1. Frank, Joseph, Dosloevsky: The Seeds of Revolt (1821-1849) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 310.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Bern, A. L., “'Pikovaia dama’ v tvorchestve Dostoevskogo,” in Bern, A. L., ed., U istokov tvorchestva Dostoevskogo (Prague: Petropolis, 1936), 37–81 Google Scholar; Al'tman, M., “Videnie Germanna (Pushkin i Dostoevskii),” Slavia 9 (1930-31): 792–800.Google Scholar

3. For Hoffmann's influence see Passage, Charles E., Dostoevski the Adaptor: A Study in Dostoevski's Use of the “Tales of Hoffmann” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954), 14–37 Google Scholar; Tymms, Ralph, Doubles in Literary Psychology (Cambridge: Bowes, 1947), 103-7Google Scholar; Reber, N., Studien zum Motiv des Doppelgangers bei Dostoevski) und E. T. A. Hoffmann (Giessen: Schmitz, 1964).Google Scholar

4. For Gogol''s influence, see, for example, Vinogradov, V. V., “K morfologii natural'nogo stilia: Opyt lingvisticheskogo analiza poemy Dvoinik,” Izbrannye trudy (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 102-10Google Scholar; A. L. Bern, “'Nos’ i ‘Dvoinik,'” in Bern, ed., U istokov tvorchestva Dostoevskogo, 139-66; Mochulsky, Konstantin, Dostoevsky: His Life and Work, trans. Minihan, Michael A. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 46–48 Google Scholar; Shklovskii, V., “Dvoiniki i o ‘Dvoinike,'” Za i protiv: Zametki o Dostoevskom (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1957), 62–63 Google Scholar; Fridlender, G. M., “Primechaniia,” in Dostoevskii, F. M., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [hereafter *SS], ed. Bazanov, V. G. et al., 30 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972-91), 1:486-87Google Scholar; Frank, Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt, 298-300. Some critics received The Double with hostility (K. S. Aksakov, in particular) because they saw it as an uncreative, even slavish, imitation of Gogol'. For the contemporary reception of the work, see Fridlender, “Primechaniia,” 489-93. Vladimir Nabokov, archly, found The Double to be “the best thing he [Dostoevskii] ever wrote” and “a perfect work of art.” See his Lectures on Russian Literature, ed. Fredson Bowers (New York: Harcourt, 1981), 100, 104. For studies comparing Nabokov's treatment of the double—a favorite theme of Nabokov's—with Dostoevskii's in The Double, see Connolly, Julian W., “The Function of Literary Allusion in Nabokov's Despair,” Slavic and East European Journal 26, no. 3 (1982): 302-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Connolly, Julian W., “Madness and Doubling: From Dostoevsky's The Double to Nabokov's The Eye,” Russian Literature Triquarterly 24 (1991): 129-39.Google Scholar

5. For the generally positive image of the city before Pushkin, see Antsiferov, , Dusha Peterburga (Peterburg: Brokgauz-Efron, 1922), 45–62 Google Scholar; Lednicki, Waclaw, Pushkin's “Bronze Horseman“: The Story of a Masterpiece (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 43–51.Google Scholar

6. “Pushkin byl poslednim pevtsom svetloi Peterburga. S kazhdym godom vse mrachnee stanovitsia oblik severnoi stolitsy.” See Antsiferov, Dusha Peterburga, 73.

7. Phrases will be given in the nominative case. Otsel'grozit’ my budem shvedu (12); derzhavnoe techen'e (45); Rossiia snova torzhestvuet … likuet (80-83); voennaia stolitsa (75); znamena pobednye (72); pobeda nad vragom (79).

8. Mosty povisli nad vodami (36); pobezhdennaia stikhiia (87).

9. Krasa (22); Krasuisia, grad Petrov (84); odnoobraznaia krasivost’ (70).

10. V ikh stroino zyblemom stroiu (71); stroinyi vid (44).

11. Prostor (20).

12. Blesk bezlunnyi (49); prozrachnyi sumrak (49); svetla Iadmiralteiskaia igla (53-54); zolotye nebesa (56); zaria (57); blesk (63); plamen’ goluboi (66).

13. shum, i govor balov (63); grom (76); shipen'e penistykh bokalov (65).

14. Ozhivlennye berega (30); voinstvennaia zhivost’ (68).

15. The pathetic, lowly Finn (ubogii chukhonets, 8; pechal'nyipasynok prirody, 26) lives in black huts (cherneli izby, 7) and plies his wretched boat (bednyi cheln, 4) with his wornout net (vetkhii nevod, 29) along the low banks (nizkie berega, 27) of unknown waters (nevedomye vody, 28) and dark forests (iz t'my lesov, 23), impenetrable to the rays of the sun (les, nevedomyi lucham v tumane spriatannogo solntsa, 9-10).

16. Toporov, V. N., “Peterburg i peterburgskii tekst v russkoi literature,” in Moreva, Liubava, ed., Metafizika Peterburga (Petersburg: Eidos, 1993), 205-35.Google Scholar

17. For example, immortality/ephemerality, large/small, movement/stasis, will/fatalism, freedom/necessity, rebellion/acquiescence, state/individual, social/private, order/ chaos, cosmos/chaos, order/nature, man/nature, natural/artificial, natural/unnatural, creation/destruction, birth/death, pagan/Christian, Petersburg/Moscow, nobility/ people, tyrant/victim, center/periphery, land/water, future/past, reason/madness, East/ West, Russia/Europe, Russian/Finn, light/dark, dry/wet, empty/full, water/stone, land/ water, wind/stone, past/future.

18. The light that Toporov sees in Gogol''s and Dostoevskii's Petersburg texts is, in fact, not associated with salvation. For Gogol', the brilliance of Petersburg represents a superficial cover over profound evil; for Dostoevskii it represents, at best, false hope. Devushkin is deceived by the Petersburg spring—which the narrator in “White Nights” describes as a consumptive young girl—and Raskol'nikov must get as far away from Petersburg as posible (Siberia) to be saved. In “Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda,” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 8 (1984): 30-45, Iu. M. Lotman, also basing his positive assessment of Petersburg on the city's inherent semiotic oppositions, contrasts Peter's ideal of a monolithic imperial capital to the historical reality of Petersburg's socially and ethnically heterogeneous population, a variety (pestrota) that gave birth to an exceptionally intense intellectual and spiritual life, “a phenomenon unique in the history of civilization” (45). Similarly, G. D. Gachev (“Kosmos Dostoevskogo,” in Natsional'nye obrazy mira [Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1988], 386) asserts that neither Petersburg nor Rus’ constitutes the real Russia (Rossiia). Russia is a process, an unending dialogue between Petersburg and Rus'.

19. Fanger, Donald, Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism: A Study of Dostoevsky in Relation to Balzac, Dickens, and Gogol (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 184.Google Scholar

20. There is much myth about the myth of Petersburg. The idea of Petersburg as the most abstract city in the world has gained currency as almost the dominant topos of the Dostoevskian version of the myth. Although the Underground Man states that Petersburg is “the most abstract and intentional city in the whole world” (samyi otvlechennyi i ymyshlennyi gorod na vsem zemnom share, PSS, 5:101), few descriptions of Petersburg in Dostoevskii substantiate this claim. It is Belyi who picks up on the Underground Man's idea (with a little help from Tolstoi's Karenin) and integrates it into his novel about the city. Dostoevskii is far more apt to focus on the city's slums and phantasmagoric qualities. But even the phantasmagoric qualities of Petersburg, as Lotman shows (“Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda,” 35-40), were not the creations of Gogol’ or Dostoevskii (the canonizers of this idea), but the reworkings of longstanding popular stories and literary writings of the 1820s and 1830s—many by a group of writers (such as Odoevskii) close to Pushkin.

21. Dostoevskii unquestionably viewed Svidrigailov (the details of whose suicide recall The Bronze Horseman, see note 30) as an emblematic Petersburg creature who represented some of the worst aspects of Peter's legacy: strashneishaia raspushchennost’ nravov (PSS, 20:14).

22. This, of course, is Dostoevskii's reduction of the last lines of the first part of The Bronze Horseman.

23. For other derogatory references to the prorublennoe v Evropu okoshko in the Diary, see especially the second chapter of the June 1876 issue, entitled “Moi paradoks” (PSS, 23:38-42).

24. The text and pagination of The Bronze Horseman is from the edition prepared by N. V. Izmailov, A. S. Pushkin: Mednyi vsadnik (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973). Izmailov was also responsible for the text of The Bronze Horseman in volume five (1948) of the Academy edition.

25. Evgenii's troubles also begin after returning home from visiting: V to uremia iz gostei domoi I Prishel Evgenii molodoi (106-7).

26. As Antsiferov shows, water has always symbolized the principle of primordial darkness and chaos, often in the form of a sea monster. Water, then, becomes an appropriate symbol in both Pushkin's and Dostoevskii's texts, not only for nature's revolt against Peter's order, but also for the mental dissolution of the heroes. N. P. Antsiferov, ByV i mif Peterburga (Petrograd: Brokgauz-Efron, 1924), 57-60.

27. Dostoevsky, Fedor, The Short Novels of Dostoevsky, trans. Garnett, Constance (New York: Dial, 1945), 509.Google Scholar The passage continues for another eight lines to describe the weather: in particular, the howling of the wind and the rushing of the water. The English translations of The Double from the Garnett translation have been checked— and amended when necessary—with the Academy edition. The pagination from the English, followed by the Russian from the Academy edition, will appear in the text.

28. This is a clear literary echo. The narrator frequently uses uzhasnyi to describe Evgenii's experience. See lines 92 (uzhasnaia pora), 167 (uzhasnyi den’), 299 (vid uzhasnyi), 350 (uzhasnye potriaseniia), 353 (uzhasnye dumy), 390 (proshlyi uzhas), 413 (uzhasen on).

29. “The weather was awful: there was a thaw; snow was coming down and it was raining—just as at that unforgettable time when at that terrible midnight hour all the misfortunes of Mr. Goliadkin had begun” (596; 1:213).

30. The most important indirect reference in the later works of Dostoevskii to The Bronze Horseman is probably Svidrigailov's suicide in Crime and Punishment. Dostoevskii revised The Double while still working on Crime and Punishment. Before his suicide, Svidrigailov wanders around town on a night very much like the one described in The Double. It is July, but nevertheless the night is pitch black, rainy, cold, and damp, with a chilling and howling wind. The following description alluding to a possible flood precedes Svidrigailov's second nightmare. “Through the nocturnal gloom and darkness there resounded a cannon shot, then another. ‘Ah, the signal. The water is rising,’ he thought; ‘towards morning, it will pour out into the lower areas and streets, it will flood the basements and cellars, the sewer-rats will come up, and in the rain and the wind people will start, soaked and cursing, moving their rubbish to the upper floors'” (PSS, 6:392).

31. As he is carried off, in the end, to an insane asylum, Goliadkin, as we have seen, watches the doctor's fiery eyes flashing at him with malignant, hellish glee. One might—extravagantly—compare Goliadkin's vision here—seriously or parodically— with Evgenii's mad insight (proiasnilis’ mysli) into the cause of his unhappy fate, but in The Double, God and the Devil are as absent as Peter the Great.

32. Fanger, Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism, 162.

33. On the other hand, Pushkin subtitled his poema Peterburgskaia povesV'. Since the major parts of the poem are introduced as povestvovan'e (95) and rasskaz (96), the subtitle emphasizes the focus on Evgenii and the fact that Evgenii's story must be told in a different way than Peter's in the Introduction.

34. Gutsche, George (Moral Apostasy in Russian Literature [DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986], 31–35)Google Scholar has argued, from a moral perspective, for a less elevated Peter, who descends from his pedestal to the level of his insignificant subject, Evgenii.

35. Pushkin writes in a letter to Chaadaev (19 October 1836): “And Peter the Great, who in himself alone is universal history!” Thomas Shaw, J., ed., The Letters of Alexander Pushkin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 780.Google Scholar

36. Hegel's famous “slaughter-bench at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals have been victimized” ( Hegel, G. W. F., Reason in History: A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History, trans. Hartman, Robert S. [New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1953], 27 Google Scholar).

37. The only “Peter” in The Double is Goliadkin's drunken, untrustworthy, and mocking servant Petrushka. He is usually not around when Goliadkin wants him: Petrushki net. Goliadkin is parodically cast as the true child (son) of Peter: lakov Petrovich. It is, as Terras might say, another role in which Dostoevskii has cast Goliadkin, but a role which he is completely incapable of playing.

38. The Table of Ranks is, in fact, the only one of Peter's reforms that survived essentially intact to 1917.

39. Hegel, Reason in History, 43.

40. For a basically semiotic interpretation of The Bronze Horseman in terms of binary oppositions, see Svetlana Evdokimova, “'Mednyi vsadnik': Istoriia kak mif,” Russian, Croatian and Serbian, Czech and Slovak, Polish Literature 28, no. 4 (1990): 441-60.

41. Hegel, Reason in History, 12.

42. Lednicki, Pushkin's “Bronze Horseman,” 50.

43. Freud argues that the double in primitive thought is a guarantee of immortality, but in the course of civilization it came increasingly to represent death. Freud, Sigmund, “The ‘Uncanny,'” in Collected Papers, 5 vols. (New York: Basic, 1959), 4:386-91.Google Scholar

44. Fanger contrasts Gogof's mastery of the “comic grotesque” with Dostoevskii's mastery of the “tragic grotesque” (Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism, 253).

45. For an analysis of the role of the horse or steed in Russian literature, see Bethea, David, The Shape of Apocalypse in Modem Russian Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 44–61.Google Scholar

46. See Grigor'ev's remarks about the story in note 60.

47. For Belinskii's definitions of the poema and its distinction from other genres, see Belinskii, V. G., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 13 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1953-59), 6:414-15.Google Scholar

48. Gogol’ would probably have classified Dead Souls as an intermediary form between the epic and novel (men'shii rod epopei), in which the author employs a series of adventures to give an accurate and representative picture of the vices and foibles of an era. In citing Cervantes, Gogol’ points out that Don Quixote preserves its “lesser” epic form despite its lightness (legkost1), playful tone (shutlivyi ton), and prose narration. See Gogol', N. V., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 14 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1937-52) 8:478-79.Google Scholar

49. According to Belinskii (Polnoe sobranie sochinenii), the poema addresses only the most profound ideas and moral questions: “v noveishei poezii est’ osobyi rod eposa, kotoryi ne dopuskaet prozy zhizni, kotoryi skhvatyvaet tol'ko poeticheskie, ideal'nye momenty zhizni i soderzhanie kotorogo sostavliaiut glubochaishie mirosozertsaniia i nravstvennye voprosy chelovechestva. Etot rod eposa odin uderzhal za soboiu imia ‘poemy'” (415). “I epos novogo mira iavilsia preimushchestvenno v romane, kotorogo glavnoe otlichie ot drevneellinskogo eposa, krome khristianskikh i drugikh elementov noveishego mira, sostavliaet i proza zhizni, voshedshaia v ego soderzhanie i chuzhdaia drevneellinskomu eposu” (414).

50. The subtitles of Pushkin's and Gogol''s works show an experimentation with genre typical of literary romanticism. In his discussion of Evgenii Onegin, Čiževsky cites Pushkin's novel in verse as a paradigm of the “free” romantic poem, in which the very subtitle (roman) constitutes “a deliberate challenge to classical poetics (xv).” Pushkin, Alexander Sergeevich, Evgenij Onegin: A Novel in Verse, ed. Čiževsky, Dmitry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), xv–xx.Google Scholar For a discussion of Dead Souls as a mixed genre form, see Griffiths, Frederick T. and Rabinowitz, Stanley J., Novel Epics: Gogol, Dostoevsky and National Narrative (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1990), 60–95.Google Scholar

51. Fanger, Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism, 162.

52. See Nabokov's positive assessment of The Double in his Lectures on Russian Literature, 100, 104.

53. Here I shall be relying on the last chapters of the 1846 journal version of The Double, since Dostoevskii considerably toned down the theme of rebellion in the revised version of 1866. For the most complete description and analysis of the differences between the 1846 and 1866 versions of The Double, see Avanesov, R. I., “Dostoevskii v rabote nad Dvoinikom ,” in Piksanov, N. K., ed., Tvorcheskaia istoriia: Issledovaniia po russkoi literature (Moscow: Nikitinskie subbotniki, 1927), 154-91Google Scholar; Harden, Evelyn, “Translator's Introduction,” in Dostoevsky, Fyodor, “The Double“: Two Versions (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1985), xxvi-xxxi.Google Scholar After the critical failure of The Double became apparent to him, Dostoevskii contemplated a radical revision of the novel. In the early 1860s he made some notes for revision (see PSS, 1:432-36), but they did not enter the 1866 version. In fact, what Dostoevskii did, for various reasons—financial as well as artistic—was to abandon his ambitious plans of transforming the old novel (which he always believed contained one of his most original ideas), and instead merely made cuts in the original: first by eliminating repetitions (Belinskii criticized the novel as exasperatingly repetitious) and then by deleting as much as possible those ideas of rebellion, “freethinking,” and imposture (samozvanstvo) for which he already had envisioned other more appropriate novelistic forms. Most critics, like Avanesov, hold that the cuts that Dostoevskii made in the 1866 version harm the novel, and that the complete overhaul that Dostoevskii contemplated could never have been successfully achieved using the basic structure and characterization of the 1846 text. See, for example, Bern, “'Nos'” i ‘Dvoinike,'” 159-61; Leatherbarrow, W. J., “The Rag with Ambition: The Problem of Self-Will in Dostoevsky's ‘Bednyye lyudi’ and ‘Dvoinik,'” Modern Language Review 68 (1973): 616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kiraly, Gyula, “Kompozitsiia siuzheta romana Dvoinik: Prikliucheniia Gospodina Goliadkina,” Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11 (Budapest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, 1969), 239-56.Google Scholar

54. Perhaps the most notable exception is this regard is Richard Gregg's “The Nature of Nature and the Nature of Eugene in The Bronze Horseman,” Slavic and East European Journal 21, no. 2 (1977): 167-79.

55. For a different view of Evgenii's name, see Evdokimova, “'Mednyi vsadnik,'” 450. Evdokimova notes that Pushkin probably uses Evgenii's name ironically as “a semantic oxymoron.” She further argues that eighteenth-century Russian writers often used blagorodnyi ironically, applying it to characters who did not live up to their names. On the other hand, Evdokimova (450) tends to see all similarities between Peter and Evgenii as fundamentally parodic.

56. Pushkin may have empathized with his hero's situation because he saw it as a metaphor of his own in Russian society. On the other hand, though Evgenii may belong to the hereditary nobility, he seems far less concerned with the fate of his family line and class than was Pushkin. Pushkin, however, did not place family line or class over personal merit. For Pushkin's views on this matter, see Proffer, Carl R., ed., The Critical Prose of Alexander Pushkin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969), 118-20.Google Scholar

57. Dostoevskii's approach to Goliadkin has seemed to many even harsher in light of his sympathetic treatment of Devushkin, the hero of Poor Folk, his first novel. See, for example, Terras, Victor, “Problems of Human Existence in the Works of the Young Dostoevsky,” Slavic Review 23 (1964): 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirpotin, V. la., Molodoi Dostoevskii (Moscow: Gikhl, 1947), 243-45.Google Scholar On the other hand, The Double, like Poor Folk, also parodies the works of Gogol'—in this case, “The Nose,” itself a parody of the theme of the double. Dostoevskii reintroduces the seriousness of the theme—the double—that Gogol’ had made ridiculous.

58. Critics have viewed Dostoevskii's consistent maintenance of both a sympathetic and deprecating stance toward Goliadkin as highly problematic. Frank (Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt, 307) notes that “Dostoevsky's work of this period often contains a puzzling ambiguity of tone because a character is often shown simultaneously both as socially oppressed and yet as reprehensible and morally unsavory because he has surrendered too abjectly to the pressure of his environment.” The grotesque effect of this point of view is also discussed by N. S. Trubetzkoy, Dostoevskij als Künstler (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 49.

59. For Soviet critics who emphasize the disfiguring effects of the social environment on Goliadkin, see Ermilov, V. V., F. M. Dostoevskii (Moscow: Gikhl, 1956), 62–65 Google Scholar; Grossman, L., Dostoevskii (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 1962), 70–72 Google Scholar; Fridlender, G. M., Realizm Dostoevskogo (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 1962), 70–72 Google Scholar; Fridlender, G. M., Realizm Dostoevskogo (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), 68–81 Google Scholar; Evnin, F., “Ob odnoi istoriko-literaturnoi legende: Povest’ Dostoevskogo ‘Dvoinik,'” Russkaia literatura 7, no. 3 (1965): 3–26 Google Scholar; Vetlovskaia, V. E., “Sotsial'naia tema v pervykh proizvedeniiakh Dostoevskogo,” Russkaia literatura 3 (1984): 91–94.Google Scholar Many western critics also place a great deal of the blame for Goliadkin's situation on the social and political order in Russia under Nicholas I. See, for example, Girard, René, Dostoievski: Du double à I'unité (Paris: Plon, 1963), 52–53 Google Scholar; Neuhäuser, Rudolf, Das Frühwerk Dostojewskis, Literarische Tradition und gesellschaftliche Anspruch (Heidelberg: Winter, 1979), 163-75Google Scholar; Arban, Dominique, “Le statut de la folie dans les oeuvres de jeunesse de Dostoievski,” Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SSHA 14 (1981): 30 Google Scholar; Frank, Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt, 306-9.

60. Grigor'ev gave perhaps the most negative assessment of The Double. In an unpublished letter to Gogol’ of 17 November 1848, he describes the depressing effect that The Double had on his spirit. “As you read this monstrous work, you feel yourself devastated and thrilled as you merge with its absolutely insignificant hero. You come to feel sad that you are a human being and you become convinced that man could not be other than he is described here.” Quoted in Kirpotin, Molodoi Dostoevskii, 248. Goliadkin has repelled many Soviet critics as well. See, for example, Kirpotin, Molodoi Dostoevskii, 242-46; Ermilov, Dostoevskii, 70-71.

61. Terras, “Problems of Human Existence,” 84-85.

62. Vinogradov, “K morfologii,” 111-13; N. S. Trubetzkoy, Dostoevski als Künstler, 48-49; Terras, , The Young Dostoevsky (1846-1849) (The Hague: Mouton, 1969), 128-33.Google Scholar

63. Vinogradov, “K morfologii,” 113-40; Bakhtin, Mikhail, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, trans. Emerson, Caryl (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 211-27.Google Scholar

64. Terras, Young Dostoevsky, 206-31; Lomagina, M. F., “K voprosu o pozitsii avtora v Dvoinike Dostoevskogo,” Filologicheskie nauki 14, no. 5 (1971): 4–9.Google Scholar Space does not allow a detailed analysis of Dostoevskii's technique of transcribing consciousness. Basically, the narrative appears to be told by still another double of Goliadkin who has the feelings of Goliadkin Senior, but who, in contrast to Goliadkin Senior, can see through Goliadkin Junior's “treachery.” In order to preserve his “innocence,” Goliadkin Senior must pretend that he has no knowledge of Goliadkin Junior's designs until they are exposed. Alternatively, one might posit that the narration is a brilliant and unique example of erlebte Rede in which the narrator transcribes two different levels of Goliadkin's consciousness (and subconscious) simultaneously.

65. The subtitle for chapter 1 reads as follows: “How Titular Councilor Mr. Goliadkin woke up. How he fitted himself out and set off for where he was going. How Mr. Goliadkin justified himself in his own eyes and how later he came to the conclusion that it was better to act boldly, with an openness not devoid of nobility. How Goliadkin finally got to where he was going” (1:334).

66. Terras, Young Dostoevsky, 124.

67. Terras, Young Dostoevsky, 168-69.

68. Onasch, Konrad, Dostojewski als Verführer (Zürich: EVZ, 1961), 28–29.Google Scholar

69. Just as evaluations of Evgenii have varied, depending on one's view of Peter and his mission, so have views of Evgenii's madness. Some have seen his madness as mere paranoia. According to Gregg in “The Nature of Nature,” Evgenii is subject to “a fully paranoid obsession which in its final phase metamorphoses the illusion of persecution into the hallucination of actual physical pursuit…. For if the distinguishing trait of the insane mind is its inability to tell illusion from reality, and if a paranoiac is by definition someone who conjures up non-existent persecutors, does not a realistic (as opposed to a romantic) reading of the scene suggest that Eugene's accusation is not a revelation of some ‘higher reality’ (pace Merežkovskij, Lednicki), but a paranoid attempt to escape from reality? … May we not, in short, surmise that in the depths of his disordered mind there is the uneasy perception that to have blamed Peter for his misfortunes and to have sworn personal vengeance on Russia's greatest sovereign was reckless, vain, and absurd” (174-75). For those who have seen Evgenii's madness as a higher, elevating poetic vision see, for example, D. S. Merezhkovskii, Vechnye sputniki: Pushkin, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (St. Peterburg: Wol'f, 1911): 13:342-45. Merezhkovskii (344) speaks of the veshchii bred bezumtsa. Briusov, Valerii, Moi Pushkin: Stat'i, issledovaniia, nabliudeniia, ed. Piksanov, N. K. (Moscow: Gikhl, 1929), 78–80 Google Scholar; Lednicki, Pushkin's “Bronze Horseman” 82-84; Nepomnyashchy, Catharine Theimer, “The Poet, History and the Supernatural: A Note on Pushkin's ‘The Poet’ and The Bronze Horseman ,” in Mandelker, A., ed., The Supernatural in Slavic and Baltic Literatures: Essays in Honor of Victor Terras (Columbus: Slavica, 1988), 34–46.Google Scholar The extent to which Pushkin romanticizes Evgenii's madness becomes apparent when one looks at the gradual diminishment of Evgenii through the drafts. By first reducing Evgenii to the diametric opposite of Peter, Pushkin makes Evgenii's later elevation all the more dramatic.

70. As is well known, because of problems with the censorship, including the personal notations on the manuscript made by Nicholas himself, Pushkin did not publish The Bronze Horseman in his lifetime. The version that Zhukovskii published in Sovremennik in 1837 had significant changes and deletions in lines 430-38. For Pushkin's lines 434-38—from his own revised version of 1836, which, of course, differs from the 1833 version of the poem—(“I perst s ugrozoiu podniav/Shepnul, volnuem mysl'iu chernoi / ‘Dobro, stroitel’ chudotvornyi! / Uzhe tebe! … ‘ No vdrug stremglav … “ ), Zhukovskii substituted: “I perst svoi na nego podniav / Zadumalsia. No vdrug stremglav.” Pushkin's original lines (434-38) were restored in the 1857 Annenkov edition of Pushkin's works, with the exception of ellipses for “Uzhe tebe.” For the journal version of The Double, Dostoevskii had at his disposal the 1841 edition of The Bronze Horseman (which was based on the version published by Zhukovskii in Sovremennih in 1837). For the revised version of The Double (1866), he had at his disposal the Annenkov and later editions of The Bronze Horseman, in which lines 434-38 were restored with the exception of “Uzhe tebe.” Belinskii (Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Moscow: AN SSSR, 1955], 7:542) in his 1846 review of The Bronze Horseman emphasized that Evgenii's words addressed to the monument had obviously been left out (“nedostaet slov, obrashchennykh Evgeniem k monumentu“) and that those words obviously contained the idea of the poem. Izmailov argues that Belinskii's words indicate that he knew the original lines, either through friends at Sovremennik or through those who prepared the first posthumous edition of Pushkin's works in 1841. Although Dostoevskii and other literary figures close to Belinskii may also have known the original lines, it is clear even in Zhukovskii's edition that Evgenii threatened the statue. Dostoevskii could hardly have been less perceptive than Belinskii about the omitted lines (The Double appeared in print before Belinskii's analysis of The Bronze Horseman), assuming that Belinskii did not know what had been omitted. For the most complete discussion of the publishing history of The Bronze Horseman, see Izmailov, A. S. Pushkin, 227-42.

71. For Briusov (Moi Pushkin, 79) this is not so much a return to sanity as prozrenie.

72. Gregg, “The Nature of Nature,” 174-75.

73. Psychologists have often studied autoscopy, the hallucination that a mirror image of oneself exists outside the self. See Rogers, Robert A., Psychoanalytical Study of the Double in Literature (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), 14–15.Google Scholar

74. Nepomnyashchy, “Poet, History and the Supernatural,” 43.

75. Terras, Young Dostoevsky, 256.

76. Ibid., 183.

77. Noting the solemnity of tone and the Slavonicisms used to describe Evgenii's most dramatic encounter with Peter, Briusov (Moi Pushkin, 80) sees that some type of equation has been temporarily achieved: “Eto uzhe ne ‘nash geroi,’ kotoryi ‘zhivet v Kolomne, gde-to sluzhit'; eto sopernik ‘grozhogo tsaria,’ o kotorom dolzhno govorit’ ‘tern zhe iazykom, kak o Petre.'“

78. Merezhkovskii, Vechnye sputniki, 344.

79. Critics have argued that the poem is at least in part a thinly disguised commentary on the Decembrist uprising. See, for example, Blagoi, D. D., Sotsiologiia tvorchestva Pushkina: Etiudy (Moscow: Federatsiia, 1929), 308-28Google Scholar; Gutsche, Moral Apostasy, 37-42, 158-60.

80. To Merezhkovskii, it was Evgenii's open threat to Peter that opened up the floodgates that would eventually bring an end to the Petersburg period of Russian history. Some critics have seen the threat as serious enough to force Peter to descend from his pedestal to quash it, even if Evgenii only imagines Peter descending from his pedestal—or even if Pushkin only imagines Evgenii imagining it. See, for example, Bethea, David, “The Role of Eques in Pushkin's The Bronze Horseman ” in Bethea, David, ed., Puškin Today (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 117.Google Scholar

81. When Dostoevskii revised The Double in 1866, he had already become committed to the creation of more active, romantically conceived rebels. The foreboding notes and the figure of Germann in The Queen of Spades became the driving metaphors for his heroes and his depiction of Petersburg. In fact, Dostoevskii's notes for his revision of The Double reveal that he is no longer thinking of the meek Goliadkin, but rather of the proud Raskol'nikov. To transform, as Dostoevskii had planned, Goliadkin into an active revolutionary, a radical of the 1860s, involved more than revising the old story; it meant writing an entirely new novel.

82. For a negative evaluation of Evgenii's love for Parasha, see Evdokimova, ‘“Mednyi vsadnik,“’ 452.

83. In his plans for revision (PSS, 1:435), Dostoevskii describes the German woman as a lame, exceedingly poor woman who had once helped Goliadkin. V. N. Zakharov notes that the novel never really shows Goliadkin in love. See his “Zagadka ‘Dvoinika,'” Problemy izucheniia Dosloevskogo (Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 1978), 35.

84. In his notes for the revision of The Double (PSS, 1:432-36), Dostoevskii focuses on the relationship that should obtain between employees and their superiors (nachal'stvo). But as with many of these notes, they shed a great deal more light on Dostoevskii's projects of the 1860s than on the text of The Double. For an interpretation of these fragments, see Bem, “'Nos’ i ‘Dvoinik,'” 152-53. Imposture as rebellion is the subject of Boris Godunov, not The Bronze Horseman. For a discussion of samozvanstvo in Dostoevskii in terms of the demonic, see Harriet Murav, “Representations of the Demonic: Seventeenth-Century Pretenders and The Devils” Slavic and East European Journal 35, no. 1 (1991): 56-70. For an especially insightful examination of the question of samozvanstvo in Pushkin, see Emerson, Caryl, Boris Godunov: Transpositions of a Russian Theme (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 88–141.Google Scholar

85. From an ancient biblical point of view, God alone is king in Israel. This view makes suspect the claims of even “legitimate” kings. In the eighth century B.C.K., killing one's predecessor was the most common path of succession to the throne. See Seltzer, Robert M., Jewish People:Jewish Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 19–27.Google Scholar

86. Goliadkin's first name, Jacob (Iakov) further underscores the theme of imposture in The Double. In the Bible, Jacob, the younger brother, succeeds in usurping the position of his elder twin brother, Esau, by deceit, just as Goliadkin Junior usurps the position of Goliadkin Senior—at least in Goliadkin Senior's imagination. Esau calls attention to the importance of Jacob's name when he speaks to his father of Jacob's deception: “Was he, then, named Jacob that he might supplant me these two times? First he took away my birthright and now he has taken away my blessing” (Genesis 27:36). The Hebrew root aqab (supplant) is associated with the name Jacob. Whereas the Bible treats the succession to the leadership of all Israel with requisite seriousness, The Double presents as travesty Goliadkin's being passed over for a petty position in the tsarist bureaucracy. Moreover, Goliadkin Senior and Junior, in contrast to Esau and Jacob, are not reconciled in the end.

87. See also the ridiculous occurrences of Otrep'evy v nash vek nevozmozhny in Klara Olsuf'evna's letter (1:416), clearly the most important deletions. See also 1:167, 1:191, 1:196, 1:212, 1:217.

88. See Uspenskii, B. A., “Tsar and Pretender: Samozvanstvo or Royal Imposture in Russia as a Cultural-Historical Phenomenon,” trans. Budgen, David, in Lotman, Iu. and Uspenskii, B. A., The Semiotics of Russian Culture, ed. Shukman, Ann (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984), 263, 272.Google Scholar

89. Caryl Emerson's (Boris Godunov, 123-26) characterization of Dimitrii as a risktaker and adventurer, as a person who chooses to create himself—and thus a character rather dear in some ways to Pushkin's heart—highlights again the reductive and parodic nature of Dostoevskii's project with Goliadkin, whose greatest fear in life is imposture (samozvanstvo).

90. There is, of course, a critical approach to the poem that sees nature as the ultimate reality to which both Peter and Evgenii—and humankind in general—are subject. For the most detailed argument in favor of the primacy of nature in the poem, see Briggs, A. D., A Comparative Study of Pushkin's The Bronze Horseman, Nekrasov's Red- Nosed Frost, and Blok's The Twelve (Lewiston: Mellen, 1990).Google Scholar The visions of Petersburg presented at the end of Dostoevskii's “A Weak Heart” (1848), and later basically repeated in “Petersburg Dreams in Verse and Prose” (1861), represent some of the most brilliant examples of this position. The narrator of “A Weak Heart,” describing Petersburg transformed in the winter twilight, concludes: “It seemed as if that entire world, with all its inhabitants, the strong and the weak, with all their habitations, the shelters of the poor, or the gilded palaces, the comfort of the strong of this world, resembled at that twilight hour a fantastic, bewitching vision, like a dream that in its turn would vanish and evaporate into the dark blue sky” (2:49). On the other hand, scholars have often identified Evgenii with the river, in terms of revolt. See, for example, Borev, Iurii, Iskusstvo interpretatsii i otsenki: Opyt prochteniia “Mednogo vsadnika” (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1981), 382.Google Scholar Less common is the identification of Peter with the river (in terms of birth). See Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel, “The Couvade of Peter the Great: A Psychoanalytical Aspect of The Bronze Horseman ,” in Bethea, , ed., Puskin Today, 76–81.Google Scholar