Gogol is an interesting one though.

There being no Ukrainian state at the time, he was appropriated by the Russian literature as a quintessential Russian writer, but his sympathetic sentiment towards the Cossack tradition is well-known (and obvious in his texts), and one can make a good argument that in his early stuff he is more subversive about the entire Russian empire thing than a naive reader may think. (Ok, his late stuff is also subtle, but in a different way.) One has to realize that in an empire, with official censorship etc, one cannot be openly anti-czarist.

Here is a nice paper highlighting some of the subtleties in Taras Bulba: https://cius-archives.ca/items/show/1514

Feels like an odd choice to imply that Gogol was subtle in any way about being subversive and unsympathetic to the state.

I haven't read that many of his works, but the two that almost any Russian adult would know about are "The Government Inspector" and "Dead Souls". Both of which are almost 100% about satirizing government corruption and awful local politicking in the most grotesque ways possible. The intent and overall theme of those stories was as obvious as it can get, though both pack plenty of great less obvious nuance as well.

Not disagreeing with you overall though, Gogol had so many massively impactful works, it is hard to neatly pack his work as "here are his 2-3 monumental pieces everyone knows", he has way too many of those. "Taras Bulba", as you've mentioned, is extremely different from the two i listed above, but there are just as many people who know Gogol exclusively for that. And that can be said about half of his works imo. Then "Viy"? That one was a whole different genre completely (supernatural horror with some subtle themes under), and there is a whole swath of people who would know him just for that as well.

Thank you for sharing this paper, will be great evening reading!

Gogol was Ukrainian though. Lots of references to Ukrainian culture in his early writings as well.

But in "Dead Souls" and elsewhere he never referred to himself as a Ukrainian. He called himself, proudly, Russian, through and through.

And 1000 years ago Rus was an empire centred on its capital, Kyiv. Ukrainians used to be called Rusyn or Ruthenian. There was a Rus empire encompassing Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia before Moscow even existed.

Ukraine as a country is a relatively modern construct. Born out of centuries of oppression at the hands of Muscovites. That doesn't mean that Ukrainians didn't exist just because they were called something else in the past.

Anyhow, tons of Gogol's writings reference Ukrainian culture. He was born in a cossack town. Which also happened to be part of the Russian Empire, before the idea of Ukrainian independence became widespread.

Might as well say Italians didn't exist before modern Italy, or deny the Germans' history and existence just because Germany is a relatively modern state.

My comment did not deny Ukrainians ANYTHING.

Also, your claim of oppression needs to be cited or else it's hot air.

Again, I didn't say Ukrainians didn't exist: they were called Russians the same way Bavarians are called German now.

finally, once again, I didn't say Gogol didn't reference Ukrainian culture: he did, but he never called it a "Ukrainian" culture. In his writings, he always said: "My Russia". It is the same as saying a Texan says he is American. Does that mean we are denying Texas their Texan culture and dialect?

And for reference, Germany has always been called that--Germania.