7/28/2019 2500467

1/10

Dostoevskii in Siberia: Remembering the PastAuthor(s): Harriet MuravSource: Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Winter, 1991), pp. 858-866Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2500467Accessed: 10/12/2010 07:35

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=aaass.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage 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.

The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2500467?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2500467?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaass

7/28/2019 2500467

2/10

HARRIET MURAVDostoevskiinSiberia:RememberinghePastIn "MuzhikMarei," which ppearednthe ebruaryssueof Dnevnik isateliafor 876,FedorDostoevskii remembers" n experience rom is time n Siberia. DuringEasterweek thedrunkenarousing fhisfellow onvictswhich, e writes, tormented e nearly o the oint fillness""do bolezni sterzalomenia")haddriven iimut fthe arracksnto heyard. herehemet he olish risoner, iretskii, ho aid,"Jehais es brigands"22: 46).' Thesewords riveDostoevskii ight ackto theplace from hich, s he says,only ifteen inutes efore, e hadfled kak bezumnyi."In thebarracksostoevskii raduallyomposed imselfndfell nto reverie. e remem-beredhow as a nine-year-oldoy,playingnthewoodson his father'sstate,he had becometerriblyrightenedtthe ry Volkbezhit!"He hadrun nto hefield, vnesebia otispuga."The peasantMarei, who was plowing, omfortedimwithmaternalendernessDostoevskiidescribesMarei's "nezhnaiamaterinskaialybka" nd his "pochti henstvenniaiaezhnost',"(22:49).Notonly idMarei omforthenine-year-oldostoevskii, ut hememoryfhim roduceda remarkablehangen the wenty-nine-year-oldostoevskii, isgusted yhisfellow onvictsntheprison amp-or so thefifty-five-year-oldostoevskii ellsus. Whenhe ran utof thebar-racks, e hadbegun o hatehisfellow risoners,utnow,having ecalled ischildhood ncoun-terwith he easantMarei,hewascompletelyransformed.Vdrug, akim-tohudom,schezlasovsemvsiakaianenavist' zlobav serdtsemoem,"Dostoevskii eports22:49). Among heshaven, carred, nd branded onvicts nother areimaybe found.In an earlierwork, apiski z mertvogooma,writtenndpublishedn 1860and 1861,Dostoevskii ad addressedimilarmaterial utwith markedlyifferentmphasis. heepisodein questions entitledPretenziia" nd it is foundnearthe end ofthenovel. The narrator,Gorianchikov,rites hat ne ncident ore han ny ther orced im ounderstandhe xtenttowhichhis positionn the ampwas oneof"otchuzhdennost"'nd"osobennost"'4:199).The incidents set nsummer."MuzhikMarei," et us recall, s setduring asterweek,thetime fresurrection.)he convicts re specially loomynd ggravated.heygatherngroupstocomplain bout he ood nddecide omake grievanceothe ommandant.inally, heyineup in theyardto await his arrival.Gorianchikovoes out to join thembut is rebuffed."Zheleznyi os" someoneyells thim4:202). "Im [the obility]ezderai.Tutkatorga, onikalachi diat" 4:203). Gorianchikovriteshat ever efore ad he been so insulted. e re-treats romheyard ack o thekitchen, here he olish risoners,few tool igeons, heJewIsai Fomich, nd othermarginalnddespised igures avebeenwatching. orianchikov,is-mayed, oints uttoMiretskii,hePole,that side from these"practicallyveryonelsehasgoneout.Miretskii'snswer onsistsf thewordswealready now romMuzhikMarei": "Jehais ces brigands"4:204).In "MuzhikMarei" Dostoevskii'smiraculousransformationrows,ikea crystal,roundthesewords,which rivehimback nto hebarracks,romwhich e hadrun, horoughlyick-ened,only ifteen inutesefore,nd thesewords rivehimback ntohis ownpast-one thatdistinguishesim from he Pole and the Jew-to his childhood ncounter ith hepeasantMarei. n Zapiski, hesewords ail toserve s a pivotal oint; hey nlymakeGorianchikovrealize hat e cannever e comradeswith is fellow onvicts.n thememoryf hismeeting

1. All quotations re fromF.M. Dostoevskii,Poltnoe obranie sochitneniiitridtsati otnakl(Leningrad: auka,1972-).SlavicReview 0, no.4 (Winier 991)

7/28/2019 2500467

3/10

DostoevskiinSiberia 859withMarei,Dostoevskii ad ttainedomore han omradeship:nthe ender, aternalare hatMarei fferedim,Dostoevskiittainedosonship-sonshipwith he eople,withMother us-sia, withMother arth.

In "MuzhikMarei"and Zapiski zmertvogoomaanincidenthatmayormaynothaveoccurreduring he ime hat ostoevskiipentnSiberia s relatedntwo eeminglyadicallydifferentccounts.2Toattemptocome o terms ithhedifference,n thebasisof omenotionofthe acts,would emisguided,or everal easons. he psychologyfconversiona topic hatI willtouch pon ater)s one reason.More o the oint or ow sthe iteraryact hat Marei"is part fDnevnikisatelia,whichGary aul Morson ascharacterizeds a form f"thresholdart," designed o be interpretedccordingocontradictoryetsofconventions."'Amore roductiveoutemighteto explore he ifferenceetween he woworks ntermsofnarrativeheory,oncentratingot nly ncontent,ut lso onformaleatures,pecifically,those f thegenre fconfession. heproblematicature f Dostoevskii's se of this enre asbeenwell stablishedythe riticaliterature,ut monghe vailableworks f cholarshiphatofMikhail akhtinndRobinMiller s ofparticularignificanceo the exts wish oconsider.4In light f thisbody fcriticism willexamine he eeming isparityetweenhefirst ersonnarrativesfZapiski zmertvogooma ndof"MuzhikMarei.I willbeginwith akhtin'soetics f confession, hich ederivesmostly rom nanalysisofZapiski zpodpol'iaandofStavrogin'sonfessiono Tikhon nBesy.5 akhtinharacterizestheDostoevskianero's confessionalelf-utterance"s the nly orm fspeech hat ouldre-sist nexternal,inalizingefinition,iven y nother. hehero's peech bout imselfs essen-tially elf-protective.he heronever tters is astword bouthimself. e holds omethingnreserve, "loophole," s Bakhtin alls t, which llowsfor hepossibilityfalteringhe ulti-mate, inalmeaningfone'sownwords" Problems,33). The oophole akesnto ccount hepossibilityfanother'scontraryvaluation." henarratorfZapiski zpodpol'ia,theworkthat rovideshe learestxample fconfessionaliscourse,nows verythinge cansay bouthim nadvanceProblems,2).6As Bakhtin oints ut,thenarratorfZapiski zpodpol'ia doesnotwish o be known runderstoody anyone lse. He rejects he nlypersonwho oveshim, heprostituteiza, be-cause sheunderstandsim. "Ona poniala z vsegoetogo o,chto henshchinasegdaprezhdevsegopoimet . . chto a samneschtasliv"5:174). Tobeunderstoody anothersunbearableto thenarratorProblems, 53-254). He falls o the ofa n a fit fweepingndwillnot ift isheadto ook Liza in the ye.

2. Forother iscussions,ee,for xample,Geoffrey. Kabat, deology nd maginationiNew York:ColumbiaUniversityress,1978), 67-71. Joseph rank iscusses heproblemfconversionn his Dos-toevsky: he Yearsof Ordeal Princeton, ..': Princeton niversityress, 1983), 116-127. For RobertLouis Jackson, he rucial ngredientf Dostoevskii'siberian xperiences thedevelopmentf his artisticvision; ee his "The TripleVision: The PeasantMarei'," YaleReview Winter 978): 225-235.3. Gary aul Morson, heBoundariesfGenre:Dostoevsky'siaryof Writernd theTraditionsfLiterary topia Austin: niversityfTexasPress, 981),x. Citationso thisworkwillbe referredo n thetext y Boundaries nd page numbern parentheses.4. See also LeonidGrossman, The StylisticsfStavrogin'sonfession: Study ftheNew Chapterof ThePossessed," trans. atherine iernan 'Connor, n Critical ssavsonDostoevsky,d. RobinFeiierMiller Boston:G. K. Hall, 1986), 148- 158. Grossman'sssay originallyppeared s part fhisbook,Poetika ostoevskogoMoscow:Gos. akademiia hudozh. auk, 1925).5. The analysis s found n MikhailBakhtin, roblemnyoetiki ostoevskogoMoscow:Sovetskiipisatel',1963). All quotationsaken romMikhail akhtini,roblems fDostoevsky'soetics, d. andtrans.Caryl mersonMinneapolis: niversityfMinnesotaress, 984).Citationsothisworkwillbereferredointhe ext y Problems rid age numbern parentheses.6. BarbaraHiowardalls this he"Undergroundan'sblatantttemptso forestallisreader's riti-cisms,"which he understandss an exaggerationf a similar ut more ubtle rocess nJean-JacquesRousseau'sConfessions.ee "The Rhetoric f Confession: ostoevskij's otesfromUndergroundndRousseau'sConfessions,"n Miller, d., Critical ssayson Dostoevsky,4-73.

7/28/2019 2500467

4/10

860 SlavicReviewA similar onflictrames tavrogin'sonfession o Tikhon.Tikhon ooks at Stavrogin"s takimneozhidannymzagadochnym yrazheniemhtoon chut' ne vzdrognul"11:7).Stavroginecomes onvincednthis nstanthat ikhon nowswhyhe has come.After few

words fconversation,ilencedescends gain, o be broken y Stavrogin'sccusation: Haveyoubeenwatching e?" 11:8). Hebecomes utraged hen ikhon ays hat ehas discernedsimilarityetweentavrogin'seaturesndhismother's.ater,when tavroginellsTikhon hathe loves him, ndTikhon ightlynticipateshat his ove will become nger, tavrogin x-plodes: Slushaite, a ne iubliu hpionov psikhologov,okraineimere akikh,otorye moiudushu ezut" 1: I 1).Stavrogin'sonfession,s Bakhtinhows, s marked ythe ame"viciouscycle" that sfound nZapiski z podpol'ia. Stavroginoes notwant obeunderstoodnadvance yTikhon.Tobethe bject fTikhon's aze s unbearableohim. tavrogin ants ecognitionnd affirma-tion romnothererson, utherejects theother'sudgmentfhim" Problems,44). Hencehisconfession ecomes, s Tikhon ays,"gordelivyiyzov" 11:24).Bakhtin alorizes he onfessional ode nterms f"adequacy"orauthenticity,utthispositiveanguage s at oddswith henegative ormulationfthevicious ycle Problems, 52).Theconfessionaltterance,hethert s found ndialoguewith nother,s inthe xample fStavroginnd Tikhon,or in an extended irst-personarrative,s marked y opposition,struggle,nddistortion.heconsequenceftheoophole, rthewordwith sidelong lance, sthat hehero's elf-definitions renderednstable.The oophole rofoundlyistorts is ttitudetowards imself"Problems, 34).RobinMiller's escriptionfthe onfessional ode nDostoevskiis insomeways imilartoBakhtin's. ostoevskianonfessionsa "double-edgedorm,"hewrites.n a confession,he"narrator ayexpose, disguise, ustify,r lacerate imself" "Morality," 2).7But rarely srepentancechievedhereby.ecause of the onfessionalenre tself,heundergroundarrator"laysbarehisownvanitynd rresistibleeed to distort."Millerputs heproblemhisway:"Ideally, confessionouldregisterndconvey he onditionfthe nnerman, ut . . in real-ity, hevery ct ofmaking confession-thettemptoportrayne's nner eing-couldeasilyfalsifyrchange he ssentialdeathe uthorfthe onfession as nitiallyryingoexpress"("Morality," 7). Miller oesontosaythat ostoevskiiexposed ndparodied" he romanticand iteraryommonplacef the onfession," ymeans fwhich hero oughtodevelophisowndestiny.ostoevskiiltimatelyoughtorestorehe onfessiono ts original orm,hat fa confessionymanbefore od,andbefore he ollectivemanifestationfGodthat esidesnthe eople" "Morality," 7). Zapiski zpodpol'ia, accordingoMiller,s a parodyf romanticself-orientedonfession,pecifically,fRousseau'sConfessions.MuzhikMarei,"wemay ur-mise,would losely esemble he riginal orm fconfessionefore odand thepeople.Theessential ifferenceetweenMiller ndBakhtins the ostulationfthe inner eing,"which, orMiller, s true o itself eforepeech nd sdistortedyconfessionalpeech o an-other. orBakhtin,he nner eing nly xistsndialogue, hats, nself-utteranceddressed oanother. s CarylEmersonxplainsn a recentssayon theBakhtinircle,Bakhtinndhiscolleagues roceededrom he ssumptionhatmeaningsmade n a profoundlyocialway.ForBakhtin,elfhoods constitutednpart yotherness.8akhtin hus rovides model or nder-standingelf-descriptionddressedoanothers a positivemechanism,otwithstandingis an-guage f"distortion."elf-descriptionhatmasks rdistorts,hat llowsfor he ossibilityf nironic rparodisticurn,ffershepossibilityor limitlesspenness fthe elf.

7. All quotations rom obinFeuerMiller, Dostoevskynd Rousseau:TheMoralityfConfessionReconsidered,"nDostoevsky: ewPerspectives,d. Robert ouisJacksornEnglewood liffs, .J.:Pren-tice-Hall, 984), 82-97. Citations o thisworkwill be referredo nthe ext y "Morality" ndthepagenumbernparentheses.8. Caryl merson,The OuterWord nd nner peech:Bakhtin, ygotsky,nd he nternalizationfL.anguage,"n Bakhtin: ssays ndDialogueson His Work,d. Gary aulMorson Chicago:UniversityfChicagoPress,1986).

7/28/2019 2500467

5/10

DostoevskiinSiberia 861Bakhtin oes notdistinguishetweenonfessionaliscourse hat s addressed o another,beforewhom ne couldpossibly istortneself, ndconfessionaliscoursehat s not rientedtowards nother, nd hencewould be freefrom uch temptations,s Miller suggests. or

Bakhtin ll confessionalelf-utteranceustnecessarily e addressed oanother.Without n-other,here an be noself.Thispoint, s we haveust een, s part f set f ssumptionsharedby heBakhtin roup, ut temerges ith articularorce n Bakhtin's 961notes, ntitledTo-ward Reworkingf theDostoevsky ook." Bakhtin rote hat themostmportantctscon-stitutingelf-consciousnessre determinedy a relationshipowardnother onsciousness"(Problems, 87).9Whatmarks he onfessionaliscoursefZapiskizpodpol'iaandStavrogin'sonfessionoTikhon nd renders hem othnauthentic,s Bakhtin,ike Miller, hows, s not hat hey readdressedo another,ut hatheyre ddressed othe ategorizing,rmonologizing,lance fthe ther."?akhtin,tshould enoted, oints ut hat tavrogin isunderstandsikhon n thisregard.The confessions f theundergroundarratornd Stavrogin re utteredn a registermarked y conflict, here perceivedhreatf finalization,f violence xists,where he"false" and"externalizing"ord s already nticipatedndbecomes art f themask.In the1961notes,however, akhtinmaginesnothermodel f confessionaliscoursenwhich he lement f conflictsmitigatednd we arrive t "a meetingnd nteractionetweenthe thers' nd one's owneyes, nd ntersectionf worldviews . . anintersectionf twocon-sciousnesses"Problems, 89). In what eems o be a vision futopia,Bakhtin escribes adialogicconcordance funmergedwosormultiples"Bakhtin'smphasis, roblems, 89).The boundaries fthe elf xpand, I cannotmanagewithoutnother,cannot ecomemyselfwithoutnother; must indmyselfnanotheryfindingnothernmyself"Problems, 87).The lastremainderf the elf mergesndiscourse hat s "an encounterf thedeepest withanothernd with therswith he olk)" Problems, 94).Miller's ormulationf"original,acramentalonfession"efore od orbefore hemani-festationfGod nthepeople,bymeans fwhich he ndividuals reunited ith therndividu-als, draws ttentiono some spects fthe rocess hat akhtin escribes. akhtin'sndMiller'sreadingsfDostoevskii,aken ogether,eveal model ccordingo which onfessions alwaysother-orientedutmayeither e marked yconflict, esultingn an open-ended,r unstableidentity,rharmonious,esultingnsomekind frecoveryf self.Let mepoint ut,however,thatwhat have drawn rom akhtin nd Miller ntheformulationf this ynthetic odel sprovisionalnd needs o be testednapplicationospecificexts. norder o do so, I will nowreturno thedifferencesetween apiski zmertvogooma nd "MuzhikMarei."Let us firstookmore losely tZapiski zmertvogooma.As Morson assuggested,hereareproceduralimilaritiesetween apiski zpodpol'iaandZapiski z mertvogooma.Bothworks eature narratorwhosedisfiguredersonalityeflectshedisintegrationf Russian o-ciety" nd who "creates ot finished ork ut notes'andfragments"Boundaries, 0-11).Bothworks ely n a framingevice nwhich fictiveditor rovidesomekind f closure ndorganizationorwhatwould therwisee an ncoherent,r, nthe ase ofZapiski zpodpol'ia,an endlessmanuscript.Inthe ntroductionoZapiski zmertvogooma, he ictiveditor escribes owhe cametobeacquainted ithGorianchikov,hewriterfthe apiski,whohad erved ime or hemurderof his wife.The "editor" describes owhe repeatedlyorced iscompany n theunhappyGorianchikov,hose ole aim n ife, t eemed,was to hidefromocietys completelys pos-sible 4:7). The fictiveditor escribes ow, ponGorianchikov'seath, e bribed isway nto

9. All quotationsre takenfrom merson'sranslation,hich ppears n Problems, ppendix ,283-302. "Toward ReworkingftheDostoevsky ook" was first ublishedn1976.10. Emerson oints othedifficultiesnherentn dentityhat epends n another.ven hewords eftover, aved or he elf, must nturnefinalizedrom ithoutnorder o achieve ny tabilityfdefinition,anybiographical alidity" See Emerson, ProblemswithBakhtini'soetics,"Slavic and East EuropeanJournal2 [Winter 988]: 503-525.)

7/28/2019 2500467

6/10

862 SlavicReviewthedead man's oom, nd discovered notebook.whichwasperhaps orgottenythe uthorhimself." Eto byloopisanie, hotia bessviaznoe, esiatiletneiatorzhnoihizni, ynesennoiAleksandrometrovichem.estami toopisanie reryvalos'akoiu-torygoiu ovest'iu, a-kimi-totrannymi,zhasnymiospominaniiami,abrosannymierovno,udorozhno,akbudtopokakomu-torinuzhdeniiu.a neskol'ko azperechityvalti tryvkipochti bedilsia,hto nipisany sumasshestvii"4:8). Theprison otes,ncontrast,ave omegeneralnterest,nd heis selectingwoor three ections or ublication.ThediscoveryfGorianchikov,fhisexistence,nd ofhiswritings,s representedsviolent truggleetween he ictiveditor ndGorianchikov.he editor ays hat n conversationGorianchikovcted s ifhewere ryingopenetratehemeaningfeveryword, kakbudto yvoprosam ashim . . khotite ypytat' negokakuiu-nibud'ainu" 4:6). At anothermeeting,the ditor eports, orianchikovcts s if"ia poimal gonakakom-nibud'restuplenii"4:7).The editormpahsizes orianchikov'salevolentazeanddescribes owGorianchikovollowshim with his eyes, staring t him intentlynd "stranno."The editor ries to "tempt"Gorianchikovith ew, ncut ooks ndmagazinesutwith osuccess "ia chut'ne azdraznilego novymi nigami hurnalimi,":7). A conflictarried ut nthe evelofspiteful lances-the anguage f crime, ecrecy, xortion,emptation-pointso the ameagonisticshatmarkthediscourse f thenarratornZapiski zpodpol'iaand the ceneof Stavrogin'sonfessionoTikhon.This struggles a turningf the ables.ThroughoutheZapiski zmerlvogoomathenar-ratorGorianchikovries omake he onvicts eveal heirecrets o him,but hey efuse. herelatedmotifs f fragmentationndreluctantisclosure,erentroduced,ominatehenovel sa whole. Near the ndofhisterm,Gorianchikovains ccess to books and ournals hathadpreviouslyeen unavailable ohim,but no matter ow hardhe tries o penetrateheir nnermeaning,o discovernthem nameki aprezhnee"4:229), he s unsuccessful,nd s forcedto admit hat e s "chuzhoi novoi hizni" 4:229), completelyut ff romt.The ast ines fthenovel ing ut-"Svoboda, novaia hizn',voskresen'ezmertvykh"but the mplied es-urrections beliedbythe ntroduction.Gorianchikovescends nto he house ofthedead" withoutver ompletingheupwardjourney. e never peaks f his crime nd neverpeaks frepentingt. Thispeculiar ilence sreflectedy all his fellow onvicts,nwhomGorianchikovever aw "ni maleishego riznakaraskaianiia"4:15). Gorianchikovoes notportrayimselfs a criminalmong riminals,rather,isnarrativetancenregard othe ther onvictssmore ike hat f visitingnthropol-ogist,whose ffortstsystematizingisknowledgef theforeignulture ontained ithinhe"houseof he ead"constantlyreaks own. Vot ateper' ilius'podvesti es' nash strog odrazriady; o vozmozhno i eto? Deistvitel'nost' eskonechno aznoobrazna ravnitel'no ovsemi, azhe samymihitreishimiyvodamitvlechennoiysli" 4:197).InZapiski zMertvogo oma, hehero's irsterson iscoursesrepresenteds anagonisticstrugglen which he peakernd his nterlocutoreek omonologizeach other. orianchikovseeks ocategorize isfellowonvicts,nd he ditor eeks owrest orianchikov'secrets romhim.Gorianchikov'sffortso retain isownword orhimself,isrefusalomeetwith he di-tor, ndhismalevolentazeall come onaught. heeditor tealsGorianchikov'sotebooksndpublishes n edited,cleanedup, and hence mutilatedersion f the notebooks' ontents.Bakhtin'smodel uggestshat elf-description,ith ts"loopholes"and "sidelongglances,"succeeds nfreeinghehero romnother'sxternal, inalizingescription.he ntroductionoZapiski zMertvogo oma,which eveals hehero'shelplessness,uggestsome imitationsoBakhtin'serhaps verly ptimistic odel.I have uggestedhat MuzhikMarei"correspondso a revised ormulationiftheutopianform fconfession,eaturesfwhich refound n both akhtin'sndMiller's escriptions.he

11. For discussion f the ntroductionoZapiski ttertvogooma hat eaches imilar onclusions,see Robert ouis Jackson,The NarratornHouse of he ead," in dem, heArt fDostoevskv: eliriumsand NocturtnesPrinceton,.J.:Princeton niversityress,1981),33-70.

7/28/2019 2500467

7/10

DostoevskiinSiberia 863letter hat ostoevskii rote o thisbrother ikhail n 1849, as he left etersburgor iberia,will demonstrateow thisprocessworks.Dostoevskii escribes hismove, hisgoing o thepeople, as it were, s decapitation:Ta golova,kotoraiaozdavala, hilavyssheiu hizniiuiskusstva, otoraia oznala svyklas' vozvyshennymiotrebnostiamiukha, a golova uzhesrezana plechmoikh" 28:162). The imageof decapitationrdismemberings repeated nanotherettero hisbrother, rittenn 1854,when ostoevskii as ust merged rom rison. nthis etter ostoevskii ompares escribingisexperiencemong he onvicts o a repetition,fsorts, fthe ld wound. he crucialine ranslatess "How can convey o you verythinghatis going n inmyhead?" More iterally,ndcloser o theRussian, t would ead: "How canhandyoumyhead" (kakperedat' olovu) 28:167). Dostoevskiiays hat t wouldbe "impos-sible" for im odescribe verythinge ived hroughnd hat fwhich e came obe convinced.Onfirstxamination,MuzhikMarei" would eem o healthewound. he Dostoevskiif"Marei" is a Dostoevskii ememberedoth iterallynd metaphorically.ostoevskii, he e-veredmember f society,s re-memberedothepeople nd n so doing s rememberedo him-self, o to speak. n religiousanguage, e becomes memberfthat odywhosehead s Christ.The imagery f decapitationnd dismemberingecomes magery f rememberingnd rebirth.Thegreatest ossible oss s translatednto hegreatestossible ain.The double ememberings accomplishedythework fmemory,hich semphasized ythenarrativetructuref"Marei." Dostoevskii eginswithwhat appened o him t the ge ofnine nd then nterruptsimselfn order o embed hatnarrativen his account f himself ttwenty-nine.he Dostoevskiif 1876 recalls o himself heDostoevskii f 1851recalling ohimselfheDostoevskii f 1831.All of this ememberings the esult fnothingther han self-inflictedepetitionf theold wound f 1849, he ecapitationfbeing ent oSiberia.Dostoevskiiendshimself ack ntothebarracks nd "handsoverhis head," so to speak,by surrenderingis volition. e enterspassive,dreamliketate, uring hich heremembrancef Marei omes ohim f tsown ac-cord. nthe 1861 novel, henarratorsrepresenteds attemptingo ointhe onvictsnly o berebuffedy them.Only n "Marei" does Dostoevskii epresentimselfs theonewhoturnedaway,whichmaybe seen s a confessionfguilt.Inrememberingarei,Dostoevskii igurativelye-membersimselfothepeople roundhim.Among he carrednd branded acesofhisfellow onvicts ouldbe anotherMarei, n-otherwhose on Dostoevskii ouldpossibly e. In this rocess frecalling imselfohimselfDostoevskii ains onsciousnessf whathealwayswas-the son ofMarei-but had never e-fore nown.He wasalways oined o thepeoplebutwasnot lwaysoined o himself. hispartofhimself as notpresentohim nd nrepresentingt tohimselfn hismemoryt s as if heexperiences sudden hange, omethingew."Vdrug,kakim-tohudom, schezlasovsemvsiakaianenavist' zloba v serdtsemoem" 22:49).In "MuzhikMarei" therepresentationfthevolitionless-hence,nnocent-andmirac-ulouswork fmemorys beliedbya self-consciousnd masterfulssimilationf therhetoricandconcepts fthereligious xperiencefconversion:he enseofdisunityvercome,he c-tion fmemory,hepassivity,nd senseof thenew.'2 ostoevskii as learned o tell he torythat e hadpreviouslyeenunable otell: s heput t n1873, he toryfthe regeneration"fhis convictions."MuzhikMarei"might e understoodo fit he econd ategoryf our confessionaly-pology s we havedefinedt,namelys an -thou tteranceithoutonflict, asking,rdistor-tion, ymeans f which he peakersrestoredohimselfndtohispeople.A closer eadingf"Marei"andof ts ontext, owever, ill eveal hathe roblemshatntrudepon he irstype

12. For these s characteristicsf the xperiencefconversion,eeWilliamJames, heVarietiesfReligious xperienceNew York:Random.,902), ectures and10: 186--254. or discussionf thewaythat eligiousxperiencemay econstitutedy oncepts, eliefs,ndpractices,ee Wayne roudfoot,eli-giousExperienceBerkeley: niversityfCaliforniaress, 985),75-118 and184-189. Joseph ranklsodiscusses heproblemf conversionn hisDostoevXsky:heYears ofOrdeal,116-118.

7/28/2019 2500467

8/10

864 SlavicReviewofconfessionaliscourse lsewherenDostoevskii,est xemplifiedyZapiski zpodpol'ia,arealso tobefound ere.ForBakhtinheuse ofparody r ronynZapiski zpodpol'ia serves s a"loophole"for henarrator.orMiller he se ofparodys atthe ervice fDostoevskii'seiledpolemicwith ousseau.'3 I would ike o add toMiller's iscussion y howing owDostoevskiiis no ess ntenselynvolved ith ean-JacquesousseaunhisDnevnik isatelia, pecifically,nthe ections ramingMarei." The presence f Rousseaumakes roblematicuI-categorizationof "Marei" within he econd ype f dealconfession.Dostoevskii's elation o Rousseauneeds o be describednsomewhat roader erms.Al-though ostoevskiiwas a synthetichinker,ertain eaturesf hiscomplex nd contradictoryideological ysteman bestbe understoods derivativerom ousseau, specially is emphasisonsympathy,he hief resocial irtue escribedyRousseaun hisDiscourse n theOrigin fInequality. rpadKovacsmakes convincingasethatn diot,PrinceMyshkin'sdyllic aleofhiscompassionateovefor he wisspeasant irlMarie, ndthe ittleocietyfchildrenhat ecreates round er, s basedon "Rousseau's onceptf man."Accordingo Kovacs,Myshkin'sstorydealizes"theprinciplefthepremoral urityfman,his inherentnnocence nd the'naturalaw' ofcompassion."4 Kovacs rgueshatompassionsthe asisof he olitical topiathatMyshkin escribes efore he aristocraticatheringt theEpanchins', t the endof thenovel.Myshkinxhorts is istenersobecome ervantsn order o be leaders.His speech ndswith he dea ofhappiness:I neuzheli samomnele mozhno yt'neschastnyi?. . Znaete, ane ponimaiu, akmozhno rokhodit' imo ereva ne byt' chastlivym,hto idish' go? . . .Posmotritearebenka . . posmotriteatravku,akonarastet, osmotriteglaza, kotoryeavas smotriatvas liubiat" 8:459).Myshkin'sirade,fcourse, lsocontains lementshat redistinctlynti-Rousseauian,n-cludinghe dea oftheRussianGodandtheRussian hrist s the asisfor niversal enewal.nthenotebookso thenovel, ompassionndChristianityreequated 9:270). Elsewhere osto-evskii peaks ndisparagingermsboutwhathedescribesnPodrostok s the "zhenevskieidei-eto dobrodetel' ez Khrista"13:173). InthenotebooksoPrestuplenienakazanie, orexample,we find he ines:"Chelovekne roditsia lia schast'ia.Chelovek asluzhivaetvoeschast'e, vsegda tradaniern"7: 155). Yet n the amenotebooks, askol'nikovpeaksof agolden ge in terms hat re similarothose f PrinceMyshkin.n a letterwrittenn 1871,Dostoevskiiaysthat thedream frecreatingheworld newbymeans f reason ndexperi-ence" is "all Rousseau,"andthatRousseau'sdefinitionfhappinesss nothingmore han"fantasy."Clearly, ostoevskii's elationo Rousseau s ambivalent.'6A similar ort f"proandcon-tra"withregard o Rousseaucan be found n theJanuaryndFebruaryssues of Dnevnikpisateliafor1876,theframe or MuzhikMarei." nthefirsthapterf theJanuaryssue,en-titled Zolotoi vekvkarmane,"hena-ratorinds imselfta children'sall. The narratord-dresses he retentiousarentsf he hildrenntermseminisceintfPrinceMyshkin. e pleads

13. Anotherayer fcomplexityxists n this nd other nstances iscussed y Miller,nainely hequestionf whetherheheroknows hat isutterancesreparodic ndwhat ffecthat nowledger ackofit has on thehero's haracterizationnd on theparody tself. he undergroundarratornowinglyefersoRousseau,but n anothernstancehatMillerdescribes Ferdysheilko'sonfessionn Idiot)Ferdyshenkodoesnot eem oknow hat is hefts a literarylagiarismrom ousseau's onfessions.or discussionfthisproblem,ee MichaelAndr6 ernstein,WhentheCarnival urnsBitter"nBakhltin,d. Morson,103- 105.14. See ArpadKovacs,"The Poetics f The diot: On theProblenmfDostoevsky'shinkingboutGenre" n Critical ssaysonDostoevsky,d. Miller, 16-126. Citationn 120.15. The letterwas writtenoA. N. Strakhov. ee F. M. Dostoevskii, is'ma, ed. A. S. Dolinin(Moscow-Leningrad:osudarstvennoezdatel'stvo,930) 2:363. ForDolinin's iscussionf Rousseau ndDostoevskii,ee 510-511. Dolinin elates ostoevskii's se of paradoxnDnevnik isatelia o Rousseau.16. Iu. M. Lotman peaksofDostoevskii's simultaneousttractionndrepulsion." ee Lotman,"Russo i russkaia ul'tura VIII-nachalaXIX veka" inZan-ZakRusso,TraktatyMoscow: 1969),603.

7/28/2019 2500467

9/10

Dostoevskiin Siberia 865with hem o look nside hemselves,o theymight iscoverhat ach andevery ne of themis (22: 12):

yMHeeBoJIbTepa, yBCTBHTejibHee Pycco, HecpaBHeHHO o6oJIbCTHTeJIbHee Ji-KHBHaXIa, LJOH-)KyaHa. . . Ho 6ega Bama B TOM, 'TO BbI camH He 3HaeTe KaK BbInpeKpaCHbl!3HaeTeAll, TITO iaKe KaAKbIf4 H3 Bac, eciiH 6 TOJIbKO 3aXOTeIi, TO ceH-Tiac 6bI Mor OCqaCTJIHBLgTb BceX B 3T014 3aIie. . . . H HeyKeIIH, HeyAeKJH 30J10T014BeKH cyi4eCTByeT JIH4IHbHa OaHHX 4ap4?OpOBbIX qaIHKax?The ist fEuropean iguress a more omplicatedit frhetoricaltrategyhanmight p-pear t first. heEuropeansrefalse mages fthevirtueshat heRussians rulyossess. Theordinary ussian s more ensitivehanRousseau, uthe acks elf-awareness.ousseau's en-sitivitys superficial,ut heRussian's ensitivityelongs o his nnermostature,fonlyhecoulddiscovert. DostoevskiihetoricallyssociatesRousseauwithwhat s false ndexterior.Yet hegolden gewhichhenarratornvisions,asedon a rediscoveryfthe nnateualities fsincerity,imple-heartedness,nd heerfulnesseems o resemble ousseau's oncept fnaturalgoodness.7Let us turn o thesection hatmmediatelyrecedes Marei," namely, ebruary 867,chapter ne, section wo,entitled,O liubvik narodu.Neobkhodimyiontraktnarodom."Thisheadingmighterywell llude o the itle f one of Rousseau'smost amous oliticalwrit-ings,The Social Contract. he "contract" hat ostoevskiinvisionss one in which he du-cated lasses would ook to thepeople,not s theyrenow, coarse nd gnorant,"ut s theymight ecome, udging rom heir istoricaldeals of SergeiofRadonezh, heodosius, ndTikhon fZadonsk, nd thepeople,for heir art, ot nasprinialmnogoe z togo,chtomyprinesli soboi"-that is, we can surmise,heirwesternization.he narratorontinues ne

mozhem hemy ovsem ered im nichtozhit'sia"22:45).Now let us consider he secondpartof theframe, heFebruary haptershatfollow"MuzhikMarei."Thesechaptersre devoted o a discussion f a trial, heKroneburgase, inwhich he ccusedwascharged ith torturing"ischild,whowasalleged o have tolen jarofprunes. he narratorsoutragedhat hedefenseawyeruggestedhat he hildwas n somesort fconspiracy ith he ervant. he childhadbeenbrought pinGeneva ndspokeonlyFrench. heservant,herefore,ouldnotunderstander.Theservantookpity nher, poliu-bila eprostozzhalosti,z simpatiiditiati,otoraiaak voistvennaashemurostomuarodu"(22: 62). Thesympathyhat omesbeforepeech xtendedya serving oman oa child romSwitzerlands the ameRousseauiandyll hatMyshkinreates or is istenersn diot.A similar et of Rousseauian lements anbe discernedn"MuzhikMarei."Dostoevskiithe hild, he resocial eing, ncountersarei, henaturallyirtuous an, lowinghe arthna solitary ield,who takespity n him.With hewritingf"MuzhikMarei,"Dostoevskii e-members imselfotheRussian eoplewithouteveringimselfromurope.Wemay skwhatDostoevskii opestoaccomplish y ntroducingousseau nto he ceneofhis Russian hild-hood.By nvokingousseau, ostoevskiinflictshe ldwound,na sense.The "head" withtswesternizediews s severed romheRussian ody.Thiswoundingught ot o beunderstoodas theresult f sometextual perationarried ut without ostoevskii's nowledge. he re-course oRousseaumightmore lausibly e seenas a wayofforgingn alliancewith he du-cated, pper-classeader f heDnevnik. ostoevskii ants s to seethat eturningothe eople(thetheme f thefirst wochaptersf theFebruaryssue) does notnecessarilymeanturningone'sbackonEurope. heRousseauianmotifsonot nderminehe ontentfthe onfession-lovefor heRussian eople-butrather ake tmore ppealingothose owhom t saddressed.

17. Jacques atteau asobserved hat hegolden ge representedn"Son smeshnogoheloveka" ismuch loser oRousseau han o theGarden fEden."See hisDostoevsky,nd the rocess fLiter ryCrea-tion, rans.Audrey ittlewoodCambridge: ambridge niversityress, 989), 376-377.

7/28/2019 2500467

10/10

866 SlavicReview"Marei" is a depiction f a confession ddressed ot to Siberian onvicts nd not to the"people" but o the eading udience f Dnievnikisatelia n 1876."Marei" elidesthe ategorieshatwe atteimipto mpose pon t. n it we find eaturesfconflictualonfession, amely,elf-concealment:he playfulttitudehat henarratorakeswith espect o the eaderwhatMorson allsthe metaliteraryevices") s characteristicf theDnevnik s a whole nd uspends eneric istinctions.n"Marei,"a piecethat eclares tself obe an autobiographicalreminiscence,"henarTatorbserves hat ehaswritteno little bouthis life n prison hatmanypeople think e was sent here or hemurder f his wife, ikeGorianchikov,he hero of his novelZapiski z mertvogooma. In linking he novelwith"Marei," the lleged utobiography,henarrator akes he utobiographicaltatus f the atterproblematic.s the narratoreallyDostoevskii?he samesoItof "loophole," only nmilderform,marks he onfessionfZapiski zpodpol'ia, n whichwe never nowwhothenarratorsand disclosures a form f self-concealment.Atthe ametime,we also findn"Marei" featuresf harmoniousonfession,hats, therecovery f the elf n theother,hepeople,or at east, hedepictionf such recovery.heloophole hatwe havediscussed eednotbeunderstoods anantagonisticesture,ut ne thatprovideshe pportunityor henarratorf Dnevnik isatelia o makehimselfnew, obe nei-ther reactionaryor rebel, ndto save his astword boutRussiafor omefutureime.Thatvery ombinationf motifs hatmay at firsteem, fnotduplicitous,hen elf-deceptive-Rousseau nd thedirt-smearedingerf theRussianpeasantMarei-may instead e seen toprovide model or ostoevskii'seadingudience. utof hat ombinationfEurope ndRus-sia, somethingewmayoccur.The readermayrepeat heprocess hat ostoevskiiepresenitshimselfs having nacted.