N. V. Gogol was one of the most attractive authors for Russian philologists and writers who found themselves in exile. Let's look at some of their articles that analyze the essential facets of his work.

Philologist-Slavist Alexey Feodorovich Boehm in the article " Gogol's Overcoat and Dostoevsky's Poor People (On the Question of Gogol's Influence on Dostoevsky) "(Notes of the Russian Historical Society in Prague. 1927. Book 1) clarifies and details well-known statements about the proximity of these works of two classics of Russian literature. In his opinion, Dostoevsky does not imitate Gogol, but rather argues with him, finding at the same time, thanks to the "Overcoat", certain plot moves, portrait lines or features of his style. Dostoevsky was accused of making Poor People look like Gogol. Boehm gives many examples of similar descriptions. "Dostoevsky in his youth fell under the influence of Gogol, "he writes, but as his spiritual growth progressed," he inevitably had to face Gogol and find himself in a struggle with him. This struggle was primarily to be reflected in his work. Gogol helped Dostoevsky overcome the sentimental-romantic stream of his initial work "(p. 8). "On the way to realizing his true genre," Boehm believes, " Dostoevsky had to reckon with his great predecessor and teacher. Overcoming Gogol is the first stage in the development of Dostoevsky's work" (p. 9).

What is the essence of the dispute? The author notes that " Gogol did not raise his belittled hero, for a moment resurrecting him with a new overcoat, and yet

page 16

more humiliated, trampled on him. There was something cruel about Gogol's plan itself. Dostoevsky contrasted this idea with his own and immediately "humanized" and spiritualized it... Varenka Dobroselova was supposed to appear instead of the "greatcoat". And then the little man will speak in other words" (p. 10). Moreover, in" Poor People "Makar Devushkin reads Gogol's novel "The Overcoat", which he says is a "malicious book" and which he was even going to"complain" about. "Isn't the whole story' Poor People 'also a' complaint 'against Gogol's 'Overcoat'?" asks Boehm. (P. 12).

The poet Vladislav Khodasevich wrote two articles about Gogol in exile: "In Memory of Gogol "(Vozrozhdenie. Paris, 1934, March 29) and "On the Occasion of the Revizor" (Vozrozhdenie. 1935. February 12). Most of the first article is devoted to the question of writing style in general. "The evolution of literature, like any other art," Khodasevich believes, "is the evolution of styles, that is, techniques, "explaining that" a technique is not a goal and is not an impulse of creativity." The main thing in creativity is "impulse". There are as many of these impulses as there are "artists", i.e. creators in the broadest sense. "The more remarkable a writer is, the more urgent is the need to study his style in order to understand not only his literary techniques, but also his human and philosophical essence." There are very few such studies. Regarding Gogol, Khodasevich notes," the most profound and significant " belongs to Merezhkovsky in his book "Gogol and the Devil". Further, the author offers the reader "several considerations, which are based on stylistic observations, however-at different times and fragmentary."

Briefly describing the artistic aspirations of Derzhavin and Pushkin, Khodasevich writes that " Gogol is a combination of the beginning of Derzhavin with the beginning of Pushkin." "What was fatal for Gogol, however, was not that he went from mocking observations to terrible ones, that a harmless laugh became a laugh through tears. The tragedy of Gogol is that Derzhavin's concept gradually merged with Pushkin's." In conclusion, the author defines Gogol's work as "social", social. "We, we, we" is the incessant pronoun that Gogol inclines in all sorts of ways, in contrast to Pushkin's"I, I, I". He adds that Dostoevsky is also social, and that " perhaps the same can be said about all Russian literature."

The second article is related to the production of" The Inspector General " in Prague with the participation of the famous artist M. A. Chekhov (nephew of the writer A. P. Chekhov). Khodasevich writes that there are several plans in the "Inspector General", it is possible to state "a purely theatrical, comedic theme, the beginning and denouement of a comic situation; this topic is complicated by the psychological task of presenting the experiences of the actors in this situation."-

page 17

the psychological task, in turn, borders on the satirical-with the exposure of bureaucratic Russia, which gave the Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich an excuse to say that in" The Inspector General "Gogol" got everyone, and especially me"; these four themes are developed against the background of the fifth: Gogol wanted to simultaneously depict the provincial life of the thirties; finally, all five themes go back to the sixth, to the task of moral and philosophical meaning, since Gogol himself recognized that his goal was to represent the vulgarity of all humanity in the vulgarity of a small city."

When staging "The Inspector General" on the stage "actor and director"... critics, interpreters, commentators", hence "the legitimacy of various stage interpretations of the play". However, the question arises as to the "limits" of these "interpretations". "The limits of interpretation are contained in the text," Khodasevich believes. Mikhail Chekhov, who played Khlestakov, "did not introduce anything new in this image, something that was not present in the play, but in the stage performance of this role, he was the first to introduce what should have been introduced long ago."

Further, the author speaks about the book of Merezhkovsky, who considered the mayor and all his entourage "dead souls" set in motion by Khlestakov. "It is significant that Chekhov, following Merezhkovsky, decided to find an unreal element in the Revizor." Khodasevich notes that in all theaters the image of Osip, Khlestakov's servant, is misinterpreted, that he is not a "sleepy mastodon", but a smart and agile peasant, who thinks faster than his master and is loyal to him. The article ends with practical tips for the stage directors of the play.

The" Collection of Articles dedicated to the memory of N. V. Gogol", published in Buenos Aires in 1952 by a dependent of the Russian colony in Argentina, contains a philosophical essay by Abbot Konstantin (Zaitsev)"Gogol as a teacher of life". Its first pages are devoted to" laughter " in the spiritual sense. "Those around the Savior did not hear the laughter. Can you imagine the Virgin Mary laughing?" (P. 35)."Let us beware, however, of transferring this prohibition of laughter from the world of the spirit to the realm of spiritual phenomena." In everyday life, laughter lives in different qualities. When a person gives himself up to the life of the spirit, "laughter dies in him" (p. 36). Art is a spiritual matter. Gogol is "imbued with soulfulness" not only in his works of art, but also when he deals with "moral and religious issues" (p. 37). He has two main tools at his disposal - "fiction and laughter". Rushing to the spiritual, Gogol breaks "the framework of art, not fitting into them." There is a duel going on between the "poet" and the "moralist." "Gogol's laughter is light-hearted, Gogol's fiction is light-hearted. But how much this laughter and this fiction already contain and how much they teach us " (p. 38). In terms of soul, Gogol's laughter already partly possesses "a great religious and moral force, invariably greater than Gogol's fantasy."-

page 18

ka" (p. 38-39). Explaining the "Inspector General", Gogol reduces the power of the "teaching" of his laughter, giving it the function of a "religiously-colored supreme moral court" (pp. 39-40).

In the church-Christian consciousness, the role of satire and laughter is negligible. "Human art, no matter how convincingly it speaks about the heavenly, no matter how attractive it paints, remains earthly. At best, it only leads a person to the spiritual world" (p. 40). Gogol " brings to the limit the vulgarity of life observed by him - and reconciles the reader to it. At least as long as the reader is under the spell of his artistic gift " (p. 42). In this sense, Gogol has many similarities with M. Zoshchenko. We are talking about laughter that is not whipping, not angry, but "reconciling" (p. 44).

Pushkin, listening to the reading of "Dead Souls", first laughed, then fell silent and said: "God, how sad our Russia is!". This remark of Pushkin's "testified to all the moral greatness of Gogol's laughter", but this laughter, exposing all the wretchedness of everyday reality, cannot reveal the spiritual beauty behind it and show it ... "How can sadness not appear" (p. 45). But sadness is a thought about something else, something higher that should have been. As if complementing Pushkin, the author writes:: "The correct response of the soul, which heard the voice of Gogol's laughingly mournful muse with its inner ear, would not be Pushkin's words "how sad our Russia is", but an appeal to God with another, more generalized cry that arises from the depths of the heart: "God, how sad is our life, how pitiful is the man who does not live the life of the spirit" (p.47). This is where the "revolution" that Gogol experienced, rushing to the Church, is outlined. "It is important to understand the great lesson of Gogol's very determination to embark on the path of 'spiritual' work... Such determination is not yet the final solution of all one's internal disputes, nor is it yet a complete reconciliation with God... But it was the first step on a completely correct path." Gogol " took the Cross! What should have followed this? Deny yourself and follow the Lord "(p. 48).

This is where the contradiction arose: having turned to the Church, Gogol still remained a "writer", and in this capacity he tried to serve God. Due to the peculiarity of his talent, Gogol could only reproduce the "low prose" of life, create negative types, or rather, spiritless ones. Artistic creativity refused to serve Gogol. During this period, he was a teacher of life only as a prophet-publicist. But here, too, "he was the first to see so much, the first to show us so much, and the first to tell us so much of the innermost importance" (pp. 49-50). Finally - the "lesson of personal feat", the death of Gogol, almost no one, even from friends not understood. He is silent, he is sullen. "He comes to life with children who love him more than adults" (p. 51). "This silent, "empty" Gogol, with whom there is no longer anything to even talk about, but who easily finds a common language with children, who has realized the trait of the past."-

page 19

the weakness of his prayer, his impotence at the Holy Sepulchre - this is the Gogol, whose strange death we are commemorating this year." The "pathology" of a writer's death, the weeks and days of his death, are none of our business. Another thing is "the spiritual content of this prolonged dying. With the courageous capture of the cross in Gogol merged... prayerfully inspired self-denial, deepening ever more deeply." The article ends with the statement: "Yes, there is a lot to learn from Gogol! Who among the Russian writers and leaders of Russian society so confidently headed for the Church?.. The way to save the human soul is revealed in the image of Gogol with a conviction that cannot be compared with anything else - in the light of his unprecedented death. Let us be able, in the dazzling rays emanating from his mortal face, to recognize for the benefit of both ourselves and Russia the entire teaching side in Gogol's life and work" (pp. 52-53).

In the same collection, an article by the historian Nikolai Talberg "Gogol - the Herald of Holy Russia" is published, which has the subtitle: "A response to the slanderers of true Russia". The article is neither research nor analytical. The author, using quotations from Gogol's works, points out that the great writer "was a convinced loyal son of Russia, the Russian Empire", and quotes Gogol's words from a letter to Count A. P. Tolstoy, published under the title "You Need to love Russia", that" if you don't love Russia, you won't love your own people." brothers, you will not be inflamed with the love of God, and if you are not inflamed with the love of God, you will not be saved " (p. 55). "Pick up Russian antiquity," Gogol advised the poet N. M. Yazykov, "have such a pure, well-ordered soul as Karamzin had, and then proclaim your truth: everyone will listen to you, starting from the tsar to the last beggar in the state" (p. 56, 57).

Gogol deeply understood, Talberg writes, what constitutes the essence of"our wonderful Russia." "The son of Kievan Rus ... he felt vividly in his gut the unshakable foundations on which the Russian State should rest" (p. 58). Gogol puts particularly significant words in the mouths of the heroes of the story "Taras Bulba" -these are words about love for Orthodox Russia, for which the Cossacks died in the struggle against the Latin Poles. Behold, Mosiah Shiloh was mortally wounded in battle; he fell down, laid his hand on his wound, and said: "Farewell, gentlemen-brothers, comrades! May the Russian Orthodox land stand forever and be honored forever!" (P. 63). The author gives a list of" Little Russian", but inseparable from Russia names of holy ascetics and statesmen. Gogol himself is a native maloross. "The great mass of the Little Russian people was with Gogol," notes Talberg, "and not with those renegades who, like Tarasov's son Andrey, renounced the millennial Russia" (p.66).

A short article by Professor Rostislav Pletnev "Zhizn-a poem in prose" (Grani. Paris, 1959. N 42) is dedicated to the early-

page 20

It is based on a work by Gogol that dates back to 1831 and is included in the collection Arabesques (1835). This piece by Gogol, which the author of the article calls a kind of" prose poem", has rarely attracted the attention of researchers, although it contains a very broad view of the world at one of the key moments of its existence - on the day of the Nativity of Christ.

Pletnev believes that "Life" can be viewed in three aspects:: 1) as a philosophical and Christian discourse, 2) as a historical panorama, and 3) as a work of fiction - a prose poem. The article deals only with the third aspect. "Life," writes Pletnev, "is a romantic work, but written in the so-called "high style", which in everything almost corresponds to the theory of M. Lomonosov's "three calms" " (p. 154). Further, the literary critic develops this idea: "Gogol, consciously or unconsciously, wrote this way all his life: sometimes the style is pompously bombastic-rhetoric with the thunder and lightning of "Baroque" and romanticism, sometimes the style is full of sincere pathos and "ringing", then-medium, colloquial, but with an admixture of Church Slavonic utterances, then, finally, the style is "mean", "low" in a fairy tale, in humorous remarks, in comedies, in the dialogues of a number of ordinary characters" (pp. 154-155).

The experience of rhythmic prose was not the only one-Gogol has many rhythmized passages (at least in "Dead Souls" about the "troika bird"). Pletnev, based on the first line of "Life" ("The poor son of the desert had a dream..."), develops an idea about the theme of "dreaming" (usually prophetic), which, as he believes, goes to Gogol from his teachers Pushkin and Zhukovsky. And from Gogol, this theme came to I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy. The type of "panoramic view" was also picked up by writers of the post-Gogol period. The researcher notes the insignificant but still noticeable influence of A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky in Gogol's vocabulary, which is expressed mainly in common romantic cliches. "Small in size," Pletnev concludes, "but characteristic in its ideas, construction, and style, 'Life' reflects, like a drop of sunshine, all that is most precious and essential to Gogol - a poet, historian, and Christian thinker" (p.157).

Permanent link to this publication: