“Arzamas Code” and V. A. Zhukovsky’s Creative Models in “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarelled with Ivan Nikiforovich” by N. V. Gogol
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2023-1-132-142
In the collection of stories “Mirgorod” N. V. Gogol discusses what is behind the folk idyll. He shows the absurdity of any deviation from his harmonic model (the mixing of superstition and dogmas of Christianity in the “Viy”, the landlords’ quarrel over a stupid question in the “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich”). The illogicality of the last story is particularly frightening. It signals the disintegration of the culture of good neighborhood, friendship and patriarchy. In the first third of the XIX century, when Gogol wrote “Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka”, friendly societies appeared en masse in Russia and the genre of “epistle to a friend” was actively developing, so the motive of the quarrel, already represented in the nomination of the work, could cause negative associations. The genre of the “epistle to a friend” was actively developed by the participants of the literary society “Arzamas”, which could well become the subject of Gogol’s reflection. The business card of “Arzamas” was “galimat’ya” (nonsense), friendly gatherings. Absurd speeches of friends acquired a written form. The poet V. A. Zhukovsky almost always recorded the comic texts of “Arzamas” meetings. In this regard, we consider it legitimate to refer to this facet of Zhukovsky’s talent in the further analysis of Gogol’s “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich”, in which absurdism and caricatures are everywhere revealed. The purpose of the article is to identify the “Arzamas code” and analyze the creative models of Zhukovsky’s works in Gogol’s text. This analysis is being conducted for the first time and will expand the range of interpretations of the “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich”. The choice of Zhukovsky’s works models is justified by the fact that the poet was the permanent secretary of “Arzamas”; in addition, the poet continues to a certain extent the sentimental line in Russian literature, which correlates with the subjectivity of epistles to a friend chosen for analysis. The material of the article is the work of N. V. Gogol “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich”, “Arzamas” protocols of V. A. Zhukovsky, as well as such his works as the dramatic poem “The Maid of Orleans”; the poem “Theon and Aeschines”; articles from the journal “Herald of Europe”; ballads “Lenore”, “Lyudmila”, “Svetlana”; epistle to a friend “To Batyushkov”, etc.; fable, “The Quarrel of the bald”, etc. Comparative and biographical research methods are used in the work. The final story of the tetralogy is characterized by absurdity, not harmony. There is a mixture of contexts in the story: the bright, idyllic side by side with destructive denial, the base and sinful penetrates into the consciousness of Gogol’s characters. In addition, the narrator puts an equal sign between a person and a thing. The man in the final story of “Mirgorod” gradually turns into a predator and pest. The main characters destroy the natural harmony by quarreling, which contradicts the principles of Zhukovsky’s creativity. The poet often sings friendship, love and harmony in his lyrics, but in Gogol’s story we see a crisis of these values. In Gogol’s story there are not enough components of friendly messages like those that Zhukovsky wrote. The idyllic model of Zhukovsky, which was still visible in the “Old-World Landowners”, completely disappears in the “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich”. Firstly, patriarchy is leveled. A carefree stay in the bosom of nature is no longer enough for a person. Secondly, the reader in the “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” does not see families and couples (Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich are single and have no children). Idyll in “Mirgorod” is now impossible, and harmonious relations between the characters are also impossible. The heroes do not seek to learn new things, do not want to give up harmful passions. No one can reason with those who have quarreled. Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich turn into litigators, and litigation for former friends becomes a cult, an obsession. They do not hear the voice of conscience, nor the advice of others. The development and resurrection of the characters is postponed forever. The famous “Arzamas galimat’ya” plays the role of a facilitator in the quarrel of the heroes. Gogol’s narrator deliberately uses it to demonstrate the uniqueness of the phenomenon of friendship. There is a substitution of concepts everywhere in the work. Friendship turns into anti-friendship, idyll turns into anti-idyll, and the base replaces eternal values. The absurdity of Gogol’s story resembles “Arzamas” carnival. The narrator is characterized by high pathos when describing lowly objects. Thus, in “The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” we see a decisive rejection of Gogol’s youthful aspirations to comprehend and reproduce Zhukovsky’s high idyllic and elegiac models. It is clear from the writer’s text that friendship is now a rare spiritual phenomenon. This destroys the model of epistle to a friend and creates a kind of antagonism, uncharacteristic of Zhukovsky’s creative thinking. Gogol’s exaltation and imitation of the poet in “Mirgorod” are weakening. Zhukovsky believes that all changes in the world are for the better, but Gogol’s opinion on this is somewhat different. He often shows a distorted, deformed world. By the end of “Mirgorod” there is no place for the aesthetic, because Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich are disgusting in their pettiness. Gogol shows the result of man’s falling away from patriarchal traditions and Christian values, which leads to a violation of the universe logic (this was seen earlier in the death of the main characters in the novels “Old World Landowners”, “Taras Bulba”, “Viy”).
Keywords: N. V. Gogol, V. A. Zhukovsky, epistle to a friend, tale, naturalness, norm, “Arzamas” literary society, absurd
References:
1. Karasev L. V. Gogol’ v tekste [Gogol’ in text]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2012. 224 p. (in Russian).
2. Davydov A. P. Dusha Gogolya. Opyt sotsiokul’turnogo analiza [The soul of Gogol. Experience of socio-cultural analysis]. Moscow, Novyy khronograf Publ., 2018. 264 p. (in Russian).
3. Nikonova N. E. Perepiska V. A. Zhukovskogo i F. fon Myullera kak pamyatnik literatury i kul’tury romantizma [Correspondence of V. A. Zhukovsky and F. von Mueller as a monument of literature and culture of Romanticism]. Imagologiya i komparativistika – Imagology and comparative studies, 2019, no. 12, pp. 38–66 (in Russian).
4. Lebedeva O. B. Natsional’noye, imperskoye, kolonial’noye kak faktor chastnoy zhizni: poslaniye V. A. Zhukovskogo
“K Voyeykovu” [National, Imperial, colonial as a factor of Private life: V. A. Zhukovsky’s Message “To Voeykov”]. Imagologiya i komparativistika – Imagology and comparative studies, 2017, no. 7, pp. 93–107 (in Russian).
5. Todd U. M. Druzheskoye pis’mo kak literaturnyy zhanr v pushkinskuyu epokhu [Friendly writing as a literary genre in the Pushkin era]. Saint Petersburg, Akademicheskiy proyekt Publ., 1994. 207 p. (in Russian).
6. Todd U. M. Literatura i obshchestvo v epokhu Pushkina [Literature and Society in the Pushkin Era]. Saint Petersburg, Akademicheskiy proyekt Publ., 1996. 306 p. (in Russian).
7. Zhukovskiy V. A. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: V 20 tomakh. Tom 1 [Complete works and letters: in 20 vols. Vol. 1]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kul’tury Publ., 1999. 760 p. (in Russian).
8. Gogol’ N. V. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy: v 14 tomakh. Tom 2 [Complete works: in 14 vols. Vol. 2]. Moscow, AN SSSR Publ., 1937. 763 p. (in Russian).
9. Slavyanskiye drevnosti: etnolingvisticheskiy slovar’ v 5 tomakh. Tom 1 [Slavic Antiquities: an ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 vols. Vol. 1]. N. I. Tolstoy (ed.). Moscow, Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya Publ., 1995. 575 p. (in Russian).
10. Slavyanskiye drevnosti: etnolingvisticheskiy slovar’ v 5 tomakh. Tom 3 [Slavic Antiquities: an ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 vols. Vol. 3]. N. I. Tolstoy (ed.). Moscow, Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya Publ., 1995. 697 p. (in Russian).
11. Tirgen P. Kh. Amor legendi, ili Chudo russkoy literatury [Amor legendi, or the Miracle of Russian Literature]. Moscow, VShE Publ., 2021. 671 p. (in Russian).
12. Bragina N. N. N. V. Gogol’: simfoniya prozy (opyt analiticheskogo issledovaniya) [N. V. Gogol: Symphony of prose (analytical research experience)]. Ivanovo, Tipografiya “PresSto” Publ., 2007. 210 p. (in Russian).
13. Volokonskaya T. A. Strannyye prevrashcheniya v motivnoy strukture maloy prozy N. V. Gogolya 1830–1840 gg. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Strange transformations in the motivic structure of N. V. Gogol’s Short Prose 1830–1840. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Saratov, 2014. 23 p. (in Russian).
14. Bianki V. V., Dzerzhinskiy F. Ya., Grintsevichene T. I. Nekotoryye morfologicheskiye osobennosti gogolya (Bucephala clangula) kak istochnik yego adaptivnykh svoystv [Some morphological features of gogol (Bucephala clangula) as a source of its adaptive properties]. Zoologicheskiy zhurnal, 2009, no. 8, pp. 968–974 (in Russian).
15. Zhukovskiy V. A. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: v 20 tomakh. Tom 11. Polutom 1 [Complete works and letters: in 20 vols. Vol. 11. book 1]. Moscow, YaSK Publ., 2016. 760 p. (in Russian).
16. Dubrovskaya S. A. Osobennosti smekhovogo diskursa V. A. Zhukovskogo [Features of the laughing discourse of V. A. Zhukovsky]. Integratsiya obrazovaniya – Integration of education, 2008, no. 1, pp. 113–117 (in Russian).
17. Gillel’son M. I. Molodoy Pushkin i arzamasskoye bratstvo [Young Pushkin and the Arzamas Brotherhood]. Leningrad, Nauka, Leningradskoye otdeleniye Publ., 1974. 226 p. (in Russian).
18. Arzamas: sbornik v 2 knigakh [Arzamas: collection in 2 books]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura Publ., 1994. Book 2.
639 p. (in Russian).
19. Zhukovskiy V. A. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: v 20 tomakh. Tom 2 [Complete works and letters: in 20 vols. Vol. 2]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kul’tury Publ., 2000. 840 p. (in Russian).
20. Khomuk N. V. Khudozhestvennaya proza N. V. Gogolya v aspekte poetiki barokko. Avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk [N. V. Gogol’s artistic prose in the aspect of Baroque poetics. Abstract of thesis cand. philol. sci.]. Tomsk, 2000. 20 p. (in Russian).
21. Virolaynen M. N. Rech’ i molchaniye: Syuzhety i mify russkoy slovesnosti [Speech and Silence: Plots and Myths of Russian Literature]. Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Rugram Pal’mira Publ., 2022. 503 p. (in Russian).
22. Zhukovskiy V. A. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: v 20 tomakh. Tom 10. Kniga 1 [Complete works and letters: in 20 vols. Vol. 10. Book 1]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury Publ., 2014. 530 p. (in Russian).
23. Zhukovskiy V. A. Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem: V 20 tomakh. Tom 10. Kniga 2 [Complete works and letters: in 20 volumes. Vol. 10. Book 2]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury Publ., 2014. 832 p. (in Russian).
24. Poplavskaya I. A. Tipy vzaimodeystviya poezii i prozy v russkoy literature pervoy treti XIX v. [Types of interaction of poetry and prose in Russian literature of the first third of the XIX century]. Tomsk, Tomsk University Publ., 2010. 378 p. (in Russian).
25. Yanushkevich A. S. Ehtapy i problemy tvorcheskoy evolyutsii V. A. Zhukovskogo [Stages and problems of V. A. Zhukovsky’s creative evolution]. Tomsk, Tomsk University Publ., 1985. 285 p. (in Russian).
( 702.49 kB ) 
( 687.75 kB )
Issue: 1, 2023
Series of issue: Issue 1
Rubric: LITERARY STUDIES
Pages: 132 — 142
Downloads: 73