‘5 WillWIWW]lflfl'vififliflllfl'lilfllflfil h. 3 1293 00695 2448 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled "Dialogues in Dostoevskij's Prestuplenie i nakazanie and Brat'ja Karamazovy: An Evaluation of Baxtin's Polyphony" presented by Curt M. Whitcomb has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Slavic Languages Ph.D. degree in and Literatures 7 Wécm-L-Lméwé 5/ Major rofessor x,“ .. (f/ ,-. 1". ‘(." ,--» -. {j , — n Date/(7 — z z, / (/5 ( ' K. .r 7— MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES .-_. ~ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiil be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. .6EP u o 193% '4- T7aw 9'3 DIALOGUBS IN DOSTOBVSKIJ'S W AND W: AN EVALUATION OF BAXT IN 'S POLYPHONY By Curt Marshall Whitcomb A DISSERTATION . . Submitted to . .Michigan State University m partial fulfillment of the requnrements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of L' uistics, Germanic, Slavic. Asian and rican Languages 1987 ‘ figfiithEALL WH ITCOMB ABSTRACT DIALOGUES IN DOSTOEVSKIJ'S W AND W AN EVALUATION OF BAXTIN'S POLYPHONY by Curt Marshall Whitcomb The dissertation analyzes the polyphonic relationships in W Mannie and M. It defines narrators and primary characters. who have one or more voices which denote specific attitudes without being defined linguistically. sociologically. or psychoanalytically. These voices manifest themselves as contrasts and contradictions. but not as ”moods." The dissertation identifies five voices for each narrator. Dostoevskii reveals crucial developments not through mere narrators, but through characters who themselves “narrate" and “author.“ thereby increasing the power of their voices and motivating their direct and sustained expression of ideas. The characters‘ voices penetrate narration through indirect quotations, quasi-direct discourses. and "character zones." ln quasi-direct discourses the narrators yield to the tone and texture of the characters‘ voices while formally retaining control of their speech. "Character zones" represent the characters' "unauthorized" entries into narration. Dostoevskii speaks through both favored and unfavored voices in a manner consonant with polyphony. The characters reveal themselves and others through their opinions about personages and key issues. supplanting the narrators and providing complete portrayals of one another. Most characters, Raskol'nikov. Mesa. and Dmitrii among others. have two or more voices. To understand Dostoevskii's treatment of ideological issues. one must consider precisely whose voice comments upon them. Some characters' voices actually penetrate the speech of others, who thus make statements not belonging to their own voice complex. The characters have no static profile that the narrators could objectively portray and are therefore sources of rather than vessels for ideological opinions. Some features of dialogue condition the polyphonic exchanges: penetrating and provoking devices. the “lazeika” device. the “ogliadka” device, circumscription. inner and hidden dialogues. and gestures. The dissertation thoroughly evaluates Baxtin‘s theory that the characters‘ voices contend powerfully with Dostoevskii's in many ways. Baxtin himself does not recognize how many distinct narrator and character voices are present in these two novels. The dissertation proves that the narrators neither define the characters nor reveal more than they do. but rather yield important prerogatives like characterization to the personages themselves. Characters‘ voices penetrate each others‘ speech and narration. Dostoevskij uses the facts of the novels against certain characters. His narrators occasionally introduce damaging details about these characters. who themselves compromise their own arguments with their own statements. These phenomena do not overshadow the dominance of polyphony in the novels. To my father and to the memory of my mother and brother ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Munir Sendich. who. knowing my interest in Dostoevskij. suggested the works of Baxtin as an avenue for approaching Dostoevskij‘s novels. 1 could never repay the effort he has made in editing my drafts. suggesting sources. and encouraging me to refine my arguments. I am also indebted to Professor Frank Ingram for his detailed critique of my manuscript. to Professor Alexander Dynnik for calling my attention to relevant works. and to Professor David IL Prestel for his evaluation of my thesis. My sincere thanks go to Professor Nina Perlina for encouraging me to develop my own interpretation of Baxtin‘s polyphony. to view his work against the perspective of earlier Dostoevskij criticism. and to clearly define my concept of voice in the novels. I am also grateful to Leigh Halstead for composing. typing, and proofreading my thesis. and appreciate the assistance rendered by library staffs both here and in the Soviet Union. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I: POLYPHONY IN NARRATION: THE V01“ OF 10 NARRATORS. CHARACTERS AND THE AUTHOR Introduction 10 Variety of Narrator Voices ' ll Varying Degrees of Narratorial Insight into Characters 16 Narration through Characters‘ Voices 19 Characters as Authors 20 The Presence of Characters‘ Voices in Narration 21 The Author‘s Voice in Dialogue with Characters‘ Voices 24 Conclusion 30 CHAPTER II: MULTIPLICITY OF CHARACI' ER VOICES IN 44 POLYPHONIC DIALOGUE Introduction 44 Characterization through the Voices of Personages 45 Voice Multiplicity of Individual Characters 58 Conclusion 82 CHAPTER III: FACTORS WHICH MOTIVATE POLYPHONIC 92 DIALOGUE Introduction 92 Penetrating and Provoking Devices 93 The Ilaselixu Device 100 The Ornanxu Device 107 Circumscription of Voices 115 Inner and Hidden Dialogues 117 vii Gestures Conclusion CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Bibliography Secondary Bibliography viii 126 128 142 162 163 167 INTRODUCTION In this dissertation I ascertain the ways in which Baxtin's polyphony is Present in Dostoevskii's Prestonlcniumakazanie and WW and define the role it plays in these novels. I also address limiting factors for polyphony in order to determine the qualitative degree of its presence in these novels. All of the topics that I discuss apply to both of these novels. so that no arguments are based on evidence from only one of them. I chose Wm and W for this study because they are the best known in world literature. because they were written at widely different points in Dostoevskii‘s career, and because they may be considered among the most dissimilar of Dostoevskii‘s novels.1 The concept of the voice is central in Baxtin‘s theory of polyphony. To this end I define voices of narrators and personages. and demonstrate how these voices interact with one another to produce the polyphonic structure of the novels. Baxtin‘s concept of polyphony. as expressed in his works Emblem E'I'D l ‘E 'I l and]! I' Lem envisions a plurality of unique and independent voices. each representing and bearing the ideas of an individual consciousness while it interacts with the others.2 According to Baxtin: “floecwny - onpenenelmofl COBOKyl'IHOCTb anon, mucosa u cuoo npoaonurca no Hookohmm HecuusHHuM .H rooocoM, segue a sermon no-uHony."3 Baxtin stresses that in polyphony the voices of personages participate in dialogue on an equal basis with the voices I: of the author: “Msobpoxoenoe cooao cxonmca co coooon usoopoxoiouum "OJ onuon ypoauo n no poouux "pooch.“l He also considers it essential that ideo- logical stances expressed through the voices of Dostoevskii's characters are brought into each others' purviews and evaluated by each other: "Koxnaa‘ I-Iyxoa ‘npomo,’ nponcrooneuuoa o KoKon-Hu69nb ponoHe, HenpeMeHHo scanner: 3 nuonoruuecm prrosop aces npym eenyumx repose noHHoroi pOHGl-IO.'5 Baxtin argues that in the polyphonic novel the author presents little through narrators that the personages themselves do not already know: ". . . y poccxasumta HOT prrosopnoro flaou‘rKo, HOT nepcnemuouf“ The 1 2 voices of characters therefore become central in the polyphony novel. since they assume many of the tasks that a narrator would otherwise perform: "Bce 10, two aerop-Mououorucr across» as cobalt. . . Rocroeecm omeef‘ i, ceoeny repouo npeepeuiea see 310 a moment ero cenocosueuua. '7 These areJ the properties of Baxtin‘ s polyphony which I interpret as most central to it and which I evaluate in W and WW Chapter One examines the manifestations of polyphony in the narration of the novels. The narration incorporates a number of both narrator and character voices, which alternately compete for readers‘ attention. Dostoevskii conducts the narration of the novels through five different voices. each of which is not reducible to linguistic characteristics or to particular dialects. but represents an individual attitude toward personagesi} r events. and issues. He discourages his readers from relying upon narratorsj for ““correct interpretations of what is proceeding. and thereby requires them to reckon with all of the voices in the novels. In this way Dostoevskii foregoes easy victories over his less favored characters with the hope of making readers‘ agreement with him all the more significant and committed. I argue in Chapter One that for the narrators of each novel five different voices are present. none of which enjoys particular domination over heroes‘ voices throughout the novels. On this one matter I diverge somewhat from Baxtin's view about narration in Dostevskii‘s novels: “Cnoeo poccxoeumto I e noanueltuux npouseenemlsx He npuuocur c 1306010 no cpeenemuo co cnoeon repose HHKBKNX Hoeux 101-108 I HHKOKNX cymecreemlux ycrouoeox. . . B 06mm. poccxes neuxerca Hexny news upenenomz Hexny cyxooceenonmeubnun,‘ nporoxontuun, ormons He usoopexelouum canon 11 Healthy cnoeon report's” Baxtin here overlooks the variety of narrator voices which is not reducible to a pattern of alternation between a dispassionate narrator and personages.9 Grossman observes that Dostoevskii‘s novels appear to be composed of widely differing genres.lo This has bearing on the narration of these novels. Baxtin however adds an important qualifier: 'ECJIII 6e I'poccnou ceases Konnosnuuonuul npuuuun nocroeecxoro - coenuHeHue ugxeponuux I1 moanecrmellwux Hotepnenoe - c MHoxecteeHHocmo He npueeneuuux K onuorly unsouorntlecmny sueneuetemo ueHTpoe-cosuomtfl, 70 OH nonouml on enuomyio K synoxecneuuony among poneuoe noctoeecxoro - K noumbouua. '11 Each narrator voice is associated with a particular speech genre. so that Grossman‘ s observation is applicable to the polyphonic structure of the novels. Included in Chapter One is a survey of means Dostoevskii employs to guarantee that narrators retain only a minimal degree of external omniscience and delegate as many of their functions as possible to f" characters. This does not vary with narrator voice. since no one of these , necessarily reveals more about characters than do the others. Baxtin considers that polyphony radically changes the structure of Dostoevskii ‘s novels by sharply altering the relationship betwaen heroes and narrators in what Baxtin calls a “e HGIIOHSKOM nominee Konepuuuecmli nepeeopor.‘12 Reality in the novels thereby no longer qualifies the hero. but instead itself .I Ir; ’7 ; /V(I becomes qualified by being refracted through the heroes‘ consciousnesses. To this end Dostoevskii‘s personages often appear as narrators and even as others. and compose literary “works“ to assist them in presenting their ideological positions.13 The narrators appear to tacitly recognize the active presence of characters‘ voices and to approach them as if they might respond. Characters for their part take over narrative passages in what Baxtin calls “character zones.” He considers that these passages signal dialogue between the voices of narrators and characters: '9 repos portend, sax citesoao. ecerhe ecn ceoa soHo. ceoa ethane consults no oxpyxoloulul oeropcxufl KOHTeKcT. euxonaulea - necro oueub noneKo euxonaulos - so openeou oreeneuuoro repoio npanoro CJIOBO'; 'IIpmon era has roaoce nueaoruuecxu coon-leceuu. out! 801‘ 6a swam npyr o npyre (KBK nee pennant! nuenoro sHoIo‘r npyr o npyre a cumin: a Non esoIIMHOM shown 0 cats). Kent 6a mm c npyron oecenym.“M Baxtin here finds character zones in the immediate vicinity of heroes‘ utterances. We will see. however. that character zones are present not only in the same area as direct or indirect utterances of characters. but also in passages about characters in which only a narrator seems to speak. Dostoevskii‘s narrators actively take positions. siding with heroes which Dostoevskii favors and openly rebuking heroes which Dostoevskii opposes. I do not believe that this affects polyphony negatively. since narrators speak directly. in a manner consonant with their particular voices. without denying characters the opportunity to express their own views about themselves and thus “answer“ criticism. Baxtin correctly points out that polyphony does not deny the author‘s own presence among the voices and intonations of the 1 . ./_. 12f". X101" ‘ ”authors“ in their own right as they relate information about themselves and .21. ' 4 novel: "01‘ BBTOpB I'IOJIHIIIOHINOCKOI'O DOHGHO rpeOyercs He OTKBS 01‘ C8651 ll ceoero coeueuus. o Heoouuefluoe pocwupemle, yrngoueuae u nepecrpohxe aroro coauounafls He argues that since Dostoevskij's heroes can overturn any judgement about themselves. the author treats them as if they could answer him and avoids making statements about them that they or another character would not make: " . . . 0 mm Hauero as weapons seat-lilo mm as soxputofi neepmo.“l6 We will see that narrators criticize minor characters? much more directly and frequently than they do primary ones. Dostoevskij‘s opinions enter the novels through the speech of narrators and characters. both those he favors and those he does not. This does not guarantee them dominance. however. but only places them in direct confrontation with], opinions of personages. Chapter Two presents an evaluation of character voices. their relationships to each other. and their role in characterization. I demonstrate the presence of more than one voice for nearly every primary character in the novels. These voices reveal themselves not lexically. syntactically. or stylistically. but rather by their tone and attitude to what they discuss and to the worlds presented in each novel. This represents an extension of what Baxtin discusses when he characterizes dialogue between personages, since be generally speaks of single voices for characters which vary their tone as they influence each other. I consider it not only possible. but essential to define voices within personages in order to clarify their inner dialogues and varying ideological positions. The voices of Dostoevskij‘s personages play a major role in characterization which rivals and even surpasses the narrators‘. bearing out Baxtin‘s statement- 'Caoeo repoa 0 code canon u o nape m are) nonuoeecao. KBK ohm-me eeropcxoe cooeo; 01-10 as nonunueuo attenuating, oopesy repoa Kent outta me ero xepomepucmt. NO a He cayxm pynopon' eeropcsoro romeo."l7 Characterization of heroes by narratbrs alone would rf‘ ' leave an incomplete and fragmentary picture of them. As characters ' ‘ comment upon others. they also reveal themselves by the manner in which they express their opinions, so that the process of characterization acts in I two directions at once. As noted above. 1 consider it correct to speak not _ merely of individual character voices. but of voice complexes for each 5‘1 primary hero. Familiarity with each character‘s voice complex makes it possible to discern differences between overtly similar statements by personages, illustrating thereby how a given position in the novels may U (U. 5 on :4 LI ‘ u If . become two-sided when e“massed with two different voices. This is because / ‘5; H the ultimate quality of a belief or thought. according to Baxtin. is a function of the individual voice: ”Oi-Io He matter do n Heflrponbuoh K CBHOCOSHBHHIO.'18 The assessment of voice complexes for each hero offers a way to clarify ideological positions as they are presented in the novels. A voice of one personage may penetrate that of another. just as it may in narration as a character zone. This penetration provides subtle evidence that voices exert pressure upon one another from within as well as externally in open dialogue. It happens both with positive and negative heroes. and ties their voices together in such a way that readers must not immediately assume that a given utterance represents the true feeling of the speaker. Chapter Three examines certain dynamic factors in the novels which. according to Baxtin. condition the process of polyphonic dialogue. These factors have their basis in Baxtin's view of dialogue. which in turn is central to his theory of polyphony. Baxtin defines not phonemes. words. phrases. or sentences. but utterances as the real units of speech. the boundaries of which are determined by changes in speakers. In this way the self -conscious awareness of speakers dictates the course of dialogue as they both interpret what has already been said and anticipate what will be said. The factors which I evaluate in Chapter Three are: penetrative devices. the noaeflxo ("loophole“) device, the ornanke ("sideward glance“) device, Circumscription devices, and inner and hidden dialogue.19 Characters try to penetrate the thoughts and intents of others for various reasons. They may wish to assess their beliefs in order to combat them or accept them. They may also want to learn of hostile intentions; , . These penetrating attempts motivate the speech of characters and therebyl ‘ provide a medium for ideological dialogue. Characters approach one another} directly with questions and challenges. or indirectly by influencing the 3 course of conversation or by simply listening carefully for signs of the ] speaker's real meaning. The neaefino device in its many variants allows characters to continue dialogue by escaping summations that would end it to their own disadvantage. Words with a no sense in Baxtin‘s view appear to be final but actually are not, and in this way possess a chameleon-fike quality: 'Iioaeime - 310 ocroeneuue so coboll eosnoxuocm HSHeHflTb nocnennufl, . oxouuareobuua cMucn ceoero caoeafzo Nearly every character practices“ some form of the neseilKe device as they redirect. equivocate on. openly 6 contest, or avoid judgements of other personages about them or their arguments. While the uaaelxo device permits characters to escape actual attempts to provoke them. the orusnxo device preserves them from possible ones. Baxtin describes the oruanxo as a defense mechanism by r T‘ which characters actively anticipate responses to their speech.21 I find that the heroes do this by focusing attention on effects of their past state ments. possible outcomes of future ones. and the persuasiveness of their statements as they utter them. They also follow conversations between others in order to decide how they themselves should speak. Personages use cimcumscription devices to frustrate another's use of the accounts and oruanxe devices. They try to anticipate conclusions of dialogue partners in order to overturn them in advance or to parody them. They also propose conclusions for others as the only ones possible. These Circumscription devices represent attempts to end dialogue in a manner agreeable to one’s own point of view. and generally do not prove successful to personages who use them. None of the factors mentioned in this paragraph is unique to the polyphonic novel. but together they play a strong supporting role by motivating and promoting the polyphonic interaction of voices which characterizes the novels. Manifestations of inner dialogue and hidden dialogue illustrate how voices interact within the consciousnesses of each personage. Baxtin ‘ discusses inner dialogues of Raskol‘nikov and Ivan.22 Not only these two. but nearly every hero in the novels conducts some form of inner dialogue. They employ only one voice when they “talk to themselves“ or deliberate alternatives. They bring two or more voices into play with other forms of inner dialogue and hidden dialogue. Hidden dialogue for Baxtin occurs when an absent speaker‘s words act upon those of the present speaker. who accounts for the other‘s voice without necessarily being consciously aware of its influence.23 I discuss the importance of hidden dialogue in critical passages from the novels. as characters respond unaccountably to others‘ remarks and experience difficulty in maintaining desired voice tones. Chapter Three concludes with a discussion of the role gestures play in polyphonic dialogue. In the conclusion I address aspects of W and WW which in some way contradict Baxtin‘ s theory of polyphony. Baxtin recognizes that some passages in Dostoevskij‘ s novels fall 7 out of the polyphonic scheme.“ The issue for polyphony. however. is whether this occurs throughout large portions of the novels. Dostoevskij sometimes has his narrators use their superior knowledge to convey information about characters that the latter themselves are not aware of . He also uses compositional techniques to influence readers‘ understanding of key voices. and thereby sidesteps the voices of his characters and narrators in promoting his views. Dostoevskij compromises the voices of some characters by selective revelation of details. and contradicts assertations of others with facts of the novels. This side of Dostoevskij‘s activity does not overshadow his polyphonic technique. which remains dominant in both novels. N915?! 1As one illustration of the last point. the storyline of Bragging prears to revolve around a single hero. while that m moves back and forth to follow at least several heroes. 2M. Baxtin, : m - .. m.‘ " to ~ o.- .oi: . (Moscow: ”Sovetsktg'a Rossija,“ 1979);” . ‘ ' ""0" n s: p Moscow: “Iskusstvo.” 197 1:109:93! W Moscow: “Xudo estvennaja literatura.“ 1975). 33min. Wm p. 310- 41m. 1). 311 51m. p. 86. . 61m. p. 292. 71m. 9. 60. 8mm. p. 291. 9Por this reason I consider Vinogradov‘s treatment of area inapplicable to the novels. Vinogradov states: Booouie xepaxrepon peua ‘cxesmene,’ ee oruoweuuen a unreporypuo-noeecreoeerenwuM (boomer-1 onpenehaerca 3 cause coomomeuae oopeso peccsesuaxa c 06 neon oerope- "acetone. Lien "same a cause counsnsuo- Kcnpeccueaux orpeuaueaua. ueM choose ero couuemmo- peueeoa sanxuyrocn, TO ecu HEM cnasuee reroreune cause K (boomer: comet-o auteparypuoro geese. TOM ocrpee eucwneer 9 Her: MOHBHT nuceremcrea. a lien TBCHBB canuxeuue odposa peccxasuuxe c obpeson nucerens. TOM pasuocropoaee Horgr 6am 60pm anchors. TBH oouee eosnoxuocrea nus axcnpeccueuon numepeuuaeunn peueil peel-lax negacouaxefl. . . Cooruomeuns Healthy oopason peccxestmxe u 0 ocean 'eeropa‘ amount-mo 8 hence a upenenex onuofl citesoeoil Konnoeuuna. are eenuumie nepeneuuea. nuuenuxe bopn store cooruoweuaa neaaer He- npecreuuo byesuauocuoeaax cnoeecaux cbep cxeee. neaeer as Koneomoumnuca, COMBHTH ecxu nnoromyiuuunu. V. Vinogradov. 9 jmke xuddggsjmnoj :fci Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel‘stvo xudo estvenno; literatury. l9 9 . pp. 122-123. Baxtin himself remarks: 'B.B. Bnuorpenoe Heckoosko Henooueaueeer sueueuue £11101ij ruuecxux oruouieuul nexny peueeunu crunanu. . ." Baxtin. Emblem . 234. Korman provides a clue to the reason why Baxtm does not address v01ces of narrators in their own r1ght: ltepemepuo, uro repnuaon ‘noeecreoeeteht' it sooner- creyiouianu any enoeocouereuasnu. . . n.n.~ Beam npen- noumeer H8 nontsoeeucs. 310 nenexo He cuyuefluo. 3e onnosauaea ‘ee'ropcxea peut' - ‘npanes pet-15‘ cronr npomeonocreeaeaae eerope. . . u repoa. . . KBK sensual! onuono snaoeux u. e soueuuon otters, peeuonpeeuus. . B. Korman. " z nabljudemj nad termmokggiez MM. Baxtma." in Problem; ' ' - :187vs : Udmurtskij gosudarstvenmy .p. . universitet im. SO-letija SSS . 19 10L. Grossman to. . . 2. pp. 174-175. l’7.c1ted 1n ' 1 13min. WW 9. 19- 1211114.. p. 56. 131 use the term "author“ in the traditional sense as the creator of a literary work rather than as the creator of aogiven utterance. Korman pomts out the necessity of this distinction in view the variety of meanings this word has for Baxtim '. . . Herpgnuo presets He nuoxecreo necr. rne cene nuch neourca u e npenenex onuoro npennoxeaas coeepiueerca nepexon or l1211mm merges” It nPllrony 111111 01111 coeneulelo'rcs. osennouexhehueeacbf orman. p. . l‘Iliauttin. WW pp. 133. 138. lsBaxtin. Willem p. 80. 16mm W pp. 184. 322. ”Baxtin. WW 1». 7. 131nm. p. 64. 191 use the term “device“ in a more general sense than the formalist one of a tool which the author uses to his own ends. “Device“ here denotes strategies by characters in the course of dialogue. and refers only indirectly to Dostoevskij‘s creative methods. 2011mm. WW 9- 271- 21Baxtin. MW 9- 228. 7' (Moscow Izd AN SSSR. 1925). . . pp. 17.18 9 223mm. Willem p. 277. 302. 231mm WW 9. 228-229. “Baxtin. W929. p. 80. Cheated Polyphony in Narration: The Voices of Narrators. Characters. and the Author This chapter analyzes polyphonic relationships between author narrator. and character voices in the narration of W and W1 I deter mine five narrator voices in the novels which I call the chronicler. the hagiographer. the journalist. the gossip, and the observer. Although these voices are present in both novels. they are more distinctly marked in W. The variation between these ' voices cannot be reduced to alternation between a are: narrator and the author figure. as in Vinogradov‘s theory.2 They do not simply reflect characters‘ voices. but present themselves as unique personalities with individual tastes. interests. and prejudices. I do not consider degrees of omniscience in differentiating these voices. I distinguish them not by what 1: they reveal about the action. but by the tone i.e. voice quality. with which ”"1; '~ they do it. The extent of superior knowledge which the narrators generate affects the degree of polyphony in both novels. Narrators demonstrate several ways by which they avoid portraying characters' words. thoughts. and action through a more omniscient or even an independent viewpoint. They promote polyphony therein by allowing the personages themselves to perceive as much as possible through their own purviews. requiring readers to reckon with those purviews. Narration often takes place through characters‘ points? of view. a phenomenon which increases the prestige of their voices by] allowing them to explain. interpret. or speculate on events. Characters 1 strengthen the prestige of their voices also by appearing as authors in their», own right. Characters‘ voices penetrate the narration as quasi-direct speech and as “character zones.“ and in doing so render the boundaries between narrators‘ and characters‘ roles fluid and indistinct. Narrators in this way have no ground that is uniquely theirs and which characters also cannot occupy. Dostoevskij takes an active part in the dialogues of each novel not only as creator. but as a voiced presence. 1 distinguish his polyphonic role here from his role in determining unvoiced compositional relationships between 10 11 characters and events. Dostoevskij ‘s polyphonic activity takes place: (1) when narrators quote characters in an ironic context; (2) when narrators '6 ‘ ’ comment about characters‘ words and acts; and (3) when both positive and negative characters voice Dostoevskij ‘s views. IL 'I'EII | 31' The multiplicity of narrator voices in the novels contributes strongly to polyphony in narration.~"5 These voices do not depend upon which characters they discuss. although the narrators‘ attitude toward the action does have bearing upon the voices they adopt. Kantor and Meijer have discerned the presence of a chronicler in W whose voice contrasts with that heard in the remaining narration.4 Perlina finds that the narrator of W 1s also a hagiographer capable of speaking through two voices, one mundane and the other inspired.5 I adopt their terms, “chronicler” and “hagiographer.“ to denote two narrator voices. In addition I describe three others: the journalist. the gossip. and the observer. Recalling Grossman‘s comments about genre variety in Dostoevskij‘s novels. I consider these voices representative of five genres: (l) chronicle or log: (2) hagio- graphy. in which an inspired witness describes his or others' experience with the miraculous; (3) a 19th century secular journal. in which journalists publicize views and facts to educate or to propagandize: (4) gossip; and (5) traditional. protocol-orientedrgaarration by an educated literary voice.6 The observer must not be confused with the author himself. since this voice is no closer to Dostoevskij than most of the others. Several critics discuss the traits of the chronicler? I would add that the chronicler overtly declares himself with comments like: “310 a npouly tune- reus senernn c cenoro Heueue“ (XIV. 14); 'floeropsno. a He nenepeu OHHCN' sen. ece nonpocu 11 mar ae meron' (XV. 951.3 He frequently relies on] .. y _. rumors. for example. in speculating on Fedor Pavlovic's relationship to i I Smerdjakov (Book 111, Chapter 6) and in providing biographical information about Grui'en‘ka (Book Vii, Chapter 319 The chronicler cautions readers about his own lack of omniscience: “SI seeeuieana can 118 amen. H0 cau- IIIBJI. . ." (XIV. 14). He does this with calculation in an oddly placed interpolation. which is designed to alert readers to the suspicious nature of Katerina Ivanovna‘s testimony at Dmitrij‘s trial: '51 He nepehelo econ eonpocoe 11 3 10141100111 scan as oreeToe. . .‘(XV. 111). 12 The chronicler calls attention to himself much less in W nakmnie, in order to avoid removing the focus from Raskoi‘nikov. He is present, however. as one of the guests at Marmeladov‘s wake. just as the chronicler of W is present at Dmitrij‘s trial. and begins his description of the wake by offering a judgement: 'prnHo 6111110 6111 e touuocrn obosI-let-mn 11111111111111. echencnue soropux a peccrpoeuol ronoee Kereplmu Heeuoeuu seponunect 111m 311111 eectohxoeux nonnuox“ (111.290). The chronicler goes on to speculate about her reasons for the ostentatiousness of the wake: 'Bectne eepoamo 11 to. two Kerepuue Heeaoeae morellocb. . ." (VI. 290). He even tells what was served at the wake: me so nuoxec'reeuuon queue 11 nuoropeenauuux copToe 110 6111110. mm Toxe; no 611110 npeyeehuueuo. 110 311110 611110“ (V1. 290-291) (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s) Readers also find out from the chronicler who attended the wake and who did not- “He 11p11u1e11 route 11 rohcruil nonnomtoeuhlt (e cyumocm orcreeuoil u11‘e61ten111e11).. .“ (VI. 293). The chronicler is present in a muted form during Lui'in‘s visit to Raskol'nikov. partly in order to convey an unpleasant initial impression of him from the viewpoint of one who is already in the room.10 He adopts a more distinct position at the beginning of the Epilogue while relating the transcript of Raskol‘nikov‘s trial. Like the chronicler at Dmitrij‘s trial. he refers to the evidence and testimony as if unaware that the events have been intimately followed throughout the novel. Raskol‘nikov and Razumixin here become figures from an official record:"11pecwn111111 reepno. rouuo 11 acne nonnepauleen ceoe nose se1111e.. ." (VI. 410); “51131111111 crynen‘r Pe39n11111111 orxonell omyne-ro ceeneI-Iua 11 npencteeall noxeseremcree. . . " (V1. 412). The hagiographer speaks with an inspired voice. as in the account of AleXa‘s vision of Gene and his subsequent contact with “other worlds“ (Book VIII. Chapter 4).11 The parallelism of the passage ('Clteseuo: ‘Pesnea see 11 111111 3e 1111011. econ xoueult 61m coeepulen.‘ Meme 11 caeseu cede: "He nory 11 omen enecro 'ecero' nee pyena. e enecro ‘111111 ee nuoll‘ 110111111. 111N111 K obenue" (XIV. 25) shows that the hagiographer is speaking here. I argue that the hagiographer and chronicler are distinct 1 2 The hagiographer distinguishes himself by his inspired voice and by use of Slavonic lexicon. as in this example: '. . . nposeyueml chose crepue. npenpexeemero crook 61111311910 110111411119 cemo“ (XIV. 72). it is the hagiographer who conveys the apocalyptic tones of Raskol‘nikov‘s dream in the Epilogue: 'Cnecrucb eo ecen 13 nape nor1111 101111110 11e0110111110 1101100011, 310 61111111 1111crue 11 1136pe1111111e, npenuesueueuuue 1101-16111 Hoeufl pon 1110ne11 11 110e910 1111131111, 06110311111 11 01-111c1111'1 30111110. . .‘(VI. 420). The hagiographer promises not an apocalyptic. but rather a gradual tranformation in Raskol‘nikov. one that is still worded in inspired religious language: '. . . 11c10p1111110c'1911e11110r0 06110319111111 Heaoeelte. 11c'rop1111 noc'reneuuoro nepepoxnenaa ero. .. suexoncree c 1100010. nocene coeepuleuuo Heeenonmo nellcrearentuocmo' (111.422). 13 The journalist is distinct both from the chronicler and the hagiographer in his knowledge of and overt concern with contemporary issues. The chronicler in W subtly becomes a journalist who no longer equivocates. but argues with conviction about the origins of nervous fits with peasant women in the harshness of their lives: 'Ho enocuencreuu a c snueneuuen 9311e11 01 cneunehucroe-nenukoe. . .' (XIV. 44). Even when discussing issues which by their subject matter seemingly belong to the province of the hagiographer. the journalist shows himself by his preparedness to debate in the assertion: ". . . 1160 cou1101111cn 0011 no 101111110 11060111111 eonpoc. 111111 1011 Hesueeenoro Heteeproro c0c110e1111. 110 110 open- nyulectay ecu 01e11c1111100111111 eonpoc. . . eonpoc 80311110110qu 6e1u1111. . . " (XIV. 25). It is not the hagiographer. but the journalist who hedges on the question of miraculous events involving the crepuu in order to introduce his own evidence: “11011011110. ece :10 11am npeeuaa nereune. 110 nor 11 ueneeuaa 6111111.. ." (XIV. 27). The narrator adopts the journalistic voice to persuasively motivate Ivan‘s nightmare: 'HO 311611 11111-10111 3 14811111111110. [111611119 911011636“ npennoooateuue. . . " (XV. 70). Raskoi‘nikov's nightmare about the beating of the horse is introduced in precisely this way: '8 6011s 31101111011 c0c10a111111 c1111 011111110101” 1-1ec10 11e06u11uoee1111010 01111911110c1110. apkocmo 11 upeseu- Hellman cxoncroon c neicreuteutnoc'rtlo. . . 1111 11 He eunynen. 1101139 many to cenonu 0110311111111. 691111 011 1011011 no 119n0X111111. 11e11 119mm 111111 Typreuee“ (VI. 115-46).14 The journalist makes a generalized statement viii}: about drunkards on the pretext of explaining Marmeladov's need to draw; Raskol‘nikov into conversation- “are npueu 11110 odpemeerca 11 11111111 11110u11111 eJ norpebuoc'rt. . . “ (VI. 13)15 He also expresses his sentiments about the use of the insanity plea: 'Tyr 11cret11 nonocnene Hoeeiuuea nonuea 1110111111 openemloro ynonouierentcree, Koropylo re11 uecro crepemcs npnneusn o 11011.16 opens 11 1111un npecrynuuaen“ (VI. 411). Additional details characteristic of the journalist have been noticed. 15 14 The gossip speaks with a voice quality which has nothing in common with journalism or hagiography. and suggests a fascination with the trivial not normally found with the chronicler. He seems to look through keyholes in order to convey what goes on “behind closed doors.“17 The gossip dominates the passage describing Perxotin‘s encounter with Xoxlakova: '51 611. eupouen, 11 110 01011 pecnpocrpensrbca 0 10111111 11011011111111 11 31113011111130an nonpo6110011111. . ." (XIV. 406). He cannot resist commenting suggestively on Nikolai Parfenovic‘s solicitude for Gru‘éen‘ka (Book 1X. Chapters 10 and 11). The gossip highlights Zosimov‘s vain attempts to impress Donia with his knowledge: '30ner113 0011011131, 1-110 16131101111 P0ne1100110 010110 0006011110 e1111n010111110 311011y1u110011011. 30011n00 1100110111110 ' 601100 pecnpocrpenanca 110 319 10119” (V1. 159). The gossip gives a blow-by-blow account of the row between Katerina Ivanovna and Amalija Ivanovna: 'Kerep11110 11301103110 1011100 1110‘110111-10p11119110' 311. 1110 1011 11011 0110 Hymn-1110. 10 11 110 noxer 09111111 0 run. 1110 101100 110111111100 61010110110130. Anemla 11001100110 110 01100110 11 1011100 1110 3011311110. . . " (V1.299). The gossip speaks with a chatty yet ironic tone about intimate details of Svidrigajlov‘s; prospective in laws‘ family life which are hardly front-line story material: " .. 611010p0n110011 611110 311011030110 cenea 11110ne1111011 11 110111111011110110 1101110 0110301111 611010p039n110111uea nerep11“(VI. 386);'np0011n01111 11 npou101110111101 110000 no 110911. Heeecre. enpouen, 91u110 011011 ropesno p01111u0. 9111101101111011 11 110n1101'o rpycrnea' (Vi. 288). (His interest in these details is somewhat justified. since they contrast the mother‘s eagerness at Svidrigajlov‘s proposal with Pul‘xerija Aleksandrovna‘s reluctance to force a similar alternative upon Dunja.) I consider the gossip dominant in an additional example.18 These narrators contrast with a more general narrator whom I call the observer. 19 He occupies himself with following characters and conveying 1 .— their words, acts. and thoughts. and is widespread in both novels. Althougth the observer periodically comments on characters‘ behavior. this is not a defining trait. since other narrator voices also do this. The observer stays with Raskol'nikov nearly throughout Part One. combining protocol treatment of his thoughts and actions with periodic evaluative remarks. The same observer follows Svidrigajlov‘s progress toward suicide and conveys the sequence of his dream and final acts to the reader: 'Ce11np1110111100 01111911011. 301011 0 1100101111 11 1u0111911 11 011119” (Vi. 391); '011 31106110 11p11110n111111011. 15 1193013911. 1110 3001 0036111; 1100111 310 601101111“ (VI. 393). It is no longer the chronicler or gossip. but the observer who transmits the scene in which Luiin accuses Sonja ”11931113 110111-1011 3 11033031011130 9111116011011. 8110011011, 03 61111 011331 6113003. 1103011001. L110 011 0609n113011. 11011 611 any 3113303911011“ (VI. 309). He is generally present during Raskol‘nikov‘s conversation with Sonja. as in the example: “C0311 now-10 0n0100110 110 030010 100111, 1011 333n01311130 3 6300003n0330 0011010330301010 ee 110n3019, 11 001110 301-10110. 301103011. 000111011 3 0100113. 101130 01011110 110030 0901011 11 0001111311011 03003 91100111.” (VI. 242). The observer accompanies Ale‘éa during the repeated 1100011311 of Book IV: “110 0 100111303 600300 91110 01103333011001; K010011110 113030330 611110 3 60111100n 30369111003113, 110111 3 11n3110 3110 03013131113113" (XIV. 169). He transmits Dmitrij‘s concerns in Book Three to readers by partially identifying with them: '111011, 00330011 301111110110 3 Han 011000. 80 season 01191100 3000 611110 0110101111. liepeun 00110n 3000 611110 0001011 11011 11011311119 03301 30 1100011301119“ (XIV. 344). He also accompanies lvan during his visits to Smerdjakov: “11.11113311n, n0111-10113311n 331111100n 3010311111 011 113030 600000311110, 11. 110-31103n0n9. 3110110111110 110 901131111011 310 110116111100" (XV. 58). It is no longer the chronicler. but the observer who describes Smerdjakov‘s answer to Fedor Pavlwic‘s question about finding him a wife: 'Ho Cn300111103 30 3111 031111 10111110 611003311 01 000009. 30 31111010 30 . 013011111. @0000 11031103113 0111001111. n03393 0911011' (XIV. 116).20 The narrator voices are not always set off clearly from one another. The observer who follows Ivan (Book XI. Chapter 7) is interrupted by a remark in the style of the chronicler; ,2131103300 1110. 30 3301 3101 M00110 01000130 010000110 310 100000111310 06 310n 11M. . " (XV. 56). Lebezjatnikov's conversation with Lu‘z'in (PT—artiV; Chapter 1) is portrayed by the observer, but the journalist appears distinctly with a remark about Lebezjatnikov: 310 61111 00113 113 1010 00003011033010 11 00330113113010 110111030 1100111111103. 00311331111111 30003001103 11 300n9 30009033103303 00n009003. 11010 110 n11r0n 1103010101 331100n0330 11 cenoit n003011 110011110 11000, 1110611 1011-100 100 01100111311 30. 1110611 n310n 03003301901111 300. new 0311 1110 1130100 00n11n 11011003311n oepeson 011911101 (VI. 279). The characteristic mark of the journalist here is not his transmission of the author‘s attitudes alone. but his outspoken concern with a contemporary public issue which is not directly connected with the story. Details of narration involving the treatment of Kolja have also been seen.21 l6 Dostoevskij has his narrators take positions that he himself does not share. The chronicler pokes fun at Grigorij’s ”30133113 3 033033113“ manner directly after describing his charitable act in raising a tombstone for Alesa's and Ivan's mother (XIV. 22). He refers to Grigorij as a 'kamerdiner' at Dmitrij's trial. a foreign word that aligns him with the townspeople (XV. 96). The chronicler gives a deceptive twist to the narrative by regretting the time spent on '. . . 01011106111130001131111 11011303. . . " (XIV. 93). that is. on Grigorij and Smerdjakov. He does not condemn the judge's stance at Dmitrij's trial outright (”E10 30331-10110 113110333. 111100031031100311 010, 33111110 30 3310 11011 30 110009111 3010311 0003011131111 001103. . . ' [XV, 92D. but only comments noncommittally: '...03 01300311011 000011130 6330031131130 3 01311330330, 11011, 0110011011, 11011101 61111. 3 01100030110" (XV. 92122 The multiplicity of narrator voices represents a multiplicity of personal stances toward events in the novels. No one stance is consistent throughout the novels. This is because Dostoevskij does not allow readers to automatically trust narration and place less emphasis on heroes' voices than they warrant. Narrator voices are not linked with characters' speech in condescending am narration. but must hold their own with characters in comprehending and conveying the meaning of what proceeds. This means that when characters‘ voices penetrate narration in quasi-direct speech and character zones. they actually master it without the narrators‘ "per mission." 31.11 [H 'll'l' Cl Narrators“ superfluity of knowledge over characters in the novels is generally only temporary. apparent. or incomplete. This reduces the distance between narrator and character voices. thereby contributing to polyphony in narration.23 Baxtin considers that in the polyphonic novel the author . consciously does this: "803 10. 1110 03100-11030301301 00103311 30 00603. . .1! 1' ' 1 £0010330113fl 010031 0300119 130010, 110330001011 303 310 3 13011031 310\ 1 00110003303311."24 This is a strongly dominant. but not an absolute trait of the narration, since of course there are instances in which Dostoevskij's narrators reveal information not known to personages. Some judgements about heroes carry the implication that they are conclusions the heroes themselves could come to. This conscious yielding to characters' voices constitutes a sort of dialogue. The observer says about Raskol'nikov. for example: '11 00113 611 3 19 1133919 03 3 0001011333 61111 I7 110033111300 330311 3 000C91110011. . ." (VI. 65); ". . . 0011 30 0063 11003331103. 30113 611 1101 110 0063 11011130311“ (VI. 342); 'Ec113 611 03 301101011 1100911011 1131111010, 10. 110331-1110. 9011331103 611 10119. 11011 1101 03 1011 10300311. . ." (VI. 81): '03 9030011 611. 00113 6 61111 00033001031333. . ." (VI. 172).25 The publicist's generalization about drunkards like Marmeladov (“011010-10 3 111100103 11011110333 0113 3 0100010103. . .001110 3 9001110333'IV1. 13-14)) proves not to be the ultimate judgement about him. since he will soon provide his { own self-assessment to Raskol'nikov. The observer reveals that there is more 05".)“ ' ; __, to Dmitrij's feeling for Crusen'ka than he realizes. but Dmitrij will soon see ‘9’ "/1 ‘3 If... this for himself (XIV. 344). The chronicler and observer characterize Kolja in (g . ..~u ' detail (Book X. Chapter 1). Yet these narrators say relatively little about Kolja 11, if, that he does not echo later. for example. about his vanity. his need to show i V_ .' 5 off. and his drive to dominate others. The narrators in this way delegate ' 1 '9 ,~ 5" some of their prerogatives to characters even while apparently retaining ' them for themselves. The narrators have a way of directly cancelling any edge over} 1. ,u characters in knowledge about them in order to substantiate what they say? ‘ ' ‘ with the characters‘ own words.26 In Wig this may be 111 remnant of first-person narration: . .01 03003 110331111113 11 110301101011. 3 1101000303 0031100 0011 0060 11033301103” (VI. 6). Raskol'nikov similarily notices his own change in voice: '. . . 01003311113 1101103011301 3119 310 00601003300 0090103113330 3 011010. . ." (VI. 208). The observer's comment about Raskol‘nikov and Svidrigajlov (‘11011109 33113 11003 3010110 331110 1101103103 30 00339 311 11300010 03300333. . . ' WI. 355)) is confirmed shortly afterward by Svidrigajlov (VI. 357). The chronicler quotes Fedor PavloviE's own words when discussing his abuse of his second wife: '11033 313 1133333110 11103113 11011 611 6031303 10100 110 09100 110110039113. . . ' (XIV. 13). He again cites Fedor Pavlovic's words to corroborate his fits of panic: "091111 9 11333 101.130 3 100113 100110013103 3 313 00311. . ." (XIV. 86). Yet another example is the comment about Katerina Ivanovna: “1111010 611110 110110003 3001100010113. . . 310 030 "01193010030110 00110" (XIV. 172). The observer seeks documentation even when not making critical remarks: ". . . 310 000330333. . . 1011 3 03001139113. . .3 9110 A30013, 03 310 1101011 1103110113311” (XIV. 180); .3011 0011 06133311 1101011. ‘0113 0011006110333 01103011” (XIV. 506). A variant of this is Svidrigajlov's redundant description first by the observer. then by Raskol‘nikov (VI. 189. 214. 357-358). In another instance. a comment in the )8 narration anticipates Razumixin's very words: ”. . . 3 33 300011 611 010. ”1011, 30001130 611 33 300311" (VI. 162). In precisely this way Dmitrij seconds the observer's ”and so on” with his own words: ”)1 1011 001103, 10011000. 3 1011 001130l” (XIV. 43117-7 An inverse corollary to the above phenomenon is the way narrators occasionally second characters in their judgements. The observer seems to catch up with Raskoi'nikov's point of view in the sentence: ”03 600031103 0103111003 30 101100 (010 61111 101100). . .” (VI. 59). He hurries to agree with Xoxlakova: '. . . 30091 01103030103 011031 3003910 11110111“ (XIV. 173). His opinion about Katerina Ivanovna‘s feeling for Dmitrij (”I11 10111110 33 0 .11. 10000013 030 00110 1103333011001 11 30119 10100 1110603110.. .” [XV. 122]) only! i “11°98 what Ale§a. Ivan. and Dmitrij had said about her earlier in the’ " novel.28 Dostoevskij's narrators go out of their way to abstain from revealing information about characters and events.29 Smerdjakov's suicide motives. for example. are not explained directly. but only suggested through his complex relationship with ivan. it is not clear from the observer‘s seemingly omniscient narration whether Smerdjakov even regrets the murder: ”11011133 611110, 0030110. 9100011. 1190013901 113 03 0001103330 3113 1110” (XV. 65). The question of whether Raskol'nikov actually would have confessed on the square if not for the bystanders“ mockery is left open. The observer also withholds explanation of Raskol'nikov's intent at the beginning of the novel. as he offers no clue to the meaning of the italicized words ”310,” ”110060.” and ”00110.” (Dostoevskij does this partly to promote suspense). 1313303011101 @001 at a feeling in Svidrigajlov which precedes Dunja's surrender of the revolver: ”310 611110 33603113330 01 0091010, 601100 0110063010 3 110003010 11930130, 110100010 611 03 3 0011 30 1101 30 3003 03110 011030311311” (VI. 382).30 He refuses to speculate on Raskol’nikov's whereabouts during the night before Svidrigajlov's suicide: ”6010 319 30111 11000011 03 0033. 601 33031 103” (VI. 395). There are additional means by which narrators restrain from displaying their surplus of awareness.31 We have seen that the narrators of WW0. and mm K000010102! largely avoid omniscience in conveying the words and deeds of characters to readers.32 They even deliberately yield in their judgements to the consciousnesses of characters. Indefinite particles and modal expressions) 1: in narration give the impression that narrators are reluctant to express their 1‘ own interpretations independently of what personages might say. When" )9 narrators do release information on their own, they generally avoid stating what is beyond the power of characters to perceive. and even rely upon them for corroboration. These properties of narration in both novels give 8090011 to Baxtin's assertation that nothing is said about Dostoevskij's personages "behind their backs.“33 I! I' ll IE) I 'll' Personages in the novels share the narrators' role by conveying events from their own point of view. This further erases the line between character and narrator responsibilities and promotes the equality of their voices. The degree to which characters narrate in Dostoevskij's novels has been widely noticed.“ Narration through characters' voices creates an atmosphere in which their judgements may be presented more easily. This is true even when narrators merely substitute characters’ points of view for their own For example, the description of Raskol'nikov's meeting with his family through Zosimov's eyes helps to balance out the ironic treatment given Zosimov elsewhere by making him the key witness to an important moment: '. . .30031103. . .0 903311033011 301101311. . .03 330311 1101011. . .03 3 11003- 331103. . .” (VI. 171). Raskol'nikov’s change of demeanor is witnessed from Razumixin's point of view: ”. . . 011 303-10 30091 01011 01103033. 11011 69010 300313003303 3 1003013303 11110111 1100033110 310” (VI. 208).",5 The observer abandons Raskol’nikov's perspective to show the action from Dunja's point of view: "0911111111 0010 33110100 30 0010330110 310 1011311 110 911300.. . 0311333911 310 3113 331?. . .60091 030 3011013110. . 33300310311030” (VI. 374). Several brief passages show narration from bystanders' viewpoints. as during Raskol'nikov's encounter with the drunken girl. when the aggressor considers him 3 ”000003113 060030300” (VI. 40). The policeman gives his view of Raskol'nikov. a complete stranger to him: ”13100303. 03030. 3 03 0119 110110301103: 3 103311 1101111011311, 0 0011 033113 31100311” (VI. 41); ”. . . 30003130 1103333 P003001333030 3111 30 11011310033010. 3113 30 1110-336901 3013 1191110” (VI. 42). Another bystander's opinion of Raskol'nikov comes from someone he approaches (Part II. Chapter 6): '. .. 100110033. 301191033113 3 30110000113 3 0100331111 330011 P003001333030. . ." (VI. 121). These instances show how far Dostoevskij deviated from his initial intention to tell all through Raskol'nikov. Raskol'nikov's point of view. however. remains the dominant one: 10030111333039 030 110303011001 1101 10300013. . .” (V1.22): ”. . . 3119 20 011311-1033 611110 3030. . . 03 1103311011. . . 03 310 330311.. .” (VI. 247). The importance of characters' voices in narration is even more apparent when they reveal information about themselves and others. Both Rakitin and Fedor Pavlovic indicate that Ivan is seeking to claim Katerina Ivanovna's affections for himself (XIV. 75. 157). Developments with Gru'éen'ka's former fiance are conveyed by her and Katerina Ivanovna. Muisov first reveals Ivan’s prediction of how: ”. .. 300 69001 11033011030. 001110 03100110101033. . without belief in immortality: ”. . . 3 0011 0000301119. 10011000. 009103 01103001 0 0011011 33030 @0000033110, 33100003031033 3 300031303031033” (XIV. 64). Pedor Pavlovi‘é introduces details ol‘ Dmitrij's involvements with Grusen'ka and Katerina Ivanovna. adopting the mock- pathetic tone that is characteristic of him: ”6001 10000 1000131 3 1001131 01 010 39131303!” (XIV. 66). Rakitin later picks up the explanation of Dmitrij's triangular involvement with his uniquely cynical. contemptuous voice: ”It 300 310 1103 30011 030011 6110100000130 3 600300110133, 3011011 0063 310l” (XIV. 75). Dmitrij himself gives the most detailed account of this set of relationships: ”E0113 3010 1100309. 10 301 303 611110. 0363 30 1100101119” (XIV. 105). Raskol'nikov surprises both the police and readers with the news about his earlier engagement to his landlady's deceased daughter.36 Razumixin reveals more than he knows to Raskol'nikov while discussing Miten'ka's confession and expressing his own doubts in the painter's guilt. during which he manages to incorporate Miten'ka's colorful. colloquial speech in the narrative (VI. 106-108).37 Frequently shifting points of view gives readers even more reason to avoid relying on narrators for a consistent interpretation of events. W3. The "authorship" of various anecdotes. legends. dreams. and other creative narratives by personages is important for polyphony in view of Baxtin's criterion that Dostoevskij's novels delegate as much of the author's role as possible to characters. This activity of personages gives their voices '7 even greater prestige than does their activity as narrators of events. since it .2- . automatically gives them a forum for revealing their ideological positions inJ . their own words. Dostoevskij criticism has centered on the propensity of characters to become authors of their own works.38 Ivan is the author not only of the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. but also of anecdotes from which 21 his Devil quotes in Book XI. He is also a publicist in his presentation of material from his "dossier.“ Smerdjakov confounds Grigorij with the paradoxes he learned from Ivan. Rakitin's article and his testimony at Dmitrij's trial. while they hardly increase his prestige with readers. do represent a point of view with which Dmitrij and others must reckon. Raskol'nikov‘s article represents an important instance of authorship and is actually a published work. yet Pul'xeriia Aleksandrovna's letter is no less important in the novel Razumixin's explanation of the murder and of Miten'ka's probable innocence is not only entertaining. but has a unified polemical direction which makes it a worthy counterpart to Raskol'nikov's article. Svidrigajlov's reminiscences belong to the autobiographical genre.39 Marmeladov's tale of how he might be judged in Heaven turns out to be not only his confession. but the ultimate formulation of his vaunting self-abasement. Lu‘iin presents his own justification of his activity during his first meeting with Raskol'nikov. Katerina Ivanovna creates idylls both of the past and of the future as she recollects her youth and dreams about the school she would open for young women. Raskol'nikov briefly engages himself as an architect with his musings about civic improvement in the Parisian style.40 Each of these narratives represents an ideological stance 1 and a view of the world which is characteristic of the particular personage.'1.¢l_ « but even more importantly is revealed by that very personage rather than a narrator. II 2 [Cl | .1“ 'H II Personages control narrative passages by several routes. Their statements or thoughts enter narrators‘ speach as "borrowed" items. Quasi-direct speech represents a hybrid construction which belongs both to the narrator and to the personage with which it is associated. In “character zones“ heroes' speech actually dominates narrators‘ speech. Dostoevskij's narrators quote personages in a manner that goes beyond protocol transmission of their utterances.41 In one type of quotation the observer “interprets“ Smerdjakov‘s implied words in reconstructed parenthetical ”direct” quotes: ”6011. 0003011. 11303113 3010000311. 0 33 3” (XIV. 244); '1-10 0301301111 113. 0303011. 3103 3010. 30 1103603111111 113. . . " (XIV. 250). Another method of quotation consists of borrowing characters' names for one another and using them in narration. for example. when the observer adopts Sonia‘s 22 term for Raskol'nikov: ”030. .. 6110100 11003300 611110 30 11310 111030. ..” (VI. 250). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) He drops briefly into Dunja's and Razumixin's points of view by using their names for one another. Avdot'ia Romanovna and Dmitrij Prokof'i‘c’ (VI. 164. 165). ”80110011030 00113110.” Pedor Pavlovic's label for Smerdjakov similarly penetrates the narrative (XIV. 114. 117).“2 The observer employs ”1131103 600111033.” Gru‘sen'ka’s term for Katerina Ivanovna. to show at once his disapproval of the first of her slyness and of the second for her calculation (XIV. I38). Quasi-direct discourse occupies an important position in Dostoevskij's novels.“ It augments the importance of characters' voices by helping them to penetrate narration. and in this way constitutes a supporting element in the polyphonic structure of the novels. Baxtin cites only examples of quasi-direct discourse in his discussion of "character zones." although I use this latter term differently in the paragraph below.‘M The lexicon is clearly Raskol‘nikov's in the segment: ”. . . 0119111011 303333 33000 1100 3010 019 061100113910 003630031. . ." (VI. 5). The observer's qualification is actually Raskol'nikov's in the sentence: ”H0 03 30 011031 1011001 6031103. 00130 30 6031103 0030011” (VI. 60). The environmental factor in St. Petersburg is represented through Raskol'nikov's voice rather than the narrator's by means of quasi-direct discourse: ”. . . 3011 611 3011113 00303 30 300 3111 033” (VI. 74). Quasi-direct discourse reveals that Raskol'nikov is not simply punished by inner turmoil over his motives for murder. but himself consciously initiates and continues his inner dialogue: ”.110. 310 103; 310 300 103” (VI. 87). Quasi-direct discourse introduces a humorous touch at the expense of minor characters. who are nevertheless privileged to have a voice of their own. Perxotin's voice. for example. is heard in the self-important. methodical tone the chronicler adopts: ”K03011001 611. I110 00010 11031100 3 6113x0. . . 011100331103 3 0011 @30000 0031100330 9311011. 110 01193311001 1011 3010. 0 00113 01193311001. 10 310 3110330. 3. 9x3 9600331113301 300011003110. . .” ‘ (XIV. 402). The gossip similarly echoes Xoxlakova's voice in an otherwise protocol passage: ”. . . 9133 0000393013030110. 1-110 3 30111 33 33 113303011 06113303333010 3 10333 01191-1033 11310330” (XIV. 403). The narrator's identification with Ivan is at once sympathetic and ironic in the words: ”03 93300330 1110011. 310 13113003303 :03 1311301 0301331” (XV. 61). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) The boundaries are occasionally blurred even between quasi- direct and direct speech. as when Zosimov’s voice moves from the former to 23 the latter without losing its phlegmatic. pedantic character: ”. . . 11. . . 3. 3033330. 1103030 00011113 010 93031131. 0000031 3 110003013931 0110031311130. '001111 1011130 1101330 69031 336313911 300113 000633111111 110103033331. .” (VI. 159). Razumixin's voice in narration seems too sharply defined and prolonged even for quasi-direct discourse in the example quoted here only partially: ”ll. . . 3 11103303. 03 10303 1096113. 10333113. 0600013330 3 3310 1003130300; 3. . . 3. 11011013311. 03 33031. . ." (VI. 162). It is the chronicler who seems to intrude in a direct quotation of Katerina Ivanovna: ”1113 11111100131 1100109 110300301 9 1101103133 K013011311 1130303311. 30100113 61111 11011300333 11 11911-3911 33 1960030100.. ." (VI. 292). Although Baxtin uses only examples of quasi-direct speech as illustrations of what he calls "character zones.“ his term seems especially applicable to another way in which characters' voices are incorporated into narration45 These are distinct from quasi-direct speech in that they are discernible even when there is no sign of either direct or indirect utterances by characters. The observer adapts Fedor Pavlovia's laconic. sporadic manner of speaking as well as the words he would likely use if describing the action: ”. . . 30113039 110010011311. . . 11000113 3039039. 303133. . . 30 303001111 0 11311 10300311. . .” (XIV. 254). Fenja's voice appears in narration (Book VIII. Chapter 3) through colloquialisms which lmpart suspense and a sense of action to the episode: ”. . . 3 01130 1100011111. . 3'; ”. . . 1110 611110 0311011. . .”; ”3030330110 61101311 1101011”; ”. . .30311311001-306013311001. . .” (XIV. 352). The observer identifies sympathetically with Dmitrij in the character zone: '. . . 03 300 00 3011 1103311. 303. 300 003011...” (XIV. 357). Xoxlakova‘s voice is clear in a judgement about her attire: ”. . .030 3011 30 113130110 3 110010113. 30 300 00330. 011011. 0 110301133010013011. 30 110301033011 0030631110 11011900130110 9 00611 3 6909000 30 39100130” (XV. 13).“6 A character zone in reverse. or “narrator zone.“ is discernible in Aleia's Erlebte Rede: ”. . . 0030011 13301 33 11033331103. 31131130 113030 11311. 113000 A1131033. 00 0113301111. 00 0333310113. 0 301003303. 0 6311311 06 11011” (XV. 181). The piquant, cynical viewof Katerina Ivanovna’s anticipated behavior is highly uncharacteristic of Ale‘éa's voice and belongs instead to the gossip. The observer's comment that Raskol‘nikov ”. . . 0011 191 133 30011331103 300 03033 30313310303010 311300303” after asking Polja to pray for him shows not his. but Raskol'nikov's attitude toward the act (VI. 147). The observer's key word for Svidrigajlov is “30111000130" to show what the latter considers important: ”61111 03 01310111033 3 24 301111100130 01101. . ." (VI. 188). This word reappears in a passage showing Svidrigajlov's voice throughout: ”P0310300 11030301103 0119 30331101311133" 3 33011330130130". 3 03331. 033111 1103003111103. . . 9010031103 11030130001330. 3106 913 30 3003 0111001033311 1101193311 11011300 9000011101330” (VI. 253). In his sarcastic treatment of Luiin. the observer adopts Luiin's own euphe- mism for Sonja: ”. . . 103010 103010 3 3 3030100011 011110113 3191mm 09- 0100130” (V1. 286). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) He seems to take a patronizing rather than emphatic view of Raskol'nikov's wish to confess with dignity. yet the reader is nonetheless struck by the earnestness of Raskol’nikov's wislr ”. . . 1130333013 093. 3106 01100331103. 310611 00313 119mm” (VI. 406). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) 47 Unusual syntax in narration constitutes an additional type of character zone. which conveys the voices of personages more subtty than in the examples above. Several critics have shown how syntax in narration reflects heroes' voices.“8 Dunja's wary hesitation about meeting Svidrigajlov at a place of his choosing may be felt in the brief hesitation of the observer: ”E3 301311001 011000311. 00110 113 110 3003333 11000 010 3033330. 30 030 30 0110003110. . . 33 10000013” (VI. 376). (Ellipsis is Dostoevskij's.) A similar example in the Epilogue perhaps refers to Razumixin's hesitation to let Raskol'nikov know of his plans for the future: ”. . . 110001131103 3 1011 0011011 100003. 103 69001 P003. 3. .. 30011 3113013 303011 300910 313331" (VI. 413). Chapter titles have been cited as reflecting characters‘ voices.“9 I would add an important case invotving the title ”H0 111. 110 1111” which represents A1e§a’s words not only in the same chapter. but also in another one. ”310 03 10300311.” This latter chapter represents Ivan's words (”310 03 10300311. 310 03 1030011111”). which Ale‘s'a's words follow as a response: ”A 33 111. 113 111?” . (XV. 87). Dostoevskij's use of quasi-direct discourse. character zones. and other forms of highly conditional indirect quotation are systematic in both novels. Readers must therefore pay particular attention to passages concerning personages. in order to ascertain whose judgements are conveyed in narration.- It would be difficult to deny that Dostoevskij through his narrators strongly contends with characters' voices.so Baxtin recognizes this activity of Dostoevskij's and insists that polyphony does not deny him opportunities for 25 expression: ”01 001000 11003410333003010 0011030 100693103 30 01303 01 0063 . .. 0 330611303303 00010303333. . .”51 Important for polyphony are dialogical approaches toward heroes, that is. opinions openly expressed. or slanting of quotations in which narrators advertise their own positions without denying heroes the chance to argue different ones. The means at Dostoevskij's disposal for accomplishing this are: (l) narrators” slanting of quotation; (2) intervention on behalf of favored heroes; (3) narrators” criticism of other characters; (4) innuendo and open mockery: and (5) expression of the author‘s views in narration and through heroes. Narrators use out-of-context quotations to show their dislike of personages and disapproval of their actions. The observer reveals his dis- pleasure at Dmitrij's naive. shortsighted attempts to solve his problems with Fedor Pavlovi‘é. Gru§en'ka. and Katerina Ivanovna' ”'. . .600301 0 03033 0901603 3 0110003 0063'. . .” 011V. 329); ”. . . '3 00330133330 11010119. 310 33 3301300 03331. 0 1103001" (XIV. 331). Dostoevskij peppers the narration about Kolja with the boy's own expressions in order to make his use of them seem odd or unnatural: ”. . . ”11913001333333” 3003 0011 000110030003. 303 013013031333 11031333, 01 ”39301”. . .” (XIV. 465): ”. . . 611110 611 11030030 310011 ”3 3010 333' 3 00100033. 30 310 03 0311031 310 0113 ”119311033”. . .” (XIV. 467). The observer appears to doubt Ivan's resolve to tell the police about Smerdjakov. and distances himself from Ivan‘s intent by abruptly quoting him: ”P3103333 611110 33310 ”3 9130 30 3311333103”. . .” (XV. 68). His quotation marks around the word ”003911331.” referring to Dmitrij's letter to Katerina Ivanovna. show that the observer disagrees about its value as evidence (XV. 55). His quotation marks around ”30103013300303 00303010010130” show that he does not accept Ivan's belief that the letter proves Dmitrij's guilt (XV. 54). The chronicler singles out Fedor Pavlovia's label for his wife - ”303391030” - to suggest that it is used inappropriately and unjustly (XIV. 22). The chronicler uses this word himself in reference to certain peasant women. but without quotation marks (XIV. 44). He also cites Fedor Pavlovia's understanding of his financial conflict with Dmitrij in a less-than-neutral manner: ”. . . 310 110 103311-10 3 103311-10 00003011. . . 03 3 110030 33 311031 103603011 333010 60000. 3 11003. 3 11003.” (XIV. 12).52 The observer gives his own opinion of Raskol’nikov’s motives for murder by stating his hero's view that: ”. ..30091103303 311 - ”33 11030191103333”. . .” (VI. 59). He distances him- self from Raskol”nikov's impression of Sonia (”110313 0 1193033011 011010011 011 26 30 ”30030013910 11011001033910“ (VI. 2491) and conveys Luiin's intentions toward Sonja with sarcasm: ”11010 110100330 30103130 03 ”0003030 3 30311330”. . .” (VI. 286). The chronicler focuses attention on Katerina Ivanovna's prideful delusions by quoting them: ”. . . 113310 33 1133 30 311331 110030 110000 3311 ”0303 300 30030011“ (V1. 290): ”. . . 00303011 311. 310 K0130330 30030330 33 0011010 600100003010. ”1101330 00130 0303011. 003010300133003010 00110. . . ”” (V1. 298). The narrators intervene directly upon occasion to defend certain heroes. M0isov”s uncharitable first impression of Zosima is followed by the explanation about Muisov's frame of mind: ”8006013 03 6110 30 030111 0030033 00603” (XIV. 37). The chronicler gives no quarter to Zosima”s detractors after his death: ”. . . 0033. 33 110360003 6301011300113. . . 009130 3013 1011 60010030330. . . 00110100001 01 33113 30330139100133” (XIV. 301). The observer had already answered Fedor Pavlovic's charges against the institution of elders: ”@3000 110300333 00111000. 100 3 30003000 330331. . . H0. . . 0011 30 110331100 11300010 011030” (XIV. 82). He seems to express disappointment that the investigators do not value Dmitrij's explanation about his love for Gru§en”ka: ”. . .3030 61100. 310 3 0113 3311 33 3 1011 0001031 1011301 10033113 1191131” (XIV. 433). The observer makes a special point of Ale‘éa's manner with Kolja: ”. . . 03 303 69010 3110330 3119. 1100311130119 K003. 010001 3101 3011000 110 00100330” (XIV. 500). Although he makes fun of Grigorij. the chronicler gives support to his testimony at Dmitrij's trial: ”. . . 0100113 00910 000030311300 0110303110. 603 0310333 0003. 03030600331111 ‘33113011. 0 31110110 01000130 300030033330” (XV. 97). In one case. the chronicler only pretends to intervene for Ivan. He first transmits lppolit Kirillovi‘é's discrediting remarks about Ivan in their entirety. then only afterward explains the prosecutor's motives: ”. . .101 003 3113 030 1196113330 000030 010 3 0110003. 3 1111110031 K303000333. 11011113 310. 30110130 1311001 0101101311” (XV. 127). Dostoevskij's approach here is rhetorical, but it is also polyphonic, because the narrators express opinions openly as partial individuals. The narrators do not refrain from directly criticizing characters' words and deeds. In one example the observer distances himself from Ivan's Legend of the Grand Inquisitor: ”03 003100333003 103003 3 1030030 0 93033033011” (XIV. 237). The remark is not made from a superior position. however. since Ivan himself senses after parting with A1e§a that he had not 27 maintained the tone he had wanted to. The observer makes no secret of his dissatisfaction with Dmitrij's plan to raise money from Samsonov. calling it ”1096113 3 3060031033113” (XIV. 332). He takes a ”best friend's advice“ approach to Dmitrij‘s schemes in Book VIII: '. . . 03 00 30300 300 10 300113 30033003. 310. .. 313 103 1110333. .. 1103091. 000131 3 30119. . . 11011 0 11060” (XIV. 331); ”9311. ”11003” 010 6110 191' (XIV. 345). The observer makes a subtle critical reply to Raskol”nikov when the latter rejects the thought that in going to murder Alena Ivanovna he is walking to his own execution. Following the words: ””.. .03 0011 00030003 11010030 319 1111001.. .” (VI. 60). the observer restores the analogy between Raskol”nikov and a condemned man with narration designed to evoke the feeling of one”s last moments before 003110 ”1100111300 3 0100930 61100 603330. 003300 33 30001 1101100330. 03 91110 6110 30 00013300. . .” (VI. 60) During the scene of the murder itself he “reminds“ Raskol'nikov about his earlier overconfidence about details: ”. . . 1133910113 03 303 69010 3061130003 303. 0930.10 0303011. 30611300 0 10033011 3 1103001103003 3 110003011” (VI. 65153 At one point in Marin W the observer distances himself from a statement that is true in order to call attention to it. namely. Ivan‘s words about his own guilt in ‘ Fedor Pavlovi‘é‘s murder: ”11030300 000. . .3 3111100330 010033113 010003311. . .” (XV. 54). Other note-worthy examples involving Raskol”nikov have been addressed.54 All of these instances suggest that the criticism is made by narrators who do not remain aloof. but appear to persuade the personages to revise their behavior. The narrators employ innuendo against major characters. The chronicler remains circumspect about calling into question Ivan's motives for returning home as a mediator between Dmitrij and Fedor Pavlovié ”. . . 31100 10100 330 11000003330. . .” (XIV. 17). The observer speaks indignantly about Fedor Pavloviz: in a passage the latter would not have disagreed with: ”000601130 930311300 03 30 0003 1100. . . 3131-1 03. 301110103. 10003003” (XIV. 22). The observer makes it clear that he considers Rakitin a hanger-on at Mixail Makarovi‘é’s: ”. . . P033133. 11030033103303 3110000001333 1103300311 03031 30010. . .011100303110 10003 0 33 00110” (XV. 26). He uses the same technique to raise doubts about whether Rakitin belongs at the monastery: ”. . . 110- 00003 11003303. .. 1103003310010139011113 11030119-10 1103001110311 3 60013010” (XIV. 36). Smerdjakov's treatise on faith does not pass without comment: ”10310033. . . 310-10 33 300 3103 000600033 30091 110330. . .” (XIV. 119155 28 The narrators similarly use open mockery to contend with the voices of personages that the author does not favor. Muisov is ridiculed by the statement: ”. . . 3911 03 3 00M 03 30 6110. . . 93001333011 30 60003300011. . .” (XIV. IO). and by the alogism: ”. . . 300110103 30 000 11000000 30100030333 0000. . . 0 310 0000 011330003” (XIV. II). A barb at Muisov's self-possession is present in the observations: ” . 11000103 03600001303 300333 00000013000001 0 3011 110313 310 9111 3 1303” (XIV. 33): ”1193000 0303390 61100 001110 110113000011 09339. . .” (XIV. 79). The chronicler reserves similar treatment for Rakitin. who makes a positive impression on the spectators at Dmitrij's trial: ”. . . 303033033001310 1111003 3 30063330303333 60010000010011 00 1100010” (XV. 99). He mocks Rakitin with a word-weaving litany (”1130300001. 310 03 000 3300. 90333100130 113010 3300. 9 30011-10 03 6110. 300-10 03000. 00 000113-10 1030030” [XV. 991) or labels him with a euphemism - ”3000333 0001033113” (XIV. 310). Neljudov is ridiculed by excessive repetition of a single adjective (30000133) in a litany resembling the one mentioned directly above (”. . . 1100001310 060100100. 110001003 100113033. 1100001310 00011310333 3 110000133 39001 3 3013 111930. . .” (XIV. 408) or by inappropriate use of the word 001110: ”. . . 300111 6000303. . . 3 001110 H330003 110010030033 11036011100 01 6001110031. . .” (XIV. 408); ”. . . 303-10 3030010130330 001110 0130130 3330003 110010030033” (XIV. 434). Diminutives also are enlisted for this purpose: ”1133330 310 330600330 0006333910 001110 3011130011” (XIV. 434); ”. . . 303311-10 911300330 00000131111 10- 0003011. . .” (XIV. 440). Kolja is mocked by an oxymoron: ”. . . 0 1000303303 0300113001110 010300003 3003” (XIV. 496). The gossip drops snide remarks about Xoxlakova: ”. . . 0 00300 33 0100010 0010 300031103. . (XIV. 406): ”839011 61100101 300301130330 33010003033311. 310 33000130” (XIV. 406). Dostoevskij's chronicler actively patronizes the prosecutor at Dmitrij's trial: ”Ho 311110031 K303000033 6110 0006003: 3330100-10 0119 00 033 1100 33 0110003003003!” (XV. l25). Lu‘z'in receives the same biting sarcasm: ”110 3003303 11000 11010 113100333 101300 1113 170.110.1110” (VI. 305). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Sarcasm is used mostly with minor characters like Lebezjatnikov whose voices Dostoevskij does not take seriously.56 Although this chapter strictly speaking involves narrative speech. it is enlightening to consider how often Dostoevskij's opinions appear in the utterances of both positive and negative characters.57 This increases the prestige of all major characters. since it forces readers to evaluate characters” 29 stances on their own terms rather than comparing their distance from the author's system of thought Critics have focused abundantly on the role favored characters play in presenting Dostoevskij's ideas.58 I would like to include additional cases from Dostoevskij's notebooks and essays. Dmitrij's ' ironic treatment of Rakitin”s treatise on "33001333” and brain research reflects Dostoevskij's own thoughts in ””A Memory of Feelings."59 Razumixin”s assertation (”13303 09100 13333 1101036931. 1113303 09010 30 1100091000103 1101103333. 1113303 09100 11000303130130. 313303 09100 00100100030!” (VI. 197)) and Porfirij Petroviéb exhortation i”. . . 010031001 1113333 1103110. . .' (VI. 351]) both reflect Dostoevskij's view that consciousness is a disease sapping one's ability to live.60 In another instance. 111111 response to Ivan (”. .. 3000 3003000311 13033 1100100003. 30100113. 1103101 61111. 3330100 3 30 91130003” [XIV. 210]) is a metaphorical expression of Dostoevskij's own dream about Russian”s role in helping Europe recover her cultural heritage. which he reveals in his speech about Pu§kin (XXVI. 147-148). Dmitrij recalls Dostoevskij's recollections of the peasant Marci with his dream about finding a kindred soul in prison and resurrecting him (XV. 3 l ). Others have discussed cases in which Dostoevskij speaks through characters he does not entirely favor.61 I would add several more. for example. Dostoevskij's agreement with Ivan about the problem of cruelty to animals and its relationship to the even greater problem of cruelty to human 111113162 Ivan's portrait of Rakitin. which Rakitin 111111111 cites (Book 11. Chapter 7) is similar to Dostoevskij's own version of the contemporary seminarist.“ The Devil's assertation i”. . . 3000 30010 100130 0030901311 3 300030300130 30010 0 6010. . .” (XV. 83]) 03130013 Dostoevskij's own view that love of humanity is inconceivable without belief in God.64 The Inquisitor”s prediction to Christ I”. . . 03 001110 600031 11006 1003 3 1103001 30 1011. 30100113 060010131 010 0030011” [XIV. 232)) agrees with Dostoevskij's own opinion that people will not give up hardships solely in exchange for bread.65 Petjukovit'fs rejection of Fedor Pavlovi‘é as a father in any sense of the word is approached surprisingly closely by Dostoevskij's private comment about the Kroneberg incident that a family based upon pitilessness would not be worth having.66 In the Devil's comment (”To-10 301 0041001111-10 30 30003101030033910-10 110339. 00 0010 01130033110 0 3911133 930011100333. - 0033 100130 0000!” [XV. 781) one hears in a joking manner what Dostoevskij states seriously about the artificial implanting of 30 socialism.67 Among further examples one may cite Ivan's admission to A1033 about Russians” uncritical acceptance of European progress (”.. . 310 1011 131101030. 10 9 09003010 110013330 101300 1110 03030110. . ;” [XIV. 214]). which itself anticipates Ale‘éas joke to Kolja: ”11030111310 311. . . 090030119 0130013339 30019 xa0303010 11060. . . 3 03 303100 1110 303300131 3011 319 30019 30110030333010” (XIV. 502). Ivan also cites accusations of atrocities by the Turkish army. as does the author. His mention of a folk saying ”. . . 0600301 - 3033103 0030011” [XIV. 220)) characterizes Dostoevskij‘s attitude toward Spasovit': and anticipates the treatment of Fetjukovié in Book Twelve. lppolit Kirillovi‘t': indicts Fedor Pavlovii': as ”. . . 0033 33 0030011033113 011103” (XV. 126). thus seconding Dostoevskij‘s own criticism of the “men of the forties.“ Kalganov puts forward the author‘s opinion about the harmful effects of modern civilization on the countryside in his negative view 01' more recent popular folk songs (XIV. 393). (The fact that not Dmitrij or Gru§en'ka. but Kalganov puts forward this opinion indicates that even minor characters take ideological stances in Dostoevskij's novels.) The Devil gives a parodic twist to Dostoevskij” s ideas about the meaning of suffering in life: ”603 010000333 30300 61100 611 0 303 900300101330” .”.(XV 77). Porox in 21051110100111 nakazanie is generally treated with humor and condescension. but. like lppolit Kirillovié. he shares Dostoevskij's concern with the frequence and special character of contemporary suicides (VI. 408). The numerous examples cited above indicate that negative characters. like positive ones. frequently reflect Dostoevskij's thinking about important issues. Dostoevskij speaks through the former partly to make his ideas more persuasive to ideological opponents. In doing so. however. he also encourages readers to take negative heroes seriously and to consider all ideological positions in the novels carefully. The examples cited here indicate that Dostoevskij prefers to express himself through personages in both novels even more than in narration. In doing so he augments the prestige of their voices and strengthens the polyphonic character of the novels. itttttttit The discussion in this chapter has centered on the presence of numerous voices in the narration of W and B13133 Mum. and has remained cognizant of the fact that only relationships 3) between voices can be considered polyphonic. I have demonstrated the presence of five narrators in each novel: the chronicler. the hagiographer. the publicist. the gossip. and the observer. They differ not by their level of omniscience or by the content they discuss (although obviously different matters interest the gossip than interest the hagiographer). but by the tones and attitudes they adopt to what they discuss. This proves the existence of polyphony in narration even if the influence of characters” voices in narration is not considered. Dostoevskij strives to keep narration near the plane of characters' voices. so that they know as much as possible about themselves and other characters. The task narrators have of conveying information often appears minor compared with their activity in giving their opinion about information which characters themselves introduce. Dostoevskij does this partly for the purpose of creating and maintaining suspense. but the novels as a result largely meet Baxtin‘s condition for narration in a polyphonic novel. that narrators should not enjoy powers of communication and interpretation superior to characters”. The narrators frequently refer to heroes’ words for corroboration of what they say. and speak as if heroes themselves were about to either echo or dispute them. They generally avoid clarifying heroes' thoughts until the latter themselves are ready to do it. The narrators use tentative language full of modal expressions. as if anticipating that they themselves might be proven wrong in what they say. While someone anticipating conventional narration from an openly proclaimed omniscient point of view might interpret the hesitation and hedging of Dostoevskij’s narrators as merely a device for building interest. the course of the novels reveal that Dostoevskij's narrators actually do not give the most important information at a given moment. but defer instead to the characters involved with the story for its gradual interpretation. Narration from characters” points of view and through characters” voices keeps the plane of narration near that of the voices of personages. In this way the questions ”What happened?””. “What will happen?””. and “Why?” are largely a province of personages as they provide narration with redundant contradictory and complementary accounts of conversations and events. As "authors“ of their own works. they reveal their ideas about others and themselves. thereby helping to fulfill an important requirement for the presence of Baxtin‘s polyphony - that the self -consciousness of heroes is the 32 artistic dominant. While narration takes place on the level of characters. the converse is also true as characters speak in narration through quasi-direct discourse. character zones. and speech interference. The line between narration and indirect and even direct speech of characters is generally blurred and at times erased entirely. The author enters into dialogue with characters by answering their words. commenting ironically on them or openly criticizing their outlooks. In doing so. however. they create the impression that their heroes might conceivably take their advice or criticism seriously. or that they are engaged in debating their characters and contending with them for the reader's opinion. Dostoevskij expresses his opinions not solely through favored characters. but through nearly all heroes. This increases the importance of their voices relative to the voices of narrators. Indeed. Dostoevskij expresses so much of his thought through characters precisely because he considers their voices important. either for him to encourage or for him to confront. N910: 1 Belknap highlights the impact 00 phony has on narration in Dostoevskij's poveis: "Bagtin's sense that Dosotoevs ij developed a polyphonic novel. .which is necessaril misread if one listens to only one vorce in it. is essentially a statement 3 out the relationshi between the author and his narration. R Belknap. "Recent Soviet Schfiafisg' i107 goggoevskij: A Review Article.“ $13110 WM . - . 2 V. Vinogradog;3 WWW (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel”stvo xudo stvennoj literatury. 19 9 .pp. 122-123. 128-129. 3 Miller . discusses this phenomenon in ' : ”'Bakhtin has written of the Eggyphomc effect created by the voices o the . different characters' in . toevskij's novel. Equally effective in maintaining the real reader's interest. however. are the varied narrative modes. Here. and increasingly throughout the novel. the narrator's different voices rapidly interrupt and intersect each other to we the chapter as a whole a. polyphonic texture." (Emphasis is Miller's.) It 1011.me mgLRgadgn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1981 . p. 13 . Belknap finds more than. one narrator per onaiity. or “voice." in, Gogol”s ”'Povest” 0 tom. kak 00330111313 Ivan Ivanom s Ivanom Nikiforovicem.“ He considers that Gogol s narrator "grows u ”' in the course of the story. appearing at different 3 es with 001103000 .10eg different outlooks on what occurs. R. Belknap. ‘ arrative Time in Nineteenth Century Prose." AATSEEL Meeting. New York. 1986. (Dostoevskij's narrators. however. do not change linearly. but alternate throughout the novels.) 4 V. Kantor. W1“ (Moscow. ”'Xudoie- stvennaja literatura." 1983. p. 18. J. Meijer. ” he Author of mm 33 Km" in W (The Hague: Mouton, 19 l). passim. 5 N. Perlina. "Toward the Concept of an Ideal Hero in Dostoevski"s 513113 11313111010131." Russianianauaaalaurnat XXXVII. No. 128 (Fall 1983). 68-70. 6 I am indebted to N. Perlina for Bginting out the importance of relating these narrative voices to genres in stoevskij’s novels. and for suggesting these genres. 7 Kantor suggests that the chronicler is set off from other narrators by references to :"our",ftown as opposed to. for example. discussions of eiderism. Kantor. p. 58. Meijer believes that the chromcler who describes events in Books One and Twelve of " is different from the narrator whoefollows Alesa. Dmitritjl. and Ivan in 01 er parts of the novel. Meijer. pasSim. Oates' View that t e narrator adopts a markedl different attitude toward the heroes in the final book echoes what 30101 and Meijer argue. ]_. Oates, "The Double Vision of the Brothers Karamazov." . _ ' ' ' XXVII (l9 8*). 205. Egeberg’s observation abut the frequency of interpolations such as 11036030310" and “1103100310" applies to the chronicler. E. Eg)eber . "‘Ekspozicija WW1." 5531092513110. XXVII (1981 . l4§. Dangv's view that: . . at times. the narrator sim%ly allows that he is ’onfus‘ed") similarly applies to the chronicler. D. anov. "Notes on Generagmga Text: The Wang." 0 ' No. l (1 80-1981), 87. "The local reSident relates background information, provides some foreshadowing by anticipating events, and generally takes care of the material and social setting. . V. Terras. ' (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1981). p. 88. 8 _All citations from the novels are from F. Dostoevskij. MW . -' eningrad: "Nauka." 1972). Volume and page number are indicated in parentheses. 9 Vetlovskaja considers this hesitation on the Kart of narrators merely a deVIce deSigned t9 encourage readers to trust t eir "conscwntiousnessi V. Vetl‘ovskaja. Wm (Leningrad: "Nauka." 1977). p. 5. I consider that Dostoevs ij assigns this trait to the chronicler in . order to distinguish him from other narrator voices in the novel. 1° Nuttal notices a change in narrative which I believe signals the entrance of the chronicler's personality: "He is capable of haltin a narrative in which the omnisCient author has been thoroughly absorbe in the movement of gripping events. . . merely in order to remark. in proprJLr persona that the only way to preserve good looks in old age is toucultivate a nice nature." A. Nuttal, W I 106Edinburgh:Scottish Academy Press for Sussex University Press. 1 P. . . 11 I am emplmfiing Perlina's term for this narrator's voice to refer 001. to speech which 3 11 would relate to the "inspired" plane of narration (Part 3. pp. 68-79). Baxtin refers to the "Cana" scene as a hagiographically stylized moment in narration. and considers it the only narrative passage of its type in the novel. I believe that this and other narrative passages reveal a 34 hagiographic voice rather than stylized depiction. 12 Vetlovskaja on _the other hand feels that the hagiographic tone of the narration in is stron enou h to overshadow the chronicle iaspects of narration. Vetlovs aja. " o enie avtora k reifi [1096980133211] 312’ (Serija iiteratury i jazyka). XXVIII. vyp. 4 13 One additional example involves Sonja's reading of the Bible to Raskol‘nikov. Roselnshield says about this passage: "The language is solemn. there is no irony.‘ '.G Rosenshield.’ WM (Lisse: Peter DeRidder Press, 1978 , 11.1.31 011033 310333 E30310033 (2033 3033030 0011033003311 0003011p - 609033110. $010000” 00011130 301101133011 0 111 0.133011. 1103300301311 3 M30K19. klovk ii. "Povesti o proze: Razmy leniia 410 razbory." vols ( oscow: "Xudo stvennaja literatura.“ 1966). v. I. 0.2 ‘4 Miller comments about one narrative voice in Idiot which aptly suits the iournalist in Bramlaaimakazanie and Winnings" he is a collector of the responses of other people. as an amateur sociologist or psychologist." Miller. p. 124. 15 The publicist makes aphoristic remarks about social phenomena. and goses as one who has made a study of the problem in question. He appears 0 to use Miller” 3 expression. as an "amateur psychologist." 16 Grossman notes the use 01”"30106333 and "03310110" to introduce authoritative op' ns _and scientific. factual explanations. L. Grossman. "Dostoevskij - xudo 10W edited by N. Ste- panov (Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSS 1959 .p. 54. 17 Kiraly’s comments about passages like this suits the narrator as gossip: .3 60001311 1110 00110303 33131130011 00030130301003 110 01300103310 3 100331111 1000311 300100 3011903303. 0 "303313000030330011vt 3 311 0000 11030033001303 3 001110 11001003. G. Kiraly. "Nedeklarirovann 3000/{avt povestvovaniia."lnternationaljkzstmysk1§cholatabnllatin. ”1977) 101e ‘8 Terras notes the narrator' s "impe ed snicker" while describing Samsonov‘ 3 past and current relationship to 610 0 ‘ka. Terras. p. 280. 19 Miller employsa asimilar term to designate this type of narrator - 'narrator-observer." Miller. 0. 91. 20 Miller discusses a gothic narrator voice which maintains a tone of heightened terror. Miller. p. 8. Some readers may notice a sixth voice in pass aees from each novel. The narrator of Wig seeks this 0 fectar in describing Raskoi' nikov' s silent exchange with Razumixin at the t.IV Chapter 3. The narrator of W strives to generate drtead' in the reader at the possible outcome of Katerina lvanovna' s testimon (Book XII. Chapter 4). I would not ascribe this to gothic narrator. as does iller. passages in which the narrator identifies with characters through quasi- -direct discourse. and have found only these examples of a gothic tone which' is purely the narrator' s. 35 2‘ Terras notes the narrator's desire to show his geographical familiarity with the town at the beginning of Book X. Chapter 1. Terras. p. 3. . Thereafter. however. the observer takes over the narration about Kolja's activity on the given day. 22 Scennikov finds that the narrator utters an opinion alien iron the. author's by expressing dqubt in the peasants' ability to understand the issues at Dmitri1's trial. G. cennikov ”Sud i pravosud'e v i '° .. 2. .o o i idealy Dostoevsk o." In 1 a: a :1- 2‘1 :no sb. 7 (Sverdlovsk: 1974. p. 46. gorenkova points to another example by juxtaposing the narrator's comment ('8 000101330100 0093000 01003. 110130 300003. 1000300 3030300 3 11000100901300. 3011 1111 00000.10 0. 31111 30301030311” [XIV. 10]) with Dostoevski"s own view that huma10 behaVior is extrordinarily complex and varied. G. orenkova. .“Poét: a sjuxetnm. aury v romane F.M.Dostoevskogo : a 1112. on " ’ . 112-1“.'1=.. No.5 (1971). p. 28. RM. Dostoevs 1b 1- 12.11 ' Lo o; x iteraturnoe nazlfgstvo. v. LXXXIII), edited by .Bazanov et. a1. Moscow: "Nauka." 1971) 0. . 23 Vladiv considers art of the polyphonic structure: 1'. . . {technique of direct witnessing of 0 action to the exclusion of all action which cannot be directly witnessed. . S. Vladiv, "Dostoevsky's Major Works as Semiotic Models.”in h 01*.“11t”. 1': “2.1 .0 01.,11°1"‘ 0 11' .10 1' . : ~ - ' . edited by Christesen, .. and Scurfield. 1. Melbourne: ussian ipartment. University of Melbourne. 1977) p. 54. 24 M. Baxtin. WW (Moscow: "Sovetskaia Rossiia." 1979). p.60. 25. Odinokov describes how the narrator clarifies Raskol'nikov's con- sCiousness without adopting a superior position of knowledge: '8 103011 110033 0031303311 000103330 P003001333030 1101 100130 00100 c 310 '00333033011’ 3 30333113333113 003030 - 3 310 101110 3110033 03003130 - 1100063110 1111003 0001 11311 3 100010. .. 1111 030311. 1103 00100'3110001031' 33 13003.“ V. Odinokov. W980 " auka."19811 .p. S. (Novosibirs : 26 In Rosenshield's words. . . the narrator can be said to have covered his tracks." Rosenshield. p. 65. 27 Miller comments on a similar example in Idiot; . . it is unusual (except perhaps. in the work of Gogol) for a character to echo. almost verbatim. the sentiments ex ressed b a narrator of whom the character is supposedly unaware." M er, 0. 21 . The several examples I have listed indicate that this is not out of the ordinary. but is an integral aspect of Dostoevskij's polyphonic technique. . 23 In an additional instance. Shaw finds a double level in the narration at the. conclusion of Raskol’nikov‘s dream about the beating of the horse. in which the narrator echoes Raskol'nikov's present-tense conscious awareness pf wak _ up with his own past-tense description of the event. J. Shaw. 1351101 OV's Dream." W01. XVII. No. 2 (1973). 36 29 As Eynin points out. Dostoevskij's notebooks for Wm: show his intent to give narration a neutral. matter-of-f act quality and to avaid direct evaluation. F. Evnin. "Roman ' ° ' " in p. .169. Meijer observes that the. narrator of l ' _ 1m raretlg'. qualifies characters directly. Meijer. _p.__26,.._ . , .gore ova finds that e narrator‘s words about Grusen'ka give an 1 incomplete Ieicture of her and are later supplemented by the views of other characters. gorenkova. p. 29. - .- ‘ 3° Koprince argues persuasively that Svidrigajlov is paralyzed and frustrated in 1118. unchanged wish to assault Dun'a by her surrender of the revolver. R. Koprince. ”The Episode in W01." an unpublished PhD. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1978. p. 82. I interpret this passage rather tomean that Svidrigajlov is briefly relieved of his drive for suicide when Dunja refuses to pull the trigger again. 001 to confront it once again when she denies os1tive feeling for him. hat two plausible explanations are possible or Svidri ailov 3 state of mind serves to bring home the underdetermined nature 0 Dostoevskij’s narration which requires readers to look at heroes' voices for understanding of their behaVior. 31 Meijer and Terras both point to the use of modal ex ressions in narration as a way to avOid pinpointing characters‘ preCise thoug ts or motives. Terras cites the equivocation on Fedor Pavlovic's attitude toward the death of his first wife. and also to the frequency of ”1101301 6311' in the chronicler's treatmentuof Fedor Pavlovic’s marriages. Terras. p. 81. Meijer finds that Dostoevski ‘s narrators use modal expressions even at their most ommsCient levels. Mei1er. p. 20. (These observations about Wm would be just as relevant if applied to W where the (31 eavesdrops on Razumixin's possible eelings about Dunja. yet uses g1: 013010;” and ”1101301. 3110330 11010119, 310' to give the a fearance that . suggesting about Razumixin's true feelings (VI. 16g ). Osmolovskij comments on the frequent use of indefinite compounds like "310-10" and "30303-10' in characterizing events and people in W 0.03molovsk11. "0 portretnom metode Doskoevskogo-romanista.“ ‘ - 11111. I. No. 25 (1975). 75-76. This not 901. shows the or ‘ ‘al plan for first- erson narration and the subsequent inc ation of narrators to identify with askol'nikov. but also gives the impression that narrators consciously /: -: avoid givmg their ownwevawluations apart from heroes'. ‘This’ 'GCVlCéWISHSEW'Ejm- ““‘” for example. in the chronicleor‘s words ‘ " '303- 10. '100-10, “1000031," and '00 11091311 to provide the illusion of rumor in explaining the circumstances of Adelaida Ivanova's death (XIV. 9). 32_ "Dostoevskij speculates and lets the reader speculate. and in this way. by shifting the pomt of view and by each new shift putting into doubt the 1 previous one. involves the reader in the psychological process. thus . _..__ removing himself. . Z. Fole'ewski. "Murder M stery or Christian Tragedy: Remarks. on Some Structur Aspects of In: 3191110. rs K313100132." Forum WM 111 (Fall 1980). 116. . . this is a.speCial. feature 91 stoevsky's art that we often do not know what is gomg on inside of his characters and that we are left in the dark about their motivations. Bakhtin ' himself speaks of this lack of “finalit " in Dostoevskij's heroes." R. Wellek. "Bakhtin's View of Dostoevsky: 'Polyp ony' and 'Carnivalesque,"' WK! Studies. I (1980). 34. Wellek makes this point in the process of challenging Baxtin's concept of polyphony in Dostoevskij. yet I consider that this 37 statement could serve as an affirmation of it. 33 Baxtin. p. 80. 34 . . Dostoevskij seems to have entered into the minds of different peo 1e ‘ and seen the world around them from their point of View." T. Pachmuss, " he Technique of Dream-Logic in the Works of Dostoevskij." v' . MW IV (1960). 236. Meijer singles out the dramatization inherent in Dostoevskij's narration in the form of shifting points of view. Meijer, pp. 23-24. Terras demonstrates how the narrator in " . moves from an external position prior to Dmitrij‘s arrest to his Bonn of view: "Dostoevskij lets the whole horror of this scene filter through mitri1's consciousness." He finds several other examples in the novel which show shifts in point of view between characters as well as between them and the narrator. Terras. 0E. 31 1. 322. 345. Gassieva cites a passage in which SVidrigajlov "narrates" to askol'nikov the way he appears when he walks down the street. V. Gassieva. o ' t " v o " e 1e " ' ani' " 3vols. 01d onikidze: 1980 ,v. 111. p. 10. "Yet not only do we occasionally see through the eyes of other major characters in Raskol'nikov's presence, we see through the eyes of minor characters as well." Rosenshield. p. 27. 35 Verc has this to say about Dostoevskij's frequent use of the word “00091“: ". . . 110010000333 30 110301 303311 303910-10 01103000033910 110330310 110 01301003310 3 010119 1110319 303 3 11000030139; .. 310 000 0. . .30 330103001 9 0363 33303010 '011110003010 336111301 . ." 1. e122, "0 ‘neo dannom de1stv0' u Dostoevskogo." ' - ' ' ' XII (1978). 412. 36 Horsman mentions several additional examples from WEE—.1 We: "It is Raskol'nikov's confession to Sonja that tells us what his motives were in committing the murder. Mrs. Raskol'nikov's letter. as has already been noted, tells us much about several characters; SVidriga1lov frankly tells Raskol'nikov a reat deal about his past: Marmeladov gives us his own sorry story. None 0 these can have the Viewpoint of anomnisment author: each represents the subjective impression of a single fallible human being. D. Horsman,"§um9_end_flumihmg1}t. A Study in Technique." New WW VI Summer 1970 .35. 37 Danov uses Lotman's term "11303300300030" to describe situations in " in which: . . each character is given to tell what _he knows. as the novelist parcels out certain information for reconSidering while discarding the rest." In this wa . he says: . . an event is fre _uently resurrected in narrative and retold 1001 a new perspective prov1 ing ,an added or different dimension." He considers the most concluSive verSion generall to be the one told: . . by a sin 1e character most in a 0051000 to now." elative to polyphony he states: ‘Dostoevskij‘s novel may thus be regarded as polyphonic not only in Baxtin‘s sense - that there are a number of distinct autonomous voices. each representing an idea - but also in the sense that there is a "polyphony" of perspective whereby a number of viewpoints contributesto the depiction of a Single event.‘ A. Shukman. . , . , . . . , . .1:~ , , ! . 1‘1 p. .cied in Ianov, pp . 1 . . 81. 86. Belknap treats two prominent events in which are transmitted by a number of characters: Dmitrij 3 treatment of Snegirev. 38 for whichhe finds four versions. and the murder of Fedor Pavlovié. for which he fmds ten. R. Belknap.Ihe_51mctiir_e_Qf_The_Bmihers_Karamm (Theliague: Motiton. 1967). pp. 98-100. Rowe mentions one instance of multiple. narration 6% characters, namely. the three descri tions of Raskol‘nikov's theory ( . . . Porfirij PetroviE. by Raskol’nikov himse . and by SVldnsailov). W; Rowe. W000]. and WW Some Com arative Observations." W No. 10 (1974). 33 . Wasiolek notes that Razumixin and askol'nikov each heve a different_version of Raskol'nikov's troubles with his landlady. B. Wasiolek. "Raskol'nikov's Motives: Love or Murder.“ W20. 1111111 (1974). 255. ”Lebezjatnikov provides crucial clues; Raskol'nikov pieces it all together immediately." L. Welch. "Luzhin‘s Crime and the Advantages of Melodrama in . . .. I 5| l' . I 'I | I Dostoevskvs W Language. XVIII. Spring 1976 , l3 . 38 Meijer feels Dostoevskij often makes his characters into euthors in their ~ own righ Meijer. p. 28. Kantor singles out the roles of lppolit Kirillovié and Fet1ukOVi not only as prosecutor and defense attorney at Dmitrié's trial. but also as. uthors of a sort with their differing versions .of the mur er of Fedor Pavlpw .Kantos. p. 47.. Miller treats the 133130 Zosima not only as a work of his authorship. but also as one in which Ale 0 has an importantrole as editor: “Zosima's account of Joseph betrays Ale a's hand in its editing and selection for the '31 raphical Notes.“ R. Miller. "The Biblical Story of (Joseph 1&§0stwvsfli's Wm" 31321011121111. XLI. No. 4 198 l. B W 301 33 003010 03010069013010 ‘39030.’ 3010011 33 110000100030 611 00603 10303 3010033: 3010033 30031111. 3010033 T033010033010 11000131003, 3010033 11003000. 3010033 830113010 333033310 0. 30100113 '60611 30100103- 00030100133.’ 3010033 0 3030 0030030303 3.1.0. 11 000 313 3010033 00003 3110010103 33 00100011, 0 00113113 10003113. G. Bgorenkova, ”Sju etnost‘ kompozicii.‘ ' ' ' No. 6 (1976). 14-15. Perlina points. out the role of Fedor Pavlovi as the author. of anecdotes lagd sacrilegious stories. She also notes that both Ivan and Rakitin e . call out A a on his "plagiarism." N. Perlina MW ‘ “ (Lanham: niversity ess merica.19 .PP.40-4l,4 . 3.9 Svidrigajlov's .voluhtary revelation of details from his family life simultaneously With his attempts to present his past behaVior as somewhat ustifiable make his reminiscences especially appropriate for .the genre axtm calls 03106301001033-003001100000333. M. Baxtin. mm 11110010. 11. 218. 4° Lindenmeyr provides the journalistic background for Dostoevskij's allusion to plans of Napoleon III for the renovation of Paris in the thoughts of Raskol'mkov. A. Lindenme/yr. "Raskol‘nikov's City and the Napoleonic Plan." 31021011311331. XXXV (19 6). pp. 37-47. 41 “Dostoevsky was therefore intent on presenting the feel 91 consciousness as well as its content and logic." Rosenshield. p. 42. "Das ist ein permanenter Dialog. das sowohl zwischen oden Romangestalten als auch . mischen Oden Autor und den zentralen F uren seiner Werke auf gleichberechtigter Grundlage stattfindet." M. egner. “Zur Romankonzeption Fedor M. 39 Dosioevskiis. " Walk. XXVIII. No. 5 (1983). 689. aginart finds an instance when the narrator quotes Raskol'nikov‘s term for Lu ' as an expression of disap roval: '“1' he narrator icks up the epithet 'fiance' (1301133). uttered with suc vehemence by Rasko 'nikov. and uses it as the basis for an elaborate plsssical description . P. Hart. "Looking. over Raskol'nikov's Shoulder: The arrator in W" 111110971). 171. 43 Volo‘s'inov defines quasi-direct discourse as combining within a single utterance the tone and word order of direct discourse by characters with the verbal tenses and persons that the narrator uses in indirect speech, and considers that '3 allows the author to combine characters' and narrators' accents. V. Volo 10031111101111.0an0:sz translated b L..Mateika and I. Titunik New York: Seminar Press. 19 3 . 0031117. .155. ( axtin has been named as the author of the work from which this is cited: ”The authorship of WW published in 1929. is clearly Baxtin's.” K. ark and . oquist. MikhailTflakmigi (Ca bridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard. University Press. 1980. p. 16 . Volo inov's emphasis on the role of quasi-direct discourse as Cited above may be taken for this reason if not as Baxtin's directly. then at least as repr seating an opimon which Baxtin would share.) McHale stresses that Volo inov's definition of quasi-direct discourse. re nizes the difference between characters' voices and narrators' rather an formal linguistic markers as the dominant aspect of quasi-direct discourse: . . the marginal and complex categories which his typology provides for are not primarily formal-grammatical. but conce tual-semantic. . B. McHale. "Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent ccounts."E'11.. 111. No. 2 (1978). 262. Nilsson includes examples of quash-direct discourse in his categorization of suspense-building deVices which represent: . . an interplay between an obiective recording of what is ha pening and a more expressive rendering of the nervous working of Raskol' ov's mind." N. Nilsson. “Dostoev 1] and the Language of Suspense." Wang. XVI (1970). 40. Zundelovi concludes: '. . .110000 30113 1100301131 303 61.1 600560 001000 0 1100003013011, 0110310 0113010 30 11091301." He cites examples such as 1.311991” 011000330l" “and " . .30300, 30300 6111110 0119 1011001. 110110 no 3031111010 11305110. . . as representative of the te porary blending of Raskol‘nikov's and. the narrator‘s vaices. (Zundelovi 3 view of the ultimate function of quasi-direct discourse in WW however. is incommensurate with Baxtin's idea of polyphony in Dostoevskij's novels. since he considers it a means by which the authorépursues his hero and guides 'm to his ultimate pu sh t.) Ja. Zundelov' , (T kent: 'Sredniaja i vys aia kola."tl963).pp.15-1 .14. 4.1 . . Er. verWischt die dream zwischen den Seg menten mit dem reinen Brzahlertext oder dem reinen Personentext einer seits und. den beiden Texte in bestimmten Merkmalen repra- sentierenden Interferenzsegmenten anderseits. Dan verschleiert er Oden Anteil der beiden Texte am auktorial-personal osaillierenden Erzahlbericht. (Emphasis is Schmid’s.) , W. Schmid. "Zur Semantik und Asthetik des dialogischen Erzahlmonologs bei Dostoevski." Canadian-_Amcricanfilaxicfitudics. V II (1974). 383. f4 Baxtin. W (Moscow: "Xudoiestvennaia literatura." l9 . PP. 132-13 . 4o 45 '11 10003 0011030. 303 0303030. 000100 0011 0003 3030, 0003 0111000 0033333 30 0309130100133 001000333 30310301, 03110030103 - 140010 011035- 000030 0330031003 - 30 11000003 01000033010 100010 110301010 00000." Baxtin. W31. 00 132-133. (Baxtin here .view character zones as a general property of the novel: Examples Cited in this work. however. are considered to contribute preCisely to the polyphomc element in 20001301000_i_nakmni0 and W) 46 Hall calls attention to the use of French in narration as a way of signalling Xoxlakova's v0ice. He also mentions the narrator's use of " w [31:31)! I: abqumtaiae” to describe the Devil. who himself uses much rench. V. Hall. "Dostoevsky's Use of French as a Symbolic Device in 3000000012." Wm. 11 (1965). 173. 47 Comments bg Hart about the narrator's treatment of Lu‘z’in (Part 11. Chapter 5) and Niemi about the tone of Pul’xeriia Aleksandrovna's letter (Part 1. Chapter 3 suggests that the two Bassages are similar enough for the former to re resent a character zone of ul'xerija Aleksandrovna. the more so since bo pgslages are about the same person. Hart says about the treatment of Lu ' : . . by the very act of denying certain ludicrous similarities. the nat'rator inplants suggestions of unfavorable com arisons in the reader's .conscmusness. . Hart. 0. 172. This. however. is t 0 method Niemi finds in Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna's letter: "In a style uniquely hers. rich. in adversatives and concessives. . P. Niemi. "The Art of gamma " 11000001510110050000. 111 (Winter 1963). 295.- 48 Volo§inov says that curious sentence structure and inaefiropriate syntax are a sign of speech interference and multiple intona 'ons. ese result from the penetration of an alien voice into speech. Volo inov. P. 135. '. . .000 3000030013, '1100303,‘ 11000603 01303 01010 1130010113 0100130101 11000603 '1000000,‘ 00090133 11000010000330 303 00001010013303 0 3010." M. [(0 ustin. "Problem Dostoevsk o segodnia," W No. 3 (1965 . 131. Nilsson emonstrates ow additions. revisions. repetitions. and piecemeal hrases during the murder scene reflect Raskol'nikov's consCiousness. ,Nilsson. “Rhyming as a Stylistic Device in W" Russian “1061mm, IV 197 ). 68. Terras finds durindg the scene describing the search of mitrii's clothing that: "The convolute diction of this passage. . . is symbolic of ptnltl‘lbs _acute embarrassment." He also says about Katerina Ivanovna’s Visit. to mitrii in the Epilogue: "We are dealing with what may be called a syntactic metaphor reflecting the mood of the moment: its pain and embarrassment are enhanced by a tortured syntax." Terras. pp. 327. 439. 49 Terras observes that the chapter title “1101300330 110 11310 010011" represents. bot. the author's intent in creating new trials for Dmi rii and 120010 Kirillov1 ’s cynically ironic view that Dmitrij hopes only to save his s in Terras. p. 42 . Baxtin speaks of the way chapter titles sometimes reflect direct speech of characters. Baxtin. ‘ ' p 292 5° Rosenshield says about the narrator of W10: "His likes and dislikes and the moral standards by which he measures the characters and their actions are evident in all his commentary. Sometimes he states his 4) opinions. subtly but at other times. he .can be rather heavy-handed." Rosenshield. p. 62. "Dostoevsky's indiVidualized narrators react subjectively to the characters and events whieh they present. They do not conceal their likes and dislikes. They color their narrative with every emotional nuance: soleth . pathos. outrage. bonhomie. sarcasm. mockery. etc.“ V. Terras. EM. WW Fredericton: York. 1984). p. 31. 51 Baxtin. Wm p. 80. 52 Terras provides two additional examples. noting that when the narrator refersoto Dmitrij as a "monster" or "murderer" he is only setting Ivan's terms in an ironic context to show that he does not accept them. and also that the narrator ironically cites the word "110330001" when sseaking about [000111 Kmllovxé. 101:“.qu 00. 332. 41 . 53 Rosenshield makes several remarks about the narrator's consciously critical attitude toward Raskol'nikov: "Throughout the novel. the omniscient author maintains a rigorous? critical. though mpathetic. attitude toward Raskol'nikov. . "Every wor . . . seems to revea a consciousness that lUdSES as it. describes"; "in fact virtuall every long . passage of narrated consciousness and eve interior an ysis is a hole mical battle between the narrator and his hero." osenshield. pp. 22. 93. 9. 54 "The narrator formulates a solution to the problem of the axe in words which Raskol'mkov himself mi ht have used. had he been in full command of himself." Rosenshield, t). 22. ( he narrator's solution is actually not mm as good as Raskol'hikov's. . . the parenthetic remark ‘as to a man clutc ' g for a straw.ii Streint‘erlces the impression of a desperate but still unrepentant man... ar .0. . 55 Tert'as illustrates the narrator's rebuking stance toward Fedor Pavlovii': by Citing words the former uses when referring to the latter's deeds: "0600030011 00031033.“ "110013603111.“ He explains ow although the phrase "330601 10000300119" still retains a semblance of respect for Ferapont on the part of the narrator. characterizing Ferapont's activity. as 1000001093" already challenges the value of whatever he says. There is in addition the ualification of Ivan's brilliance with the indefinite qualifier '30303-10.‘ erras. Wm pp. 126. 127. 264. 265. 131. 56 Rosenshield admits this point: "Thou h used equally for minor and major characters. brief commentary is gener y much more subtle when applied to Raskol'nikov." Rosenshield. p. 71. 57 "Dostoevsky speaks through all his characters at times and this is one example of the 'polyphonic‘ novel at work." S. Sutherland. '"I'he Philoso hical Dimension: Self and Freedom." in W32. edited y M. Jones and G. Terry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983). p. 184. 53 .Gibian believes Razu mixin supports the author's polemic with progressive wrtters of the 1860's over the relationship of separate facts to what is ultimately real and true with his words: "no 0001. (00311.1 30 000; 110 3 03303 110 0 110000330 0000 0 1011, 303 0 1110310113 06 001011.03 911000113“ G. ibian. "T. e Grotesque in stoevsky.“ Modern Eigmgn' £10010 0. IV. No. 3 (1958). 269. Willett relates Ale a's words in the Epilogue about the importance of 42 retaining ood memories for the future to Dostoevskij's advice in a letter from 1 7 . M. Willett. "The 'Ending' of WW" 9:010 chxv (1970). 255. Terras notes Dostoevskij‘s thought expressed through Zosima. for example. his belief in the power of a single indiVidual to inspire others toward good. his statements about Hartung's death in which he maintains that each indiv1dua1 is guilty for all others. and his words about the. relationship in the Bible between Timothy and Paul. which is restated in Zosgna's recollection of his former servant Afanasij. Terras further notes that Ale a conveys Dostoevskij's opinion about the importance of ”a classical education in his conversation With Kolja. He also finds that Dmitrij's retort to Rakitin that progressives cannot .take a joke reflect Dostoevskij's assertation in the 1876 volume of W that rectilinear thinking leads to the loss of humor and metaphor. Dmitrigg reply to Rakitin about raising the price of meat is also cited as reflecting stoevskij's own reply to the editors of W that unfair trade ractices are even more likely without belief in God. erras. pp. 56. 74. 258. 48-349. 54. 371. 59 F-Dostoevskii.hl0izslann1ti_1200mzskii. p. 187. 60 11110.. p. 251. 61 Perlina notes that while Ivan utters some of Dostoevskij's ideas. he does so in an alien and reaccented manner. Perlina. ° ' ' - WM 0. 11%. Kantor observes that stoevskij gives his own thou ts to those he pole micizes with. One example he Cites is lppolit KirillOVi '3 concern with the number andtnature of contemporary suicides among youth. Kantor. pp. 49. 50-51. Kogan singles out instances in which Svidr' ajlov serves Dostoevski‘ during. the latter's. polemic with the editors of G. 30am. "Zaga ocnoe imja Svrdrigajlova': W1 periodices aja pecat' 1860-1 godov," . i558 erija lite atury i Itazyka]. . No. 5 (1981). 434. Terras notices. that polit Kirillovi scol s etjukovi with the very words that Dostoevskij had irected to Spasovi. Terras. p. 435. Ifipolit Kirillovi utters another Dostoevskij thought. accordin to Jackson: ” 0 suggests that there may be no moral foundations at all to ussian society - a thought which Dostoevskij rivately expresses in his notebooks." R. jackson, "Dmitrij Karamazov and the Eegend WW]. IX. No. 3 (1965). 257. W331°1€§ ints to certain ideas which Dostoevskij expresses through Fetjukow . Wasiolek. WW (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1964). p. 184. Cox notes that the Grand Inquisitor's statement that each person needs someone or something before which to bow down is. actually antictptated by the narrator in Book One. R. Cox. "Dostoevskij's Grand Inquisitor," WXVII. No. 4 (1967). 430. Linner finds that both Dostoevskij and etjukovm warn about the potentially harmful effects of severe punishment on criminals. but he does not consider that the statements "b both are to be taken equally seriously. S: Linner. Stare}; I ..O 000‘ ... '.“".. . tSocolm: Amqvist Gt ’sllnnteiknational. 9 . pp. 21 -21. 62 F. Dostoevskij. W p. 395. H 63 11110.. p. 622. 64 1310.. p. 611. 65 Ibid.. p. 546. 66 Ibid.. p. 426. 67 Ibid.. p.405. 43 900010011 Multiplicity of Character Voices in Polyphonic Dialogue In Chapter Two I define and evaluate the complex of voices which each character displays. With these voices characters reveal themselves and others. thus bearing out Baxtin‘s assertation that the words of heroes rival those of the author in the polyphonic marvel.l The justification for this approach to Dostoevskij's characters. I believe. lies in the close relationship between individual personalities in Dostoevskij's novels and the ideological stances they adopt This is because Dostoevskij considered that an individual‘s belief, or idea. for example. concerning God. has much bearing upon what kind of person they become in the society of others.2 Different voices. or personality manifestations. within personages signal coexisting or conflicting attitudes about the world and about others. This is why Dostoevskij's heroes appear fragmented. being presented not merely "in the round." but as two or more personalities. which readers perceive not merely as different moods. but as fundamentally differing attitudes toward what they discuss. I argue that this approach is a logical extension of what Baxtin discusses in Chapter Five of W330, and is compatible with his ideas about external. internal. and hidden dialogue in ' Dostoevskij‘s novels. I employ only characters' utterances as evidence for ascertaining specific voices. To avoid arbitrary judgements I have endeavored to evaluate all utterances by personages as well as critical interpretations of them, so that the voices I define might account for all significant statements by Destoevskij's personages in the novels. In the first part of this chapter I assess the extent to which characters' judgements about one another provide complete portrayals of them. Characterization by personages is a polyphonic f unction. since in the process of describing others they reveal themselves through their attitudes toward them.While characters' voices are no more trustworthy or impartial than narrators'. they are indispensible to the process of characterization in the novels. In the second part of this chapter I define and document specific voices for each personage. most of whom possess more than one voice. Closeness to or distance from Dostoevskij's positions is not a reliable 44 45 indicator of whether any one hero speaks through more than one voice. These voices provide a key to understanding statements which appear semantically similar on the surface. but which actually have different meanings. or "cut both ways," to use a Dostoevskij term. For this reason not content alone. but voicing also dictates how a given utterance should be ideologically interpreted. Characters sometimes express statements that show not one of their own voices. but that of another. This is analogous to the appearance ‘of character zones in narration. and shows that personages may consciously or unconsciously adopt not simply another's opinions. but also another‘s way of speaking about issues in the novels. This happens because idea and voice. as Baxtin argues. are not separable phenomena. but remain closely tied even when temporarily finding a place in another‘s consciousness.3 In W I discuss the voices of Fedor Pavlovié. Ale§a. Dmitrij. Ivan. Katerina Ivanovna. Gru‘éen’ka. Zosima. the Grand Inquisitor, the Devil. Smerdjakov. Kolja. and Rakitin.4 This order of characters reflects Ale§a"s mediating role between his father and his brothers. the adversarial relationship between Katerina Ivanovna and Gru§en'ka. the opposition between Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor. the involvement with Ivan's voice that the latter shares with Smerdjakov and the Devil. the influence Rakitin has upon Kolja. and the relatively uncomplicated voice of Rakitin. In Wm I discuss first the voices of Raskol'nikov. Sonia. Svidrigajlov, and P011 101 Petrovic. since Raskol' nikov’ s conversations with the latter three take up much of the novel. I will then discuss the voices of Sonja's family members. Marmeladov and Katerina Ivanovna. followed by Raskol'nikov's family members. Dunja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. and three other characters. Luiin. Razumixin. and Zosimov. Comments which some personages make about others produce in their aggregate a composition view of each character in the novels. Characteriza- tion becomes thereby a responsibility of heroes even more than of narrators. which augments the importance of their voices in the novels. Others have noticed the inadequacy for characterization of comments made by narrators alone.S Most characters' composite portraits result from a number of views. each of which perceives a different side of the individual under discussion 45 This method of characterization is polyphonic because it presents Dostoevskij‘s heroes in all of their complexity. while reserving an important place for their own views about themselves. Characters‘ views of Fedor Pavlovic' indicate that he is depraved. a voluptuary and a buffoon, yet that he also has a vulnerable side and is capable of loving others. Dmitrij charges that his father is a "0000001333 00000010001333 3 11000030133 3011003031" (XIV. 69). Ivan adds his view that Fedor Pavlovié: "C100 30 0000001000133 000011 3 10130 69010 30 301130. . ." (XIV. 210). Dmitrij‘s and Ivan's names for Fedor Pavlovi‘c' reflect these qualities they perceive in him: " C 133011011. . .0 1111000. .. 0 010011. 0 @0000011 1100000314011" (XV. 99). Fedor PavloviE sometimes agrees with negative opinions in order to avoid being labeled by them. He mockingly tells Zosima in response to Dmitrij‘s outraged charges: "Bu 030310 11000 00603 01910 0011013391" (XIV. 38). Fedor Pavlovi! admits that he is vile and degenerate. but adds in his own justification: "B 0300030-10 000010: 000 010 0910101. 0 000 0 303 1330111. 100630 000 1033011, 0 3 013011110" (XIV. 157-158). Fedor Pavlovit‘. views his own sinfulness with blasphe mous irony befitting a "01003300130" (XIV. 24): . . 310 30 11033 10100 30101-163113-10 110101031. 110101151 1110 0003 931 11033 30 110100101. 10 310 at 10100 69001. 100 130 1100000 1111 00010?" (XIV. 23). Ale§a qualifies Fedor Pavlovil‘s negative characteristics. telling him: "He 3003 011 1.1000003. 0 30300003033113. . ." (XIV. 158); "(200000 9 000 093010 100003" (XIV. 124). In this way he helps Fedor PavloviE to think of himself as a not entirely bad person. as the latter says: "51 1063 3 600 30311339 0106010. 0 0 11000000113 3 3 1100000" (XIV. 159).6 A picture of A1033 emerges as a truthful person who does not condemn others. wh0m they view as their "conscience" for this reason. and who is an "angel.“ yet also is a Karamazov. Although Fedor PavloviE has three sons. he calls Ale§a "003301003333 01113 1103" (XIV. 130). and tells him that he is the only one who has not found him at fault (XIV. 24). Even though Rakitin later develops a dislike for Ale§a. he notes that his friend is able to get along with . everyone without compromising his integrity: ". . . 13 000100 1100009 1000- 031011. 11013 000100 1101309 0093 0190100 000301503 (XIV. 73). Gru§en‘ka tells him: ". . . 30 1063 303 30 0000011. 11010 01101010" (XIV. 317). Fedor Pavlovil‘ says: ". .. 00 1063 303 00 031000 3311010 30 30030103" (XIV. 24). Ivan utters an opinion after the Devil‘s visit which is partly his own and partly Dmitrij‘s: "T111 113011.13 30090311.“ T063 01131033 110090311011 30001. 1100110311. . ." (XV. 85). 47 Dmitrij regards Fedor PavloviE as an enemy. but he echoes his sentiments about Alesa: "1'11 03100 30 001100. . . 11.1 1100013011. . ." (XIV. 97). Rakitin as a cynic doubts that Ale§a is this perfect and will act upon that doubt in Book Seven- "T11 0011 3000110300. . . 0110030. . ." (XIV. 74). Ale‘ia agrees with Rakitin's assessment when he talks with Dmitrij: ". . . 3 00 11301010. 00 11301010 1103300311003. . ." (XIV. 199). Thus a fairly clear and complete portrayal of A1030 emerges from the comments of characters. Dmitrij receives more direct characterization than any other hero in the novel. The words of others portray him as a weak. base person, a beast. possibly a thief. but also as honest. noble. and magnanimous. lppolit Kirillovi‘é characterizes Dmitrij's weakness of will: "Ho 1131. 0. 1001130 30 11311" (XV. 146). which only echoes Dmitrij's own feeling about seeing Gru§en'ka before he is punished for assaulting Grigorij: ". . . 3013 61.1 100130 30 019 301111. 30 1100. 30 1113000330!" (XIV. 395). Dmitrij accepts Katerina Ivanovna‘s uncharitable judgement about his desire to avoid punishment (". . . 303 are 0119 30 601110111?" [XV. 1811). saying: ". . . (131130 3000110000 00300 11011101 30 960x015?" (XV. 186). In the same spirit of doubt that he will have the strength to fulfill his 13113. he tells the jury. ". . . 1100100310. . . 03010 0063: 00300110191" (XV. 176). Smerdjakov considers that: "111131033 900000033 3930 0033010 00303 3 00000033011. 3 911011. 3 33010103 00003-0. . ." (XIV. 205). Dmitrij views himself as 0 "3031131111113 11000" (XIV. 376). Katerina Ivanovna expresses her feeling about Dmitrij to A1030: “8001 6001 11000011. . ." (XIV. 141). Among the more positive assessments of Dmitrij are Katerina Ivanovna's admission to him in the Epilogue: ". . . 1111 080110011 0003300901031" (XV. 187). Gru§en'ka focuses the jury's attention on his honesty: ". . . 1111 30111 3 30001.. 0 1111 600100003113. . ." (XIV. 398); ".. .060013911. 1110 06001301. 003 0113 011030. 003 0 91103110100. 30 0003 1100130 0000013. 10 3330100 30 06110301" (XIV. 455). Ivan also sees two sides to his brother ("03 1101 014000 96311.. 30 1006311. 30 11030011" [XIV. 248)). an opinion that echoes Rakitin's view: "1190111 03 3 110013113 3000003, 113103130-10 (03 101111. 30 300103). . ." (XIV. 74). Dmitrij's view of himself does not contradict what others say about him: ". . . 3 3011 3 33303 13000333113 3 3330011. 0106010. 30 3 30 6001100103" (XIV. 101). His Opinion of his honesty changes according to the course of his inner dialogue over the dilemma of Katerina Ivanovna's money: ". . . 3 11019 63111 3333311 11000003011. . . 30 000011. . . 3330100. . . H9 103 3 93303 :0 48 1011001. 310 3 00091030. . ." (XIV. 110). Dmitrij's statement at the trial recaps all of the other opinions about him throughout the novel: "110303010 0063 0330031111 0 111330100 3 00000010. . . 0 0033 3 006001300100. 110100 01011 300033 300131111 11000003011. . . Ho 0 0110013 0100330. . . 0 0100600333 010 - 301. 301. 30 03300011.. 01131033 K000110000 11000011. 30 30 0001" (XV. 94). Ivan says little about himself in contrast to Dmitrij. so that his characterization comes exclusively from others. Their opinions suggest that Ivan has a strong intellect. but is a phony. that he is proud and independent. secretive. a scoundrel. an atheist. but also a martyr. Both Smerdjakov and Fedor PavloviE call him a "clever man" (XIV. 254. 253). The Devil suggests that intellect is too dominant a characteristic in Ivan: ". . . 1060 611 000 1001130 9110" (XV. 77). Rakitin however labels him 0 "1030013113 11103100003." while Muisov adopts a condescending view of Ivan's acumen with his introduction of him as a "charming eccentric and paradoxicalist" (XIV. 76. 65). lppolit Kirillovii‘. portrays Ivan as a man devoid of independent thought: ".. . 003300 000100330 01 00330 110331010 3 000011 006111010 0000110303010 1100000010333. . ." (XV. 127). (This judgement carries little weight. since Ivan shows that he does not look to Europe for a word about the future: ". . . 000 010 00030 9130 300063010 3 33303 30 60000" [XIV. 210)). Smerdjakov judges him harshly: "003113 0106310.. . 03031 100011. 110000011 130303910 1100 0110030 0106310. 0 119010 00010 0 1103033011 0000010100 13311 3 1.110611 3330119 30 3110331103. . ." (XV. 68). Dmitrij refers to Ivan's secretive nature: "111003 000 03001... 30 111003 - 1101300" (XIV. 101 ): "6001 3003 30 P033133. 03 1031 30010" (XV. 31-32). Alexa revoices Dmitrij's remark in his talk with Ivan; ". . . 11003 - 0010030" (XIV. 209). Although Fedor Pavlovil: considers Ivan an outsider ("He 30010 0000011 09010" [XIV. 159)). Smerdjakov argues that the two have a great deal in common: "B11 303 @0000 1100000311. 30360000-0. 300 0003 00103 30360000 30 3010 11030013 0110103. 0 003010 0 33113 090103-0" (XV. 68). Fedor Pavlovit) tells A1030: ". . . 1100000 1003 11003" (XIV. 158). a judgement which in an introspective moment Ivan also makes: "SI 1100110111" (XIV. 255). Muisov contributes to this view of Ivan: "11003113 006 3 30001100000333 00000111" (XIV. 71). A1030 considers that Ivan is an atheist (XIV. 31). but that he is also a potential martyr ("11003 30 00301. . . 1191103311. 11011101 61111. 30101" IXIV, 76)). a perception that the Devil jeeringly revoices: ". . . 0303011 3901011 6900011.. ." (XV. 80). Opinions of Katerina Ivanovna produce a somewhat contradictory 49 picture of her as treacherous. kind. noble. proud. and domineering. Upon talking with her about Dmitrij. Ale‘éa feels: "310 00090130 110000300 3 30300330. . (XIV. 171). Katerina Ivanovna confesses to shortcomings in the Epilogue which contradict Ale§a's initial impression: "T0300 1103 110003100 - 9111003113. 30030013113 110003100. . . 3 30001130 300001000. . . 000119. 000119 1103033010 1100 6010030100!" (XV. 181). Gru§en'ka at Dmitrij's trial denounces Katerina Ivanovna's treacherous nature: ". .. 110196300 1063 1003 011031" (XV. 122). Xoxlakova regards Katerina Ivanovna as: "P00003, 30 006003. 11000001303. 00033009111303" (XIV, 177). Gru§en'ka mentions these qualities in an ironic way: ". .. 30303 011 110000 11303 006003. 60010000303 0111100310" (XIV. I39). Ivan sums up his lengthy word about her character: "VI 000 010 01 000103 10000013" (XIV. 175). Dmitrij sees a common quality in all of her acts: "Ho 10000011 30010. 30 110100630011 03030. 30 011000 090160. . ." (XIV. 143). Characters' opinions about Gru‘sen'ka are just as contradictory as the ones about Katerina Ivanovna As with other characters. however. their mutual exclusiveness merely illustrates the contradictions inherent within them. Gru§en'ka is called wanton. chaste. independent. calculating. vicious. a temptress. and a "treasure." Muisov considers her a woman of vile conduct (XIV. 68). Rakitin labels her 001960311303 00030" (XIV. 77). which challenges Fedor PavloviE's opinion: " . 300031000 3000030311010. 300110011 1100001911303 0113 0003. . ." (XIV. 67). Rakitin gives a circumspect. but patronizing portrayal in his article: "06000000003 110003100 0001101030113. . . 30030010300011 3 11013100130011 060100109" (XV. 132). Gru§en‘ka puts this trait more simply. "1130 1.110 0030110103. 103 3 103 3 11001911010" (XIV. 139). Ivan states laconically. "310 130301330 - 00001" (XIV. 131). Katerina Ivanovna reaches the same conclusion angrily after being humiliated by Gru§en'ka: “016 13101" (XIV. 141). Gruien'ka herself admits to this side of her personality: ". . . 0001 3 330303. 3 0001 303010003. . ." (XIV. 317). Ale§a's statement about Gru‘sen'ka ("51 1000 01000 00910 09109 30313. 0 300100 000109 3030033910. 300100 0030003010 - 09019 0106301910. . ." [XIV. 3181) encourages her to change her view of herself. Although she continues to suspect others. she no longer assumes that her behavior toward them is justified: ". .. 00 0010 133033 11010 01110301" (XIV. 395). The result is that while most opinions about Gru§en'ka are negative. readers are left with an overall positive impression. partly from her repentance. and partly from her loyalty 50 toward Dmitrij. Although there are attempts to characterize Zosima negatively. he comes through positively as holy. divine. blessed. and a healer who understands the human soul.7 Muisov's initial impression of him ("30 00011 ‘ 110301103011 0006303 3 110030-30011031103 090103130" [XIV. 37]) is contradicted by the peasant womens' relationship toward him and is inspired not by a genuine appraisal of the elder. but by Muisov's irritation at his situation. Fedor Pavlovi‘c' similarly fails to hit the target with his provoking words ('. . _. 11011 0011183 100000111. . ." [XIV. 43]) and his ironic praise of Zosima ("60130010033113 3 0031030133 0100011" [XIV. 66]; "0003333 010000" [XIV. 40]; "60031033113 0100011" [XIV. 41]) is designed more to upset others than to characterize him. He is more sincere in his approval of Zosima's tolerance and equanimity: "11301 0011 1101100013113 0110010. 1101330 0 00113 133111" (XIV. 43). Xoxlakova also provides an approving appraisal. calling him: "00031001" (XIV. 51); "030103 09103 11000001100303" (XIV. 51). Ale‘éa makes a simple but important remark: ". . . 03 0031. . ." (XIV. 29). Fedor Pavlovic‘s and Xoxlakova's positive impressions are not sincerely felt. and few other people comment about him. This suggests that in Zosima's case epithets are not the most important means of revealing his character. The Grand Inquisitor's characterization comes from three sources: Ivan. Ale§a. and the Grand Inquisitor himself. I treat the Inquisitor separately from Ivan because his voice plays a strong role in the ideological dialogue which is separate from the role Ivan's own voice plays. He is considered beneficient. ascetic. a martyr. a lover of humanity. clever. powerful. fantastic. power-hungry and an atheist The Inquisitor considers that he and others like him are "60010001003" (XIV. 236). He views himself as an ascetic ". . .3 11310003 030300113 3 300033113. . ." (XIV. 237). Ivan and the Inquisitor agree in their opinion that the latter is a “sufferer" (XIV. 238. 236). They also agree in their view that he is a lover of humanity. the Inquisitor says: ". . . 33 0106311. . ." (XIV. 236); "30913003 1111 30 0106311 11000001100100. . . ?" (XIV. 234). while Ivan presents him as ". . . 11911311113 00033010 03006110 3 010630133 11000001100100" (XIV. 238). The Inquisitor‘s boast (". . . 1111 103 11019113 3 103 911311. .." [XIV. 236]) is preceded by Ivan's remark: ". .. 103000 010 0300. . ." (XIV. 227). AleKa believes that the wish to dominate is the Inquisitor‘s primary motive: "(201100 11000100 111000330 000013. 001131111 103031111 6001. 1100060010333. . ." (XIV. 237); "033 1100010 03110303 001133. . (XIV. 237). He Si stresses that the Inquisitor is an atheist: "033 0 6010 30 0009101" (XIV. 237). The positive and negative qualities which characters attribute to the Grand Inquisitor represent very well the deb ate over the outlook he represents. The Devil's portrayal necessarily comes from the only two personages to perceive him. Ivan and himself. He is called kind. a lover of humanity. a would-be believer. a realist-idealist. decent. a pretender. a phantom. a fool. a sponger. stupid. and cruel. The Devil insists that he is misunderstood: "51 11000003 0300001033113" (XV. 76): ".. . 3 303003110 0060 3 3 01031103310 0000011 30 011000603" (XV. 77); "3 010003 0106010 30300330. . ." (XV. 73). Remembering that Ivan had recited various anecdotes to Alesa (recall Ivan's question to Alesa after speaking about torture to infants: "119001300100330. 30 1100000 03?" [XIV. 217]). the Devil appeals to his aesthetic sense: ". . . 3. . . 011031 1190010310003 3 39001300100330 00011033111130. . ." (XV. 82). The Devil mocks Ivan's ambivalent comments about his own attitude toward God's existence with his claim: "1103 30000 - 00313 0 11003001 3 1100100311 0001139 01 11301010 0000110. . ." (XV. 74). Dostoevskij's own outlook is parodied in the Devil's suggestion that he is a realist. but not a materialist (XV. 72). At the very least. according to the Devil, he is of good social standing: ". . . 3 0000319 03011 001191011303 1100300113010 110000030. . . 01000301 61111 0033131111" (XV. 73). Ivan. however. labels the Devil with various negative epithets: "r0911 3 11000" (XV. 73); "0611030133" (XV. 84); "09003" (XV. 72). "00313300010133" (XV. 72); "001100003011" (XV. 86). and insists that the Devil represents nothing more than his own worst qualities (XV. 72). Ivan stresses to Alesa that the Devil is 01001 in his mockery: ". .. 03 000.. ." (XV. 87). ".. . 03 911001 1191-1311. 011 1300103. . ." (XV. 88). Ivan and the Devil can both agree on one characteristic. the Devil's lack of substance: "T11 00131. 111 6000031 1103. 111 11030003" (XV. 72): "3 100130 1003 30011100. . ." (XV. 74): "1'1 30303-10 11030003 133033. . ." (XV. 77). Smerdjakov is described by various characters as a iesuit. cannon fodder for the vanguard. a loyal henchman. a coward. clever. suspicious. ambitious. and envious. Fedor Pavlovic dismisses him as 0 "300931 01100030133" (XIV, 119). To Ivan he is merely: "1100000000 11300. . . 30100 0003 300191131" (XIV. 122). Smerdjakov encourages others to sell him short and twice refers to himself as Ivan's "00910 113110000" (XIV. 245. XV. 59). Ivan is forced to admit to Smerdjakov: "T11 30 10911. . ." (XV. 68). Dmitrij hyperbolizes Smerdjakov's perceived cowardliness: "310 '30 1090. 010 52 000039000330 00011 109000103 0 11300. . ." (XIV. 428). Smerdjakov plants this view of himself in the prosecutor's mind. so that the latter says during the trail: "13110003300. .. 30 01103. . . 110 10900300119 061111010 0000119.. ." (XV. 137). Fetjukovi‘é's characterization reflects all other views: ". . . 3 300100 0100103910 30000003300011. 0031190191003 1100 30303001110. 3 911. . . 090100100 1110 00103100130 0006300. 30110110030 11001001063000. 110131001300 3 030330 00030103000" (XV. 165). Qualities attributed to Kolja reveal a contradictory mix. He is called brave. open-minded. suspicious. spontaneous. vain. proud. and unhappy. Kolja considers himself brave (XIV. 482) and without prejudices (XIV. 501). He admits that he is proud: ". . . 0 331111 009110311 0106010 61111 10001111" (XIV. 473). Under Ale‘éa's influence Kolja sees his qualities in a new light and confesses to other traits: ". . . 3 113310003. . . 1‘09110 113310003. 10960 113310- 003. . ." (XIV. 502); ". . . 3 30 1103110030. . . 30 01030133003010 00110010633 3 11000010 001100000133. . .3 00 11301011 11000011. . ." (XIV. 5031);". . . 3 1096030 3001100103" (XIV. 503). 1111111 assessment of Kolja is made in the same spirit as his remark about Fedor Pavlovi‘é. and explains the contradictory blend of good and bad qualities in him: . . 011 11000001303 301900. 11013 3 300000103303. . ." (XIV. 503). Almost all of these remarks come from Kolja; Ale§a acts not as a judge. but as a listener who encourages him to evaluate and understand all sides of his character. The characterization of Rakitin is invariably negative and portrays him as dishonest. petty. an opportunist. an atheist. and a lackluster mercenary liberal Dmitrij says ". . . P033133 0 0.10039 110000001. . ." (XV. 28). M0110 is forced to admit that Rakitin is dishonest (XIV. 79). and does not succeed in hiding this from him (XIV. 309). Dmitrij places Rakitin in the camp of the atheists: "A 30 010631 6010 P033133. . ." (XV. 29); "600300 110000033113 3 300100301 3 0 6010 110 000901. .." (XV. 101). Xoxlakova's portrayal of him as "00130111100033113" (XV. 16) and Ivan's opinion of him as a "6000003113 036000013113 1100103" (XIV. 309) indicate that he does not provoke the curiosity of others that Ivan does. Rakitin is aware of Ivan's label for him; indeed. he is the one who reveals it in Book Seven. Ale§a gives a more thoughtful assessment of Rakitin's spitefulness: "“030 P033133 69001 0911011 0 000311 0630011. 03 69001 000100 91100311 0 110009003. . ." (XIV. 326). The characters of W see Raskol'nikov as arrogant. vain. suspicious. magnanimous. gloomy. noble. unoriginal. unique. S3 unbalanced. and unhappy. They present him as a wretch. a failure. a stoic, an atheist. a savior. a would-be Napoleon. and an idealist.8 Svidrigajlov comments: "119010 00010 1010000030. 10000011 3 1010000030. . ." (VI. 378). Sonja‘s opinion repeats Svidrigajlov's ". . . 1010000030. 0030011300011. 00110- 010630 3 3000030" (VI. 402). Razumixin mentions Raskol'nikov's pride and goes on to mention other qualities: ". . . 9101011. 11001103. 300110303 3 1000. . . 113310003. . . 000330091003. . . 11000003. . . 0110030 0063 110331. . ." (VI. 165). Porfirij PetroviiS repeats this view: ". . . 9009110330119. 110 10000119. 0000130119 3 30100000300119. . . 3036001000030301010. . ." (VI. 344). Other characters sometimes perceive Raskol'nikov as unbalanced and even insane. for example Zosimov ("30019110033113-10 311011030033" (VI. 163]). Zametov ("B11 09110001000133. . ." (VI. 128]). Razumixin ("03 09-110-001000133. 0 30 600- 390010033031" [V1, 240]). and even Sonja: "30 09110001000133 03?" (VI. 317). Some characters mention areas in which they consider Raskol'nikov inadequate. Raskol‘nikov is one of these. disparaging himself as a man of action ("51 30 0111000010. . ." (VI. 50]. . . 3 0011 30 011300" [V1, 318]). as a superman (". . . 0010131100303 3 00011. 3 6001100 11311010. . ." [V1, 211]: ". . . 3 10303 1110 00011. 303 3 0001" (VI. 322]). and as a family member: "51 330333 11000003. . ." (VI. 399). This view of him appears in the official record of his confession and explanation of his crime: "P0013003 310 03 110 96330100 0000001030 000010 00130111100033oro 3 1100009013010 1100031000. . ." (VI. 411). Razumixin criticizes Raskol'nikov's failure to cope with daily affairs: ". . .111 0 0011010 3011000 30 091100 0031103 00 0000" (VI. 97). and unwittineg speaks about the murderer's mistakes: ". . . 11000113 0101; 11010030031 11 30 0001101011. 0 009110011 011000390031" (VI.117). Zametov is forced to agree: ". . . 003311 1190011 0110003. . ." (VI. 127). Dunja fends off Raskol'nikov's criticism of her engagement by retorting: "3011011 111 100690011 01 11033 100030100. 30100010 3 0 1060-10. 11011101 61111. 301?" (VI. 179). just as Sonja answers his mocking questions: "B11 30 0103101. . ." (VI. 248). Porfirij PetroviE finds a different side of Raskol'nikov. calling him a stoic anda potential martyr: "3 000 1101131010 00 003010 30 103311. 301001111 11011 330133 01100003. 0 03 69001 010311 00 0 90116303 011010011 30 11911310003. - 0003 100130 0009 301 6010 303001" (VI. 351). Sonja senses in their first long conversation that he has found neither God 001 belief (". . .031 - 10130 0000110033113 3 300009100133. . ." (VI. 2511). yet Svidrigajlov sees him as a moral person in a secular sense: "B11 - 11130000. 011 - 300003011" (VI. 362). 54 Pul’xerija Aleksandrovna's statement (". . . 111 30100 000. 003 300011100. 911000330 30100" [V1, 27]) is compatible with Katerina Ivanovna's view of him as a benefactor: ". . . 3011 1101101001 0033 00033009013113 11000003 11000003. 3110100133 00000100 3 00303. . ." (VI. 141). Although Raskol'nikov denies that he aspires to be elite (". . . 11010110103 303 H0000003011 3 0063 30 01131010.. ." [V1, 204)). he admits to Sonja that this was an important motive for his crime: ". . . 3 00110100 1110100371010. . 100130 00110031103 00110100... 51 1100010 9630. . . 003 0063 003010" (VI, 321-322). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) This demonstrates the polyphonic manner by which characters reveal all important traits of Raskol’nikov. each interpreting them in their own way. Characters perceive Sonja as uncorrupted. humble. self-sacrificing. noble. and gentle. though she is also called notorious and unbalanced. Raskol'nikov hears about her sub missive. gentle nature both from Marmeladov (". . . 3 1000003 9 303 10303 3001333. . ." [V1, 17]) and from Katerina Ivanovna: " . 0 00 30010013. 100110333. 00300100030333. 600100000100 3 06000000333. . ." (VI. 298-299). Raskol'nikov regards her capacity for self -sacrifice as a defect which allows others to use her: "K0303 30000001. 003030 111. 0911003 01130110111 11 1100109101031" (VI. 25). He considers this nothing short of a crime according to his own standards: ". . . 1011 111 1001033110. 1110 ”1011000010119 9110010300 3 11000000 0063" (VI. 247). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Yet Svidrigajlov's only comment about Sonja underlines that Raskol‘nikov himself will benefit from her sacrifice: "130310 3 113010 3130310. 011 0091311 110310031001" (VI. 385). Raskol'nikov's perception of her innocence ("0001 0101 110000. 011003030. 30039003 00 ~ 100130 11011033110033; 3001030133 0000001 0010 30 1100333 33 003010 3011003 0 00 0000110" (VI. 247]) throws doubt on Luiin's label for her as 0 "0003110 011300033010 1100000333" (VI. 168). Raskol'nikov's impression of her as unbalanced (". . . 11 000 001103 911 1100100103" [V1, 246]; "P0000 000 010 30 110303033 "03001010010100?" [V1, 248]) are temporary and unsupported by others in the novel Svidrigajlov emerges as depraved, horrible, clever. voluptuary. gloomy, diabolical, determined. strange. and unbalanced. Luiin says that he is: ". . . 0011113 00000001033113 3 1101360133 0 110003011. . ." (VI. 228). Dunja's opinion of him (". . . 010 9111003113 110000031" [V1, 175]) coincides with her mother's: . . 03 1130 1103000003 91110003. 911100031" (VI. 227). Raskol’nikov adds other negative characteristics: . 113100 3 0611031130.. ."( V1.3S4): SS ". . . 00000013113. 330333. 000000100013113 3000003!" (VI, 371). Svidrigajlov recognizes these traits in himself: "11030103100130. 3 3000003 00000013113 3 1100003113. . ." (VI, 222). Raskol'nikov makes. a contradictory assessment of Svidrigajlov‘s mental competence, at one point saying: ". . . 010. . . 100000 000130013303 3000003 3 0060 30 9110" (V1, 216), but at another thinking: "310 11011001033113. . ." (VI, 221). At still another he seems to combine these two opinions in his view of Svidrigajlov as both strange and determined: "03 03031 010033113 3 30 310-10 00013003.. ." (VI, 225). Svidrigajlov assures him ironically: ". . . 9030310. 30303 3 03000303 3000003. . . 00 11303 00.10 11011130 111311" (VI, 335). Porfirij Petrovi‘é is considered clever, skeptical, honest, a leg-puller, and a has-been. Razumixin warns Raskol’nikov that the investigator is: "1100113 9113113. .. H000000330. 03011133. 03333. .. 30090011 010631.. ." (VI, 189). and Porfirij Petrovi‘é agrees with it: "110001110310. 3 3 000 11000009. . ." (VI, 198). Porfirij Petrovié hesitates to define his own nature, saying only to Raskol'nikov: "3 11011033033113 3000003. 6001010 333010" (VI, 352). Ras- kol'nikov makes no direct comment on Porfirij Petrovic. although he devotes much effort to anticipating his moves and angrily objects to his methods. Marmeladov's characterization comes from himself and Katerina Ivanovna, and presents him as a drunkard and parasite, someone who requires firm treatment and who deserves punishment, yet is no worse than many others. Katerina Ivanovna‘s label ("0001100030." [V1, 17]) is accepted by Marmeladov, who says: "11033 00011311 3000. . ." (VI, 20). He reveals his motive for his conduct "11110. 360 091960 01000011 11039)" (VI. 19). Marmeladov's tale of the place in Heaven reserved for failures is designed to present himself in a new and better light. After his death Katerina Ivanovna gives her own version of this view that he was no worse than others and possibly better (VI. 290). Katerina Ivanovna is regarded as proud. hot-tempered. irritable, noble, unjust, kind, strong, trusting, and childlike, qualities which at first appear irreconcilable. Her pride is underlined by Marmeladov: ". . . 00110 1003303. 100003 3 3011003003303. . . 309001110333 3 0060 30 001190131" (V1.15); ". . .10000 61100. 30000390 10000. . ." (V1. 16). Sonja revoices and qualifies his view: ". . . 100003. 00110 030003 010001 1100000300. . ." (VI. 245). Marmeladov mixes Katerina Ivanovna‘s positive traits with negative ones: ". . 0003300910303. 30 30000000003003. . ." (V1, 15). Sonja, however, presents even her somewhat negative characteristics as 56 positive ones: ". . . 030 0000011 303 0060303. . . 0060031" (V1, 24319 Personages view Dunja as proud, virtuous, melancholy, quick-tempered, determined, incomparibly wonderful, and capable of self-sacrifice. Pul‘xerija Aleksandrovna compares her to Raskol'nikov: "9101011110." "00113033030." "01100301100330." "1100031100333" (VI, 185). Sonja is carried away by her in their second meeting and thinks of her as: ". . . 0030 30 00111111 110030003311 3 30000310011311 0300333 0 00 313033" (V1, 402). Razumixin indirectly links her with Raskol‘nikov. focusing on her determined nature: ". . . 010 03031, 03031 11011101 6311 0 110003100011 0000113 P03030033" (V1, 341). Several characters feel that Dunja has what it takes to martyr herself for another, namely. Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna (". . .0 103311 100001111 110003100011 11930330 1130100 1103101 0300311. . ." [V1, 29]), Raskol‘nikov (". . . 003 011000333 0063 01 0110013. 0063 30 11000001. 0 003 0091010 001 3 110000011" [V1, 37]). and Svidrigajlov: "(30110 030 100130 1010 3 1110111001. 3 1006901. 310611 00 3010-336901 303910- 336901 11939 110030000 110311311. . ." (V1, 365).10 Dunja's qualities are brought out well. but Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. though her voice plays a role in the novel, receives no real characterization other than sketchy comments by the narrator. LuZin receives mostly bad evaluations from other characters, who call him clever, well-established, gloomy, arrogant, vain, mercenary, and cheap. Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna veils her doubts about him with qualified praise: ". . . 911333 3. 301110103. 0060113" (V1, 31 ); ". . . 3000003 03 0001110 000303113. .. 9101011113. . . 01100301100333" (V1. 31): "1010000003" (V1, 31). Dunja hesitates to condemn him outright in advance: ". .. 0063 00331. 11011101 6311. 003103011 0110030. . ." (VI, 179). She finds a flaw in his character not long after she defends him: "A 11010 110100033 301003113 011001333. . ." (V1. 185). Katerina Ivanovna rises to Sonja’s defense by labeling Luiin as a shyster, 0 "3010303 090030333" (V1, 303). Razumixin comments on Luiin's cheapness in finding an apartment for Dunja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna (VI, 153). Raskol'nikov calls him a "0000003-10 3000003" (VI, 36), and says before he has even met him: ". . . 100110033 1193133 3003. . . 191 9 000 060133 30111100300333 060001. . ." (VI, 36). Luiin himself wonders if he was not a little too cheap with Dunja (VI, 277). Raskol'nikov concludes the overall negative characterization of 1.131 by comparing him with Sonja: ". . . 103 13. . . 30 010310 113 03300 0103 3003001303 00091033. . ." (VI. 232). Personages characterize Razumixin as industrious, honest, dependable, 57 eccentric. impudent. naive, rude. and rough-mannered. His businesslike qualities are singled out by Raskol'nikov ("03 3000003 0000003. 10900010630113. 30013113 3 01100063113 030130 0106311..." [V1, 327]). Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna ("0001000113113 11000003 3000003" [V1, 1511). and Svidri- gajlov: "310 1100113 103 0060" (VI. 385). Razumixin's openness and trustful nature are interpreted negatively by Raskol'nikov ("0101 300333113 600003" [V1, 195-1961) and by Razumixin himself: "91 30030013113 00911. . ." (VI. 156). Porfirii PetroviX concludes that Razumixin's qualities are positive: ". . . 003- mm 913 03 0060113 3000003. . ." (VI. 265).11 Razumixin is solely responsible for the portrayal of Zosimov. whom he considers morose. lazy. phlegmatic. but honest and capable in his field. I have presented only some of the remarks which personages make about one another in the novels. The completeness and depth of these portrayals by characters alone demonstrate the polyphonic nature of characterization in both novels. By "completeness" I do not mean that they reveal characters fully and finally. but only that narrators generally add little or nothing to them. Not all remarks are equally accurate. but when taken together they furnish reasonabiy good portraits of nearly all heroes. Opinions may be contradictory without necessarily being inaccurate. since - personages present themselves in several different aspects. and are witnessed from numerous points of view. Polyphony in characterizations means that positive heroes are not necessarily reliable in their comments about others. nor negative heroes unreliable.12 It also means that even when characters perceive the same trait in a given individual. they interpret. or voice. it differently. For example. Fedor Pavlovic speaks of his hedonistic pursuits as justified by others' conduct and speaks proudly of his buffoonery to losima. Dmitrij however condemns him for both. perhaps because he seeks to control the "karamazovian" elements in himself. In the same way Svidrigajlov agrees with Raskol'nikov and others that he is wanton and dissolute. but in ironic self-iustificatiom "B 01011 00 000010. 110 3003303 11000. 0011 30310 0001033300. . ." (V1. 359). Ale§a accepts Rakitin's charge that he is a "Karamazov." but with a rueful rather than iibing tone. Rakitin's view of Dmitrij as stupid but honest is semantically close to Grusen'ka's ad mission that he might speak foolishly but would never lie. yet they clearly speak with different attitudes toward these traits in Dmitrij. In the same way 58 Ale‘éa's concerned guess that Ivan seeks not money. but torments is moc- kingly revoiced in the Devil's taunt to Ivan: ". . . 0303011 39111011 69001111. . ." (XV. 80). Xoxlakova speaks of Katerina Ivanovna's proud and noble bearing with ad miration. while 0101111111 parodies this view before Katerina Ivanovna. and Ivan sardonically rebukes her for it. Katerina Ivanovna calls Grusen'ka a vicious beast from spiteful anger. but Grusen'ka herself confesses contritely to this trait Xoxlakova praises Zosima for his holiness because she is carried away by a vicarious encounter with religion and piety. while Alega's thought ("800 00030. 03 0031. . ." [XIV. 29]) presents this holiness as something entirely normal and which he takes for granted in the elder. Katerina Ivanovna speaks of Sonja's meekness with glowing praise as she defends her from 1.11111. yet Raskol‘nikov mockingly assumes that Sonja is allowing herself to be exploited. Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna discusses Dunja‘s ability to endure with admiration and also with concern. while Raskol‘nikov regards this quality with irritation and resentment. and Svidrigajlov treats it with cynical irony as a compulsion of hers. In this way characterization works in two directions. revealing not only the object of characterization. but also the speaking subject 11' llll'l"| [I l"l IE] I Nearly every character in the novels speaks with more than one voice. each of which represents a different personality with its own attitude toward others. Sociolinguistic data enter into the definition of these voices only as far as they illustrate these voiced personalities. which on the whole evade formal categorization. Semantically similar passages prove actually to be different because they represent voices of different personages. Voice complexes are polyphonically intermeshed as the speech of some characters penetrates into and sounds within the speech of others. Certain differences in worldview between characters prove closely related to differences in their voices. I address the personages in the same order as in the previous section. Fedor Pavlovic possesses three voices. which I call the irreverent buffoon, the grouch. and the doting parent. With the first voice he leads others on. jokes blasphemously. and delivers humorous putdowns. all in order to "get others' goats."13 Fedor Pavlovi'i': tells Alesa: "A 3 001 10100 110000311 0 00. 100130 310611 603 110100301 011110031 030 303 69010 0003- 301300. 11000000103300. 110-01010003033 100011" (XIV. 23). With this voice he 59 asks Ale‘éa: "T101033-10 1103100130?” (XIV. 114). recalling a command about which he was earnest the day before. Fedor Pavlovil makes up slanderous tales about Zosima in Ale¥1a's presence, and also pretends to be a believer when he answers Smerdjakov's treatise about faith and martyrdom: ". . .1111 000 01 0013011110033 031111 30 0009011. . . A 111-10 11000 119331003113 0100303. 30100 6001010 30 0 3011 3 0911011-10 61100 1060 303 0 0000 3 30100 3110330 3000 61100 0009 00010 1103000111" (XIV. 121). As the irreverent buffoon Fedor Pavlovié jokes with perjorative expressions. thereby placing himself above others by putting them below him. He employs slang expressions with derogatory connotations: "000 1111110110333" in reference to Aleia's trust money and "111193 1011011011 £03" in reference to women at a certain mona- stery (XIV. 23). He even invents words to suit his particular thoughts. for example. "11010011003311“ to make fun of Maksimov's conduct at the monastery (XIV. 84). Fedor PavloviE similarly pins negative labels on Smerdjakov ("0000011000 0003110" [XIV. 1141). Ivan ("3000 11000" [XIV. 66]). and Dmitrij ("@0030 11000" [XIV. 66]). Fedor PavloviE adopts a progressive position toward the church- "80311 611 0010 019 11301339 00 000011 110 0003 0900303 001100 3 91100003311. 3106 030330100130 00011 0900300 0600003311" (XIV. 123). He parodically inverts an important belief of Zosima's in order to deliver a putdown to others in Zosima's cell: .. 000 011 00 0033010 1100000 110331" (XIV. 41). The irreverent buff 000 is not synonymous with Fedor PavloviE. but coexists with other. more sincere voices. As the grouch Fedor Pavlovii is genuinely offended by Ivan's contemptuous silence on leaving the monastery. and replies: "A A0011139-10 3 000-1033 30 11030011103 0001119. 300110103 30 10. 310 0011 010 03031 3011033130 69001. 11031310013031033 K000 003 11000" (XIV. 85). He tells Ale§a with irritation on the day after Dmitrij's attack: "3. 6001. 0011 0010033 30 00303 11001303 9010 03139 3 333010 30 110310010010. 303011 11013000000?" (XIV. 157). Only with Ale‘éa does Fedor Pavlovic speak through the voice of the doting parent. one which demonstrates that he is capable of abandoning buffoonery and revealing positive feelings toward others.14 He tells A1030: "01 3 1103033300 1060 69001 9 11030300. 3011 9 11033. 0 111331111 0100330111303 00 0 00030330113. . . A 3 1063 6909 130011. . ." (XIV. 24): "I: 10603 100130 003311 6110003 9 11033 0060031330 11339111. 0 10 3 0001 0003 3000003" (XIV. 158). Under Ale§a's urging influence Fedor Pavloviié drops the grouch voice and becomes the 60 doting parent even with Ivan: "3 03010. 310 111 30 010631111 11033. 100130 000-1033 30 000031111. 110 00 310 11033 3 0106311-10" (XIV. 125). Mega shows as much voice variety as other characters do. speaking as the wishful thinker. the helpless caper. the rebuking conscience. and the true believer. The first two voices predominate in the earlier books of the novel. while the latter two come into their own after Ale‘s'a experiences the dream about Cana Ale§a appears as the wishful thinker when he endeavors to smooth over others' conflicts by unilaterally taking them upon himself. He believes that he can reconcile Ivan. Katerina Ivanovna. and Dmitrij through his exhortation: ". . . 110000310 003300 111131033 - 3 010 30309 - 3 119011 03 1103001 01000 3 00011101 000 00 0939. 1101011 00011101 00 0939 1110030 3 00003331 00013 0933" (XIV. 175). At another point he comforts Fedor Pavlovic' after Dmitrij‘s attack by assuring him that Ivan will defend him and that Gru§en'ka will under no circumstances marry Dmitrij (XIV. 130). although at other times he has quite a different opinion about both propositions (XIV. 136: XV. 49). Ale§a is sure that Katerina Ivanovna would forgive her rival Gru‘éen'ka if she only knew all of the facts and feelings involved (". . . 3 10 119011 11000131 001 11 11000131. 3001 903001. . . 3 903001" [XIV. 321]) and that Gru‘éen'ka has forgiven her former lover: '01 0001 9111 110001300. . ." (XIV. 322). None of this discounts AleEa's remarkable insight. but comes into play only when he tries to "make" things happen for the better. The helpless coper in Ale‘éa takes personal responsibility for others' failings. as when he tries to speak for Dmitrij against his better judgement, and tells Fedor Pavlovi‘é "3. . . 3 011001119 010. - 1100600110100 A00010. - E003 000 103 1110333. 103. 11011101 61111. 03..." (XIV. 159). He cannot bring himself to name GruXen'ka when he tells Katerina Ivanovna about Dmitrij's actions: "03 1100100 3 0103 0103111330. . ." (XIV.136). Ale‘sa takes the blame when ' Katerina Ivanovna and Ivan fail to become "reconciled": ". . . 30 010 3. 3 0330001. 3 303001" (XIV. 176). Ale‘éa apologizes for Ivan and speaks in his stead when Ivan ignores his appeal to return to Katerina Ivanovna: ”111003 1000030 000630. 3011000010. 11000000000300 3 000630. . . - A00010 000303300 303 110009113113“ (XIV. 176). Ale§a's experience in Book Seven empowers him with new voices which replace the two already discussed. The rebuking conscience speaks when Ale§a responds to Rakitin's gleeful teasing: ". . . 6901 3 111 006000. 3 11010030 10300 0030003010. 303010 111 3330100 30 31100. 3 111 1011001 30 110130011 61 090311 11033" (XIV. 318). Ale‘éa scolds Kolja: "3003. 110033101" (XIV. 506). He corrects Dmitrij for presuming to find fault with Gru§en‘ka: "11313. 30 01103 00 911003011. 110000 30 311001.011. . ." (XV. 182) He insists that Katerina Ivanovna do the right thing by visiting Dmitrij in prison: "8001 011 00001311. 00.0111131 010 0000011. . ." (XV. 182). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) The true believer trusts others to follow their better instincts. which he regards as the gift of Divine Providence. This is why Ale§a tells the court about Dmitrij: ". . . 3 000100 6110 960x003. 310 303010000 01100100 3900100 000100 0110001 010 0 00300910 1133919. . ." (XV. 108). This type of faith differs from that which he expresses as the wishful thinker. who says: "3 00010. 310 601 9010031. 303 03001 093100. 310611 30 61100 9111000" (XIV. 112).15 The rebuking conscience and true believer represent different. but not disharmonious sides of Ale§a. since they both expect others to recognize what is right and to choose it for themselves. Although Ale‘éa adopts Zosima's beliefs as his own. he clearly is a unique individual with his own ways of speaking to others. Dmitrij manifests four voices: the phrasemaker. the beast. the gesturer. and the submitter. all of which show unique attitudes toward himself and others. As the phrasemaker Dmitrij speaks f acilely about his relationships with others. adopting poetic expressions just as thoughtlessly as he adopts solutions to his problems.16 At times he uses expressions which show a high degree of 0300030011: "3 110039. 3 3939. 3 0039 101939 3110330 10100 90000 103910. . ." (XIV. 102. 103); ". . . 3 30 0001100110010. 3 0000 1000010 3 3 0009 01131 110309" (XIV. 98); . . 310 9 3010 60031. 101 0 1011 3 1000031" (XIV. 100); "30000 103 033 100. 30 00300" (XIV. 109). At other times he shows a classical bent with phrases like: "1106 000103900113" (XIV. 370) and "0 1130101100911 1110300011" (XIV. 416). The phrasemaker is not above using ill-suited cliches: "30300 01303330. 30303 0110011 30910111" (XIV. 342): "811 011000010 30000030. 090001133. 01 30030101003303 0110013. 01 1130100010. . ." (XIV. 348). At issue here is not the aesthetic value of Dmitrij's speech. but the way it represents his inability to center in on the true causes of his problems with others. The angry beast issues threats to Fedor PavloviE in Dmitrij's letter to Katerina Ivanovna It also dominates when he bursts into Fedor Pavlovfé's home and. having struck him. yells: "T03 0119 3 3000" (XIV. 128). Xoxlakova provokes this voice: "0. 310611 300111" (XIV. 351). The beast reacts to Grigorij's damaging testimony: "310 03 00 000611 30 11033 3000001011. . ." (XIV. 62 439). Dmitrij is aware of this voice from the very beginning and is bothered by it- ". .. 03 3 0011 930030 0063 010330 00 1130130 00060330 000330 011110033 0 011000 0 011.1011 00 1100000300 000113. . ." (XIV. 30). The gesturer seeks acceptance of others not by inviting their forgiveness for his conduct. but by showing that he too is "worthy." This is how Dmitrij enters Mokroe. bearing gifts to ensure a good memory of him: ". . . 100113. A30003. 1033 003031. 00033. 11003013 0 10003011. I110611 03003 000. 310 1103011001 3 0091 (.2011 0091. . ." (XIV. 372). Dmitrij f ails back upon his noble background in order to cultivate common ground with the investigators: "1111 191 1000 00100301 01003 600100003110. 3 119011 000 9 300 103 3 69001 30 0003113011 0000033 0600- 0000331111 3 000103311 010003. 00300331111 000033010011 3 3001110" (XIV. 421); ". . . 1011001. 0 1100000333 000. 111131033 K000110000. 303 0010 0006003113 3000003. 110013130001 0011 00010 0939" (XIV. 458). Dmitrij speaks earnestly here. although his interrogators characteristically view it as merely a strategy to curry their good will. Dmitrij begins to develop a new voice during his imprisonment and trial. which I call the submitter and with which Dmitrij tries to accept and give meaning to his future: "A 3001 0090310 - 0011 00011010 300 1000003 11003 1011019. 0 0001100. 1101100910 060011331 30 1100100310. 30 0310310 11033 6010 110010. 03010 0063: 00000110191" (XV. 176); "3033901. 601011 3 01001031111 090011 010. 0 30003 01110 110010 30 03300031 K013. 110001010 10601 800113. 00913. 1100100310 00919101" (XV. 178). The submitter remains undeveloped at this point as Dmitrij still shows signs of his older voices in the way he pleads to the court Ivan maintains four voices: the self -possessed intellectual. the ironist. the hater. and the confider. The self -possessed intellectual displays his erudition before others. whom he considers slightly inferior. He uses phrases from Latin. French. and Aramaic; "ad majorem gloriam Dei" (XIV. 226); “bon jugement“ (XIV, 225); '“I'alifa kumi“ (XIV. 227). Ivan does not neglect the Orthodox heritage here. quoting from Church Slavonic scriptures as a patronizing concession to Ale‘ém "Ca 10309 03000" (XIV. 225). The self- possessed intellectual elaborates his article to the monks as if presenting a lecture to an advanced class: "3 309 30 110001110333. . ." (XIV. 56): "803 1111001 11003 010113 0 1011. 310. . ." (XIV. 57); "801 003 1103 010113. 11003113 00 30310301" (XIV. 58).17 Ivan speaks somewhat less formally, but even more smugly in his remark about the Christian vision of eternal harmony: ". . . 39 3 1100300 3 1100300. 3 103 00000 0 6003030330011. C000-10 113010 30 0101 0301 63 30000030" (XIV. 214). The self-possessed intellectual is Ivan's favorite voice. i.e. the one he strives to present. The ironist comments on Katerina Ivanovna's plan to ”save" Dmitrij: "310 003 0091311 03101 0601110330. 10 003 300 00300033113. 1311100113. 9101011113. 110x01 61111. 30 30901033113 0001. 11 030 69001 113101103 390010011 01010 3011003033010 000101" (XIV. 173). Ivan speaks about the Swiss convict Richard no longer with detached equanimity. but with biting irony: "11 001 11030111010 110110093113 6001100 60010 P310000 01001303 30 010011101. 11000111303 30 130101339 3 011311003-1033 0119 110- 6001033 100009 00 10. 310 3 30 3010 000100 600100011" (XIV. 219). The Majakovskij-like cadence conveys Ivan's feeling that Richard's death is irreversible even as he professes sympathy for the victim. Other characters notice the ironist in IvarL18 Ivan's angry outbursts reveal not just an emotional state. but a voiced attitude toward others which I call the hater. The hater is prominent during Ivan's conversations with Smerdjakov and the Devil. and even addresses Ale‘s’a during one encounter: "T91 000 0031. 00311 30 01331" (XV. 37). The hater takes on all of humanity at Dmitrij's trial as he rants: "11091 110000 0091011 30300310103. 11193111 800 x000101 0110013 01110. 0033 100 01001 0091910 100339. . . 811003011. 0001 3 3 11000011" (XV. 117119 The confider sounds as an odd note among Ivan's other voices. as he briefly renders himself vulnerable and even seems to invite judgement. Ivan responds to Zosima’s evaluation of his inner dialogue on the question of immortality with the question: "A 110x01 03 61111 03 00 1130 001003? P01003 0 0100039 00003310013910?" (XIV. 65). and afterward approaches him to receive his blessing. In a similar example. the confider tells A1030: ". . . 3. 11011101 61111. 0063 30100 611 30110031 106010. . ." (XIV. 215). He appeals to Smerdjakov that he be taken seriously in his intent to confess: "H0 110331100011 111 11033. . ." (XV. 67). The confider admits to the Devil: "3. 011003011. 1110000 611 0 1063 1100003111. . ." (XV. 79). He interrupts the hater. dropping all defenses to ask Ale‘éa: "A 111 0300011. A003ce3 @00000033. 303 0110031 0 9110?" (XV. 36). He appeals to the judge: "3. 00010 110000011003- 10010100. 303 10 300011330303 00030. . . 030010. 303 010: '3030119 - 0030119. 00110119 - 30 0030119" (XV. 116). (Subquote is from dialect.) Ivan's encroaching madness conditions the way in which his voices alternate and the sharpness with which they stand out, but it does not alter their significance in what they reveal about how Ivan encounters others. Katerina Ivanovna appears as three voiced personalities: "the 64 3301319130. the genuflector. and the score-settler. I take the first term from a critical work which focuses partially on her.20 The 3301319130 speaks with idealistic attire-ta about her plans to influence Dmitrij positively: ". . . 0 01311 00003 1011001 1000300 - 30011 3 0001. 3 30 03010. 310 0010. 30 30310 01101000. 001110. 11011101. 61111. 0011010 00010"(X1V. 172). She expresses her obligation to restore Dmitrij. whom she considers to have fallen: ". . . 3 0010 11019 0110013 010" (XIV. 135). The 3301319130 excitedly stresses her role with Dmitrij as a sister and a friend: ". . . 03 00100131 00910. 000109. . . T00130 000109. 3030330. .. 0106311103 3 0010 1113031 0119 11013001000001003" (XIV. 172). She is transported by her initial meeting with Gru‘één'ka: "3 103 3 03000. 310 1111 0 303 000 0001311. 0001 T03 0000110 11039001000000. . . 030. 303 03100 0060113. 0001000 01000 3 110330000 110303 3 0000011. . ." (XIV.137- 138). While the 3301319130 seeks exalted roles. the genuflector willftu sacrifices her prestige and requires others to witness her debasement She tells Dmitrij in the Epilogue: ". . . 111 601 1103. . ." (XV.I87). precisely the opposite of the role she had aspired to as the 3301319130. The genuflector voluntarily immoiates her prestige when she testifies in Dmitrij's favor: ". . .0 3 00110. . . 3 61100 11001000030 0 10300 110001110330. . . 310 30 110100 010 00011 3 0060. . . 110 3 3 33303010 110000 30 311000 61111 3 30119 100600010013010 00 0101 0001. . . 3 00110 0030111011 110093300 01 3010 0030111300 00001110330 0010 60011000. 3011 0 103 1110333. 3 11033300 010. 300110103 30 10. 310. . ." (XV. 111). The score-settler reacts with resentment to the positions Katerina Ivanovna's other voices place her into. She interrupts the 3301319130 to express her frustrated irritation with Dmitrij: "303011 30 03001 00 0311 1100. 0300130 3 11019 003 3010 01130013?" (XIV. 135). She quickly retaliates against A1030 when he fails to wholeheartedly approve her scheme to rescue Dmitrij from himself: "811. . .011. .. 011 1100031333 1000030113. 001 011 3101" (XIV. 175). This voice is nowhere more marked than in the final part of Katerina Ivanovna‘s testimony. when she withdraws her former statements in order to condemn Dmitrij: "3 1100600000 110600311 010 11003 010600110. . . 30 03 333010. 333010 30 110330. 110 00000 03 11011101 310-336901 11033111 310 3000011" (XV. 120). Gruien'ka presents herself as the teaser. the jealous avenger. and the kindred soul. The teaser appears first. exploiting others' emotions by frustrating their expectations with her cultivated unpredictability. This voice is evident throughout GruXen'ka's conversation with Katerina Ivanovna. 65 which she concludes by telling Ale‘éa: "91 1060 0000103 300001031300- 300001031300 0030 00000 03011191 51 010 003 1063. 3000103130. 00039 1100000000. 11000003. 10096333. 110000 11030003103" (XIV, 140). Dmitrij reveals what the teaser had told him: ”11030101. 011309 00119111. 0001 111 3301.33. (2301113. 310 6311 30 6900011 3 11000003011 000 1130 000011. 310 3 003039. 10100. 11011101. 3 011309. . ." (XIV. 109). The jealous avenger is associated with Gru§en‘ka‘s feeling for Dmitrij. whom she defends by threatening Snegirev: "£93011 30 011031 £003 0 090 010 1100000011. 103 11000009 103. 310 000119 00019 119603330 0630091113103. 310 630 03 1063 00 1000 1110 30010333300100. 10100 0011010 1063 1100 090 91103911" (XIV. 186-187). The jealous avenger blames Katerina Ivanovna for Dmitrij's predicament at the trial: “P000933300 010 110196300. 001 310. 000119 0030 030 110333303. 001 310. . . 1.211100 0 303 11000 301333010. 001 310. . (XV. 114). The kindred soul. however. reveals a completely different side of Gru§en‘ka. more spontaneous than the teaser and more forgiving than the jealous avenger. She greets Ale§a with colloquial simplicity: ". 01003 303 3 1060 0000. . ." (XIV. 314); ". . . 30 1110000. 30 100000. . ." (XIV. 314). The kindred soul urges Dmitrij to treat Maksimov with charity: "0111 0119 310-336901. 11313. .. 1100003 0119. 0001 03 6003113. Ax. 6003110. 063310331101. ." (XIV. 397). 01111111111 leaves behind the teaser voice. although she never masters the jealous avenger in the course of the novel. Zosima's voice is not fragmented like those of other characters; it is sentimental and heartfelt no matter with whom or about what he speaks. One critical Observation. however. gives cause to consider that Zosima voluntarily adopts two different voices when he talks with others in his . celi21 I would call these two voices the homilist and the storyteller. The homilist seeks to inspire others by encouraging them to emotionally desire good. The homilist tells his listeners: ". . . 0 3000 00011-10 1100000 6011133. 911303100103. 00311003100103. 000000010100103" (XIV. 265). Another charac- teristic example is the exhortation: ". . . 3000030 031111 0010300301 3 000100393 3300 30110331300 11000100100339 c0000. 30 60011030303. 11031101 000. 000 11031101 1100000000300 0000001" (XIV. 266). The storyteller conducts a suspenseful narrative completely unlike the passages from the homilist. as Zosima proves that he understands both the secular world and its language. He describes the circumstances of his duel: ". . . 00 0003-10 113010001 01100130. 0600013003 30000. 00 0101103011. 00003. 0 000 3 1190130: "T900. 66 30339. 1060 3 0000101" (XIV. 271). The storyteller employs a secular idiom in describing his life as a cadet- ". . . 110110110 30 0003 11009003" (XIV. 268). While the homilist relies heavily on Slavonic expressions. the storyteller uses a journalistic term to confess the faults of his youth: . . 00 1010 03330 3000010101 3 9300110310103 330100 1100000009033" (XIV. 270). The difference between the homilist and the storyteller lies not in whether Zosima narrates a past event or speaks of present circumstances. but in the manner of his expression. When he describes the illness and death of his brother Markel. Zosima speaks as the homilist rather than as the storyteller. I use the term “voice" here with caution. since Zosima does not actually display different attitudes toward others notwithstanding the different ways he speaks about them. I would like to consider the Grand Inquisitor's voice separately from Ivan‘s because of the important role it plays on its own. The Inquisitor has only one voice. that of an accuser who justifies his arguments in a measured. declamatory. and doggedly repetitive manner.22 As an accuser. the Inquisitor condemns Christ's approach to humanity through a series of leading questions. and also expresses his dissatisfaction with humanity. Ivan's other projection - the Devil - alternates between two voices as he parodies Ivan's intellectual past He initially adopts the voice of a parlor banterer. but increasingly speaks as a cruel mocker. The parlor banterer provides anecdotes and issues flip comments. for example. about the length which the philosopher is condemned to walk: "110310 1000000 6001100. 001 100130 301 300030001330 3 691101333. 0 10 611 0000331011 110130" (XV. 79).23 He uses cliches in a joking way: "12011110 0930130 3900100 1103. . . 111001100130 001100010311 00330100330 00030013131 110311 11000111033011" (XV. 76). The cruel mocker speaks with a more challenging. openly aggressive tone. as when he replies to a threat from Ivan: "310 11033-10 96110101? H01. 9: 300333. 011030X9" (XV. 83). The cruel mocker reminds Ivan: "119. 0 '1‘000013300333-10 1100000001?" 1101133101? 801 010 103 9111 110011301" (XV. 83). The cruel mocker attacks Ivan with a personal tone which the parlor banterer does not venture: "H0 9x 10300 301.0 0900333 00000110331113 300000303: 600 00331133 3 01101003333011 30 00013103. 00 1010 9111 301339 000010630. . ." (IN. 84). While the Devil's entire purpose is to make fun of Ivan, he changes voices not entirely by his own intention as he becomes increasingly wrapped up in the game of humiliating Ivan. 67 Smerdjakov speaks as the disdainful snob. the whiner. and the smirker. The disdainful snob has little regard for others and contemptuously shows his dissatisfaction with the environment they have created. He finds fault with his soup (XIV. 115) and dismisses Gogol's works: "1100 301100009 000 3011301130.. ." (XIV. 115). He has no feeling for poetry ("310 310611 0133-0. 10 010 09010010033113 00000-0. P00090310 00113 310 1110 30 00010 0 0310119 1000031?" [XIV. 204]) or folk language: "110 3010 1110 0 ”11.0mm. 30100 11011130 1100010 0 11001111 0300011. 303 000 01003 11003030031" (XIV. 204). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) The whiner complains to Aie‘éa: ". . . 033 3 00001 11033 600300000330 01003303 60011000103333 011000011 1100 600330. . . 601001 3 33 03031-0. 3 30611 30 603003 0010 119100 1010. 10 0030311 611 00011103 30 3311 10000030119 3030010109" (XIV, 207). He relates a similar complaint to Ivan: "3 00 1010 0 3011101111 03011 3 0 3011101111 300011 000 0001100 00030101 060-0. 310 0911010 3303 300 01 010039 0011 1113033 0063 0301311-0" (XIV. 245). In these examples Smerdjakov partially contrives the whiner voice to disguise his role in preparing for the murder of Fedor Pavlovi‘é. The whiner is a genuine aspect of Smerdjakov, however, as his tearful outcry shows when Ivan strikes him: ". . . 6111030. 090001. 0006010 30000030 63111. . ." (XV. 51). It is also present in his rebuke to Ivan: "A 003011 611 1130 10303 3100-0. 30100 30 000 000 1100 911000330. 00330100330 303 30 10011000 6010-01.. ." (XV. 44). The smirker takes satisfaction in subtly goading Ivan. as when he tells him: “1110 30 3 9630. 010 011 030010 00113 0011000330. 11 091100 3. 310 91130119 30000039 3 10000311 0 3011 6001100 303010" (XV. 52). In response to Ivan‘s question ("T11 091100. 310 000 10330 1110 109011. 303 111?" [XV. 461) the smirker answers: "110001310-0. 110091100. 310 3 011. 303 3 3" (XV. 46). The smirker is at his boldest in his rebuke to Ivan: "600 10100 0110011 61103-0. '000. 0003011. 1100000030." - 10000303-0. 0 1011001 001 103 301191003011. . ." (XV. 61). Kolja appears through three voices: the pedantic grown-up. the callous nihilist. and the ebullient boy. His first voice is represented by statements like the advice he gives to Smurov: "1113001333. 139100303 01113. 010 000; 110310 003 0060010 0000. 000" (XIV. 472). About his attitude toward Ilju§a the pedantic grown-up says: "51 31100 0 0309 01101300311 30003100. 0110003311. 0000011 30000030. . (XIV. 480). He also retorts to Kartasov in the Epilogue (XV. 194). and even tries to patronize Ale‘éa. telling him: "3033003000330 3 0030103100130013 000 3000331. .. 1: 301900113. 303 011. 30 68 6110001 33030" (XIV. 499). The pedantic grown-up employs a bookish phrase in reference to fuéka's disappearance ("H00103 X9339. 19330 30 09010010901. X9330 3030000 00 110030 3030000130013" [XIV.4721). and poses as a naturalist with the inane remark about dogs: "T91 30303-10 060133 9 333 00303 1103000111" (XIV. 473). The callous nihilist tries to avoid appearing boyishly emotional. as when he asks Smurov about events at the Snegirevs': "310 010 9 000 1011 00 00313303100130013. 003030. 00000301?" (XIV. 472). He criticizes medical professionals from above while at the same time distancing himself from Ilju‘a's physical condition: "11031000. 3 003 1100311330303 0000031. .. 3 010311010 110030339. 500110000300 930011100330. 3. 011003011. 000 010 300000910" (XIV. 472). The callous nihilist characterizes his troublemaking not as a'talent for boyish pranks. but as something grander and more political: "3 0106010 000010000311 0900300 00 0003 000311 060100100" (XIV. 477). The ebullient boy comes through during Kolja's conversation with Karamazov. although it does not conquer his other voices: "1330111310. 3000110000. 011 91110030 11033 11000300010?" (XIV. 501). The ebullient boy makes insistant pleas for llju‘éa's attention: "13110103 1110 000. 11010010330. 0110103. 00 0110103 1110. 0110103. 010033. 310 1110 111 30 0110103101? 3 1103000. 0 03 30 01101031" (XIV. 492). He also speaks about Kolja's treatment of Ilju¥a quite differently that did the callous nihilist: "O. 303 30339 0063. 310 30 110330030 0031100. . ." (XIV, 507). Rakitin consistently speaks with only one voice as a laconic reductionist who belittles the words. thoughts. and beliefs of others. Typical of this voice is his reference to "60010109110013" at the monastery (XIV. 73). The laconic reductionist attributes self-serving motives to Zosima's bow before Dmitrij and tries to diminish its meaning with the words "100390" and "11003103011": "H0 100390 6110 110000003 3000330. . . Ila-1100119. 010033 0030103100130 1100000030: 91000010339 1100310300. 151100031 9 000" (XIV. 73). He agrees with Ale§a about the presence of Karamazovism even in the latter. but does so with a Darwinistic expression: "T11 0011 3000110000. 111 K000110000 0110030 - 01000 61111. 030331 1110 310-336901 1100000 3 1100600" (XIV. 74). Of all the personages in the novels. Raskol'nikov displays the greatest number of voices. Critics have noted the variety of words and thoughts issuing from Raskol'nikov's consciousness. which they consider represen- tative of many psychic states. 24 I argue that these utterances represent separate voices through which Raskol’nikov speaks and which I name the 69 rationalist. the tyrant. the resenter. the apathetic loner. the worrier. the regretter. the altruist. and the tender son. These represent not merely emotional or mental states. but different personalities which Raskol'nikov assumes throughout the novel. I posit them not to explain his psychic turmoil, but rather to make more perceptible the course of his internal dialogue. The rationalist believes that his conscious mind can master all emotional obstacles. and says about his fearful moments before the crime: "800 010 00000. . . 303011 191 61100 011901011031 1100010 111303300300 000010030100" (VI. 11).25 He dismisses the power of details to upset his ability for rational action: "61031 100130 0011003311 300 33113 0010 00010 3 0001 00009003. 3 033. 0 0000 000113. 000 69091 1106011100311. . ." (VI. 59). The tyrant expresses his belief in the right to chart one's own and even others' destinies at the expense of whomever necessary. He does not coincide with the rationalist. and even espouses sentiments which are basically irrational: "60011011 310 3000. 000 30000100. 00 3 100130: 3 010000330 00311 30 00631. . . 6006000 3 000011. 0 1000300 000011" (VI. 253). He attempts to live not by reason. but by strength: "6300. 0300 3911130; 600 03011 333010 30 0001110011. . ." (VI. 147). This is what gives Raskol‘nikov the resolve to continue his struggle with the police: "3 0010 1106001001" (VI. 323). The tyrant becomes mocking and sadistic as he convinces himself that he can dominate others and subject them to his point of view. He torments Sonja with his forecast of her family's future and suggests: "00. 11011101. 3 6010-10 0000011 301. . ." (VI. 245). The tyrant similarly exercises dominance over Zametov: "A 3000100 0011 X311. 100110033 "130110100; 0 11033130111030 110010 01100 60000010333331 310 010 000 003300 01011110303311-10 3003000?" (VI. 125). The resenter expresses irritation and disgust at others and himself. generally with a contemptuous tone. He rejects Dunja's concern for him: "600301103 30 30301. 310 11030103 6001000- 100101000011. . . 0. 303 3. . . 3030031119 33 000111" (VI, 178). He similarly forbids Sonja to follow him on the road to confession: "L110 1111 T11 3900? 1101000303. 00100030313 0033. . . 3 3 30119 191 110003 003101. . ." (VI. 404). The resenter cannot live with himself: "311. 001013300333 3 00101. 3 6001100 333010. . ." (VI. 211): "3 3 01100 103 30 0063 300031103. 103 11031011 0 0060. 330133 3. 333101113113 3. 11000011. 110000111" (VI. 404). The apathetic loner speaks as if he has no involvement in what he says. or no interest in those with whom he speaks. He reveals a distanced. almost 7O disembodied tone: "110. 00. 011 00000100330 1100011. . . 801 3 110030003 11001911010 0 93300003101. 3 10100 000 1103001.. . 303 110 110009. . ." (VI. 172). He tells Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna: "801 3 000. . . 10330 30- 00 1110333 00001 30 000 01101010. . ." (VI. 178). The apathetic loner rejects others‘ assistance. but in a different way than does the resenter: "H0 3000. . . 00301. . ." (VI. 94). The worrier contrasts sharply with the tyrant. rationalist. and loner in his fear of being found out This voice dominates Raskol'nikov‘s utterances during his second meeting with Porfirij PetroviE. Even in ,their first conversation Raskol'nikov as the worrier thinks: "A 0 00060-10 3 11001000010011. . ." (VI. 194). He expresses shock that he has left the door open during the murders: ". . . 00 000 010 0001131" (VI. 66). The worrier also questions Nastas'ja about the summons from the police. The regretter speaks ref lectively and ruefully about his dealings with others: "11011. 000100. 303 010630 3 3111 013010 1011001 3 33 3030031119?" (VI. 212). He pleads with Dun‘ja: "0933. 1130031 £003 3 0330003. 1100013 11033. . . 110001031 110 690011 011003111" (VI. 400). Unlike the tyrant. the regretter feels sorrow for Sonja and Lizaveta: "1130000101 60331 6003110. 3001330. 0 10000113 300133113. . . 11301101. . . 303011 033 30 1100391? 303011 033 30 0103917. . . 033 000 0100101.. . 103031 300130 3 1330. . . 6033. 60331 T3303 6033. . ." (VI. 212). The regretter speaks even before the crime as his dream about the horse provokes his repentance: "5011101. . . 00 309111003 1110. 309111003 111 3 0 0011011 0000 0001119 101100. . . 1'0011003. 309111003?" (VI. 50). The regretter seems to yearn for the state the apathetic loner already enjoys: "0. 0003 6 3 6110 0033 3 33310 30 010630 11033. 3 0011 611 3 333010 3330100 30 0106301 131 111/.110 101 mm 0111r11’"(VI. 401). Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) The altruist speaks and acts from an ethical standpoint. and in this way differs greatly from the rationalist. tyrant. or loner. He intervenes on behalf of the drunken girl, telling the policeman: "K03 611 3011 0119 30 0011? 303 611 3011 00 001103 0111000311. - 11009110310-301" (VI. 41). The altruist offers his money twice on behalf of the Marmeladov family. and takes charge of Marmeladov's care when the latter is run over. He involves himself with the ' deranged Katerina Ivanovna. even playing to her illusions as he persuades her to leave the street (VI. 329). The altruist expresses his disapproval at Svidrigajlov's behavior and earns the latter‘s mockery as a "Schiller" (VI. 371 ). The altruist seems unaware that he coexists with the tyrant. the rationalist. the worrier. the loner, or the resenter. Raskol'nikov occasionally 71 speaks with concern and affection as the tender son. although this voice also has solicitude for others than his immediate family. He softens toward the servant: "3311 003. . . H001001101030" (VI. 92). The tender son breaks through in a passage which the apathetic loner dominates to tell his mother: "11003010. 1101103130. . . 90110011 3010000311031" (VI. 176)."!6 He shows solicitude toward Sonja when he visits her: "1110 111 011 010310? 630110. . . 30303 011 11900313031803 30303 9 000 09301" (VI. 242). Raskol'nikov becomes the tender son with Razumixin when he expects immediate arrest: ". . . 1130 11030103 00001 110111011 1060 0939 3 00001 0 10603 11000131103. 119. 00003 0939. 11000103!" (VI. 150). It is the tender son who asks Polja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna to pray for him (VI. 146. 397). These voices reveal many contradictory. but coexisting and contending aspects of Raskol'nikov. They sometimes overlap. and often alternate. but all correspond to some element of Raskol'nikov's ideological internal dialogue about his relationship to the world and others. Even Sonja does not have a single. unalloyed voice. but displays five of them: self -eff acing. frantic. accepting. commanding. and religiously ecstatic. Her first voice is hesitating and elliptical as she shrinks from encounters with others.27 She tells Raskol'nikov and others about Katerina Ivanovna: "8001 300103 1110-0. . . 03 910100330. . . 030 10303. 0001 011 030010. . ." (VI. 183). In her self -eff acing way she addresses Raskol'nikov: '01 011. ..11033. . . 310 1110 011 11033 103. . . 11910010?" (V1. 315). In this manner she declines Svidrigajlov’s charity. assuring him that she is able to get by on her own. and also meets with Lui'in before he accuses her of theft. Sonja's self -effacing speech has been interpreted in various ways.28 Sonja reacts with a frantic voice to Raskol'nikov's sadistic forecast of the hopeless outcome her family will face: "03. 3011. . . 801 01010 30 11011901311. . ." (VI. 245). She just as frantically denies his allegation that Katerina Ivanovna beats her (VI. 245). Sonja‘s accepting voice contrasts with her frantic one as it consciously addresses what the other denies. This is how she responds to Raskol'nikov's suggestion that suicide is her only option: "A 0 33113-10 310 690017. . ." (VI. 247). Sonja‘s voice becomes firm and commanding as she defends herself from Raskol'nikov‘s probing mockery: "110033101 He 01100103003101 811 30 0103101. . ." (VI. 248); "310 111 611 3 600 6010-10 611007. . ." (VI. 248). She speaks firmly and commandingly when she instructs Raskol'nikov to go to the crossroads and confess (Vi. 322). Sonja rises to a religiously exhalted 72 voice as she changes her mind and reads the Lazarus passage to Raskol‘ni- kov.29 She contemplates Raskol‘nikov in an ecstatic manner that her other voices do not reveal: "11 101g. 09- 101110 0000110033113 3 30000910111311. - 03 10310 003300 900111031. 03 10130 9000901. 00. 001 003300 x0. 1011001 310. . ." (VI. 250). Sonja's voices show that she. like Raskol'nikov. feels the pull of conflicting stances toward her position and those close to her. Svidrigajlov reveals himself through three voices: the bored cynic, the predator. and the slave. Others have noticed certain aspects of Svidrigajlov‘s speech which I consider belong to the bored cynic:30 He carelessly reveals intimate details of his life: (". . .33100003030103 00013110. 1103 1110331160- 10. . ." [V1, 368)). and comments frankly to Raskol'nikov about the history of his encounters with Dunja. As the predator Svidrigajlov gloats before Dunja's helplessness at his 1‘ lat The predator also tells Raskol'nikov that he knows about his guilt. citing Raskol‘nikov's own words back to him in order to enjoy the latter's slow realization of his predicament Svidrigajlov surprises readers with his third voice - the slave - as he begs Dunja: "110310 1130 3003 0010010 1100113 110110000011. 003101 003101. . . 63031310 1130: 000003 10. 3 3 0000010.. ." (VI. 380): "3 1110 6909 0010 006.. .0010 1113031.. ." (VI. 381). While the bored cynic expresses indifference toward others. the predator derives satisfaction from their powerlessness. The slave in turn renders himself powerless before Dunja. Porfirij Petrovic' speaks as. the official. the chatterbox. the taunter. the ranter. and the confidant. As the official he meets Raskol'nikov with the words: "8011 0000901 1100011 0613000330 0 1100311310. . . 0 1011-0. 310. 30000130103301 0 103011-10 11003010001033. . . 011 11000310. 0 00010 0300001. 9000011311. . ." (VI. 192). and parts with the remark: "A 300301 000103 110001611 30 3110310 3 001130333. T03-1033 3 3011301310. 303 3 0011 1000030" (VI. 205). The chatterbox employs a leg-pulling. bantering style: "T011001 110313 101000. . . 30003303 30001300. 030010. 010 0000303 00011. - 0? K03 011 09110010?" .(VI. 256131 In Porfirij PetroviiS's second conversation with Raskol'nikov the chatterbox gradually yields to the taunter. who at one point tells Raskol'nikov how he deals with suspects: ". . . 3 0001 3 600 1010 03010. 310 03 1103 3100100330 3 333900 30 9603131 01 110331 1103 3900 0119 6031011. 1110-301" (VI. 261-262).32 Porfirij Petrovii': becomes the ranter when his plans go awry. shouting to the painter who confesses: "T11 1130 310 0 000311 011003033011-10 0110000 0060100101?" (VI. 271). He treats Raskol'nikov's 73 accuser the same way: "310 011. .. 00 11303. 0006033333. 00000107" (VI, 276). The confidant emerges for the first time in Porfirij Petrovié’s visit to Raskol'nikov as a person who speaks directly and sincerely.33 He speaks to Raskol'nikov about his article: "610113 00100 30001103 3 (003100133303. 30 0 303 110013001 10303 30300330011. 0 303 10000011 10303 3 3011003911303. 0 303 011000011 01303333. . ." (VI. 345). It is not possible to ascertain fully to what extent Porfirij Petroviz‘s voices represent different attitudes and to what extent they are merely different strategies. for example. the official. chatter- box. or confidant I believe that one can legitimately approach him as a personage like others in the novels who at various times present themselves as different people. and thereby leave readers with the knowledge that they have not yet understood them fully. Marmeladov speaks as two personalities. a pathetic declaimer and a vulgar snickerer. The declaimer employs rhetorical flourishes and Slavonic expressions as he strives to inspire Raskol‘nikov with the grandeur of his misery: "110 0001133. 09033. 0001133 3. 0001130. 110310003 0101" (VI. 20): "8001 3000630 310. 310611 00330119 30000039 11011 3900-336901 1103130 61100 110313" (VI. 14). The pathetic declaimer not only defends himself. but also condemns himself: "11033 00011311 3000. 00011311 30 300010. 0 30 31000111. . . 360 30 0000013 3103109. 0 030063 3 00001. . ." (W. 20-21). The snickerer surfaces as an odd note. with his leering quality and his new attitude toward his condition: "A 0010033 9 6033 6110. 30 1103110010 30030 110003111110. 30. 1101. .. H9. 310 310 103010. 303 3. 1103100001. 001?" (VI. 20). The difference between Marmeladov‘s voices lies not in whether Marmeladov justifies or condemns himself. but in the tone he adopts toward himself. ‘ Katerina Ivanovna has three voices. lyric. despairing. and petitioning. The lyric voice recalls real or imagined events of her childhood and youth: "T11 30 1100003011. 111 3 0006000311 0060 30 110310011. 110003130. . . 00 30303 01011033 1111 000000 3 11110130 31303. . ." (VI. 138). This voice is associated with memories of the past. but is soon interrupted by the despairing voice. which recognizes the grim reality of the present; "0. 100303103 3130311" (VI. 24134 The petitioner looks toward the future in her appeals for justice from an un- defined higher power: "1< 100900010. 3 100900010. 3 00110119 00010 1106019. . . 11033 11901311" (VI. 303-304): "13011 30 00010 090 3 1100000. 0011. 3 0110191" (VI. 311). Katerina Ivanovna's disturbed condition only brings into sharper relief the voices which she already possesses. 74 Dunja reveals herself in three voices. speaking as the self-possessed aristocrat. the quick-tempered warrior. and the self-sacrificing martyr. With the first voice she expresses herself frankly yet politely. aware of her dignity. This is how she appears to Razu mixin with her statement- "811 113010 0300003 01060111113010 0 300031000 60010 3. . . 0300003 60000301000130. 310 3000010; 3 0911000. 011 110000 3311 600101000010. . ." (VI. 165). The quick- tempered warrior retorts to Svidrigajlov when she realizes she is trapped. and also chastizes Luiin: "310 00 30100011 - . . . 00 3 3 30 3039. 310611 011 0000000100301 303001" (VI. 233). With these two voices Dunja expresses two different opinions about Svidrigajlov. the first telling Luiin of her unwillingness to condemn him by rumor alone. the second directly accusing him of Marfa Petrovna's murder (VI. 228-229. 381). The self—sacrificing martyr tells Raskol'nikov: ". . . 0003. 30 0093011. 3 1060 0 3011 1103000601001 303 110300063103 1060. . . 003 1103 313031. 303 310. . . 10 303333 11033. 3 110309” (VI. 326-327). Pul‘xerija Aleksandrovna's two voices are timid and indignant With her first voice she appeals to Razumixin for help in understanding her sow "110 3093310 03 011 11033. 1111310311 110030111133? K03 1130 0 3311? 51. 030010. 0000011 303 11010033303 30319" (V1. 170). Through her timid voice she expresses alarm at others‘ statements. for example. Dunja‘s toward Raskol‘nikov: "A3. 310 111. 119331 H0 0000301. 110310093010. P003. . . 003011 111. 119331. ._ ." (VI. 176). Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna's indignant voice reveals an altogether different side of her as she scolds Luiim “119. 010011 3 0011. 1030119. 11010 119310? 1100310. 00100110 300 00000111" (VI. 233). Luiin appears as a bureaucratic functionary and an outraged bully. Criticism has treated utterances that I associate with the first voice.35 The bureaucratic functionary adopts a formal tone and uses bookish phrases reflecting a dead-letter attitude toward others: ". . . 30113100130119 3 003 11033 0611030119 1193319" (V1. 231); ". . . 110011100300 0 09110931003011 0130100333. . ." (V1. 231); ". . . 0000001030 0000601010 11009011000333" (VI. 116). He employs progressive cliches with the same depersonalizing voice: "110030600103 003 000 00010010033113113033011 3 000010300033 001191011310 00019. . ." (VI. 234136 Luiin abandons his composure and retaliates to Dunja's rejection: "3037 T03 001 30-0-3-01. . . 103 103-10-01 Ho 030010 03. 111000113 P03030030. 310 3 1101 611 3 1100100100011-0" (V1. 233). Razumixin appears most often as a loquacious banterer. but in certain circumstances is provoked to become an abrupt boor. The banterer covers a 75 lot of ground in a short time with animated. elliptical statements like: "T011001 0 301100000330 10310 110000; 0011 33 600111000 30 390010901. 39 0 3. 00091100103. 1100010310" (VI. 88137 He expresses himself with humor: "319-10 10110001031010 30001309 3 006110; 011003011. 3 00 3330100 3 30 11011330. 11010119 310 30 0300" (VI. 97). The banterer is fond of colloquial expressions notwithstanding Razu mixin's relatively high degree of education: "119. 3030330. 606901333 003 0000300110001. 0001. 303 0010001" (V1. 106). He speaks with a certain degree of 03000110011: ". . . 0000003 3000003 30 01110030. . . 0000003 3000003 00910001 00 001. 0 1101011 3 01001" (V1. 97-98). The banterer enjoys parodying an occasional phrase: "91 30100 0303000 30001 00031033003910 010010 1100001100130 11901311. 103 310611 000 1100000009033 0 00010303 1100130013 000011 3030003311. . ." (VI. 96-97).38 The rude boor is direct and terse as he instructs Lulim "11001100310. 001 0011 0190. 010001 110000001110 3101" (VI. 112). Zosimov speaks as a laconic materialist and as a long-winded pedant. The laconic materialist speaks minimally. shows no expressiveness. and comments only on the physical and material. He describes Raskol‘nikov's condition: ”03031 11000100. . . 000 303 0000901. . . E0 310-336901?" (V1. 103). He agrees noncommittally with Lu‘iin: "110001103 03030113300333 113010. . ." (VI. 118). The laconic materialist has little patience with common folk like Nastas'ja. whom he interrupts abruptly: "H9 103 310 31 300030101337. . ." (VI. 105139 The long-winded pedant emerges in Dunja's presence and tries to impress both Dunja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna with his knowledge: . . 0011. 103 0300011. 11000931 1130133 000313113 3000010033113 3 11010- 030013113 0033333. 100001. 011000333. 00601. 3030100113 3003. . . 3 11003010" (VI. 159). Zosimov says no more as the long-winded pedant than he does as the laconic materialist. but he clearly takes a different attitude toward those he addresses. 3883833183 The study of heroes' voices has prepared the way for treatment of certain linked passages. in which statements by two personages appear in close proximity. Critics have commented on Dostoevskij's frequent presen- tation of similar scenes and actions which actually have different meanings.40 We also find in the novels pairs of utterances whose semantic meaning appears nearly the same. but which the differing voices give quite different meanings. This illustrates the primary role Dostoevskij attributes to 76 characters' voices in presenting ideological stances. and also documents Baxtin‘s argument that idea and voice are inseparable in Dostoevskij's novels. Alega is a touchstone to other characters not only by the way he witnesses many of their important statements. but also by the way they seem to have the same opinion about him. In comparing these opinions. however. we find differences in their tone that tells us much about the particular personage who states them. As the 3301319130 Katerina Ivanovna requests his opinion of her plan for Dmitrij. during which she foregrounds her conception of proud self-sacrifice: " . . 3 11000390010910. 310 00010 00100330. 00100 000600330. 300110103 30 000 1103 11933. 1100001 1130 011030301030. 11010119 310 110000 000133 0000 3 0013339 3 110311301001. - 3 010 11000390010910" (XIV. 172). Gru‘éen‘ka solicites Ale‘éa's opinion of her as the kindred soul. speaking in a simple folk manner and reflecting her awareness of her own shortcomings: ". . . 11000013 111 11033. 6003910. 3106 931 03000 3 11010 930011 110030319101" (XV. 12). Kolja makes his appeal for Ale§a's judgement as the ebullient boy: "E003 6 011 100130 03003. 303 3 0000319 0010311 1130330111" (XIV. 503). Dmitrij speaks as the phrasemaker: "T11 03100 30 001100. T11 0110091000011. 111 0000903101. 3 111 1100013011.. ." (XIV, 97). The phrasemaker appears ardent in his zeal to learn AleEa‘s opinion. but continues to talk. making it clear that Dmitrij is not yet reflecting seriously on the problems of his life. These statements reflect more than differences in the way artistically presented personages speak; they tell much about how each of these heroes views himself or herself. Dmitrij‘s voice figures in paired statements whose ideological meaning has been construed in different ways. for example. his vow to go to Siberia for the 'babe." which inspires Kolja's wish to suffer for all of humanity. Several critics consider that Kolja has wholly adopted Dmitrij's stance.“1 I argue that these utterances show a clear difference in voicing. Kolja's wish ("0. 0003 611 3 3 1101 3011 30100-336901 110330013 0063 0 3100109 00 1100- 009. . . 3 310000 611 91100011 00 000 300000300100" [XV. 189]) is based on abstractions and adolescent fantasy which are associated with the ebullient boy. Dmitrij‘s vow. on the other hand. is based on a specific image associated with the submitter in him: "30 0310-10 010 3 1011001 3 0 1336301 110309. 3 30 9630. 30 11110 3000 0 C36301 1103131011]. 10).“2 A pair of statements by A1030 and Smerdjakov has provoked disagreement about their ideological meaning.43 Critics have also noted passages in which Zosima appears to 77 make statements similar to those of his ideological opponents.44 Similar statements by different characters may actually show the same voice. that of only one personage. Just as characters penetrate narration in character zones. so do they find their way into the speech of other personages. This is a truly polyphonic phenomenom. since it manifests the strong pressure that voices in the novels exert upon one another. even occupying each others' territory for short times as the speaker struggles to define his or her own voice as opposed to others'.45 The most obvious examples of this involve Zosima's voice within AleXa's. as when Ale‘éa tells Kolja virtually the same thing (". . . 011. 1103109 11003311. 690010 3 03031 3003001030113 3000003 0 313033. . . Ho 0 1100011 000 1033 600100000310 313031" (XIV. 504) which Zosima had said to him: "113010 300300133 110330001 1060 313031. 30 3113-10 3 03001030 6900011. 3 313031 6001000003101. 3 009133 600100000311 0001003011 - 310 0031300 00010" (XIV. 259). Ale§a again avails himself of Zosima's voice ("8001 00 30300. 3013 611 00x0 3 009330001 103. 310 000 611 30 001100 00000130301. 0 111 03101 0033113 00003 0010003: 11033003 3 10100 3100109 3 00030003 6010 111. 0033113 00100103303" (XIV. 291) when he uses his words with Kolja: "590110 310 30 10303. 303 000; 3013 611 100130 011 0033 00100301 30 10303. 0 000-1033 690110 30 10303" (XIV. 504146 An additional example shows Markel's voice (quoted by Zosima) in Dmitrij's speech when he dreams about the "babe". Markel's exhortation ("1130110 1103. 3010 1111 000031103. 0091 110000 0091011 300031103. 0033 30 0091011 063011 110113311: 1103110 0 000 11030011 3 0103011 190311 3 000031103. 0091' 00910 0106311. 3 0003000311. 3 110000011. 3 313031 30109 6001000000311" [XIV. 262]) is present in Dmitrij's questions during his dream: ". . . 11030119 010 01031 11010000110 1101003. 11030119 6003110 01003. 11030119 60030 0310. 11030119 10003 010111. 11030119 033 30 063311010103. 30 1100910101. 11030119 30 110101 110003 0000013113. 11030119 033 1103003003 103 01 300303 60011. 11030119 30 3001131 0310?" (XIV. 456). The moods are different. but the voices are basically the same. as each speaker. facing his own mystery. envisions the possibility of instantaneous paradise. Ivan's voices penetrate the speech of several other characters: Rakitin. Dmitrij. A1030. Fetjukovi‘é. Kolja. and the Devil. Rakitin transmits an evaluation of himself which Ivan had made as the ironizer (XIV. 77147 Dmitrij picks up the hater voice when he echoes the latter's challenge to God in his own words about Fedor PavloviX: "8 1100000333 000 009303 0119 0010 78 61111 0111011" (XIV. 111). 11111111115 transmits the ironizer‘s voice when he gives his discussion of the Finnish servant‘s act the same sardonic. accusing quality that Ivan gives to his "dossier" (XV. 170). Kolja's angry retort to Smurov's question about iuéka ("1110 3 00 0000. 310611 303011 393133 00603 110 000119 100009. . ." [XIV. 485]) recreates Ivan's hater voice when the latter gives his angry. Cain-like answer to Ale‘éa's question about Dmitrij (XIV. 211).“8 The Devil parodies Ivan's confider voice and its admission to Ale‘éa ("3. 1103101 61111. 0063 30100 611 30000311 106010. . ." (XIV, 2151) with his own offhand remark: "801 10310 00331103 9 000 110010630. . (XV. 74149 The Inquisitor's voice has an important presence in the speech of other personages. His expectation that he will receive the confessions of his flock ("111 30 69001 9 3311 33303311 01 300 1033" [XIV. 213]) is also Katerina Ivanovna's relative to Dmitrij: ". . . 03 903001 11033 3 69001 11000000011 1130 000. 30 011103011" (XIV. 172).50 Ivan's Devil parodies both him and the Grand Inquisitor by echoing the latter‘s rhetorical question: ("H09x003 1111 30 0106311 300000300100. . .7" [XIV. 23411111 his own assertation: '91. 1103101 61111. 0033010033113 3000003 00 0003 11030000. 30100113 010631 301339 3 30300330 3100001 00600" (XV. 82). The Grand Inquisitor's voice may also be present at Dmitrij's trial in statements by the prosecution and defense. lppolit KirilloviE is not willing to entertain the possibility that Dmitrij is capable of acting nobly or honestly. but draws the worst possible conclusions from Dmitrij's actions: "603300 009100 3900100. 003333 009103 110130 61103 611 3000100331131" (XV. 143). The Inquisitor's voice sounds more markedly in Fetjukovi‘é's plea on behalf of youth: ". . . 30 690011 011001030011 01 333 30000- 110313010 0000003103331" (XV. 171). a plea which recalls the Inquisitor's attitude toward human beings in general. Kolja uses the Inquisitor's metaphor ("111031111 3 3000030" [XIV. 236]) in reference to the landlady‘s children for whom he is responsible: "11 11033 3 1011001 30 1000 00110 000 11103110 03031. . ." (XIV. 479151 Fedor PavlovilS's voice is present in the utterances of characters other than himself. His assertation as the slighter: "P00033 00330100" (XIV. 122) is restated both by Smerdjakov (XIV. 205) and by Trofim Borist (XIV. 391). The comments about inadequacy of material proofs for Hell. which Fedor PavloviE makes as the irreverent buffoon. are picked up and continued by the Devil in a voice resembling the buffoon's: "001. 3011031100. 011303111. . . 3 33 03031 0106010.. . 00060003. 033 1100010101. 310 110000311 003 00011. 11010119 79 310 311 30013 0 1010 00010 003133 1103001100101" (XV. 71). Lizaveta Xoxlakova recalls a statement by the grouch ("B 0300030-10 000010: 000 00 0910101. 0 000 0 303 313091. 100130 000 1033011. 0 3 01301110" [XIV. 155-1561) with her own: "330010. 0 01011 000 303 69010 30100-10 9000030301 01011 3 000 c 103 1100 0191. 800 1000031. 310 303003031 090300. 0 1100 0063 000 010 010631" (XV . 23). She also reproduces the buffoon's comments about those clever ones who enjoy their brandy in comfort as she says: "119011 3 601010. 0 000 6003110. 3 6909 3031110111 0011. 3 003033 11311. 0 1011 3330119 30 0011" (XV, 21152 Dmitrij's voices are discernible in the speech of other personages. His statements as the phrasemaker (". .. 1113003 3000003. 0031113011 00310 1113003. 3 611 010 093130" [XIV. 1001: "1111111033 3000110000 11000011. 30 30 0001" [XV. 94]) become blended and inverted in Fedor PavloviX's drunken. musing inventions about Zosima: “1101. 1000031. 30 11000011. 0 3 1113003. . . A 011003011. 010 30 03. . . 310 009103" (XIV. 125). This latter statement is semantically ' different from Dmitri] 's but reproduces his voice by juxtaposing two qualities in a way similar to that of the phrasemaker.” This voice also expresses sentiments about discoveries in neurology (". . . 1011 0 110019 013 300011 (39 3001 33 0001113). . .0011 10330 010330 30001333. 9 300000 0133 30001333. 39. 3 303 100130 0311 1011 000003101. . ." ON. 28) which reappear through the Devil's banterer as he also confesses to demoralization in the face of scientific discoveries: "A 001 303 903003 9 300. 310 011 1011 01301103 9 0063 "331133003910 110003909.’ 00 "11001011000119." 00 3001 03001 310 0010 - 103 9 300 3 110031003 1100013" (1111.78). There are additional sets of passages which show one character's voice speaking through another. Fetiukovié appears to speak through Katerina Iva- novna's 3301319130 when he appeals on behalf of clemency for Dmitrij: "0. 3 03010. 3 03010 010 0000110. . . 030 110030033103 11000 00111311 1100031011. . ." (XV. 173). The kindred soul in Gru§en'ka ("A 1111 11030011 0 10603 0931110 0011010 1103011. 51 0011010 001 013113 0930113 0300013 3039" [XIV. 399]) is reproduced in Liza's statement to Ale§a: "A 030010. 3 3039 31011. 00311 31011. 51 00 000 011309. 0 011 0103110 1193133011. 30010301311 1193133011. 9 300 10006030303. 301310?" (XV. 21). Ale‘éa even sounds briefly like Kolja as he adopts the same position to him that Kolja had maintained toward Iliu§az "3003540003 011 03031010 01110 0030 00000. 10 3 0 00113 0000009 3000331" (XIV. 506). 80 Abundant voice connections are present in Wm. Porfirij Petrovii's statement (". . . 11000191100330 300 00003303 03031 3 03031 00310 1103130 ‘000003' 061303311" [V1, 197]) clearly suggests the self -justifying intonation with which Svidrigajlov confronts Raskol‘nikov about the various rumors of his misdeeds. Some interesting connections show the reemergence of Svidrigajlov's voice in Raskol'nikov's speech. His taunt to Raskol'nikov ("11130000-10. 11130000-10 30111. ll130000-1ol" [V1, 371]) is anticipated by Raskol'nikov's own cynical comment as the resenter about his family: "3 103-10 001 000100 9 01311 01300000003311 110030003113 09111 6110001. . ." (VI. 37). Svidrigajlov appears to reproduce Raskol'nikov's regretter ("3 0063 19630. 0 30 0100911103130" [V1, 438]) in his own remark about his involvement with Dunja: ". . . 00 0010 091100 0601001100 0300130 901003111. . . 3. 110310093. 0063 0010 6001100 196110. 110113093101. . ." (V1.215). Svidrigajlov explains Raskol'nikov's crime to Dunja as Raskol'nikov's rationalist would do: ". . . 03 0010 30000001 113010 0060113 000. 103 310 000 010 0010003103. . ." (VI. 379). Svidrigajlov again unwittingly "quotes" a comment of Raskol'nikov's ("30 000119-10 00000103000003 110301130011" (VI. 251) as he speaks about the will to survive: "300301 01010 1193310 0101 30000110000011” (VI. 390). Sonja and Katerina Ivanovna use very similar sentences to defend each other from condemnation. Sonja tells Raskol'nikov: "811 333010. 333010 30 030010. . . 030 330103. .. 030 0110000003003. 0110000- 0030031" (VI. 243). Katerina Ivanovna tells Luiin about Sonja: ". . . 00 011 01110 30 030010. 30 030010. 30300 010 0000110. 30303 010 000901301" (VI. 304155 Personages in both novels make their opinions and worldviews known in words that have bearing on their own lives. composing not just rhetorical exchanges of opinions. but overall dialogues of voices. The issue of forgive- ness occupies a central role in Managua. with major characters taking stances that are inseparable from the particular voice through which they utter them. Dmitrij's beast cries out about Fedor 1111111111: "303011 313001 10303 3000003?" (XIV. 69). Fedor Pavlovig appears to give a direct response to this when he confides to Ale‘éa as the doting parent: "3 000 110111100310 0 1011: 310 010 00 11033 30100-3116901 11011003103? £011 03 30 00010 10303 3000003?" (XIV. 23). Here the two questions: "303011 313001 10303 3000003?" and "E011 03 30 00010 10303 3000003?" show how the question of human worth and forgiveness is answered in two different ways by two different voices. each linking it with their own particular situation. As Zosima‘s 81 homilist says: "600113. 30 6031001 10030 010003. 0106310 30000030 3 00 10030 010. 360 030 931 11000630 603100303 010603 3 0011 0003 010603 30 001100" (XIV. 289). Ivan's hater briefly infests Ale§a with his own particular viewpoint concerning the general‘s outrageous act. so that Ale‘éa is brought to say: "P0001000311l" (XIV. 221). As the jealous avenger. Gru§en'ka has no wish to understand Katerina Ivanovna‘s relationship toward Dmitrij: "3011 1111. 11011. 0 10603! 060 0011! 1‘00 931 3011 110001311. 1060 00 1130?" (XV. 188). As the kindred soul. however. she expresses quite different sentiments about forgiveness and human worth: "K0611 601011 61100. 0003 611 010003 1100- 01300. . ." (XIV. 397). She tells Maksimov. 33. 003333 393103. 1103031190130. 3 11030119 903011.310 3010 3931303" (XV. 19). Like Fedor Pavlovi‘c'rs remark cited above. this statement also stands in opposition to Dmitrij s question: "303011 313001 10303 3000003?"56 A similar overall dialogue of voices takes place in W on the issue of accepting or rejecting Creation and the world. Zosima's homilist cites Markel: ". . . 313031 0011 003. 3 000 1111 0 0010. . ." (XIV. 262). He further says: "11000 11000003 00113010 000001000103 00301030 003303 11000011. . . 0 3000 00011-10 1100000 603133. 9113031011103. 110333110100103. 000000010100103" (XIV. 265). Dmitrij's acceptance of life with the voice of the submitter incorporates within itself his wish to become better through suffering for his mistakes: "H01. 313031 110030. 313031 0011 3 1100 001111010. . ." (XV. 31). Gru‘s'en'ka's acceptance of Creation and the world as the kindred soul is conditioned by her recognition that both she and Dmitrij have other. less sympathetic voices: ”11000100 30 00010. 11011 3 030003110 1111. 0 3000100 30 00010. 830003110 1111 3 30000130. 3 030003110 3 30000130. .." (XIV. 397). Ivan's ironist paradoxically looks to the Devil rather than to God for a metaphor about the sense of life: "51 0911010. 310 0003 013000 30 09010010901 3. 01000 61111. 000000 010 3000003. 10 000000 03 010 110 0000119 060009 3 110006310" (111v, 2171.57 Similar ideological dialogues are conducted throughout W 00110200111, for example, on the question of the afterlife. Marmeladov speaks as the pathetic declaimer to describe a vision of Heaven in which the last do indeed come first: "11 110001001 3 3011 09110 0003. 3 1111 11031100011. . . 3 0011003011. . . 3 000 1103110111" (VI. 21). Katerina Ivanovna's despairer ex- presses a markedly different attitude toward the afterlife. saying about the forgiveness of God: "A 30 11000131. 103 3 30 30001. . ." (VI. 333). Svidrigajlov‘s 82 description of a possible afterlife as a bathhouse infested with spiders in the corners is well known and is stated by the flip cynic. Although Raskol'nikov claims to believe in the resurrection of Lazarus and in the New Jerusalem when he converses with Porfirij PetroviE. he speaks more frankly with Svidrigajlov: "SI 30 000910 0 6909111910 313031. . ." (VI. 221). Raskol'nikov provokes Sonja into revealing her belief in the afterlife and in the literal interpretation of the passage about Lazarus. which she reads in a religiously ecstatic voice. The personages in this way root their belief or disbelief in their understanding of theirs' and others' lives, and express their attitudes in ways characteristic for the voices they possess. A similar dialogical array of opinions arises on the subject of self - sacrifice and its meaning. Raskol'nikov's assertation to Sonja (". . . 1011 111 1000133110. 310 ”mummy 91100101100 3 11000000 0063" [V1, 2471) are grounded in his own unwillingness to accept the assistance and sacrifice of others. for example Dunja and Razumixin. (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Katerina Ivanovna expresses one view of Sonja's sacrifice as the despairer ("A 310 31. . . 3010 600031? 330 003000311101" [V1, 17]). but as the petitioner defends her against Luiin by praising Sonja's sacrifice: "110 030 0000 110000- 0300 1100110 033301. 11000001. 60003 1103001. . . 001 030 30303!" (V1. 304). Svidrigajlov characterizes Dunja's willingness to sacrifice herself with a cynicism appropriate for the flip cynic. Porfirij Petrovi! confesses as the confidant that he came to love Mikol'ka precisely because the latter's sacrifice is pointless, and his confession only for the purpose of suffering. In this way Porfirij PetroviE indirectly answers Raskol'nikov's rebuke to Sonja. who suffers for a purpose. Lulin entirely rejects the value of self-sacrifice in his treatise on the benefit for society of following only one's own immediate self-interest.” .333‘333338 We have seen some of the complex interlocking relationships between the numerous voices in We and 00mm Personages assume an important prerogative of traditional narrators by providing a major part of the characterization through their own voices. This is manifested concretely in numbers: of twenty-three personages addressed in this thesis, seventeen or more receive description from three or more characters. Certain personages are characterized by only one or two others. for example, the Devil, Kolja. Zosimov. and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. because 83 they are simply not brought into contact with many others. Little is said about Zosima not only by heroes. but also by narrators. so that his case does not constitute a real exception to Dostoevskij's intent to reveal as much as possible through his characters. The large majority of personages provide rather significant details about themselves. thereby bearing out Baxtin's point that the words of personages about themselves are of major importance in the polyphonic novel. Epithets in themselves are not necessarily a reliable indication of a hero's nature. since different personages may interpret a quality positively or negatively. In this way they add their own voiced interpretation and show how they regard this quality. for example. the pride of both Katerina Ivanovnas or Sonja's willingness to sacrifice herself for others. Some characterizing statements also turn out to be good examples of voice. so that what a character says about another also reveals a given voice of that character. The large majority of characters which I address have multiple voices. Fourteen of the twenty-three characters display three or more voices. while only three possess no more than one indisputable voice. All of these three - Rakitin. the Inquisitor. and Zosima - exercise strong roles in the internal dialogues of others. for example. Dmitrij. Syntactic and stylistic elements enter into the definition of these voices only as far as they provide evidence of given attitudes in specific statements by personages. Definition of voice is ultimately a problem of perceiving a given personality. These voices play a fundamental role in the polyphonic composition of the novels. showing that not semantic meanings of state ments. but rather the way in which individual voices intend and perceive them. is the primary guide to understanding Dostoevskij‘s treatment of issues in the novels. The mutual interpenetration of characters' voices shows that they are not constrained within physical identities. but have lives and influences of their own extending far beyond their bearers. While each character is a source of certain voice tones which enter others' speech. that character also carries intonations with their sources in other personages. This creates polyphonic webs of voices which spread throughout the novels and provide the underlying basis for perceiving all important dialogues. l 1 “ t( - (11 SFhEAEIU. 84 11191:: 1 M. Baxtin.2mhlemu0¢11ki_nostmskmo(Mosoowz 'Sovetskaia Rossiia." 1979). p. 7. 2 This is seen with the hero of ”Son sme§nogo celoveka." whose change in belief about Creation occurs simultaneously With changes 1n attitude toward others in the story. 3 Baxtin. p. 64. _ 4 Muisov and Xoxlakova play a minor role in the storyline of B13130 111. They do not exercise significant influence on the overall dialogue tlhrough their voices. and are therefore not included here. 5 Wasiolek points out that the reader of Dostoevskij's novels must constant- gnreevaluate the heroes from one chapter to another. r E. Wasiolek. . toevsky:Ih§.M0112LBi§1190(Cambridgez MIT Press. 1964). p. 69. Bursov finds that Dostoevskij's characters are capable of revealing the entire truth of their soul. B. Bursov. "Tolstoj i Dostoevskij." W No. 7 (1964). 76. Fridlender makes the same point 1n his comment: "K031000 30 0 33 0311 00031 00. 3011 30003100301330 010." G. Fridlender. "0 nekotoryx redn ”zada ax i problemax izuéenija Dostoevskogo." In W v. IV (Leningrad: "Nauka." 198 ). p. 11. 6 Gru§en'ka also characterizes Fedor Pavlovié with a word that she uses: "We see Fiodor Pavlovich from a wholly different point of view: to Gru- shen'ka he was a rather pitable "little old man"(01003303). V. Terras. A1010: Wain (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1981). p. 334. 7 Vetlovskaja explains the me ' of an additional epithet given to Zosima by Ivan and echoed by Ale§a, name y, "Pater Seraphicus." She considers that it reinforces the Franciscan aspects of his outlook. which are present in Book 811. V. Vetlovska'a. ”0b odnom iz istoénikov ' " XL. No. (1981). 436-445. 3 "P003001333000 3000310 309101. . . 110313 000 0030109100130 0300 011030." 8. Belov. " ' Wfleningrad: Prosve enie." 1979 .p. 33. 9 Sonja and Mar meladov contradict each other on whether or not Katerina Ivanovna behaves cruelly toward her family. ‘0 Two pritics find a parallel between Raskoljnikovjs and Dunja's charactematlons 1n the closeness th10 comment of Vldl‘l ajlov’s shows to a similar comme. t to Raskol'nikov by Porfirij Petrovi . In t e latter statement Porftrlj Petrov1 tells h1s l1stener that he could withstand disembowelment if he found behef or God. M. ones. WW (London: Blek Books Ltd, 1976). p. 5; " Raskol'nikov‘s Humanitarianism," 900051100; ' VIII. No. 3 (1974). 376-377. R. Koprince. "The W101. B isode in mmmuhmgm" An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. niversity of Michigan. 1977. p. 7 . ”Ill MEmNmNanWu ; die 85 11 Holquist finds that Razumixin characterizes himself by adding a pun on his name ("B0039M3333'). M. Holquist, "Disease as Dialectic in ' E I lam]: I ll .. WWW edited by R. Jackson (Eng wood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1974 . p. 115. eace notes the confusion Lu ' has with Razumixin's name, calling him "P00090333." R. Peace, W511 ' ° ' (Cambridge: Cambridge at the University ess, 1971 ,p. 313. 12 Alesa is initially wrong about Katerina Ivanovna. while Ivan is much more on target. Svidrigajlov throughout the novel seems to have a better view of Raskol'nikov than does Razu mixin, Raskol'nikov‘s best friend. 13 Van der Eng lists the various roles Fedor Pavlovi! plays at the monastery as: the submissive believer. the worldly man. the romantic sinner, the indignant believer, and the buffoon. J. van der Eng. "'Suspense' v Brat'iax Karamazovgx." in e v " (The Hague: Mouton. 19 1), p. 80. I regard most of these roles as coming from the vaice I call the irreverent buffoon. 1“ The narrator takes a rather indignant view of Fedor Pav v13 throughout. speakin of his sentimental streak even as e talks to Ale 0 as the doting parent. he fact remains that Fedor Pavlovi does have some affection for Alesa and Smerdjakov. if not for his other sons. 15 gatteau explains what motivates the {'uxtaposition of these two voices in Ale a: ”Faith in man does not necessari y lead to faith in God. but faith in God. for Dostoevsky. must absolutel go throu h faith in man." 1. Catteau. "The Paradox of the Legend of t 0 Grand. nquisitor in mem in edited by . ackson Englewood Cliff s. 11.1.: Prentice-Hall. 1984 . p. 254. 16 410131 310 K0 0300009 0003010 330 c.0000 063033000 303 60 3mg 0 10:01:16 3%? 15 lg; Esofenkova, "Re ' Sefoev i slovo avtora." 30553an {:2 0' o . 17 This produces the curious effect of Ivan presenting the. points of his own argument as if he were an uncommitted third person. . . this frees Ivan from any obligation to be other than the cool expounder of the ideas of his article. . .' Peace, 0. 265. 13 Fedor Pavlovic sums up the ironizer with his comment about Ivan: '. . 3300331 no 9030300103 30 1063 30030" (XIV. 158). Alesa also worries about how Ivan Will speak to Zosima and whether he will show him proper respect (XIV. 31 ). 19 Kantor cites several acts and utterances which attribute to the hater: his abuse of the peasant. his Cain-like words to Ale a, and his remark about Liza: "3000 030 0060303, 10 a 03 30 333030.“ B. Kantor. W W(Moscowz "Xudoiestvennaja literatura." 1983 .p. 117. 20 Rosen singles out Dmitrij's reference to Katerina Ivanovna as an 3301319130, but draws a particular meaning from the term: "The Ushakov dictionary defines the '3301319130' as a ”naive. exhalted. inexperienced girl.” 86 M. Rosen. "Why Dmitrij Karamazov Did Not Kill His Father." Canadian; American'filaxigfliidies. VI (1972). 212. 21Linner finds that Zosimas language varies awarding to situation and subject. with many Slavonicisms in the passages containing his exhortations and teachings. but with a more conversational st 1e and lexicon when he discusses contemporary issues and problems. S. inner. S kh l toc o m: Almqvist 8: Wiksell International. 1975. 48. Linner’ s comments are concerned mainly with stylistic differencesp but these latter also suggest aspects of the overall differences in Zosima' 5 voices which I discuss above.) Rosen's comments are applicable to the first t pe of speaking. Linner mentions: “The prose is rhythmic. sounds and wor s are repeated especially 231300330 (tender emotion) as noun. verb. and adjective, and adverb. sima often uses caressing diminutives, which are not characteristic of old Russian literature but do reinforce the impression of a warm- -hearted open erson who lives by his heart." N. Rosen. "Style and Structure' in Barnum” 'RussianLneLaiiiLeluguauerlLNol (Fall 1971) 359 22 For a stylistic treatment of the Inquisitor 0 speech, see M. BaboviX. "Poema ‘Velikij Inqvisitor"‘Ru_s_skg1_a_h1_em1mNo. 2(1 984). 74- 93. 23 Terras notes that the Devil's words ('yTy1 000 000 03001-1030, 1111 1033019001. 191 1001301 33...") are a jibe at Ivan‘ s own self -imposed Euclidean look T.erras p. 38. The above uotation ma also be considered such an example in view of its implication o "calculating‘ the metaphysical. 24 Tamarcenko considers that at various times Raskol' ' ov is: ". . . 001911- 333, 1300100, 00103130, 091103, 3.0000147 ar enko "Q anrovoj strukt re 0 eu e a a in e Kemerovo: 1976.0 72. Wilson finds different reflections of Raskol'nikov's own words and acts in the dream about the horse: "Each of the three main actors in Raskol'nikov‘s dream- Mikol‘.ka little boy. and onlooker - reflect wa s of reactin that Raskol'nikov consistentl demonstrates in the novel.” .Wilson,‘ ‘Ras ol'nikov' 5 Dream' in W" W XXVI (1976). 160. Snodgrass takes this point even further: "First of all. where is Raskol' nikov in his dream? Is he the horse. the little boy the father. or the brute Mikolka? The answer must be Yes.‘ W. Snod rass, Crime for Punishment: The Tenor of Part One" [he flhd 091; Review, XI 1(1960) 239. Rahv makes a oint similar to Wilson's and Snodgrassfis P. Rahv "Dostoevsky in 91:11:10 ghdfiun ishehi hey v t f I 5 edited by R. Wellek Engelwood C1iffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1962.0.18. 25 Frank notes Raskol' nikov‘ s laconic dismissal of those who suffer from lack of power (' T0303 110,011,031 100031.11001303 9300.315 3031033 1011.“) and characterizes it as the result 9 the application of a Utilitarian calculus." J. Frank. ‘The World of Raskol'nik 'Enmnm XXVI (1966). 34. Eastman refers to ‘Raskol'nikov’ s .obeer and bread explanation of his own state of spirit” ‘.R East tman. ‘Idea and Method in a Scene by Dostoevsky‘ WXVII, No. 3(1955). 145 87 26 Razumixin characterizes this voice of Raskol‘nikov's when he says about a ges3ure (11631372301 30 010-10 3 010 3 01060101. . . £011. 9 3010 013 003130- 333. . ." . . 27 she is not presented by Dostoevsky as a .calm. contented creature. accepting her lot with unruffled equanimity. She is timid. frightened. often fibarrassed and confused. withan acute 8séense of her own worthlessness." eS. WWO. p. . 23 Paris considers that Sonja’s self -effacing responses represent a psycho- logical subterfuge which dominates her activity in the novel. B. Paris. "The Two Selves of Rodion Raskol‘nikov: A Horneyan Analysis." 121311110, I (1978). 322-323. Polonskoj views Sonja‘s self -sacrificing activit and self -effacing responses to be merely a by-product of Dostoevskij's re 'gious and political thought: 'P003ii303303 101-130 300333 1100100003010, 9100000001010, 1110 010000330 - 00330100331113 119111 3 03001110 3030031 0000 0100130330 3 0 060030 (3033 60301001303 1300103. . ." K. Polonsko'. Commentary to F. Dostoevskij. ' ' ' (Moscow: "Xudo stvennoj literatury.“ 1957). p. 581. Both of these analyses overlook much in Sonja's voice complex. 2? Perlina's view of the narrator in W as a hggiographer With. both self -deprecating and triumphantly af irmative v0ices is also a plicable to Sonja s blend of voices showing these two extremes. N. Perlina. ' oward the Concept of an Ideal Hero in Dostoevski"s " " XXXVII. No. 128 (1983). 6 . 3° Evninsees the prim quality of Svidrigajlov's voice in his careless ntax. his low and. cyni expressions. and a certain 003033300111. F. Evnin. ” oman W in W edited by N. Stefanov Moscow: zdatel’stvo AN SS R. 19 9 .p. 14 . rossman finds that Svi rigajlov's sgeech con101ns a certain "300331400303 306001330011.” L. Grossman.]Dostoevs ij - xudoznik," in Wm p. 391. Poddubna1a remarks about Svidrigajlov‘s speech: ". . . 30000101033001» 00131400303 3 03310313300303 300003301133 130130 010001311143 0003310113 0113.” P. Poddubna'a. “Vosstanovlenie 'bEego loveka . W 5001130. 2 (19751163. ”81 3‘ Belov writes that Porfirij Petrovié posit words: '. . . 0 000006000303 tu91000303 1303000." S. elov. "0 xudo es vennom masterstve F.M. Dostoevskogo." ’ ’ No. 5 (1971). 4. K ' 0 summarizes the words the narrator uses to characterize Porfirij Petrovi ‘s voice: 'C300010000303, cnewo, 6001301401, 390031-101, 0311001 (000 00 030 0110033 001000) 03 6000330003330 11901110 (1100?: . ." N. Kamaw WWoscowz " udo stvennaja literatura." 198 . . 32 Poddubnaja considers this aspect of his voi solely characteristic of him. P. Poddubna1a. "Obraz Porfirija Petrovida v.xudo estvennoj strukture romana FM. Dostoevsk o No. 16 (l971).5 -S7. 33'1-10 00333001, 30 33333001, 30 1100013130001, 30 '3 0031101; 80 1000031 3303333000330, 3009133300, 303-10 1101-100130. Ju. ar1akm. " lovek v loveke." WXV. No.7 (1971). 82. 88 “Scennikov juxtaposes passages which show two of the voices I discuss: 'I‘00003 0 1100130011, 30100330 1110030030 1100103330 11001.3 0103 1110011900133 0600010333, 11033313113 0 06003000311011 09130§1égefiii . 1100103111014 030 1000 31 00000133 6 0333113, '90333333'. . . ov. "Mnogoobrazie v edmgtve: 0 jazyke ggroev Dostoevskogo." M No. 6 (1971). 15. 35Evnin and Grossman both comment on Lulin‘s bureaucratic style and his heavy use of participles. Evnin. p. 148; Grossman. p. 391. 36 Xol‘s'evnikova points out that Luiin cannot quote a Russian national proverb without translating it into the following bookish sgeech: "11031100111 00 3003001133113 30300133, 3 33 003010 30 00013130310.“ . Xol¥evnikova. Commentary to F. Dostoevskij. W001; (Leningrad: ”Leninizdat.’ 197019.561. , 37 Grossman considers 113190300111 the characteristic element in Razumixin's speech. Grossman. p. 39 . - 38 This comment about “1100000009033“ throws a negative. ironically unexpected light on Raskol‘nikov's intellectual activity. 0 39 Another explanation for Zosimov's reaction to Nastas'ja's comment may be Dostoevskij's plan in his notebooks to make Lizaveta one of Zosimov's lovers. as Lehrman suggests. E. Lehrman, " b " ' Willem; (The Hague: Mouton. 1977 . p. 43. 4.0 Among these is Meijer‘s concept of "situation rhyme." in which two similar scenes are cons1dered to throw 11 ht u on one another. J. Mei er. ”The Author of W“ in 1105115101111, p. 3 . Perlina singles out the way different heroes quote the same sources. but with different meanings for their own pur oses. for example Schiller or the Gos els. N. Perlina. W . ' ” . " (Lanham. MD: University Press of merica. 1985.. P: 90. Wasmlek makes the point that semantic meaning is not the sole criterion for udging a statement or act in Dostoevski1: . . the value of an act of sacr' ice. compassion. love. and even murder in Dostoevskij‘s world is not fixed." E. Wasiolek. “Aut Caesar. Aut Nihil: A Study of Dostoevsky's Moral Dialectic." PMLA, LXXVIII. No. 1 (1963). 91-92. 41 Terras. . 443; M. Goldstein. "The Debate in W" $3ng 0011 E001 F0001 XIV (1970). 335; G. Chaitin. "Religion as ense: he tructure of v" W 2300001000. XXII. No. 2 (1972 . 86. Wharton interprets Kolja's statement properly. as a "dream" of a sacrifice that is not necessarily productive. He adds that Zosima encourages even the dreamer. who may do a ood work someday. "R. Wharton. "Roads to Hap iness in W: Dostoevski1's Defense of Christ."Ci100r_0 III.No. 2 1984.7. 42 Peace 'uxtaposes another pair of statements by Ivan and Dmitrij. both of whom re er to the Dionysian "cup of life." Dmitrij speaks of it as giving life. while Ivan talks of draining it just before the end of his life. This "half-full" vs. :‘half-empty" juxtagwosition throws light on each of their attitudes toward their lives. Peace, 0. 2 S 89 43 Jackson and Terras ar ue that Alesa‘s ”permission" of Dmitrij's intended escape brings him into c ose proximity with Smerdjakov. who claims that sav' one's life is a 'ustifiable reason for denying one's f 01th. V. Terras. "The Art 0 Fiction as a heme in _ _ in ' . ' p. 198; Jackson. "Dmltl'gj Karamazov and the Legend.” $1010; IX (196 ). 265. I feel that Smerd1akov's and Ale a's voices show the difference here. S erdjakov‘s words. com letely obviate the issue of moral duty. while Ale a's charge to Dmitri1 t at he remember his self-imposed ideal makes it an important reason for his escape. 4“ Rosen and Walsh both explain how Dostoevskij divided the story of Job, assigning Job's challenge to Ivan while lett' Zosima elaborate upon the wer of reconciliation in the tale. Rosen. 'Style and Structure in .1211; . " p. 364; H. Walsh. ‘The Book of Job and the Dialectic of heodic?’ in " WW XXXVII (Winter 1977). 64. Sav 0 considers that Zosimov's words about the Karamamv family ("K10 11033 110010030 000311 110130 33337') are a humble expression of his hesitation to act as Solomon in deci ing for others. while Ivan 5 words ("(3100013 3, L110 03, 30039 1131019 1133103107") sho not humanity. but callous re1ection of others. . Savcenko. W M1289 (Moscow: Izdatel‘stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. _1982 . p. 94. Cox explains. how Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor both perceive the same three needs in human beings. but serve these needs in o 051te wa s. R. Cox. "Dostoevsky's Grand Inquis1tor." (11955300000106011 196 .432-43 .Perlina traces differing concepts of authority which Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor practice to their differing interpretation of Hebrews 4:12. Perlina. 108511;: ' ' " p. 154. kov iuxtaposes positions of Zos;;ma and Fetjukovi on individual and ective guilt. noting that Zosima‘s "Iiach guillgrfor all" is o posed to Fetjukovi 's plea or extenuating circumstances. N. ' kov. 010mm (Moscow: 'Nauka," 1967). p. 259. 45.Terras notes Baxtin's interest in. among other things, the mirroring of one V9139, by another in Dostoevskij. Terras. BMW (Fredericton: York, 1984). p. 30-31. 46 Perlina also mentions the aspects of Zosima's speech and attitude that emerge in Ale§a's exhortation at Ilju¥a's grave. for example. the arabolic and metaphorical language. Perllgnza. W in "In; 520111;:5 K020010193". p. . 47 Rakitin actually quotes Ivan's words about him indirectly. yet his (glotation seems much more similar to the cautious. subtly mocking voice of t e ironizer than to Rakitin's own irreverent, slangy voice of the lacomc reductionist. -—__. I- 48 Cox. referring to Ivan‘s words ('CTopux 3, L110 03 M00149 60019 1111310310?) says regarding a statement of Rakitin's about Grusen‘ka at the trial: "And Rakitingives this attitude its most eneralized form when he blurts out at Dmitri1's trial. 'I cannot answer for my acquaintances. . . I am a Ioung man. : . and who can be responsible for everyone he meets?” Cox. 0. 4 2.. (Cox's pomt here shows how Ivan's voice acts within Rakitin's.) Linner. Chaitin. and Egorenkova all single out the way in which Ivan‘s VOice 90 penetrates AleXa's with the words: ". . . 3 1100130 6010 110010 30 693191001, 3 100130 '330 010 30 11033311010." Linnfir. 136 169; Chaitin. p. 76; Egorenkova, c - BI aL‘in Km amm! 2," "Poetik s'u etno' aury v romane stoevskogo W No. 5 (1971). 29. 49 Hall notes that the opposite also hap ens. with Ivan repeating a French phrase that the Devil had used just efore his disappearance. V. Hall. Dostoevsky’s Use of French as a Symbolic Device in W Karamam.” Whales. 1111965). 173. 50 In another example Kulesova has perceived the similarity between the Inquisitor‘s statement (”033. .. 69091 01-1 1011 300 30 6 100. . ." and Katerina Ivgnovna's: ’51 6909 601013 010.. . E. Kule ova. "Psixologi skie korni nadryva v 310x Katerinax Dostoevskogo." W01, XXXVII. No. 128 1983). 86. About Katerina Ivanovna‘s attitude toward Dmitri1 Rosen says: "Katia cannot conceive that he would be able to restrainhimself. . . because she can only see him as a weak child with unbridled desires." Rosen. “Why Dmitrij Karamazov Did Not Kill His Father." p. 220. This is also the attitude of the Inquisitor toward his flock. 51 Perlina discusses how the Inquisitor's voice functions in Kolja‘s and prowdes several examples. Perlina. ' Wm p.91. erras also notes assages in which the nquisitor speaks through Kolja. Terras. W p. 343. 52 BothTerras and Savcenko point out the ironic similarity between Fedor Pavlowc‘s con1ecture about whether Hell has hooks with which to hang up sinners and Ivan‘s question to the Devil about whether there is a floor in the 011011110 for the philosopher: “H0 1103 130 03 1011 900103?“ Terras. A ' on. 392; Savcenko. p. 114. Ivan's question also suggests an intonation Smerd1akov's. who had challenged Grigorij with questions based on a literal. material interpretation of Creation. 53 This introduction of . intonation belonging to Dmitrij within. an utterance of Fedor Pavlov1 's acts to foreshadow Dmitrij’s imminent arrival at his f ather's house. 5“ Terras traces Smerd'akov‘s voice at work within the prosecutor‘s treatise at Dmitri ‘s trial throug planted suggestions by the former which the latter repeats. e considers this a manifestation of Dostoevskij's polyphony. Terras also comments upon the passage in which the Devu cites from Ivan's '1‘000013300333 1100000001, saying: "It sounds embarassingly like Rakitin." Terras.A_Kmm0z91_C0m00mm. pp. 418. 419. 421. 395. 55 In other examples. Kogan finds that Svidrigajlov’s “H000 :30 1110-3369011 0001s“ on the sub1ect of the nobility's role in contemporary Russian life is nearly the same as Marmeladov's words: “8001 3060030 130 3106 00330139 110000039 3011 3 0 -336901 1101330 6300 110313." G. Kogan, "’lagad oe imja Svidriga lova':n ' i periodiceskaja pecat' 1860-x odov.’ Serija literatury i 'azyka]. XXXX. No. 5 (1981). 433. iderer observes that Raskol‘nikov adopts armeladov's words about Sonja to condemn himself for his helplessness to chan e Duifij‘a's fate. G. Fiderer. “Raskol‘mkov's Confession." W (1980). 69. Belov finds that Svidrigajlov’s three old repetition of the word 003093 as what 91 Raskol‘nikov needs most is reenacted by Porfirij PetroviE in his third conversation. Belov. p. 204. .Nazirov links Katerina Ivanovna‘s dying gasp . . .. 9030303 303391“) with the horse which is beaten to death in Raskolnikov's dream. Since. as was noted previously. the dream also presents various Sides of Raskol‘nikov. Nazirov's comment establishes a link between theig v01ces. R. Nazirov. “Avtonomija literaturnogo geroja." in 3101'” o ‘ Lo 01“.»:0’01.’ Cd.bYJa.Bilinkis et. al. jumen‘:1982 . 9. 56 “The denial of relationship is carried to great lengths in W K000100001. Throughout the novel people continually deny that they are related by kinshi or that they resemble one another. Muisov demes he is related to Fedor avlovich. Rakitin denies he is related to Grushen'ka. Fedor Pavlovich's abandonment of his children is a denial of his relationship to them. In addition. he curses his son Mitta. He denies that Smerd1akov is related .to him. He cannot "recognize" van. Ivan says that he is not responsible for Mitja. Smerdjakov says he is not responSible for Mit1a. Ivan says he has nothing to do with Smerdjakov." G. Kabat, 109mm ' ' ' ' (New York: Colum ia University Press. 19 8 .p. 158. 57 Terras points out both Ivan‘s and the Devil's views that the worldtis build on absurdities. Terras. W p. 22.5. Pletnevumtes the Devil's view of the world as a vicious circle. _in the DeVil's words: (239331.110 301103033303u103.‘ Pletnev says about this opinion: “30001 0 9010303 031003 00013030 100033 0033010 00300010, 00331.13 1133000 800003303. R. letnev. "Vremja i prostranstvo u Dostoevskogo.“ 1191001111031 No. 87 (1967), 126. Two critics have suggested another issue about which characters of _ speak out. the issue of whether there is a hell and what it would be like. D. Danov. "Subtexts of v 1.0000100; XI. No. 2 (1982). 195-196; Peace. p. 4. 58 Koprince clarifies the difference between Marmeladov's suffering and Sonja's. Marmeladov brings on suffering. proclaims it. and invites it in spite of his family. while Sonja accepts unwanted suffering. does it quietly and precisely to help her family. Koprince. p. 71. 1210011111 Factors which Motivate Polyphonic Dialogue In this chapter I analyze factors which shape and condition the manner in which polyphonic dialogue takes place. While the second chapter treated overall properties of character voices in utterances throughout the novels. this chapter focuses on how these voices take cognizance of one another in specific exchanges. Dostoevskij gives his characters numerous devices for penetrating others‘ consciousnesses and provoking their voices. Personages achieve this directly with questions or challenges and indirectly with oblique remarks. guesses. or careful listening. The 0030030 (“loophole") device enables characters in the novels to elude definition by others and to evade the implication of their own remarks. Its various forms occupy the entire range from “flight" to “fight." as conversation partners ignore. evade. equivocate. rephrase. give warning signals. and openly challenge others in order to protect themselves from the probing of their voices. With the oruannlte ("sideward glance”) device personages anticipate others‘ remarks or replies in order to more effectively phrase their own. It is present in any instance when one character shows concern about another‘s possible reaction. To this end they pay close attention to their speech partners. and also evaluate their own utterances as they speak. The ornanka may take shape as cautious silence. a carefully worded utterance. or an urgent interjection. since its definition comes not from traditional speech categories. but from the intent of its user. Personages employ circumscription devices as they attempt to jump ahead of others in dialogue. They may attempt to overturn others' conclusions before they are even presented. or parody others' positions by taking them to their logical extreme. These penetration and circumscription devices are basically offensive. while the 11030330 and ornanna devices basically defensive. yet the categories cannot be clearly divided and often run together. Speakers may even employ more than one device in a single utterance. Inner dialogues occupy a definitive place in the polyphonic composition of the novels. and manifest themselves in several different ways according to how voices come into play within the consciousnesses of personages. Some types of inner dialogue take place between voices of a 92 93 single personage. while others encompass others' voices. which the silently speaking thinker recognizes and answers. Hidden dialogue represents a particularly interesting variety of inner dialogue. one which manifests itself only through indirect clues. for example. when personages speak with difficulty or display unexpected emotions. Facial and bodily gestures represent a special category of utterance. and may often be read as substitutions for spoken speech or as clues to a speaker’s voice. Most of the topics which 1 ad dress in this chapter are not solely properties of polyphony. but may be present in many forms of dialogue. including rhetorical exchanges. Independence and equality of all primary voices are the quintessential elements of polyphony in the ideal case. While they occupy a central role in Dostoevskij's novels. these devices promote it by making dialogues dominant and intense. Since the topics of this chapter are numerous and often difficult to separate. I am dividing each section into clearly labeled subsections. 2 | I' IE I . D . Personages in the novels use a variety of methods to ascertain the thoughts and opinions of others. They are especially interested in views about themselves. but take advantage of every opportunity to seek out clues about others. Speakers measure their conversation partners to perceive what lies beneath spoken words. and sound them out for information about third parties. These third parties may be part of the actual conversation as they indirectly influence the way speakers converse. Characters become aggressive at times. with direct questions and even open challenges. Penetrating and provoking devices work in more than one direction. as characters themselves become targets of those they had targeted earlier. Walton Before personages approach one another seriously. they are curious about what the other’ 3 voice is like and what the other will say. Raskol'nikov. for example. is driven to find out what Porfirij Petrovic thinks about him ('110 031.19 933015“ [V1, 190]) not only to avoid arrest. but also to protect his investment in the idea for which he has murdered. Sonia shows after her first conversation with Raskol'nikov that she is as fascinated by him as he is by her and Porfirij Petrovic': ”M 310 9 Hero 0 30010003333? (VI. 253). Alesa feels this same interest in Ivan’s stance before they actually confront one another: "Easy 000 30300005 "030019-10. 94 310 3003 3011-10 30301. 303-10 0391003311111 3 00111311111. . .'(X1V. 30). At the end of Book II I Ale‘sa perceives that [van for his part has a motive in approaching him: (”. . . 301100140330 0 303311-10 301100033011” [XIV. 132)). as Sonia feels about Raskol'nikov. Ivan reveals at the tavern that he had intended to seek Aleia out. but had postponed it precisely because he had perceived his brother's expectatiom '. . . 0 001 31010-10 a 3 30 0111100111110, 011010 3 30 110110111011 3 1000' (XIV. 209). Kolja's reference to Alesa as a ”30101130" (XI V. 473) reminds readers of Ale‘s'a’s earlier words to Ivan: “6001 1111310311 1000031 1100 1060: 3003 - 11013110. ' 91 1000010 1100 10011: 111003 - 30101130' (X1 V, 209).1 . Wm Personages take advantage of conversations with others to find out the opinions of third parties. if possible without asking directly. Ale‘s’a listens to the discussion in the cell and wonders what his elder is thinking: '. . . 3030110011. 03 313011 11031011303910-10 00010 1101111. - 303910 1110? 111110100 1103010111130 0110111111 30 3111-1" (XIV. 56). In this way the suggestion of a dialogicai undercurrent at the meeting promotes the suspenseful atmosphere present throughout most of the novel. Alesa later openly asks Dmitrij about Ivan's attitude toward the escape: "630133 330 01130, - 110010000311 03. - 11003 03035 3001030001, 3 310 010 0111093011 11000113?“ (XV. 35). This openness is not characteristic of Raskol‘nikov. Although he frames direct questions to his absent mother and sister while he reads the letter. he is much more elliptical when Luiin visits him. and prefers instead to make cryptic, insulting comments: '301000113111 P0303003901ca. . ." (VI. 115). Raskol'nikov takes advantage of Razumixin's drunken loquacity to ask about 00:11:11 Petrovic: 'A. . . 913 11 0101. . . A 0 09300111001030-10 30311 11030119 3011300113?“ (VI. 149). Dmitrij uses Ale‘éa as a sounding board as he tries to fathom Katerina Ivanovna's reasons for preferring him to Ivan: ‘11 001 103011. 303 51. 1100111103103. 0 03 010001001011. Ho nus 3010 1307' (XIV. 108). Alesa and Rakitin debate each other about Ivan's true nature. with Ale‘s'a defending him and Rakitin attacking him (XIV. 75-76). Washing. Characters sues: at the meaning of others' speech. focusing on their words. their tone. and their expressions. Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna wonders about Dunja's attitude toward Raskol'nikov: '. . . 00030 30111001110011 0 111030 1103003. 310011 1100331011. 0010 00 111110111». . (VI. 157). Alesa similarly perceives the new element in 9S Gru‘s‘en'ka's voice even as she appears to be "tempting" him (Book VII. Chapter 3). In the middle of his initial conversation with Porfirij Petrovi‘é. Raskol'nikov tries to add up the inferences made against him: 'Bce 011000 33 00513300033110. 30 310-10 0 333 0015. . . 11030119 30110100 1103000311. 310 0 1117,00 10000311? 11030119 033 1000001 103311 103011?" (VI. 1951'. . . 110030000 0111 01100015. 0 3011 3110330 110090130. 3 30 1100011010015 0111 30107“ (V1. 205). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Raskol'nikov searches for answers also in conversation with Svidrigajlov ('00 310 03. 0 0011011 00110. 310 113?. . .' [V1, 218]) while at the same time veiling his curiosity. The narrator comments about the repeated mirror-like scenes between the two of them: "l‘lexnll 33113 1100330111110 110310 noxoxee 30 011039 33 11000010 00300330 9 P003005333000. . . 3 101 3 009100 330113. 310 000 03001 3 300111000101 0091 00910" (V1. 355). They themselves confirm the mirror-like nature of their encounters in the exchange: "0 1101 311015. . . 11033311111. . . B111 00113 010 3300101. . '3 0 1101 3110111 0003 110333351, 3010 0111 33 3 30 9330010" (V1. 357). Once more they measure each other as if in a mirror: “000 0010300311305. 3 000 0 1133919 111000113 0091 30 00910. 303 051 11000005" (V1. 372). The guarded way in which Raskol’nikov probes Svidrigajlov's intent is also evident in Ivan's awareness of his growing doubts about Smerdjakw: '. . . 30 11003 @00000033 03000 900031100. . . 310 0119 3000 3010-10 0000011 0091010" (XIV. 243). (The “0119' here refers to Smerd1akov.) Razumixin suspects either madness or a hidden preoccupation in Raskol‘nikov by listening to the odd note in his replies: 'P039113333. 3031190005. 0 00000300010011 30 3010 11001101030011' (VI. 102). Dunja on the other hand perceives the voice she knows among the new. unfamiliar ones he uses with his f amiiy (”H0 0 91151030 3100 11011339110 30 0101 003 30010011100, 30110000115300 3900100. 11930 101300 1110 030013110 3 100030 110130.00 110010391910 00 0939. . ." [V1, 1721). a recognition which Razumixin echoes: 'Bor 30 310-10 0 010 3 1110011101.. .' (VI. 172 ). Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna remains possessed by doubt about his voice as she follows the conversation: "801 0005 3 11003000 1000031. 0 0010051 H9 3010 0 001005. I .‘(VI. 173). Zosimov is on the right track with his remark about the unusual interest Raskol'nikov shows in the discussion of the murder (Part 11. Chapter 5). although his predilection for psychologizing leads him away from rather than toward an understanding of Raskol'nikov. Dmitrij perceives Grukn'ka's preoccupation with an internal dilemma. though he attributes it to a different reason: '03 110003000011 10100 0005110 96 000110. 310 030 3 00110 1103003100 0 30300-10 000500. 0 30300-10 300051300300 3000103100530013' (XIV. 329). For her part GruXen'ka detects Dmitrij's inner dialogue about the meaning of his dream: '1-110 310 10300, A00010. 000030x3 151 1130. 30300 310 ‘0310'?’ (XV. 11). W3. At times the personages succeed in perceiving the thoughts. motives. and intents of others.2 Ale§a understands Rakitin's thoughts at the monastery without being told: ”A0030 001000000, 310 3 P0331113 0300030003. 301110100. 30 110351110 010. 00030 3300. 3011 03 0300030003' (XIV. 62). Ivan understands well the meaning of the word Dmitrij tells Aleiia to use with Katerina Ivanovna: '0 1011005 ace-1033 3 K0100330 1100300301 310 '000300301500-10 000300301500?‘ - 9051039000 00091 30011. A00010 0119131100“ (XIV. 131). Gru§en°ka correctly believes that she detects Rakitin‘s voice working on Dmitrij in prison: "1100101. P033130-10 010 3 9053001. 07" (XV. 11). A1000 also feels that Rakitin's visits are affecting Dmitrij. but he knows their voices well enough to understand what cannot be attributed to Rakitin's. namely. the words about the "babe": '. . .011003011. . . 010 30 01 P0331330' (XV. ll). Smerdjakov suggests a course of action for Ivan (Departure for either Moscow or Cerma‘énia) that he tailors to Ivan's sentiments about caring for those close to him: 110 00111011 110010, 0003 051 1011530 191 0. 103 000 051 010 191 30 0000311. . . 3011 9 103010 0000 03- 0015-0. . .' (XIV. 249). Sonia appears to have second sight when she cries out her question to Raskol'nikov: '310 051. 310 051 010 300 00000 0001101111?" (VI. 316). Her remark comes not from clairvoyance. or from an abstract opposition to murder. but from his own revelation of what he chose to live by. Fedor PavloviX is being more deliberately dramatic than prophetic when he tells the monks: 'C1151111310 03. 005101310 03 051. 110301111. 0111090110119. . ." (KW. 69). Like Smerdjakov. however. he is able to read Ivan's unspoken feeling: 'T51 11030300 30 1130 3 11030 0 00110 110011 000330001115. . . T000 11001101030015 30005 30 11300 3030100. 3000 091110. 011010 151 30 1100001115?“ my. 125). Aieta reveals to Rakitin that he has perceived the latter's interest in Katerina Ivanovna: “110 1000119 9000303310 0 001000000. 310 151 0011 30000300911103 3 K0100330 1100300110. . .' (XIV. 76). Ale§a scores a direct hit with his perceptive remarks to her: 'IIo1o119 310 051 11930010 110030, 11010119 100530. 310 010 11100310. . . 0 1193310 11010119. 310 1111310110 3000510011 0100310. . . 030000009 0100310. . . 11010119 310 9000303 0000 103. . ." (XIV. 175). This perception comes not solely from Ale‘s'a's intuition. but partly from 97 Xoxlakova. who by using the word '3000510" encouraged AleXa's own keen interpretation of the situation (XIV. 170). Aleia sees under the surface of Kolja's words as he did under Rakitin's. and finds much of Rakitin in Kolja's ‘ “convictions”: '1-19 310 000 310119 000119 1109330?“ (XIV. 498): '03. 0 33010. 100 051 310 11003113. 3 000 301100110330 310-330905 3093301“ (XIV. 500). Dostoevskij limits AleEa's omniscience with Kolja. When the latter tells him what Belinskii had reportedly said about the likelihood that Christ would join the socialists (a statement that Dostoevskij reports as fact (XXI. ll-121). Alesa replies: "6011330330? 110 11011310. 011 31010 33100 30 301130011” (XIV. 50113 Smerdjakov knows Ivan well enough to provide a cogent reason why Ivan will not confess at the triak '. . . 0011 05100 051 0151030 30 0010 001119 133335“ (XV. 63).4 In all of these instances Dostoevskij's heroes perceive others' thoughts and hidden concerns not through intuition alone. but primarily through their knowledge of others' voices and their ability to detect them in speech and behavior. Porfirij Petrovit‘. and Zosima prove themselves particularly adept at reading others.S The former relies upon not only the facts of the murder. but also his eyes and ears as he anticipates and follows the words and tones Raskol‘nikov adopts. Porfirij Petrovi‘é understands that if Raskol'nikov is the murderer. then as the author of the article he must have already mocked himself for his failure: '. . . 191 651. 301110100. 3 10391110. 3 3000011100000 1111000113 000010 0010091130. 0 03 300111. . ." (VI. 2631110 also suspects from what Zametov apparently told him of the meeting at the inn that Raskol'nikov experiences compulsion to flirt with disaster: ”3103 0005 330100 30000030 33 0330 303 0 3000300533 000303315 10301. 3 011191110330-10 10300 000003331005300' (VI. 266). Zosima shows uncanny ability to perceive hidden voices in overt speech. such as that which he heard from Ale‘éa's brothers in his cell. 00 two occasions he transmits his concern to Ale§m ”03000 0001500 0905. 00 110 03000 003010. 0 030110 06033' (XIV. 72): '1101301. 0100 9011001115 310-0300 911100300 11000911000315' (XIV. 258). Zosima discerns how others' views about themselves and their surroundings conflict. He tells Fedor Pavlovic': ‘He 01003001005. 090510 00000310330 303 00110. A 1000300. 30 01510001005 01005 0011010 0000. 300 01 0010 1131115 000 3 05130031' (XIV. 40). He succeeds with his penetrant remark about Ivan's inner dialogue. helping Ivan thereby to recognize it in himself and reply: 'l‘lox01 05115. 051 11000511. . . Ho 000 10 0 3 30 0000011 11.19130. . ." (XIV. 65). Zosima undeniably does 98 possess the gift of intuition. as the chronicler's remark attests: '. . . 03. . . 90300110. 011911100. 3 1101-113 119100 330100 003w001u010 1011311 33033011 100351 010. 110011100 3011 101 1100030 00000“ (XIV. 28). To perceive hidden words of primary heroes. however. Zosima and others rely much less on intuition than on revealed speech. WW1. Personages in the novels question one another directly. that 1s. through dialogue in the traditional sense. Dunja announces to Luiin about Raskol'nikov: ’51 11039 3 11019 933015 1011005 3000030: 0001 03 03 1130? A 1100 000: 000010 03 a 0011. 1103310 03 051 110311: 119111 03 051 1130?‘ (VI. 231). Porfirij Petrovi‘é only half jokingly warns Raskol'nikov: '00001110310. 11 3 000 11000009 - 110. 110. 1101' (VI. 198). Svidrigajlov asks Raskol‘nikov directly about the latter's opinion toward what transpired with Dunja: '. . . 1110 111 191. 00 00011 01011. 0 0011011 0000. 1011010 00000330 1100019113010 0 11000 01000351. 10 0015 000 11000- 0000901100-10. 0 000000 0900?” (VI. 215). Razumixin is still nearly a stranger when Dunja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna sound him out about his opinion of Lulin. whom Razumixin himself has met only once (VI. 164- 165. 107. 170). Razu mixin himself is anxious to know what they. especially Dunja. think of him: '000310 051 1130? H9. 000310 051 1130 303 3017' (VI. 154). His tipsy condition at this point only makes this question persistently stated rather than merely thought The same applies to Mar meiadov's interrogation of Raskol'nikov: . . 30 more 03 051. 0 01111010111005 03 051. 0030011 0 000 300 30 110311. 0110 0015 9100003100530. 5110 a 30 0033511?" (VI. 14). Ivan twice seeks Aleia‘s opinion about his wishes regarding the well- being of Fedor Pavlovic. that is. whether Ale‘sa considers him capable of effecting his father‘s death: '. . . 01131001115 151 3 110311. 3011 111131030. 011000035111 11000315 110005 £30110. 39 90315 010. 0?” (XIV. 131-132); '. .. 110- 091100 151 10100. 1.110 11 11100010 0110013 01110. 303 301?“ (XV. 49). Aleia‘s answers to these two questions are different because the questions themselves are different. the first being about direct acts. the second about wished ones. Smerdjakov preserves the symmetry between himself and Aleia relative to Ivan by at least twice answering Ivan‘s questions about his own role in the murder. Like many others. Gru§en'ka approaches Aleia for his opinion of her dilemma over her former suitor: 'P03001113 151 11030. 1000010. 0001111 110311100. 310 1100011131115. 1011 3 09001” (XIV. 322). Kolja also approaches Aleia directly: “1:30:310. K000110000. 051 9010030 110311 99 11000300010?" (XIV. 501). Kolja also values 1.111100 assessment of Dmitrij‘s innocence or guilt. and asks about it without ceremony: '11003303 0001 0001 303 0330003? 03 01110 9030 303 001100? K011, 0110111010. 1011 3 09001. 51 3005100 3033 30 01100 01 0100 3003' (XV. 189). Although Kolja's question is characteristically pretentious for one of his age. the need he feels to know the judgements of others about still others. and the importance he places on them for his own life. show that he too is part of the ideological dialogue in the novel. WW Raskol’nikov's direct command to 0011111115 01101113 100 1130 301103011. . . 11011 0101100 110000 3 101100 3300015 0 1000 000011 0 00913113 0001300000001351113 3 0030151113 3900100113 00011001010100?“ [V1, 247]) has meaning for himself as well in view of his mixed charitable and hostile responses throughout the novel. Sonia initially invites Raskol'nikov to speak about his motives for the murder in his own words (‘1 . . 100003. 1000031 9 1100119. 0 11.00 001110 000 11001191. . ." (VI. 3181). yet she soon refuses to accept his particular voicing. full of abstract allusions that diminish the importance of his own individual wilt ”051 093010 10000310 1130 1100110. . . 000 1103110000. . ." (VI. 319). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Like Raskol'nikov. she also had earlier been emphatic in her demand to know what he intends: “10000310 093100 1100110. 3010 1000 30000301.. .' (V1. 313). Raskol'nikov and Sonia square off with each other. trying to convince one another that their solutions are best not only for themselves. but also for others: ‘011. 010 30 10. 30 10. - 0 100110 000110311000 C030. - 3 00000 11011130 1011.. .301. 010 30 1011. 30 10111. . . 110 30300-111 010 110000010 100110031” (VI. 320): '51 0005 1005110 001115 9030. 1:030. 0001100003910. 10011910. 00000003910“ (VI. 320).6 Katerina Ivanovna requires everyone to be present while she provokes Aleia. mainly because she anticipates an opinion she can live with: '30 1133911191 0010351005 01110 30 0039 1133919. 51 11039 9005101015 1130330 001 01010 300000110. 1101000119 0 00011 091110010011 110311 00000010“ (XIV. 171 ). The Grand Inquisitor is not content to speak at will. but periodically provokes a response from Christ: ”T51 01101031115 30 11030 11001110 3 30 9000103000105 11030 001110 30100000330?“ (XIV. 229). W. Characters occasionally become desperate when they sense that other provocatory devices are fruitless. Raskol‘nikov tells Porfirij Petrovié '1‘0000310. 11001113030 110100033. 10000310 00001113100530 3 0110330100530. 3 0110000. 0003001' (VI. 208). Porfirij Petrovi! in his final 100 meeting with Raskol'nikov reveals that he had deliberately provoked his suspect: '51 10100 110109113000. 30 010 000 1010. 310051 000 30 00053000100 05100015“ (Vi. 345); 310 1151 90100303 0 1011. 310051 0110 00000300015. . ." (VI. 346). Ivan loses his temper with Smerdjakov on more than one occasion in his frustration both with the latter‘s evasiveness and with his own inability to phrase questions that do not incriminate him: 'E. 3001. 100003 00300. 3010 1000 3000030?” (XIV. 244); '1‘000031 $1 11039 1003 1151003 03015“ (XIV. 248). Zosima‘s approach to others is the complete opposite of the angry challenge and other direct means of provocation. He describes his conversations with his mysterious guest: ‘11011101. 3 10 0119 300030005. 310 0 300911130 30 010000310100000 0 00110010 010. 33 1100110. 33 3011011011 30 00001100103000“ (XIV. 276). 01000 treats Ivan the same way: “13100330 05100 3 10. 310 0100010 30 301100 0 3311 0001000000 0 11310 3 0011 30 3033300 33110100. 0 03015 0100300 30 001100051 110030" (XV. 48). This survey of penetrating and provoking devices indicates the high degree of effort Dostoevskij‘s personages make to ascertain the thoughts. motives. and intents of others. They do this directly and indirectly. through oblique or challenging questions. often through third parties. All of Dostoevskij‘s primary characters engage in dialogue for this purpose. although relatively few characters. such as Zosima or Porfirij Petrovil. are genuinely gifted at perceiving what is present in others‘ voices. While attempts to discover what others think do not in themselves compose polyphonic dialogue. they play a strong supporting role by making heroes' positions manifest under the pressure of others' voices. The motives for employing these devices are as numerous as the characters and particular situations in the novels. They may be generally grouped. however. as (1)0u- riosity: (2) desire to match points of view: (3) need to find out about oneself ; (4) need to find out others‘ opinions about them; (5) desire to feel superior; and (6) concern for others. Not all characters share the same motives for approaching others. but nearly all of them have abundant reasons for provoking them. W100 Baxtin defines the 00000110 device to show how characters evade the penetrative attempts which were discussed in the previous section' "110 000110 - 010 0010000330 00 00000 0001100130013 301103315 1100000330. 101 03033010053510 0115100 000010 000003'7 Personages have varied reasons for avoiding others' judgements. for example (i) to hide their plans for others; (2) to preserve themselves from trouble; (3) to hide an embarrassing truth about themselves; (4) to deny a truth they fear; (5) to prolong their control of the exchange; and (6) to avoid offending others. The 0000030 device in practice takes a number of forms. Personages may try to avoid confrontation altogether. or employ equivocating evasions when they cannot avoid explaining their positions. They may give fair warning to others that their views are not as easily understood as it might appear. At times characters claim that they are misquoted when their reputed statements are not well received. At other times they redefine their positions to overcome others‘ objections. They may give self-justifying confessions or even refuse altogether to answer. The 00 00030 device is an implicitely dialogic feature. since it never exists other than as an answer to another person‘s words. W999. Raskol'nikov repeatedly turns toward the wall to avoid taking part in the conversation between Zosimov and Razumixin about the murder. and at the same time to listen in on it (VI. 114. 120). Here Raskol'nikov fears not an existing provocation. but a possible one. and distrusts his friends partly from his own fear of detection. Sonja holds herself in with Raskol'nikov's family not in response to their expressed attitude toward her. but to what she feels inevitably must be their attitude toward one such as herself: '. . . 030 03001130005 3 900011100005. 110030000 011015 01190130 10000 0 0011010' (VI. 183). This shyness seems to take hold of Raskol'nikov briefly when he speaks with her: '03 30 10 310 00300000. 0 1011. 3011 09010 1000113000 3 3000100 00 00000000“ (Vi. 186). Kolja masks his shallow conception of politics by sidestepping Smurov's question about socialism with the reply that the latter is not old enough to understand (XIV. 473). AleXa avoids Kolja’s own attempt to fish for a compliment (‘C30x310. 0 30300 130 01013 300000305. 310 0 0151019 19339. 10 0015 310 3110330 0 0151019?" [XI V. 482]) by pretending not to hear it. thereby not feeding Kolja‘s vanity. Porfirij pen-avii’: similarly ignores Razu mixin's indignant defense of Raskol’nikov. as Razumixin explains: '. . . 03 01101031 0 0100039. 3 0 01101010 0 0100039. 51 30303011. 1100300 3 010 001110 39003 3 030000. 310 000110019 010. 110-0000100330119. 03 1005110 11001101000 30 11030" (V1. 225-226). Raskol'nikov similarly avoids Sonja's question about whether he knew Lizaveta (“. . . 30 0100130 30 0011000” (VI. 245]). since he is not ready to tell 102 her that he committed the murder. Raskol'nikov again puts off confession with a 0000030 at the station. saying: ”51 0011100 011000315. . . 0 091100. 310 30009 00005 301101000” (VI. 407). W Svidrigajlov is a master at this maneuver. as his reply to Raskol'nikov demonstrates: ”1100 310? A 00000. 30 03010 1100 310. . . - 3301000000330. 3 303-10 0011 00119100013005. 1100- 000110100 1203003100000” (VI. 219). He is just as vague about his future plans. and only hints at suicide as an option: ”11030510 01000 3 0011130013005 1011005 00000033311015 3030100510. . . 00001. . .” (VI. 222). Svidrigajlov's vagueness here stems not only from his concern with hiding his intent toward Dunja. but from his uncertainty about the outcome 10 this pursuit and of his seriousness about ending his life. Kolja knows that he is young and inexperienced. but fears being reminded of it by others. For this reason he tries to downplay the embarrassing revelation that his formula for gunpowder is not completely authentic ”1(03 30 3001000130? - 1103000300 11000. - 9 300 10031. 0. 011003011. 30 03010. . .” (XIV. 494). He tries to draw some distance from his and Rakitin's Opinions when Aleia. the person he means to please. finds them unimpressive: ”011003011. 1101110090010. 30 09110010. 310 0 90 10300 00000101130300. 9 03035 30010 30 00100003 0 1001100311011 1511111111111 11' (XIV. 5011130111111 Petrovi‘é’s equivocating tactics in his second conversation with Raskol’nikov are obvious. He even tells Raskol'nikov why he will not make the first move and arrest him: ”. . . $1 0119. 103 01100015. 0110000003300 0000x0330 0011. 103 0300015. 00330001330033 010 01100000010 3 9011011010. . .” (VI. 261). Another example has been 00100.3 MW Characters back away from opinions by suggesting that they are misunderstood or even misquoted. Luiin blames Raskol'nikov's interpretation of his sentiments about marriage with Dunja on the negative way he assumes Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna must have transmitted them (VI. 118). Raskol'nikov does not want Porfirij Petrovic' to understand his article too well. and therefore cautions him: ”B 010150 00010 01010 301. 1011 100530 3011033. . (VI. 203). Smerdjakov takes back his claim that he had felt the onset of an epileptic attack. denying to Ivan thereby that he was preparing an alibi: ”. . . 103 100530. 3100 1101100031500 11000 00113. 030000” (XV. 46-47). Rakitin had been proud of his verse to Xoxlakova. but when Perxotin ridicules it. he reacts angrily: ”. . . 110113000 0 1119139. 11010119 310 0331010 00 3300015 1130015 013113. .. T00530 013113 1103 11000103. . . 9 11030 103 0 30110000033011. . . " (XV. l7). Rakitin's comeback is ludicrous. yet it shows how a character tries to- reaffirm a new position nearly simultaneously with denying an old one. Personages themselves take the blame for being misunderstood. as when Razumixin tries to minimize the damage from his drunken loquacity. He notices Raskol'nikov's unusual interest in the news that some consider him unbalanced and says: ”To 0015. 30 0 09110010000130. 0. 0001. 301110100. 003103011 1000 00000010000. . .0. 0001. 11503 30113010” (VI. 149); ”83031115. P000. 0 1000 310-10 03000 000000100 0 11503011 0300. 303 001100-10 0103. . .” (VI. 189). Razumixin saves himself from revealing too much feeling for Dunja: ”0 100 11039. . . 1'1 010 00003900100000. . . 0001110010 1000. 0030 1113000330 10300 05100. . . 011003011. 00000 30 00003900100000...” (VI. 155). Raskol'nikov attempts to downplay Razumixin's spontaneous but ill-timed comments about the farmer's preoccupation with the pawnbroker affair. To ask innocently about his items found at Alena Ivanovna's by the police. he tells Porfirij Petrovii': ”51 00100003. 310 11011101 05115. 91110 003103011 00003905 00 010300 00033. 30 1003 10000. . ." (VI. 193); ”851 30033310. 001110090010. . . 310 1151 000 090100135111 103311 0000000011 0003000 00011030311? H000003 0005. 0?” (VI. 195). Raskol'nikov only drops these comments because he senses that Porfirij Petrovi! already has reason to suspect him. W0. Dostoevskij 0 heroes not only deny or downplay. but actually redefine what they have already said earlier. Smerdjakov first makes this comment about his advice that Ivan leave for Cermahjm ”310 0 10100 00 001130119 3 0011 00911100109 3 00 000003300 11000 00000330013. 000039001090 0 00110 0009-0. 000 1110001033” (XV. 45). He then makes an about-face: ”. . . 0 0011 10 0011510 00000 30 0 00110009 10100 00030300. 0 0 000003-0. 1-10 000000003 051 01010-0” (XV. 46).9 Smerdjakov pins down Ivan himself with the assertation: ”K003 30 0 1100309. 0 00011003 0 110011001310 000 00333351.110 00330119 1100119 00009. 10.01000 05115. 3010-0300 01 11030 011130003” (XV. 53). In this way Smerdjakov is able to give ”Cermahia” its final meaning without actually incriminating himself. Ivan reinterprets his announcement that he does not believe in God. either because he did not completely mean it. or because he wishes to adopt before Ale§a the stance of a despairing believer: ”0 03000 00 0000011 9 0100330 1000 01311 3000330 0000330 3 03000. 303 9 1000 00010000305 100033” (XIV. 213).lo Svidrigajlov qualifies his announcement that he intends to 104 undertake a journey in order to more convincingly forestall Raskol'nikov's assumption that he is still chasing Dunja: ”0. 11011101 05115. 0110010 000010-10 0031005; 1130 3000010 00010101” (VI. 224) Porfirij Petrovi! hedges on his promise to be perfectly frank with Raskol ”‘nikov in their second coversation. saying: ”110 000 010 1130 0011 103 00015 00 3 05100111315. 1101 1101” (VI. 350). H Wm Direct. even unsolicited confessions may have a self-justifying tone. as when Marmeladov subtly reproaches Katerina Ivanovna and introduces his tale about God's answer to those who would deny Heaven to drunkards. all under the guise of condemning himself.12 Svidrigajlov makes a number of self-justifying evasions in order to defend his outlook and conduct before Raskol'nikov: ”. . . .03010. 303 010 139030 0 11000 01000351. 39 3 103 00000; 30 0005 0 1000 3000030 03010. 310 1100010 110100030. 00010090 310. 3 0000 05100 010119 1100119. 103 0300015. 9000303310” (Vi. 216): ”. . . 0093010100 330100 10330 00001003010053510 '301133.‘ 310. 1130 11030100. 301 33 0033010 000100003010. 30100510 051 00000100330 1101 00 0000 0009331500” (VI. 216); ”0 00100003. 310 010 0000035. . .30 310 1110 000015? 110 0905 01010. 0103 0005 000100031500. 00010090. 003010005 051” (V1. 362). Each of Svidrigajlov's ad missions has a slightly different intent; the first argues that he has not really hurt anyone; the second goads Raskol'nikov with the suggestion that he is no better; the third is a somewhat honest ad mission that he cannot act differently. Svidrigajlov drops this ironic defense of his "weakness" for philandering and utters a more serious plea to consider the "extenuating circumstances“: ”3001 0005113. 003011 010 030 103 110001110? 51 30 03300011” (V1.365). None 01' these confessional remarks serves to disguise potential threats to Dunja; they indicate rather that Svidrigajlov enjoys the game of evading Raskol‘nikov‘s judgement. but occasionally must explain to himself the hopeless passivity of his predatory inclinations. WW Personages give fair warning that they are not so easily understood. Svidrigajlov tells Raskol‘nikov not to be sure that he knows Dunja's true feelings about him (Svidrigajlov). although this statment also may represent wishful thinking about his chances with her: ”T91 0015 000100 0033 910003. 30100510. . . 00100100 3030000103. . .” (VI. 368). In response to his mother's encouraging praise (”110030. P000. 0 9000030. 000. 310 151 00000015. 000 0003000301. . .” (VI. 175)) Raskol'nikov provokes along silence with his warning: ”110 090510 90000351. . .” (VI. 175). Kolja refuses to admit that he is going to llqua with an apology. '. . . 0. 105 110x01. 00000 30 113031500 309?” (XIV. 472 ). Katerina Ivanovna refuses to be accountable for her future testimony even to Ale‘ia, since she still has not perceived which of her voices she will manifest- ”B51 30 030010 11030. 0003000 @00000033. . . 00 3 0 0010 30 03010 0000. 11011101 05115. 051 001101310 11030 0001001015 3010113 00000 000100013010 0000000” (XV. 371. Gruien'ka gives a mocking tone to this type of confession when she warns Katerina Ivanovna that she is not actually an ”angel" before fulfilling her prank. i.e.. refusing to either kiss her rival's hand or give up 055111-1113 As some of these passages indicate. a refusal to be defined may serve as a provocation as well as 0 0000030. WW Personages state their intent to resist or overturn any judgement. a preemptory form of 00 00030. Ivan tells Aleia regarding possible violence to Fedor Pavlovii: ”H0 0 111000113011 11033 0 00100010 00 00000 0 0033011 009300 0003510 0000100” (XIV. 132). Dmitrij tells A1000 that he has a choice which he can make at any time (”. . . 0 0003510 300003 0010300315. 11019 0010300315 303 0000001315. 0011015 010 00001 H9 103 0300 1110. 310 0 010 00000109. 0 30 0010300010” [XIV. l441). although he chooses to foretell his failure in selecting the right alternative. Dmitrij is much more emphatic earlier in the conversation: ”. . . 3001 0003 00011 10030300 0000110 30000030030101” (XIV. 106). He will sound this note again with the investigators after his arrest: ”. . . 30 0001005 051 103 0 09100 11000. 30 10000010 00 0901030113. . .” (XIV. 418-419); ”0005 0. 103 0300015. 09019 11010 00000000 00000011 0000 00113. 0 051 000000500000305 3 0001005 0005110113 00 00 00000330119 110019 0 000311 0000033011.. . O 000101111111. 446). Gruxen'ka warns Rakitin about his failure to perceive what she feels: ”110033. P033130. 30 1000 11030 090315. 30 1000 10000300. . . 3330100 0011 30 903015. 310 9 11030 0 000000 05100” (XIV. 321). Kolja is as emphatic as Dmitrij about his right to oppose judgement ”. . . 0 39001003 010 33310 30 011001 9 3010 00000130015 013010” (XIV. 407): ”51. 00003011. 3330119 30 000000010 03003000015 1103 00019033” (XIV, 472). In all of these exchanges. only Rakitin and the investigators are genuinely hostile to the speakers. which suggests that characters use this type of 00 00030 not only in reply to threats. but also to stake out territory for their views. Wm Personages have an abrupt. but temporarily effective way of foiling others' challenges. namely. to cut off discussion of the topic. Raskol'nikov fears that he may reveal himself in his willingness to 106 interpret Porfirij Petrovi‘é's remarks. and so tells Razumixin: ”10 00003011. 10030 010 000 0011003015. 0010051” (VI. 206). He suddenly becomes unwilling to talk about his former fiancee and tells his family: '00 3 3001 03001 003011 1151 00 01011 100003111 11 3 30119 00000001030015?. . .” (VI. 178). He similarly cuts off an exchange with Dunja about her right to marry Luiin: ”A 00003011. 000 010 000001 - 00300030 03 000000133100530. 0000090 30 0000 300005300 900030330” (VI. 174). Svidrigajlov makes a similar comment to Raskol'nikov as he denies interest in Dunja: ”1-10 000 010 00000. 303 100005 3 0011 0339” (VI. 222). Raskol'nikov uses the phrase "39 3 00000530” emphatically when he completes his confession to Sonja- ”H9. 00 091100100. 310 0 9030 01009119. - 010 0 11900 000000. . .39 3 000005301” (111. 319). Svidrigajlov. on the other hand. gives it a characteristically ironic toucm ”H9 3 00000530. 30130100. 000 0005110 0030333010 011-112000 Metre 301113001000 111030 11011130010010 1191110” (VI. 364). Ivan twice forbids Ale§a to approach him on certain topics (Book V. Chapter 5 and Book XI. Chapter 5). Although this form of 0000030 is the most emphatic. Raskol'nikov. Svidrigajlov. and Ivan use it to end conversations they themselves had begun. and thereby actually direct it at themselves. Dostoevskij's favored characters resort to forms of the 0000030 device less than other characters. This is why Fedor Pavlovit‘. reacts differently to the abbot than he does to Zosima Fedor PavloviE comes away from the elder with a good enough impression of him to say favorable things afterward. but responds to the abbot’s Gospel quotes about forbearance by becoming still more outrageous. Christ's kiss is a unique example of a 0000030. one which preserves the integrity of his own position precisely by submitting it to the judgement of another's conscience. He effectively overturns all that the Grand Inquisitor had said about him precisely by not objecting to it. Sonja submits herself to Raskol‘nikov's judgement. choosing to endure it rather . than to evade it. She employs the 0000030 not to conceal what she considers shameful or threatening. but to protect what she values: ”P00300533300 00331100 0130013. 0030119 13030 30 001000005 0119 331015. . . 03 0031011011 11000100 00331100. 303 10111000 05100 00 100005 051000015 3 00033015 000 0000” (VI. 250). We see the various 0000030 forms most with personages who experience the most complex or intense inner dialogues. yet even A1000 and Sonia occasionally resort to evasive maneuvers. Like the numerous penetrating and provoking devices. the 0000030 supports continuation of 107 polyphonic dialogue in the novels. W Personages use the 00 00030 device to deal with interpretations of what they have already said. but avail themselves of the 0100030 device to fore- see what others will say about them. or how they may react to their comments. In this way they strive to defuse hostile interpretation of their remarks before they make them. Dostoevskij's characters generally pay close attention both to reactions of their conversation partners and to their own state of composure as they speak. They also apply the 0100030 retrospec- tively to assess the effect of what they have already said. Personages even take the voices of third parties into account. as they tailor their remarks both to those they address and to those who are absent. AW Dostoevskij s heroes look ahead expectantly to what others might say. often with concern. Raskol' nikov hesitates to begin reading Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna's letter: ”03 1100030; 03 001110 303 09010 000000 3010-10” (VI. 27). She holds off embracing him for fear of angering him (VI. 173). Raskol'nikov similarly does not hug Dunja farewell because: ”1101011 00.10. 001110090. 00000130100. 30100 000011331. 310 0 100005 00 00331100. 03011101. 310 0 93000 00 001100901” (VI. 327). The 0100030 becomes comical when Razumixin decides not to shave because he feels that Raskol’nikov's family will assume he did it for them (VI. 162). Raskol'nikov is able to guess what Razumixin will say at one point when they speak about Porfirij Petrovic: ”H030300-10 0010000001. . .” (V1. 207). Alesa expects to hear from his brother Ivan and patiently waits for him to come forward: ”A00010 0510 3 0011 110030030 3 303 051 01000 3010-10. 303 051 015103000 3010-10. . . 0 303311-10 300030135111 0000 00110119 3 100000135111 011901033011 x000. 30100 0001 0030301 0000013 3 30119 003130” (KW. 30). He is concerned about what Ivan will say at the monastery and whether he will treat Zosima with respect: ”. . . 000000 00300000330 0119. 00000330 1033311. 0000305111 3001101003 11930000 3 30001100003 00510030 93011010 110030. . .” (XIV. 31). Kolja prepares carefully for his encounter with Alesa ”03. . . 30090130 05130051000 000003100530 0003009013510 030. 30100 0119 0 3011 10000303. 00010 '3031330000' 000109. 051009013000 10. 310 0 3011 0119 0000000003” (XIV, 478); ”T0010 3000 30 03035 051030 051001500. . .” (XIV. 478): ”H000 00000003100530 00310301500. . .” (XIV. 4771.14 Raskol‘nikov 108 approaches Porfirij PetroviE in the same manner: ”310119 1010 11000 1100000 0015. . . 3 30190005300 0015. H0190005300 00010 333010 051 30 0015. 90300330 333010 30 00151 H01. mum 05100 051 00015 303019000530. . .” (VI. 189-190). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) This is his motive for teasing Razumixin about his feeling for Dunja. so that they can appear before Porfirij Petrovii': in a relaxed. jovial mood. Dmitrij admits his concern about Ale§a's judgement when he explains why he had said nothing about the escape plan: ”A 0003011. 1000003. 3900 0 0039 10000 1003?” (XV. 34). (Dmitrij here actually fears his own judgement. which he attributes to A1030 as his ideal conscience.) Katerina Ivanovna knows how Ivan would react to a display of adoration for rescuing Dmitrij. and angrily does the opposite: ”. . . K03 000911000 00091. 310 03 003101 010 100530 03015 00 0000015 11010. 310 00000101 113110 (0 03 051 30000110330 010 000911001). 10 00 1010 05100 00000001030. . . 0000000 00015 0119 0110391” (XV. Isa-1811.15 With this type of 0100030 characters react not necessarily to the other‘s voice. but frequently to the image they have formed of the other. In actual conversation they find that they must change that image. W11. BY successfully anticipating others opinions. personages can more effectively deal with them. The author figure's own commentary inmm illustrates this maneuver. as he prepares readers for a positive reception of A1000: ”. . . 3000003 011 01111005 30 0003330. 0 0000119 3 000003019 303000013510 00000051 00000 1030051103011 :0 001103010003 0010 0003000 000000033. 310 051 05100003 010 000311 1000011?” (XIV. 5): ”H9 001 3 000 00003000030. 51 00000100330 00100003. 310 0110 0301300. 110 103 303 030 91110 30030030. 10 09015 3 001030100” (XIV. 0). The chronicler explains Ale'éa‘s power to charm others so that readers will not misinterpret it: ”0 1100109 1011 03 0019030 0 0101 0011 0010 0 10330 11000033003311 00100. 0 303311 33303 300500 00130015 0 00001130 00030103000 03100013. 00035100100 1103 303900100 00303015 3 00300031500. 9110350 000100315 0000 000100315” (XIV. 19). The chronicler confronts a possible objection to A1000 as a realist: ”12300191. 110001 05115. 310 30003510 01033 30 110100101 33 111030130119. 33 1130131130119. . .” (XIV. 24). Zosima appears to answer his future critics when he says: ”. .. 010031 3000003 0000330 00000- 03010 3 00000 010” (XIV. 283). a remark which seems to anticipate both the scornful rebukes after his death and Rakitin's plot to bring about Ale§a‘s moral downfall Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna foresees Raskol'nikov's reaction to 109 1.0110, and urges him not to judge him: ”. . . 0003 30 0000510 001000 1000 310-330905 0 3011 30 0030010100” (VI. 31). She anticipates Raskol'nikov's displeasure at depending upon Luiin for employment (and augments this displeasure by mentioning that Luiin himself might not appreciate this obligation): .'- . . 151 3 0011 110010105. . . 00093015 019 00110015 30 0 0300 00010000330. 0 0 0300 0000901033010 100010 0100000330” (VI. 33). W5, Dostoevskij's characters pay close attention to how others receive their speech. Kolja watches Ale§a's reactions as he brings the conversation around to a retelling of his adventure with the goose (XIV. 494). Razumixin shows visible concern that he might not be accepted by Dunja and Pul‘xerija Aleksandrovna: ”. . . 051 30 11001010 30 11030 000031500 00 10. 310 0 103 1000010111010119 0 30300330 1000010. 0 30 011010. 310. . .1111 010 05100 051 00000. . (VI. 156). Lu‘z'in finds himself at a loss when he encounters hostile indifference in Raskol'nikov's room: ”03 90300330 0000130 0000000315. 310 000 010 030331?” (VI. 113). Pul‘xerija Aleksandrovna prefers to follow Dunja's lead with Raskol'nikov when she senses his disturbing attitude: ”. . . 303000 05100 0 300910 11905110030 0003003000030. 30 001030030005. 0110100 30 119310” (VI. 152): ”. . . 00030 00000051000 0 10000 003003. 310051 000331015 0010 00 1151005. . .” (VI. l57). This is Razumixin‘s approach when he recalls how much he revealed to the women; ”. . . 03 0100 0001500 00 3001000 00000 0000. 00 30010510 01001. . .” (VI. 165). By fearing their reactions. Razumixin only calls more attention to himself: ”H0 00 03035 00000300. 310 0 110100 1101000330 P00933333 030003000 30 0101 000 103 0010000130. . . 110000300 010 3 00001510 P03030039” (VI. 167). Rakitin is selective about what he says to his audience. expressing himself differently in his letter to church officials than he does to his peers.16 Svidrigajlov catches himself just in time when he touches on a theme Raskol’nikov finds offensive (”Ila-1100119. 111000150 P03030030 0 01011 0000 010010901 000010 0005110 000330091030 3 300003010300. 000. . . 000 000010 0011000100” [V1, 2221). although he stings him with the same point shortly afterward (VI. 223). Svidrigajlov notes not warily. but mockingly. that Raskol’nikov does not like hearing him relate how he maneuvered Dunja into a position advantageous to himself: ”651. 30010100. 11119031005. P00303 P01103513?” (VI. 3651.17 .. ' Characters openly recognize that their speech may not be convincing. and deprecate their statements in 110 order to gain the listener's trust. Dmitrij does this spontaneously with Alesa: ”$1 00130. 30010100. 0 000300-10. 00003003000 000 00011 00050011. 3011300130 000110000. 31003 0000 0011000315” (XIV.106); ”30000000 0 310-10. 00000 9' 11030 000 3030030305. 10330 3000911 0100010. 30 103. 303 0 000000030. 103 10119 3 05115” (XIV. 108).18 Ivan closely follows Ale¥a's reactions (Book V. Chapters 3. 4. and 5). and makes protective comments as he tries to keep the momentum away from his brother: ”T51 091100015. 0 10031110003107” (XIV. 212). He pref aces his presentation of the Grand Inquisitor with an insincerely disparaging comment: '. . . 881.1111 3000000. . .' (XIV, 224100111111 Petroviz. like Ivan. keeps his listener off balance by supposing Raskol'nikov's reactions: ”651. 1100101 01115. 30 10330 1103 00000 000011001005?” (VI. 344). Kolja asks Ale‘s'a this type of question precisely because he does not feel in control of the conversation: ”851 00015. 30010100. 30 00100033 00 11300. 3000110000?” (XIV, 1197).19 WWW Personages follow their own reactions as well as their addressees'. This is especially true when others provoke them into losing their composure. Muisov. for example. understands what will happen with Fedor Pavlovi‘c': ”H9. 100005 000030 0000 03010. 0000000103. 00000010. . . 30339 1000331500 - 3 0000 3 30010 933019. . .” (XIV. 30). (Although the word ”3000” has a parodic meaning here. it is typical of Dostoevskij's novels that even minor. negative characters like Muisov feel that they have more at stake in a given dialogue than solely their personal vanity.) Fedor PavloviX becomes aware that he is losing control of his buffoonery with the abbot: ”M 11010 03 0103330 0300. 310 0 300105111 090901311 0000011 000 0005100 3 3000000 09001 0030000015 3 03000330119 900 000009 0010 103010 130. - 30 913 000001015 0000 30 1101 3 0000100 303 0 10051” (XIV. 83). A1010 also feels that he is speaking against his will with Dmitrij. although what he says is quite valid: ”A00010 00030300 10100 0000 1130330 3000300 3 0000090 30 0000. 310. 00000010305 000050011 00010. 03030000 10330 ‘1090110‘ 1151003” (XIV. 134). Kolja's concern with his composure has much to do with his adolescent sensitivity. ”. . . 03 3900100000. 310 303003100 0 000510011 000090100333 3 310 0 1900. 300031100. 000030000 003013011 901 01 000010 0000110. 0 1100109 1011 000100 1100300 000 000110 00003000. . .” (XIV. 496). Like Kolja. but for an entirely different purpose. Raskol'nikov measures the appearance he makes: ”H0 000003 03 0. . 030357. . . 030 30000003300. . . H0 0000010015 03 0010. . .7” 111 (VI. 61 ). He is apprehensive that Porfirij Petrovi! may provoke him against his will: ”A 0 00000-10 3 0001000010051” (VI. 194). While speaking with , Razumixin. he notes apprehensively: ”80 0390 0110019 0 331111 0931110111. . .” (VI. 208). Dmitrij shares Muisov's wariness of Fedor PetroviX. but to a far greater degree: ”1100101 05115.30 90510. 0 1100101. 90510. 601005. 310 3030030103 03 00091 1130 010301 000311 0311011 0 19 0011910 1133919” (XIV. 112) . - ~ . - - - - -. Personages constantly evaluate what they have said. hoping to erase mistakes and to foresee harmful effects of their words. Raskol' nikov does this with Porfirij Petrovii': as he strives to say just the right thing: ”109001 600001 303011 0 010 003000301” (VI. 194); ”A 010 0 00030 000 30001309 0000390: 001011 00310031001. . .“ (VI. 196): ”8 000511011. - 0100300 P00300533300. 300030130 003900100000 0 19 010 0039309. 310 1101 051 01010 3 30 10000315" (VI. 205): ”119 003011 0 103 00000301005 0 1011. 310 0010030 010 3000101?” (VI. 255): " ..003900100000. 310 100000 0 0000033 0010 00000 30301013. . .” (VI. 257). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Raskol‘nikov reviews his words not only to avoid arrest, but also to explore his own motives for what he does. After leaving the station (Part 11. Chapter 2) he appears puzzled by his attitude there: ”A 0300530 0 300100 3 3000003300 00100301 303 1100030 0000030 3 003103000 000030 0 01100030010311 110500 1101000330111‘ (VI. 80). Raskol'nikov tries to allay the concern he caused his family on the day before by affecting filial behavior: ”n0. 0 100005 0011 03019. 310 00313 000000. . . 3 9010 30 WW 010 1000010. . .” (VI. 171); ”1100 000 010. 1101103530. 0 3 10000315 30 011010. - 0000000100 03. 09010 0093033510 0 9100 9003. . .”(VI. 232). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s.) Even before the murder Raskol'nikov devotes an inordinate amount of thought merely to why he goes to speak with a friend: ”000000. 0030119 03 001000 100005 3 P009333339. 100000130 010 0005010. 3011 00010 0119 00110119 30000005. . .” (VI. 44). It turns out that his concern stems from the bearing Razumixin has on Raskol‘nikov's own view of himself: ”310 0. 30913003 0 000 0000 110100 0000011315 003311 P00911333H5111 3 000119 301100 301000 0 P0093333307. . . 1'1 3 30119. . . 30 009100 0035. 00000 1010 00009. 30100 9010 111 09001 3033030 3 30100 000 00-3000119 000001. . .” (VI. 44-45). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s.) These . musings seem to put the murders themselves in a dialogic context whereby any utterance to Razumixin in Raskol‘nikov‘s mind must come only after "that." making the murder itself a sort of 0100030. an act which Raskol‘nikov 112 considers a prerequisite to resuming relations with others. After the murders take place. they continue to affect Raskol‘nikov with a residual 0100030. an awareness that he not longer is that same person. This is evident when he speaks with Razumixin: ”P00300533300 30 1101 30 00011001500. Ho 0 19 010 1133919 01003351113 0030000305 0119 010 00001003300 009010000330 3 011010. . . 10100 303 0005 000051090130 00010000 03 000000013000 0 91010115111 01000111033011. 0303110 30 110000. 00 30003003110013” (VI. 208). Conversations with Smerdjakov and A1e§a force Ivan to re-examine his own role in Fedor Pavlovig‘s demise. 1110300 0100030 involves not so much his acts and words as whether he has chosen the proper occasion for them. He does not doubt his motives for challenging Katerina Ivanovna and Ivan (Book IV. Chapter 5). but he does reflect later: ”11015 0 000000 010 000 3 30300330. 30 000000 3000 05115 911300” (XIV. 179). 1110110 continues to 'make missteps. and is free of concern over his approaches only after his vision of Cana. Zosima's awareness of his youthful errors is different from that of others. since his mature faith in the present and future allows him to view his past with good-natured irony rather than with mortification: ”11003 931300013 3 000103010 0100010330 0110010 0 10003119003311 00513011 0030- 0000. . .”(XIV. 2681:”. . .3000 110 11030 303000 0001100315” (XIV. 276). WWW Personages remain cognizant of third parties as they speak. for example. when Smerdjakov confounds Grigorij (Book 11. Chapter 7): ”03 0 0303115111 90000050103011 0000010000 3 103100310. 0100300 0 0911130013 30 0033 03015 00000051 @00000 1100000330. . . 30 3000330 00000 030. 310 00000051 013 303 09010 000001 0119 10310030” (XIV. 118). Ivan realizes that he is competing with others for influence over Ale§m ”T51 1130 00001. 0 1000 90901315 30 11039 3 30 90190010 1000119 3003110” (XIV. 222): ”901 30 01011 03 1103030 103 1000 9331?” (XIV. 237). Gru‘éen'ka boasts that she brought Katerina Ivanovna to hysterics not for her own satisfaction alone. but for Ale§a's benefit: ”91 010 000 1000. 3001003539. 00039 000000000” (XIV. 140). Characters even direct silence at others. as when Raskol'nikov hesitates to speak about Svidrigajlov in front of 1.112111- ”1101011 03019” (V1. 229). Lu‘iin turns this maneuver back at Raskol'nikov: ”H0. 303 3 0001 0010 30 1100101 003 1130 00500331500 300301 3030100311 000000010330 100000330 13030031000000. 103 3 0 30 0100010 3 30 11019 00000331500. .. 003 0091311. . . 300301 30301005111. 0005110 3 0005110 000135111 0933100” (VI. 230). 113 (These respective statements contrast very well Raskol’nikov's laconic brevity and Lu‘z'in's euphemistic. bureaucratic formality.) Svidrigajlov deliberately brings up a point concerning Dunja which he assumes must have prejudiced Raskol'nikov against him: "To. 310 0 000011 0030 00000000000 0000001313910 0003119 3 ”003000000 00 0003113 1390351113 00000001033033.‘ 103 03-0?” (VI. 215). 110 even employs a phrase (”003000000 00 000333 1903333 00000010331133”) which he suspects Pul’xerija Aleksandrovna and Dunja might have used against him. Raskol'nikov's 0100030 concerns three different characters in his conversation with himself: ”11 0005 0010003000 10 03 10100 0 00300. 0011 0010003000. 000011011 0010003000.. .A 003003100000? - 003003100000 0010030. . . 003003100000 000003031 010. . . 0 00300310000033. 1100101 0315. 01110 10010 000001031 000500. 003003100000. 110001 05115. 10010 1100510 301100; 30 11001113030 0000 009100” (VI. 341120 Wine. Personages nay silent attention to others' conversations. as they discreetly study the speakers in order to formulate their own speaking strategies. This becomes apparent with Ivan in Zosima's celk ”. . . 00-03033039. c 30333-10 00010 01000030- 1005333 01000051101003 0013000. 303 010 000 30333100. 10330 003 03 0510 00000010330 191 00010003330 3000003” (XIV. 40). Rakitin also listens just beyond the immediate group. but for a different purpose - to collect material for what eventally turns into an article about the murder of Fedor Pavlovit‘é. Zosima allows the unseemly conversation to continue for yet another purpose: ”. . . 03 003 303 09010 3010-10 0010 0303000 3 0030100530 0031000300000. 303 051 010000 310-10 0010 003015. 303 03 0010 30 900330 0000 3010-10” (XIV. 68). Ivan again listens silently to Smerdjakov's paradox (Book 111. Chapter 8): ”030000300 010 03 300010000 0 30000513003513 01000031010011” (XIV. 119 )21 Fedor PavloviE adopts the listening role by pairing off A1010 and Ivan. first on the question of whether the belief in the power of holy individuals to move mountains is a Russian one. then on the question of whether God exists (XIV. 120-121, 123). Like Fedor Pavlovié. Dunja matches two others against each other in order to decide her own views: ”51 11039 3 3019 903015 100005 3000030: 0001 03 03 330? A 000 000: 000010 03 0 003. 1103310 03 051 11030: 11901 03 051 1130?” (VI. 231). Dunja approaches Raskol'nikov much as Ale‘éa appoaches Ivan; ”161000150 P03030030 0030100530 01000300000 0 00010 3 010000 0005100” (VI. 152). Raskol’nikov silently follows the scandal at Marmeladov's wake. partly to see how far 114 Lu‘iin will go. and partly to see how Sonia will cope with the challenge: ”030 001003900 30 P003005333000. . . 101 01000 9 01033. 0000130 3030001 0933. 3 013033311 001000011 01101000 30 300” (VI. 303). His nonintervention is so noticeable that Katerina Ivanovna scolds him for not supporting Sonia. Svidrigajlov listens to Raskol'nikov's talks with Sonja not only to gain leverage against Dunja by learning her brother's secret. but also purely out of interest in the "fantastic position“ of this "interesting young man." WW Characters‘ fear of not being able to say every- thing constitutes another kind of 0100030. one that encourages and even compels them to reveal themselves. We see the compulsive extreme both with Snegirev ('03. . . 1000030 010 30000330030 000010 3 10000005. 10330 00000005. 310 0119 30 00091 00010 0303003001500” [XIV. 191]) and with Marmeladov: ”. .. 10330 110030 1100011 10010 33 0 3011 30 1000030” (VI. 13). Raskol‘nikov‘s exchange with Marmeladov leads to one with Sonja. whom Raskol'nikov chooses to hear his revelation of murder: ”91 1000 00030 0510000. 3100 010 0300015 1000. 0010 10100. 110100 01011 000 1000 1000030. . .” (VI. 253). It turns out that Sonja herself feels drawn to reveal that which she holds dear. and precisely to Raskol'nikov: ”. . . 00 11933100530 001100 30100005 00030015.. .3 3110330 01140. 3100 03 00510100. 3 30000110330 100$ - ”310 03 103 33 030100 0010111”. . ." (VI. 250). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s.) Ale§a‘s silence irritates Kolja and provokes him to speak: ”E003 03 030000 310-330905 000300 000010. 30 1011 03 030 3 00303330005. 30 000100 01100300. . . 3 11000 00000003000 9010 0000011” (XIV. 497). Ivan on the other hand is irritated precisely because he did not succeed in expressing his whole idea to Ale§a: ”B 0011011 0000. 010 110100 0315. . . 000000 30 10. 310 30 091100 03030001500. . .” (XIV. 242). Ivan‘s hunger to present all of his thought to AleXa is paralleled by the Inquisitor‘s hunger to voice all of his arguments to Christ: ”T91 0000 0 1011 100530. 310 0100339 3000 03030001500. 310. 3030300. 00 000 000030010 001 03 03030051000100 3 1000031 00093 10. 0 3011 000 000030010 001 1100300” (XIV. 228). Although Zosima speaks with a different voice than does the Inquisitor, he too feels the same urgency to say all before his death: ”P000030 03 0 11301011. 30000005. 110100 051 000 0300015. 000 030300015 0010 000. 0000 011001300 1133913. 300 00010 30000300033010 0 33033. . .” (XIV. 148). Svidrigajlov's drunkenness encourages him to speak relatively freely to Raskol’nikov about Dunja. and at the same time provides him with an excuse for doing so (Part IV. Chapter 4). Katerina Ivanovna‘s llS residual memory of humiliation from Dmitrij and her frustration at having to testify insincerely give her final statements in court added intensity: ”0. 00091100100. 103 10000315 3 103 003030001500 110x30 100530 30300-330905 000 0 013033 - 0 00000110013910 1133919. 300031100. 003000 30 001011101" (XV. 121). C' . I' [ll . Circumscription of voices differs both from the 0000030 and the 0100030 devices. It represents characters‘ attempts to foresee the conclusion of another's arguments, and must therefore contribute to dialogue as Baxtin views it. Personages circumscribe others' expression by arbitrarily proclaiming their own superior understanding of the issue at hand. They may also claim that they had foreseen what the other has just said. implying thereby that the utterance is unoriginal. The circumscription device sometimes resembles the 0000030. with the difference that it allows speakers not only to evade previous challenges. but at the same time to issue new ones and in this way jump ahead of the other. Circumscription of another's voice takes a parodic form when personages parody others' utterances by taking them to their extreme conclusions. in this way forcing the original speakers to disown or qualify their original arguments. WW1. Ivan :1 Grand Inquisitor states at the beginning of his speech that he considers the discussion closed on the nature of human beings and their relationship to God and immortality: '01 13 3 00000 30 31100015 333010 0030300015 3 10119. 310 930 0300030 100010 0000100” (XIV. 228). Ivan parallels this with his announcement to A1000: ”. . . 30 000 013 10113 13 00001.00 00 11300 33 00000. . . 000 303000030. 000 000010000030. 103 03?” (XIV. 240). Kolja tries for the upper hand with A1030 by patronizing him as 0 "mystic": ”$1 03010. 310 03 1130133. . . 11033003000330 3 0000103100530013 000 3000331. . .” (XIV. 499). Raskol’nikov takes a similar attitude toward Sonja when he first visits her room. when he perceives her as 0 100003000 and a 001101003300 (VI, 249). Ivan tries to deny his Devil an ideological existence independent of himself: ”T3 3110330 100003015 10. 310 0 9010 1130010. . . 3 333010 30 0 03003 0300015 1130 3000101” (XV. 73). Smerdjakov is much more successful at cutting off Ivan's options by committing suicide, making it impossible for Ivan to prevent Dmitrij's conviction and thus avoid the burden of guilt.22 Razumixin 116 does not tolerate Raskol'nikov's refusal to attend his housewarming or his withdrawal in general: ”91 130039 000 10330 103 010 0 01005113 0000000300000 3 00015 30 000 00300100. . .C10301 013030 - 3 00001310500 3 300000391” (VI. 130). Porfirij Petrovié makes the same prediction about Raskol'nikov. but with much more at stake: ”90001310 3 0011 0000131005. flamawmaumrm” (VI. 352). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) .- - . .- - -Anotherwayof circumscribing the other s voice is to jump ahead of speech by arguing that it was anticipated. Fedor Pavlovic as the irreverent buffoon is particularly adept as this. as he begins his maneuvers with Muisov by apparently agreeing with what Muisov has just said about him: ”B90101 110000100510. 0005 0 3 010 0300. 11010 01003003000033. 3 00010. 030010. 00003900100000. 310 000010. 100530 310 0100 10000315. 3 00010. 030010. 00003900100000. 310 03 1130 000030 010 3 001101310” (XIV. 38). Fedor Pavlovi‘t’: replies to Muisov's objection that one of the farmer's tales is a fabrication: ”8010 x3035 00003900100000. 310 30000000!” (XIV. 39). Fedor Pavlovi! tries to jump ahead of Zosima. who has just characterized him quite accurately. with the announcement that he was only playing the fool: ”. . . 3000330. 31003 000 30000000015. . .” (XIV. 43). He begins to agree with Zosima‘s view of him (”11110330 1130 000 103 3 30010100. . . 310 0 000000 00011. . .” (XIV. 411). then parodies it by adding his own view: ”. . .103 001 ”00000 010 0 3 0 0011011 0000 0310010 10910. 30 001005 001033 1130330. 0010119 310 000 03 00 0033010 000000 110301” (XIV. 41). 1.0210 explains that he is not impressed by Raskol'nikov's hostility: ”. . .0 0010 000030. 0 0000010 10019. 00010000 00109 300030031. 30 3000330 0010000 00005. 3100 903015 0010 00000” (VI. 119). Raskol'nikov himself tells Razumixin when the other follows him out of the door to challenge him: ”0 103 3 0300. 310 13 0300013015. . .” (VI. 240). Svidrigajlov later uses the same remark to stay ahead of Raskol'nikov: ”9 103 3 0300. 310 03 003033310. . .” (VI. 223). WWW Raskol'nikov is able to see behind Svidrigajlov’s jesting confession that he was not being sincere: '00 03 3 0 019 1133919 3310311 000000010010” (VI. 215). The situation is reversed with Ivan and his Devil. the latter of whom has the upper hand: ”110 000019. 0 303311 13 01000100015 11030. - 0001100000 0010311151103. - 0 90001001005. 310 13 ace-1033 0 11030 0003015” (XV. 79): ”C091000: 010 0 1000 0001100. 0 30 13 110301” (XV. 80). The Devil parodies Ivan’s assertation (”T3 00035. 13 1100 117 11103100301” [XV. 771) with his own version of this remark: ”. . . 001005300 010 000. 310 3091011 11030. .. 000 010 000 11030 30 00300030. 09010010901 03 030 00110 00 0000 303 0015 100530 0030 1100 0110301130. . .” (XV. 77). Porfirij Petroviz circumscribes Raskol'nikov's possible options and def uses them. He refuses to take Raskol'nikov’s objections as serious state ments. ascribing them instead to his illness: ”00 0 00113. 001101030. 3 30 0000111115; 11030110330 30300-10 0 000 000000” (VI. 257): ”. . .00-0. 0030000303 9 300 030-01 3103 03 00015. 10090333. 0000131010 0000035 0000 0000001310. . .” (VI. 265). The inspector moves from one tack to another as he provides incentives for Raskol'nikov to confess. He first promises: ”00 30000130 03 0011. 30300 0011 00 010 000000000901 000030?" (VI. 350). then urging him: ”. . . 010001005 013033 000110.. .” (VI. 351); then appealing to his sense of justice: ”T91 901 00000000300015. 801 300003310-30. 310 1000901 00000000300015” (VI. 351). and 1120301” appealing to his pride: ”C103510 000311011. 000 000 3 903001” (VI. 352). , . . . A way of provoking others and circumscribing them at the same time is to draw the extreme conclusion of what they espouse. Luiin objects when Raskol ”nikov makes assumptions about his view of marriage: ”. . .11300013030 10090005. .. 103 30300311 11510051” (VI. 118): ”C33 0010. . . 003000 11030 303001033011 113003 11000. . . 6001 033 9113000330 00090003330 03030330 0000 00 30000010. . .” (VI. 231). The Devil does this at Ivan’s expense by mockingly concluding his parody of ”P000013300330 000000001” with the evaluation: ”000 010 03035 11300; 100530 0003 0030100 1100103333015. 003011 051 0010. 30010100. 00331130 301333?” (XV. 84). A1000 also draws the ultimate conclusion from ivan's allusion to the "Karamazov power for baseness." one which even Ivan does not quite welcome: ”310 00103915 0 00000010. 00000315 09019 0 000100333. 00. 00?” (XIV. 240); ”310 31003 ”000 000000030”? 800 000000030. 103 03. 103 03?” (XIV. 240). Another example has been noted in criticism.“ I 111' l I 11' 1 Inner and hidden dialogues represent a fundamental aspect of polyphonic composition in the novels.25 Inner dialogue takes shape in several different patterns. Personages conduct internal deliberation as they ask themselves questions which they then try to answer. It also occurs in the 118 way personages constantly rephrase and alter their utterances with what Baxtin calls the 01000030. or stipulation.26 It also takes place when characters shift abruptly from one voice to another. giving the impression that the latter voice ”responds“ to the former one. Certain passages reveal more than one voice of a given character coexisting simultaneously in that character’s consciousness. recognizeable yet difficult to separate. Others reveal dialogues in absent/Jr with others” voices. whom the speaker. or thinker. recognizes and addresses in his consciousness. Hidden dialogue becomes perceptible in three ways. Characters may display odd emotional reactions when another accidentally strikes upon a hidden aspect of their inner dialogue. They may also show difficulty in maintaining 0 constant tone when no other speaker is overtly interrupting them. Finally, participants in a conversation may become subtly aware of subsurface elements in their conversation. . mung-[Wm Weighing of alternatives in one's mind comes closest to inner monologue in the traditional sense. since second or third voices affect inner debate only by being an object of discussion, or ””part of the problem.“ Personages actively deliberate both their own positions and those of others. Raskol'nikov questions himself about his resolve to murder for his idea: ”H9 00303 0 100005 309? P0000 0 00000003 30 070? P0000 .1170 00050030?” (VI. 6). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Directly before entering Alena Ivanovna's apartment he asks himself: ”H0 9013 03?” (VI. 61 ). After the murder he grapes for a resolution to the problems it has caused within his consciousness: ”. . . 03 0300 0030: ”310 000 .970 3000 3033315 0010030 010. 00 0033 000. 000300 010. . . ” K03 3033315? l1011 3033315? 00 01011 03 30 3300 3 0030130. . .” (VI. 120-121).27 (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s.) He weighs the alternatives of suicide or surrender against continuing to evade detection: ”310 01. 010 3011001. . . Bee-1033 30339. 0010119 310 3039. . . 30300 03. 003030? A 000 000301 000133 000010030100 09001. - 301 ((0300. 003030 10. 3030111 1109x003 303011? C30X9 0 311 305 30 030139? E. . . 30011” (v1. 132). On the way to his first visit with Porfirij Petrovi}. Raskol'nikov suddenly wonders: ”. . . 30001.00 305 30 3000100. 310 0 309?” (VI. I90). 110 extensively deliberates Sonja's situation as well as his own ”P0000 030 0 00000011 00009030? P0000 301330 103 10000315 303 030?. . . P0000 000 010 30 00303033 003001010050100?” (VI. 248).28 Raskol'nikov questions himself both about his motives for confessing to Sonja ('05 3 00303 03 03 119 001000 100005 3 C030? 00015 00001115 9 300 00 0000? 00 3 01000130 0300 0119 C030” (VI. 3541) and about Svidrigajlov's intent toward Dunja: ”C03003100000 3300 0033003 000130 11933. A 0003 3 100005 33001? 110313 30000300 1100130 0300015. 310 .00” (VI. 354). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Raskol‘nikov‘s inner dialogue about whether or not he believes in God is summed up in his thought; ”51 30 0000000. 0 000300 030010 0 110100510. 0030001305. 00011003; 0 30 000910. 0 00 000030 00 11030 30031500. 910 001 011001. 303 00000100. . .” (VI. 399). Several critics comment on this debate.29 Even as he prepares to confess at the end of the novel. Raskol‘nikov asks himself: ”00 103 03. 103 03 000 010?. . .30901003 300500 0010 001030031500 3 00015 0011 00000000315. . . 3 30 1100315?” (VI. 404). In Siberia as well he continues to question himself about the worth of his theory and about his reasons for not committing suicide as did Svidrigajlov (VI. 417-418). Other characters besides Raskol'nikov experience this form of inner dialogue. He realizes that Sonja has thought a great deal about her family‘s future: ”53030 0300. 310 010 33005 901 113010-33010 000 0 300 00300 30053000. ..” (VI. 245). Sonja tries to cope with a myriad of questions about Raskol'nikov and about what he had told her: ”03 000030 11015 3 000109. 30303? 310 0300? 111 310 9 3010 0 3030003303? 310 010 03 00 1000030?. . . 0 100000111” (VI. 253130 Razumixin also deliberates internally about the nature of Raskol'nikov's troubles and about the letter which Dunja had received from Svidrigajlov (VI. 341). Ale‘éa‘s internal debates about others are clearly presented in the first half of the novel i.e. before the dream about Cana He gives a negative answer to Ivan‘s question about whether he considers that Ivan wants the murder of Fedor PavloviE (XIV. I32). yet. as A1030 tells Ivan later (XV. 49 ). he is just as convinced that Ivan would actually assist the murder. The passage concerning Aleia's nightmare about the 300030 (Book IV. Chapter 5) illustrates his internal debate over how Katerina Ivanovna might affect the already complex conflicts in his family and how he might head off trouble. Gru§en‘ka questions herself about her plan to elope with her former fiance (”1100000 0 005 30 000000. 000019 0 3 110119 005 30 000019?” [XIV. 3211). showing therein a common feature of inner dialogues - that characters' views of others are related to their opinions about themselves. Ivan‘s inner dialogue over the role he actually played in the murder surfaces after his second conversation with Smerdjakov. ”$1 30100. 0 330330 30100 90300100100100 011 0 90300100. 30100 120 03?...11000 90315 C3000030001... ” (XV. 54). 31 W010. Revisions or stipulations of statements (01000033) may constitute a second type of inner dialogue. one which some- times resembles the 0000030 or the 01000110.32 Raskol'nikov‘s stipulations show his constant reevaluation of his crime. and also constant readjustment of his opinions about others: ”11000011 3000003111 0000011 101. 310 010 00 010 00000003 30030001. . .” (VI. 123). Raskol‘nikov tells himself that he acted for the benefit of the inpoverished. only to reverse himself with the announcement that he is a wretch for claiming this reason (Part III. Chapter 6). Raskol‘nikov revises his explanation to Sonja of his material situation and the role it played in his crime: ”51 001 1000 030000 000030. 310 0 933- 000031010 0000 0000x015 30 301. 01 0300105 011 13. 310 0. 300101. 3 301?. . . P0001001 010 P009333331'1VI. 320133 A different type of stipulation occurs in the speeches of Marmeladov and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. Marmeladov reveals some details about Katerina Ivanovna which put her in a negative light, but reverses himself with the words: ”Ho 30 033310. 3300013030 10090005. 30 0333101” (VI. 17134 Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna describes Lu‘iin in a similar way. saying: ”03. 300031100. 3 3110 003000000 0303000 303 051 0003311; 30 0005 010 300101 00030300315 330330 011010. 310 03 0001100901330 3000003. 3 3000030330 103” (VI. 32)35 Dmitrij speaks with frequent stipulations. as when he exclaims to A1000: ”310 0 1011. 310 3000003 30000539 00300330901? P0000 0 30 003001130910? A 0005 30300303 010 0. 110300303” (XIV. 108). He revises a generalization about human flaws during his deposition to the police: ”. .. 0 30x09 103 0010 013035 00000 0033 100530 0030013. 303 3 000 33. 1000000. . . 10 0015. 303 0 0033. 1000000. 30 000. 0 0 0033. 0 0103000. 0033. 00331” (XIV. 416). (This revision illustrates at once Dmitrij's fondness for generalizing about his condition. his growing recognition that he alone is responsible for the particular turmoils of his life. and his unwillingness to offend his interrogators.) WWW Personages also make sudden. marked shifts from one voice to another.36 Raskol'nikov. for example. feels a sudden impulse to pray before answering the summons to the police. but reverts to a more resentfuuy mocking voice: ”03 0300 00003000 30 300033 30031500. 30 00010 003 0000300000. - 30 300 30031000. 0 300 00000” (V1. 74137 He makes a similar shift after asking Polja to pray for him. this time adopting the voice of the tyrant: ”11000100 00009030 3 00010 100005 3. . . 3 0003. 3 121 03051. . . 3 000301033 1000051 11030000300 1000051” (VI. 1417):”8 Marmeladov changes his voice in a similar manner as he drops the pathetic declaimer to speak as the vulgar snickerer: ”A 0010030 9 C033 030. 30 00330050 30030 00003151 110-30-301” (VI. 20). Kolja shows the same pattern as does Raskol'nikov by going from a sympathetic to a bitter stance. He reacts to his spontaneously emotional words as the ebullient boy. who cries at the news ‘ that Ilju§a”s condition is terminal. and adopts the nihilist voice to distance himself from his emotiom ”1100010010. 11000311 0001 C033-10 00300010?” (XIV. 508). Characters change their voices in yet other patterns. Raskol'nikov analyzes Alena Ivanovna's keys as the rationalist. but suddenly shifts to what after the murder will become the regretter’s voice: ”A 0000303. 303 010 00000 000. . .” (VI. 9). Raskol'nikov leaves the voice of the tender son to reflect upon his situation as the 10001: ”. . . 03 030000 000300 90003910 00015. . . 33 00 303 0005010. 3330100 3 33 0 303. 1100500 039 100005 [W70 ” (VI. 176). (Emphasis is Dostoevskij's.) Raskol'nikov moves quickly from the tyrant (”H330100. 3330100 30 0510 0 0305300 3 9000100300. 303 1000051. . .” [VI. 400)) to the regretter: ”11930. 330001 £003 0 0330003. 000013 3030. . . 110001001 He 09003 00003151” (VI. 400). Dunja drops her defense of Luiin to respond as the quick-tempered warrior to a suggestion that Lulin may back out of his agreement to marry her: ”103 3010 01 03 09001 010315 00000 10101” (V1. 185).Svidrigajlov in successive utterances moves from the predator (”. . . 3003030 03035 109030 00300015. A000150 P03030030” (VI. 3801) to the slave: ”0 010 0909 0010 000. . . 0010 013035. ..” (VI. 381). Katerina Ivanovna subdues the score-settler in herself, who had just lashed out at Ale‘s'a. and returns to the 3301319130 with her plan to benefit the Snegirevs (who have replaced Dmitrij as her mission) (XIV. 176-177). She displays an intriguing voice change in the Epilogue with Dmitrij. suddenly interrupting the genuflector”s voice to speak angrily as the score-settler: ”51 000300. 310 0 0000 3003315 00310001” (XV. 188). Upon meeting Gruienka she once again humbles herself as the genuflector: (”110001310 30301” [XV. 188]). bitterly returning to the score-settler: ”030 30 00001300. . . 11100010 00 00 0101” (XV. 189). 39 Ivan drops the voice of the self-possessed intellectual. with which he had expounded upon his professed love for life. speaking suddenly as the hater about Dmitrij: ”A 13 000 00010 303310051” (XIV 211). 122 WWW Personages sometimes display two or more voices at one time which conflict with and compete with one another. The resenter and the tender son appear together in Raskol’nikov’s speech with Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna (”A 0000303. 000 010 000001 - 00300030 03 00000033100530. . . - 51 30100 100530 0300015. 310 9 000. 30303530. 0 000010330 000109. - 003010330 03 00030 3 010303010” (VI. 174-1751). suggesting that he feels torn between the two extremes. Svidrigajlov appears caught between two voices with Dunja. the predator and the slave: ”11000100 313000330 90100300. 301100 000503 0 09010 C030031000000” (VI. 382).”‘0 Dmitrij responds to Perxotin”s concern that he might shoot himself with a denial that incorporates the same words and phrases that he used when planning to ””bow out“ with suicide. i.e. ”110100331500” and ”00010390030 @00”: ”0900 000001 0 01315 3039. 0 013035 01000101 3300 151 010. $1 000103900010 @000 3 0001 010 1000330 0100010. . . 113030 11010 110533. 9300105 13 90100331500?” (XIV. 363). 61030010 is caught betw000 the jealous avenger and the kindred soul as she blames herself with Ale¥a for her behavior toward Katerina Ivanovna. but at the same time justifies her bitterness toward the latter (XIV. 316). She displays these two voices again (”800 010 1101530. 01 300 3 3001. . . 8000315 03 3030 00330030. 001 3 0005 191 0030011 . . 1'00003 00 0000013. 00135 3030” [XV . 121). first expressing hostile suspicion toward Katerina Ivanovna. Ivan. and Dmitrij. then appealing openly and trustfully to A1000. ”‘1 _ .. - . . . . Inner dialogue occurs when personages take others” voices into their own minds in order to challenge them or otherwise converse with them. Raskol ”nikov does this with his pursuers. in particular Porfirij Petrovié'. whom he confronts in an imaginary dialogue: ”H9. 00010 00030. 0 30 3100010. 303 300130 0 3301510. 310 0005 1100030300. 1100103030 110100033. 0005 0 0010. 30101 05115. 30 00000010-01. . . 80010. 30 003001. . . 1101. 03 0000010-30 111031001” (VI. 195-196): ”E0 00000. 0001. 09100105 13 3030 3 331030151 H01 9 1000 0030001005010. 3 30 0911111010901 0300010330 30000031. . . H9. 001 3 000301033. 310 10300 13 103 0031010030” (VI. 262).42 Personages reckon with others in their consciousnesses even when they do not directly address them. A notable passage showing the above presence of others” voices in Ale§a”s mind describes his dream about Cana. when he recognizes voices from Gruien'ia. Dmitrij. Rakitin. and Zosima in his musings while listening at 123 the same time to Paissij‘ s account from the Gospel43 . . . . ,_ r - H.idden dialogue is frequently present when characters display puzzling emotional reactions which on the surface appear unrelated to the conversation. Razumixin reacts to the news that the police found a box which he had dropped behind a door: ”30 0000533? 30 00005311 00111000? 30 0000533?” (VI. 108). Razumixin no- tices Raskol'nikov‘s reaction to his statement about Dunja's character (”. . . 00 000100 10300 0015. 310 00 000100 0 300009 000001. . . 310 010000310500 10?” [V1, 97-981). but does not realize the meaning of his reaction. Raskol'nikov again becomes distressed when he listens to Luiin speak about Dunja and Pul’xerija Aleksandrovna. although his agitation remains unexplained (VI. ll4). Svidrigajlov perceives Raskol'nikov's reaction to the subject of Dunja's self-sauifice (”. . . 03. 3001. 00015 3001031005.. .” [V1, 367]). and especially when Svidrigajlov likens his own proposal to Luiin's: ”91 00303010. 310 051 310-10 03035 03330100530 01003 00901015. . . 3310000330 3000000 3000- 3 . .” (VI. 367). Dunja unwittingly strikes on two concerns with her brother - his sense that he is inadequate and his sense that he is a fugitive murderer - and in doing so nearly makes him faint: ”30303 13 100090105 01 3030 100000100. 30100010 3 0 1000-10. 30301 05115. 301? 310 000001303. 010 3003030. E0011 0 00190010 3010. 103 100530 0000 0039.. . 91 0010 333010 30 0000 00001” (V1. 179). Raskol'nikov pales at the news of Svidrigajlov's suicide. probably because this is one of his options. and in any case demonstrates no visible relief that a potential threat is gone (VI. 409). He had earlier struck on a hidden debate within Svidrigajlov by asking him whether he could shoot himself. provoking Svidrigajlov‘s answer: ”H9 0011. . . 00000010 00001110330. 30 10000310 00 0103. . .” (VI. 362). Aleia nearly gives a start at Xoxlakova's use of the word ”3000510.” which in his own mind is tied with the problems his brothers face and with his own apparent powerlessness to help them (XIV. I70). Ivan reveals symptoms of hidden dialogue with Smerdjakov. who suggests that Ivan leave for (Zermal'inja precisely because of the trouble between Ivan and Fedor Pavlovié. and not simply to perform an errand. Ivan initially begins to walk away. then turns and nearly strikes Smerdjakov. then finalty contains himself (XIV. 249).“4 Ivan responds to Smerdjakov's remark about a third witness to their conversation in a way that becomes clear only with the Devil's appearance: ”K10 100130?” (XV. 60). 124 Wm. Raskol‘nikov displays a more muted form of hidden dialogue when he shows interest in news connected with Svidrigajlov. i.e.. the announcement that Marf a Petrovna has died: ”0-0-0. 00. 003310. . . 103 930000? Alt. 0 00303 0000?. . . 110913003 930000? 013010 010?” (VI. 175). Those present could consider his interest unusual. since his relationship to Maria Petrovna is extremely distanced.45 When GruXen‘ka mentions Ivan (Book VIII. Chapter 2). Ale§a suddenly thinks of Dmitrij. who comes to his mind only because Zosima had urged him to stay near both brothers.46 Ivan perceives Smerdjakov's voice within himself partly as a physical feeling: ”H030000 110011 @00000033. . . 00003 0010001100 0 103. 310 010 103 393300 3 1000001300. . . 00300. 310 3 0 091.00 010 03000 00300 1230000300. . .” (XIV. 242). Ivan‘s dialogue remains hidden. but is perceptible through the unaccountable mood swings which he experiences on the evening before his departure (Book V. Chapter 7). Ivan encounters a feeling identical to that which Smerdjakov had provoked when he enters his room after their final conversation. The feeling this time signals the imminent entrance of the Devil (XV. 69). Another sign that Ivan has difficulty controlling his voice with Smerdjakov is the inattention he shows to the latter‘s insults. Only after leaving does he realize the condescending jibe behind Smerdjakov's remark: ”A 3003 03 01010 30 110303010. 10 3 0-0 00010 3010010 0 0033 000100009 10100 9 00001 30 00100010. . .” (XV. 471. When . Smerdjakov announces to Ivan that he. Ivan. did not strike him because he lacks courage. Ivan changes the subject by asking Smerdjakov about his study of French (XV. 53). Ivan has a similar lapse when he lets Katerina Ivanovna‘s insincere claim that she doubts Smerjakov's innocence pass without comment; ”03 30 0033300. 303 301 03 0003000 30000 0000901315 00 013 00000 3 30 003033015 10100 1110” (XV. 57). WNW Hidden dialogue is often present when characters manifest disturbances in the rhythm or tone of their speech without an overt explanation. Raskol‘nikov cannot control his voice when he meets Zametov: ”. . . 0003300 1900 010 00013900 3 0000511000. . . 03 0300. 310 00000. 110 110 301 00008015 0000. . . 001-001 00000100; 001-001 100530 00901315 010. 001-001 100530 051100003151” (VI. 128). Raskol'nikov has just as much difficulty confessing with Sonja deliberately. ”. ..1903 010 0000110530 3011030305. 90303000305 310-10 05110000315” (VI. 334). Pauses and breaks in Raskol‘nikov‘s speech signal hidden dialogue which will 125 later become overt when he regrets his charity: ”1100000510 x0 330 10- 0005. . . 00000001000015. . . 3 010003310 00010 30039 003003039 00919. 801 191. . . 00000015 090000. 301110100. 000100 00009. . . 11000100101” (VI. 145). Katerina Ivanovna punctuates her speech with nervous laughter and unmotivated exclamations when she discusses her plan to benefit Dmitrij.47 These signs of hidden dialogue testify that the 3301319130 is not fully in control on the question of Katerina Ivanovna's relationship to Dmitrij.48 Kolja also exhibits a hidden conflict of voices when he loses his ability to suppress the ebullient boy's voice while talking with Ale§a; he becomes flustered and impatient. speaking more and more convulsively.49 Wanna Characters occasionally become aware of hidden dialogue as a double plane in conversation. for example. when Raskol‘nikov guesses Zametov‘s thoughts and parries them back at him under the guise of open conversation (VI. 125429150 Raskol‘nikov‘s family. Razumixin. and Zosimov detect a subsurface current when they speak together. which has its origin in Raskol'nikov's expression and their perception of its oddness: "1110-10 05100 300001303300 00 0003 0103 000100000. 3 0 30030333. 3 0 0033300333. 3 0 0000103113. 3 000 010 0039001000003” (VI. 175). Porfirij Petrovi‘é implies that he had perceived the same type of undercurrent in Raskol‘nikov‘s article that he noted in their conversation: ”A 303 303003 351 10100 019 00109 0101510 0000030015. 303 01003 03 30001015 - 103 001 3001000-10 00000 00010 0000030 00333300015. 100130 009100 000 3333 030311” (VI. 346). Ale‘éa notices a disturbing element in Gru¥en'ka's conversation with Katerina Ivanovna. one which does not quite fit the spoken words. He thinks to himself: ”110301 05115. 00301303 913 33010 00010010. . .” (XIV. 138).?)1 Inner and hidden dialogues are an intrinsic aspect of polyphony. since they come about through the complex interaction of voices. each of which maintains a given stance about a person or issue. In this way they parallel within personages the overt dialogues between them which are the subject of Chapter Two. The passages in this section indicate that nearly every character conducts some type of inner dialogues. since nearly every character possesses more than one voice. and since almost no major personage is immune from uncertainty about their views. Hidden dialogues initially become perceptible through anger. nervous laughter. or odd breaks in speech. but may surface on the conscious level when characters are 126 provoked into recognizing them. In this way Smerdjakov and the Devil make Ivan aware of his hidden dialogue. while Ale‘s'la at Cana recognizes in the inner dialogue of his dream the voices which had influences the hidden course of his struggle to define his beliefs about virtue and human nature. (100101.00 Gestures play a strong role in helping listeners to understand utterances. and sometimes even substitute for spoken words in com munication52 These devices promote polyphonic dialogue by allowing characters to impart or perceive finer shades and intonations in statements than even words and speaking tones reveal W0. Marmeladov cannot speak words to ask for forgiveness as he is is dying. but Katerina Ivanovna understands his intent and responds to it as the despairer: ”1‘10033-3-31 H0 3000!. . . 3300. 310 3030015 03000151” (VI. 144). Porfirij PetroviE calls Raskol'nikov's attention to his twitching lip when the latter denies being the murderer: ”1‘9030-10 00015. 303 3 10100. 00000130001. . .” (VI. 349). A look at the expression on Dunja's face is sufficient to make Raskol'nikov drop the tyrant voice for that of the regretter: ”H0. 000100003000 000000300 000303110330. 03 30300330 0010013000 00000003 0 1000033 119311. 3 0100530. 0100530 3933 00 0000 00100130 03 0 0103 0000000. 310 30000530 000333000” (VI. 400).53 Characters may withhold facial expressions as a way of snubbing others. as Raskol'nikov does when he repeats Lu‘iin's slander about Sonja back to him (VI.v232).54 Ivan similarly avoids his father’s glance as he prepares to leave for Cerma§nja (mm 240). Fedor pavlovch finds meaning in both Ivan's and Ale‘s'a’s gazes. and contrasts them: ”310 13 10003105 30 3030? 30330 1003 10000? 1003 10000 100001 30 3030 3 1000001 330: “1150300 13 3000. . . 801 0001030 0301031. 3 10000 010 030101” (XIV. 125). Dmitrij refers to Ale‘éa's gaze as a metonymic substitute for his judgement. saying about the plans for his escape: ”801005. 10000 1003 0301391 00100330. 3010 03 13 3 300300” (XV. 34155 , ~ Misses. These gestures often transcend their roles in etiquette and become communicative "utterances." Zosima decodes his bow to Dmitrij for Alesa: "91 03000 00033039 090901039 0100003310 010 0030033000” (XIV. 258). Fedor Pavlovic' bows to Zosima not out of respect. but in order to mock the one Muisov make and thus further provoke him (XIV. 36).56 Ivan's 127 response to Zosima's penetrant remarks about his article is equivalent to a bow and is associated with his confider voice: ”110 10 00091 00100 00 01900. 00001000 3 3039. 003300 010 0001000000330 3. 000000000 010 0939. 00039000 30030 30 0000 30010” (XIV. 66). Gru§en'ka parodies Katerina Ivanovna's hand-kissing by preparing to return the gesture and suddenly refusing (XIV. 139-140). When Ale‘s'a kisses Fedor Pavlovi‘é on the shoulder (Book IV. Chapter 2). he communicates his foreboding to his father. Ivan's relationship with Fedor Pavlovi‘é is expressed through a kiss that is avoided: ”H0 11003 @00000033 00030000 00010390 039 000 001110130 0939. 030330 010100300 00000330” (XIV. 2541.57 W0. Dmitrij refers to Katerina Ivanovna's money as he points to his chest in conversation with Ale§a. a gesture which the latter will interpret correctly at the trial. Katerina Ivanovna recollects for the court a wordless exchange with Dmitrij which she interprets as the score-settler: ”H0 03 00300.. . 310 0. 0100000 039 003513. 100530 0511010 010: 09001 03 03 103 000300103. 310 0005301 01 3030. 303 301? 8 10000 039 1000000. 3 011 330 100000 0 10000 3 000 0033300. 000 0033300. 3 0000. 3 0000. 3 9300 303 0035131” (XV. 119). Smerdjakov highlights the importance of gesture as utterance when he tells Ivan how he convinced Fedor Pavlovic that Gru‘sen'ka had arrived. While Fedor Pavlovi‘é does not entirely trust Smerdjakov‘s words. he does trust the knocking signal even when it is performed right before his eyes.58 Svidrigajlov communicates with Dunja by means of gestures so that Raskol‘nikov will not hear (VI. 374). Several of Sonja‘s gestures help Raskol‘nikov to gradually understand her attitude toward him. She accompanies her question (”I-110 13 051 0 000 0010-10 0300?”) with a handsqueeze. giving him the impression that she is 0 100003000 (VI. 248). Later. however. a similar handqueeze leaves him with a different impression: ”3101 30001330 x001 00x0 0000030 P003005333000 300093011303; 00010 0100330 0300: 303?. . . 33 3000010010 0000010330 0 00 09301 310 9111 0300 30300-10 0003030330015 000010033010 933331110330” (VI. 337). These instances with Sonja represent communication which Raskol‘nikov does not at first interpret fully or even correctly. but which remain with him to be completely interpreted later and contribute to his gradual perception of Sonja‘s views. As he goes to confess. he understands from the way Sonja follows him that: ”. . . C030 100005 0 333 300033 3 000001 00 333 11015 30 3000 00010. 3900 03 039 33 030100 090500” (VI. 406159 128 Critics have noted additional communicative functions that gestures play in the novels.60 The features and devices which I have discussed in this chapter have significance for dialogues in general and do much to promote polyphonic dialogue in specific situations. As personages attempt to penetrate each others‘ consciousnesses and provoke each others' voices. they show the extent to which interest in the spoken and unspoken words of others contributes to suspense and intrigue in W and mm W. Although intuition functions to some degree in characters perceptions of one another. it is their knowledge of voices and their overriding concern with them that dictates the manner in which they approach each other. Raskol'nikov's direct questions to Sonja as the tyrant. for example. differ greatly from Kolja‘s awkward question to Ale§a as the ebullient boy. Listening becomes important for perceiving others' views. highlighting the role of Volo§inov‘s “active understanding“ as a reply in dialogue.61 Provocation of others entails anticipation of their replies. making this device difficult on occasion to distinguish from the 0100030 device. As characters penetrate the words and thoughts of their fellows. they come to understand their own beliefs better in light of what others think. Penetrative and provocative maneuvers occupy the foreground in storyline. promoting polyphony by allowing important material to be revealed by personages rather than by narrators. With the 0000030 device characters reveal themselves partially but not fully. giving truth to Baxtin's assertation that Dostoevskij‘s personages are never equal to themselves at any moment in the novels. In this way they try to prevent others from perceiving what they prefer not to reveal They also refuse to admit that others have penetrated hidden truths about them. They avoid objectifying definition by characters and narrators through evasion. equivocation, denial. disagree ment. redefinition of their positions. and mock confessions. Voice becomes a factor when Dostoevskij‘s personages use the 110 00030. making it a polyphonic rather than a rhetorical device in his novels. Gru‘sen'ka. for example. reverses herself shamefully with Katerina Ivanovna while opening up immediately with Ale‘éa. but Katerina Ivanovna repeatedly resists Ale¥a's attempts to mediate between herself and Dmitrij while succumbing to Dmitrij himself in the Epilogue. 129 Numerous examples of the 0100030 device show its importance both as an essential part of dialogue in general and its specific function in the polyphonic composition of the novels. When personages employ the 0100030. they change what they say even as they are speaking according to their listeners' reactions. They do this not only to win others over to their own views. but also to map the contours of their own views by sounding them out against the consciousnesses of others. In this way a speaker may voice an idea differently depending on the listener. as does Ivan in his clerical article versus his Legend which he tells to Ale§a. The 0100030 further promotes polyphony by making characters conscious of other present and absent voices in the novels. Circumscription devices have much in common both with the 0000030 and with the 0100030. since they involve the same close attention to others‘ arguments. Characters rarely succeed completely in closing off avenues for their dialogue partners. since the latter may at any time make use of their own 0000030. They do not represent weapons for ending discussion in favor of one personage so much as a measuring tool for perceiving how close one personage comes to understanding another‘s meaning in their statements. Inner dialogue takes place not only as competition of viewpoints within a character’s consciousness. but frequently as competition of voices. and therefore is a vital element of polyphony. When it takes the form of deliberation about another character. it may resemble an attempt at penetration. The stipulation. however. has much in common with the 0000030. since speakers change the sense of their words as they converse. Voice changes resemble conversations in which the speakers take turns. When the voices are present simultaneously. they speak either in unison (as when Dmitrij's intent to "step aside" coincides with his desire to live. showing both the submitter and phrasemaker voices) or in disharmony (as when Raskol’nikov's tender son and resenter voices compete in his apology to Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna). External dialogues between characters become echoed internally as personages accomodate others' voices in their consciousnesses in order to deal with them. Contradictory behavior. unpredictability. and apparent psychological imbalance may actually constitute hidden dialogue. in which Dostoevskij depicts not so much pathological relationships as unique for 010 of communication. The reader becomes the addressee as well as the listening personage. and must interpret 130 what the speaking character is not ready to acknowledge. Psychic phenomena in this case become voiced.62 When participants in a conversation become aware of a hidden current beneath the main dialogue. hidden dialogue approaches the 0100030. Gestures are extensions of speech in dialogue. functioning as questions. responses. and challenges. The variegated meanings which Dmitrij. Fedor Pavlovi‘é. Zosima. and Raskol'nikov give to bows show that. like words. they can bear different “voicing.” Gestures are almost never habitual. but rather are directed toward another character. Like speech. gestures may be discussed within the framework of this chapter; when Ivan avoids his father's kiss. for example. he makes use of a 0000030. All of these devices illustrate Baxtin‘s statement: ”110001009 - 00000030330. 00009330. 303 0000000 0000311 013031010 0300010 0 000033033 03910033010 01100010 100000."63 N910: 1 Others have commented on this phenomenon. Tjun'kin characterizes Raskol'nikov's interest in Svidrigajlov: ”. . . 303 03 3 01 03 3010-10 9 (30300111000000. 0050030330. 0130000330 303010-10. . .” K. 'un‘k‘ .foreword to P. Dostoevskij. W010. (Moscow: Xudo estvennaja , literatura." 1986). p. 18. th Poddubnaja and Kogan cite Svidrigajlov's words to Raskol'nikov (”9 003-10. 0010 0300 01000. 0 001030. 30 000 010 00003313000, 310 03 330 101110 030111010 310-330905 mmxam” (Emphasis is Dostoevskij‘s!) as evidencing the intereget he has in Raskol‘ ' v's views. I? Poddubna a. "Vosstanovlenie ib e o loveka. . . ' ' ' No. 2 (19“ 5).. 67; G. Kogan. " a 0d oe' imja Svidrigajlova.‘ SSSUSerija literaturyijazyka). .No.5 ( I981). 43 . 2 “That one of the participants in the drama may be possessed of special insight is frequent and characteristic of Dostoevskian dialogue. . . Premoni- tions platean important role in the confrontation between characters. . D. Danov. ‘ he Semiotics of Gesture in Dostoevskian Dialogue.” Russian 101011011119. [Amsterdam]. VIII (19801.0. 52. 3 Dostoevskij has it both wings in this passage as it becomes established that Aleia. far from being a ogeless mystic. is thoroug familiar with Behnskij's words yet reacts to t e notion about Christ wit the reply: ”C 30333 010 0900303 03 000000305?” (XIV. 500 . Mkrtéjan cites one more example regardin .Aleia and Kolja. namely. Ale a's reaction 1 .the latter’s rofessions of be 01: ”83 30 0003 00000 10000310.” L. Mlirt!i . "Deti V W” W (ob sivennYe naukr. No: 3 I971 . 38. Kantor observes that the jury seems to perceive Dmitri 's hidden word about himself by ignoring his spoken warning that he will re el in prison and assigning him a guilty verdict. Kantor. p. 48. 4 In another example. Vladiv notes that Dunja understands and believes 131 Svidr‘ ajlov‘s statements ebout her brother's guilt as soon. as he mentions Rasko nikov's article. which she had also read. 5. Vladiv. "The Use of Circumstantial Evidence in Dostoevski"s Works.” WW Studies. XII. No. 3 (fall 1978). 363. erge stresses that firij Petrovi seems to find an indirect confession of Uilt in Raskol'mkov‘s article which redates the actual crime. T. Werge. he Word as Deed in Crime and unishment." XXVII (1975). 210. Wilson on the other hand CODSld. s that it was askol'nikov's nervous laughter. as attested by Porfirij Petrow himself. that gave him away: "Obviously Porfirig trained ear detectedothe murderers v01ce." R. Wilson 111. " Raskol'nikov's earn 10 Cum: Mmshment. WW XXVI (1976). 160- Paehmuss s s about Dostoevskij's characters: " hey know the thoughts and feelings of o 010 sufficientl to have a foreknowled e of their actions." V. Pachmuss. ”T he Technique Dream-L 10 in the Wor s of Dostoevsky." ' W01. IV (19 0). 233. ”10003 1100100003010 0030100530 00301030010100 0091 0 00910. 31003 0001335 090130015 30000030." 0. Osmolovekij. "0 eortretnom metode Dostoevskogo-romanista." 10001101010100.1111. .No. 2511975). 77. 5 Naumann s 0 about Raskol'nikov‘s first encounter with Porfirij Petrovic': ". . . he knows at Porfirij has matched his intellectual powers and has all. the facts at hand." M. Naumann. " Raskol’nikov's Shadow: Porfiri' Petrow WW XVI (1972). 47. Wilson provi es another example Porfirij etrovi ’s ability to read Raskol'nikov's voices: . ..he speaks in a mild paternal tone evoking the little boy personahty. urging Raskol’mkov to drop his onloo er pretense." Wilson. p. ‘161. Karjekin discusses. the risk Porfirij Petrovi takes when he suggests to Baskol'mkov that he is not capable of suicide. although he knows that it is a real possibility: ”111 010 - 3 0003 . 100010 100530 310. 003030003 ”01015 000311031" 10. Karjakin. " love v loveke." Wm XV. No. 7 (I971). 95. 6 Kiremedjian characterizes Raskol’nikov‘s and Sonja's meeting as a dual which is really an aggressive move on Raskol'nikov's part: "He is attempting in effect an intellectual seduction. to conquer her and obliterate her distinct self wh10h is both spiritually and sexually antithetical to his own. to absorb her. . . into himself.’ D. Kiremed'ian. "W Matricide and the Woman Question." mm . o. 4 197 .p. 414. 7’ M. Baxtin. Wm (Moscow: "Sovetskaia 3088113." 1979). p. 271. 3 Morson clarifies Ivan's use of doubletalk to avoid letting others know where he stands: ”The paradoxicalist eludes commitment to an single position: all of his diction is. contra-diction": "Like Muisov. Alyos a must continually ask Ivan if he is oking; and Ivan more than once responds (in words and forced laughter) at he was. perha s. jesting when he said he was jesting. His meta-statements. in other wor s. are themselves receded b meta-statements: he frames the frame." G. Morson. "Verbal P0 0000 in " RI]... 111 (I978). 229. 9 As Morson puts it: "The meta-statement. too. was in code. Smerd'akov explains. and meant the opposite of the approval of Ivan's departure at it pretended to be." Morson. p. 230. 132 ‘0 Vetlovska'a singles out Ivan's device of alternately accepting and rejecting and belief in God. calling it: ”3030 0000 901 030 000039 00 10010010.” V. Vetlovskaja. "Otno§enie avtora k r ' rson j." ' A15 5553 (Serija literatury 1 jazyka). XXVIII. WI). 4 ( I96 ). 320. ll Werge finds that Raskol’nikov’s assertativeness with Sonja in his statement about his secret (”51 30 000010330 00309 0000315 3 1000. 0 000010 030139” combined with his "consistently self -righteous and adamant tone" is Fart of the attempt to overcome Sonja's word with his own. Werge. . 216. This is the significance of his interpretation for her of his bow. name . that he did it not to her. but to suffering humamty.) 12 Snod ass addresses this defense of Marmeladov‘s: "For he Ififl .die a mart . f Raskol‘nikov will not supply the re uisite pit . he will find it - of all p aces - in Heaven." W. Snodgrass. "Crime or Punis ment: The Tenor of Part One." W XIII (1960). p. 212. (Emphasis ie Snodgrass's.) Oates siders self -justif ication through confession an activity of Tedor Pavlovi ’s: . . he springs into being for us time and time again. opening to 1.1100003f the narrator’s flat statements about him." 1. Oates. "The Double ision XXVII (l . 20 . iller's comments about the pride ul ession tire applicable to Marmeladov: "As such. we may expect to see. the confession simultaneously as an expression of pride and an experiment in humility and Vice-versa. R. Miller. "Dostoevsky and Rousseau: The Morality of Confession Reconsidered." in " ° ' edited by R. Jackson (Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1984 . p. 2. .13 Another use of the 0000030 (the 11’s) is actually a par of Ivan's inner dielog which he reveals to Ale a. namely. the question coming to terms with Harmony and Paradise. Terras makes this point about 'the Devil: "801 he certainl won‘t exclude the possibility that some day he Willi He. for his part. is per ectly willing. as soon as he has been told 'the secret’." V. Terras. "Turgenev and til/lie (D3121) 0216 " Canadian; 14 In. this statement Kolja realizes an analogy that he had borrowed from Rakitin. i.e. the. profound observation about the natural laws underlying the scenting behaV1or of dogs. '5 Katerina Ivanovna nows Ivan quite well here. His dismissal (in Book One) of El 1m Trofimovi 's generosity to him as an eccentric quirk shows that he attributes the worst motives to others' behavior. 16 Terras comments on Rakitin's word choice in describing the scandal at the monastery. using Ferapont's word "00000300” with Ale a. but shifting to $00011" at. Gru§en‘ka:s. Terras considers the latter term even more ensive owmg to its feigned propriety." Terras. pp. 268. 270. 17 Other examples have been noted. Terras finds that Ivan speaks more and more through himself rather than through the Grand Inquisitor's voice owing to Ateia's distracting guestions and Ivan's consciousness of his failure to convmce. Terras. pp. 31-238. Volkova and Lebedev dis ver a similar pattern in Raskol'nikov's conversation with Porfirij Petrovi Raskol‘nikov 133 begins to display nervous laughter as he ays more and more attention to e investigator s distracting reactions. 6.. olkova and 10. Lebedev. Roman 1.. Lo .0 ~ 3:. "' -‘ .1 ‘1» ' 12. .1 ' x :(Kostromiu 1968).p.57. ” erge mainta s that even Porfirij Petrovi is wary about what. he says to Raskol'nikov during the first interview. preferring to a proach his article as a "lite“?! amateur" rather than as an investigator. erge. p. 208. (This is why I. c not agree with Vetlovska'a in her claim that the passages describ the Grand Inquisitor's speec do not compose real dialog “me because van does not appear interested in what AleXa. has to say. .. Vetlovska a. ‘ " " " (Leningrad: "Nauka.’ 1977). p. 5.] I also disagree with Meijer's assertation that these passages. do not. represent dialog notwithstanding Ale§a‘s comments on Ivan s narration. Meijers statement that everything in the Legend indicates that Ivan. directs 1t athis brother rather than just telling it as a story makes his rejection of it as dialog apFear contradictory. U. Mei er. ' “ 1200199901111 The Hague: Mouton. 1971 .pp. 8. 2 . 18 Rosen interprets Dmitrij‘s comments as a recollection of his trium h over Katerina Ivanovna. about which he does not want to raise himse before A1000. N. Rosen. "Wh Dmitrij Karamazov Did Not Kill is Father." Canadian; W VI (19721215. ‘9 Offqrd considers that Raskol'nikov's pause in his statement to Porfirij Petroer (”. . . H10103 3300 03 00000. 3 001110 030 000003. . . 901003315 01311 000015 303 010 3000003. 31003 0000015 3000013333 0003 01303130 00039 300000300109”) denotes Raskol'nikov's keen awareness of what he is proposing: . . he himself is aware that he is no longer talking about the possibiltt'y of transgressing but about the necessity or inevitabilit of daing so." .11 ford. "The Causes of Crime and the Meaning of Law: Zmne and and Contem ary Radical Thought." in W . " edited by . Jones and 6. Terry (Cambridge: Cam ridge m ,p. versity Press. 1983 65. 2° Morson correctly points out why Smerdj ov's ultimate addressee is Ivan: "Smerdjakov's paradox. as Fedor Pavlovi observes. is formulated for Ivan’s benefit. . . Smerdjakov's paradox was not so much a request for approval asthe challenge to a verbal duel. and the Inquisitor legend. like the dialogue with Smerdjakov that follows it. is in fact Ivan's unwitting acceptance of the challenge." Morson. Pp. 229-230. 21Rosen and Cox find factors in the narratives of Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor. respectively. which I feed quality as 0100030 examples and which. turn out to complement each other. Rosen finds that Zosima leaves out qualities of Job that. pertain to Ivan: "Job's integrity and independence. his intellectual and spiritual ener - which in the end win God's favor - these are left out." N. Rosen. "Sty e and Structure in . " p. 357: Cox notes that the Grand Inquisitor does not mention Christ‘s answers to the temptations that have to do with submitting to the authority of God. Cox. p. 439. kantor explains that the op ite is also true: ”. . . 03 30 933000. 0 003010 110030 lawn ” Kantor. p. 108. Emphasis is Kantor's.) 22 Morson shares this view: “The court assumes that Ivan decides to confeas because Smerdjakov's suicide makes a lie undetectable: and that. indeed. is why Smerdjakov kills himself. . Morson. pp. 230-231. 134 23 Kasina cites yet another technique of Porfirij PetroviX's. who appears to talk to imagined Raskol'nikov instead of the real one before him. Porfirij Petrovi .refers to comments which he attributes o Raskol’nikov. but which Raskol'mkov had not actu said. N. Ka¥ina. WM. WMMoscow: "Xudo stvennaja literatura." 198 .pp. 5 - . 24 Several critics cite Raskol‘nikov's parodic interpretation of Luiin'e theory about theqtseneficial effects forsociety of pursuing one‘s own selfish interest. . . oman Brestuitteme 1 00km. 1n 1191900119 EM. 09019010119? editedby N. Stepanov Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AN 88 R. 1959. . 153; u. Kagakin. WM (Moscow: "Xudo. stvennaja 'teratura." 19.6). p. 38; "This theory stated badly by a man whom Raskol'nikov .detests strikes close to home. . M. Beebe. 'T he Three Motives of Raskol'nikov: A Remter retation of CrimLmLPiinishment.” ColleaLEnslish. XVII (1,955). 153; " ronically. askol'nikov is quite able to predict the ultimate conseq. ence of Lu ' 's theory and anticipates the objection which Porfirij Petrow will raise to his own notion of the 'great man’." P. Hart.."Looking over Raskol‘nikov's Shoulder: The Narrator in W‘ 912111911111. XIII(1971),172. .25 Severat Soviet scholars comment on the function of inner monologue and its dialogic quality: ”. . . 0 00003330 39003001003303 000300000333 00000039100 0391003300 030300300330 00010 300005090100 0 900003311 303031011 0031110330 000001301130 000300000330 3 003013030001 300300910. 03010 9 13303033-0 0003033 3 110 031000 00-0030130.” A. Vasil'eva. . .. .» 0...; -" “‘.-1"~.o"'.‘1'.0013011M0800V:"R1.188klj jazyk." 1983 .p. 8 . "0010001300330 0030130. 30100333 1330 1 10003 0030300 3 3010030 000010100 033133033 1100030 00300133. - 00 0391003303 30300010. . . 80 0391003303 30300010 - 03035 001001003330 3 133030 0000000330 33003: 300000330. 00303. 00000033. 910330330. . . 8391003330 3030001 0103003100 3090103300 0005000 0 00333 00000. 0 0000001300333 0030010003. 0 300000300333 0001001003 0 110003. . . 11001039 0391003330 3030001 0 006303011 000100003010 03035 10030 0 333300 3 3 30300019. 0 001033039 3 010003. 3 3 0300019. A. ($100151. “Poeti sktt stroj jazfikapv romanax Dostoevskogo." in 12% 121%. Pm42§9k§398 )e ited by . Stepanov (Moscow: lzdatel'stvo A . . p. - . 111000031313 00005 30030 003033 0000010000330. 0030003330 30 003010333 0001311 1110013 003130330 03000000 0033 0 0033030033 03910033010 301100010 00003003330 303 30013330 0003130 3 003010 30 1000333 0000109100133 0311. . . 13 30030 01303013300330 00330303. 303000 3010033 0300 000013030 10003001003 119103330 3 11003031000. 00093303 00103 0030010003300 00003130 0 01303013300333 030103011 . 90103000. 1' 3300000. 11. T0001010 3 1100100003010. V. Vinogradov. 51112011111, (Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. 1963). p. 163. "£003 30000005 10000 9 11. 10001010 3003301000330 000000030 303 0391003330 3030001. 10 30000003 9 000100003010 3011130 3000015 03910033333 030001033. 0000300100133300 0 00000003303 00030333 010 09139100131100. 003300010013300 100000.” 801310. ‘ " MC Social’no-filosofskaja problematika.‘ in edited ‘1 135 by N. Stepanov (Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. 1959). p.272. (Vinogradov in the quotation above treats inner monolog as a historical development in Russian literature. while Belkin stresses specifically dialogized forms which distinguish Dostoevskij's use of it to reveal characters' polarities and intrigue rea ers. 26 M.Bufimmm1mxmmmp.214- 27 Sklovskii comments about the evolution of Raskol‘nikov's inner dialog from the earlier drafts of the novek '001009 300000330 0 030000 3013000 000019000330 000000 3001003. 00103. 30 000130 003 300000330. 03 0000 00000 0330 3013000 0 0030 01000330 03030.“ V. klovskii. Wing. fizmyfienihjmmeoscowz "Xudo stvenna'a literatura." 19 ,p. 24 . lkin states about Raskol'nikov's inner dialog: ' 000003 00301::103000100 3 Be in. p. 324. 23 “But Raskol‘nikov ieers at the very features of Sonja’s self -abnegation that unconsciously attract him most. . . As he taunts Sonia, he "plays. with his own desire to step across the barrier b confession, bringing it into sharper focus for his own inner use" R. An erson, "Raskol'nikov and the Myth Experience.“$lms_and_fiaiLEnmzanJm1i;Pal XX (1976). 13.801000 evaluation of Stavrogin's dialogic relationship to ixon: '. . . 3000 030133001510 00001305 000 010 0900 3 000010330 3 0 10 130 00030 000130010 3 11039 3 000130000001003 01039 0909 3 0000103310" would also characterize'the inner dialog on Raskol'nikov’s part about what Sonja's words and opinions mean for him.Baxtin.ELQ1219.m1M11kLDQmm P- 307- 6868. 011090" C (3060“. ”MOT 116111119. BO3PGXG£ 00140019 0860. 29 “The conversation about osts continues, Raskol'nikov finally asserting. "I do not believe in a future ' e" (V. 299). This statement contradicts his claim to Porfirij about believing literally in the resurrection of Lazarus (V. 271). Later. when he insistently asks Sonfii to read this part of the Gospels, the contradiction becomes muted: if 0 does not believe, he is perhaps desperately trying to believe"; . . Raskol'nikov tells Porfirij he believes in God (V. 2 1). ater taunts Sonia with the thought that God ma not exist (Y. 334). and then earnestly tells er. “Children are the image of . ist: Then: is the _ kingdom of Heaven” (V. 342). W. Rowe. "Dostoevskian Patterned Antinomy and its Function in ” W XVI. No. 3 (197 . 91. 9 . 3° Kariakin cites another element of Sfla’s internal dialog. her alternative use of “13" and “03" to address Raskol‘ ‘ ov: “Ho 00103 00.10 300300530 000 030 09001 0000300315 30 '03' 3 03000 30 '13.‘ 010.000 0003031500 0 33 30mm 010 10 03.33.“ Ju. Kariakin. "Mif o 'éernoj magii‘ u Dostoevskogo: ovnkk , ' " “va00. 1097 ). 121. (Emphasis is ariakin's. 31 In another example. Chaitin summarizes the alternatives which are present in Dmitrij's inner dialog: ”At one point he wants to fight the charges against him. at another he wishes to be “purified by suffering: and at still angt‘her he plans to escape and run off with Grushenka to America." Chaitin. p. . 32. Some revisions come about from other causes. for example. absent- mindedness or intoxication. Others may even represent the 0100030 deVice. 136 For a revision to signal inner dialogue, it must. reveal competing stances within a single personage. In this way a linguistic phenomenon takes on a particular meaning through the speaker's voiced intent. 33. "After the interview. Raskol'nikov is caught in an infinite descending spiral of consciousness. as each awareness of an awareness brings on a new awareness. He says now that when he told himself before that. he was a superior man, he lied to himself and was really only an ordinary man mistaking himself for a superior one; then he says, no. he knew he was lying when he lied and therefore he was not really lying; then he says no. he knew that he knew that he was lying, and therefore he was. really lying. . S. Rubenstein, ”Dostoevsky: The I dentit of W” journal Won. XXV .No. 2 (1974 . 142. 34 ”We must never miss the ambivalence of Marmeladov's story.. Though couched in the language of a confession. whose aim is understanding, it is really an accusation meant to condemn his wife. justify himself. and so gain pity. Snodgrass. p.215. 35 Rosenshield describes Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna's thought as she _. deliberates the meaning of her son's strange conduct and whether she should draw him out: . . she seems to be losing control of herself. The syntax breaks down almost entirely; each thought is efiressed in only a word or two: the very sentence structure. as it were, ar els and reflects her mood. G. Rosenshield. ' " ' ' " (Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 19 8 . p. 43. . . like Marmeladov, she knows how to impart a tone of deepest blame d disapproval while using terms of approval and open praise.’ Snodgrass. p. 211. 35 '. . . 10000 00 0000111001 0091039 000039 100009. 00000001001 030004010 0 303 0 000030310.“ A. Belkin. "Roman ‘ ' ' " in ‘ -. .. -' " '3 edited byD.Ustju ' Moscow: ' d '1 s 1.4. .1" 1': 37 Several critics call attention to Raskol'nikov's change in mood after leavmg money at the Marmeladov apartment (G. Gibian, The Grotesque in Dostoevskv.j’ 11101000110100.0000: IV. No. 3 119581. 267: R. Reizov. ' ' i proble my evropeiskoi de'stvitel'nosti," 17.19.0111! XXX, vy . 5 197 l. 397; J. Frank, "The orld of .Raskol'mkov." XXVI, 1966. 34; R. Eastman. ”Idea and Method in a Scene by stoevsky," W XVII, No. 3 [1955]. 146). (Frank considers that Raskol'nikov's contemptuous attitude and withdrawn attitude are linked and areoboth related to what he calls: . . the result of the ap 000000 of a Utilitarian calculus." (Frank, 0. 34] In this work, however, I pre er to address the contemptuously mocking. withdrawn, and rationalistic voices of Raskol'nikov separately from each other in order to show more clearly the shifts f rpm one vorce to another.) Critics have also noticed the change Raskol'nikov displays in his attitude toward the predicament of the drunken ' 1.. (D. Hanan. W: The Idea of the Crime,“ W (Melbourne, 1 l9 9 , ; eizov, p. 397; Frank, p. 34; Rosenshield, . :P.Villadsen, 1‘ watt-0321 2.111,.401411 .."-1.1‘ [Odenseez Odensee niversity ' 000. 191 . p. 129 hree commen- tators note Raskol'mkov's transformation from heartfelt sympathy for his family's sacrifices while reading Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna’s letter to spiteful mockery (V. Gassieva. ' " . " u 1e 'ei ' " 3 vols.,v. III Ordzonikidze: 1980 , p. 11; Hanan. 8. l :13. Peace. ' ' ' ' [Cambridgez ambridge at the UniverSity Press. 1971 , 36 . Shaw finds yet another veice change of Raskol'nikov's. pointing to his sudden. mocking words with Sonja 01001103011011 quitly mady- tb-«go to 11300 2111,00 liis-cmotional'rcactiom1011100 almfsathy. J. Shaw, "Raskol‘nikov's eam." v‘ a s e l‘ I (Summer 1973), 163. Villadsen singles out Raskol'nikov's change after leaving Marmeladov's apartment (in Part One) from viewing human beings as scoundrels to seeing then in another light: '. . . 001005300 000 - 000000009033. 0033 100530 0100113 30090103330. 3 301 3330333 0001' 00. 3 103 1039 3 0000 01 03151. . Villadsen, p. 121. (I would refer o s as Raskol'nikov's s ' t from his mock’ voice to what looks like his rationalistic voice but more closel represents 's power-seeking voice.) Several critics characterize Raskol' ' ov's shifts between voices: ". . . 103 0 000100000 0 80300 09001 030301500 00000030330 10 0000001510. 10 300133003333 011190103303 '00300 303003013.‘ 00103 010003. 13000013. 3030300. . . . 0019131 3003030300 039 3900100 00030130330013. 0 00103 03000 0313030 00030100 3 00000 3000. . ." Svetov, p. 146. Each episode. . . is marked by a double movement: a motion of sympathy and a motion of dis ust, of attraction and recoil. . R.'Jackson. "Philosophical Pro and Contra in art One of” .' ' u 110011100000 in e itunufmggl, edited by R. Jackson Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. 974 . Iris compassion for suffering and humiliated beings alternates With sadistic phases during which he delights in inflicting torture upon his masochistic victims; hedonism changes places with rationalism as his philosophy: selfless, even noble. intentions of love for his mother and Sister give way to rideful aloofness from them. . . Raskol'nikov's desire to 0 good sometimes abandons him in the act itself. . . he can never linow fimselg“ until his actions in a given situation reveal him to msei . M. Willett. '"Ihe 'Ending' of Crimmdflnishmeny chiLLitmwm. XXV (1970). 248. ”Jones considers that this phrase of Raskol'nikov's pombines Schillerism an the humanitarian with nihilism and the demomc. In view of this I gualif my interpretation slig tly to admit the brief presence of asko'nikov's rationalist voice 11000100 00009030 3 00010 100005. . .”) before he gives himself up entirel to his power-seeking voice. Jones. "Raskol'nikov‘s Humanitarianism," W VIII, No. 3 (1978). p. 378. 39 Miller notices but does not comment upon her speech 'with Dmitrij: 'jHer short conversation with Dmitrij in prison is full of contradictory declarations and quick-shifts in temperment." R.C. Miller. "The Biblical Story of Joseph in Dostoevskii's The Brothers Karamazov." 5132113031101 XLI. No. 4 (1982). 661. 40 Gassieva finds a similar example in Katerina Ivanovna's contradictory behavior, combining abusive words .with overt distress and soliCitous gestures to make him comfortable. Gassieva. v. II. p. 32. 41 The narrator refers explicitely to this mixture earlier in the chapter: “B 138 100033 0001300 1000011 00 0003000 100005 30300-10 13110015. 11010. . . 11010. 0000303. 10000 013 3000030 00015-1033 000303003 303010033 00 000133 01035303. 30100 00 000001000 0030 00013300 000010. .." (XV. 6). Ale 0 him- selfiof course, plays a strong role in bringing out the vaice of the kindred sou 42 Baxtin cites a similar passa e in which Raskol'nikov "argues" with the fibaeeint Duniat and Pul'xerila Ale sandrovna after reading the latter's letter. p. . 43 Baxtin notes that the Devil‘s voice penetrates Ivan's s eech as Ivan talks to Ale. a (Book III, Chapter 10). Baxtin. . 257. (Ivan so brings Dmitrij's voice into his 3 eech together with the vil's. and recognizes the former openly: ‘T000 331030 3001503303 00001. 0009033. . . 10030030 00005 00010010 000011133001 (XV. 86 . 44 Two additional examples concerning Ivan have een noted. 0axtin calls attention to Ivan's sudden, surprising reaction to Ale a's exclamation: ('Ho 13 9030 01110. 30 131'). as Ivan begins to refer to a personage who later turns out to be the Devil. Baxtin. pp. 297-299. Kajgor dov observes that Ivan suddenly grows 0a10 and frowns in response to Ale a's question (“310 31003 ‘000 000000030' 800 000000030. 103 03. 103 037'). V. Kajgorodov. "Obrnz Ivana Karamazovai roblema idealizma v romane F.M. Dostoevskogo m I. ‘ m .d ... A II .11 \1 ..3. K .0. . - .J: 0. 1.; 1 ~ ’. edited by Ja. Bilinkis Tiumen’: 1982 . p. 70. .45 Kantor treats a similar exam le, considering significant Ivan‘s sudden interest in what Smerdjakov ha told A1000 (as evinced in the narrator's remark: “11003 0100 00091 03035 0000030330 00 10015. 300-310 00130 00000000030“ 8. Kantor. ‘ “ " (Moscow: "Xudoiestvennaia literatura.“ l9 3 ,p. 108. 4.6 There is a parallel scene with Dmitri'. possilzlly taking place at the same time. When Xoxlakova asks him if he ha heard Zosima's death: '8 930 010 30053390 00000 000103“ (XIV. 347). 47 Several. commentators have noticed examples of lay hter .which I consider signal hidden dial ue. Baxtin observes hidden di ogue in Ivan‘s speech with Smerd1akov: " 13 0000003 0 100000 1110030 03035 10333 3 03001010100 30 0100530 0 00000. 0300530 0 3093001300 0 10333 000330 033000 010 0033 00900. 3000301303 0 10333 000330 010 0000010 100000 303030333 1030. 3001113003303 3 3093001303 03030 3 1. 0.“ Baxtin, p. 393. Terras finds that Ivan's voice becomes disrupted by dissonances which disturb his eloquence as he narrates the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. and also becomes more and more rone to flareups of spite and sarcasm. Terras also calls attention to Ivan's oss of control over what he wants to say to Smerdygkov: "lie is no longer in control of himself, but is driven by a mysterious, eVil force." Terras. pp. 231-233, 91, 241. (I argue that Ivan's angry outbursts belong to his hater voice, which is egressed directly rather than composing. a manifestation of actual hidden di og. While Terras hnks Ivan's "spell" with the Devil not without good reason, I would prefer here to consider tha It. represents Smerdjakov s voice acting on him in hidden dialog.) Men utina notes the imgortance of laughter in Raskol'nikov's encounters with Porfirij Petrovi . '3 3310000333 0300003 00300001 139 30001000330 300 10010003 0100700: 3 000010033333 039 0000033. 3010030 03000 100013000013 000 000100010100 003 00300333 10011 00300330. . . 0. Men§utina, "IdeLno-xudolestvennoe osmy§lenie nekoto b00vtorov v romane Dostoevs 000 Wm" j o. 3 (1982). 51. Danov's comments about Stavrogin in Tixon's presence in B00!) may be applied to Raskol'nikov. Ivan. and Katerina Ivanovna: . Stavr in's overall discomfort. however. is manifested .more gener y in the repeated mention of such gestures as an iromc smile, accompanied b continually trembling hands. or bursts of nervous laughter fo.owed by repeated lapses into thoughtful silence. engendered in each instance by constant irritation and the trecnigmtion of an incongruous situation which he himself has initiate . D. Danov. “Semiotics of Gesture in Dostoevskian Dialogue." W [Amsterdam]. VIII (19801.52. ‘1‘? l‘l‘liel 3seme signs appear during her initial testimony at Dmitrij's trial (XV. ‘9 As Terras observes. Kolja's other voice surfaces in his question to A1000 ('C3013310. 300030000. 03 9130030 3030 00003000107”). Terras. p. 352. 5° Btaxttin detaiis the double plane of Raskol'nikov‘s first conversation with pOl'flfl] PetroVi , Baxtin. p. 3 6. (Baxtin’s point is easily seen in the brief exchange between the two about the "New Jerusalem." and is evidenced b lzlgzsitmixin's angry outburst: '00 310 03 000. 0191310. 310 057' (VI. 20 . 51 Psychological contradiction does not constitute inner diglog in itself . but it can play 11 secondary, amp ' ing role. Fedor Pavlovic's remark about Gru§en‘ka is appropriate here: " 01 0005 33 303333 30003100033 0000033 - 100530 _31003 3009000130 000015" (XIV. 158). Madness may also amplif inn dialogue that already exists. as in Ivan's case when he speaks wi Ale 0 after the Devd's Visit. 52 Osmolovskii comments on the importance of both gesture and speech manner for understanding characters‘ utterances: " (010031 0019010330 103033003010 03130 00000301300 00013100100 0000003000003303 311 303003 10000315. 331030030330-03133300300 0300033 009300010 0309330 3 10300 33 0033. 0 103130 33 1300100 3 3130 003130330 - 03001333 03001303303 33 0910003010 000100330.‘ 0. Osmo ovskii. ”0 001tretnom metode Dostoevskogo- romamsta." W001. . No. 25 (1975). 77. Danov also comments: . . non-verbal communication and the particular interaction between speeeh and. gesture are fundamental aspects of dialogue authored by Dostpevskii contributing to its specificity and characteristic intensity." D. Danov. Semiotics of Gesture and Dostoevskian Dialogue." p. 45. ”Several critics point to another example of facial expression serv' as a dialogic utterance. i.e. Raskol‘nikov's silent gaze at Razu mixin intthe 0 way. making the latter. start with the reahzation that his friend is in serious trouble. and 03$le a murderer. (Gassieva, v. 111. . 15-16; Danov. Semiotics of stem 10 Dostoevskian Dial 00." p. 49; S. adiv, ”The Use of Circumstantial deence in Dostoevskii’s orks,’ MW 5.1110120. XII. No. 3 (Fall 1978]. 369). Vladiv adds another instance involving 140 Raskol'nikov. i.e. when he communicates his guilt to Sonja with a silent gaze. Vladiv. p. 369. 54 Danov cites Raskol'nikov's second meeting with Porfirij Petrovix. when the latter av0ids Raskol'nikov's eyes: "This meeting of the eyes and their immediate withdraw also has its s' ' icance." He also notes an instance when Porfirij Petrovic meets Raskol'nikov's gaze and seems to wink at him: "Raskol'nikov immediatel interprets the gesture as being indicative of Porfirij's intimate knowle ge of more than he lets on. . Danov. "Semiotics of Gesture intDostoevskian Dialogue." p. 66. Leatherbarrow argues, however. that no wink ook place, since the narrator had already remarked that Porfirij Petrovi 's watery. blinking eyes made him ap ar to 00 winking. W. Leatherbarrow. "Raskol'nikov and the 'Enigma of His ersonality w ' 151. Andrews, Scotland]. Ix (1973). 01. I up not feel that the narrator's comment constitutes the last yord on this particular exchange between Raskol'nikov and Porfirij Petrovic. It shows rather how the narrators create ambiguity by ramming! from absolute 'udgements. In this case the observor's opinion is just as su jective as Rasko 'nikov's.) Rpwe finds that Smerdjakov winks at Ivan three times during their various conversations. W. Rowe. " ' ' and ' m Com arative Observations," ' . No. 10 (I974). 335. The observer voice of the narrator conveys Ivan‘s interpretation of one of his winks: '. . . 10330 03100003000: 11010 300015. 30 000300015. 0303105. 310 00033 303. 933513 010003. 000010000315 0015 3010" (XIV. 243). Danov explains Ivans interpretation .of another Smerdjakov wink: "That key phrase. . . (‘600 09001 000000030'). figures as an important (001m of contention in the dialogue to come. Here it is. resurrected by a raise and twitching eyebrow functioning as a communicative gesture.” Danov, "Semiotics of Gesture in Dostoevskian Dialogue." p. 70. 55 Several other instances of facial communication in the novel. have received treatment in criticism Mixajlov cites Dmitrij's expression of his fear that the look in Fedor Pavlova‘s face alone ill be suffiCient to make. him commit murder. M. Mixajlov. ”K probleme sju tno-kompozicionnoj reahzacii slova v " F.M. Dostoevsk o." in ' ' ' ' ' ' " (Ucen e zapis i Gor'kovskogo universiteta . vyp: 32 l 72. p. 103. Mixajlov. ladiv. and Danov single ont Ale0a‘s testimony at the trial that it was Dmitrij's face that convinced him of the truth of histconfession. Mixajlov. p. 103: Vladiv. p. 36.9; .Danov. p. 75. An erson points out that. according to Rakitin's words. it is the loo on Ale a's face that attracts Rakitin and encourages him to invite Ale a to 610 'ka's. R. Anderson, "The Meaning of Carnival in Karamazgx." WWW XXIII 119791. 471. 56 Perlina refers to this as a “behavioral quotation," a term which underlines the dialogic character of gestures as the equivalent of utterances. N. Perlina. 0 '0; 11-1.." 0 0 :01 .1, ".1' 01' 1; 111.. V" Lanham, M.D.: University Press of America. 1985 , p. 48. Wasiolek maintains that Raskol‘nikov means his bow to Sonja as an act of self -assertion. His view here complements my discussion of voicing in utterances by showing that estures. too. are not semantically neutral and can be "voiced." B. Wasiolek. . WW“ (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1964). p. 72. cited in Leatherbarrow, p.1 9. I41 57 Belkin summarizes the significance of kisses in Dostoevskij's novels: 'flouengfl 9 poneuex necroeecxoro - 910 39 eupexeime 063010 uyecree 91306393303, 3 39 eonnouieime 119901993303 crpac13, 3 39 910903 0691103. . . see 913 noueny3 cayxm eupexeumo M 60303 31193, email-103 3 conepxeuiefl e ce69 000.651.3410)“ 33010330143 mince." A. Belkin, "Roman m \ 1 1 . . 1'. 1 '. '. 6". A when}, edited by D. stju :1- Moscow: "Prosve'r u'e.“ l 9. pp. 329-3 0. 58. 'l'wo critics stress the importance of gestures during Ivan's conversations with Smerdjakov: '033 110239 39 c103530 coupoeoxnemca 9111133033, 03011530 3013933101 33.” Mysliakov. p. 102. Danov echoes ysliaokovjs statement: "Yet the tense interaction between interlocuters. culminating in Ivan's dazed and startled reception of the information. may be doeu mented without reference to a single word uttered b either." Danov then illustrates his point by reproducing onl the "stage c ues“ forcthe climactic moment when S erdjakov full reve s his (and Ivan's) part in the .murder of Fedor PaleVi .Danov, "The miotics of Gesture in Dostoevskian Dialogue.” p.72. 59 Others have noticed additional gestures which Sonia directs toward Raskol'nikov: "One of her most silent gestures occurs in the epilogue when she gives Raskol'nikov, in simple hu milit , her copy of the New Testa- ment. . Werge.. p. 215. "While Porfirij s characteristic gestures are a perpetually wmking left eye and a seemingly irrepressible chuckle. both used as a device. Sonja is constantly (upward of ten times in as many pages) wringing her hands in despair - over the plight of others. . .." Danov. p. 6§. Gassieva suggests that Raskol'nikov leaves the golice station to commit suicide in response to the news that Svidr' ailov ad taken this route. and §h7at Sonja's appearance and gestures force 'm to return. Gassieva. v. II. p. 60 Porfirij. Petrovic appears to deliberatel disconcert Raskol'nikov by offering him his hands when they meet for t e second time. only to qUiekly withdraw them before Raskol‘nikov can grasp them. Danov. p. 64. Niemi detects a speCial meaning in the seating arrangement when Sonia Visits Raskol‘nikov: ”He refuses the sacrifice of his sister, states brutally the Soma- Dpuma analogue, and reaffirms the statement by seating the harlot and his sister side by side.“ P. Niemi, "The Art of W" Mgdem W IX [Winter 1963]. 299. (Niemi perhaps judges Raskol'nikov too harshly by omitting the possibility that he may have meant an entirely different gesture, i.e., to draw out Sonja by making her a " art of the family" as she is a part of his dialog.) "By attacking Smerdjakov, van tacitly admits the .validity .of Smerdjakov‘s rutal exposure of his brother's hidden motives.“ Chaitin. p. 81. 61 V. Voloiinov WW2; translated by L. Mateika and I. 'I‘itunik New York: eminar Press, 19 ,p. 102. 6.2 Baxtinjs view of hidden dialog and its surface signs becomes clearer in hght of his arguments about the social nature both of the scious and the pumps ous in the human mind. M. Baxtin and V. Volo inov. Minn; Wk (New York: Chalidze Publications. 1983). pp. 151-170. 63 Baxtin. W929. p. 310. CONCLUSION While I consider polyphony dominant in Wm: and W I do not argue that it is present throughout and on all levels. For this reason I discuss here questions about the overall validity of Baxtin's polyphony in the novels. I then address ways in which critics have interpreted Baxtin“ s theory of polyphony since the publication of Emblem W in 1963. For clarity I am numbering the questions at issue. which concern: (1) development of characters within the novels; (2) antinomic and dialectic relationships versus polyphonic ones; (3) nar- rators' frequent judgement of heroes' words and actions: (4) cases in which narrators reveal information unknown by characters; (5) narrators' implied juxtaposition of favored and unfavored characters; (6) characters' utterances which inadvertently reflect upon others; (7) self -compromise by characters; (8) partiality of narrators relative to characters; (9) final results of positions which characters express; (10) structural techniques which influence readers“ interpretation of issues and characters; (1 1) facts which contradict arguments of characters. (I) Baxtin argues that Dostoevskij's novels depict not development of voices, but rather their coexistence in dialogue.1 I would qualify this statement by observing that Dmitrij's. Alei'ia's. and Grusen'ka's voice complexes, as noted in Chapter Two, are made up of different components at the end of the novel than they are at the beginning. Dmitrij struggles to develop the sub mitter voice at the end of the novel. while Grusen'ka has long since left the teaser voice behind. As Alesa matures spiritually he ceases to be the wishful thinker or helpless coper. who enjoy only marginal success in helping others with their dilemmas. (2) Baxtin rejects antinomy. and dialectics as characteristic of relationships between heroes and ideas in Dostoevskij's novels, arguing that dialogue is the connecting thread between even the most inimicable positions.2 I fully agree with Baxtin here. since all apparent dualities manifest themselves through statements and thoughts of personages. The difference between Zosima's and the Inquisitor's beliefs becomes perceptible not only in their state ments, but in those whose voices they penetrate. Ivan posits his arguments not as antitheses, but as replies to what he assumes I42 I43 Zosima and Paisij have taught Alesa. The voicing differences discussed in Chapter Two show that ideas become two-sided only when two different personages interpret them for themselves. (3) In Chapter One I characterized the narrators' dialogic. provoking approach to heroes as an integral aspect of Baxtin's polyphony. Narrators frequently criticize Raskol'nikov, Fedor Pavlovi}; and Smerdjakov, and openly express their attitudes toward many characters. Yet these are ”personal“ remarks. made by specific narrator personalities. and which readers may even consider biased or inadequate to the personage. The sheer volume of a narrator's commentary may outweigh that of characters and thereby throw Baxtin's assumption about the equal participation of voices into doubt. but I do not feel that this limit is reached in either of the novels. (4) Baxtin's polyphony assumes that voices which participate in dialogues are equally weighted, yet Dostoevskij himself announces in the preface of Wm that Alesa is his favored hero in the novel. Narrators' implied or open sympathy for characters like Zosima. Ale‘s’a. and Sonia does not compromise polyphony. however. since even positive figures must earn not only the sympathy of readers. but also their credence in view of the numerous challenges they must answer. Baxtin himself considers that Dostoevskij incorporates authoritative voices into the polyphonic structure of his novels: Cpen3 HHX OH ELLIOT BHCUJQIO OBTOOHTOTHQIO QCTOHOBKQ, H 88 OH ' BOOITPHHHMOOT HO KOK OBOIO HCTHHHSIO MHOJIb, O KOK DP9TOI'O HCTHHHOTO LIOJIOBOKO fl OI'O OJ'IOBO. B 060038 HflOOJIBHOTO HOJIOBOKO HIM B OOPOSO Xp3c10 IT ORCTOBJMOTOS 9M9 peapeuieime HROOJ'IOI'W-IOOKIIX IICKOl-MH. TOT OOPO3 3113 TOT BHCUJIIW TOJIOO gOflXOH 9383MB“: Mflp I'OJ'IOCOB, OPTOHHOOBOTB fl flOfl‘MHHTb OTO. I consider the voices of Alesa. Zosima. Sonja. and Dostoevskij himself as important for poiyphony as the voices of Ivan. Svidrigajlov. and Fedor Pavlovic. I also believe that one must distinguish between Dostoevskij 's intent as revealed in his notebooks. letters, and raw drafts on the one hand and his actual presentation of positive and negative characters on the other. (5) One problem with polyphony concerns the effects of characters' arguments in the novels. that is. how the fruits of their positions reflect on the validity of those positions. Baxtin himself speaks of this approach toward a character, as Dostoevskij: '. . . 11039011391 e149 90110149 pacnpunca no 3011119. . . cenoro code 09911311.. cenoro ce63 onpoeeeryn.“4 Baxtin's I44 statement here introduces a new element into polyphony. one which is at odds with his assertations about the equal opportunity all voices have to argue their convictions. Lufin's arguments about self -interest, when he practices them against Sonja and Raskol'nikov. result ultimately in Katerina Ivanovna's death. Readers react favorably to Grusen'ka and unfavorably to Katerina Ivanovna largely because the former influences Dmitrij's life f avorably. while the latter sends him to prison. Rakitin clearly causes trouble for others when they come under his influence. which makes it difficult for readers to weigh his beliefs based on his utterances alone. (6) Structural techniques. such as selective ordering of episodes. may create associations which affect the way readers perceive characters. These techniques would be incompatible with polyphony to the extent that they remain unperceived by personages themselves. Episodes portraying Alesa's positive influence on Kolja and Dmitrij. for example. precede those revealing Ivan's role as mentor in encouraging Smerdjakov. Luiin earns the role of villain through his conduct with Sonja. but his actions appear even worse since Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. Dunja. and Razu mixin have sought to give him the benefit of doubt before his appearance. I feel. however. that these structural factors act rather subtly compared to the dominant influence characters' voices exercise in the novels. (7) Narrators comment on one character in order to indirectly praise or rebuke another. By praising Ivan's benefactor as deserving of thanks ('3 00113 110119 063 303111 63113 1101100119 111003 090311 900031033911 3 0600 309033011 30 9010 09010 11139311, 10 3119330 910119 8103119 "01009339, 611010000393019119 3 19303393109119 1191109039. 33 101133, 1101139 090110 9010011010103' (XIV, 14), the chronicler arranges for Ivan to appear petty and ungrateful in the latter's subsequent words: "£011 3903 0000110339011 001011, 1-110 909 00033001110. 1011 01103011.. 01 033110013 11 00609111 0911011' E103110 3910093110, 99119111091003 30993. . ." (XIV. 15). The chronicler contrives to juxtapose Ivan and Alesa by singling out Ivan's awareness that he is a charity case: ". . . 11011 6111 0019 0 090313 1191 00033339910311 9 10, 1110 000191 033 ace-10113 9 391303 0011119 3 30 391111111 1131100133. . ." (XIV. 15). He later says about Ale‘s’a: “11000111001103. . . 119010 910 63110 9 1011, 1.110 03 33110100 39 9060131103. 30 111.3 00900190 1113901. B 91011 03 6311 009900193303 00013900000130019 0900119 0100019119 60019, 39039 @9000093119. . ." (XIV. 20). The chronicler similarly contrasts them in another way. saying about Alesa: “0630111 33110100 30 001111311“ (XIV. l9). 145 These juxtapositions compromise Ivan's arguments in Book Five and else- where by encouraging readers early in the novel to interpret them later as a reflection of a bad environment which Alesa had overcome. (In this way Dostoevskij has it both ways on the issue of the environment. or 00900, by arguing that it cripples Ivan, but is not the dominant factor for a "healthy" individual like Ale§a.) The observer makes a remark about Marfa Ignat‘evna's fondness for fine clothes which indirectly juxtaposes Rakitin and Alesa to the farmer's disadvantage: '0 00011903911 06010319090199 161119010 933011, 3 931, 110391-130. 0090911 011930330, 01 090910 00910 P01131330, 1101000119 001031911930 909 9 311 10000310119 691110 33990130, 3 931-109, 003069111. 00391199103. 1011100“ (XIV. 95). The observer makes an unmistakable connection between Kolja's treatment of the dog (”H0 1100939030 9910901110113 10119110 0011910 11011011911910 1133919“ [XIV. 492]). and his treatment of other boys in his group: '1(0113 99100031011 010 1011 9010 0 113391119' (XIV, 497). The observer undercuts a teasing rebuke to 111.->111 about getting worked up (“110 0103. 0103. . . 11011 191 00310031131103“ [XIV. 237]) by using the same verb to characterize Ivan's state immediately before: '03 00310031131103 109003 3 10900311 0 99119110113911. . ." (XIV, 23715 (8) Characters occasionally make statements which inadvertently undermine what others say. This is evident in the passage showing gradual collapse of Kolja's positions on Russian national life in conversation with Ale§a Shortly before his admission that he has been talking nonsense. Kolja announces that he is not alone in his opinions. but has also spoken with Rakitin and agrees with him about the issues. Indeed. the polyphonic penetration of Ivan‘s and Rakitin's voices into Kolja's speech at this point (noted in Chapter Two) now becomes a way of sandwiching their voices together with Kolja's as he accompanies his words with thoughts showing that he is aware of their (and inadvertently Ivan's and Rakitin‘s) inadequacy: ”00319, 003191“ (XIV. 500). It is another person‘s name - Kolbasnikov - who by its comically materialistic tone and by his being the source of Kolja's ideas about the uselessness of a classical education deprives Kolja's words of their persuasiveness (XIV. 498). Xoxlakova's absent-minded rambling is employed to ridicule Rakitin's love poem. which he disowns as a parody only when he perceives that it is being ridiculed: '. . . 30 06 00303 10119110 30111110. 0 3 300909331939309, 0 009119013010 30993, 10119110 3 09 30691110. . . " (XV. l6). Xoxlakova intends no irony here. and her voice is not involved in the I46 author's defense of Puskin's poetry from Rakitin's nihilistic belittling of "little feet" poems (XV. 29). Razumixin similarly ridicules Raskol'nikov without intending it by praising the ingenuity and cleverness of the painter. whom he is now convinced was the murderer. thereby belittling Raskol'nikov‘s suppositions about superior people by confusing the painter with one of these (v1. 3401.6 (9) Another question about polyphony involves narrators' approaches to readers by circumventing the voices of characters i.e. going 'behind their backs” and by exercising their power to selectively reveal information not known to personages. The observer in Part 1. Chapter 6. for example, offers his own explanation from above for Raskol’nikov’s reaction to the conversation he overhears: "Ho P003009331109 9 0001190399 909113 01011 09999093” (VI. 52). He reveals the inner reactions of Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna. Dunja. and Razumixin to the conversation with Luiin (Part IV. Chapter 3). reactions which could be presented through the characters directly. The chronicler at Marmeladov's wake takes a superior position relative to Katerina Ivanovna in order to describe the forces driving her in her search for justice. although he introduces little that Sonja had not already said about her in her first private conversation with Raskol‘nikov. The hagiographer employs a position of superior knowledge in much of the Epilogue: '03 39 003311011. 1110 910 0090119901939 1101110 69119 00909901333011 690901910 0000110110 9 1113333 010‘1Vl. 4181:1111 001119 3 30 33011 1010. 1110 30903 11133119 39 000011 1119 9119 000109103. . ." (VI. 422). It is the observer who tells readers about Fedor Pavlovic's feeling for Smerdjakov: '. . . 00- 110119-10 00319 3 11106311 910. . ." (XIV. 116). In the same way he informs readers about the extent of Ivan‘s love affair with Katerina Ivanovna: '. . . 00391109 33 "0011991. 03 9 0909919 319 033 9909 3 690009000130 01001103 111101193303 3 603911303 0100013 09003 11 1101903110 11190309119. . (XV. 48). Only from the observer do readers find out certain sides of Ivan‘s attitude toward Dmitrij: '. . . 113010-1111010 1110 119901909011 11 119119 330100 00010000330. . ." (XV. 42). Rakitin‘s conduct at Gru‘s'en'ka‘s is explained immediately in the narration: '03 0000331919011 0011911319 011019 1100119. 1011 1110691 101 3 39 9311011. 0 1911909 01 019100 031131103“ (XIV. 319). The chronicler purposefully reveals positive information about Alesa, that he returned money given him for first-class fare in order to ride to Fedor Pavlovic's in a third-class compartment with the common people. The 147 observer leaks damaging information about Muisov's vanity: '119110 9 1011. 1110 03 3 1109an 0 11903011 @900009311911 300110119110 0311300901103 9 00330113311 3 30110100910 1106003130019 910 11 0069 31100301100930 39 99130- 0311. . ." (XIV. 55). Examples like this are not numerous. and the evidence from Chapter One shows that narrators seek primarily to avoid revealing information which personages themselves could present7 (10) Personages themselves undermine the persuasiveness of their voices by assuming contradictory stances that are not representative of . actual inner dialogue. or by revealing motives that diminish the importance of what they say. Rakitin negates his assertation that: "40110991100190 00110 9 0969 03119 303091. 1110691 111319 0113 006000910113. . . B 1110693 11 0906009. 11 0090110190. 60010199 303001. . ." (XIV. 76) by his expressed dislike for Ivan in the same passage and by his later retort; “1110631 30 1110-3116909. 0 991 1110 1139 000110113 0607' (XIV, 320). Xoxlakova's abrupt about-faces on contemporary issues deprive her voice of integrity in the view of the reader. Kolja uses a Latin phrase (“. . . 30 0131009 119 601193 010. 910 sine qua" [XIV. 495]) at the very moment when he is discussing the Russian peasants and his understanding of them. Both lppolit Kirillovic and FetjukoviX try to have . it both ways with their arguments before the jury. The former twists all of Dmitrij's words so that they appear condemning no matter how they are understood. while the latter builds a case for Dmitrij‘s compete innocence only to argue that even his murdering would be justified. The ideological positions of both are rhetorically adopted rather than representative of their voices. with the exception of the passage in which lppolit Kirillovi‘é is piqued to anger and responds indignantly to Fetjukovic's summation. Luiin practices this same type of damaging contradiction when he gives the signature: "9001910 00110011010 011913“ (VI, 168) to the letter in which he places himself above Dunja and Pul'xerija Aleksandrovna.8 (l 1) Statements by personages must be in line with facts in order to be persuasive. If they base their arguments on propositions which contradict objective reality, their voices lose credence with readers. The most notable case is lppolit Kirillovié's denial both that Dmitrij is able to resist spending the remaining half of Katerina Ivanovna's money and that Smerdjakov could have committed the murder of Fedor Pavlovi‘é.9 lppolit Kirillovic's portrayal of A1033 (Book XII. Chapter 6) as a naive slavophile who seeks to escape the reality of the world stands in contradiction to everything readers know 148 about Alesa. and serves the purpose not of characterization. but of polemic as Dostoevskij places in the prosecutor's mouth a parody of 001199330019 in order to rebut it (XV. 127). In the same way lppolit Kirilloviif praises the modern methods that led his department to charge Dmitrij. methods which Dmitrij himself had condemned and which allow the factual murderer to go free. Raskol’nikov undergoes compromise of this sort when he narrates to Zametov how he would have committed a crime that was reported as a failure in the newspapers (VI. 127). At the time of the conversation readers still remember Raskol'nikov's own loss of control during the murder of Alena Ivanovna and Lizaveta. There are numerous additional cases in which the voices of personages are not challenged by other voices. but are compromised by factual evidence.10 It is evident from the passages treated in this section that dialogue is not the only route by which the opinions of characters in the novels are presented and judged. and that Dostoevskij argues his positions with context. factual detail. and structure as well as with the direct presence of his voice. The questions which I have discussed do not vitiate the various aspects of polyphony in W and WW but rather illustrate that polyphony is merely dominant in the novels rather than all-inclusive. I have stated my own position about problems with polyphony in the novels, and would also like to comment on others' objections to some of these same points. The issues here bear the same numbering and appear in the same order. (I) Dneprov argues that Dostoevskij's heroes change in ways that Baxtin does not recognize. even while they retain the same basic ideas with which their personalities are united.11 I recognize this in regard to Alesa. who develops a new voice complex even as he retains his belief in Zosima‘s teachings. Dmitrij and Grusen'ka. however. change only because they discover new truths about themselves and their conduct with others. Jackson characterizes Dmitrij's change as one from a naive sort of humanism to a condition of mature self consciousness.” (In my view Dmitrij has not yet arrived at the latter even at the end of the novel.) The fact that characters may change does not significantly alter the polyphonic nature of the novels. since all change comes about through dialogue with both friendly and hostile personages. Curtis correctly notes that Raskol‘nikov displays not change. but “re-accentuation“ in the Epilogue. a term that is appropriate for other heroes 149 as well. 13 (2) Several critics consider that antinomy and dialectics. contrary to Baxtin's claims. play a significant role in Dostoevskij's novels. Fasting argues that Dostoevskij's novels are "unfinalized" owing not to polyphony but to the irreconcilability of characters’ belief s. between which dialogue is not even possible.14 He and Wasiolek both assert that the Inquisitor's truth and Christ's truth are entirely separate and can have no bearing on one another.15 I have proved in Chapter Two that arguments of all characters are indeed dialogically related. and in Chapter Three that characters do indeed affect one another through various exchanges (for example. Christ's kiss to the Inquisitor). It is striking that Pospelov misinterprets Baxtin's concept of polyphony to mean exactly that which according to Fasting contradicts 11.16 While Pospelov incorrectly attributes to Baxtin the argument that Dostoevskij's novels decompose into individual. entirely separate worlds for each hero. he does contest the notion that ideas in the novels can exist without encountering each other. Jackson offers a strong argument for recognizing a dialectical pattern in Dostoevskij's novels. citing the latter‘s belief that all genuine moral feeling arises from confrontation of one's ideal with reality.” Jackson hints at the dialogic nature of this process: “The positive truth that Christ embodies wins out. but here there is no stasis: it is a truth continually in movement. continually chasing and overtaking its antithesis."18 “'Striving for the ideal" as a synthesis is compatible with polyphony in the novels. since it is dialogically varied for each Karamazov brother. Dmitrij's ideal conflicts with his own passions. which he tries to control; Ivan's ideal conflicts with what he feels is the absence of justice on earth; Alega's ideal conflicts with the weaknesses and petty spirit of others. Blackmur notes an additional instance of variation with the brothers. showing how all three are frustrated in different ways as they pursue justice.19 Fasting correctly stresses the action of "God's truth" in the brothers“ strivings.20 Yet even this action is not uniform. but depends upon the personality and voice complex of each. "God's truth" is revealed to Alesa through his dream about Cana. to Dmitrij through his dream about the 'babe." and to Ivan during his conversations with Smerdjakov and the Devil. Anderson finds that even Sonja's truth is not final. and that while Raskol'nikov is influenced by her. he also influences her by giving her the means to transcend her reality and find new meaning for her life in ISO Siberia.21 These points suggest that what appears to be a final synthesis of arguments in the novels is not necessarily final or incommensurate with polyphony- Baxtin rejects Ivanov“s notion of Dostoevskij's novels as possessing an overall tragic resolution, which stands above the events. personages. and dialogues of the novels.22 Ivanov speaks with insight about tragic elements in Dostoevskij's novels. as when he links Dostoevskij‘s feelings about suffering and self-sacrifice on the one hand and Aristotle's treatment of tragic catharsis on the other.23 Yet it is the exchanges between characters rather than fate or tragic flaws which prepare the climactic scenes in the novels. I do question Ivanov's attempt to treat Dostoevskij's novels on three entirely separate levels - the actual. the psychological. and the metaphysical - which are discrete. with the metaphysical standing separately above the others: "To the external life. . . Dostoevskij pays heed only in order to catch from it the phrase. . . “Thy will be done.“ or. on the contrary. “My will be done. in spite of thine."'24 All that I have said in the three chapters demonstrates that the actual. the psychological, and the metaphysical exist on the name level. as they motivate each other through voiced and silent dialogues of personages. Ivanov sells short the very dialogic exchanges which form the basis of the novels. and at times even views them as a necessary defect readers must endure in order to gain the real. "metaphysical" significance of Dostoevskij's novels.25 He also does not address the extremely topical quality of Dostoevskij's novels. which in itself cannot be separated from the metaphysical in Dostoevskij's thinking. For this reason I agree with Baxtin that Ivanov: '. . . 0933011 09010 11910119 0 030011 003119111 "91041333300333 3 9133901133 9199011109333. 110100919 30 0000010103 331101103 0611911139303 000990119 30 0011011 11019030119 000339909333 11001009011010."26 (3) Rosenshield argues that extensive narrational commentary about Raskol‘nikov and other characters disproves Baxtin’s argument that heroes' voices enjoy prestige equal to the author's: "At novel's end the combined effect of these countless pinpricks weighs as heavily against Raskol “nikov as the indirect commentary.“ "27 This is close to Zundelovid’ 3 view that the "ob- jective" narration of Wm strives not to leave Raskol “nikov for one moment. as Dostoevskij leads his hero to punishment in order to prove the validity of his own ideas.28 I consider the "pinpricks" integral in a polyphonic system which requires all voices to encounter and IS) provoke others. for example. when the chronicler expresses his extremely personal disgust with Fedor Pavlovic. '. . . 011010303913 011333913 001. 0 09111191113 1960113. 33-000 1101009111 93011911309 1101101191139 0611011113 119039111. 001113 301110901311 39609" (XIV. 22). In any case. it is not the narrator who leads Raskol'nikov to confession and punishment. but rather exchanges with other personages and his own internal dialogues. (4) Critics have spoken about Dostoevskij’s affection for some heroes and antipathy for others. and also about what meaning Dostoevskij's sentiments have for the validity of Baxtin's polyphony. Evnin singles out Dostoevskij “s apparent desire to demonstrate the legitimacy of his positions. punishing some characters and exalting others.29 I have already remarked that Dostoevskij's feelings about certain characters does not guarantee their success or failure in persuading readers to their points of view. Vetlovskaja argues that the character of the hero. the context of particular utterances. and the reaction of the listener to that utterance all influence the authoritativeness of what the here says.30 Perlina challenges the validity of Vetlovskaja“s conclusion. stating that rhetorical arguments of the author are not an overall dominant. but only an element in the polyphonic system.31 She argues that polyphony is the rule in Dostoevskij‘s novels because there is independence and originality of characters‘ voices.32 I agree with Perlina’s objections. but accept Vetlovskaja’s reservations which address not voice phenomena. but unvoiced activity of the author. such as tactical juxtaposition of statements and strategic ordering of episodes in order to weaken the voices of his ideologically opposed characters. Terras recognizes that Dostoevskij occasionally uses ad nominem arguments in his desire to discredit characters he presents as atheists.33 He notes on the other extreme that while Dostoevskij presents Zosima‘s voice in counterpoint with others“ voices. he never allows it to be directly challenged.34 Jones offers a useful caveat to Vetlovskaja's arguments: "It is true that Dostoevskij builds 1d 0010mm arguments into his fiction. Broadly speaking honesty and a degree of spiritual harmony are associated with characters of whom he approves. while dishonesty and spiritual agony and collapse with those of whom he disapproves. Yet these broad rules are not invariable, and in any case may be insufficient to persuade the reader that Dostoevskij is on their side."35 (Emphasis is Jones“s.) Dostoevskij's selection of names for his characters is similar to his occasional use of ad 0001mm arguments. as 152 Brody notes: "The sensitive reader will so perceive and vicariously experience Dostoevskij‘s great adventures in a certain way because the names of the novelist‘s characters predispose definite modes of interpretation."36 While I recognize that Dostoevskij attempts to make clear his attitudes toward certain heroes. I also feel that he does this openly. and in nearly all cases allows negative heroes to argue their positions at length and on more than one occasion. In my opinion the names he assigns to characters. like compositional details. influence readers less than statements of personages and narrators. (5) Some critics note correctly that characters' ultimate fates and the results of their activity cannot help but influence how readers judge their positions. Evnin considers that Dostoevskij reveals both the consciousnesses and the actions of his personages. as does every other writer. and judges the personages by the fruits of their belief s37 (I believe that Evnin here unduly equates Dostoevskij's approach to his heroes with those of writers in general.) 15er raises this same point. stating that every position has its ultimate consequences in Dostoevskij's novels.38 Fridlender asserts that the author’s attitude is conveyed not only in direct words and digressions. but also in grouping of characters. their mutual relationships. the logic of their character development. and their f ates. and concludes that the freedom which Dostoevskij offers his characters is only relative.39 Jones“ assessment echoes Evnin“s and Erlich“s: ““His ultimate test of an ideology is not whether it is logically consistent but whether it makes for a balanced and healthy organism."40 Terras adds a similar view. saying that Dostoevskij presents believers and nonbelievers in God. and then lets the practical consequences of their attitudes speak for themselves.“1 Specific instances illustrate these remarks.42 ‘ (6) Some feel that Dostoevskij's use of compositional techniques represents a significant problem with Baxtin's theory of polyphony. Evnin considers that Baxtin does not incorporate this question into his treatment of polyphony and to some extent avoids it.“3 Fasting charges that the composition of Dostoevskij's novels constitutes the most serious challenge to Baxtin's polyphony.44 Koprince also expresses his reservations about polyphony based on the implications of Dostoevskij's structural techniques.“S As my previous observations indicate. I consider the facts of the novels more significant for a critique of polyphony. Baxtin in my opinion 153 does not deliberately avoid the issue of composition. as Evnin perceives. but rather considers it uninteresting compared with the structural relationships between voices which polyphony introduces. Evnin. Fasting. and Koprince make valid remarks about minor questions such as the ordering of certain episodes. but I feel that these compositional techniques of Dostoevskij's are rather subtle compared to the action of voices in the novels.46 The issues which I discussed in the above sections do not vitiate the various asoects of polyphony in ErssninlsniLLnakants and 013113 Wbut rather illustrate that polyphony is not an absolute trait in Dostoevskij's novels and not the only artistic dominant. Dostoevskij‘s polyphonic and non-polyphonic activity in the novels was juxtaposed here not in order to argue the artistic superiority of either. but in order to elucidate Dostoevskij's use of polyphony by showing where it ends. The presence and alternation of different narrator voices represents polyphony in narration even if characters“ voices are not considered. These voices suggest not merely the coexistence of differing viewpoints. attitudes. and styles. but of separate people who take turns commenting on characters and events. The real polyphonic factor in narration. however. concerns the blurring of lines between narrators and personages. Most central to polyphony in narration is the narrators’ deliberate surrendering of their power to control the presentation of characters and action. although they do on occasion use their superior knowledge and do not always let characters reveal themselves. Particularly important are the ways in which the speech of personages penetrates narration. as if they are not content merely to accept narratorial powers. Dostoevskij certainly seeks to prove his own positions in the novels. Willett explains. however. why this does not necessarily inhibit the activity of other voices: '“He was as honest with himself as Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov in allowing his doubts to express themselves in counter-argu ments so powerful that the final rejection is unable to annihilate their appeal."47 Mutual characterization of personages represents an additional way in which they share functions of the narrators. The great majority of personages are presented in this way. suggesting that this method is systematic and second-nature to Dostoevskij. No real differences are discernible in this respect between favored and unfavored characters; both 154 groups are revealed less by narrators than by themselves and their acquaintances. As with narrators. the multiple voices of characters represent not just different “moods," but different people.‘ We see this clearly by comparing Gru‘éen’ka's teaser and kindred soul. Alesa’s helpless caper and rebuking conscience, and Svidrigajlov's cynic and slave. I have defined these voices on the premise that nearly every significant remark the characters make can be attributed to one voice or another. Dostoevskij is able to create strong voices other than his own owing to his: '. . . cnocoduocn npouunuoeeuna a cmxmo uyxoro, 'cocancrayloulero’ 6mm, nopofl nuanet'paubuo npomaonouoxnoro KooanHaTaH era codcraeHHoro nape?“ Belknap notes this talent succinctly by saying: “Dostoevskij loved to embrace the positions of his opponents.”49 Mutual penetration of voices within Dostoevskij's heroes establishes a universe of relationships which both doubles and augmentsthat based on "traditional" relationships and intrigues. Dostoevskij‘s heroes argue their views on critical issues in the novels not as rhetorical positions, but as deeply felt beliefs which are inseparably linked with particular voices. This is why they sometimes appear contradictory when they speak through differing voices. Heroes provoke one another into revealing their beliefs in various forms of what Baxtin call mac-1:913: 50 These generally represent aggressive activity of characters, while the various forms of .naaeflua and autumn devices generally are defensive. These sometimes run together. however. occuring simultaneously or in quick succession. and in this way give Dostoevskij's novels the unique quality of worlds in flux. Straxov reveals an introspective side of Dostoevskij which explains why he so successfqu presents inner dialogue of characters: c upeaeuuaimofl acuocmo a HON oduapyxnaonocs ocooeuuoro pona paanaoeune, cocrosuiea a TOM, uro uauoaex npenaerca ouaus xuao uaaecmun MHCJISIM a ugacraan, H0 coxpauaer a nywe Henonnalouiyuocs u Hexonedmoulyloca rouky, c Koropofl cmorpnr Ha cenoro calls, us coon MNCJ‘IH u uyacraa. 0H ch unorna roaopnn 06 3mm caoflcrae u Haas: an.» era pehnekcnefl. 1 Volgin expresses this quality in another way: 'RBOICTBeHHocn a nonxone K cobcraeuuony noaeneumo (H0 H8 cam noaeneuuel), naoflcraenuocn a quorum codcraenuon auuuocm (HO He came nuuuocrbl), naoflcraeuuocrs nnposoa- spawns (no annual. H8 Hupouyacraoaauual).“52 This explains why a writer as committed to proving his beliefs to others as Dostoevskij would be led by his very nature to establish a polyphonic dominant for his novels. aura: mm. L 155 121919; 1 M. Baxtin. W989 (Moscow. "Sovetskaja Rossija." 1979). Pp. 33-34. 2 Baxtin. p. 10. 3 Ibid.. p. 112. 4 Baxtin. Wm (Moscow: "Iskusstvo." 1979). p. 310. 5 Three different critics show how the two oppressed women. Sonja and Lizaveta. are linked as victims of Raskol'nikov by the way they both raise their hands in a childlike way to ward off Raskol‘nikov's aggressive behavior. the former facin an e. and the l tter fac' his sadistically framed 9?? ion. M. Ka ina. 1986 47 M Er ak (Moscow: ' u o s vennaja 'eratura." . p. ; . m ova. . m . . .. . . MGorjkij: olgo-Vjatskoe kn}. oe izdatel‘stvo.l973 . p. 7; P. Niemi. ‘ he Art of mm Mahala}. Wu Ix (Wmter 1963). 303. Raskol'nikov himself is linked by the observer with the two women as he is seen to make metaplhorically the same gesture: '. . . OH .003er m 061.9- Blm all, KTO 9mm 51303979. I! npenuaacraoaaa cede crpamuoe Hyueuue H mama omoxuaaaca or Hero pyxam“ [ I. 312]. [Emphasis is DostoevskijjsJ This strengthens the counterproductive. self -destructive assomatxons which Dostoevskij creates around the crime.) 6 Yetlovskaja discusses the narrator’s juxta sition of the doubtful Paissij's belief in Zosima's worthmess to be honored y miracles With the credulous monk's distrust 2f Perapont‘s stgtements bout his own miracle. y. Yetlovskaja. "Otno enie avtora k re i gerson eg‘." :' (Serija literatury 1 jazyka). XXVIII. vyp. 4. l9 9). 322. 23; . " _ .M( ' rad: "Nauka." 1977). pp. 62. 6S. Foma Pom: ‘s praise of .askol'mlrov‘s activny as a thinker comes at the very moment. of his imminent confession: "He unknowingly mocks Raskol'nikov by praismg him. Raskol'nikov's former faith in the power of 'talent. knowledge. reason. and gemus‘ is precisely what ,led him to murder the pawnbroker... . Indeed. a most telling comment of the validity of Raskol‘nikov's earher Views Is that a mediocrity like Gun owder holds similar beliefs." A. Kuhn. “A Note on Raskol'mkov‘s Hats." ' XV (1971). 42.7.. The praise from Raskol'nikov's mother as she is losm her emotional stability at the. end ofthe novel serves the same urpose: " er remarks concerning ’the article. Wthh reveal what pride she t es in her son. are most ironic in View of Raskoljnikovjs imminent plans to go to jail.“ R. Busch. "Humor in Dostoevsku"s W” W IX (1975). 64. 7 There are additional exam les. Hart observes that Lebezjatnikov’s characterization is provided cti!“ b; the narrator. who is also primar' responmble for presenting Lu . . Hart. "Lookin over Raskol‘nikov s Shoulder: The .Narrator in W" ' ' ‘ XIII (1971). 173. 172. van adds that Razumixin as well as Lu ‘ and Lebezjatnikov Jan-L- 156 becomes known to readers primarily through the narrator. P. anin. :0 nekotoryx voprosax stiljla i poetiki Dostoevskogo." W (Serija literatury t jazyka). XXI .vyp. 1 (1965). 78. 8 Terras in another example explains the contradictory stances which Ivan takes on the issue of childrens' suffering. Ivan's rejection of salvation on behalf of the 3' 1e abstract suffering child clashes with his expressed admiration of Lizas depiction of the crucified child. Ale‘éa's rebuke to Ivan for his cruel words about Liza (”310 peoaxox, m obnxoeuis pebeuxal') serves this same ur ose. Inaccurate quotation reduces the persuasiveness of statements. y .van and Smerd'akov, according to Terras. showing the gap between historical facts and t eir memories or interpretations of them. Smerdjakov. for examgle. confuses Napoleon I '3 relationship to. Napoleon III. while Ivan bu les iblical quotations in what Dostoevskij's notebooks suggest .is a deli erate attempt to discredit him. V. Terras. Ajagamgu 992112 :22ng (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1981). pp. 3 5. 3 4. 9 Rosen makes the same point in relation. to the Grand Inquisitor's argument that humans are incapable of overcoming their selfish and harmful impulses: "Yet no critic has ever questioned the power and plausibility of Mit a‘s self -denial. It is pyschologically plausible and effective: men ens aved by passion - the presumed subjects of the kingdom of ’the Grand Inqmsitor - are shown to have the inner strength to overcome their passion." Rosen. “Style and Structure in Wm“ p. 362 1° Vetlovskaja argues that the overall context of W as well asnumerous remarks by characters show that adults in the novels have childlike qualities and that children are frequently likened to adults. This undermines Ivan's ar uments in Book Five by denying his premise that adults and children s ould be treated differently an that they deserve differing amounts of compassion." Vetlovskaja. "Poéti skij mir drevnej Rust." in "Hie-"1. ..'..'” no ': 1'. . . . A (Lemngrad: "Nauka." 1974 . p. 30: "0 no enie avtora k re ' person i." pp. 326-329: . ' . " “ p. 122. Vetlovskaja also argues that actual eVidence in the novel. such as the Sn irevs ove. Grusen‘ka‘s affection for Maksimov. and Alesa's love for Fedor aleVi . disprove Ivan’s View that humans cannot love those closest to them by shown? that those disliked by Ivan are loved by others who are no farther rom them. Vetlovskaja. ° " " L", g. 112. The fact that the deathsboth of Ilju a and of Marke are not in vain. ut leave goodmemories which influence others positively. constitutes factual evidence against Ivan's assertation in Book Five that Creation is built upon meaningless suffering. Terras. Pp. 62. 443; D. Palumbo. "The Theme of the Fortunate Fall in Dostoevsky's mm The Effective Counterar ument to Ivan's Ambivalent Atheism,“ ' ' XLIII. No. 4 (1981). 11. Ivan here has left himself a anaemia. however. by saying that he would re'ect even an ultimate harmony built upon the suffering of children [XIV. 22 .l) . . it is ironic that “the. equal! impecunious Razumixin can so quickly exploit the very situation in whic Raskol'nikov found himself. . . Such irony serves not only to reduce Raskol’nikov. but also to undermine the. sociological factors which mi ht have seemed sufficient cause for committing the murder." busch. p. 3. (Raskol'nikov is aware of this irony. however. at the later time in the novel [V1, 320.]) 157 11 V. Dne rov. "Ideologiceskoe i social’noe." W No. 11 (1971). 16 . 12 R. Jackson, "Dmitri“ Karamazov and the 'Legend."' W WM“ 65).263. ‘3 1. Curtis. “Spatial Form as the Intrinsic Genre of Dostoevsky's Novels." MW: XVIII ( I972). 149. 14 S. Fasting. "Ierarxija 'pravd' kak cast' idejno-xudolemgnnoj struktury romana W K vo rosu o 'polifoni osti romanov Dostoevskogo."$cand9_;$Jayj§. IV( 19 8). 43. '5 P3811118. p. 43' B. Wasiolek. WW (Cambridzei M.I.T. Press. 1964). p. 169. 16 G. Pospelov. “Preuvelicenie ot uvle‘cenija." W No. l (1965). 100. 17 R. Jackson. ° ‘ ' Princeton University ess.19 1 .139. .1 9. 18 Jackson. "Dmitrij Karamazov and the Legend.” p. 265. 19 R. Blackmur. ' (New York: Harcourt. Brace 81 World. 1964 . p. 222. 2° Fasting. p. 40. 21 R. Anderson. "Raskol'nikov and the Myth Experience." M2351 WHMNI. 14. 22 Baxtin. Wm 11. 11-12, "Clearly. Bakhtin raise}: the designation because he does not wish to define Dostoevsky's form in relation to the central conflict of his lots (tragic catastrophe). or the extreme compression of . his time sequence. ather. he concentrates on the author - character relationship. which. in his interpretation. arallels Dostoevsky's thematic essence as defined b Ivanov. . J. Frank. " he Voices of Mikhail Bakhtin.”NshL_Y_erLRs!is19LKsta XXXIII. No. 16 (1986). 58-59. 23 V. Ivanov. WILLIE, translated by N. Cameron (New York: Noonday ess. 1952 .pp. 5. 1 . 2“ Ivanov. p. 39. 25 Ibid.. pp. l4. 19. 25 Baxtin. WW 1). 12. 27G.Rosenshield.".w' 21° ' 1‘111141'“ 1' 91.111 ‘ 0.1 1‘ .111 91911 Amuisse: Peter de "dder ess. I 8 .pp. 1 .99. (Princeton: 158 23 Ja. Zundelovii'; "0 stile romana F.M. Dostoevskosp 3.351121% new series . W72 195;).1mm1s. .. I i 29 anin. p. 74. 3° Vetlovskaia. Wm pp. 49-62- 31N.Perli11a.][ . I. [E I. ”II '0 II. . "II H II W9.“- 32 Ibid.. p. 45. , 33 Terras. "The Art of Fiction as a Theme in W" in W edited by R Jackson Englewood Cliffs. NJ: entice- all. 1984.p. 01. 3‘ Terras. Wanton. p. 85- 35 M. Jones. ° ‘ (London: Blek Books Ltd., 1976).pp.190-1 1. 35 R. Br . "Me ' and S mbolism in the Names of Dostoevsk ‘3 Crime WW 11am xxvn (June 19791. 138. Y 37 anin. p. 75. 33 V. Erlich, 'Two Concepts of the Dostoevsk Novel." W W XXV & XXVI ( 982). 128-129. 39 G. Fridlender. "N e k ' i o Dostoevskom." W No. 2 (1964).187. ovv “’8 40 M. Jones. "Dostoevskx‘s Conception of the Idea." Rsnaimandflgdsm Mist. XIII (1969). 13 . 4‘ Terras. Mmmzfismnntsn. 11. 48- 42 Karjakin points out the compromising element in Raskol'nikov's beliefs and. actions - that he is the cause of Lizaveta’s an 's mother's deaths. . Kar akin. WW (Moscow: "Xudo stvennaja literatura.’ 19 6). p. 23. Egorenkova observes [Mia’s ‘guilt in Il'usa's death. just s Ivan is gmlty .ultimately of Fedor Pavlovi 's eath. G. gorenkova. "Sju tnost' komponcii: Nekotorye osobennosti xudozestvennoj struktury romana FM. Dostoevskogo " . " ‘ ' ' ' No.6 1976).21. "In terms of mentor-disciple relationships for exam le. Ivan is Smerdjakov's authority. while the latter teach Ilj s’a the art 0 cruelty (the story of the lostdog . Similarly. Zosima is Ale a's spiritual uide. while the young nov1ce fulfills a like role with regard to Kolja and t e other boys"; '. . . the two prinmple ideas succmctly formulated in nuclear ideological form as everything is to be permitted‘ and “everyone is responsible for all and everything to everyone.‘ 0n the primary plane. the former findsits dramatic enactment and eventual collapse in the series of events beginmng with the murder of Fedor Pavlovic. and concluding with Smerdjakov's subsequent EWW‘W'WH .. .- m b 159 suicide followed by Ivan's breakdown. The latter teaching findsits dramatic manifestation in such scenes as the exchange of "onions", Dmitrij's dream of the "babe” from which his ”hymn" originates. Zosima's meeting with the Beasant women. and the gathering of the children around Alesa at the stone." .DanOV. "Subtexts of IhsBmthsraKaramamz." RmtmLitsratnrs. XI. No. 2 (I982). 182. 193. 43 anin. p. 76. 44 Fasting. p. 36. 45 R Koprince. "The Episode in ‘ ' " an unpublished PhD. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1977. p. 5. 46 Several examples illustrate this technique of Dostoevskij's. Two. critics explain the framing device Dostoevskij uses to undercut Ivan's positions in Book Five. allowing Smerdjakov to dominate the chapters immediately before and after those presenting Ivan‘s arguments and thereby strengthening. he tie between his ideological activity and the murder of Fedor Pavlow . Egorenkova. . 16; N. Rosen. "Style and Structure in . ' ' ' No. I (Fall 1971). 35 . rank explains Dostoevskij's purpose in placing the overheard conversation about the justification of murdering the pawnbroker immediately before the undertaking of the murder itself: "Temporarily. the tavern-scene and the murder itself are at the very opposite ends of a single time-sequence... . The urpose. . . is obviously to under mine Raskol'nikov's mnmous motivation or the reader. The hypnotic h steria in which he kills the old pawnbroker could not reveal more clear . in an objective. dramatic fashion. that Raskol'nikov's crime is not being committed according to his altruistic. Utilitarian theory." . Frank. "The World of Raskol'nikov." Engmntsn. XXVI (1966). 34. Althoug one of Raskol' 'Eov's ostensible reasons for murdering Alena Ivanovna and for o posing Lu .in is to save his sister Dunja, the fact that he doesn't see her on er way to eet Svidrigajlov reduces his status as her "guardian." N. Tamar1 nko. "Q anrovoj strukture '4 - - - 1 - in '40.- 11 1.1: 101 .0 1. .1'10 2 I (Eemerovo: 197 . p. 8 . Miller remarks about the conclusion of = .. " 5913mm: "Thus questions of structure and the interrelation of the parts a novel reenter through the back door. . . Alyosha's momentary resurrection of Illusha ends that novel. and the reader joins the children in a moment of thrilling o timism." R Miller. WW Wfambridgez Harvard University Press. 1981 . p. 0. 47 M. Wines. "The ‘Ending' or mamammmni W xxv ( 1970). 247. :271. .Volgin. "Nezaversennyj dialog." Wm. XIX. No. 4 (1975). 49 R Belknap. "Narrative Time in Nineteenth Century Prose." New York: AATSBBL Meeting. 1985. 50 Baxtin. Whigs. p. 127. gigngtraxoyiS-l“ 1. "t d: B. -" 1t -, "4': ' kn pp. - . me in .' .‘osoji osoevs ij." 1111mm. No.7 (1960.77. 52 Volgin. pp. 161-162. 53 Many sritics have commented on Dostoevskij as a tendentious author. and have rephed to Baxtin's claim that Dostoevskij‘s actiVity resembles that of God, who creates a world of humans acting accord' to their own motiyes and consciousnesses (Baxtin.‘ ' p. 310). Fasting argues that Dostoevskij uses his God-like powers for his own advantage to compromise positions inimical to his own. and that voices in his novels can therefore never be equally weighted (Fasting. g1 43). Baxtin never denies that Dostoevskij presents his own Views in 's novels. so that Brlich's observation is inaccurate that: "The ma'or flaw in_ Baxtin's immensely suggestive book lies. I believe. in a ref us to dist' Uish between deducmg from 'Dostoevskij's oeuvre a systematic body .of octrine and seeking to identify the eneral thrust of his moral imagination." (Erlich. p. 133). Indeed. Baxtin iden ' ies the latter with Dostoevskij's View of Christ as the adealvmce (Baxtia. ' ' p. 80). Erlich is entirely justified in stressing: "Is there any doubt that t e ‘contriver' of these debates has. as desperately mg: a stake in their outcome as their most frenzged Barticipants?" ( lich. p. 132). I nevertheless consider that Mysljakov. like asting. unduly stresses the anti-polyphonic elements in Dostoevskij's novels when he says: ”Bonn oaropa Hoxnonuaoer Henarnonmgio neuorb Ho Haoopaxoenoe, cxoauaaacb ao acex 399115st xynoxecraeimoro uenoro. H y nocroeacxoro oarop- nnpnxep. Ero 91111ch a npenenox Taopmoro VIM xynoxecraeHHoro Mflpfl HeorpounueHHo.' (V... Mysljakov. .“Kak rasskazana 'istoriia' Rodiona Raskol'nik a." in Wm v. I [Leningrad: 1974]. p. 163). ubin correctly assesses po yphony as a largely deliberate aim of Dostoevskij's when he comments: '. . . nocmeacxnfi Toxe H8 cnor 110 Rome npeononarb MOHOJIOI'MSM caoefl Hneonoruu. TIopoii 011, max Hepguun poxnccep, amberoe'r Ho cueHy 111 aorny a T HeyronHue any ronoco.‘ (L. ubin. "Gumanizm Dostoevskogo i 'dostoev ina." W No. 1 [1965]. 92). Baxtin himself refers to places which "fall out of the lyphonic scheme" in Dostoevskij‘s novels (Baxtin. ‘. . p. 80). Schmid prov1des a good critique of Vetlovskaja's position on Dostoevskij's activity. denying that he relentlessly channels the reader toward agreement wit him: '. . . aeropcKm‘I cMucn cocrom a uaaecmofl HenoroaopeHHocm 11, cnenoaorenwo, npoaame‘rca .nmub s 311119 orpaHnuoHHoro 111161103 1115 nongoxoemx TOJIKOBal-MW' (V. Schmid. "Edinstvo raznonapravlennyx vpe atlenij vosprijatija. Rasskazyvanie'i rasskazyvaemoe v Hengafleae, XXIV. No.1-2 I982 . 63 .Karjakin accurately assesses the extent to which Dostoevskij seeks to avoid unduly compelling the reader: '. . . xy- nOXHuK. . . HuKorna H8 noeT roroaoe peLueHne npoonenu, a T01le0 npoaonnr K Hang c Ten, 14103:» Hannah can ee peumn, can no 11511, x0111“ 6111 owncm" (Em asis is Karjakin‘s.) (Ju. Karjakin. "Mif o ' rn0j mag ' ‘y Dostoevsk o: rnovik k u i' ' " " R ' ' a a X . No. l [1972 . 120). Braun echoes this View: "The reader is. as it were. invited to accept the author's solution as the right one. but in the final result he is left feelin that it is up to him to make the last decision" (M. Braun. “The Emhsuvfiammsox as an Exspositorv Novel." 923W Sjygies. I. No. 2 1972]. 205). erdjucenko attempts to reconcile polyphony mar—Am: “main—l 161 with tendentiousness in her statement: nocroeacxafl poaanaon a oxnebuue any line» npexne acero norony. uro ucxon Hon ones yOexnoiouiero 11x ocyxnemta. npoauubuo poccuuruaoa, uro am ocyxneuae oyner Tomato Torno no-Hocroauieny BBCOMNM. econ 30119011111» aucmue TOHKH 11x peasants. B peaynbtore nonumouaan nocrooacmro upencraer Ho noaepxy noponoxcoanuM BupflJKBI-IHBM Kpofiuefi Tenneuunosuocm 11 a Kouauuon more npuseoH cagxnn 60.111. 91! cause ero coocraaI-mux uneanux Bopoaomm .. (V. Serdju enko. "‘Pro_t_ivore¥ie' kak osobennost' xudoiestvennogo myslenija Dostoevsk DIM XVII. No. 2 [1975]. 46). in ' ' and " however. polyphony becomes significant in itself as their dominant feature. and can no longer be reduced to a rhetorical device in the arsenal of a tendentious author. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Since my research has focused both on Dostoevskij's novels and on Baxtin's theory of polyphony. I have decided to divide the bibliographic entries into two sections. the Primary Bibliography and the Secondary Bibliography. The Primary Bibliography includes works by Baxtin and Volo‘s'inov. works which concern Baxtin's theory of polyphony. and works by Dostoevskij. The Secondary Bibliography contains works about narration. characterization. structure. and composition in Dostoevskij's novels. The following English language translations are available for the works by Baxtin upon which I have relied the most: E 11 ‘I'I'Dl I Baxtin. M. WM. Translated by Rotsel. R. Ann Arbor: Ardis. l9 . ----------- . Wigs. Translated by Emerson. C. Minneapolis: niversity of Minnesota Press. 1984. I! 1' . E '1 . Baxtin. M. W Edited b Holquist. M. Translated b Emerson, .and olquist, .Austin: niversity of Texas Press. 1 81., (Does not include the following articles: "Problema' sodegezanija. materiala i formy v slovesnom xudoiestvennom tvor stve": "Rable i Gogol’.") ‘B '1 | E v Baxtin M. W Edited by Holquist. M. and Emerson. . ranslated by McGee. V.. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1986. __ "Problema soderzanija. materiala i for my v slovesnom xudoiestvennom tvorcestve" (from ' " ' ' is translatedin ' " IV, (1977). 11-12 by K rostrom. "Slcvo v romane" (from W is translated in Wk. 1980 . 4- . 162 1 ”‘.ml “Ham-‘3. figs-3 . .2} 163 E . E'l I. I Baxtin. M. W. Moscow: "Iskusstvo." 1979. ---------- . WW. Moscow: 'Sovetskaja Rossiia." 1979. ---------- . Wt Moscow: "Xudoiestvennoj literatury." l 975. Baxtin. M.. and Volo‘s’inov. v. W New York: Chalidze Publications. 1983. Boceva. M. "Problemata ’ide'a-covek' v tvorcestvoto na Dostoevski." ElikJ Militia. XXVII. No. 4 1972). 2332. Booth W. Introduction to Baxtin. M. E I I E D I I . E I. . fgasaslated by Emerson, C Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bursov. B. "Tolstoj i Dostoevskij." W11. No.7 (1964). 66-93. Clark. K.. and Holquist. M. MW Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1984. Danov. D. "Dialoais m: Perspectives and Delimitations." New York: AATSEEL Meeting. 19 6. Dneprov. V. "Ideologiceskoe i social'noe." W No. 11 (1971). 156-176. Dostoevskg'J‘. t ' 1.11 ° to 0; .." ' . 11; 1: ‘ Edite by Bazanov, .. et. a1.. Moscow: "Nauka." 1971. ---------- . WW Leningrad: "Nauka." 1972. Brlich. V. "Two Concepts of the Dostoevsk Novel." W Wanvim xxv1(19 .12 -136. Evnin. F. ”0 nekotoryx vo rosax stil'a i poetiki Dostoevskogo." " 555k xx1v. vyp. 1 (1565). 611-36. W Fasting. S. "Ierarxija 'pravd’ kak cast' idejno—xudoiestvgnoj struktury romana ‘ : K voprosu o ‘polifoni osti' romanov Dostoevskogo.‘ Seandefilafle XXIV. (1978). 35-47. Frank. J. "The Voices of Mikhail Bakhtin." MW XXXIII. No. 16 (1986). 56-60. Ivanoy. V. "The Si ' icance of M.M. Baxtin's Ideas on Sign. Utterance and Dialogue for odern Semiotics." ' ' ' ' ' 119mm: Edited by Baran. H. White Plains. N. .: International Arts and Sciences Press. Inc.. 1976. pp. 186-243. . . 9.9.0 164 Kapustin M. "Problem Dostoevskogo segodn a.‘ 'W IX. No. 3 (19651.126 1113.Y ’ Kiraly. G. "Nedeklarirovanny' avtor v romanax “Dostoevskogo Avtor- po- vestvovatel - geroI’ v s ere povestvovanija." MW WV [(1977). 100-112. Korman. B. ”12 nabl udenij nad terminologiej M. Baxtina" In Breblema W levsk: Udmurtskij gosu- darstvennyj universitet im. 0-1etija SSS 1978. McHale. B. "Free Indirect Discourse. A Survey of Recent Accounts." BIL. 111. No.2 (1978). 249-287. Morson. G. "The Heresiarch of Meta." E11,. 111. No. 3 (1978). 407-427. Perlina. N. °' 1. 'zl.‘ 01.. 311‘ W. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. 198.5 ---------- ."Toward the Concept of an Ideal Hero in Dostoevskij' s Emtgja 4 NW XXXVII. No 128 (Fall 198 Perlina. N. and For man A. "The Role and Function of Quotation in DostoevskiifEQmmlhlsmallQnaL 111 (Fall 19801.33- 47. Pospejlgivi 068 "Preuvelicenija ot uvlecenija." Waning. No. 1 (1965). V .. "vpecatlemj ~ XX V. No. 1- Schmid. W. "Edinstvo raznonapravlenn vosprijatija: Rasskazyvanie i Irasskazyvaemoe v " 2'11982. ---------- "Zur Semantik und Asthetik des dialogischen Erzahlmonologs bei Dostoevski." WW VIII (1974). 381 -.397 Seduro. V. "Dostoevski kak sozdatel' polifoniceskogo romana.‘ ‘Nmi 211mg]. L11 (1958). 71 -931 Serdjucenko. V. "Protivorecie kak osobennost‘ xudolestvennogo my§lenija Dostoevsk k.ogo' 'LflenatfinaXVII. No. 2 (1975). 37- 48. Subin. L. "Gumanizm Dostoevskogo i dostoevscina” W No.1 (1965). 78- 95. Todorcv. W12. ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' Translated by Wlad Minneapolis: niversity of Minnesota Press.1984. Vasixin. Ju. "0 Mix' e Mixailovice Baxtine." In 899W. Saransk: Mordovskoek oe izdatel'stvo. 1978. pp. 203 2 9 Vetlovska' a. V. "OtnoSenie avtora k re‘éi personaiej." 1W XXVI 1. NO. 4(1969). 316- 329. 165 ---------- . MW Leningrad: "Nauka." 1977- Volgin, I. "Nezaver§enn ' dialog." WEED-[BL XIX. No. 4 (1975). 1531-1711. w . Volo§inov. V. ' Translated by Matejka. L. and 11tunik. ew ork: eminar Press. 19 3 Wellek. R. "Bakhtin‘ s View of Dostoevsky. "Polyphony and 'Carnivalesque.” WH198013139 Ittttttttt In addition to the works listed in my Primary Bibliography. 1 have also consulted the following works on Baxtin and polyphony: Asmus. V.. et. a1. Letter. Litemtumajagazeta (August 13. 1964). Bursav. B. "Tolstoj i Dostoevskij." W No. 7 (1964). Cepaiakoéz'Roman ako vel’ki dialog." Wm XX (1973). Cizevskij. D. "Novye knigi o Dostoevskom: M. Baxtin.Eneb1emz_peetjki ANS Donnin.’ 0"01‘ .1111 L0 00+ I ..v " -... o.“'"‘:=_-..-..11.._1ik'.'ioi No.81 19 S. 282- 2. . Fridlender. G. "No e knigi o Dostoevskom." Wm No.4 (1965).185-1 8 ---------- NW Moscow: 1964 Grebenickova.R 'Zamlcuj ici dialog u Dostojevskeho." Ce’ékesleyenska Wig” (1971). 54- 60. Jeremic. L.‘ 'Bahtinov 'polifonijski roman.” InnXXIII (1968). 51-56. Kautman. F. Ku vede ce a (Na okra kmhi M. Bachtina WWM 12(1964). 243- 232. E kohnov v., and Kpnkin s. Mixail MixailoviE Baxtin In Ejs'eblem ..... Szaransk niversity of Mordovia. 9 3. Krasnov. W. "Polyphonic Arrangement of CharaCters in Solzenicy n 's 8 4 W XXIX. No 10411975 Kule‘ova. E. I fill B' . . oronto: Izdatel'stvo "Sovremennik." 1981. ....— .9 in“! 'M 5"“ ‘-!'- .‘_ 166 Lunaitarskij. A. "0 mnogogolo nosti Dostoevskogo( o ovodu k ‘ iM.M. {Baggiga 1W)? 11918841311040 Malcuzynski. M.-P. "Mikhail Bakhtin and Contemporary Narrative Theory.“Unixer_sjtx_qf_Qttma_Qeaneuy. LIII. No. 1 (1983). 51-65. Peche . G. "Bakhtin. Marxism. and Post-Structuralism." In Iheflemjeeef EEEEEEEEEE M. Edited by Barker. 8.. et.aL Colchester: University 0 Essex. 1983. pp. 234-247. Perlina. N. Review of .Krasnov. V. 1 .1‘ 1. i 1 .11 u 1.- m. -. .. vii 1"Winter 1980.20 -205. Perlina. N.. and Forman. A. "Rabo y M.M. Baxtina po voprosam poetiki slova v estvovatel'nyx anrax literatury." MW 19.1mm. I (Fall 1977). 45-54. Pomcgraléaégkb’Mixail Baxtin and His Verbal Universe." EU... No. 3 (1978). \ Svetov. F. “Priroda ‘z'anra i funkcija sjuieta." W No. 8 (1966). 135-150. Thomson. C. "The Semiotics of MM. Bakhtin." W Quefleflx. LIII. No. l (1983). 11-22. Titunik. I. "M.M. Bakhtin (The Bakhtin School) and Soviet Semiotics." Dimming. No. 3 (1976). 327-338. Wasiolek. E. Review of M. Baxtin. ‘ ' ’ Maxie Reflex. XXXIV (June 1975). 43 -438. Wegner. M. "Zur Romankonze tion Fedor M. Dostoevskijs." Zensghn'fj m: 51mm. XXVIII. No. S 1983), 683-690. 167 5 I 3.1 I. I Amend. V Theme and Formin WW" Msdsrmfiistisn Studies. IV (1948). 240-252. Anderson. R "Raskol' nikov and the Myth Experience" W What XX (1976). 1-17. ---------- "The Meaning of Carnival in 51211911151 Wain"! (1979. 4 8- 4 Baboy?91§."Poema Velikij inqvizitor.'"Rueskfm_1iieLamLa. No. 2 (1984). Beebe. M. ”The Three Motives of Raskolnikov: A Reinter retation of Crime andflnishmsnt" Callsaslinalishxvull9551. 151 1 8. Belkin. A. "Roman W.” In W ' , .. ' ' 31Edited by Ustju . D. Moscow: Belknap. R. "Memory in W312!" In W Edited by Jackson. R. Englewood Cliff s NJ Prentice- all 19 .pp 7- 242. ---------- 'Narrative Time in Nineteenth Century Prose." AATSEEL Meeting. New York.1986. ---------- . Pager (untitled). International Dostoevsky Society Meeting. New York. 19 6. ---------- W The Hague Mouton 1967. Belovz.7S.3"Ilmena i familii u F.M. Dostoevskogo." W No. 5 (1976). ---------- "Nesluca ca7j'n e slova i detali v EnsstimIsniLLnakanfi" Russkai'a (£3,110. 1119 S. 37- 4o. ---------- "0 xudoiestvennom masterstve F M. Dostoevsk o.‘ 'Rnsskaj'a reé'. No. 5(1971), 3-10. 08 . H. ' C 0 IO. .......... . m. "_ . 1"} . .J: . i . 1, . .. - .1__. 1“ I... ' V. '| .' a.- mii.:Len1mgrad "Prosv -1e.‘ 1979. Bethea. D. "Structure vs. Symmetry in MW." 18:1 1&3:ng '.itsnaturLanLI-Zilm. ite Y Crook. E. allahassee: University Press of Florida. 1982. pp. 41 -.64 Blackmur. R. WM New York: Harcourt. Brace 8: World. nc., 19 4. 168 Bortnes. ’The Function aiograph in Dostoevskij’ s Novels." WHIV (1978). 27- H33 y Braun. M 'IhLBLolhsLLKauaasLas an Expositor)r Novel" Canadian; AmsrisanjlaxisSiuilissVI 1972). 199-208 Br E ’Meaning and Symbolism in the Names of Dostoevsk’ . Ejnjghmem andIheieiei." NemegXXVII (June 1979). 11 -140. Busch. R. "Humor in Dostoevskii’s ‘ ' ' Canadian; AmsrisanjlaxisStudissIX(1975.S4-8 Cassedy. S. "The Formal Problem of the Epilogue in CmmmsLEenishment: The Logic of Tragic and Christian Structures." Wee. III (1982). 171-190as Catteau, The Paradox of the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor in The W" In Weiss. 91) 243- 254 Chaitin. G. R"e1igion as Defense: The Structure of Warm." LiisnatsrsndfimhslsszXU972169-87. Cicerin. A. "Poetiéeskij strcj jazyka v romanax Dostoevsk o.’ ‘In Imn‘ésstm E.dited by Stepanov N. Moscow: 12 atel‘ stvo AN SSSR. 1959. pp. 417- 444. CirkOV. R W MOSCOW "Nauka" 1967. Cox, 4RIII’I’Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor." W XVII (I967). 427- Curtis. J. "Spatial Form as the Intrinsic Genre of Dostoevsky s Novels." Medem WXVIIIUWZ). 135- 154. Danov. D. "A Note on the Internal amics of the Dostoevskian Conclave." Wis; 11 (1981). 6 -68. ---------- . ”Notes on Generating a Text: " Medem WXI.N0. 1(1980-19 1. - 5. ---------- . "Semiotics of Gesture in Dostoevskian Dialogue." Russian WWII (1980). 41-75. ---------- . "Subtexts of " BMW X11 No.2(l982), 173-20 . Eastman. R. "Idea and Method in a Scene by Dostoevsky." Ceilegefinglish. XVII.No.3(1955).143- 150. BseberIsI BI. 458113902113111 Wm." Sande-slats. XXVII (1981). 169 Egorenkova. G. “Poetika s uietno au v romane F. M. Dostoevskogo Bra]: ja W"Eilolozi§1kis_naulgxw. No. 5(1971). 27- 39. ---------- . "Rec‘ geroev i slovo avtora." W No. 4 (1972). 13-17. ---------- . "Sju‘z'etnost’ kom eiiNekotorye osobennosti xudoiestvennoi struktu romana FM. toevskogo . mu)! III.No.6(l976).14-24. ErmakovamMn-u Lo ‘: ' ... nx'fio m. Gor' k1]: Volgo-Vjatskoe k ’ uoe izdatel’stvo. 1973. EvninF. “RomanEresLunleniLLnakazam'e" MW pp. 128-172. Fidergg. 9.1"Raskolnikov’s Confession." WW XXX (1980). Foleiewski. 2. "Murder M stery or Christian Tragedy: Remarks on Some Structural» «WWW. W111 (Fall1980).11-.118 ‘ Fridlender. G. "0 nekotoryx ooeredn zadaEax. i. problema; izuEeniJ’a Dostoevsk 1:950” W v. I . Leningrad: NaukIa."1980 pp 3 2 Gassieva.B. .b°"||° H a 2’1; Lo 0.91 »°1f°":1"."vit' ..3vols 0 . 'onikidze: 198. Gibian, G. "The Grotesque in Dostoevsky." MW IV. No 3 (1958). 262- 270. Gill. R. "The Brid es of St. Petersburg: A Motif in W." WIIHWMI. 145-155 Goldstein. M. "The Debate in 31W WXIVIIWO. 32 -340. Golubev. A. "Religious Imagery 1n the Structure of Wm." In Wham Edited by reeborn. . et a1. Cambridge: Slavica. 1976. pp. 113- 136. Grossman. L. "Dostoevskij - xudoinik." In W929. pp 330- 416. Hall. V. "Dostoevsky' 3 Use of French as a Symbolic Device in Imam." WIIMfiI. 171-174 Hanan. D. "WW: The Idea of the Crime." W [Melbourne 1 9 . 15-28. Hart. P. "Looking over Raskol‘nikov‘ s Shoulder: The Narrator in Crimund Runishment." Criticism.XIII(197i). 166- 179. Tm; ‘.E: 1 _‘ 72.—WW“? I70 Holquist. J. "Disease as Dialectic in WW1." In Igentieth We bmenL:_A_.CollecJ.ion_oi figural Essafi. Edited b ackson. R. Englewood Cliffs N Prentice-Hall. 1 74 pp 1 9 118. Y] ”J. Horsman. D. "W: A Stud 2in Technique." NemLZealansl W VI Summer 1970). 34- Ivanits.L . "RussiaLLansbaaeJournai XXXIV.No.17aWinterl .109-1 Ivancikova. B. "0 sintaksise xudolestvennyx goizvedenij Dostoevskogo" Mummvyp 5(1971). 417- Jackson. R "Dmitri Karamazov and the “Legend." W Journal. IX(1 65). 257- 267. O o o .......... .. . 0 u" .. OJ. ..‘0‘00’ 0) Bloomington: Physsardt, 1978. ---------:. "Philoson hical Pro and Contra in Part One of mm ' margin: 2 -40 -------- ‘-- Werner. Princeton: Princeton niversity Press 19 l ---------- "The Clumsy White Floweti. _‘81n Imreniiethsentmrlnierbremions W on Johnson. L. ' ' Slavica ublishers. ne.198 . Jones. M. W. London: Elek Books Ltd..1976. ---------- "Dostoevsk ‘s Conce tion of the 1&3me MELXIIHW 9).106- ---------- . "Raskolnikov’ s Humanitarianism." W 519.4191. VIII. No. 3 (1974). 370- 380. . Kabat,G.--to.1:u "4': ._ 01: .~ .2 York: Colum. ia University Press. 1968. Kajgorodov. V "Obraz Ivana Karamazova i problema idealizmav omane F..M Dostoevskogo BraflLKaramazomor"InEroblemuTixorge§11L£M. Winona Bdlited bYJa Bilinki lumen: 1982. pp. 4-72. Kalenkova. 0. "Cvetovaia gamma Wm FM. Dostoevskogo." Wm. 1(1982 9 2 Kantor. V. Wm. Moscow: “Xudolestvennaja literatura.” l9 3. Columbus: ‘ oJ 0“ .1 Lr o; . ,New 171 Kariakin. Ju. "Celovek v celoveke (Obraz pristavaV sledstvenn nn_/yix del 12 . mummy." Vbbmnrmeraimy.“ No 7(19 1173-97. ---------- "M11 0 ‘cernoi magii‘ Dostoevskogo: Cernovik k nakazaniiii.“ W“. No (19721.113-125. u ' . . . . .. . . ----------. ,- '. .A. . I. 1.. : '3 ‘ . ... .‘ . . : . '. I_ | .A. .A .1. . d . . 11W. oscov: udo stvennaialiteratura."19 ., Ka‘éina. N W Moscowz ‘XndO‘Z'estvennaia literatura" 1 8 Kiremidiian. D. "W: Matricide and the Woman Question.” W I 19 . 403-433. Kogan. Zaadocn .imia Svidrigajlova’: miodi’beslgraia t‘ 1860-x godov." 1981) 426 43ge Koprince. R. "The Episode in W" An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. 1977. Kolinov. V. ’Eresieolemumakuame F. M Dostoevskos0” In his Infiedexra WMoscow 1971 pp. 7). Kubikov.1."0braz Smerd akova i 0 ob ,t'gi‘éa ugci sm s1." In Mstoexskii; l 02170 ' aIIlI =...aI‘I ,II“’v1IIIl .Iy. WP 111 1928 pp. 0 o- . Kuhn. A. "A Note on Raskol‘nikov’s Hats.“ William-Journal. XV(1971). 425- 432. KuleEova. E. "Psixologiceskie korni “JEEP" v cetyrex Katerinax Dostoev- skogo." W IVI. No. 128 (Fall 1983). 75- 94. Kuskov. V. M"otivy drevnerussko literatury v romane F. M. Dostoevsk o 2 WW No.5 (197018). Leatherbarrow, W. "Raskolnikov and the ’Enigma of His Personalit. (St. Andrews. Scotland]. I "'11 1973 15 -1 ---------- ’T‘he Aesthetic Louse: Ethics and Aestheticsin ' inDostoevskz‘s “ModernianauazeflexiemaLXXl. N0 4097) 8S -8 Lehrman. E 1 Int.- The Hague Mouton. 1977. ' . Lindenme Raskolnikov’ s Cit and the Na leonic Plan" W 17 ( 1976) 37- 47. y 9° I72 Linner S WUJHWWM MW. Stock iolm: Almqvist 81 Wiksell. l9 . Lopatin. V. ’Bezuder! karamazovskij.”Ru_sskaja_r_e§_‘. No. 6 (1971). 17-23. Marnp "A Defense of the Epilogue to W“ Bueknell ReflexX(i961). 57-74. Matlaw. R. "Recurrent Imagery in W." In Dostoevsky. F.. I‘;1'71111‘1'_1)1 11113 10 .New York: Norton. 164. pp6 -658. Matual. D "Fate 111W mtemationalflgiomfieflex. III ( 1976) 120- l Meiiei‘ J "Dostoevskii's Realism’ CanadianzAmerimnflafleSmiiies XII. No. 3 (1978). 402- 407. ---------- . ”Situation Rhyme in a Novel of Dostoevski‘." In Djfijch .9}. P O}. 1' ° 1 '1'. .'1. '1': A Hague: 1958. pp. 115-129. ---------- . "Some Noteson Dostoevskij and Russian Realism‘ Wm WM. 4(1973).5-17. ---------- . "The Author of 3113113 {amalgam-L" In W11. The Hague: Mouton. 1971. pp. 74%. Mensutina. 0. "Idejno-xudoiestvennoe osmyslenie nekotoryx povtorov v 113$? 4DIIsStiIeI/skoso Eresieoleniflmkazanie." W No. 3 Miller R. "The Biblical Storhof 1403?]! in Dostoevskii‘ s W mam"81aflc.8eflex. (1982). 653 -6.65 Miller. R..F "Dostoevsky and Rousseau: The Moralit of Confession Recon- sidered." MW pp 8 Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1981. Mixa'lov. M. "K probleme sjuietno-kom ozicionno realizacii slova v Braun RM Dostoevskogo"R9;§km..1ii_raimJllXxJouosV ' " Ucenye zapiski Gor ‘kovskogo universiteta, vyp 13 1972. pp. 1 2- 105. Mkrt(' L "Deti V W" zVennikhexanskoxoxmmneta stvennye nauk12-44 Morson. G. "The Ethics of Reading." New York. AATSEEL Meeting. 1986. ---------- ‘Verbal Pollution in W." BIL, 111. No. 3 (19781223-233 173 Mortiln6gr.lR&‘ ‘Dostoevsky and the Dream. mum LIV (1957). Moss. IL "A T of Embedded Texts in W." 51321; W111”-01111371102119831253-257. Mysljakov. V. "Kak rasskazana ’Istorija’ Rodiona Raskol’nikova." In - sku.M21er1ahrussledoxamia Leninsrad: 'Nauka" 1974. pp. 147-1 3. Naumann. M. "Raskol’ nikov’ s Shadow: Porfirij Petrovic!" W EurebeanJournaLXVI (19721. 42- 54. Nazirov. R. ‘Avtonomi a literaturn o ero a. ‘In Er?lemy_tmr§es%m We fiditeid by J ilinlris et. a1. jumen’: 1982. pp. 3-11. Niemi. P. ‘The Art of ' W IX (Winter 19631.291-31. Nilsson, N. "Dostoevskij and the Language of Suspense." Wain, XVI (1970). 35- 44. ---------- as a Stylistic Device in W." Russian W11! 19731.65-71. NUttal.A. LO 01‘ ‘ " II'II' .11‘111‘1 .‘ 1011101’ ' Edinburgh: Scottish Academy Press for Sussex University ess. l9 8 Oates. J. ’The Double Vision of ."JournflgLAesthL WHVII 19 8. 203- 21. 0d1n0k0V.V. In ”11.1.. ; II“ ’11.“ ‘II‘ 11 LI I.’ ‘.I.:I. Novosibirs :" auka."1981. Offord. D. ’The Causes of Crime and the Meamng of Law: CrimLand and Contempor Radical Thou ht." In Ed ted b Jones. and Terry .Cambridge Cambridge 93113151111 , : niversity Press. 198;. PP 41-65. Osmolovski. O. "0 portretnom metode Dostoevskogo-romanista." loom WWI. No. 25 (1975174-79. Pachmuss. V. ”Dostoevskij’ s Porfirij Petrovifi A New Socrates." W WM. 111980117-24. Palumbo. D "The Theme of the Fortunate Fall in Dostoevsky‘ s The Effective Counterar ument to Ivan’ s Ambivalent Atheism. WXLIII. No. 4(1981 s- 12 Paris. B. "The Two Selves of Rodion Raskolnikov: A Horneyan Analysis’ 111124112. 1 (1978). 316- 328. 174 Peace R We Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press.1971. Pike. C."Forma11st and Structuralist Approaches to Dostoevsky." In New pp. 187-214 Pletnev. R. "Vrem a 1 prostranstvo u Dostoevskogo." W No.87 (19671.118-1127. Poddubnaa ..R 0"braz Porfiriia Petroviéa v xudolestvennoi strukture romana F. M. stoevskogo . I No 16 (1971). 48- 58. ---------- . “Vosstanovlenie £0131: sego 6eloveka.. "'Etibeskoe 1 éstetiéeskoe v $91171???) ograza Svi ajlova." W XVIII. No. 2 Polonskoj. K. Com entary to F. M. Dostoest k9. Moscow: "Xudo oestvennaia literatura." 195 pp. 577- 597. Rahv. P. "Dostoevsky in ” In W W. Edited by Wellek. Englewood fs. N.J.: Prentice- all.Incl92.pp.68.1-3 ReWip problemy evropeiskoj deistvitel’ nosti." .WD 5 1971). 388- 399. Rosen. N. "Style and Structure in Russian WNQ 1(Fa111971.-352 3 5. ---------- "Wh Dmitrij Karamazov Did Not [(111 His Father.’ Canadian; mm VI (1972). 209- 224. Rosenshield. G.’ Author. Lisse: Peter deRidder Press 1978. Rowe. W. "Wand 1'101"1:.:||:.0 Some Com arative bservations.” : . ’ - .. - '. - No. 10 (19 41331-342. ---------- "Dostoevskian Patterned Antinom and Its Functionin Eunishinent." WWI (1972). 287- 29%. Rubenstein. S. "Dostoevsky: The Identity of " 1911:1121 of_GeneraLEdiieaiion.IOIVI(19741. 139- 14. Sav6enko. N. Wm. Moseowz Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.1982. Réennikov. G. nogoobrazie v edinstve: 0 iazyke geroev Dostoevskogo.’ MN0.6(19711.13-16. I75 .......... , "sjjq i t.I‘aVOSUd'eV 3 c. " .. an on: iide Dostoevskogo.” In 1 ; - 11:0 .2010 u sb. .Sverd ovsk: 1974.139. 34-49. Seek}, F. “The Two Faces of Svidrigajlov." W 11, No. 3 (1978), 4113-417. Shaw J. "Raskol’nikov’s Dream." WW XVII (Summer 19731.131-145. Shukman.A. '4 1 ‘noesi 0 0 u" "12' . Amsted..91'aml76. Cited in Danov. 1‘. "Notes on 'etingunraa Text: #111: Ennmsrs Kanamazgx," pp. 94-95. §klovsk£ V. W 2 volt MOSCOW: Xu {estvennaja literatura.’ 19 . Snod rass. W. ”Crime for Punishment; The Tenor of Part One." 1111115911 ‘ X111 (1960). 202-253. Sultanov, K. "Sedevr russkoi k ssiki." Afterword to Dostoevskij. F. ‘ ‘ ‘ .Maxa kala: Dagestanskoe knilnoe izdatel’stvo. 1970. Pp. 424-431. ‘ Sutherland, S. "The Philosophical Dimension: Self and Freedom.” 1n Hm ‘ Waxy. pp. 169-185. Tamarcenko, m "0 {aurovoj strukture a- _1 6!": ' 1:..2. In 3 n 'n .212 ' 01' ‘no' ._ rm. ‘. u Kemerovo: 19 .pp. 7-91. Terralségll. W Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ---------- . Wm Fredericton: York. 1984. ---------- . "The Art of FictiOn as a Theme in W.“ In W pp. 193-205- ---------- . “Tur enev and the Devil in Canadian; WW (1972). -2 1. Tiun’kin, K. Introduction to Dostoevskij; F. W. Moscow: "Xudolestvennaia literatura.” 198 . pp. 5-30. van der Eng, J. "A Note on Comic Relief in Wm." In 'IIhs W11. pp. 149-1 2. ---------- . “‘Suspense‘ v Wm“ In W W11. pp. 3-148. Verc. 1. "0 ‘neoiidannom de‘stvii' u Dostoevskogo." W 51.9.4191. 11110978). 40 “112. 176 Vetlovskaja. V. "Alyosha Karamazov and the Hagiographic Hero." In W113. pp. 206-226. ---------- . "0b odnom iz IstoEnilrov W" W XL. No. 5 (1981). 436-445. ' ---------- . "Dostoevskij 1 poeticeski‘ mir drevnei Rusi." In Wm WWI-eningrad: "Nauka." 1974 9.? . Villadsen.P. I‘ II‘ t I II 112.! LII. LXI I..~.'Ai.°"'1.' Odensee: Odensee niversity Press. 1981. Vin adov. V. W. Moscow: "Xudo‘z'estvennoi ‘teratury." 195 . ‘ ‘ . Moscow: '-"-iéuliei'swo AN $5511. 19 3. Vivas, E. "The Two Dimensions of Reality in Wm." In W 913.~ 1-89- Vladiv. S. "Dostoevsky’s Major Worksas Semiotic Models." In a In; - I‘I : . . .I'i,‘;I .III II‘ I. ‘ I 'IIQI' 1-2‘ I- ‘ I. dited by Christesen, N., and Scurfield, 1. Melbourne: Russian Department. University of Melbourne. 1977. pp. 47-57. “We'- Go and fiebledev. in. W ' " Kostroma: 19 . Walsh, 11. "The Book of Job and the Dialectic of Theodi?’ in Kmfsginhsentralfiyneim. XXIII/1111977). 1 1-164. Wasiolek. 11 "‘Aut Caesar. Aut Nihil‘: A Study of Dostoevsky's Moral Dialectic." EMLA. LXXVIII. No. 1 (1963). 89-97. ---------- . WW Cambridge: MIT. Press. 1964. ---------- . "Raskolnikov‘s Motives: Love and Murder."Amsrisan_1_magp, XXXI (1974). 252-269. Welch, .L. "Luiin’s Crime and "the Advantages of Melodrama in Dostoevsky’s WWII Spring 197 3.:113'5-14 . Werge. T. "The Word as Deed in W? W XXVII ( I975). 207-219. Wharton. R. "Dostoevsk ‘3 Defense of Christ in W Part Two." mm XXI .No. l (1984). 59-70. - ---------- . "Roads to Hap iness in Wm Dostoevsky's Defense of Christ." ' XXIII. No. 2 I984 . 3-15. I77 Willett. M. The 'ingEnd of CrimLandfiunishment." QrbiLLineLarum XXV (19701.244-258mg Wilson, R. 111. ”Raskolnikov’s Dream in ‘ LIME. WXXVHIWQ. 159-16. Xolsevnikova, V. Commentary to Dostoevski. F. We. Leningrad: "Leninizdat" 970. pp 556-5 6. Zaxarov V. “Slovo i kursiv v Erasinpleniiinakazanii" 11111111311195; No. 4 (1979121-27. Zundelggic. Ja. Wm Taskent: ”Sredniaia i vys‘éaia skola” "11111111111111