UDC 821.161.1-31.09 Gogol N. V.

1

: . ( - ) (. - ; ).

: , , -, , , , , -

- , - , .2

1 (178013), .

2 , , , : , , , - , . . ( , , , / , 1984, , . 165.) - - . , . , , - : - , .

578

, , - - , , .3 - , , - .

, , , . , ( - ). , , , , . : ( ), ( ). , - / , , . - , .4 - () . , - . : - , . , : , . , - .

( , . . , : , , , 1973, . 100.) - . , - : a . . . ( , , : , , , 2006, , . 53.)

3 , , , , 1992, . 9295, , . 338.

4 , , , , 2009, , . 97.

579

- , , , - . ( ) - , .

. , , - XIX . , - , :

- XIX . , , , - , , .5

, - . - , , , , :

, - .6

, - , . - . - : , ! , -

5 , : , , 1993, . 9699, , . 226.

6 , . 227.

580

, , , , ( - ), .7

, - . , - , - .

. , .8 , , - , - . , ( - ; - XIX ), - . - ( ) - - . , , , -, . , .

- , -, , . ( ; ), - - ,

7 , . 231.8 ( 1842. )

, - ( ma in stre am, : ), . , , , ( , ).

581

.9 - , . -, :

, , , . , , , . , , , , .10

, . , ! -, .

- , , , , . . . - . -, , , .11 , , -. , , , , : .12 , -

9 , , , Ve ga me dia, 2004, .10 . , . . : , , -

, 1953, . 120.11 . . , . . , , -

, 1952, . 99.12 , -

. . , , , . (. , , . , . 7475.) , : , - , .

582

, ,13 , , - .

- . . , , , [ ].14 , , - , - . - . O , :

... , - , . - , . , , .15

, , - - . , - . - , - . - , - . ( ?) , , , - .

, ... (, . 60.) , , - .

13 - : , : , , - , 2010, . 105109.

14 . , , , , 1984, . 169215.15 . , , . , . 99.

583

, , je . ; - , - . , - , , , , , .16 , , , , . , - , , , , . , - , . , .

vs. , . , , , - , - . , , , , , .

( , ; . , , , , - ! !... (234)),17

16 , , , , 2004, , . 412.

17 . 1921. , . : , , -, / , 2004, . . ( , 1872. - ), ( 1987. ), -

584

. - . : - .18 , - , . , . (, - , , , - .)

- . 19 , . - , - :

, . .20

, - , , . , -

. : , , , Pa i de ia, 2008, . : . , , , , 1956.

18 . , , . , . 31.19

, , . ( , : , : , , , 1996, . 52). - , : , , . (. , , . , . 28). - : , , , , . , , , - .

20 . , , . , . 319.

585

. - , - .21 - , , : - , .

, , -. , . . , , , - :

... , , , , , - [ , , -]22 . (96)

, - , o , - , - . . - . , , - . , - , :

- ; , , - , , ; , - . , ,

21 , . 325.22 , -

, . - : ... , . (89).

586

- ; . - , [ , - ],23 : , , , , , . - ; . (179)

, , ( ) , - . ,24 : , , , . . : - ? , - . , - , , . , . , , - , , . , , , , , .

. :

23 , , . : , ... (165).

24 , . : .

587

, , , ? , , , . , - , : , ? ? - , , ? , , , ! ? ? - - , , ? ! . ; ; , , - , . (261262, . .)

-. - . , , - , .25

. , , - . , , , . . , - , , .26

, . ( ) . , - . , -

25 , , , , 1984, - , . 32.

26 : , - , , . ( , , , 1957, . 2, . 374).

588

, -, : , - . o . : , . : - , , . . . , - , - .

, , , , , - . , .27 -. , - . , , , , . - , - , , , - . , - --- - -. , , . - , -, , . , , - . , , -

27 , - , . .

589

, , . , , ( , - ), . . , , . - - - . , - . - .

, : , , 1993, . 9699, , . 221231.

, , , Ve ga me dia, 2004, . , , , 1957,

. 2, . 372384. , : ,

: , , , 1996, . 2752. , , , / , 2004,

. . , , , Pa i de ia, 2008, .. , , , -

, 1956.. , . . : , , -

, 1953. , , , , 2009,

. , , , , 1984, -

. , , : , , ,

2006, , . 790. , . . , :

, , , 1973, . 23101.

590

. , , , , 1984. , :

, , , 2010. , , , / -

, 1984, . , , , , 2004, .. . , . . , ,

, 1952. , , , , 1992, .

9295, , . 261339.

Igor Perii

GOGOLS CONFLICT IN THE KEY OF EPISTEMOLOGY OF LAUGHTER

S u m m a r y

On the basis of some classical texts from literature about Gogol (V. Shklovsky, D. Merezhkovsky, V. Propp, M. Bakhtin, V. Nabokov, D. Nedeljkovi) this paper first es-tablishes the meaning of the syntagme Gogols conflict as the lack of accord between Gogols prophetic intention and cosmic genius, between the desire to achieve more that reality with the text and a genius insight into the cosmic and absurd heart of reality. The whole conflict is best seen in the greatest Gogols piece Dead Souls. From a sim-plified point of view one could say that Gogol first satirically unmasks the faults of his contemporary social reality and uses this to offer a serious plan on how to improve the world. However, this construction is unattainable because both its premises turn out to be very unstable. Dead Souls is rather a prototransgression or a humorous deconstruc-tion of realism before realism than a supreme embodiment of a later formulated realis-tic poetics. In such a context even satirical moments, which are certainly present in the novel, are seen more as a satire to something other than a concrete social reality. After a short discussion of the problem it turns out that satire with Gogol is primarily episte-mological, with special attention paid to the comical aspects of the sociorealistical glo-rification of Gogols satire. On the other hand, it is usually thought that Gogol uses sat-ire and makes fun of how real reality is in order to prove the potential strength and size of Russia, to use to transformation of low content to write the poetic vision of his homeland. It seems that Gogol, in his conflict, had a guilty conscience because of the humoristic geniality of Dead Souls so he somehow had to establish a balance with pa-thetic digressions scattered all over the novel. Formalistically speaking, this would somehow overcome Gogols conflict: comic tension is defeated by poetic tension, which is one of the senses of the genre subtitle poem. However, the paradox of these digressions lies in the fact that what they want to evoke with their presence are nobler feelings, but as it turns out Gogol did not resolve his poetic conflict and thus did not

591

manage to produce such feelings; instead, he convincingly proved their absence. A sin-gle Inadequate from Gogols final pathetic digression in Dead Souls could be a final (anti)answer to his desperate attempts to resolve his own conflict. Since there is no such answer in the text of the novel, the final contradiction is the fact that only the lack of conflict resolvement could have created Dead Souls. Since the Russian writer did not manage to resolve the epistemological contradiction of laughter, his conflict again proves to be epistemological. Despite all explicit statements that glorify laughter, Gogols god-fearing part could not accept that laughter was enough, could not deal with the contradiction of utopia of laughter, i.e. could not intuitively discover that laughter-evoking emotions always have a discomfort of a sometimes scary, superhu-man view of impossible relationships and impossible worlds and pleasures of contem-plating such impossibilities. If that is so, then this paper reaches a somewhat comical conclusion which does not cancel the truth potential. The only possible way out of the impossible Gogols conflict was suggested by the Russian state censorship of the time: to save Gogol, the man, all Dead Souls had to be banned and burnt.