PRECEDENT PHENOMENA: THE ROLE OF CULTURAL REFERENCE IN DOSTOEVSKY’S NOVEL DEMONS _____________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________ by MIKHAIL ZOLOTAREV Dr. Timothy Langen, Thesis Supervisor MAY 2013
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
function, and 4) group forming function. These functions will be discussed in the order of
their usage frequency from most utilized to least utilized. Thus, the function of improving
one’s verbal efficiency is most used; it embodies 50.7% of all instances. Persuasive,
ornamental and group forming functions comprise 30.7%, 15.3% and 8.3% respectively.
The percentage of instances where PP are used in zero function for characters is 24.6%.2
1.1 Verbal Efficiency There are incidents when speakers struggle to find an appropriate
word to describe an object or a situation. In such occurrences PP can help speakers
express themselves. Speakers may utilize PP to improve their verbal efficiency because 1)
they struggle to describe the situation or an object with their own words, 2) because,
expressing a complicated idea, they want to save time, or 3) because they want to make
themselves as clear as possible and use PP as supplements.
2 The sum of the figures is more than 100% because each particular precedent phenomenon often fulfills
several functions simultaneously.
15
Saving time and efforts expressing an idea Nadezhda Golubev defines “precedent
element” as a unit derived from some prior language/discursive signs which serve as an
example, foundation (semantic and structural element) for future instances of their usage
in a new constellation (Голубева 83). In other words, people can appeal to a precedent as
an example for the contemporary situation which needs to be described. While setting
models with the help of PP, speakers can save a lot of time and efforts to describe various
events. For example, in the following conversation Stavrogin explains why he needs a
second. His interlocutor, Kirillov, notes the parallel with Pushkin’s duel. Both events
have one very distinct feature in common, i.e. their inevitability caused by enormously
humiliating letters sent from one duelist to the other. This similarity makes the reference
to Pushkin’s duel possible. With its help, Kirillov understands Stavrogin’s situation and
agrees to be his second.
- Наконец сегодня приходит это письмо, какого верно никто никогда не получал, с
ругательствами и с выражениями: «ваша битая рожа». Я пришел, надеясь, что вы не
откажетесь в секунданты.
- Вы сказали, письма никто не получал, - заметил Кириллов: - в бешенстве можно; пишут не
раз. Пушкин Гекерну написал. (Достоевский 192)
“Finally, today comes this letter – such as no one, surely, has ever received, with curses and such
expressions as: “your beaten mug”. I’ve come in hopes that you will not refuse to be my second.”
“You say a letter no one received,” Kirillov remarked. “In rage it’s possible; written more than
once. Pushkin wrote to Heeckeren.” (Dostoevsky 234)
So, in this conversation PP helps Kirillov express the idea clearly by means of a simple
allusion to the precedent situation. The common feature between two duels, humiliating
letters, serve as triggers for all other nuances common for two events but difficult to
explain, such as furiously mad challenger, a rashly prepared duel, concessions proposed
by one duelist and impossible to accept for the other and etc. The PP stands for all these
16
slight nuances as it refers to all of them by mentioning of the most distinct feature, the
letter.
Struggling to find appropriate words Sometimes PP fail to describe the event precisely,
and then speakers try to modify them in order to express the idea better. In the following
example Stepan Trofimovich tells the narrator about his visit to Drozdovs’ house. He tries
to describe its head – Praskovya Ivanovna. He believes that she is a representative of a
certain human type: middle class gentry with low level of education, rather stubborn and
conservative. According to his opinion, this type is well described by Gogol in his
“poem” Dead Souls, only with slight variations which Stepan Trofimovich adds: wicked,
provoking and enlarged or diminished.
- Enfin, эта Прасковья, как называет ее cette chere amie, это тип, это бессмертной памяти
Гоголева Коробочка, но только злая Коробочка, задорная Коробочка, и в бесконечно увеличенном виде.
- Да ведь это сундук выйдет; уж и в увеличенном?
- Ну, в уменьшенном, все равно, только не перебивайте… (Достоевский 99)
“Enfin, this Praskovya, as cette chere amie calls her, is a type, she's Gogol's Korobochka, Mrs.
Littlebox, of immortal memory, only a wicked Littlebox, a provoking Littlebox, and in an infinitely
enlarged form."
"That would make her a trunk!Enlarged, really?"
"Well, diminished then, it makes no difference, only don't interrupt me…” (Dostoevsky 119)
In this example it is vividly shown how Stepan Trofimovich lacks the right words to
describe the person he is talking about. He finds a PP, a template which would fit the
situation, but he realizes that the PP he has chosen does not fit very well, and he starts to
modify it by adding various adjectives. The last one does not fit at all. His interlocutor
immediately notices it and does not hesitate to spell it out. However, the narrator’s joke
does not discourage Stepan Trofimovich; he realizes that he has been understood and
17
continues his speech. This example illustrates Stepan Trofimovich’s level of linguistic
competence. Linguistic competence comprises various skills aimed at expressing oneself.
With the help of these skills a communicant manages to answer such questions as: what
to say, how to say, what means to use to be understood and so on and so forth. The
proficiency in these skills defines how effectively speakers can communicate their ideas.
The awareness of how PP can be utilized is one of those skills which probably belong to a
high rank of linguistic skills. This example demonstrates that Stepan Trofimovich is not a
master of this particular skill.
Making oneself as clear as possible Speakers may utilize PP as supplements. When
interlocutor’s comprehension and reaction are very important for the speaker, the latter
tends to make his speech as clear as possible. And then his speech is oversaturated with
various linguistic units expressing the same idea.
(I) Je suis un forçat, un Badinguet, un припертый к стене человек! (Достоевский 66)
Je suis un forçat, un Badinguet, un man pushed to the wall! (Dostoevsky 79)
(II) Что вы глядите на меня? Мне вы, вы надобны, без вас я нуль. Без вас я муха, идея в
стклянке, Колумб без Америки. (Достоевский 343)
Why are you staring at me? It’s you I need, you, without you I’m a zero. Without you I’m a fly, an
idea in a bottle, Columbus without America. (Dostoevsky 419)
In the first example Stepan Trofimovich refers to the story of how Napoleon III escaped
from the fortress (Forteresse de Ham) having dressed like a bricklayer. He compares
himself to a French Emperor who (like Stepan Trofimovich) had to humiliate himself in
order to save his life (Stepan Trofimovich talks about his arranged marriage with Daria
Pavlovna Shatov that is probably as disastrous for him as the imprisonment was for
Napoleon). Stepan Trofimovich mentions Napoleon’s nickname along with other means
18
which describe his situation such as “a man pushed to the wall” and “un forçat” which
means “a convict”. In the second example his son, Pyotr Verkhovensky, also tries to
explain himself and uses an allusion to the events of 1492. Verkhovensky places PP at the
end of his sentence when the design of his thought arrangement is clear. In the first place,
he highlights the idea that Stavrogin and Verkhovensky are two inseparable elements like
one and zero, like a fly and the sky, like an idea and freedom. And in order to be more
convincing, he applies the idea of inseparability of Columbus and America. In both
examples PP are supplements; they can be easily omitted without damaging the meaning.
The examples above also reflect Dostoevsky’s special plan for the portrayal of his
characters. According to the plot of the novel, Stepan Trofimovich and Pyotr
Verkhovensky are a father and a son who are linked not only by blood. They are also
connected by the idea of reforming Russia; the only difference is that they preach
different means of its realization. Dostoevsky creates a brilliant design to show the
change of this idea within two generations of one family. He moves to the foreground the
idea that the older generation is responsible for the appearance of the revolutionary
movement in Russia; in other words, the men of 40s created the men of 60s. Therefore it
becomes very important for him to show that these two are relatives. Here we can see that
Dostoevsky grants them same language habits.
1.2 Persuasive function is another highly utilized function. PP may be used in order to act
upon people. In everyday speech, besides informing their interlocutors, speakers try to
influence them as well. The speaker can pursue different goals: provoking his interlocutor
agreement/disagreement with the statement or prompting his interlocutor to do
something. These manipulations may be obvious (as an imperative phrase “Open the
19
window!”) or more implicit; it depends on what language we use. PP usage is one of the
means of clandestine influence. PP may have two types of influence upon communicants:
1) PP can influence communicants simply as effectively used language units; or 2) the
source of a PP is likely to be authoritative for language users and may have its own
impact on them. For example, if somebody quotes from the Bible, the quotation itself has
a certain effect on interlocutors if it matches the context, yet the authority of the source
definitely has its own influence on people. So in this section I am going to talk of the
effect of the source (as one of the structural elements of PP) upon people. The results of
the textual analysis allow me to differentiate two types of purpose why PP may be used in
persuasive function: 1) to defend one’s viewpoint by means of agreeing or disagreeing
with interlocutors’ authority, or 2) for the sake of mere manipulation aimed at improving
one’s own position or at prompting interlocutors to react in a certain way.
Defending one’s viewpoint Quite often people get into arguments with each other and
have to defend their viewpoints. One of the effective ways to do so is to claim that your
viewpoint is shared by others, especially if these ‘others’ are highly respected people. For
instance, in the following argument Varvara Petrovna reproaches Stepan Trofimovich for
his habit of reveling. In respond to that, Stepan Trofimovich notes that he is strongly
against becoming a narrow-minded prude because most prudes believe blindly in moral
standards without testing their validity. To defend his viewpoint, he uses ‘un mot’ uttered
by Pascal which perfectly describes the situation; and for Varvara Petrovna, it makes very
difficult to disagree with.
- Имею же я право не быть ханжей и изувером, если того хочу, а за это естественно буду
разными господами ненавидим до скончания века. Et puis, comme on trouve toujours plus de
moines que de raison, и так как я совершенно с этим согласен….
20
- Как, как вы сказали?
- Я сказал: on trouve toujours plus de moines que de raison, и так как я с этим…
- Это верно не ваше; вы верно откудова-нибудь взяли?
- Это Паскаль сказал.
- Так я и думала… что же вы! Почему вы сами никогда так не скажете, так коротко и метко, а
всегда так длинно тянете? Это гораздо лучше, чем давеча про административный восторг…
(Достоевский 51)
“...Do I not have the right to be a bigot and a fanatic if I choose? And for that I shall naturally be
hated by various gentlemen till the end of time. Et puis, comme on trouve toujours plus de moines
que de raison, and since I am in perfect agreement with that…”
“What? What did you say?”
“I said: on trouve toujours plus de moines que de raison, and since I am in ...”
“That can’t be yours; you must have gotten it somewhere.”
“Pascal said it.”
“Just as I thought…it wasn’t you! Why don’t you ever say anything like that, so brief and so apt, instead of dragging it all out so? It’s much better than what you said earlier about administrative
rapture…” (Dostoevsky 61)
As one can see from the example, Stepan Trofimovich does not intend to reveal that these
words belong to Pascal; it is Varvara Petrovna who forces him to reveal the truth.
However, the authority of Pascal and the quality of his utterance are so eminent that they
force Varvara Petrovna to take into consideration Stepan Trofimovich’s viewpoint. It is
hard to say whether she absolutely agrees with him and changes her own standpoint, but
after the remark on brilliance of Pascal’s words, she changes the subject and never returns
to the discussion of Stepan Trofimovich reveling habits.
Another example demonstrates more vividly how people’s opinion is forced to be
changed under the pressure of common authority. In the conversation between Pyotr
Verkhovensky and the nameless lame teacher, the former notes that Shigalev’s theory on
21
the new social organization is reckless. The teacher who has read Shigalev’s work starts
defending the socialist’s point of view. This decision is partly explained by the teacher’s
personal antipathy to Verkhovensky. It seems that the teacher’s goal is to prove that
Verkhovensky is wrong. To achieve this goal he uses two sets of PP.
- Однако порядочный вздор! -- как бы вырвалось у Верховенского. Впрочем он, совершенно
равнодушно и не подымая глаз, продолжал обстригать свои ногти.
- Почему же вздор-с? -- тотчас же подхватил хромой, как будто так и ждал от него первого
слова, чтобы вцепиться. -- Почему же именно вздор? Г. Шигалев отчасти фанатик
человеколюбия; но вспомните, что у Фурье, у Кабета особенно и даже у самого Прудона есть
множество самых деспотических и самых фантастических предрешений вопроса. Г. Шигалев
даже может быть гораздо трезвее их разрешает дело. Уверяю вас, что, прочитав книгу его, почти невозможно не согласиться с иными вещами. Он, может быть, менее всех удалился от
реализма, и его земной рай -- есть почти настоящий, тот самый, о потере которого вздыхает
человечество, если только он когда-нибудь существовал.
- Ну я так и знал, что нарвусь, -- пробормотал опять Верховенский.
- Позвольте-с, - вскипал все более и более хромой,-- разговоры и суждения о будущем
социальном устройстве -- почти настоятельная необходимость всех мыслящих современных
людей. Герцен всю жизнь только о том и заботился. Белинский, как мне достоверно известно, проводил целые вечера с своими друзьями, дебатируя и предрешая заранее даже самые
мелкие так-сказать кухонные подробности в будущем социальном устройстве.
- Даже с ума сходят иные, -- вдруг заметил майор. (Достоевский 331-332)
“That’s a lot of nonsense, however!” escaped, as it were, from Verkhovensky. Nevertheless he went
on cutting his nails with complete indifference and without raising his eyes.
“Why nonsense, sir?” the lame man picked up at once, as if he had just been waiting for his first
word in order to seize upon it. “Why nonsense precisely? Mr. Shigalev is somewhat of a fanatic in
his love of mankind; but remember that in Fourier, in Cabet, and even in Proudhon himself, there are
many quite despotic and fanatic preresolutions of the problem. Mr. Shigalev perhaps resolves the
matter even far more soberly than they do. I assure you that after reading his book, it is almost
impossible to disagree with some things. He is perhaps least distant of all from realism, and his
earthly paradise is almost the real one, the very one mankind sighs for the loss of, if indeed it ever
existed.”
“Well, I just knew I was letting myself in for it,” Verkhovensky muttered again.
“Excuse me, sir,” the lame man was seething more and more, “conversations and judgments about
the future social organization are an almost imperative necessity of all modern thinking people.
Herzen spent his whole life worrying about just that. Belinsky, as I know for certain, passed whole
evenings with his friends debating and preresolving beforehand even the pettiest kitchen details, so
to speak, in the future social arrangement.”
“Some even lose their minds,” the major suddenly remarked. (Dostoevsky 494-495)
22
At first, the teacher mentions the names of French socialists. He puts Shigalev’s work on
the same scale and even notes that Shigalev’s theory is better than theirs. However, this
argument does not sound convincing for Verkhovensky who thinks that everything what
has been said is close to demagogy. After that, the teacher appeals to the second type of
authority – Russian socialists: Herzen and Belinsky. These two were highly respected
among revolutionaries of that time. As a result, some of the present cannot help but voice
their approving remarks. The major alludes to Pyotr Chaadaev who according to rumors
went insane. After his remark other participants of the meeting express their approval
(clearly, their sacred things have been touched) which makes Verkhovensky give in. If he
continued disagreeing, he would become polarized against the whole gang. In my view,
along with persuading the wrongness of Verkhovensky, the teacher achieves another goal.
He stands for his own believes, he asserts that they are useful, and all his actions and all
his life are meaningful.
These two instances demonstrate how speakers use a PP source to highlight their
belonging to the seductive group by sharing views of its authority and using it to win the
argument. However, sometimes speakers try to discredit the authority of a PP source in
order to present their interlocutors’ viewpoints as wrong. In the following example one
can observe the ending of the conversation between Stepan Trofimovich and Ivan Shatov.
In this conversation, speculating on the question of faith, Stepan Trofimovich appeals to
the authority of Belinsky. ‘Usually reserved’ Shatov cannot help keeping silent after
Stepan Trofimovich’s remark on that Belinsky is also competent in the question of
knowing Russian people.
23
- Все они, и вы вместе с ними, просмотрели русский народ сквозь пальцы, а Белинский
особенно; уж из того самого письма его к Гоголю это видно. Белинский точь-в-точь как
Крылова Любопытный не приметил слона в Кунсткамере, а всё внимание свое устремил на
французских социальных букашек; так и покончил на них. А ведь он еще, пожалуй, всех вас
умнее был! (Достоевский 33)
“All of them, and you along with them, turned a blind eye and overlooked the Russian people, and
Belinsky especially; it is clear in that same letter to Gogol. Belinsky was just like Krylov’s
Inquisitive Man, who didn’t notice the elephant in the museum, but gave all his attention to French
socialist bugs; and that’s where he ended up. Yet he was maybe more intelligent than all of you!”
(Dostoevsky 38)
Shatov tries to discredit Belinsky’s authority comparing him to the character of Krylov’s
fable – an Inquisitive Man who goes to a museum and notices all sorts of tiny things but
fails to notice an elephant. Unfortunately for Shatov, his discrediting comparison does not
help persuade his interlocutor; all he does is to create a stir. People tend to doubt any idea
which goes against their adopted beliefs. Any attempt to discredit their authority should
be made very carefully, providing very clear evidence which would make people refuse
their credence. For instance, in the following example, quoting from the Scriptures,
Nikolai Stavrogin tries to persuade a monk that God does not exist.
- Ведь сказано, если веруешь и прикажешь горе сдвинуться, то она сдвинется… впрочем
извините меня за вздор. Однако я все-таки хочу полюбопытствовать: сдвинете вы гору или
нет?
- Бог повелит и сдвину, - тихо и сдержано произнес Тихон, начиная опять опускать глаза.
(Достоевский 560)
“It is said that if you believe and tell a mountain to move, it will move… that’s rubbish, however.
But, still, I’m curious: could you move a mountain, or not?”
“If God told me to, I could,” Tikhon said softly and with restraint, again beginning to lower his
eyes. (Dostoevsky 687)
At first, Stavrogin’s precise quotation from the Bible makes his interlocutor admit that
such words do exist in the authoritative source. Stavrogin does not express his own
attitude towards these words; he does not say whether he agrees or disagrees with them.
Blaming his curiosity, he asks the monk to prove the cited words knowing beforehand
24
that it is impossible. Yet the monk manages to defend his standpoint, and Stavrogin does
not reach his goal; however, he does not harm himself in the way Shatov did.
So by using a PP source to influence their interlocutors, speakers may defend their
viewpoint and win the argument. They can do so in two different ways. They can appeal
to a common authority with which their interlocutors cannot argue, or on the contrary
they can try to discredit this common authority and make their interlocutors’ beliefs look
silly.
Mere Manipulation is the other reason why speakers use PP. Often words may provoke a
direct reaction, and then, one may talk of manipulative intentions of the speaker. These
intentions may be aimed at the interlocutor so that he would change his mind and would
refuse to do what he has planned to. Manipulative intentions might be conscious or
subconscious. Speakers cannot always predict what reaction their words would cause. I
would like to note that interlocutors’ expectations and their ability to understand the
saying are factors which determine a reaction. Here is an example of subconscious
manipulation.
- Это вряд ли в наше время возможно, - тоже без всякой иронии отозвался Николай
Всеволодович, медленно и как бы задумчиво. – В Апокалипсисе ангел клянется, что
времени больше не будет.
- Знаю. Это очень даже верно; отчетливо и точно. Когда весь человек счастья достигнет, то
времени больше не будет, потому что не надо. Очень верная мысль. (Достоевский 195)
“It’s hardly possible in our time,” Nikolai Vsevolodovich responded, also without any irony,
slowly and as if thoughtfully. “In the Apocalypse the angel swears that time will be no more.”
“I know. It’s quite correct there; clear and precise. When all mankind attains happiness, time will
be no more, because there’s no need. A very correct thought.” (Dostoevsky 236-7)
25
In this conversation Stavrogin tries to persuade Kirillov not to shoot himself. One of the
approaches he applies is an appeal to the Bible. He mentions the place in the Apocalypse
where the idea of a timeless future is described. It seems that Stavrogin uses the Bible’s
authority to prove the incorrectness of Kyrillov’s desire to bring closer this day.
Nevertheless, Kyrillov has his own interpretation of the Bible and uses the same quotation
to underline how true his idea is. So the reaction turns out to be quite opposite. From the
author’s aside, we can see that Stavrogin does not plan to cite the Bible with an intention
to dissuade Kyrillov; and moreover, he does not plan that this quotation would reassure
him even more. So I regard this dialogue as an example of the reversed outcome of
subconscious manipulation.
There are other instances where PP are used to provoke certain actions. One of the main
manipulators of the novel is Pyotr Verkhovensky. To achieve his goal, to set up a
revolutionary group, he utilizes all the possible devices to make people do what he wants.
One of them is PP usage. Verkhovensky speculates in various types of authority to
encourage people’s action which would be advantageous for him. For instance,
Verkhovensky persuades Lizaveta Ivanovna to meet with Stavrogin. Readers do not see
the direct conversation between Lizaveta Ivanovna and Verkhovensky, but they can see
how Lizaveta retells it to Stavrogin. In that conversation Verhovensky has alluded to a
folk song in order to present Stavrogin as a hero.
- Третьего дня, когда я вас всенародно «обидела», а вы мне ответили таким рыцарем, я
приехала домой и тотчас догадалась, что вы потому от меня бегали, что женаты, а вовсе не
из презрения ко мне, чего я в качестве светской барышни всего более опасалась. Я поняла,
что меня же вы, безрассудную, берегли убегая. Видите, как я ценю ваше великодушие. Тут
подскочил Петр Степанович и тотчас же мне всё объяснил. Он мне открыл, что вас колеблет великая мысль, перед которой мы оба с ним совершенно ничто, но что я всё-таки у вас
поперек дороги. Он и себя тут причел; он непременно хотел втроем и говорил
26
префантастичекие вещи, про ладью и про кленовые весла из какой-то русской песни.
(Достоевский 426)
“Two days ago when I ‘offended’ you before all the world, and you gave me such a chivalrous
reply, I came home and guessed at once that you were running away from me because you were
married, and not at all out of contempt for me – which is what I, being a young lady of fashion,
was most afraid of. I understood that it was me, a reckless girl, that you were protecting by running
away. You see how I value your magnanimity. Then Pyotr Stepanovich jumped up to me and
explained it all at once. He revealed to me that you were being shaken by a great idea, before
which he and I were utterly nothing, but that I still stood in your way. He included himself in it; he
absolutely wanted it to be the three of us together, and said the most fantastic things about a bark and maple oars from some Russian song. (Dostoevsky 523)
I cannot argue that PP is the main reason why Lizaveta Ivanovna decides to meet
Stavrogin though it seems plausible that PP usage has had some impact on Lizaveta
Ivanovna’s behavior.
There are other instances when Pyotr Verkhovensky tries to present his plans appealing.
For instance, when he persuades Stavrogin to become a leader of his revolutionary group,
Verkhovensky presents him as a Prince who has been deprived of a throne, and now he
will be able to get an opportunity to regain his rights provided that he leads the
revolution. He calls Stavrogin “Ivan the Tsarevich”, alluding to Russian folktales, while
Stavrogin seeing the lie uses another PP, Impostor, referring to the Time of Troubles.
Besides prompting interlocutors to react in a certain way, people can appeal to PP to
improve their own position. They use the authoritative source to show in the best
advantage not only their ideas but themselves.
- Сударыня, это вовсе не то, что вы думаете! Я, конечно, ничтожное звено… О, сударыня,
богаты чертоги ваши, но бедны они у Марии Неизвестной, сестры моей, урожденной
Лебядкиной, но которую назовем пока Марией Неизвестной, пока, сударыня, только пока, ибо навечно не допустит сам бог! Сударыня, вы дали ей десять рублей, и она приняла, но
потому, что от вас, сударыня! Слышите, сударыня! Ни от кого в мире не возьмет эта
Неизвестная Мария, иначе содрогнется во гробе штаб-офицер ее дед, убитый на Кавказе, на
глазах самого Ермолова, но от вас, сударыня, от вас все возьмет. (Достоевский 144)
“Madam, it’s not at all what you think! I, of course, am a negligible link… Oh, madam, rich are your
halls, but poor are those of Marya the Unknown, my sister, born Lebyadkin, but for now we will call
27
her Marya the Unknown, for now, madam, only for now, for God himself will not allow it to be
forever! Madam, you gave her ten roubles, and she accepted them only because they came from you,
madam! Do you hear, madam! From no one else in the world would this Unknown Marya take,
otherwise her grandfather, an officer killed in the Caucasus before the eyes of Ermolov himself,
would shudder in his grave, but from you, madam, from you she will take anything.” (Dostoevsky
174)
In this conversation Captain Lebyadkin tries to present his sister, and himself, as
descendents of a noble lineage. He occasionally notes that their grandfather was a war
hero, an officer who was close to general Ermolov. Lebyadkin tries to emphasize that he
belongs to ‘grand monde’. The name of the general helps him get affiliated with a
desirable group. Later Lebyadkin continues persuading everyone that he has ‘a soul of a
delicate organization’. In the following example he escapes from a difficult question
asked by Varvara Petrovna and mentions the name of a medieval knight to whom he
thinks he is similar.
- Сударыня, - не слушал капитан, - я может быть желал бы называться Эрнестом, а между тем
принужден носить грубое имя Игната, - почему это как вы думаете? Я желал бы называться
князем де-Монбаром, а между тем я только Лебядкин, от лебедя, - почему это? Я поэт,
сударыня, поэт в душе, и мог бы получать тысячу рублей от издателя, а между тем принужден
жить в лахани, почему, почему? (Достоевский 146)
“Madam,” the captain was not listening to her, “I might wish to be called Ernest, yet I am forced to bear the crude name of Ignat – why is that, do you think? I might wish to be called Prince de
Monbars, yet I’m only Lebyadkin, from lebed, the swan – why is that? I am a poet, a poet in my
soul, and could be getting a thousand roubles from a publisher, yet I’m forced to live in a tub – why,
why?” (Dostoevsky 176)
This example demonstrates that Lebyadkin continues presenting himself in the best
advantage. This time he highlights that he suffers from living in conditions which do not
respond to the demands of his soul. However, his interlocutors’ overall impression is
negative. Lebyadkin’s speech is muddled. Rare instances when he uses PP are drowned in
his perplexing complex sentences. All his attempts to utilize the authoritative source in
order to affiliate himself with a desirable group fail because his behavior (verbal and non-
28
verbal) goes against with what he is persuading his communicants. Labyadkin is a good
example of how verbal performance may contribute to creating an image of a person.
1.3 Ornamental function Several linguists call this function “ludic”. This term is derived
from a Latin root meaning ‘to play’. One can talk about the ludic function of a language
because of people’s ability and willingness to play with words in order to make their
speech elaborate and exquisite. PP usage is one of the ways to make one’s speech playful.
To my mind, this function is more complex and has several other aspects besides the ludic
one, though I consider this particular aspect dominant.
Making one’s speech elaborate One of the features of the ornamental function is closely
connected with creating puns. Puns are the main means for using PP in this function.
From time to time, people create all sorts of puns which are relevant in a particular
context and meant to animate the conversation. Stepan Trofimovich is the character who
does it very often. Sometimes he is successful in these verbal operations but not always.
Frequently his puns are laughable and silly.
- О, друг мой, благородный, добрый друг! Я сердцем с вами и ваш, с одной всегда, en tout
pays, и хотя бы даже dans le pays de Makar et de ses veaux, о котором, помните, так часто мы
трепеща говорили в Петербурге перед отъездом. (Достоевский 24)
“Oh, my friend, my noble, faithful friend! In my heart I am with you and am yours, always with you
alone, en tout pays, even dans le pays de Makar et de ses veaux, of which you remember we so often
spoke trembling, in Petersburg, before our departure.” (Dostoevsky 27)
In his letter to Varvara Petrovna Stepan Trofimovich gives a wrong word-for-word
translation of a Russian proverb: Куда Макар телят не гонял (Where Makar never
drove his calves), which signifies a remote place. For Varvara Petrovna and Stepan
Trofimovich it probably stands for an exile. One may decode this phrase as the following:
“My heart will always belong to you regardless where I am at the moment, even in the
29
exile”. For a reader, this unnecessary translation and awkward pun demonstrates Stepan
Trofimofich’s theatricality though he regards it as a sign of his wit.
The ability to notice inappropriate usage of PP in the ornamental function vividly typifies
certain characters. For Dostoevsky, noticing and avoiding PP overuse divides characters
into those who can control their verbal performance and their verbal image, and those
who cannot. For instance, one may regard the following conversation as a positive
characterization of Nikolai Stavrogin who creates a pun but realizes that it is trite.
- По календарю еще час тому должно светать, а почти как ночь, - проговорила она с досадой.
- Все врут календари, - заметил было он с любезной усмешкой, но устыдившись поспешил
прибавить: - По календарю жить скучно, Лиза.
И замолчал окончательно, досадуя на новую сказанную пошлость; Лиза криво улыбнулась.
(Достоевский 423)
“By the calendar it ought to have been light an hour ago, and it’s still like night,” she said with
vexation.
“Every calendar doth lie,” he remarked with an obliging grin, but ashamed, hastened to add: “It’s
boring to live by the calendar, Liza.”
And he fell silent finally, vexed at the new platitude he had uttered; Liza smiled crookedly.
(Dostoevsky 520)
In this example quoting from Griboedov’s play Woe from Wit is not just banal; it does not
suit the situation of Stavrogin and Lizaveta’s conversation. They are at the critical point
of their relationship where every joyful pun seems inappropriate; therefore Stavrogin is
‘ashamed’ with his ‘uttered platitude’, and Liza smiles ‘crookedly’. However, his ability
to notice this characterizes him as a keen person. So this example shows that if a PP is
utilized simply to animate the conversation, this usage can be treated more complex in a
literary text. Other more subtle complexities of the ornamental functions are going to be
discussed below.
30
The ornamental function is closely connected with the function of improving one’s verbal
efficiency. Sometimes it is very hard to distinguish one function from another. This
peculiarity has first been noted by Slyshkin. It is possible to argue that ornamental
function is dominant in several instances because there are no obvious reasons why for
naming this object or that situation a quirky word or phrase is used except for making
one’s speech elaborate. For instance, in his conversation with Varavara Petrovna, Stepan
Trofimovich mentions the phrase Alea jacta est!
- О, прощайте мечты мои! Двадцать лет! Alea jacta est!
Лицо его было обрызгано прорвавшимися вдруг слезами; он взял свою шляпу.
- Я ничего не понимаю по-латыни, - проговорила Варвара Петровна, изо всех сил скрепляя себя. (Достоевский 281)
“Oh, my dreams, farewell! Twenty years! Alea jacta est!”
His face was splashed with the tears that suddenly burst through; he took his hat.
“I don’t understand Latin,” said Varvara Petrovna, holding herself back with all her might.
(Dostoevsky 341)
This Latin phrase correlates with the English idiom “crossing the Rubicon” which alludes
to the events of 49 BC when Julius Caesar led his army across the River Rubicon in
Northern Italy. Stepan Trofimovich repeats it several times highlighting “the situation of
no return” where he finds himself. Unfortunately, Varavara Petrovna does not understand
him. However, he does not change his verbal behavior: he could simply say “I’ll never
change my mind” but he repeats the same phrase once again at the very end of their
conversation. So it appears that in this particular example the form of the expression is
more important for the speaker than the real meaning. Later in the book, Stepan
Trofimofich uses the same phrase, only he translates it into Russian. In his letter to Daria
Pavlovna, he translates the Latin phrase Alea jacta est! into Russian as Жребий брошен
(Lots are thrown/ The die has been cast). It seems that now he really wants to be
understood and the form of the expression is not so important for him but the meaning is.
31
A means of flattery Sometimes speakers use PP not to make their speech pleasant but to
please the interlocutor. There are instances when PP are used as a means of flattery.
- Разумеется, я мигом всё переделала, и Прасковья опять на моей стороне, но интрига,
итнрига!
- Которую вы однако же победили. О, вы Бисмарк! (Достоевский 50)
“Of course, I undid it all at once, and Praskovya is on my side again; but the intrigue, the intrigue!”
“Which you overcame, however! Oh, you Bismarck!” (Dostoevsky 59)
In this example, Stepan Trofimovich tries to pay Varvara Petrovna a compliment and tries
to do it as elegantly as possible. He could have expressed his admiration without alluding
to the name of the Prussian “Iron Chancellor”. Yet probably he thinks that with this PP it
might sound more flattering and whimsical. In fact, this comparison is not as elaborate as
one may wish. Varavra Petrovna does not express her gratitude for this comparison and
sternly continues the conversation. However, this example demonstrates the possibility of
using PP as a means of praise.
1.4 Group Formation The last function at the level of characters is group formation. PP
usage implies some degree of awareness of its origin. The speaker and the interlocutor
have a feeling that the utterance has a source of origin. Awareness of PP origin may be
regarded in particular situations as a code known only to a certain number of people.
Hence, PP may be used as a secret language which helps conceal the information from
others and, one the other hand, distinguish members of ‘our group’ from strangers. PP,
therefore, has a great potential for formation all sorts of groups depending on the fact of
knowing or unknowing cultural artifacts.
Speakers may be aware of this aspect of PP and use it consciously. Others who do not
know about it are still capable of using PP as a group forming tool subconsciously.
32
For instance, in the section dedicated to persuasive function I suggested that speakers
usually consciously appeal to the authority of the group they want to persuade. They
intentionally affiliate themselves with the group and work within it as double agents.
Their verbal behavior reflects the knowledge of traditions and all important information
of this group, but in fact, they have their own intentions which may not coincide with the
interests of the group they try to influence. Hence (because of these private intentions of
the speaker), we talk about a persuasive function as a primary one. However, this
persuasion is based on the principle of group formation. For example, in the following
conversation Pyotr Verkhovensky appeals to the authority of progressive political
journals the Golos (The Voice) and the Birzhevyi (The Stock Exchange). After the scandal
at the fête he wants to strengthen his damaged reputation in Yulia Mikhailovna’s circle.
- А коли правда, вам тут ее и высказать, вслух, гордо, строго. Именно показать, что вы не
разбиты. Именно этим старичкам и матерям. О, вы сумеете, у вас есть дар, когда голова ясна.
Вы их сгруппируете и вслух, и вслух. А потом корреспонденцию в Голос и в Биржевые.
Постойте, я сам за дело возьмусь, я вам всё устрою. (Достоевский 406)
“And if it’s true, it’s for you to speak it out here, aloud, proudly, sternly. Precisely to show that you’re not crushed. Precisely to the little old men and the mothers. Oh, you’ll find a way, you have
the gift, when your head is clear. You’ll draw them into a group – and speak aloud, aloud. Then a
report to the Voice and the Stock Exchange. Wait, I’ll take it in hand myself, I’ll arrange it all for
you.” (Dostoevsky 498-9)
In this conversation Pyotr Verkhovensky mixes flattery with the promise to make Yulia
Mikhailovna’s most cherished dream true. It was marked by the narrator that the main
goal of Governor’s wife was to unite the nobility, make them work for the sake of the
state and become famous for that. Pyotr Verkhovensky spells this dream out. He also
offers to use the scandal at the fête as an opportunity to reach Yulia Mikhailovna’s goal.
Then he mentions the titles of two newspapers which stand as an attribute of the circle
Yulia Mikhailovna desires to enter. Moreover, Pyotr Verkhovensky drops a hint that
somehow he belongs to this circle and he is eager to help Yulia Mikhailovna to enter it.
33
Certainly, this hint is meant to make Govenor’s wife trust him even more. So without
reflecting very much, Pyotr Verkhovensky uses the group forming aspect of PP in order
to influence his interlocutor. This is one of the examples of merging of two functions of
PP.
PP as a group forming tool may be used consciously. One reason has already been
mentioned, i.e. a group code. Speakers can use PP to conceal some information from
strangers whom they do not trust. The opportunity to transfer the message without
revealing it to non-members is the most evident reason why speakers may apply PP.
However, this function may also be motivated by a different kind of reasoning.
Sometimes speakers ingratiate themselves into one’s favor by highlighting their
belonging to one’s group. For instance, in the following conversation Lizaveta Ivanovna
tries to revive old bonds with Stepan Trofimovich.
- Видите, я все ваши лекции наизусть помню. Маврикий Николаевич, какую он мне тогда
веру преподавал en Dieu, qui est si grand et si bon! А помните ваши рассказы о том, как Колумб открывал Америку, и как все закричали: земля! земля! Няня Алена Фроловна говорит, что я
после того ночью бредила и во сне кричала: земля! земля! А помните, как вы мне историю
принца Гамлета рассказывали? А помните, как вы мне описывали, как из Европы в Америку
бедных эмигрантов перевозят? (Достоевский 89)
“You see, I remember all your lectures by heart. Mavriky Nikolaevich, how he taught me then to
believe en Dieu, qui est si grand et si bon! And do you remember your story of how Columbus
discovered America and everybody shouted: ‘Land, land!’ My nurse Alyona Frolovna says that I
raved during the night after that and shouted ‘Land, land!’ in my sleep. And do you remember telling
me the story of Prince Hamlet? And do you remember describing to me how poor emigrants were
transported from Europe to America? (Dostoevsky 106-7)
This is their first meeting in ten years. Lizaveta Ivanovna’s primary goal is to learn the
truth about Stepan Trofimovich’s arranged marriage. She is personally interested whether
Stepan Trofimovich marries Daria Pavlovna to hide Stavrogin’s sins. She cannot ask it
directly and creates a scheme where the first point is to ingratiate with Stepan
Trofimovich’s favor. In order to do so, she decides to revive memories of the past. One of
34
the most important things is the parallelism of her sentence structure; almost every
sentence starts with the phrase ‘do you remember’. She highlights the fact that they both
were in the same boat; she was his student and he taught her. Playing on Stepan
Trofimovich’s sentimentality and utilizing PP to highlight the tenderness of the past
moments, Lizaveta Ivanovna revives her membership in Stepan Trofimovich’s circle of
confidants. So the concept of speaking the same language can be utilized by people not
only to conceal some information from the strangers but also to achieve their own ‘secret
goals’.
In this example, such precedent phenomena as discovering America by Columbus,
Shakespeare’s play and transportation of immigrants from Europe to America do not
allude to real events of the remote past but they refer to the events that took place 10
years ago when Lizaveta Ivanovna was Stepan Trofimovich’s student. These universal PP
(they may be used by average language speakers) in this particular instance function as
family PP relevant only to very few people including Stepan Trofimovich, Lizaveta
Ivanovna and her nurse, Alyona Frolovna. To my mind, this example demonstrates
another subtlety of PP concept. Even if a PP is known to everyone, it may function
differently within a small group of people.
So this is a brief description of direct functions of precedent phenomena. The next section
will treat palimpsest functions of PP. But before we do so, it seems necessary to discuss a
question why this division essential. I believe that there is a straight correspondence
between direct functions of PP distinguished in the text of Demons and natural speech. It
is always arguable that we cannot regard literary discourse reflecting the real use of a
language because authors of fictional novels do not depict reality as it is. For instance,
35
sometimes authors can make the world of their novel (including the speech of their
characters) more beautiful as it is in reality, just because they are after some aesthetic
effect. Sometimes they are exaggerating certain features of reality because they want their
work to be meaningful for readers, and they draw readers’ attention to problems which
probably are not as distinct in reality as in their novel. Yet, besides all these, authors
(especially those who were later called realists) have an aim to portrait the real world as
precisely as possible in conditions of fiction. Therefore I believe that the foregoing
examples from Demons bear directly on several peculiarities of how speakers use the
language in reality. Especially it is true for Dostoevsky who tries to demonstrate all
possible complexities of human psyche. In these terms, PP can be regarded as a tool that
is meant to reflect these psychological complexities. Observing how people speak and
depicting it later in his books, Dostoevsky implements into his characters’ speech PP in
the same functions they serve in real-life discourse. It makes his characters more real.
Readers can find similar character types among themselves, and language behavior is one
of the attributes that helps in this search. In other words, PP allow Dostoevsky to create
unique character types and reflect their peculiarities. It has been long argued that
Dostoevsky’s novels lack a dominant distinctive voice (narrative/author’s point of view).
Characters in his novels speak different voices, and none of these voices is dominant. I
think that PP are one of the devices that serves this purpose. However, this is not the only
purpose that PP serve for the author. I distinguish a set of functions that are relevant for a
higher level of communication between the author and his readers.
36
2 Palimpsest Functions
Analyzing the text of Demons and noting functions which PP fulfill in this novel, I have
noticed that besides direct character-oriented functions, PP have other functions oriented
to readers. In Dostoevsky’s polyphonic (as Bakhtin terms it) novels “author’s spirit” has
the same rights as any character; in other words, the author and his characters are in
dialogical relationships as equal subjects (Бахтин 35). Otherwise, if the author claims
more rights, his characters lose their subjectivity and become simple objects of narration.
However, Dostoevsky has a necessity to express “monological” ideas imperceptibly for
his characters. Using PP in indirect functions or using such PP which characters do not
recognize as precedent is one of the ways for Dostoevsky to reach this goal. I will call
these “palimpsest functions”, and they operate at the level of author-reader
communication. On this level a new classification of functions emerges. Hence,
palimpsest functions include: 1) group formation, 2) meta-discursive, 3) anti-persuasive
and 4) epitomizing.
2.1 Group formation It has been mentioned that group-forming function has a great
potential though at the level of characters it is not widely revealed. At the level of
‘author-reader’ this function is used more frequently. In Demons, it is quite easy to divide
characters into various groups according to their attitudes towards cultural artifacts and
simply according to the fact whether they know about the artifact’s existence or not. In
addition, PP provide evidence for characters’ division into two big groups: revolutionary
radicals and passive liberals. However, among these groups characters undergo further
division: according to their political preferences (e.g. Fourierists and anti-Fourierists), or
according to their real goals (those who simply seek happiness or who are possessed by
37
the idea). Dostoevsky applies PP as a formal device to achieve this effect. He creates sets
of associations around his characters, and PP help to do so.
I would like to dwell on one of the clearest examples which are found on very first pages
of the book. The first chapter of the novel is dedicated to one character – Stepan
Trophimovch Verkhovensky. The narrator gives a detailed picture of him, describing all
aspects of his personality. Having read the first chapter, the reader can define Stepan
Trofimovich as an atheist, free-thinker, liberal, eccentric old man, etc. However, the
narrator does not label Stepan Trofimovich directly as an atheist or a liberal. The reader is
meant to comprehend it by recognizing the PP that Anton Lavrentievich (the narrator)
uses to describe Stepan Trofimovich.
For example, in his physical appearance Stepan Trofimovich is discussed through an
allusion to the poet Kukol’nik. This reference puts Stepan Trofimovich into romantics’
camp. This membership is also highlighted when the narrator compares Stepan
Trofimovich’s poem to Goethe’s Faust. The un-Russianness of Stepan Trofimovich is
highlighted by allusions to Western artifacts. Describing Stepan Trofimovich’s habits, the
narrator is likely to use allusions to Western culture. In the following example the
narrator alludes to Jonathan Swift’s novel Gulliver’s Travels, to the part where Gulliver,
having returned to London, cannot help seeing himself as a giant. The narrator explains it
by saying that it is always hard to break old habits. In the land of the Lilliputians,
Gulliver got used to treat himself as a giant and cannot overcome the force of his habit.
The narrator compares Stepan Trofimovich (who cannot break the habit of seeing himself
as an exile and prosecuted) to Gulliver.
38
В одном сатирическом английском романе прошлого столетия, некто Гуливер, возвратясь из
страны лилипутов, где люди были всего в какие-нибудь два вершка росту, до того приучился
считать себя между ними великаном, что и ходя по улицам Лондона, невольно кричал
прохожим и экипажам, чтоб они перед ним сворачивали и остерегались, чтоб он их как-
нибудь не раздавил, воображая, что он все еще великан, а они маленькие. (Достоевский 7-8)
In a satirical English novel of the last century, a certain Gulliver, having returned from the land of
the Lilliputians, where people were only some three inches tall, had grown so accustomed to
considering himself a giant among them that even when walking in the streets of London, he could
not help shouting at passers-by and carriages to have aside and take care that he not somehow crush
them, imagining that he was still a giant and they were little. (Dostoevsky 7-8)
In fact, this concept, breaking old habits, might as easily have been explained by
narrator’s utilizing Russian artifacts (using proverbs, for instance). Yet it seems that the
narrator deliberately avoids using Russian national PP to describe Stepan Trofimovich as
if he wants to exclude him from “our” group, in other words he wants to oppose him to
“us”/readers. This position of Stepan Trofimovich as a non-member of “our group” is
significant for the structure of the whole novel. In a certain way, Stepan Trofimovich is a
representative of the men of 40’s who, being obsessed with Western ideas, have brought
“harmful philosophy” to Russia.
The narrator proceeds with a description of Stepan Trofimovich’s political views. They
are depicted by referring to the names of Russian liberals such as Chaadaev, Belinsky and
Granovsky. The word “liberal” is never mentioned; however, the names of the “leaders”
of this political movement stand for it. Stepan Trofimovich’s literary affiliation is
revealed through mentioning the names of Charles Dickens, George Sand and Goethe.
Stepan Trofimovich would like to publish his work in the journals where Dickens’ and
Sand’s works are published. However, his own poem is close to the work of Goethe’s
Faust. So, as we can see, Stepan Trofimovich is described at least in part by means of PP
which define him as a member of all sorts of “foreign” groups – liberal, atheist,
Romantic, ideologist, etc.
39
Any division of characters, first of all, aims at readers; they need various clues to identify
characters with certain groups. PP are among these clues. Placement of characters into
‘good’ or ‘bad’ groups happens partly according to readers’ opinion of the PP that
characters use. The only character in the book who is aware of readers’ existence is the
narrator. Therefore it is possible to notice how he adapts his speech to readers’
expectations. He wants to please them and stay with them (as a member of their group)
even when he talks about unpleasant things happening to his close friends. The following
example illustrates narrator’s attempt to create a positive image.
И наконец уже в самой последней сцене вдруг появляется Вавилонская башня, и какие-то
атлеты ее наконец достраивают с песней новой надежды, и когда уже достраивают до самого
верху, то обладатель, положим хоть Олимпа, убегает в комическом виде, а догадавшееся
человечество, завладев его местом, тотчас же начинает новую жизнь с новым
проникновением вещей (Достоевский 10)
Finally, in the very last scene, the Tower of Babel suddenly appears and some athletes finally finish
building it with a song of new hope, and when they have built to the very top, the proprietor of, shall
we say, Olympus flees in comical fashion, and quick-witted mankind takes over his place and at
once begins a new life with a new perception of things. (Dostoevsky 10)
In this example the narrator describes the last scene of Stepan Trofimovich’s poem.
Stepan Trofimovich dreams about the times when people will be able to prove their
superiority over God. He thinks that having finished building the Tower of Babel, they
will replace Him in Heaven. The narrator tries to smooth over Stepan Trofimovich’s
blasphemy. Most readers who are likely to read Anton Lavrentievich’s chronicle might be
Orthodox Christians. For them, Stepan Trofimovich’s poem is a serious heresy. The
narrator, knowing about such assumptions of his close friend, would somehow share them
as well. Therefore he himself alludes to Greek myths and assumes that people in Stepan
Trofimovich’s poem would replace Zeus. So he adjusts his speech to readers’ opinion.
40
There are two ways Dostoevsky uses PP to form a group for his character. The first way
is to use PP in order to compare his character with a well-known figure. This mode is
found in the narrative speech and is closely connected with the function of verbal
efficiency. PP at this level are always used as models, ready-made templates for
personae’s characterization. Another method is a feature of a dialogical speech and
involves inserting into character’s speech PP which are vivid attributes of certain groups.
In the following example Stepan Trofimovich opposes himself to the group of young
revolutionaries. He puts himself into another group, a group of idealists who believe that
life is more difficult than it may seem, and thoughtless and rash decisions only bring
harm.
Эти телеги, или как там: «стук телег, подвозящих хлеб человечеству», полезнее Сикстинской
Мадонны, или как у них там… une bêtise dans ce genre. Но понимаешь ли, кричу ему,
понимаешь ли ты, что человеку кроме счастья так же точно и совершенно во столько же
необходимо и несчастье! (Достоевский 178)
Those carts – or how does it go? – ‘the rumble of carts bringing bread to mankind’ is more useful
that the Sistine Madonna, or however it goes… une bêtise dans ce genre. But do you understand, I
cry to him, do you understand that along with happiness, in the exact same way and in perfectly
equal proportion, man also needs unhappiness! (Dostoevsky 216)
In this example, quoting from one of revolutionary respected philosophers, Stepan
Trofimovich summarizes the doctrine with which he strongly disagrees. With these
words, he opposes himself to the whole revolutionary movement of that time. He also
states his own views and finds a special niche for himself. He utilizes PP in direct
functions (mainly to express his ideas); however, for readers the same PP characterizes
Stepan Trofimovich more vividly than any of his deeds. A careful reader would notice
what PP the character uses and would associate him with a certain group.
The role of PP for character grouping has a great potential. I believe that two main groups
of characters that can easily be distinguished in Demons consist of those who may be
41
placed either in the center of each group or on its periphery. In other words, in the novel
there are characters who may serve as a prototypical example of a liberal group and those
who may exist on the border of this group demonstrating several features of
revolutionaries as well. However, in the novel there is a character that is very difficult to
assign to a certain group, Nikolai Stavrogin. He is a very complex character who stands
apart from everyone else. It seems that he is connected with revolutionaries in the same
way as Shatov was. But in fact, he does not want to have anything in common with them.
He is characterized by others in various ways. Lebyadkin calls him a wise serpent
(85/101) referring to the Bible; Liputin calls him Pechorin (86/103) alluding to
Lermontov’s novel; all his relatives call him Prince Harry referring to Shakespeare’s
Henry IV. There is no single group where Stavrogin can exist. He is not a simple
character, and it seems that Dostoevsky uses various mediums through which he
illuminates this character. Among them one can enumerate faith, philosophy, including
books the character reads, attitude towards Russia and his relationship with women. With
the help of all these mediums, Dostoevsky demonstrates various sides of his character.
Manifestations of these mediums are PP. In this case, PP serve not to assign a character
definitely to any single group but rather to complicate any such designation.
2.2 Meta-discursive is another function that was identified at the level ‘author-reader’.
Dostoevsky quite often uses hidden allusions to works of various writers. These allusions
are not marked in any obvious way. The reader has to know very well these works in
order to notice PP utilized by Dostoevsky. Sometimes these allusions are used to form a
group Dostoevsky needs. For example, a lot of allusions to What Is to Be Done? are used
in respect of such characters as Verkhovensky, Liputin, Virginsky and Virginsky’s wife.
42
These characters form a group of revolutionaries. Sometimes they say Chernyshevsky’s
words and it seems that they do not even notice it.
(I) Друг мой, до сих пор я только любил тебя, теперь уважаю. (Достоевский 28)
My friend, up to now I have only loved you, but now I respect you (Dostoevsky 32)
(II) Это ничего; это только частный случай; это нисколько, нисколько не помешает «общему
делу»! (Достоевский 29)
It’s nothing; it’s just a particular case; in no way, in no way will it hinder the ‘common cause’
(Dostoevsky 33)
(III) И кто это работал, и кто этот «миленький» трудился, что ни одной-то собственной идеи
не осталось ни у кого в голове! (Достоевский 316)
And who was it that worked, who was the ‘sweetie’ that labored so that there isn’t a single idea of
one’s own left in anyone’s head! (Dostoevsky 385)
These are just several examples of allusions to Chernyshevsky’s novel. This device works
in several directions. At first, it presents characters as a unity. Using words from the same
source highlights characters’ belonging to the same group. Yet there is one more idea
that Dostoevsky tries to demonstrate here: the idea of people’s dependency on someone
else’s words or opinion. Every day, watching news reports, people in the 21th century
receive a lot of portions of information. They do not just find out different facts but they
also form their own opinion about the events with the help of news outlets. The inability
or unwillingness to form their own opinion is a feature of today’s audience. Dostoevsky
noticed this feature of human nature in the 19th
century. He ironically shows how people
accept someone else’s views without even thinking of their rationality.
The following extracts from the two conversations will demonstrate this point. The first
conversation is between Varvara Petrovna and Yulia Mikhailovna. They are discussing
new progressive views on social issues. The second conversation is between Varavara
Petrovna and Stepan Trofimovich, approximately on the same topic.
(I) Варвара Петровна тотчас же поспешила заметить, что Степан Трофимович вовсе
никогда не был критиком, а напротив всю жизнь прожил в ее доме. Знаменит же
43
обстоятельствами первоначальной своей карьеры, "слишком известными всему свету", а в
самое последнее время, своими трудами по испанской истории; хочет тоже писать о
положении теперешних немецких университетов и, кажется, еще что-то о дрезденской
Мадонне.
Одним словом, Варвара Петровна не захотела уступить Юлии Михайловне Степана
Трофимовича.
-- О дрезденской Мадонне? Это о Сикстинской? Chere Варвара Петровна, я просидела
два часа пред этою картиной и ушла разочарованная. Я ничего не поняла и была в большом
удивлении. Кармазинов тоже говорит, что трудно понять
Теперь все ничего не находят, и русские и англичане. Всю эту славу старики
прокричали. (Достоевский 247)
Varvara Petrovna at once hastened to observe that Stepan Trofimovich had never been a
critic, but, on the contrary, had lived all his life in her house. And he was famous for the
circumstances of his early career, “known only too well to the whole world”, and, lately, for his
works on Spanish history; he also intended to write something about the Dresden Madonna as well.
In short, Varvara Petrovan did not want to surrender Stepan Trofimovich to Yulia
Mikhailovna.
“The Dresden Madonna? You mean the Sistine Madonna? Chère Varvara Petrovna, I sat for
two hours in front of that painting and went away disappointed. I understood nothing, and was
greatly surprised. Karmazinov also says it’s hard to understand.
No one now, Russian or English, finds anything in it. All this fame was just the old men shouting.” (Dostoevsky 300)
(II) Нынче никто, никто уж Мадонной не восхищается и не теряет на это времени,
кроме закоренелых стариков. Это доказано.
- Уж и доказано?
- Она совершенно ни к чему не служит. Эта кружка полезна, потому что в нее можно
влить воды; этот карандаш полезен, потому что им можно все записать, а тут женское лицо
хуже всех других лиц в натуре. Попробуйте нарисовать яблоко и положите тут же рядом
настоящее яблоко -- которое вы возьмете? Небось не ошибетесь. Вот к чему сводятся теперь
все ваши теории, только что озарил их первый луч свободного исследования.
- Так, так.
- Вы усмехаетесь иронически. А что, например, говорили вы мне о милостыне? А между тем наслаждение от милостыни есть наслаждение надменное и безнравственное,
наслаждение богача своим богатством, властию и сравнением своего значения с значением
нищего. (Достоевский 278-9)
“No one, no one nowadays admires the Madonna anymore or wastes time over it, except for
inveterate old men. This has been proved.”
“Proved, really?”
“She serves absolutely no purpose. This mug is useful, because water can be poured into it;
this pencil is useful, because everything can be written with it, but here you have a woman’s face
that’s worse than all faces in nature. Try painting an apple and put a real apple next to it – which
would you take? I’ll bet you wouldn’t make a mistake. This is what your theories boil down to, once the first ray of free analysis shines on them.”
“So, so.”
“You grin ironically. And what you said to me about charity, for example? And yet the
pleasure of charity is an arrogant and immoral pleasure, a rich’s man pleasure in his riches, his
power, and in the comparison of his significance with the significance of a beggar. (Dostoevsky 338-
9)
It may seem that Varvara Petrovna repeats Yulia Mikhailovna’s words. But in fact, the
real source of women’s influence is Pyotr Verkhovensky. This can be seen if one tracks
44
the words on the question of charity which he says to his father before the conversation
between two ladies.
- Хуже, ты был приживальщиком, то-есть лакеем добровольным. Лень трудиться, а на
денежки у нас аппетит. Всё это и она теперь понимает; по крайней мере ужас что про тебя
рассказала. Ну, брат, как я хохотал над твоими письмами к ней; совестно и гадко. Но ведь вы
так развращены, так развращены! В милостыне есть нечто навсегда развращающее -- ты
явный пример! (Достоевский 251)
“Worse, you’ve been a sponger, meaning a voluntary lackey. Too lazy to work, but with an appetite for a spot cash. All this she now understands; anyway, what she tells about you is simply terrible.
No, friend, I really had a good laugh over your letters to her; shameful and disgusting. But you’re all
so depraved, so depraved! There’s something eternally depraving in alms – you’re a clear example
of it!” (Dostoevsky 305)
I think that this function correlates with the persuasive function distinguished at the level
of everyday communication. Having discussed what effect the authority of a source can
have upon people, we can see here the practical application of this function. We are not
inside the communicative situation; we are above it seeing the results of a successful
verbal manipulation.
2.3 Anti-persuasive or discrediting function is another function which is used by
Dostoevsky and which links with the meta-discursive one. Several characters of Demons
try to use PP to discredit someone’s authority. Examples of Shatov’s and Stavrogin’s
attempts have already been given. There are several others, but all of them fail. The only
successful attempt of using PP in order to discredit someone’s authority is made by
Dostoevsky himself at the higher level of communication. By means of satire,
Dostoevsky discredits the main authoritative sources of revolutionaries’ inspiration, most
of all, Chernyshevsky’s social study. Dostoevsky never quotes explicitly from
Chernyshevsky though it is mentioned several times in Demons. However, Dostoevsky
depicts revolutionaries as characters that provoke laughter or antipathy. Moreover,
45
Dostoevsky connects these characters with Chernyshevsky’s novel very firmly. They
speak directly from the book in such a way that they make fun out of themselves without
even noticing it. They are soaked in the ideas of this book and apply them to all possible
things. Here is only one example of such behavior.
- Я хотела заявить собранию о стардании и о протесте студентов, а так как время тратится в
безнравственных разговорах…
- Ничего нет ни нравственного, ни безнравственного! – тотчас же не вытерпел гимназист, как
только начала студентка.
- Это я знала, господин гимназист, гораздо прежде, чем вас тому научили. (Достоевский 326)
“I wanted to declare to the meeting about the suffering and protest of the students, but since time is being wasted on immoral talk…”
“There’s no such thing as moral or immoral!” the high-school boy could not bear it, once the girl
student started.
“I knew that, mister high-school student, way before you were taught such things.” (Dostoevsky
398)
In this paragraph the high-school boy repeats the main idea of Chernyshevsky’s theory in
order to pique the girl student. He plays with the meaning of words and inserts a well-
learned phrase into the conversation. Such a use of dogmatic ideas highlights the fact that
they are very well worn and are a part of person’s worldview. It seems that Dostoevsky
takes an ideology and brings it to an extreme in order to show all flaws and drawbacks of
it. Here he ridicules the socialist point of view. For a reader who is aware of the content
of the primary source, such depiction manages to discredit a commonly accepted
authority.
2.4 Epitomizing function of PP at the level of ‘author-reader’ correlates with verbal
efficiency function at the level of characters. For Dostoevsky, there is no obvious need to
use PP as a means of expressing ideas. His communicative skills do not require PP usage
to describe clearly an idea or to save time communicating it. However, in some instances
it is preferable for Dostoevsky to use PP. Such instances are rare. They boil down to the
46
question of epigraphs and direct citations from the Bible. With these instances,
Dostoevsky tells his readers the answers to main questions of his book. The epigraphs
define the theme of possession. Citing from the Scriptures, Dostoevsky reveals clues for
understanding of the main mystery of his book – Nikolai Stavrogin: who is this character,
why is he in the book, what does he represent? One particular piece from the Bible is
associated with Stavrogin’s figure. First, it is mentioned in the unpublished chapter “At
Tikhon’s”.
- Гм. Вы читали Апокалипсис?
- Читал.
- Помните: «Ангелу Лаодикийской церкви напиши»?..
- Помню.
- Где у вас книга? – как-то странно заторопился и затревожился Ставрогин, ища глазами на
столе книгу, - мне хочется вам прочесть… русский перевод есть? - Я знаю место, помню, - проговорил Тихон.
- Помните наизусть? Прочтите!...
-Довольно, - оборвал Ставрогин. – Знаете, я вас очень люблю.
- И я вас, - отозвался Тихон. (Достоевский 561)
“However you… you have read the Apocalypse?”
“I have.”
“Do you remember: ‘To the angel of the church in Laodicea write…’?”
“I do.”
“Where is the book?” Stavrogin became strangely hurried and anxious, his eyes seeking the book on
the table. “I’d like to read it to you… do you have a Russian translation?”
“I know it, I know the passage,” said Tikhon. “You know it by heart? Recite it!…”
“Enough…” Stavrogin cut him short. “It’s for the middling sort, for the indifferent ones, right? You
know, I love you very much.”
“And I you,” Tikhon responded in a low voice. (Dostoevsky 688-9)
The citation is also repeated in one of the last chapters when Stepan Trofimovich asks
Sofia Matveevna to read from the Bible. According to some views, this passage reveals
Stavrogin’s nature, mystery of this character.
The examples with the epigraphs and the citation from the Bible concerning Stavrogin
reflect the mechanism of how Dostoevsky uses PP in this particular function. Dostoevsky
chooses the most precise examples of the ideas he wants to express, the most ideal models
47
for concepts he is talking about. The examples under discussion are a sort of an epitome
for the theme of possession and of “indifferent ones”. This is a way for Dostoevsky to
express these ideas implicitly in order to influence his readers better. If he uttered them
clearly, people, because of their habits, would reject his ideas.
While direct functions reflect the simple level of communication, palimpsest functions
serve another purpose. Direct functions help Dostoevsky depict the complexity of
people’s speech, demonstrating subtle nuances and hidden intentions. All these make his
characters more “realistic” in the sense of making their speech-patterns resemble those
met in the real world. Palimpsest functions serve specifically literary purposes. They help
the author convey his ideas directly to his reader. Their communication is indirect and
requires delicate techniques and devices. Using PP in palimpsest functions establishes a
deeper layer of a literary text, a layer of hidden communication between the author and
his readers. This communication requires more intellectual work, and the reader has to
find the keys to the right understanding of author’s words.
48
CONCLUSION
The goal of this paper was to show how the concept of PP may be used in literary analysis
and what it can bring to understanding of a literary text. Moreover, the author of this
paper has hoped to widen the picture of PP from a linguistic point of view. Literary
discourse brings certain complexities to the concept revealing hidden levels at which PP
may function. It opens a new perspective for understanding these culturally specific
language units. The main outcome of this research is to demonstrate PP as a tool that may
serve multiple purposes in a literary work. PP are special knots that do not always connect
different pieces of the structure but may potentially connect new elements to it. To these
knots, characters tie their meaning, while the author may tie from the opposite side
another meaning, and finally readers are capable of deriving their own meanings. This
idea is defined in terms of direct and palimpsest functions.
PP used in direct functions reflect people’s needs to describe present situations, influence
their interlocutors, highlight their belonging to a certain group or to make their speech
more elaborate. Simultaneously, fulfilling one of these direct functions, PP may serve for
other purposes at the level of author-reader communication. Whenever a character uses
PP to animate the conversation the author defines him as a member of a certain group or
makes fun of him. This aspect demonstrates PP as polyvalent elements capable of
working in two possible directions.
The analysis of PP functioning in a literary text may be applied in several directions.
First, it can help comprehend the structure and functions of PP themselves. Second, it
reveals some insights about the structure of a literary text (including the idea of
49
polyphony as proposed by Bakhtin in reference to Dostoevsky). And finally, the idea may
be used in communication theory as it demonstrates mechanisms of how people
communicate their ideas and intentions.
This analysis cannot answer all the questions and cannot explain all the complexities the
literary text embodies. However, the results of PP analysis propose some insights that are
worth developing. In particular, it is worth carrying out a comparative analysis of Demons
and the other novel by Dostoevsky in order to see how the same author uses cultural
references to accomplish different literary tasks. The comparative investigation of the
novels by different Russian authors might reveal some facts on PP functioning within
Russian literary tradition. Furthermore, the comparative research of literary texts written
in different languages may respond to the question of how various nations utilize PP.
50
APPENDIX
This appendix covers almost all instances of PP distinguished in the text of Demons. The
purpose of it is to demonstrate the vast number of PP used by Dostoevsky and functions
defined for each particular instance. I do not make it my goal to explain each PP or define
its source of origin; there are many works written on this subject (e.g. the new collection
of selected works by Dostoevsky with commentary by Tatyana Kasatkina published in
2004). Therefore the appendix contains only quotations from the novel with PP
underlined. All of them are grouped into the numbered sections where the first figure
signifies the part of the book and the second means the chapter in this part (e.g. 2.3 – part
2 chapter 3 which in the novel is called “Поединок”). Instances extracted from the
unpublished chapter are given in the end of the appendix under the title “At Tikhon’s”.
For each instance, one can find a small chart indicating functions the precedent
phenomenon fulfills. The functions are split into two categories: Direct Functions and
Palimpsest Functions. Direct Functions include VE – verbal efficiency, P – persuasive, O
– ornamental, and GF – group forming. Palimpsest functions embodies GF – group
forming, MD – meta-discursive, AP – anti-persuasive, and E – epitomizing. The bold font
signifies what function a PP fulfills. If none of functions is in bold PP is used in a zero-
function.
All examples are extracted from Достоевский, Ф (1927) Бесы. Ленинград:
Государственное издательство. Pages are given according to this edition.
1.1 Page # Quotation from the text
7-8 В одном сатирическом английском романе прошлого столетия, некто
Гуливер, возвратясь из страны лилипутов, где люди были всего в какие-
51
нибудь два вершка росту, до того приучился считать себя между ними
великаном, что и ходя по улицам Лондона, невольно кричал прохожим и
экипажам, чтоб они перед ним сворачивали и остерегались, чтоб он их
как-нибудь не раздавил, воображая, что он все еще великан, а они
маленькие. За это смеялись над ним и бранили его, а грубые кучера даже
стегали великана кнутьями; но справедливо ли? Чего не может сделать
привычка? Привычка привела почти к тому же и Степана Трофимовича,
но еще в более невинном и безобидном виде, если можно так выразиться,
потому что прекраснейший был человек.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
8 …его имя многими тогдашними торопившимися людьми произносилось
чуть не на ряду с именами Чаадаева, Белинского, Грановского и только что
начинавшегося за границей Герцена.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
9 Потом, - впрочем уже после потери кафедры, - он успел напечатать (так
сказать в виде отместки и чтоб указать кого они потеряли) в ежемесячном и
прогрессивном журнале, переводившем из Диккенса и проповедывавшем
Жорж-Занда, начало одного глубочайшего исследования, - кажется, о
причинах необычайного нравственного благородства каких-то рыцарей в
какую-то эпоху, или что-то в этом роде.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
9 Это какая-то аллегория, в лирико-драматической форме и напоминающая
вторую часть Фауста.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
10 И наконец уже в самой последней сцене вдруг появляется Вавилонская
башня, и какие-то атлеты ее наконец достраивают с песней новой надежды,
и когда уже достраивают до самого верху, то обладатель, положим хоть
Олимпа, убегает в комическом виде, а догадавшееся человечество, завладев
его местом, тотчас же начинает новую жизнь с новым проникновением
вещей.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
52
17-18 Но по некоторому гражданскому кокетству, он не только не молодился, но
как бы и щеголял солидностию лет своих, и в костюме своем, высокий,
сухощавый, с волосами до плеч, походил как бы на патриарха или, еще
вернее, на портрет поэта Кукольника, литографированный в тридцатых
годах при каком-то издании, особенно когда сидел летом в саду, на лавке,
под кустом расцветшей сирени, опершись обеими руками на трость, с
раскрытою книгой подле и поэтически задумавшись над закатом солнца.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
18 Бывало и то: возьмет с собою в сад Токевиля, а в кармашке несет
спрятанного Поль-де-Кока. Но впрочем это пустяки.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
19 Наконец и о нем вспомянули, сначала в заграничных изданиях, как о
ссыльном страдальце, и потом тотчас же в Петербурге, как о бывшей звезде
в известном созвездии; даже сравнивали его почему-то с Радищевым.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
22 Он бесспорно согласился в бесполезности и комичности слова «отечество»;
согласился с мыслью о вреде религии, но громко и твердо заявил, что
сапоги ниже Пушкина и даже гораздо.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
24 По вечерам с молодежью беседуем до рассвета, и у нас чуть не афинские
вечера, но единственно по тонкости и изяществу; все благородное: много
музыки, испанские мотивы, мечты всечеловеческого обновления, идея
вечной красоты, Сикстинская Мадонна, свет с прорезами тьмы, но и в
солнце пятна!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
24 Я сердцем с вами и ваш, с одной навсегда, en tout pays, и хотя бы даже dans
le pays de Makar et de ses veaux, о котором, помните, так часто мы трепеща
говорили в Петербурге перед отъездом.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
53
28 Друг мой, до сих пор я только любил тебя, теперь уважаю
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
29 Это ничего; это только частный случай; это нисколько, нисколько не
помешает «общему делу!»
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
31 Русская деревня, за всю тысячу лет, дала нам лишь одного комаринского.
Замечательный русский поэт, не лишенный притом остроумия, увидев в
первый раз на сцене великую Рашель, воскликнул в восторге: «не
променяю Рашель на мужика!» Я готов пойти дальше: я и всех русских
мужичков отдам в обмен за одну Рашель
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
31 При том же все эти всеславянства и национальности - все это слишком
старо, чтобы быть новым. Национальность, если хотите, никогда и не
являлась у нас иначе как в виде клубной барской затеи, и в добавок еще
московской. Я, разумеется, не про Игорево время говорю.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
32 Что же касается до христианства, то при всем моем искреннем к нему
уважении, я - не христианин. Я скорее древний язычник, как великий Гете,
или как древний грек. И одно уже то, что христианство не поняло
женщину, - что так великолепно развила Жорж-Занд, в одном из своих
гениальных романов.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF
MD AP E
32 В сорок седьмом году, Белинский, будучи за границей, послал к Гоголю
известное свое письмо, и в нем горячо укорял того, что тот верует "в
какого-то бога". Entre nous soit dit, ничего не могу вообразить себе
комичнее того мгновения, когда Гоголь (тогдашний Гоголь!) прочел это
выражение и... все письмо!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
54
32 Не мог же, в самом деле, Белинский искать спасения в постном масле, или
в редьке с горохом!.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
33 Все они, и вы вместе с ними, просмотрели русский народ сквозь пальцы, а
Белинский особенно; уж из того самого письма его к Гоголю это видно.
Белинский точь-в-точь как Крылова Любопытный не приметил слона в
Кунсткамере, а все внимание свое устремил на французских социальных
букашек; так и покончил на них. А ведь он еще, пожалуй, всех вас умнее
был!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
1.2
35 Степан Трофимович уверял ее, что это только первые, буйные порывы
слишком богатой организации, что море уляжется и что все это похоже на
юность принца Гарри, кутившего с Фальстафом, Пойнсом и мистрис
Квикли, описанную у Шекспира. Варвара Петровна на этот раз не
крикнула: "вздор, вздор!" как повадилась в последнее время покрикивать
очень часто на Степана Трофимовича, а напротив очень прислушалась,
велела растолковать себе подробнее, сама взяла Шекспира и с
чрезвычайным вниманием прочла бессмертную хронику. Но хроника ее не
успокоила, да и сходства она не так много нашла. Она лихорадочно ждала
ответов на несколько своих писем. Ответы не замедлили; скоро было
получено роковое известие, что принц Гарри имел почти разом две дуэли,
кругом был виноват в обеих, убил одного из своих противников наповал, а
другого искалечил и, вследствие таковых деяний, был отдан под суд.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
45 - Ах, да, бишь! Я ведь слышал что-то, что вы дуэли не любите...
- Что с французского-то переводить! -- опять скрючился Липутин.
- Народности придерживаетесь?
Липутин еще более скрючился.
- Ба, ба! что я вижу! -- вскричал Nicolas, вдруг заметив на самом видном
месте, на столе, том Консидерана, -- да уж не фурьерист ли вы? Ведь чего
доброго! Так разве это не тот же перевод с французского? -- засмеялся он,
стуча пальцами в книгу.
- Нет, это не с французского перевод! -- с какою-то даже злобой
привскочил Липутин, -- это с всемирно-человеческого языка будет
перевод-с, а не с одного только с французского! С языка всемирно-
55
человеческой социальной республики и гармонии, вот что-с! А не с
французского одного!..
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
45 О господине Ставрогине вся главная речь впереди; но теперь отмечу, ради
куриоза, что из всех впечатлений его, за все время, проведенное им в
нашем городе, всего резче отпечаталась в его памяти невзрачная и чуть не
подленькая фигурка губернского чиновничишка, ревнивца и семейного
грубого деспота, скряги и процентщика, запиравшего остатки от обеда и
огарки на ключ и в то же время яростного сектатора бог знает какой
будущей "социальной гармонии", упивавшегося по ночам восторгами пред
фантастическими картинами будущей фаланстеры, в ближайшее
осуществление которой в России и в нашей губернии он верил как в свое
собственное существование.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
48 En un mot, поставьте какую-нибудь самую последнюю ничтожность у
продажи каких-нибудь дрянных билетов на железную дорогу, и эта
ничтожность тотчас же сочтет себя в праве смотреть на вас Юпитером,
когда вы пойдете взять билет, pour vous montrer son pouvoir.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
48 En un mot, я вот прочел, что какой-то дьячок, в одной из наших
заграничных церквей, -- mais c'est tres curieux, -- выгнал, то-есть выгнал
буквально из церкви одно замечательное английское семейство, les dames
charmantes, пред самым началом великопостного богослужения, -- vous
savez ces chants et le livre de Job... единственно под тем предлогом, что
"шататься иностранцам по русским церквам есть непорядок, и чтобы
приходили в показанное время..." и довел до обморока...
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
50 -- Которую вы однако же победили. О, вы Бисмарк!
-- Не будучи Бисмарком, я способна однако же рассмотреть фальшь и
глупость где встречу.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
56
51 Et puis, comme on trouve toujours plus de moines que de raison, и так как я
совершенно с этим согласен...
-- Как, как вы сказали?
-- Я сказал: on trouve toujours plus de moines que de raison , и так как я с
этим...
-- Это верно не ваше; вы верно откудова-нибудь взяли?
-- Это Паскаль сказал.
-- Так я и думала... что не вы! Почему вы сами никогда так не скажете, так
коротко и метко, а всегда так длинно тянете? Это гораздо лучше, чем
давеча про административный восторг...
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
66 Je suis un forcat, un Badinguet, un припертый к стене человек!..
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
1.3
71 О, тут совсем не то, что с Пушкиными, Гоголями, Мольерами, Вольтерами,
со всеми этими деятелями, приходившими сказать свое новое слово!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
74 Вот, вот нераспечатанное письмо мое, которое она вчера воротила мне, вот
тут на столе, под книгой, под 'Homme qui rit.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
85 А вы вот не поверите, Степан Трофимович, чего уж, кажется-с, капитан
Лебядкин, ведь уж кажется глуп как... то-есть стыдно только сказать как
глуп; есть такое одно русское сравнение, означающее степень; а ведь и он
себя от Николая Всеволодовича обиженным почитает, хотя и преклоняется
пред его остроумием: "Поражен, говорит, этим человеком: премудрый
змий" (собственные слова).
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
86 Сегодня жмет вам руку, а завтра ни с того, ни с сего, за хлеб-соль вашу, вас
же бьет по щекам при всем честном обществе, как только ему полюбится.
С жиру-с! А главное у них женский пол: мотыльки и храбрые петушки!
57
Помещики с крылушками, как у древних амуров, Печорины-сердцееды!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
89 А помните ваши рассказы о том, как Колумб открывал Америку, и как все
закричали: земля, земля! Няня Алена Фроловна говорит, что я после того
ночью бредила и во сне кричала: земля, земля! А помните, как вы мне
историю принца Гамлета рассказывали? А помните, как вы мне описывали,
как из Европы в Америку бедных эмигрантов перевозят? И все-то
неправда, я потом все узнала, как перевозят, но как он мне хорошо лгал
тогда, Маврикий Николаевич, почти лучше правды!
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
99 Enfin, эта Прасковья, как называет ее cette chere amie, это тип, это
бессмертной памяти Гоголева Коробочка, но только злая Коробочка,
задорная Коробочка и в бесконечно увеличенном виде.
- Да ведь это сундук выйдет; уж и в увеличенном?
- Ну, в уменьшенном, все равно, только не перебивайте, потому что у меня
все это вертится, там они совсем расплевались; кроме Lise; та все еще:
"Тетя, тетя"; но Lise хитра, и тут еще что-то есть.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
102 "Если хочешь победить весь мир, победи себя", единственно, что удалось
хорошо сказать другому такому же, как и вы, романтику, Шатову, братцу
супруги моей. Охотно у него заимствую его изречение.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
102 Женщина обманет само всевидящее око. Le bon Dieu, создавая женщину,
уж конечно знал чему подвергался, но я уверен, что она сама помешала
ему; сама захотела участвовать в своем создании и сама заставила себя
создать в таком виде и с такими аттрибутами; иначе кто же захотел
наживать себе такие хлопоты даром? Настасья, я знаю, может и
рассердится на меня за вольнодумство, но... Enfin tout est dit.
Он не был бы сам собою, если бы обошелся без дешевенького,
каламбурного вольнодумства, так процветавшего в его время, по крайней
мере теперь утешил себя каламбурчиком, но ненадолго.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
58
1.4
114 - Ненависть тоже тут есть, -- произнес он, помолчав с минуту; -- они
первые были бы страшно несчастливы, если бы Россия как-нибудь вдруг
перестроилась, хотя бы даже на их лад, и как-нибудь вдруг стала безмерно
богата и счастлива. Некого было бы им тогда ненавидеть, не на кого
плевать, не над чем издеваться! Тут одна только животная, бесконечная
ненависть к России, в организм въевшаяся... И никаких невидимых миру
слез из-под видимого смеха тут нету! Никогда еще не было сказано на Руси
более фальшивого слова, как про эти незримые слезы! -- вскричал он почти
с яростью.
Direct Functions Palimpsest Functions
VE P O GF GF MD AP E
115 Мы все хвалили: спиритизм, закон Линча, револьверы, бродяг. Раз мы
едем, а человек полез в мой карман, вынул мою головную щетку и стал
причесываться; мы только переглянулись с Кирилловым и решили, что это