Abstract

The aim of the current study is to explore Nikolaj Gogol's historical works: The University Lectures, "al-Mamun," "On the Middle Ages," "A Glance at the Composition of Little Russia," and "On the Movement of the Peoples at the End of the Fifth Century." Although these works share symbolic imagery and mythical emplotment, the forms of historical explanation and rhetoric reveal intriguing contradictions. In Chapter One, I survey criticism of Gogol's career as a historian and review the history of the works. I examine Gogol's pronouncements on scientific and poetic discourse to discover how he characterized each mode. I introduce the work of Hayden White who identifies the syllogistic structures of historical representation through their means of explanation and emplotment. ;In Chapter Two, I examine the mode of explanation in Gogol's historical works. I find that The University Lectures and "al-Mamun" are constructed through organicism. The essays "On the Middle Ages" and "On the Movement of the Peoples at the End of the Fifth Century" use contextualism, while "A Glance at the Composition of Little Russia" employs both strategies. In Chapter Three, I examine the mode of emplotment in Gogol's historical works. I find that the works are created in the high-mimetic mode and that the archetypal symbols they use are "demonic," as defined by Northrop Frye. Their plot structures are ironic and tragic, but contain elements of satire and comedy. In Chapter Four, I examine the rhetoric of the articles. I assert that there are identifiable stylistic differences among the works. ;In Chapter Five, I build a theory to explain the relationship of the works' modes of explanation, emplotment, and rhetoric to Gogol's theory of representation. I show that the differences in the articles are linked to Gogol's notions of scientific and poetic discourse and to the type of audience for which the work was addressed. I argue that Gogol's "theory" for historical representation had antecedents in society and thought around him. In the Conclusion, I argue that Gogol's works are created from an Ironic "metatropological" position which negates the identity between thought, reality, and representation.