Impostors and imposture have been rarely seen as crucial topics in Gogol’, yet looking closely at his subjects one can see many indications of his interest in this matter. For example, Popriščin from Diary of a Madman, who considers himself the king of Spain, is an impostor; the businessman Čičikov also acts like an impostor by introducing himself as a landlord from Cherson; Chlestakov is another such impostor, although not of his own will; and the nose, in the novel of the same name, must surely be the most original of Gogol’'s impostors. In this novel, the eponymous hero escapes from the face of its owner, Major Kovalev, by obtaining a false passport “issued in the name of an official,” and misappropriating the uniform of a state councillor. The noseless Kovalev’s own nose announces to him:
I am a person in my own right. Furthermore there cannot be any close relations between us, for to judge by the buttons on your uniform you must serve in the Senate, or perhaps in the Department of Justice. Whereas I am in the Academy.15
The humour in this situation arises not only from the incongruity of a minor body part arguing with the person it belongs to, but also because the nose has overtaken that person in rank by obtaining a much higher position than the one it held when it formed a part of the major. Kovalev is a mere collegiate assessor (in military rank, a major). As for the nose, the author says: “From his cockaded hat it was apparent that he pretended
15 nikolai v. gogol, “the nose,” in Plays and Petersburg Tales, trans. Christopher english (oxford:
oxford University press, 2008), 43-44. [translator’s note: the author’s quotes from The Nose are taken from: nikolaj gogol’, “nos,” in Sovremennik. Literaturnyj žurnal A.S. Puškina 1836-1837
to the rank of state councillor,”16 which is a General’s rank. But the nose is not just a “comic object” (Jurij Mann), but also a frightful and horrifying one. “A person” consisting of only a nose is an extremely distorted form of physical anomaly. The simplest explanation, however, is that the nose’s illicit detachment from its body and its attempt to live its own brighter destiny merely reveals Major Kovalev’s own subconscious and his ambitions. In the face of this, it would conceivably not be wrong to assert that a foretaste of the subjects which Freud eternally explored can be perceived in Gogol’'s creations, and to conclude that Gogol’ is perhaps both deeper and more complicated.
The first version of The Nose17 lost significant portions of its text, and various changes were imposed on it through censorship. For the most part, we will examine the novel as it was when it first became available to Russian readers. However, we will also refer to the passages excluded by the censors, which are rather important ideologically. The novel’s final version only appeared once these passages had been reinstated.
The tale opens on the following situation: “On April 25th [let us remember this date!] an extraordinarily strange occurrence took place in St Petersburg.”18 The barber Ivan Jakovlevič asks his wife Praskovija Osipovna for a taste of the fresh bread she has baked. Some scholars19 interpret the further development of the character of Ivan Jakovlevič as a parody of the Liturgy, and the small corresponding section is called “The Barber’s Liturgy.” The similarity (although caricatural) actually exists, but let us not hasten to draw conclusions. Here is the text:
For the sake of decency Ivan Jakovlevič put a tailcoat on over his shirt [author’s note: a reminder of the priest’s robe] .… picked up a knife… Having cut the loaf in two halfs, he looked inside and... saw something white. Ivan Jakovlevič poked it carefully with the knife .…
He stuck in his finger and extracted—a nose!20
16 ibid., 42.
17 see nikolaj v. gogol’, “nos,” in Sovremennik. Literaturnyj žurnal A.S. Puškina 1836-1837, 3 (1988).
18 ibid., 139.
19 for instance, mikhail Weisskopf from the hebrew University of Jerusalem.
20
In his Interpretation of Divine Liturgy, bishop Vissarion (Nečaev) wrote:
“After that, the priest marks with a spear the part necessary for sacrament in the middle of the Eucharistic bread …. This part is called Lamb of God, as it embodies Jesus Christ.”21
For Gogol’ the Christian, parody of the Liturgy is a sacrilege. But the polysemy of Gogol’'s allusions opens up many possibilities for interpretation.
Furthermore, it is possible that only the Liturgy of Preparation—the initial part of the Mass—and not the whole ceremony of Liturgy, is meant here.
The barber’s wife baking bread can be likened to one of the minor characters behind the scenes who participate in the process of the Mass: the special woman who bakes the liturgic bread. There were specific rules fixed by the ecclesiastics which obliged them to “choose as bakers of liturgic bread”
either “widows living in purity” or virgins no younger than 50 years of age.
Praskovija Osipovna was far from being “a widow living in purity.”
She accompanies the act of baking bread, which is associated with the baking of liturgical bread, with complaints of an erotic nature, addressed to her husband—“Soon he’ll be in no condition to carry out his duty”—which offend the sanctity as symbolized by the bread. Moreover, she is a brawler, and the entire scene is filled with her invective, addressed largely to her husband: “Scoundrel, drunkard,” “dry stick,” “the rake, the villain,” “piece of filth, blockhead,” etc. It is obvious that the “sacrament” for which Praskovija Osipovna bakes bread is the contrary, in its aims and character, of the sacrament of Eucharist. The “terrible drunkard” husband is a good match for his scandalous wife. In his message to the Corinthians, Apostle Paul wrote: “Nor drunkards, nor revilers ... shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
(1 Corinthians 6:10). The barber and his wife are the living embodiment of these evangelical antiheroes.
Young Gogol’'s anticlericalism is sometimes mentioned in connection with The Nose. But I do not think it is relevant to the parody motifs of the novel. The impostor of the end of the world, the antichrist, who will unlawfully appropriate Divine dignity, will be a living parody of Christ himself. Gogol’ laughs at the imitator. The writer had a firm, but not immutable, conviction that the spirits of evil, because of their characteristic
21 vissarion episcop nečaev, Tolkovanie na Božestvennyju Liturgiju (sergiev posad: svjato-troickaja
pride, cannot stand mocking. “Laugh, laugh at the devil…” Gogol’ wrote to his close friend Ševyrëv, “as it is an inexhaustible source for a Russian comic! So chase the enemy with your inexhaustible wonderful laugh and you will do people good being in favour of the eternal intelligence contained in Christ.”22
“Where did you cut that nose from, you butcher?”23—Praskovija Osipovna shouts at her husband, threatening to report him to the police.
In order to rid himself of Kovalev’s nose, which got into the bread in an unexplained way (although Kovalev is the barber’s client), Ivan Jakovlevič goes out into the street, and at an opportune moment throws it from the bridge into the river.24 Kovalev, having discovered the disappearance of his nose, starts searching for it. When finally he finds his nose, it is almost unrecognizable:
a carriage stopped at the entrance; the doors opened and, stooping, a gentleman in uniform sprang out and ran up the stairs .… Two minutes later the nose emerged. He wore a gold-braided uniform, with a high stiff collar; he had on buckskin breeches, and by his side hung a sword.25
In the uncensored version, the place where Kovalev next catches up with the missing nose was Kazan Cathedral. Here, it is necessary to say a few words about Gogol’'s relationship with censorship. In connection with the forthcoming publication of The Nose, the writer foresaw possible quibbling on the part of the censors. On 18 March 1835, Gogol’ wrote to Pogodin:
“I am sending you the nose… In case your stupid censor says that the nose can’t be in Kazan Cathedral, I guess we can move it to a catholic one.”26 As we can see, it was thus the image of a Christian cathedral that was crucial for the author to preserve in his novel. There was an opportunity (as was revealed in the publication of the uncensored version) to use the nose praying in the
22 nikolaj v. gogol’, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij i pisem v 17 tomach, op. cit., vol. Xiv, 211.
23 nikolaj v. gogol’, “the nose” in Plays and Petersburg Tales, op. cit., 37.
24 some scholars perceive a hidden parody of the lord’s baptism in this scene.
25 nikolaj v. gogol’, “the nose” in Plays and Petersburg Tales, op. cit., 42.
26
cathedral as a sign of the forthcoming end—“the abomination of desolation, [which] stand[s] in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15). The date of the event is also important. As mentioned previously, the first publication contained the date: “April 25th of this year.” There were also other dates: “23rd of April 1832” and “23rd February of this year,” until Gogol’ finally established a definitive significant date: “March 25th.”27 In the Church calendar, this is one of the greatest Christian holidays: Annunciation.
But as expected, the censors did not allow the scene in Kazan Cathedral. Gogol’ moved the action to Commercial Square, and did so in an almost negligent manner: some elements of the uncensored version remained untouched. Kovalev addresses his own nose, which seems to be deciding on a purchase in Commercial Square: “And just look where I’ve found you—in a church.”28 This seeming negligence, which escaped censorship, appeared only once, in the magazine publication. The likelihood is very small that it was purely by chance that Gogol’ did not exchange
“in a church” for “at Commercial Square,” since a bit further in the first publication we find a further element of the uncensored version. Kovalev
“turned his attention to the ethereal young lady who… bowed her head slightly and put her little white hand … to her forehead.”29 In other words, she was crossing herself and bending down, in a rather quaint manner at that, as she would have done in church, although she, like the nose, had been moved to the middle of Commercial Square. The image is ambiguous and incongruous, and as a result, the censored version explodes with new, unexpected meaning: it implies that, at the church, one can choose and buy
27 the russians traditionally gave the date of 25 march an additional apocalyptic significance distinct from the main significance of resurrection. stepan p. Ševyrëv, who was very close to gogol’, wrote in his Istorii russkoj slovesnosti, preimyščestvenno drevnej (part 4, 83): “the night of the coming march 25 of 1492 was hard. After the end of the three years of the Antichrist’s reign, which the contemporaries found in the teaching of the Jew skaria and his followers in novgorod and moscow, fearful people were filled with horror waiting for the worldwide sound of the trumpet of the archangels michael and gabriel. one can imagine with what joy those people woke up on the day of resurrection…” (quoted from: stepan p. Ševyrëv, Rossija pered vtoryim prišestviem. Materialy k očerku russkoj eschatologii [sergiev posad: svjato-troickaja sergieva lavra, 1993], 18). i suppose that in shifting the accident with the barber to another day gogol’ knew, probably from Ševyrëv, about the apocalyptic shades of revelation.
28 nikolai v. gogol, “the nose,” in Plays and Petersburg Tales, op. cit., 43.
29
goods, and that furthermore the church contains the whole Commercial Square. The Temple of the Lord thus becomes a commercial place. This image of modern Christianity as belonging too much to this world and appearing like a big market is typical of Gogol’, and one can draw a clear evangelical parallel here, as we can see by comparing it with Matthew 21:12, 13:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves and said unto them: “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer;
but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (cf. Joshua 56:7; Hebrews 7:11) The new variant acquires a new meaning: the trading market with its material abundance is the object of worship of modern humanity. In a letter from Gogol’ to Balabina (April 1838), we find this:
Today I have found the courage to go into one of the Roman churches, those wonderful churches that you know, where the sacred half-darkness breathes, and where the sun shines down from the top of the oval dome like the sacred spirit, like an inspiration in their midst, where two or three figures praying on their knees not only don’t distract one, but seem to be giving wings to prayer and thoughts. I had the courage to pray for us there (as one can only really pray in Rome) …. And a prayer in Paris, London and Petersburg is like a prayer at a market.”30
Let us now look at the uncensored version for a moment. In this version, the nose also plays the role of a religious impostor, aspiring not only to physical but also to religious autonomy. While Major Kovalev “felt so upset that he was in no condition to pray… the nose had completely hidden his face in his big stand-up collar and was praying in an attitude of utmost piety.”31
A great Russian philosopher—Vladimir Solov’ëv—who, like Gogol’, had a deep apocalyptic sensitivity, wrote in his Three Conversations:
30 nikolaj v. gogol’, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij i pisem v 17 tomach, op. cit., vol. Xi, 145, 151.
31
… undoubtedly, antichristianity, which according to the biblical point of view, both Old Testament and New Testament, presents the last act of the historic tragedy, will be not a simple absence of faith or negation of Christianity or materialism and things like that, but will be a religious imposture, when human forces, which in action and in substance are alien and directly hostile to Christ and His Spirit, will appropriate his name.32
“There were few people praying inside the church”—Gogol’ wrote in the uncensored version of The Nose. This is surprising, for such an important Christian holiday as Annunciation, while at the same time the streets are full of people walking. Such disparity between those praying and those participating in a great holiday is noteworthy. But we should not be deceived by the vivid exterior picture. Gogol’ could be describing our own times rather than his contemporary period. Let us not forget Gogol’'s subtext: the almost empty Kazan Cathedral on the day of Annunciation and the nose which is standing there “in prayer” symbolize both apostasy (the apostasy of the majority) and “the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place.” It is almost as if Gogol’ has seen into the future, when Kazan Cathedral has become the Museum of the history of religion after the revolution (1932), and has become the place where the abomination of desolation truly is.33
Theophylact of Ohrid wrote: “For some, the ‘abomination of desolation’ means the Antichrist, as he will be emptying the world, destroying the churches and will reign in the temple of god himself.”34 The nose, introducing himself as an important official and a human, does not trick only the common people. In such a perverted caricature form, with no fear at all, he stands before the eyes of God Himself—he is lying to Him, he is mocking Him. He appears in a supernatural way, which contradicts the Annunciation in a comic way. Let us return once again to the phrase from
32 vladimir s. solov’ëv, Sočinenija v 2 tomach (moscow: mysl’, 1988), vol. 2, 707-708. (italics by vl. solov’ëv).
33 in 1923, the rural group “optina pustin,” under the cover of which existed a monastery (a unique centre of russian spirituality), was closed down. the former monastery fell under the control of “glavnauka,” and as an historical monument was called the “optina hermitage.”
34 theophylact of ohrid, Blagovestnik, ili Tolkovanie Blažennago Feofilakta, Archiepiskopa
an early version of The Portrait: “Listen, my son, the antichrist has been wishing to be born for a long time, but can’t because he must be born in a supernatural way…” and compare this with 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 9: “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...”
The autonomous existence of the nose and all his adventures represent these “lying wonders.” But the nose does not act in a vacuum, he acts in an atmosphere of specific expectations:
At that time people’s minds were particularly receptive to all manner of extraordinary phenomena …. rumour had Collegiate Assessor Kovalev’s nose taking a daily stroll along Nevsky Prospect at three o’clock sharp. Every day a large crowd of inquisitive onlookers would gather. Someone said that the Nose had been seen at Junker’s emporium, and such a crush of people collected around the shop that the police had to be called in …. Then a rumor sprang up that Major Kovalev’s nose took its walk not on Nevsky Prospect but in the Tavrichesky Gardens … Some of the students from the Surgical Academy set off to see for themselves.35
None of the gapers manages to satisfy their curiosity. All of them were, to use the Russian expression, “left with a nose,” meaning they were outwitted or tricked.
Compare, also, Matthew 24:23-26:
Then if any man shall say unto you: “look, here is Christ,” or “there”;
believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you: “behold, he is in the desert,”—go not forth; “behold, he is in the secret chambers,”—
believe it not.
The nose successfully pretends to be an important person, and for a long time remains undiscovered. Gogol’ describes how easily deceived are those who “expect the supernatural,” and the chaos that the masses create when expecting false miracles. Such chaos is of great help to any illusionist seeking
35
to hoax. But what is important for us is that the artistic parallel with the evangelical text finally becomes apparent, and this revelation unmasks the infernal nature of the nose. And yet, the nose is not the antichrist himself.
Instead, it is no more than a symbol, a sign, a preliminary image of the idea of antichrist. In the same way, St. Ignatij (Brjančaninov) called Napoleon
“a premonition of antichrist.” The Nose is another of Gogol’'s attempts to solve, not explicitly but in an artistic way, a problem that is also found in the early version of The Portrait. What were considered by some critics to be archaic problems, gave rise to an absolutely innovative aesthetic when described by Gogol’. Gogol’ was not merely a symbolist before the birth of symbolism: in The Nose, he also becomes a surrealist before surrealism emerged.
From the works of saints, we know that the antichrist will be born from a false virgin who is in reality a mother-whore. The Nose has a
From the works of saints, we know that the antichrist will be born from a false virgin who is in reality a mother-whore. The Nose has a