By Bergotte
There is a moment in Nikolai Gogol’s story The Nose when a government official named Kovalyov discovers that his nose has left his face, dressed itself in a uniform of higher rank than his own, and is travelling around St Petersburg attending church services and paying social calls. Kovalyov’s attempts to recover his nose — through the police, through newspaper advertisements, through direct confrontation — are frustrated at every turn by bureaucratic indifference, social protocol, and the nose’s own implacable dignity. The story ends without explanation or resolution. The nose simply returns, one morning, to where it belongs. Gogol adds a coda noting that events of this kind do happen in the world, rarely, but they happen. This is Gogol’s vision of the human condition in concentrated form: a world in which the parts of us that are supposed to serve us have developed their own social ambitions, in which the mechanisms of civilised life have become entirely detached from any human purpose, and in which the correct response is a laughter so deep and so uncomfortable that it is almost indistinguishable from horror.
The Man from Nowhere
Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol was born in 1809 in Sorochyntsi, in the Poltava region of what is now Ukraine, the son of a minor landowner who wrote comedies in Ukrainian and died when Gogol was fifteen. He grew up in the provincial world of small Ukrainian gentry that would provide the material for his early stories — a world of fairs and witches and Cossack legends and the kind of petty social vanity that, seen from the right angle, tips from comedy into something darker. He arrived in St Petersburg at nineteen with literary ambitions and almost no money, attempted briefly to become an actor, failed, took a minor government clerical post of the kind that would later haunt his fiction, and began writing the Ukrainian tales that became Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka and Mirgorod. They were immediate successes, celebrated by Pushkin, and established him as a writer of comic genius rooted in folklore and regional life.
But the Petersburg stories that followed — The Nose, The Overcoat, Diary of a Madman, Nevsky Prospekt, The Portrait — revealed a darker and more philosophically unnerving sensibility. The comic energy remained, but it had curdled into something that no longer offered the reassurance of comedy’s conventional resolutions. These were stories in which the social world had become actively hallucinatory, in which the gap between official reality and actual experience was so large that only madness or grotesque fantasy could bridge it. Gogol had looked at the bureaucratic machinery of imperial Russia and seen not merely corruption or inefficiency but something more disturbing: a system so thoroughly committed to its own forms and procedures that the human beings inside it had been, in some essential way, replaced by the roles they occupied.
He spent much of his adult life outside Russia — in Rome above all, where he felt liberated from the social pressures of the Petersburg literary world — and wrote Dead Souls, his masterpiece, in Italian exile. He was a hypochondriac, a religious obsessive in his later years, a man whose relationship to his own work veered between megalomaniacal confidence and paralysing self-doubt. He burned the second part of Dead Souls twice — once in 1845 and again, definitively, in 1852, ten days before his death — destroying what he had spent a decade writing because he had convinced himself it was spiritually unworthy. He died in Moscow in February 1852, aged forty-two, having refused food for several weeks in a state of religious fasting and despair that his doctors could not interrupt. He starved himself at the height of his powers, and the literature he destroyed in the fire is perhaps the greatest loss Russian letters has ever suffered.
He was, in short, a man who embodied the contradictions his fiction diagnosed: a writer of irresistible comic energy who was consumed by a vision of human inadequacy so thoroughgoing that it eventually consumed him too.
The Overcoat and the Nothing Inside
The Overcoat, published in 1842, is the story from which, Dostoevsky reportedly said, all Russian literature emerged — we all came out from under Gogol’s overcoat — and it is the story in which Gogol’s vision of the human condition is most nakedly and most tenderly expressed. Akaky Akakiyevich Bashmachkin is a copying clerk in a government department in St Petersburg, a man so thoroughly reduced to his function that he has no existence outside it: he copies documents not because he is required to but because he loves to, because the act of copying — the faithful reproduction of other people’s words in his small neat hand — is the only experience of the world his life has room for. He has no friends, no interests, no desires, no ambitions. He is, in the administrative machinery of imperial Russia, the most frictionless possible component: a man who has become his job.
Then his overcoat wears out, and the story begins.
The acquisition of a new overcoat — the saving, the anticipation, the glorious day of collection, the single evening of social recognition it briefly confers — becomes the entire drama of a life that has had no other drama. And when the coat is stolen on the night he wears it for the first time, in a dark street by thieves who vanish without consequence into the Petersburg dark, Akaky Akakiyevich has lost not merely a garment but the only event his life has ever contained. He appeals to his superiors, who dismiss him. He appeals to a Very Important Person, a general who has recently been promoted and is practising the proper exercise of authority, who shouts at him with a ferocity designed for an audience and entirely disproportionate to the occasion. Akaky Akakiyevich catches cold walking home from this interview, takes to his bed, and dies — delirious, fevered, muttering over imaginary documents, finally freed by death from the copying that was the whole of him.
The ghost that haunts the Petersburg streets afterward, snatching overcoats from passers-by, is usually read as Gogol’s revenge fantasy on behalf of his hero — the timid clerk finally, posthumously, asserting himself. But the ghost’s final act is to snatch the overcoat of the Very Important Person himself, and the general, frightened, becomes suddenly aware of his own behaviour and begins to treat his subordinates with more consideration. Even this small moral consequence — the only consequence the story allows — is presented with a comic deflation that refuses to let it settle into straightforward redemption. The world changed slightly, briefly, because a ghost frightened a general. This is Gogol’s version of social reform: temporary, accidental, and faintly absurd.
What the story says about the human condition is something that takes time to absorb. Akaky Akakiyevich is not a tragic hero. He is barely a person in the conventional novelistic sense — he has no interiority to speak of, no development, no moment of self-recognition. He is the human being reduced to a social function, and the reduction is presented not as satire of a particular system but as a possible fate of the human soul: the condition in which the self has been so thoroughly colonised by its assigned role that there is nothing left underneath. And yet Gogol extends toward him, in one extraordinary passage, a tenderness that transforms the story entirely. There is a moment early on when a junior clerk drops a piece of paper on Akaky Akakiyevich’s head as a joke, and the old man looks up and says only: Why do you insult me? And the young clerk, who was about to laugh, stops. Something in the voice — something in the simple, undefended directness of the question — reaches past his amusement and touches something he would rather not have touched. Gogol adds that the young man was haunted by it for years afterward: the figure of the little old man, the question Why do you insult me?, the sudden awareness that behind every function, every role, every copying clerk whose name begins and ends with Akaky, there is a person who can be hurt.
This is the human condition according to Gogol: we are, most of us, in danger of becoming Akaky Akakiyevich — of permitting the machinery of social life to occupy the space where the self should be — and the danger is not melodramatic or obvious but quiet and gradual and perfectly compatible with the appearance of a normal life.
Dead Souls and the Inventory of Emptiness
Dead Souls, published in 1842 and left permanently unfinished by the burning of its second part, is the largest and most ambitious of Gogol’s works, and the one in which his vision of the human condition achieves its most comprehensive and most unsettling expression. Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, a plausible, unremarkable man of middle age, travels through provincial Russia buying up dead serfs — serfs who have died since the last census and therefore still exist on paper as taxable souls — with the intention of using them as collateral for a loan that will establish him as a man of property. The scheme is not merely fraudulent. It is, in Gogol’s hands, a metaphysical conceit: a man trafficking in the official representations of human beings, in the bureaucratic ghosts of people who are gone, treating the administrative record as if it were more real than the life it was supposed to document.
The landowners Chichikov visits on his tour — Manilov, Korobochka, Nozdryov, Sobakevich, Plyushkin — are among the greatest gallery of grotesques in world literature, and each one represents a distinct mode of human vacancy. Manilov is all vague, self-satisfied sentiment, a man drowning in pleasant feelings that have no object and no consequence. Korobochka is pure anxious acquisitiveness, unable to think about anything except the price she is getting and the possibility that she is being cheated. Nozdryov is compulsive dishonesty, a man who lies so reflexively that the lies have lost all strategic purpose and become simply his natural medium of existence. Sobakevich is brutal, consolidating self-interest, a man who has reduced every human relationship to its transactional minimum. And Plyushkin — the miser, the hoarder, the landowner who has accumulated so much that he has become indistinguishable from his own pile of rotting goods — is the terminal case, the image of what happens when the acquisitive impulse is pursued to its logical conclusion: a man who has gathered everything and become nothing.
These are not simply comic types, though they are also that. They are, Gogol insists, recognisable. They are the tendencies of ordinary human psychology pushed to their extremes, the everyday vanities and evasions and self-deceptions of provincial life viewed through a lens that magnifies without distorting. Every reader finds themselves in one of these landowners, or in the uncomfortable recognition that they contain elements of several. This is comedy as moral instrument — not the comedy that releases tension but the comedy that creates it, that makes you laugh and then, in the silence after the laugh, wonder what exactly you found funny and why.
Chichikov himself is the most disturbing figure in the novel precisely because he is the least grotesque. He is ordinary — smooth, adaptable, socially competent, motivated by a perfectly conventional desire for respectability and comfort. He is the human being as social machine, adjusting his manner and his conversation to whatever the company requires, leaving no impression because he has no fixed self to leave an impression of. He is the zero at the centre of the novel’s inventory of emptiness, and the fact that he is also the most functional person Gogol presents — the one who gets things done, who navigates the world successfully — is the most troubling thing the novel says about the world.
The Inspector General and the Performance of Authority
The Inspector General, the 1836 comedy that made Gogol famous across Russia and caused a scandal at court, is the most directly political of his major works and the one in which his understanding of power as pure performance is most economically expressed. A small provincial town learns that a government inspector is travelling incognito through the region. The town’s officials — who have been systematically corrupt, incompetent, and self-serving — panic and, in their panic, mistake a young nobody named Khlestakov, passing through on his way to Petersburg, for the dreaded inspector. Khlestakov, realising the mistake, plays along with an improvisational brilliance born entirely of opportunism and vanity, accepts bribes, makes promises, flirts with the mayor’s wife and daughter, and leaves before the truth is discovered. The play ends with the announcement that the real inspector has arrived, and the officials freeze in a famous tableau of collective horror.
The play has no hero. Khlestakov is not a satirist exposing hypocrisy — he is simply a young man taking advantage of an opportunity. The officials are not villains — they are men doing what the system has trained them to do, confusing the appearance of authority with authority itself. The mayor is not stupid — he is a shrewd man defeated by his own intelligence, seeing threats everywhere and therefore seeing them where they do not exist. The corruption is not exceptional: it is the normal condition of the system, the water in which everyone swims.
What Gogol understands about power, and what the play demonstrates with a precision that no political tract could match, is that it is sustained entirely by the belief of those subject to it. The inspector they fear has no power until they grant it to him. The authority they perform for Khlestakov is the same authority they perform for each other, the same performance that holds the entire social order together, and it is — the play quietly insists — a performance all the way down. There is no genuine authority beneath the performance, no actual inspector behind the false one, only the infinite regress of people performing for other people who are performing for them.
This is not nihilism. It is sociology. And it is delivered in a comedy so perfectly timed, so free of authorial editorialising, so completely content to let the situation speak for itself, that its impact is deeper than any explicit indictment could achieve. Gogol does not tell you the system is rotten. He shows you the system working exactly as designed, and the rottenness is visible in every gear.
The Diary of a Madman
Diary of a Madman, one of the Petersburg stories, takes the logic of the grotesque to its most intimate conclusion. Poprishchin is a minor copying clerk — another one, the type recurs in Gogol with the insistence of an obsession — who has developed an unrequited attachment to his director’s daughter and who, over the course of the story’s diary entries, descends into a madness in which he becomes convinced that he is Ferdinand VIII, King of Spain. The diary entries track the descent with a formal precision that is Gogol at his most technically brilliant: the handwriting deteriorating in the text’s own notation, the dates becoming surreal (the 43rd of April), the reasoning becoming more elaborate and more disconnected simultaneously.
What makes the story more than a case study is the tenderness of its final entry, in which Poprishchin — in the asylum, being beaten, briefly lucid — cries out for his mother, for the open fields of his childhood, for the simple human comfort of being held. Mother, save your poor child! The cry breaks through all the madness and all the comedy and all the social satire and arrives somewhere entirely undefended, entirely human. The copying clerk who became a king who is being beaten in an asylum wants his mother. Beneath the fantasy of grandeur, beneath the delusion that compensated for the humiliation of being a nobody in a world that values only rank — beneath all of it, there is a person who is frightened and cold and wants to be comforted.
This is Gogol’s deepest note, the one that sounds beneath all the comedy and the grotesque: the small, persistent, inarticulate human need that the social world has no mechanism for meeting and no interest in acknowledging. The systems of rank and performance and bureaucratic procedure that organise the world of his fiction are machines for producing exactly this: the person crying out in the cold for something the machinery cannot provide.
The Fire
The burning of the second part of Dead Souls is one of the most agonising events in literary history, and it is also, in its way, a Gogolian event — an act so extreme and so irreversible that it has the quality of one of his own plots, the kind of thing that happens in his fiction to characters who have confused the performance of virtue with virtue itself.
By the time he set fire to the manuscript for the second time, Gogol had come under the influence of a fanatical priest named Father Matvei Konstantinovsky, who had convinced him that fiction was sinful, that his earlier works had contributed to moral corruption rather than moral improvement, and that the burning was an act of spiritual purification. Whether Gogol fully believed this, or whether the burning was an act of despair disguised as devotion — whether he destroyed the book because he thought it was spiritually dangerous or because he thought it was artistically inadequate and could not bear to release something imperfect — is a question that cannot be definitively answered.
What can be said is that the impulse behind the burning was Gogolian: the conviction that the representation of human inadequacy, however accurate, was not sufficient — that art had a responsibility not merely to diagnose the human condition but to transform it, to offer not just the inventory of emptiness but the route out of it. The first part of Dead Souls had given Russia the most complete map of its own moral vacancy that literature had yet produced. The second part was supposed to give it Chichikov’s redemption, the transformation of the novel’s hollow centre into something capable of genuine life. Gogol could not write it in a way that satisfied him. The comedy that had served him so brilliantly for the diagnosis was the wrong instrument for the cure, and the cure, attempted without it, kept coming out false.
He is buried in Moscow, in the Novodevichy Cemetery, and his epitaph, from the Book of Jeremiah, reads: I will laugh at my bitter word. It is the right epitaph. The laughter and the bitterness were never separable in him, and the word — even consumed by fire, even left unfinished — has lasted.
What Gogol Sees
What Gogol sees, and what no other writer sees in quite this way, is the human being as a performer who has forgotten he is performing — the person so thoroughly occupied by the role the social order has assigned him that the question of who he is beneath the role has become genuinely unanswerable. This is not a metaphor. It is a description of a specific historical condition — the condition of a bureaucratic society in which identity is conferred by rank, in which the self has no official existence outside its institutional function — but it is also a description of something permanent in the human situation: the tendency to substitute the performance of a life for the living of it, to mistake the map for the territory, to arrange our overcoats and our visiting cards and our official positions and our social reputations as if these arrangements were the substance of existence rather than its furniture.
The laughter Gogol’s work produces is, at its best, the laughter of recognition — the shock of seeing your own strategies of self-deception reflected back from a comic mirror that makes them visible for the first time. It is not comfortable laughter. It does not release or reassure. It is the laughter that makes you stop and wonder, in the silence that follows, which of Gogol’s copying clerks you most resemble, and what question you might be avoiding by staying at your desk, faithfully reproducing other people’s words in your small neat hand.
The nose returned to Kovalyov’s face one morning, and no explanation was given. The question of what it had been doing in the interim — whether it had been more alive, more purposeful, more genuinely itself in its uniform and its independent existence than it ever was in its proper place — is not addressed. This is entirely appropriate. Gogol did not provide explanations. He provided the situation, precisely rendered, and trusted the reader to feel the vertigo it produced and to understand that the vertigo was the point.
The world is stranger than we have arranged it to appear. The parts of us we least attend to have developed their own ambitions. The machinery runs without us, and in our direction. This is not a comforting vision of the human condition. It is a necessary one.
Sources and Further Reading
Gogol, Nikolai. Dead Souls. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Vintage, 1997.
Gogol, Nikolai. The Collected Tales. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Vintage, 1999.
Gogol, Nikolai. The Inspector General. Translated by Constance Garnett. Dover, 2001.
Gogol, Nikolai. Plays and Petersburg Tales. Translated by Christopher English. Oxford World’s Classics, 1995.
Nabokov, Vladimir. Nikolai Gogol. New Directions, 1944.
Maguire, Robert A. Exploring Gogol. Stanford University Press, 1994.
Fanger, Donald. The Creation of Nikolai Gogol. Harvard University Press, 1979.
Setchkarev, Vsevolod. Gogol: His Life and Works. Translated by Robert Kramer. New York University Press, 1965.
Troyat, Henri. Gogol: The Biography of a Divided Soul. Translated by Nancy Amphoux. Doubleday, 1973.
Erlich, Victor. Gogol. Yale University Press, 1969.
Bojanowska, Edyta M. Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism. Harvard University Press, 2007.
Karlinsky, Simon. The Sexual Labyrinth of Nikolai Gogol. Harvard University Press, 1976.
Peace, Richard. The Enigma of Gogol. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Discover more from My World of Interiors
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My World of Interiors 