which was in any case based on non-existing peasants. He used the title to generate capital which would ultimately be used in actual productive investment which would generate more revenue for public coffers, and which allowed Chichikov to be a good husband and father. In fact, with the help of the capital generated via the dead souls, he gets married, has 11 happy and healthy children, and lives comfortably as a noble on his estate.
Where, then, is the crime here? Perhaps the question mark is precisely the point—there is no straight answer, leaving much ambiguity about what Gogol’s purpose his, or whether he even wrote the book with a broader purpose in mind.
It is midway through the text—and not, as I would have expected, at the beginning—that Gogol paints a portrait of Chichikov which gives some biographical clues about other potential motivations for the big swindle. Gogol tells the reader that Chichikov’s parents belonged to the nobility “but whether to the ancient or the personal nobility God only knows.” He had a sickly mother and a cynical, bitter father, neither of whom showed him much love. From his father Chichikov learned “your friend and comrade will cheat you, and in adversity he will betray you, but money will never betray you.” In school he was taught by violent and cruel teachers, and the one exception, a loving and inspiring instructor, died young. Chichikov eventually becomes a bureaucrat and is presented with opportunities to get rich via accepting bribes. As most others in his position are doing it, so does Chichikov, and he eventually amasses a considerable amount of wealth, but because of a petty dispute with a colleague, he loses most of it. This leads to an existential crisis: “why do I exist? Why has misfortune overwhelmed me? Who cares about his duties nowadays?...I have not plundered the widow…why do others thrive while I descend as food to the worm?” Part 1 of the book (there are 2) ends on this note, with the reader finally having some of the personal details which help to understand Chichikov’s motivation.
In book 2, we learn that Chichikov gets caught for his crimes, and is imprisoned. He is now facing the possibility of execution and has an epiphany which leads him to realize that ambition and avarice have led to his predicament. He pleads with God to save him, promising that he’ll change his ways. At this point, the reader expects some divine intervention leading to Gogol’s release, and his renouncing the material seductions of the world while going to live in a monastery, perhaps becoming a saint. Chichikov is indeed saved, but by the machinations of lawyers and the payment of bribes; perhaps it shows how God works in mysterious ways, or that the corruption which led to Chichikov’s demise also saves him from an early death. In the final section of the book, the reader encounters Chichikov as a member of the nobility, and the main scene is a summit or meeting of the feudal aristocracy. Here, the reader discovers that not only are his aristocratic peers corrupt; some are worse and have been accused of theft and murder.
Gogol’s Perplexing Prose
It would be worthwhile to briefly reflect on Gogol’s strange writing style, which is of a kind I cannot recall encountering elsewhere. Calling some of the elements a “technique” suggests a strategy with an ultimate purpose, but it is not clear to me that that’s what Gogol is doing. For example, in chapter 6 of book 1, the reader is suddenly and unexpectedly treated to a soliloquy about aging:
“…Now I approach every strange village with indifference, and glance indifferently at its tasteless exterior; it is displeasing to my cold gaze: that which would, in former years, have called forth a lively movement in the muscles of my face, laughter and endless remark, is no longer amusing to me; it now slips by me, and my motionless lips preserve an interested silence. Oh, my youth! Oh, my youth!”
This harangue is written in the voice of Gogol and not that of Chichikov or any other character of the book; it appears utterly disconnected to what preceded it, and when it ends the reader is abruptly re-introduced to Chichikov’s quest to purchase dead souls. It is as if, in the process of writing, Gogol spontaneously wanted to momentarily deviate from the story to speak directly with readers. One encounters this frequently in the text, as at the beginning of chapter 7, when the reader is offered some Freudian associations about the nature of happiness, reflections which do not flow, logically or sequentially, from the content which preceded, and ends with Gogol exclaiming “to my tale! To my tale! Away with the wrinkle which has intruded itself on my brow, and the dark gloom on my face! Let us fling ourselves with…and observe what Chichikov is doing.” And the story resumes. Or on pg. 238, when Gogol ponders if “it is very doubtful whether the hero of our choice [Chichikov] has pleased the reader,” and on pg. 261, “there still lives in the author’s mind the invincible conviction that readers might have been pleased with this same hero, with this very Chichikov.”
I am a political scientist by training and so I do not have the expertise to theorize this literary approach, but I can speak to the effect, which is that it creates a sense of weirdness, or that it is discombobulating. At the same time, it leads to a sense of directly communicating with the author, which in a strange way induces the impression that he is telling a true story about a real flesh and blood human being who lived at this moment in history. If this is the purpose—and it’s a big if—I admit it is very effective in helping to blur the boundaries between fact and fiction, story and reality, a novel and a documented history.
Another possibility is that this effect is purely unintentional as the writing style reflects Gogol’s disordered and unstable mind rather than any strategic literary genius. After all, he did suffer from mental illness and died very young.
Finally, Gogol’s Dead Souls can also be read as a kind of anthropological treatise on the content of the Russian soul. There is plenty of content on this theme, and, like much else in the text, it is contradictory (perhaps because national identities inevitably are). Over here, we are told “Russians do not like to die in bed,” over there, that “a Russian man is capable of anything and can adapt himself to all climates.” In one scene we learn that “Russian ingenuity only makes itself known in cases of emergency,” and in another, referring to the character General Betrishchev, “good qualities and a multitude of defects, as is usual with Russians, were mingled in a sort of picturesque disorder. In decisive moments he displayed magnanimity, valor, wisdom, unbounded generosity, caprices of ambition, petty personal touchiness.” Elsewhere, we hear that “a Russian man is a lost being. You want to do everything and can do nothing.”
What to make of this jumble of observations? One plausible hypothesis is that Gogol spent half his life abroad, and in fact Dead Souls was written while he sojourned in Italy. As is often the case, distinctive national traits become visible when one encounters and lives among foreigners. As the proverb goes, it is through others that the self is discovered, and this is no less true between groups than it is among individuals.
In the text Gogol’s repeated assertions on the character of the Russian soul bestride the content on Russian identity which is connected to an existential cultural chasm between Russia and the West. At the time, it was the ideas on progress and equality emerging out of the French revolution which did not sit well with Russia’s glorification of the land, romanticisation of ruggedness, its religious rootedness, and morally pure pastures. In the 21st century, the vocabulary has changed, but one can still detect this clash in the conflict between the West and Russia, when Westerners disparage the country as backward and authoritarian, while Russian leaders, mostly notably Vladimir Putin, warn against importing the West’s moral decay, decadence, and hedonism. The fact that this clash continues, almost 200 years after Dead Souls was written, highlights that one of the benefits of reading the book is to deepen one's historical knowledge about trends which have been present for centuries and which re-emerge in the human pageant under new guises and banners.
