American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Gorkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double" Author(s): Gary Rosenshield Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 149-162 Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/308085 . Accessed: 14/04/2011 12:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

GORSKOV IN POOR FOLK:AN ANALYSIS OF AN EARLY DOSTOEVSKIAN "DOUBLE"

Gary Rosenshield, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Since the publication of Dostoevskij's Poor Folk (Bednye ljudi) in 1846, the hero, Makar DevuSkin, has received a great deal of critical attention, but surprisingly little work has been done on one of DevuSkin's most important character foils in the novel: the dismissed civil servant, GorSkov.1 In Poor Folk, as in many of Dostoevskij's later works, the foil is one of the main devices of characterization; we come to know and judge the hero not only by what he thinks and does, but by how his actions and thoughts are implicitly compared and contrasted with the acts and thoughts of his "doubles." It has been convincingly argued that it is impossible fully to appreciate Poor Folk without understanding the role played in it by one of DevuSkin's major foils, Gogol"s poor clerk, Akakij AkakieviC.2 I shall argue here that an understanding of the role played by GorSkov is just as essential to our appreciation of the novel. Moreover, GorSkov belongs to the same novelistic world as DevuSkin and in some ways is much closer to him than the hero of "The Overcoat." Gorgkov is the first of DevuSkin's major foils to be introduced to us: DevuSkin first writes about him in a letter to Varen'ka dated 14 April; in it we learn that GorSkov, who rents a room in the same boarding house as DevuSkin, is an unemployed civil servant, who, for some reason (za 6to-to), was dismissed from the civil service seven years before. He lives in a single room with his wife and two children (another child is born during the novel) in the most abject poverty. GorSkov's main role as far as plot is concerned, like that of the older Pokrovskij-one of DevuSkin's other important foils-is to foreshadow the tragic denouement: DevuSkin's loss of Varen'ka and his probable death hastened by drink soon thereafter.3 The similarities between GorSkov and DevuSkin in character and situation are so striking-and they become even more striking as the novel progresses-that we expect that what happens to GorSkov must also happen to Devugkin. 149 SEEJ, Vol. 26 No. 2 (1982)

150

Slavic and East European Journal

At the beginning of the work the Gorskov family is already destitute. Up until a few months before this point, despite the loss of Gorskov's position seven years earlier, the family has somehow been able to manage; but when Devuskin makes their acquaintance they are already heavily in debt to the landlady and barely have enough to eat. As time passes their situation steadily worsens: they fall deeper in debt; they have even less food to share among themselves; and as an inevitable consequence, the family members, already undernourished, fall ill. The lowest point in their declining fortunes appears to be the death of Gorskov's oldest son, on whom the family has pinned its hopes for the future; for, just a few months later, the Gorskovs are visited by what seems to be a miraculous stroke of good fortune: the law suit in which Gorskov had been involved for a number of years is decided in his favor. The benefits of this favorable decision are considerable. The money that Gorskov is to receive will take care of all the family's debts and provide for them for some time in the future; and since he has been acquitted of all wrongdoing one assumes that he will be able to get his old job back in the civil service, or at least obtain a comparable position. It would seem that both the present and the future have been taken care of. But tragedy follows almost immediately upon good fortune: a few hours after hearing the favorable decision, Gorskov suffers a stroke and dies. The pattern already laid down by Pokrovskij in Varen'ka's reminiscences is realized again in Gorskov: we witness first a long period of decline, then a sudden stroke of extraordinarily good fortune, and finally, soon thereafter, a catastrophic reversal. Devuskin's story in its general outlines closely resembles Gorskov's. Initially, Devuskin's situation is far better than Gorskov's, but it begins to deteriorate rapidly, so that by the end of the summer Devuskin is almost as destitute and desperate as his fellow lodger. Just at the point when Devuskin has hit bottom, he too experiences an almost unbelievable stroke of good fortune. He receives one hundred rubles from his Excellency, nothing less, so it seems to him, than the solution to all his problems. DcvuSkin's happiness, however, is short-lived; almost immediately after receiving the money, tragedy strikes: he learns that Varen'ka has made an unalterable decision to marry his "rival," Bykov. The novel ends with Varen'ka on her way to Bykov's estate in the country. The reader infers that the broken-hearted Devuskin will not recover from this devastating blow, but will take to drink and perish. The words that Devuskin uses to describe Gorskov's demise apply also to his own state upon finding out that Varen'ka intends to leave him forever: "Slovno ego gromom ubylo" (98). The foreshadowing is even more apparent and dramatic in Gorskov's case than it is in Pokrovskij's because Gorskov experiences his

GorSkovin Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian"Double"

151

sudden rise and fall just before DevuSkin experiences his. Only some five days after DevuSkin recounts to Varen'ka the episodes relating to his recent change in fortune and GorSkov's tragedy, Varen'ka writes DevuAkin of her decision to accept Bykov's proposal of marriage. Yet the similarities in character and situation between GorSkov and DevuSkin, however significant, are in the end less important-as is so often the case in Dostoevskij-than the differences; and it is in the of these differences that the novel's major themes and the development delineation of DevuSkin's character are worked out. I would first like to present the essential differences between these two figures and then proceed to an interpretation of GorSkov's other important functions in the novel based on a close analysis of these differences. GorSkov, on first glance, differs from DevuSkin most strikingly in that he seems to be an extreme DevuSkin: that is, a DevuSkin whose character and situation have been taken to their logical extremes; and in this respect, he greatly resembles DevuSkin's other major character foil in the novel, the older Pokrovskij, who also is a down-and-out, dismissed civil servant.4 This resemblance is evident in GorSkov's appearance, in his demeanor, and most of all, in his financial situation. Like Pokrovskij, GorSkov is gray (seden'kij), small (malen'kij), and badly dressed. He is extremely timid; there is no one of whom he does not seem to be afraid. He does not walk, but sidles along; Pokrovskij tiptoes. DevuSkin repeats the same emotive adjectives that Varen'ka will later use in her description of Pokrovskij: pitiful (2alkij) and unfortunate (bednyj). Like Pokrovskij, GorSkov is married, is out of work, and during the course of the novel loses his son. Even when in some respects DevuSkin's own situation approaches GorSkov's in its severity and hopelessness, he is still able to see that GorSkov's lot is far worse than his own. "And I may say, in passing, my darling, that they live ever so much worse than I do. Worse, indeed; he has a wife and children! So that if I were in his place I don't know what I should do."5When, for example, GorSkov comes to DevuSkin on 5 September-when DevuSkin's situation is at its worst-to beg a few copecks, Devuakin has only twenty copecks to his name, but he can still offer GorSkov not only tea, but tea with sugar!
And so my GorSkov comes up to me.... I offered him some tea. He refused from politeness, refused for a long time, but at last he took a glass. He wanted to drink it without sugar, began apologizing again, when I tried to persuade him that he must have sugar; he argued for a long time, kept refusing, but at last put the very smallest lump of sugar in his glass, and began assuring me that the tea was extremely sweet (247).

One might add here that GorSkov's situation is not only worse than DevuSkin's but it is even considerably worse than that of Akakij

152

Slavic and East European Journal

Akakievic, who after all had a steady job, had no dependents, and could make choices as to how to spend his income. The true severity of GorSkov's situation is most effectively brought out through the description of his children, who suffer greatly as a result of their father's misfortunes. They are ill-fed, ill-clothed, and sickly. What, however, makes the greatest impression on DevuSkin is not so much their physical condition, but their unnatural, unchildlike behavior-their quietness. That GorSkov is quiet and timid might, under the circumstances, not be unexpected, and then again DevuSkin is rather quiet himself. But something is radically wrong when young children are so quiet that one hardly knows that they are there; when they do not laugh; when they do not even cry-but only whimper.
Poor they are, mercy on us! It is always still and quiet in their room as if no one were living there. There is no sound even of the children. And it never happens that the children frolic about and play, and that is a bad sign. One evening I happened to pass their door; it had become unusually quiet in the house at the time; I heard sobbing, then a whimper, then sobbing again as though they were crying but so quietly, so pitifully that it was heartrending, and afterwards the thought of those poor creatures did not leave me all night so that I could not get to sleep properly (155).

At first it seems that Gorskov is just another variation of DevuSkin taken to its limit: that is, a man whose situation and character are similar to DevuSkin's in quality but different in degree; or, more concretely, he differs from DevuSkin only in that he is more destitute and downtrodden. The more closely, however, we examine GorSkov, the more we see that, like Pokrovskij, he is a variation of surprising subtlety and complexity, and that the differences between GorSkov and DevuSkin are primarily of essence, not of degree.6 Much of this complexity arises from the tension between the point of view of DevuSkin and that of Dostoevskij-that is, Dostoevskij as implied author. Though as we shall see, can at times be a perceptive observer of DevuSkin, GorSkov, he is, like most first-person narrators, not entirely objective or reliable. Since he identifies with GorSkov, he understandably tends to see and present him sympathetically. But we are not meant to see GorSkov solely with DevuSkin's eyes. In fact, even though Gorskov's situation is more wretched than DevuSkin's and his behavior seemingly more dignified, he is presented, in the end, far more negatively. The novel dwells on the abjectness of GorSkov's poverty and the desperateness of his lot, it seems to me, not so much to reveal to the inhabitants of gilded palaces the financial plight of the poor, as Belinskij stated, but, as Terras has argued regarding Devuskin, to carry out an experiment in human existence; for in Dostoevskij there are certain figures-and GorSkov is surely one of them-who fully reveal themselves only under

GorSkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double"

153

the most extreme conditions. The true GorSkov comes out, like the true DevuAkin, only when his situation is taken to its limits, when he is visited by great misfortune. The case against GorSkov is built slowly. The first clear signs of the novel's less than sympathetic presentation of GorSkov occur in DevuSkin's description of Gorskov's behavior on the death of his oldest child, Petja. The death of the child takes us back to the death of Pokrovskij's only son, also named Petja. GorSkov's son also lies in a coffin over which the father sheds tears; GorSkov's son had also shown promise. Judging from Pokrovskij's story, and in retrospect from DevuSkin's, we would expect GorSkov to go to pieces over the loss of his favorite. But nothing of the kind happens. Though, like Pokrovskij, GorSkov sheds tears over the coffin, they flow, DevuSkin hints, not so much from grief but from an eye infection-an early metaphoric indication that GorSkov does not see things in the proper perspective. Indeed, the death of his son seems for GorSkov, as it were, just another blow of fate, and by no means a devastating one. Whereas DevuSkin gives a poignant description of the grief of GorSkov's wife and daughter over the loss of their Petja, his picture of GorSkov is of a man who seems curiously detached from what has occurred, as though he were preoccupied with something else, something far more important. These impressions are given substance by the letter of 18 September which tells first of the suit decided in GorSkov's favor and then of GorSkov's ensuing death. At the beginning of that letter DevuSkin mentions two important results of the court decision, on which the scene turns: GorSkov's new financial security and the restoration of his good name. It seems it is all that GorSkov could have wished for:
Our poor Gorskov (I must tell you, my darling) has been found completely innocent. The decision was made some time ago and today he went to hear the final judgment. The case ended very happily for him. He was fully exonerated of any blame for negligence and carelessness. The merchant was condemned to pay him a considerable sum of money so that his financial position was vastly improved and no stain was left on his honour and things were better all round-in fact, he received everything he could have desired (258).

The money that GorSkov receives will rid him of debt and provide for the immediate future, but since this money will not last forever-he obviously had a considerable amount of money when he first was dismissed-the restoration of his good name will permit him to get his old back or one like it so that he can support himself and his family job indefinitely. When GorSkov comes home after hearing the decision he is ecstatic. He is trembling from happiness; he cannot sit or stand still; he is like a new man. His mood and behavior are similar to Pokrovskij's on the day

154

Slavic and East European Journal

of his son's last birthday. At least to DevuSkin, he seems taller and straighter, and his habitual tear is gone. But most important are the first words he speaks; "6est' moja, cest', dobroe imja, deti moi" (259). He begins by referring to his honor, which he mentions twice; he then we soon realize, is to GorSkov the proceeds to his good name-which, very same thing. Last of all he mentions his children. One gets the impression, which grows stronger as the scene progresses, that the children are included almost as though they were an afterthought. Indeed, that is how GorSkov's words seem to be interpreted by Ratazjaev (a writer who lives in the same building as GorSkov), who appears surprised at what he considers GorSkov's misplaced emphasis. With the children obviously in mind, he tells GorSkov: "What is honour, old man, when one has nothing to eat? The money, the money's the main thing, old man, thank God for that!" (259)-whereupon he slaps GorSkov on the shoulder. GorSkov's response to Ratazjaev's friendly behavior and remarks strikes DevuSkin as strange and inappropriate; it also lends support to Ratazjaev's interpretation of GorSkov's meaning.
It seemed to me that GorSkov was offended-not that he openly showed displeasure, but he looked rather strangely at Ratazjaev and took his hand off his shoulder. And that could never have happened before Varen'ka! But characters differ. Now I, for instance, should not have been so proud, at a time of such joy; why, my own, sometimes one is too liberal with one's bows and almost cringes from nothing but an outburst of good-natured sincerity and excessive soft-heartedness .... But, in any case, it's not a matter of me at all! "Yes," he said, "the money is a good thing too, thank God, thank God!"

Ratazjaev is a rather shallow, unpleasant figure in Poor Folk, but one should not assume that because of it he is incapable, inadvertently or not, of getting to the heart of the matter: unappealing and unsavory characters in Dostoevskij often say the most telling things. Here Ratazto be sure-to bring GorSkov down to reality, to jaev is trying-crudely, tell him that the money is what is most important because of what it means for his family. GorSkov, however, simply does not see the matter from Ratazjaev's perspective. He must, in part, concede Ratazjaev's point and say that the money is a good thing too, thank God: after all, one cannot publicly maintain that one's good name is more important than the lives of one's children. It also should be noted that GorSkov's "thank God" (slava Bogu) is not an original utterance, but rather an echo of Ratazjaev's "thank God" (Boga blagodarite) several lines above. More than anything else, as DevuSkin correctly observes, GorSkov is offended; for he reacts as though Ratazjaev has not properly understood that he is a man of character, and that he cannot regard money, despite all its important benefits, as highly as honor. But the more carefully we look at GorSkov's actions in this scene the

GorSkovin Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian"Double"

155

more we see how closely his views of honor resemble those of DevuSkin, for whom one's honor and good name are, in effect, equivalent, not to human dignity and moral integrity, but to reputation, pure and simple. The restitution of his good name is important to GorSkov not so much because he will be able to work again and thus support his family, and not so much because it may rid him of any guilt feelings he may have harbored about what he did-there is good evidence that GorSkov, to say the least, was not completely innocent of all wrongdoing-but because it restores him in the eyes of society, in the opinions of others.7 The death scene appears to present GorSkov's behavior in a positive light; it seems to compare DevuSkin's degrading behavior before his Excellency unfavorably with GorSkov's behavior before Ratazjaev. GorSkov's rebuff of Ratazjaev, however, is not an indication of his intrinsic worth, or his dignity as a man; it is done out of misplaced pride. Even DevuSkin, to whom appearances mean so much, thinks that GorSkov has gone too far, that with such good fortune, one should not put on airs; rather one should rejoice-even forgive. DevuSkin, of course, is arguing from his own example: after receiving the hundred rubles from his superior, DevuSkin begins to look upon the once hostile world of St. Petersburg through rose-colored glasses, writing Varen'ka that neither his landlady, who has badgered him for so long, nor Ratazjaev, who has made him the laughingstock of the building, is such a bad person. Devuskin swallows his pride and revels in his joy; and he does not come off the worse for it; nor does he significantly lose the reader's favor when he writes Varen'ka that he would not have shown as much pride, in a time of such joy, as GorSkov did. To DevuSkin, reputation is the novel shows, too important-but it is far from the important-as most important thing in his life once Varen'ka enters it; moreover, he is capable of seeing, at least in his more perceptive moments, that intrinsic worth and reputation are not necessarily the same things and that they often do not go hand in hand in the real world.8 GorSkov, however, cannot show his joy: it would be beneath his dignity; it would deal a blow to the good name that he has just regained. In the earlier letters, there is not much emphasis on GorSkov's pride and his preoccupation with the opinions of others, but several seemingly innocuous details take on added significance with respect to pride when seen in light of GorSkov's behavior on the last day of his life. The unnatural quiet in the GorSkovs' apartment, in particular the quietness of the children that DevuSkin mentions in the letter of 12 April, is not solely a consequence of their poverty and humiliation. DevuSkin notes that the children are hushed up when they cry, especially when someone is passing by, as though GorSkov did not want to call attention to himself or to have others believe that his children were not well-behaved (one

156

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

thinks of Katerina Ivanovna in Crime and Punishment); thus, the children only whimper. GorSkov's attempt to beg money from DevuSkin may also stem from pride. It would appear that GorSkov asks DevuSkin to lend him money because DevuSkin has experienced adversities too, and so could be expected to understand the desperateness of GorSkov's situation; he also senses that Devuskin has a good heart and is a great deal more compassionate than the other lodgers. Nevertheless, it is still strange for GorSkov to approach DevuSkin, particularly when he knows that DevuSkin himself is now at the nadir of his fortunes-he has already been carried home drunk by the police several times-and that DevuSkin would have to give up what he desperately needs for himself. In answer to DevuAkin's question as to why he has not asked any of the others for money, GorSkov says "I am ... afraid of everyone here, Makar Alekseevi--that is, not exactly afraid, but as it were ashamed before them; they are all proud and haughty people" (247). GorSkov is probably right in believing that his fellow lodgers are less compassionate than DevuSkin, but his idea that they are a proud and haughty group seems a little far-fetched. GorSkov is simply projecting his own pride onto others. In fact, he is more proud than they are, and, as we see, too proud to go to them for money. DevuSkin does not like to borrow either, but when it is a matter of Varen'ka's welfare, he will put his pride in his pocket and attempt to borrow from the "proud": he even subjects himself to the humiliating experience of seeking a loan from a certain Markov, a clerk of the fourteenth rank, knowing, in advance, that he is certain to be refused. GorSkov's handling of the suit also reveals a good deal about his pride and his preoccupation with his good name. We learn from Devuskin that what seemed to be such an unexpected stroke of good fortune was not unexpected for GorSkov at all, for the decision had actually been made a long time ago (regenie-to uS davno kak vySlo); and GorSkov, who gives this information to DevuSkin, must have known exactly what it was. But for GorSkov it is of the utmost importance that his innocence be restored and proclaimed officially. So although on 5 September it is made clear that GorAkov already knows the outcome of the suit, he shows no sign of relief or joy; in fact, he appears as fearful, distraught, and despairing as ever. However, after having heard the final settlement (okontatel'naja rezoljucija) read in public, that is, made official knowledge, GorSkov appears to Devuskin and the other lodgers to be physically and spiritually transformed; he seems to be a new man. GorAkov's death, then, comes as a great shock. Yet it is well motivated physically and psychologically. GorAkovhas been ailing for a long time (DevuAkin thinks that he is suffering from some disease-he does not say which) and he has been under severe mental strain for at least

GorSkovin Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian"Double"

157

the last several months.9 When the verdict becomes official, GorSkov simply cannot bear his good fortune; it deals him a blow similar to the one which misfortune dealt Pokrovskij and will soon deal DevuSkin.10 But GorSkov's pride, specifically his preoccupation with honor (test'), figure just as prominently, if not more, in motivating his death than the more obvious reasons cited above. GorSkov dies because, at least subconsciously, he desires his own death, desires it as the fitting conclusion to a long, agonizing quest. For the last seven years he has lived with the sole purpose of erasing the blemish from his reputation. Indeed the pursuit of his good name seems all that kept him alive long after having borne blows similar to the ones that shattered Pokrovskij and DevuSkin, and that should have shattered him as well. The pot had been cracked for a long time, but it would not shatter; it was held together by the strong glue of Dostoevskian pride. When the blemish is finally removed, GorSkov's life has reached, from his own point of view, its proper conclusion. There is no reason to go on. GorSkov dies, as it were, a happy and fulfilled man, a man who has achieved his life's goal and who seems even to accept the death that appears to DevuSkin to be so tragic. DevuSkin's description of GorSkov on the night he died shows us that GorSkov senses not only that his life's task has been completed but that he is close to death. DevuSkin recalls his impression of GorSkov at the time. "He met me in the hall, took both my hands, looked at me straight in the face, but so strangely; then shook my hand and walked away, and kept smiling, but with a strange, painful smile, like a dead man (slovno mertvyj)" (250). In fact, GorSkov is already preparing for death. Before he lies down for what appears to be a nap, he is shown taking leave of the living and preparing to meet the dead.
After dinner he said to his wife: "I tell you what, my love, I'll lie down a little," and he went to his bed. He called his little girl, put his hand on her head, and for a long time he stroked the child's head. Then he turned to his wife again, "And what of Peten'ka? Our Petja!" he said. "Peten'ka?" . . . His wife answered that he was dead. "Yes, yes, I know all about it. Peten'ka is now in the Kingdom of Heaven." His wife saw that he was not himself (260).

GorSkov bestows his final blessing on his daughter; and he does not seem particularly disturbed when he is reminded that Petja is not there-after all will he not see him soon in the heavenly kingdom? Gorskov seems to make his exit at the best possible time-for himself. It occurs at the moment of his greatest joy and triumph; but it is certainly a most untimely death for his family, for his death leaves them in a far more desperate situation than ever before. While GorSkov's case was being considered by the court, there was, after all, still hope; now the family is doomed. When the money from the suit runs out-and it

158

Slavic and East European Journal

will, soon enough-GorSkov's wife, who is ailing, will have to fend for herself and her two young children, a six-year-old daughter and a son still at the breast. (One recalls that after her husband's death, Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladova, another widow of a poor clerk, took to the streets with her three children to beg.) One need not, however, go beyond the novel to see the fate implied for the GorSkovs. Even before the death of Gorskov, DevuSkin writes Varen'ka of a pathetic little boy, the age of GorSkov's daughter, whom an ailing mother had sent out onto the streets to beg a few copecks for something to eat. Still more significant in this regard is the fate ofVaren'ka's family, whose story is almost identical to the Gorgkovs'. Varen'ka's father (clearly a variation of GorSkov) was a successful manager of an estate, who, for an undisclosed reason, was dismissed from his position and forced to come to Petersburg to mend his fortune. But matters went from bad to worse in the city; debts were incurred; and the father finally took sick and died. The death, like GorSkov's, was unexpected, so that for several days the family was in a state of shock. Varen'ka's mother, already ailing when her father was still alive (like GorSkov's wife, she had consumption), was forced to live off the "charity" of the unscrupulous procuress, Anna Fedorovna. She died soon after her husband, leaving Varen'ka an orphan, defenseless against the designs of Anna Fedorovna and her brutish client, Bykov.1I To emphasize the typicality of Varen'ka's situation, the situation of the female orphan in the city, Dostoevskij provides us with the cases of Pokrovskij's first wife, who preceded Varen'ka on her tragic path and Varen'ka's cousin Sasa, who is destined to go the same way. 12 GorSkov's subconscious desire to retire from life, once the big battle has been won, must be interpreted, then, as a manifestation of tremendous egoism; the death that he seems almost to welcome spells, as we have seen, the probable doom of the entire family, which has already paid the price of GorSkov's dishonesty in his lifetime, and now must pay a still higher price for his good name after his death.13 This egoism is also underlined by the way in which the novel contrasts GorSkov's death with the implied deaths of Pokrovskij and DevuSkin. Whereas Pokrovskij and DevuSkin, for example, are in no way adversely affected by their good fortune and will we assume perish only as a result of the loss of a loved one, Gorskov dies at the height of his good fortune and, given his role as a double of both Pokrovskij and Devuskin, is much less shaken by the loss of his son than we expect him to be. In this juxtaposition of opposite responses to similar situations, the love of GorSkov for his son and family is shown to be clearly deficient. DevuSkin and elevated in our eyes-by Pokrovskij are largely characterized-and their great devotion to others; GorSkov is characterized by his greater

Gorskov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian"Double"

159

devotion to himself, specifically to his good name. This contrast between GorSkov on the one hand and Pokrovskij and DevuSkin on the other is also effectively underscored in the almost inverse relationship existing throughout the novel between "dignified" behavior and purity of heart. DevuSkin, though he is a much rounder and more complex being than Pokrovskij and behaves, relatively speaking, in a more decorous manner, is nevertheless by no means superior in the quality of his love. Pokrovskij's love, which is perhaps his only human trait, is as great as DevuSkin's and in one important respect even greater: it is not tainted by excessive concern for reputation.14 DevuSkin occupies a middle position between Pokrovskij and GorSkov in the novel's presentation of dignity and love; for his relationship to GorSkov in terms of the human heart is in some ways the opposite of his relation to Pokrovskij. DevuSkin behaves with what seems to be less dignity than GorSkov-he cringes abjectly before his Excellency and he is a little too ready to forgive Ratazjaev, who has profoundly insulted himbut his undignified behavior is understandable; it results from an excess of joy and a sincere concern for Varen'ka's welfare. DevuSkin cuts a poor figure as a dignified civil servant, but his tenderness and selflessness more than make up for his deficiencies. GorSkov's seemingly more dignified behavior, however, does not make up for his elevation of his personal quest for "honor" above the welfare of his family. He is not unlike the proud Efimov in Netoeka Nezvanovna, whose attempts to maintain his self-image as a musician of genius lead directly to his death, the death of his wife, and the traumatizing of his stepdaughter, the heroine of the work. The similarity of GorSkov's character to Efimov's highlights another important difference between the story of GorSkov and those of Pokrovskij and DevuSkin. Pokrovskij and DevuSkin are the heroes of stories of love and devotion cast in a naturalistic mode; GorSkov's story, though it resembles in its basic outlines Pokrovskij's and also Devugkin's, and is similarly cast in the naturalistic mode, is essentially about pride, not love.15 It is not the loss of a loved one, but pride that "brings him low." This is not to say that love does not serve an important function in his characterization. It does, but it does so implicitly and negatively. The novel shows the relative absence of altruistic love as a motivating force in GorSkov's life and by doing so further sharpens the contrast between GorSkov and his foils. Though the implied author, as we have seen, does not share Devugkin's completely sympathetic view of GorSkov, he is by no means unsympathetic to his lot. The novel treats Gorskov's pride in the same compassionate, but ironic way that Katerina Ivanovna's pride is treated in Crime and Punishment. But even under the circumstances, GorSkov's

160

Slavic and East European Journal

pride, like Katerina Ivanovna's, is excessive. Moreover, when this pride is based on imagined virtues or on the opinions of others, however official that opinion may be, it leads, in its exaggerated forms, both to the destruction of the self and the destruction of others. We should not be as puzzled as DevuSkin about GorSkov's death. "GorSkov was dead, he died suddenly, as though he had been killed by a thunderbolt! And why he died, God only knows" (260). GorSkov is struck down for his pride. The metonymic reasons for GorSkov's death are solidly grounded in the physical and psychological; however, the metaphoric reasons are essentially moral; they belong not to the phenomenal world of the novel but to the evaluative standards of the implied author. Gorskov experiences a moral as well as a physical fall. His death is poetic punishment; it functions as the final judgment of the implied author, which is the judgment, at least in the novel, of the highest court-it is the true okon6atel'naja rezoljucija of GorSkov's case. It is punishment meted out for failure to maintain perspective and measure. GorAkov'sgood name meant more to him than the welfare of his family. To build one's world on love, as Devuskin and Pokrovskij prove, is, though morally praiseworthy, a precarious enough venture; to build it on the far more precarious and morally questionable foundation, the opinions of others, is to court failure both in the phenomenal and the moral world. In the end, DevuSkin and Pokrovskij are elevated by their devotion and love, whereas GorSkov is struck down for his preoccupation with self. GorSkov stands higher in his own eyes, but lower in the eyes of the reader. His subconscious belief that death will crown his achievement is ill founded. If the restoration of his reputation is a victory at all, it is a petty one, and one that will have tragic consequences for those for whom it should have been won. Moreover, he loses, in the end, along with his life, the highest form of reputation-the implied respect and approval of the author in the world of fiction. With GorSkov, Dostoevskij completes his picture in PoorFolk of the destitute poor clerk. As DevuSkin shows, not every down-and-out Cinovnik is as simple and one-sided as Akakij Akakievic. In fact, there are no civil servants like Akakij; even those like Pokrovskij, who seem to resemble Akakij in almost every detail, are still men, particularly in their potential for expressing love. On the other hand, as we see in the case of GorSkov, not every impoverished civil servant is blessed with a heart of gold, ready to sacrifice his own self-interest for the interest of others. In contrast to Gogol', Dostoevskij, no matter what social level he treats, eschews generalizations in favor of psychological complexity and faithfulness to reality. The result of Dostoevskij's experiment in human existence with the poor clerk suggests a strangely "egalitarian" conclusion: If Devugkin and Pokrovskij show that the poor clerk can love as

GorSkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double"

161

deeply as any nobleman, GorSkov shows he can be just as egoistical and excessively proud; just as monomaniacal: that is, like Efimov and Proxar6in, just as possessed by a destructive idea.16

NOTES
1 To my knowledge, there are no studies devotedto the characterizationor functionof Gorskov in Poor Folk. The most interesting observations on Gorskov'srole in the novel have been made by V. V. Vinogradov,"Skolasentimental'nogonaturalizma: Roman Dostoevskogo'Bednye ljudi'na fone literaturnojevoljucii40-x godov,"in his Evoljucija russkogo naturalizma:Gogol'i Dostoevskij(L.:Academia, 1929), 351-52, 376, 387. 2 This argument has been most successfully presentedby VictorTerras,"Problemsof Human Existence in the Worksof the Young Dostoevsky,"Slavic Review,23 (1964), 79-91. The first to compareDevuskin to Akakij Akakievic was, of course,Devuskin himself. For his comments on Gogol"s"TheOvercoat," F.M. Dostoevskij,Polnoe see sobranie sotinenij, ed. V. G. Bazanovet al. (30 vols; L.:Nauka, 1972- ), 1,61-63. See also Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky: Life and Work,tr. Michael A. Minihan His (Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press, 1967), 29-31. 3 Gorskov'srole in foreshadowingDevuskin'send has been notedbut never examined. See Vinogradov, "Skola sentimental'nogo naturalizma,"375-76; N. S. Trubetzkoy, Dostoevskijals Kunstler (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 33; DonaldFanger,Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism (Cambridge: HarvardUniv. Press, 1965), 153, 155. 4 A detailed examination of the role of Pokrovskij appears in my "OldPokrovskij: Technique and Meaning in a Character Foil in Dostoevskij'sPoor Folk," which is presently being consideredfor publication. 5 Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Three Great Novels, tr. Constance Garnett (New York: Dell, 1960), 247. All translations have been checkedwith the originalinPSS, I, 13-108and revised when necessary. 6 To Soviet critics, Gorskov is an uncomplicatedfigure in characterand function. In their view, he is simply used to give us a more complete picture of urban poverty OCerk during the reign of Nicholas the First. See, forexample,V. I. Etov,Dostoevskij: tvortestva(M.:Prosvesenie, 1968), 67; G. M. Fridlender,"Primecanija," Dostoevin skij, PSS, I, 468. 7 Devuskin, who is a strong defender of Gorskov, writes Varen'ka that "in reality Gorskov was guilty only of negligence, injudiciousness and an unpardonabledisregard of the interests of the government"(248). This statement cannot but raise doubts in our minds about Gorskov'scomplete innocence,doubtswhich becomeeven stronger when we realize that the wordsDevuskin uses are probablynot his own, but Gorskov's. In addition, one wonders how Gorskov, who lost his place seven years earlier, was able to manage so well for six and one-half of those seven years. One is reminded of CiCikov who lost his governmentjob for dishonestybut still had enough money to carryhimself over till he had occasionto find anothergovernmentposition. 8 See, forexample, Devuskin's letter of 5 Septemberin whichhe in effecttells Varen'ka that clothes do not make the man. For an examinationof the theme of reputationand dignity as they relate to Devuskin, see Terras,81-84. 9 We know that Gorskovlost his job seven years beforethe story begins, but it seems that the family's plunge into povertyis of relatively recent origin. In fact, six months before his death, Gorskovpaid the landlady three months rent in advance.

162

Slavic and East European Journal This interpretation of Gorskov's death-death caused by the shock of good fortuneis advanced by Dominique Barlesi, La Vision sociale de Petersbourg chez Dostozevski des "Pauvres gens" a "Crime et Chdtiment" (Aix-en-Provence: La Pens6e universitaire, 1961), 52; Fanger, 155. In fact the story of Gorskov's wife conforms, much more than Gorskov's own, to the pattern laid down by Pokrovskij, and later imitated by Devuskin. She has suffered through the same misfortunes as her husband and her story until her husband's death is essentially the same as his: that is, a long period over which both health and fortune decline. Thereupon follows great luck, the resolution of the suit in her husband's favor, with its immediate monetary award and its promise of a new position for Gorskov and a new life for her. As in Devuskin's case, after receiving the money from his Excellency, the world seems to have been set right. But even sooner for her than either for Pokrovskij or Devuskin, tragedy strikes: her husband dies, depriving her of the emotional and financial support necessary for survival in cold, mercenary Petersburg. Like Devuskin and Pokrovskij, then, she too provides an important foil to Gorskov. Russian fiction of the 1840's supplied its readers with numerous versions-with only Varen'ka's story. But few, if any, of Varen'ka's sisters ended as slight variations-of tragically as she. Dostoevskij, then, could not rely on the Russian literary "tradition"; he had to provide the appropriate parallels within the work itself. For a brief discussion of the literary origins of Varen'ka, see Vinogradov, "Skola sentimental'nogo naturalizma," 349-51. Gorskov in this regard looks forward to Marmeladov in Crime and Punishment. Marmeladov's death, which is presented as being not entirely accidental, may have been brought about, in part, by a subconscious desire to punish Katerina Ivanovna. But, at the same time, he must know-although he certainly is not conscious of it at the time of his "accident"-that his death will mean the ruin of the family, for Katerina Ivanovna cannot work, and the children will probably have to go the way of Sonja. Rudolf Neuhauser-Das Fruhwerk Dostoevskijs (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1979), 51-55-offers the most negative assessment of Devuskin's love for Varen'ka that I am aware of, arguing that for Devuskin Varen'ka is most of all a pretext for writing letters in which he may develop his sentimental style. Though a close look at the less positive aspects of Devuskin's love is certainly in order, Neuhauser, it seems to me, has tipped the scale too far on the negative side. For the best discussion of the poetics of the Natural School, see Vinogradov, "Skola sentimental'nogo naturalizma;" also his Gogol' i natural'naja skola (L.: Obrazovanie, 1925); A. G. Cejtlin, Povesti o bednom dinovnike Dostoevskogo: K istorii odnogo sju2eta (M., 1923). Dostoevskij has often been praised for his original treatment of the einovnik, the tongue-tied, dull-witted, pathetic stock figure of the late 1830's and early 1840's; and, indeed, casting Devuskin in the role of a sentimental lover was a daring experiment. Dostoevskij, however, was perhaps still more daring and original in transforming this figure into a man possessed of and by an idea.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16