Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Gogol, Dead Souls
>
Part 1: Chapters 4-5
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "And on a different, possibly unrelated front: why is Chichikov not interested in female souls?..."Apparently only male serfs were counted in the census.
An interesting thing about the female souls are that they were only offered by Sobakevich who has a wife.
Tamara wrote: "Thomas wrote: "And on a different, possibly unrelated front: why is Chichikov not interested in female souls?..."Apparently only male serfs were counted in the census."
Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense then. It's interesting that Sobakevich still values female souls though. Sobakevich is a fascinating guy to me because he has real admiration for some of his serfs, even after they are dead. It's almost like the serfs have a "kleos" that Sobakevich acknoweledges, but Chichikov does not. Sobakevich seems to value his serfs as individuals with an identiy, and as property. He has a lot more imagination than Chichikov.
Thomas wrote: "Sobakevich is a fascinating guy to me because he has real admiration for some of his serfs, even after they are dead. .."I don't know where this is going, and I might eat my words later on, but so far, I like Sobakevich.
He knows what he likes (his food) and he goes after it with gusto. He doesn't suck up to authorities and is unafraid to express his opinion. As you said, he treats his serfs as individuals and admires them because of their work skills. He can smell a rat in Chichikov. He strikes me as someone who doesn't get caught up in social niceties and appearances in order to get ahead. He calls it as he sees it.
He may end up being a nasty kettle of fish, but so far I think he is the most honest and genuine character we've met.
It's interesting that Gogol presents a portrait of Sobakevich right after the truly unwholesome Nozdryov. I'm not sure if he meant them to contrast with each other, but Nozdryov makes Sobakevich look like a prince.
Tamara wrote: "Thomas wrote: "And on a different, possibly unrelated front: why is Chichikov not interested in female souls?..."Apparently only male serfs were counted in the census."
Is that because they didn't have the vote?
Mike wrote: "An interesting thing about the female souls are that they were only offered by Sobakevich who has a wife."Also noticed only male children seem to be worthy of mention.
Chapter 5 begins with Chichikov and Selifan fleeing from Nozdryov. Their britzka gets entangled with another coach, and while they are getting untangled Chichikov is fascinated by a pretty young girl in the other carriage. The narrator makes some sweeping comments about the fleeting character of beauty and youth, and how if it had been a 20-year old youth instead of Chichikov a romance might have sprung up. But it isn't a 20-year old youth, it's Chichikov, who has some peculiar notions about femininity. He thinks the young girl is "good" now, but
Just let the mamas and aunties start working on her now. In a year they'll have her so filled with all sorts of female stuff that her own father won't recongize her. Out of nowhere will come conceit and pomposity, she'll start turning around on memorized instructions, she'll start racking her brains thinking up with whom, and how, and for what length of time she should speak...and in the end she'll finally start lying all her life, and the result will be devil knows what!
But then he says that if she came from a rich family offering a substantial dowry, she would make a "very very tasty little morsel. That might constitute happiness, so to speak, for a decent man."
Chichikov apparently values women as a commodity at least, or perhaps at most. Nozdryov was right about Chichikov's story about needing 300 souls to get married: "Lies!"
In chap 4 I found it intriguing that Chichikov givers two different reasons for wanting to buy the dead souls to the volatile Nozdryov...he announced that he needed the dead souls to acquire weight in society, that he was not an owner of big estates, so that in the meantime there would be at least some wretched little souls.
When Nozdryov responds "lies, lies", Chichikov changes his story and intimates it should be a secret. I have a mind to get married, but you must know that the father and mother of the bride are most ambitious people.....they absolutely insist the bridegroom own not less than three hundred souls, and since I am lacking almost as many as a hundred and fifty souls...
Are any of these reasons the truth or just part of a con? I do tend to lean towards reason #1 as having some truth to it.
In Chap 5, besides the stark contrast that is drawn between the aforementioned Nozdryov and Sobakevich fleshed out in this chapter in this visit; I was taken by Gorgol's description of the horses, their behavior and their thoughts! Is Sobakevich so reluctant to part with his dead souls because he considers them one of his own who was appreciated when they were alive and is put off by the thought they are considered "trash" and a means to an vague end by Chichikov?
Chris wrote: " Is Sobakevich so reluctant to part with his dead souls because he considers them one of his own who was appreciated when they were alive and is put off by the thought they are considered "trash" and a means to an vague end by Chichikov?.."On the one hand, he may just be very greedy and increases the price because he knows he has an interested buyer. On the other hand, he does treat his souls as individuals. He knows a lot about their skills and their personal details. He is unusual in that he doesn't treat them as just numbers. Chichikov is pleasantly surprised by the amount of detail Sobakevich knows about his dead souls.
I'm not quite sure what--if anything--to make of this, but I'm beginning to notice a repeated pattern. Gogol seems to be going out of his way to stress the generic quality of people, places, and things.A few examples:
It was the sort of carriage in which bachelors ride . . .
Just what these lounges are like is well known to every traveller . . .
It was possible to tell right away that he had reached his position in the same way as so many of his colleagues . . .
She seems to be of that species of small lady landowner that keep complaining about poor crops and losing money . . .
Chances are that the reader is familiar with faces like Nozdryov's. Everyone has met many people of this sort. . .
And so on.
Once I became aware of this pattern, I found similar sentences jumping out at almost every page. It seems to me Gogol wants to impress the generic nature of the people and places--to generate feelings of familiarity, something along the lines of "I know this type of person" or "I've been to this type of place."
I don't know if this is just in the translation I'm reading or if others have noticed the pattern in different translations.
Gogol's world in this novel is thoroughly average, middling, mediocre, and banal, so I don't think it's your translation. That's the portrait he's painting. Why he sees the world that way is another question. Maybe he's criticizing the materialistic, soul-less nature of his place and time? Or maybe it's just the skeleton upon which he is building his narrative. I'm not sure.
When he first sights Sobakevich's house, Chichikov muses upon the construction that there have been arguments between Sobakevich and his architect. The architect wants symmetry, and S. argues practicality.I like the way Gogol shows us into Chichikov's mind, which encompasses many themes, including architecture and housing contracts. He knows a lot about contracts, doesn't he?
He is able to see into the origins of the mundane world he finds.
The "feast" shows mainly how S. gorges on, (but not how C. participates, and what he eats himself). It is so out-sized. Just throw the ram on the table and chow down. Reminds me of La Grande Bouffe, or the contest in 100 years of solitude. Yet here it is just normal dining. Very funny.
I have a picture of a britzka drawn by 2 horses. I don't know how to upload it. The caption says it is built rather long, for sleeping while travelling.
Tamara wrote: "I'm not quite sure what--if anything--to make of this, but I'm beginning to notice a repeated pattern. Gogol seems to be going out of his way to stress the generic quality of people, places, and th..."I noticed this, too, Tamara. The characters are presented as "types." I found it annoying with Nozdryov because it was already clear to me from his behavior what kind of man he was. I didn't need Gogol to tell me. Then I came to the passage where the narrator points out that people still don't recognize men like Nozdryov when they meet them. They are "light-mindedly unperceptive, and a man in a different caftan seems to them a different man." Of course, as readers, we might protest we aren't unobservant! But it seemed to me that his point in "typing" everyone was that readers (?) people (?) aren't observant enough to figure things out for themselves--a sweeping critique of humanity, even if we don't accept it personally.
I found the scene between Chichikov and Sobakevich really funny. Sobakevich immediately recognizes that his dead souls are worth something to Chichikov, even though he hasn't worked out yet why. No matter. He's smart enough to drive a very hard bargain, which totally frustrates Chichikov. I guess I dislike "our hero"--and apparently, I'm supposed to--because I found it humorous that in this exchange, he got what he deserved!Has anyone else wondered at the use of "our hero" to describe Chichikov?
That is quite interesting to observe since Gogol MUST have been influenced by Lermontov's "hero for our time" which was so notorious for the irony, the anti-hero, which came out the year before. Or am I resorting to a secondary resource, though I did read "Hero" and, of course, noted the pub date? The coincidence just came to me, honestly.
Kathy wrote: "Has anyone else wondered at the use of "our hero" to describe Chichikov?.."I thought Gogol was being ironic.
Kathy wrote: "I found the scene between Chichikov and Sobakevich really funny..."I did, too. I also loved the scene between Chichikov and Korobochka in Chapt. 3. It had me in stitches. Gogol is such a riot. I am enjoying the novel immensely.
I bring up the "hero" question because some friends and I read Vanity Fair last winter, and it's subtitled "a novel without a hero," so we talked a lot about whether we thought that was true. It does seem ironic at this point, but I'm curious whether there will end up being more to it...
While I found the meeting of Nozdryov both very humorous and terrible, I began to realize that in these two, Nozdryov and Sobakevich, Gogol was taking us a step deeper into critical culture. The Dante parallel seems to work very well here. Gogol says that we should recognize that Nozdryov is someone recognizable in everyone's life, but he also maintains that he is distinctly Russian. Frankly I think one should recognize the character all too well, one imbued with self-loathing and a purposeful ignorance of facts, yet not without a distinct charisma. Gogol seems to use etymologies to his advantage and clearly Nozdryov, (notably without first name or patronymic,) is from nozdrya meaning nostrils, suggestive of holes and porosities. There are so many things amiss with Nozdryov and I find him rather scary as a person. He stops at nothing to get his way and, in the end Chichikov is only stopped from receiving a beating (because Nozdryov is a consummate cheat) by a police representative arriving at the nick of time.
Sobakevich, in turn, comes from sobaka, which means dog, and his appearance is often referred to as a bear-like. Whether dog or bear, his appetite is not for prepared dishes, but substantial pieces of meat, which he devours with great delight. He appears to assign a straight-forward and revered character to these animals, lamb and pork, being as a whole, more substantial and, thus, real, while frogs and oysters are niggling attempts at food. He uses these examples to disparage the enlightenment and all that it represents to him a kind of false, dainty or insincere quality.
But Sobakevich is more than his appearances and while he speaks very directly about the town officials in negative terms, one cannot help but acknowledge the contrast in the ways in which he speaks of his dead serfs. Further, the parallel to the paintings of the great generals of the past and near present is not to be missed. One gathers that Sobakevich would speak, if asked, about these great people of war in such glowing terms as he would his serfs. Indeed, this is the first person who recognizes any great humanity in anyone. All the rest has consisted of manners and posturing, Sobakevich understands and thinks only in substantial terms.
I was relieved a bit to hear Sobakevich speak so forthrightly about things and people, a stark contrast to both those who are attempting to be polite as well as those who seem to survive on flattery. Still, when Sobakevich is speaking of his dead souls, Chichikov says of him, he never referred to the souls as dead, but only as nonexistent. This is an interesting contrast here and, to some degree at least, one begins to appreciates that there is nothing false about Sobakevich. In fact, the negotiation of the sums does not appear to be greed, unless I am misreading the text, but is dependent upon the real value that Sobakevich holds for each of these dead people. "Mine are all hale as nut: all picked men!"
What is the reader to make of this? We admire that Sobakevich admires the qualities of his serfs, but one tends to think that he thinks of them as more alive than dead. He denies Chichikov's effort to refer to them as a dream. One senses that Sobakevich is not being greedy, as Chichikov believes, but rather that his dead serfs have this greater value.
Everything about Sobakevich is substantial, from his sturdy house to his character. He is the proverbial force with which Chichikov has to reckon, but he does not do so easily. Neither trusts the other and exchange money and receipt at the exact same moment. Chichikov thinks Sobakevich tight fisted, but I think that he rather sees greater value in dead people than those who are alive, especially the ones holding important positions in town as well as the largest landowner, Plyushkin.
Rhonda's comments remind me to slow down and read very attentively. The difficulty with that in Dead Souls is Gogol's quick pace which hurries me along to his next encounter. I did get to that contemplative state with Plyushkin--actually before meeting him, with the organic decadence of the approach and then the description of the character whom Chichikov cannot discern as either a man or a woman, a housekeeper or a proprietor.
Susanna wrote: "Chris wrote: "I was taken by Gogol's description of the horses, their behavior and their thoughts! "Yes, I love the horses. Do horses really prefer oats to hay?"
Usually, if they are used to getting oats. In this context I take it that oats aren't a necessity for a horse, but hay is. Still, Selifan thinks his horse need oats. Just like Chichikov, a purported nobleman, doesn't really need to own hundreds of serfs but wants the appearance of owning them for social status.
It's amusing (and also heart warming) that Selifan thinks of his horses as human and has feelings for them. It's similar to the way Sobakevich thinks of his dead serfs, as if they were still alive somehow. It's an interesting contrast to the way Chichikov thinks about the souls he is busy acquiring.
Thomas wrote: "Still, Selifan thinks his horse need oats."i was wondering about this issue myself and I think there may be two issues here. First, the feeding of oats would be considered more hospitable because they are more expensive. Second, considering the weather of where the action takes place, perhaps there is a greater chance of the hay being moldy or having less nutritional value.
Perhaps, being horses that are actively engaged, Selifan is also worried about possible digestive distress, causing impaction colic, a common occurrence where there is not a fresh water supply. When there is icy water, horses tend not to drink as much as they should. I have friends who raise horses in Montana and they are careful to add hot water to the frozen water source each day. Horses apparently don't much like very cold or icy water.
In any case, the issue of your horses suffering from gastric distress when riding in a carriage is somewhat unpleasant.
Lastly, the horses do indeed seem to have more personality than most of the human characters, hence very much alive in opposition to all the dead souls we meet.
I hesitated to bring up this issue, but it seems relevant to the discussion of the characters. There is an interesting comment made by Sobakevich concerning the governor and vice-governor, each of which Chichikov wishes to praise.He says, “He and the vice-governor: they’re Gog and Magog.”
While, as a technicality, the second name, Magog, refers to a region from which the first originates, this is clearly a Biblical reference to that of the earth which has been heavily influenced by the unrepentant evil of the Antichrist. The references are both from Ezekiel 38 and 39, with specific reference to the latter days and inevitable defeat and punishment of Gog and Magog. Therefore, the reference in Revelation 20 also appears to apply.
It is not worth pursuing the exact relationship of time period mentioned in these two scriptures, (there are other Biblical references to names in the Bible which do not seem to apply,) but it is worth noting that Sobakevich is indicating that these two characters are the worst of all possible people because they are irreversibly against God and thus damned. If nothing else, Sobakevich’s use of the term is very colorful as well as in keeping with the parallel of The Inferno of Dante.
Mare's eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy,
Rhonda wrote: "I hesitated to bring up this issue, but it seems relevant to the discussion of the characters. There is an interesting comment made by Sobakevich concerning the governor and vice-governor, each of ..."Here is what I see:
In a nutshell, what Gogol is doing here with Gog and Magog is further underscoring that the rot is deep within the local town.
There is a lot of symbolism going on here. Originally, Gog and Magog (or Gog from Magog) are part of the hordes from the North, or as the Romans would say, Barbarians. They are people from Asia who live on horseback and shoot bows and arrows, just like the Huns and Mongols in later times. In the Christian cosmos, Jerusalem is at the center, and so looking at a map any invading hordes from Asia would come out of the North. This is significant, for the North, liturgically speaking, means darkness and evil. Gog and Magog symbolize the threat from the outside or from beyond civilization, they are other. When the fringe breaks into the center chaos and death ensues. The integrity of the body – whether natural, political, etc. – is breached.
Kerstin wrote: "Rhonda wrote: " There is an interesting comment made by Sobakevich concerning the governor and vice-governor...He says, “He and the vice-governor: they’re Gog and Magog.” I believe as I read more that Gogol was writing not just a political critique of Russia, but that he wished to write such a critique in much the same manner as Dante, by which I mean, a religious critique. It seems reasonable to draw some of the many parallels from the Inferno as well as the various ways in which Gogol inserts religious references, such as this one.
But be that as it may, either true or untrue, I found that the reference to Gog and Magog very interesting because of one particular reason: while we agree that the Biblical references refer to an outside attack on Israel, this is a matter of someone who resides within the same country or general area as that of Gog and Magog.
It is one thing to agree that they are representatives of the Antichrist, coming against Israel, but it is quite another for a Russian to condemn two with whom he associates.
My comment was a matter for sparking discussion more than anything else. There are articles written today that suggest that Gog and Magog are not even Russian in origin.
Rhonda wrote: "It is one thing to agree that they are representatives of the Antichrist, coming against Israel, but it is quite another for a Russian to condemn two with whom he associates."I didn't mean it in the interpretation of the Antichrist. If you read my comment again, my argument focuses primarily on a universal symbolic pattern. Gog and Magog are meant as stand-ins for, or examples of, intruders that don't belong. Intruders always disrupt the existing civil order, they create disorder and chaos. By mentioning Gog and Magog Sobakevich highlights that the bureaucratic system as it stands is not functioning in an orderly manner, it is rotten from the top down. The two officials have no integrity, they are corrupt.
In Chapters 4 and 5 we are treated to depictions of the characters Nozdryov and Sobakevich. The narrator tells us up front that Nozdryov is a type, the sort of man "already familiar to the reader. Everyone has met not a few such people." Nozdryov is a liar and a cheat, and a hothead to boot. He gambles away everything he owns. Sobakevich is entirely different. He is a stolid character surrounded by weighty objects. At one point the narrator says even the furniture screams "Sobakevich", as if his possessions personified him. He is supremely tight-fisted and asks an outrageous amount of money for his dead souls, his former serfs whom he remembers fondly. Chichikov thinks the souls are "trash," and he should get them for free. He is after all liberating the owner from the tax burden they impose.
At one point the narrator writes,
Sobakevich went on listening in the same way, his head bowed, and nothing in the least resembling expression showed on his face. It seemed there was no soul in this body at all...
Gogol seems to me to approach the soul from a negative point of view here. The subject of the book is dead souls, and in these two chapters Gogol presents two characters who in some sense lack soul. Which leads me to wonder what Gogol means by soul in the positive sense. In these characters we see, perhaps, what soul is not. Is there anyone so far who represents soulfulness?
And on a different, possibly unrelated front: why is Chichikov not interested in female souls?