Appendix: Part Two

[Thomas]

This is an "optional" thread for those who go on to what remains of Part Two. Gogol never meant Part Two to be published and burned drafts of it twice. The chapters and fragments that remain have flashes of brilliance, and it's interesting to guess where he was going with it. It's also interesting to see a fuller picture of Chichikov, and to contrast him with new characters like Tentetnikov. But in my opinion, it pales in comparison to Part One. I'd love to hear what you think if you do decide to read it.

[Roger]

I actually was very glad to read Part Two. In Part One, everyone is petty, greedy, and/or foolish, and it was getting tedious. In Part Two we meet a landowner who is industrious and efficient, who becomes rich by making his serfs prosperous. Our hero is inspired to emulate him! That plan failed, and I wish we knew exactly how.

We also find out exactly how Chichikov planned to profit from his dead souls: he thought he could use them as collateral for a loan.

[Rhonda]

Immediately in Part 2, I recognized an interesting change. The people may make mistakes, but they are no longer truly grotesque figures. Once can sense that when Chichikov reenters, he is changed and I tend to think that he will change further. Hence it seems reasonable to be able to ascribe the part of the Inferno to the first part and, perhaps, Purgatorio to the second. Most of this is due, for the most part, in the way in which the first part ends and how Chichikov is set up to become something else.
The characters in the second part are no longer caricatures of human beings. At the end of the first part, we were introduced to some mitigating circumstances by which we might judge Chichikov, his birth and early rearing and schooling. One gathers that perhaps we are not meant to sympathize to the point of excusing his life as a cleaver con man, but it does lessen his guilt. In the second part we are introduced to Andrei Ivanovich Tentetnikov who appears to have a recognizably similar upbringing. This is to say no more than the world of both characters is recognizable, despite the different personalities.

It would take a great deal more study of this section, but I believe that most of Tentetnikov's musings about his school are a cleverly concealed history of modern Russia. I am not sufficiently versed in the periods, but I feel as if I can recognize allusions to Peter the Great, Alexander I, Alexander II and Nicholas I. Oddly enough I could not recognize Catherine the Great. Anyway, it's a theory which requires more work, but to Russian readers, this would have been clearer. I could find no Tsar associated with saying, "Forward!"

There are several lines in which one might argue that he seems rather similar to Gogol himself thinking on the great work of which Dead Souls was to be the first.!
It consisted in pondering a work which had been long and continuously pondered. This work was to embrace Russia from all viewpoints; civil, political, religious, philosophical--- to resolve the difficult problems and questions posed for her by the times, and to define clearly her great future---in short, a work of vast scope.
When Chichikov shows up, he doesn't appear to be the same self-obsessed con man, but someone with considerably more restraint. The most interesting part of Chichikov is his ability to dust himself off and try something new. One supposes that Gogol is ascribing this characteristic to the Russian character at large.

[Thomas]

There is more emotional depth to the characters in Part 2 but I find them a bit preachy and platitudinous. I'm not sure Gogol had it in him at this point to paint a convincing scene of redemption.

I also don't see any connection on its face between this book and the Divine Comedy. If Part 2 is in any way indicative of Chichikov's divine momentum, it's toward a place that is far more tedious and certainly not as funny as Hell.

Anyway, thanks to you happy few who went on to Part 2, and thanks to everyone who read Dead Souls with us up to that point.

[Rhonda]

Thomas wrote: "There is more emotional depth to the characters in Part 2 but I find them a bit preachy and platitudinous. I'm not sure Gogol had it in him at this point to paint a convincing scene of redemption. ..."

I agree that there is more emotional depth in the second part, but I believe that, according to his plan, the hell of the first part had to be lacking in such simply because characters are depicted as entities which lack empathy and compassion.
On the issue of the second part, I find it disappointing because we are probably reading early drafts and certainly incomplete manuscripts. It would have been wonderful to read the completed book which he burned, but all that is speculation.
What we do know is that Gogol's spiritual advisor disapproved of the means by which Gogol was attempting expose the heavily flawed Russian character. Looking at it from a religious point of view, especially that of the Russian Orthodox church, one could hardly fail to acknowledge that extreme satire was not an effective means to discuss the nature of characters' spirits. Satire would have been understood by the Russian Orthodox as something which should be exposed as false religious teaching.
While there are clear religious overtones in Gogol's writing, I find it difficult to understand how this would have played out as anything approaching the nature of salvation. The first part as a whole is key at establishing only the immorality of the flesh.

As I have explained in earlier posts, I see components of what he might have hoped to do. Still, it seems clear to me that the plan was to use the same satire that he was clearly using in the second part. One can surmise that Gogol became convinced that he should abandon the effort because it would have been ineffective in the religious realm. Nevertheless, Dead Souls was most likely very instrumental in encouraging the reforms of 1861 when the peasants were freed. On the other hand, that change might have only been an inevitable economic outcome of Russia's desire to become modern and develop a work force for manufacturing in the cities.

[Rhonda]

Thomas wrote: "I also don't see any connection on its face between this book and the Divine Comedy. If Part 2 is in any way indicative of Chichikov's divine momentum, it's toward a place that is far more tedious and certainly not as funny as Hell...."

It is indeed an odd adaptation of Dante. Chichikov himself says, "Why did I give myself over to such contrition? And, what's more, tear my hair out?"
It is remarkable that he is repenting of his repentance! So having repented, tearing his expensive and prideful clothes and hair in Biblical fashion, he now has his suit of luxury repaired and continues, but not in his old ways, apparently.
The text states, "This was not the old Chichikov. This was some wreckage of the old Chichikov. The inner state of his soul might be compared to a demolished building, which has been demolished so that from it a new one could be built; but the new one has not been started yet, because the definitive plan has not yet come from the architect and the workers are left in perplexity."

Though one has doubts that Chichikov wishes to change his life, it is clear that his life has been changed for him. It is thoroughly odd in the respect that his affair has exposed the impropriety of others, things which are so twisted that they will never be unraveled.
In many ways, what the prince announces he will do is to enact absolute righteousness when sinners will not listen to a call to righteousness. The text states, "The prince was calm. His face expressed neither wrath nor inner turmoil."
This is clearly an allusion to God's actions when sin is full. The prince goes on to talk about the possibility of repentance for which he will intercede on the repenter's behalf.
Perhaps the greatest difficult we have in drawing a parallel to Dante is that all of what Gogol wrote pertains to the state of Russia. What I am able to understand of the Russian state and Gogol's understanding of the state's hierarchy, he was a zealot for both. The prince appeals to the Russian characteristics of nobility of character which, I believe, parallels the issue of the Russian Orthodox church as well as the Tsar. I confess that I should be grateful to have read the entire second manuscript, but even so, Dead Souls is as valuable for us today as it was when it was written. I doubt anyone can read this without feeling as if it were a social critique of one's own life and times.

[Kerstin]

Thomas wrote: "There is more emotional depth to the characters in Part 2 but I find them a bit preachy and platitudinous. I'm not sure Gogol had it in him at this point to paint a convincing scene of redemption."

I think you are right. Gogol is a fabulous and entertaining writer with a lot of depth, but in the second part he was a bit out of his depth. The entire work is a spiritual journey. In the first part we are presented with the secular or agnostic life. A life into which faith and spirituality has no influence. In many ways it is drab and closed-in on itself. Then in the second part you have a spiritual awakening. The scene at the window where Chichikov doesn't realize how time is passing and he is still in awe two hours later. He is very much in the present moment, a glimpse of eternity. As he has entered this realm there are no longer descriptions of the endless monotonous expanse of the Russian landscape, but Nature is presented in detail, the types of trees, meadows, and rivers. There is beauty here, and for the first time churches are mentioned with their golden domes and crosses. Interestingly, even here nobody attends church or engages in spiritual practices such as praying, but the lives of the people are much richer and meaningful. You still have types as in the first part. We encounter gluttony, hyper-busyness, over-emphasis on utility, laziness, etc. So why do we think that there is something missing here aside from the fact that the second part only survives in fragments? It doesn't give us satisfying closure. The fantasy author and Orthodox Deacon Nicholas Kotar made the following observation regarding heroism, and I think it translates well into our situation:

" Ultimately, it’s still very, very hard to write about heroism in a convincing manner without becoming preachy. Why? Because depicting heroism realistically depends on a very scary reality. We storytellers, we have to attempt the quest for grace in our own lives. If we tell stories of heroism without trying to embody that heroism ourselves, it will ring hollow."

(Note: Nicholas Kotar has a podcast, In a Certain Kingdom where he retells Russian fairy tales and then analyzes them. It is from here where I got the quote. His entire essay can be read here:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts... )