Rosenshield - 1982 - Gorškov in Poor Folk An Analysis of an Early Dost

7/29/2019 Rosenshield - 1982 - Gorkov in Poor Folk An Analysis of an Early Dost

1/15

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Gorkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double"Author(s): Gary RosenshieldSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 149-162Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable 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 [email protected].

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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseelhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/308085?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseelhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseelhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/308085?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel


2/15

GORSKOVIN POOR FOLK:AN ANALYSIS OF ANEARLY 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 atten-tion, but surprisingly little work has been done on one of DevuSkin'smost important character foils in the novel: the dismissed civil servant,GorSkov.1 In Poor Folk, as in many of Dostoevskij's later works, the foilis one of the main devices of characterization; we come to know andjudge the hero not only by what he thinks and does, but by how hisactions and thoughts are implicitly compared and contrasted with theacts and thoughts of his "doubles." It has been convincingly argued thatit is impossible fully to appreciate Poor Folk without understanding therole 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 roleplayed by GorSkov is just as essential to our appreciation of the novel.Moreover, GorSkov belongs to the same novelistic world as DevuSkinand 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 boardinghouse as DevuSkin, is an unemployed civil servant, who, for some reason(za 6to-to), was dismissed from the civil service seven years before. Helives in a single room with his wife and two children (another child isborn during the novel) in the most abject poverty.GorSkov's main role as far as plot is concerned, like that of the olderPokrovskij-one of DevuSkin's other important foils-is to foreshadowthe tragic denouement: DevuSkin's loss of Varen'ka and his probabledeath hastened by drink soon thereafter.3 The similarities betweenGorSkov and DevuSkin in character and situation are so striking-andthey become even more striking as the novel progresses-that we expectthat what happens to GorSkov must also happen to Devugkin.SEEJ, Vol. 26 No. 2 (1982) 149


3/15

150 Slavic and East European JournalAt the beginning of the work the Gorskov family is already desti-tute. Up until a few months before this point, despite the loss of Gor-

skov's position seven years earlier, the family has somehow been able tomanage; but when Devuskin makes their acquaintance they are alreadyheavily in debt to the landlady and barely have enough to eat. As timepasses their situation steadily worsens: they fall deeper in debt; theyhave even less food to share among themselves; and as an inevitableconsequence, the family members, already undernourished, fall ill. Thelowest point in their declining fortunes appears to be the death ofGorskov's oldest son, on whom the family has pinned its hopes for thefuture; for, just a few months later, the Gorskovs are visited by whatseems to be a miraculous stroke of good fortune: the law suit in whichGorskov had been involved for a number of years is decided in his favor.The benefits of this favorable decision are considerable. The money thatGorskov is to receive will take care of all the family's debts and providefor them for some time in the future; and since he has been acquitted ofall wrongdoing one assumes that he will be able to get his old job back inthe civil service, or at least obtain a comparable position. It would seemthat both the present and the future have been taken care of. Buttragedy follows almost immediately upon good fortune: a few hoursafter hearing the favorable decision, Gorskov suffers a stroke and dies.The pattern already laid down by Pokrovskij in Varen'ka's reminis-cences is realized again in Gorskov: we witness first a long period ofdecline, then a sudden stroke of extraordinarily good fortune, andfinally, soon thereafter, a catastrophic reversal.Devuskin's story in its general outlines closely resembles Gor-skov's. Initially, Devuskin's situation is far better than Gorskov's, but itbegins to deteriorate rapidly, so that by the end of the summer Devuskinis almost as destitute and desperate as his fellow lodger. Just at thepoint when Devuskin has hit bottom, he too experiences an almostunbelievable stroke of good fortune. He receives one hundred rublesfrom his Excellency, nothing less, so it seems to him, than the solution toall his problems. DcvuSkin's happiness, however, is short-lived; almostimmediately after receiving the money, tragedy strikes: he learns thatVaren'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 thecountry. The reader infers that the broken-hearted Devuskin will notrecover from this devastating blow, but will take to drink and perish.The words that Devuskin uses to describe Gorskov's demise apply also tohis own state upon finding out that Varen'ka intends to leave himforever: "Slovno ego gromom ubylo" (98).The foreshadowing is even more apparent and dramatic in Gor-skov's case than it is in Pokrovskij's because Gorskov experiences his


4/15

GorSkov n Poor Folk:An Analysis of an EarlyDostoevskian "Double" 151sudden rise and fall just before DevuSkin experiences his. Only somefive days after DevuSkin recounts to Varen'ka the episodes relating tohis recent change in fortune and GorSkov's tragedy, Varen'ka writesDevuAkin of her decision to accept Bykov's proposal of marriage.Yet the similarities in character and situation between GorSkovand DevuSkin, however significant, are in the end less important-as isso often the case in Dostoevskij-than the differences; and it is in thedevelopment of these differences that the novel's major themes and thedelineation of DevuSkin's character are worked out. I would first like topresent the essential differences between these two figures and thenproceed to an interpretation of GorSkov's other important functions inthe novel based on a close analysis of these differences.GorSkov, on first glance, differs from DevuSkin most strikingly inthat he seems to be an extreme DevuSkin: that is, a DevuSkin whosecharacter and situation have been taken to their logical extremes; andin this respect, he greatly resembles DevuSkin's other major characterfoil in the novel, the older Pokrovskij, who also is a down-and-out,dismissed civil servant.4 This resemblance is evident in GorSkov'sappearance, in his demeanor, and most of all, in his financial situation.Like Pokrovskij, GorSkov is gray (seden'kij), small (malen'kij), andbadly dressed. He is extremely timid; there is no one of whom he does notseem to be afraid. He does not walk, but sidles along; Pokrovskij tiptoes.DevuSkin repeats the same emotive adjectives that Varen'ka will lateruse in her description of Pokrovskij: pitiful (2alkij) and unfortunate(bednyj). Like Pokrovskij, GorSkov is married, is out of work, and duringthe course of the novel loses his son. Even when in some respectsDevuSkin's own situation approaches GorSkov's in its severity and hope-lessness, he is still able to see that GorSkov's lot is far worse than hisown. "And I may say, in passing, my darling, that they live ever so muchworse than I do. Worse, indeed; he has a wife and children! So that if Iwere in his place I don't know what I should do."5When, for example,GorSkov comes to DevuSkin on 5 September-when DevuSkin's situa-tion is at its worst-to beg a few copecks, Devuakin has only twentycopecks to his name, but he can still offer GorSkov not only tea, but teawith 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 arguedfor 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 thanDevuSkin's but it is even considerably worse than that of Akakij


5/15

152 Slavic and East European JournalAkakievic, who after all had a steady job, had no dependents, and couldmake choices as to how to spend his income.The true severity of GorSkov's situation is most effectively broughtout through the description of his children, who suffer greatly as a resultof their father's misfortunes. They are ill-fed, ill-clothed, and sickly.What, however, makes the greatest impression on DevuSkin is not somuch their physical condition, but their unnatural, unchildlikebehavior-their quietness. That GorSkov is quiet and timid might,under the circumstances, not be unexpected, and then again DevuSkinis rather quiet himself. But something is radically wrong when youngchildren are so quiet that one hardly knows that they are there; whenthey 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 livingthere. There is no sound even of the children. And it never happens that the children frolicabout and play, and that is a bad sign. One evening I happened to pass their door; it hadbecome unusually quiet in the house at the time; I heard sobbing, then a whimper, thensobbing again as though they were crying but so quietly, so pitifully that it was heart-rending, and afterwards the thought of those poor creatures did not leave me all night sothat I could not get to sleep properly (155).

At first it seems that Gorskov is just another variation of DevuSkintaken to its limit: that is, a man whose situation and character aresimilar to DevuSkin's in quality but different in degree; or, more con-cretely, he differs from DevuSkin only in that he is more destitute anddowntrodden. The more closely, however, we examine GorSkov, themore we see that, like Pokrovskij, he is a variation of surprising subtletyand complexity, and that the differences between GorSkov andDevuSkin are primarily of essence, not of degree.6 Much of this com-plexity arises from the tension between the point of view of DevuSkinand that of Dostoevskij-that is, Dostoevskij as implied author. ThoughDevuSkin, as we shall see, can at times be a perceptive observer ofGorSkov, he is, like most first-person narrators, not entirely objective orreliable. Since he identifies with GorSkov, he understandably tends tosee and present him sympathetically. But we are not meant to seeGorSkov solely with DevuSkin's eyes. In fact, even though Gorskov'ssituation is more wretched than DevuSkin's and his behavior seeminglymore dignified, he is presented, in the end, far more negatively. Thenovel dwells on the abjectness of GorSkov's poverty and the desperate-ness of his lot, it seems to me, not so much to reveal to the inhabitants ofgilded palaces the financial plight of the poor, as Belinskij stated, but, asTerras has argued regarding Devuskin, to carry out an experiment inhuman existence; for in Dostoevskij there are certain figures-andGorSkov is surely one of them-who fully reveal themselves only under


6/15

GorSkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double" 153the most extreme conditions. The true GorSkov comes out, like the trueDevuAkin, only when his situation is taken to its limits, when he isvisited by great misfortune.The case against GorSkov is built slowly. The first clear signs of thenovel's less than sympathetic presentation of GorSkov occur inDevuSkin's description of Gorskov's behavior on the death of his oldestchild, Petja. The death of the child takes us back to the death of Pokrov-skij's only son, also named Petja. GorSkov's son also lies in a coffin overwhich the father sheds tears; GorSkov's son had also shown promise.Judging from Pokrovskij's story, and in retrospect from DevuSkin's, wewould expect GorSkov to go to pieces over the loss of his favorite. Butnothing of the kind happens. Though, like Pokrovskij, GorSkov shedstears over the coffin, they flow, DevuSkin hints, not so much from griefbut from an eye infection-an early metaphoric indication that GorSkovdoes not see things in the proper perspective. Indeed, the death of his sonseems for GorSkov, as it were, just another blow of fate, and by no meansa devastating one. Whereas DevuSkin gives a poignant description ofthe grief of GorSkov's wife and daughter over the loss of their Petja, hispicture of GorSkov is of a man who seems curiously detached from whathas occurred, as though he were preoccupied with something else, some-thing far more important. These impressions are given substance by theletter of 18 September which tells first of the suit decided in GorSkov'sfavor and then of GorSkov's ensuing death.At the beginning of that letter DevuSkin mentions two importantresults of the court decision, on which the scene turns: GorSkov's newfinancial security and the restoration of his good name. It seems it is allthat GorSkov could have wished for:Our poor Gorskov (I must tell you, my darling) has been found completely innocent. Thedecision was made some time ago and today he went to hear the final judgment. The caseended very happily for him. He was fully exonerated of any blame for negligence andcarelessness. The merchant was condemned to pay him a considerable sum of money sothat his financial position was vastly improved and no stain was left on his honour andthings 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 theimmediate future, but since this money will not last forever-he obvi-ously had a considerable amount of money when he first was dis-missed-the restoration of his good name will permit him to get his oldjob back or one like it so that he can support himself and his familyindefinitely.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 anew man. His mood and behavior are similar to Pokrovskij's on the day


7/15

154 Slavic and East European Journalof his son's last birthday. At least to DevuSkin, he seems taller andstraighter, and his habitual tear is gone. But most important are thefirst words he speaks; "6est' moja, cest', dobroe imja, deti moi" (259). Hebegins by referring to his honor, which he mentions twice; he thenproceeds to his good name-which, we soon realize, is to GorSkov thevery same thing. Last of all he mentions his children. One gets theimpression, which grows stronger as the scene progresses, that thechildren 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 appearssurprised at what he considers GorSkov's misplaced emphasis. With thechildren 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 onthe shoulder. GorSkov's response to Ratazjaev's friendly behavior andremarks strikes DevuSkin as strange and inappropriate; it also lendssupport to Ratazjaev's interpretation of GorSkov's meaning.It seemed to me that GorSkov was offended-not that he openly showed displeasure, but helooked rather strangely at Ratazjaev and took his hand off his shoulder. And that couldnever have happened before Varen'ka! But characters differ. Now I, for instance, shouldnot have been so proud, at a time of such joy; why, my own, sometimes one is too liberalwith one's bows and almost cringes from nothing but an outburst ofgood-natured sincerityand 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 oneshould not assume that because of it he is incapable, inadvertently ornot, of getting to the heart of the matter: unappealing and unsavorycharacters in Dostoevskij often say the most telling things. Here Rataz-jaev is trying-crudely, to be sure-to bring GorSkovdown to reality, totell him that the money is what is most important because of what itmeans for his family. GorSkov, however, simply does not see the matterfrom Ratazjaev's perspective. He must, in part, concede Ratazjaev'spoint 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 importantthan 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 anecho of Ratazjaev's "thank God"(Boga blagodarite) several lines above.More than anything else, as DevuSkin correctly observes, GorSkov isoffended; for he reacts as though Ratazjaev has not properly understoodthat he is a man of character, and that he cannot regard money, despiteall its important benefits, as highly as honor.But the more carefully we look at GorSkov'sactions in this scene the


8/15

GorSkov n Poor Folk:An Analysis ofan Early Dostoevskian"Double" 155more 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 tohuman dignity and moral integrity, but to reputation, pure and simple.The restitution of his good name is important to GorSkov not so muchbecause he will be able to work again and thus support his family, andnot so much because it may rid him of any guilt feelings he may haveharbored about what he did-there is good evidence that GorSkov, tosay the least, was not completely innocent of all wrongdoing-butbecause it restores him in the eyes of society, in the opinions of others.7The death scene appears to present GorSkov'sbehavior in a positivelight; it seems to compare DevuSkin's degrading behavior before hisExcellency unfavorably with GorSkov's behavior before Ratazjaev.GorSkov's rebuff of Ratazjaev, however, is not an indication of hisintrinsic worth, or his dignity as a man; it is done out of misplaced pride.Even DevuSkin, to whom appearances mean so much, thinks thatGorSkov has gone too far, that with such good fortune, one should notput on airs; rather one should rejoice-even forgive. DevuSkin, of course,is arguing from his own example: after receiving the hundred rublesfrom his superior, DevuSkin begins to look upon the once hostile world ofSt. Petersburg through rose-colored glasses, writing Varen'ka thatneither his landlady, who has badgered him for so long, nor Ratazjaev,who has made him the laughingstock of the building, is such a badperson. Devuskin swallows his pride and revels in his joy; and he doesnot come off the worse for it; nor does he significantly lose the reader'sfavor when he writes Varen'ka that he would not have shown as muchpride, in a time of such joy, as GorSkov did. To DevuSkin, reputation isimportant-as the novel shows, too important-but it is far from themost important thing in his life once Varen'ka enters it; moreover, he iscapable of seeing, at least in his more perceptive moments, that intrinsicworth and reputation are not necessarily the same things and that theyoften 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 blowto the good name that he has just regained.In the earlier letters, there is not much emphasis on GorSkov'sprideand his preoccupation with the opinions of others, but several seeminglyinnocuous details take on added significance with respect to pride whenseen in light of GorSkov's behavior on the last day of his life. Theunnatural quiet in the GorSkovs' apartment, in particular the quietnessof the children that DevuSkin mentions in the letter of 12 April, is notsolely a consequence of their poverty and humiliation. DevuSkin notesthat the children are hushed up when they cry, especially when someoneis passing by, as though GorSkov did not want to call attention to himselfor to have others believe that his children were not well-behaved (one


9/15

156 Slavic and East EuropeanJournalthinks of Katerina Ivanovna in Crime and Punishment); thus, thechildren only whimper. GorSkov's attempt to beg money from DevuSkinmay also stem from pride. It would appear that GorSkov asks DevuSkinto lend him money because DevuSkin has experienced adversities too,and so could be expected to understand the desperateness of GorSkov'ssituation; he also senses that Devuskin has a good heart and is a greatdeal more compassionate than the other lodgers. Nevertheless, it is stillstrange for GorSkov to approach DevuSkin, particularly when he knowsthat DevuSkin himself is now at the nadir of his fortunes-he hasalready been carried home drunk by the police several times-and thatDevuSkin 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 theothers for money, GorSkov says "Iam ... afraid of everyone here, MakarAlekseevi--that is, not exactly afraid, but as it were ashamed beforethem; they are all proud and haughty people" (247). GorSkovis probablyright in believing that his fellow lodgers are less compassionate thanDevuSkin, but his idea that they are a proud and haughty group seems alittle 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 tothem for money. DevuSkin does not like to borrow either, but when it is amatter of Varen'ka's welfare, he will put his pride in his pocket andattempt to borrow from the "proud": he even subjects himself to thehumiliating experience of seeking a loan from a certain Markov, a clerkof the fourteenth rank, knowing, in advance, that he is certain to berefused.

GorSkov's handling of the suit also reveals a good deal about hispride and his preoccupation with his good name. We learn from Devus-kin that what seemed to be such an unexpected stroke of good fortunewas not unexpected for GorSkov at all, for the decision had actually beenmade a long time ago (regenie-to uS davno kak vySlo);and GorSkov, whogives this information to DevuSkin, must have known exactly what itwas. But for GorSkov it is of the utmost importance that his innocence berestored and proclaimed officially. So although on 5 September it ismade clear that GorAkov already knows the outcome of the suit, heshows no sign of relief or joy; in fact, he appears as fearful, distraught,and despairing as ever. However, after having heard the final settle-ment (okontatel'naja rezoljucija) read in public, that is, made officialknowledge, GorSkov appears to Devuskin and the other lodgers to bephysically and spiritually transformed; he seems to be a new man.GorAkov's death, then, comes as a great shock. Yet it is well moti-vated physically and psychologically. GorAkovhas been ailing for a longtime (DevuAkin thinks that he is suffering from some disease-he doesnot say which) and he has been under severe mental strain for at least


10/15

GorSkov n Poor Folk: AnAnalysis of an EarlyDostoevskian"Double" 157the last several months.9 When the verdict becomes official, GorSkovsimply cannot bear his good fortune; it deals him a blow similar to theone which misfortune dealt Pokrovskij and will soon deal DevuSkin.10But GorSkov's pride, specifically his preoccupation with honor(test'), figure just as prominently, if not more, in motivating his deaththan the more obvious reasons cited above. GorSkov dies because, atleast subconsciously, he desires his own death, desires it as the fittingconclusion to a long, agonizing quest. For the last seven years he haslived with the sole purpose of erasing the blemish from his reputation.Indeed the pursuit of his good name seems all that kept him alive longafter having borne blows similar to the ones that shattered Pokrovskijand DevuSkin, and that should have shattered him as well. The pot hadbeen cracked for a long time, but it would not shatter; it was heldtogether by the strong glue of Dostoevskian pride. When the blemish isfinally 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 itwere, a happy and fulfilled man, a man who has achieved his life's goaland who seems even to accept the death that appears to DevuSkin to beso tragic.DevuSkin's description of GorSkov on the night he died shows usthat GorSkov senses not only that his life's task has been completed butthat he is close to death. DevuSkin recalls his impression of GorSkov atthe time. "He met me in the hall, took both my hands, looked at mestraight in the face, but so strangely; then shook my hand and walkedaway, and kept smiling, but with a strange, painful smile, like a deadman (slovno mertvyj)" (250). In fact, GorSkov is already preparing fordeath. Before he lies down for what appears to be a nap, he is showntaking 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 wentto his bed. He called his little girl, put his hand on her head, and for a long time he strokedthe child's head. Then he turned to his wife again, "And what of Peten'ka? Our Petja!" hesaid. "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 notseem particularly disturbed when he is reminded that Petja is notthere-after all will he not see him soon in the heavenly kingdom?Gorskov seems to make his exit at the best possible time-forhimself. It occurs at the moment of his greatest joy and triumph; but it iscertainly a most untimely death for his family, for his death leaves themin a far more desperate situation than ever before. While GorSkov'scasewas being considered by the court, there was, after all, still hope; nowthe family is doomed. When the money from the suit runs out-and it


11/15

158 Slavic and East European Journalwill, soon enough-GorSkov's wife, who is ailing, will have to fend forherself and her two young children, a six-year-old daughter and a sonstill at the breast. (One recalls that after her husband's death, KaterinaIvanovna Marmeladova, another widow of a poor clerk, took to thestreets with her three children to beg.) One need not, however, gobeyond the novel to see the fate implied for the GorSkovs. Even beforethe 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 ontothe streets to beg a few copecks for something to eat. Still more signifi-cant in this regard is the fate ofVaren'ka's family, whose story is almostidentical to the Gorgkovs'.

Varen'ka's father (clearly a variation of GorSkov) was a successfulmanager of an estate, who, for an undisclosed reason, was dismissedfrom 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; andthe father finally took sick and died. The death, like GorSkov's, wasunexpected, 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 (likeGorSkov's wife, she had consumption), was forced to live off the "charity"of the unscrupulous procuress, Anna Fedorovna. She died soon after herhusband, leaving Varen'ka an orphan, defenseless against the designsof Anna Fedorovna and her brutish client, Bykov.1I To emphasize thetypicality of Varen'ka's situation, the situation of the female orphan inthe 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. 12GorSkov's subconscious desire to retire from life, once the big battlehas been won, must be interpreted, then, as a manifestation of tremen-dous egoism; the death that he seems almost to welcome spells, as wehave seen, the probable doom of the entire family, which has alreadypaid the price of GorSkov's dishonesty in his lifetime, and now must paya still higher price for his good name after his death.13 This egoism isalso underlined by the way in which the novel contrasts GorSkov'sdeathwith the implied deaths of Pokrovskij and DevuSkin. Whereas Pokrov-skij and DevuSkin, for example, are in no way adversely affected bytheir good fortune and will we assume perish only as a result of the lossof a loved one, Gorskov dies at the height of his good fortune and, givenhis role as a double of both Pokrovskij and Devuskin, is much lessshaken by the loss of his son than we expect him to be. In this juxtaposi-tion of opposite responses to similar situations, the love of GorSkov forhis son and family is shown to be clearly deficient. DevuSkin andPokrovskij are largely characterized-and elevated in our eyes-bytheir great devotion to others; GorSkov is characterized by his greater


12/15

Gorskovin Poor Folk: An Analysis of an EarlyDostoevskian "Double" 159devotion to himself, specifically to his good name.This contrast between GorSkov on the one hand and Pokrovskij andDevuSkin on the other is also effectively underscored in the almostinverse relationship existing throughout the novel between "dignified"behavior and purity of heart. DevuSkin, though he is a much rounderand more complex being than Pokrovskij and behaves, relatively speak-ing, in a more decorous manner, is nevertheless by no means superior inthe quality of his love. Pokrovskij's love, which is perhaps his onlyhuman trait, is as great as DevuSkin's and in one important respect evengreater: it is not tainted by excessive concern for reputation.14 DevuSkinoccupies a middle position between Pokrovskij and GorSkov in thenovel's presentation of dignity and love; for his relationship to GorSkovin terms of the human heart is in some ways the opposite of his relationto Pokrovskij. DevuSkin behaves with what seems to be less dignitythan GorSkov-he cringes abjectly before his Excellency and he is alittle too ready to forgive Ratazjaev, who has profoundly insulted him-but his undignified behavior is understandable; it results from an excessof joy and a sincere concern for Varen'ka's welfare. DevuSkin cuts a poorfigure as a dignified civil servant, but his tenderness and selflessnessmore than make up for his deficiencies. GorSkov's seemingly moredignified behavior, however, does not make up for his elevation of hispersonal quest for "honor" above the welfare of his family. He is notunlike the proud Efimov in Netoeka Nezvanovna, whose attempts tomaintain his self-image as a musician of genius lead directly to hisdeath, 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 highlightsanother important difference between the story of GorSkov and those ofPokrovskij and DevuSkin. Pokrovskij and DevuSkin are the heroes ofstories of love and devotion cast in a naturalistic mode; GorSkov'sstory,though it resembles in its basic outlines Pokrovskij's and also Dev-ugkin's, and is similarly cast in the naturalistic mode, is essentiallyabout 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 importantfunction in his characterization. It does, but it does so implicitly andnegatively. The novel shows the relative absence of altruistic love as amotivating force in GorSkov's life and by doing so further sharpens thecontrast between GorSkov and his foils.

Though the implied author, as we have seen, does not share Dev-ugkin's completely sympathetic view of GorSkov, he is by no meansunsympathetic to his lot. The novel treats Gorskov's pride in the samecompassionate, but ironic way that Katerina Ivanovna's pride is treatedin Crime and Punishment. But even under the circumstances, GorSkov's


13/15

160 Slavic and East European Journal

pride, like Katerina Ivanovna's, is excessive. Moreover, when this prideis based on imagined virtues or on the opinions of others, howeverofficial that opinion may be, it leads, in its exaggerated forms, both tothe destruction of the self and the destruction of others. We should not beas puzzled as DevuSkin about GorSkov's death. "GorSkovwas dead, hedied suddenly, as though he had been killed by a thunderbolt! And whyhe died, God only knows" (260). GorSkov is struck down for his pride.The metonymic reasons for GorSkov's death are solidly grounded in thephysical and psychological; however, the metaphoric reasons are essen-tially moral; they belong not to the phenomenal world of the novel but tothe evaluative standards of the implied author. Gorskov experiences amoral as well as a physical fall. His death is poetic punishment; itfunctions as the final judgment of the implied author, which is thejudgment, at least in the novel, of the highest court-it is the trueokon6atel'naja rezoljucija of GorSkov's case. It is punishment meted outfor failure to maintain perspective and measure. GorAkov'sgood namemeant more to him than the welfare of his family. To build one's worldon love, as Devuskin and Pokrovskij prove, is, though morally praise-worthy, a precarious enough venture; to build it on the far more precari-ous and morally questionable foundation, the opinions of others, is tocourt 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. GorSkovstands higher in his own eyes, but lower in the eyes of the reader. Hissubconscious 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, andone that will have tragic consequences for those for whom it should havebeen won. Moreover, he loses, in the end, along with his life, the highestform of reputation-the implied respect and approval of the author inthe world of fiction.

With GorSkov, Dostoevskij completes his picture in PoorFolk of thedestitute poor clerk. As DevuSkin shows, not every down-and-out Cinov-nik is as simple and one-sided as Akakij Akakievic. In fact, there are nocivil servants like Akakij; even those like Pokrovskij, who seem toresemble Akakij in almost every detail, are still men, particularly intheir potential for expressing love. On the other hand, as we see in thecase of GorSkov, not every impoverished civil servant is blessed with aheart of gold, ready to sacrifice his own self-interest for the interest ofothers. In contrast to Gogol', Dostoevskij, no matter what social level hetreats, eschews generalizations in favor of psychological complexity andfaithfulness to reality. The result of Dostoevskij's experiment in humanexistence with the poor clerk suggests a strangely "egalitarian" conclu-sion: If Devugkin and Pokrovskij show that the poor clerk can love as


14/15

GorSkov in Poor Folk: An Analysis of an Early Dostoevskian "Double" 161deeply as any nobleman, GorSkov shows he can be just as egoistical andexcessively proud; just as monomaniacal: that is, like Efimov andProxar6in, just as possessed by a destructive idea.16

NOTES1 To my knowledge,there are no studies devotedto the characterizationorfunctionofGorskov in Poor Folk. The most interesting observations on Gorskov'srole in thenovel have been made by V. V. Vinogradov,"Skolasentimental'nogonaturalizma:RomanDostoevskogo Bednyeljudi'na fone literaturnojevoljucii40-xgodov,"n hisEvoljucija russkogonaturalizma:Gogol' Dostoevskij L.:Academia,1929),351-52,

376, 387.2 This argumenthas been most successfully presented by VictorTerras,"Problems fHuman Existence in the Worksof the YoungDostoevsky,"SlavicReview,23 (1964),79-91. The first to compareDevuskinto AkakijAkakievicwas, of course,Devuskinhimself. For his comments on Gogol"s"TheOvercoat," ee F.M.Dostoevskij,Polnoesobraniesotinenij, ed. V.G.Bazanovet al. (30vols;L.:Nauka, 1972- ),1,61-63.Seealso Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky:His Lifeand Work, r. MichaelA. Minihan(Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press, 1967),29-31.3 Gorskov'srole in foreshadowingDevuskin's end has beennoted but neverexamined.See Vinogradov,"Skolasentimental'nogonaturalizma,"375-76;N. S. Trubetzkoy,Dostoevskijals Kunstler(TheHague:Mouton, 1964),33;DonaldFanger,Dostoevskyand Romantic Realism (Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press, 1965), 153,155.4 A detailed examination of the role of Pokrovskijappearsin my "OldPokrovskij:Technique and Meaning in a Character Foil in Dostoevskij'sPoorFolk,"which ispresently beingconsidered orpublication.5 Fyodor Dostoyevsky, ThreeGreatNovels, tr. Constance Garnett (New York:Dell,1960),247. All translations have been checkedwith theoriginalinPSS, I, 13-108andrevised when necessary.6 To Soviet critics, Gorskovis an uncomplicated igure in character and function.Intheir view, he is simply used to give us a morecomplete pictureof urbanpovertyduringthe reign ofNicholasthe First. See, forexample,V.I. Etov,Dostoevskij:OCerktvortestva(M.:Prosvesenie, 1968),67;G. M.Fridlender,"Primecanija,"n Dostoev-skij,PSS, I, 468.7 Devuskin, who is a strong defenderof Gorskov,writes Varen'ka that "in realityGorskov was guilty only of negligence, injudiciousnessand an unpardonabledis-regard of the interests of the government" 248). This statement cannot but raisedoubtsin ourminds aboutGorskov's ompleteinnocence,doubtswhichbecomeevenstrongerwhen we realizethat the wordsDevuskin uses areprobablynothis own,butGorskov's.In addition, one wonders how Gorskov,who lost his place seven yearsearlier, was able to manage so well for six and one-halfof those seven years. Oneisremindedof CiCikovwho lost his government obfordishonestybut still hadenoughmoneytocarryhimself overtill hehad occasion o find anothergovernmentposition.8 See, forexample,Devuskin's letterof5 September n which he ineffecttells Varen'kathat clothes do not makethe man. For an examinationof the theme ofreputationanddignity as they relate to Devuskin,see Terras,81-84.9 We know that Gorskov lost his jobseven years before the storybegins,but it seemsthat the family's plunge intopoverty s ofrelatively recentorigin.Infact,six monthsbefore his death, Gorskovpaidthe landladythree months rent in advance.


15/15

162 Slavic and East European Journal

10 This interpretation of Gorskov's death-death caused by the shock of good fortune-is advanced by Dominique Barlesi, La Vision sociale de Petersbourg chez Dostozevskides "Pauvres gens" a "Crime et Chdtiment" (Aix-en-Provence: La Pens6e universi-taire, 1961), 52; Fanger, 155.11 In fact the story of Gorskov's wife conforms, much more than Gorskov's own, to thepattern laid down by Pokrovskij, and later imitated by Devuskin. She has sufferedthrough the same misfortunes as her husband and her story until her husband'sdeath is essentially the same as his: that is, a long period over which both health andfortune decline. Thereupon follows great luck, the resolution of the suit in herhusband's favor, with its immediate monetary award and its promise of a newposition for Gorskov and a new life for her. As in Devuskin's case, after receivingthe money from his Excellency, the world seems to have been set right. But evensooner for her than either for Pokrovskij or Devuskin, tragedy strikes: her husbanddies, depriving her of the emotional and financial support necessary for survival incold, mercenary Petersburg. Like Devuskin and Pokrovskij, then, she too provides animportant foil to Gorskov.12 Russian fiction of the 1840's supplied its readers with numerous versions-with onlyslight variations-of Varen'ka's story. But few, if any, of Varen'ka's sisters ended astragically 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 briefdiscussion of the literary origins of Varen'ka, see Vinogradov, "Skola senti-mental'nogo naturalizma," 349-51.13 Gorskov in this regard looks forward to Marmeladov in Crime and Punishment.Marmeladov's death, which is presented as being not entirely accidental, may havebeen 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 atthe time of his "accident"-that his death will mean the ruin of the family, forKaterina Ivanovna cannot work, and the children will probably have to go the way ofSonja.14 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 amaware of, arguing that for Devuskin Varen'ka is most of all a pretext for writingletters in which he may develop his sentimental style. Though a close look at the lesspositive aspects of Devuskin's love is certainly in order, Neuhauser, it seems to me,has tipped the scale too far on the negative side.15 For the best discussion of the poetics of the Natural School, see Vinogradov, "Skolasentimental'nogo naturalizma;" also his Gogol' i natural'naja skola (L.: Obrazovanie,1925); A. G. Cejtlin, Povesti o bednom dinovnike Dostoevskogo: K istorii odnogosju2eta (M., 1923).16 Dostoevskij has often been praised for his original treatment of the einovnik, thetongue-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 transformingthis figure into a man possessed of and by an idea.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	iprod11
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Rosenshield - 1982 - Gorškov in Poor Folk An Analysis of an Early Dost

Documents