General Epanchin as Germann. A Travesty on Pushkin's "Queen of Spades" in Dostoevsky's THE IDIOT

I. Masing-Delić and Pandora King, The Ohio State University

Dostoevsky's veneration of Pushkin as the "embodiment of the . Rusian national genius" and as "the prime incarnation of 'omnihumanity'" (Hingley 1978:198) is well known.(1) It is also well known that Dostoevsky who "in many respects belonged to the Gogolian line" of Russian literature, nevertheless "organically absorbed Pushkin into his creative oeuvre" (Terras 1983:75). Veneration and "absorption" blended, as "Pushkin quotes and Pushkin reminiscences in Dostoevsky almost exclusively possess the function of the so-called 'authoritative word' (avtoritetnoe slovo)..." (Terras: 74). Certainly "Pushkin's word and his prophetic wisdom occupy the highest level in the hierarchy of artistic 'truth" (Perlina 1985:24). Those Dostoevsky characters who understand Pushkin, love Pushkin, are linked to Pushkinian characters, represent some Pushkinian value (as perceived by Dostoevsky) are (potentially) positive characters; those who distort Pushkinian concepts, images and values are, consequently, negative or stunted personalities. Thus the moral value of Makar Devushkin in Poor Folk is enhanced by his link to Samson Vyrin in Pushkin's "The Station Master" (Natova 1975:122; Blagoy 1979:515-518) and prince Myshkin's "symbolic role" in The Idiot as a "meek Russian Christ" grains an added positive dimension by associations to the Quixotic "Poor Knight" from Pushkin's poem with this same title (Fiene 1978:10). (2) Conversely, "an intentional impoverishing of Pushkin," for example, points to "a person's viciousness," and a prime "distorter" of this type in Rakitin in The Brothers Karamazov (Perlina 1985:30) .

Dostoevsky uses Pushkin's "authoritative word" not only when enhancing the value of "meek" characters (Devishkin) or when unmasking "false" ones (Rakitin), but also in order to add dimensions to the ambivalent category of "proud" protagonists. Here Pushkin's tale "The Queen of Spades" (1833) plays a major role. Its protagonist, Germann, who attempts to manipulate Fate is a progenitor of Dostoevskian rebels, who reject reality as it "is". The Germann motif in Dostoevsky's work is usually linked to Crime and Punishment (Peace 1971:313; Bayley 1971:324, Blagoy 1979: 546-549). In this novel, Raskolnikov, "Germann's spiritual brother" (Mochul'sky 1980:238), aspires to being a "Napoleon," i.e., a supreme egotist "beyond good and evil." (3) Consequently, he uses people as tools to forget a destiny of his own choice and vision (as opposed to the "God-given" one) . Murdering an avaricious old pawn-broker, he ostensively does this in order to take her money and use it "rationally" for the "benefit of mankind." "Pushkin's "Napoleonic" Germann, likewise decides to challenge Fate. In search of the "magic of money" (cf. Bayley 1971:319), he (inadvertently) kills a tyrannical and miserly old woman while attempting to make her divulge the secret of a card combination which invariably wins. By possessing this secret he hopes to gain a fortune at the gambling table - a fortune he does not intend to "squander" (cf. VI:226). It is not disclosed exactly how Germann

172

intends to use his prospective fortune, but presumably a certain amount would be set aside for charity and the public weal. Apparently Germann intends to become a "pillar of society," as he holds out the perspective that his "children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren" will bless the "memory" of the old Countess (226), provided she make them rich. To become a "pillar," he would have to support charitable organizations.

Germann does gain access to the secret of the card combination (the ghost of the dead old woman appears from otherworldly realms to divulge the secret). Nevertheless he does not win a fortune, but loses his reason, his prospects and his very self. Why did Germann commit his fatal mistake of staking on the wrong card during the third and last evening of gambling? Did the ghost of the old Countess confuse the cards, avenging her death? Was Germann, subconsciously guilt-ridden, punishing himself? Was he punished by higher powers for not fulfilling his pledge to marry the unhappy Lizaveta, as the apparition of the old Countess demanded, seeking redemption for her own sins against the girl through Germann? Did the formula, simply not work? (4) These are questions which have been asked in regard to the denouement of the story. A question, less often debated is the following: what would have have happened, if Germann had won? Or, more precisely, what would have happened if Germann had not staked his fortune on the "three, seven, ace" combination given to him by the ghost of the old countess, but heeded his father's advice to stake on the "three safe cards" of "calculation, moderation and application" ("rasshchet, umerennost i trudolyubie;" Pushkin, VI:219) and gained a fortune and respectability that way? Of course, this type of question does not concern literary critics who deal with an actual and not a potential text. A writer may well ask such questions, however, and Dostoevsky did speculate on what would have happened to Germann, had he rejected risk and operated cautiously, patiently and successfully. The suggestion he offers is that Germann may have become someone like general Epanchin in The Idiot. This Dostoevskian vision of Germann's alternative fate is the topic of this paper.

*     *     *

In Dostoevsky's The Idiot (1869), general Epanchin opts for the choices which Germann rejects and his career answers the question posed above. Epanchin is a successful Germann, who acquires the fortune which Germann loses, marries the Lizaveta whom Germann abandoned and (inadvertently) kills an old woman without paying the price of ostensible physical and spiritual ruin. The travestied motif of Epanchin as a "Germann who made it" has, as far as we know, not previously been perceived in The Idiot. Although it belongs to the minor motifs, it adds thematic nuances to this novel where "the fatal power of money over the human soul" (Mochulsky: 289) is shown in variation after variation, the main ones being usury, theft and questionable adventurism (cf. Mochulsky, 289). (5) One more variety is the "Epanchin way," which is thrift bordering on miserliness, combined with calculated risk and busy industriousness. This is the variety recommended by Germann's father, a recommendation recklessly (or perhaps not so recklessly) discarded by Germann then, but successfully practised by the "Capitalist" Epanchin.

173

The motif of Epanchin as a successful Germann is interesting not only as a comment on "Capitalist morality" within the framework of The Idiot, but also as a travestied "appendix" to the serious treatment of the Germann motif in Crime and Punishment. Raskol'nikov and Epanchin emerge as two contrasting emanations of a new "Napoleonic" morality, which is ego-centered, rebellious, unscrupulous, and "rational." The Raskol'nikov version practises the new morality as crime and rebellion against moral law and social norms. The Epanchin version practises it in the form of careerism, or rebellion against your station in life within the framework of evolving social norms, as profitmaking business and petty deceit within the limits of legality. Oppositions could also be stated in terms of the "Russian (anti-)religious drama" versus the "Western bourgeois success story," the "Russian struggle with God" versus the "Western atrophy of any religious feeling," and as Russian "homelessness" in a "rejected" reality versus Western cosiness under the motto "my home is my castle." It takes Myshkin a long time to gain access to the "castle" of the Epanchin home, guarded by servants and secretaries, whereas Raskol'nikov's attic room is constantly invaded by expected and unexpected visitors. This list of oppositions could be extended, but all of them can be traced to a Dostoevskian perception of Germann as having two hypostases: the "Germann" one of prudence and thrift yielding the "Western Capitalist" mentality (Germann before he surrenders to his "idea") and the "Russian" one of passionate if not obsessive, pursuit of an "idea", leading to a "Russian" revolutionary re-evaluation of all values, particularly those which need none. General Epanchin is an incarnation of the "German" Germann hypostatis, which Germann himself abandons in order to stake his life on the "Russian" card of uncompromising rebellion against the status quo for which he seems destined. The epithet German in regard to Epanchin should be seen as entirely symbolic - the general is of solid Russian soldier peasant stock (Dostoevsky, 35). (6)

In order to substantiate the claim that Epanchin is a travestied Germann figure, or the Germann Pushkin's protagonist could have become, the following (intertwined) parameters are examined for each character, in terms of contrast and parallel: a) biography, b) attitude to money an c) ethical and metaphysical attitudes. Starting with biography, some clear initial similarities and subsequent dissimilarities between Epanchin and Germann emerge.

Both come from socially "inferior" backgrounds and strive for acceptance by "high society." Both pursue military careers, presumably for the just mentioned reason, i.e. to gain access to the upper social strata of society by acquiring high military rank. Here Epanchin proves more successful than Germann. As a climber on the "ladder" of military ranks, Epanchin "makes it," whereas Germann fails to reach the top. When we meet the former in The Idiot, he is a general; when we leave Germann in "The Queen of Spades," he is what he was in the beginning, a military engineer of middling rank. Of course, when in the asylum he is no longer even that, but just a "madman." The general, on the other hand, started as an ensign (praporshchik, Dostoevsky, 1955: 175), advanced to lieutenant (poruchik, 1955:36) and eventually became a general in spite of his modest background.

Returning to similarities, both Germann and Epanchin "know their

174

place" in the circles they frequent. Germann is the "observer" when his fellow officers gamble away or win fortunes. Epanchin maintains a behavioral pattern of "modest propriety" (cf. Dostoevsky, 1955:35). Both inwardly rebel against their position, however. German's inner protest manifests itself in his obsessive pursuit of the gambling secret which he assumes will give him power and recognition. The general, as the narrator reveals, does not always feel the humility he pretends. When striving for the same goal of social acceptance, the two "upstarts" demonstrate differences, however. In order to change his status Germann stakes everything on the ace card, which will make him an Ace. The general has his gambling passion well under control. It is thanks to this control that the general was able to enter the inner circles of the "aces" while Germann remained on the periphery. Epanchin's social circle, although mixed, is "tuzovoe" (35) and here the general openly gambles for high stakes. (7) Unlike Germann who, initially refrains from gambling and only observes the game with intense interest, acquiring the reputation of a "stingy German" (Pushkin, VI: 221), the general "intentionally makes no secret" (35) of his apparent weakness. It seems likely that he never was reserved about his gambling, even when, like Germann, he "could not sacrifice the necessary in order to, perchance, acquire the superfluous" (Pushkin VI:210). The reason for his difference is that, in the general's case, gambling is a pretended weakness, and in Germann's, a genuine passion. In pretending to a weakness he does not have, the general profits greatly. This pretense "serves him in many instances" (35), lulling fellow players into a false sense of security, thus causing them to risk more than they may have otherwise.

Turning to other discrepancies in their biographies, there is the fact that Germann spurns the prospect of happy family life, rejecting Lizaveta Ivanovna , a poor girl of good family, in order to pursue his chimaeric vision of power through money won at the gambling table. Ivan Epanchin, (8) on the other hand, marries Elizaveta Myshkina, a poor girl of good family. Was lieutenant Epanchin swept away by a passion causing him to forget all other concerns especially financial ones? This is not the case. Elizaveta Myshkina was not beautiful, well-educated, or much younger than her husband. Therefore it would be difficult for the general to claim that "youthful infatuation" (36) led him astray, and he never claims that. Yet he is content with his marriage. He "respects his wife so much, and is at times so afraid of her that he even loves her" (36). However, it should not be forgotten that he does not fear (and love) her so much that it keeps him from bringing Nastasya Filippovna a pearl necklace. (9) Thus it is not "grand passion" which Epanchin, a man still "in his prime" (at the age of fifty five, 35), harbors for his aging wife now, nor did he harbor such a passion for his young wife of the past. He did, however, as a young poruchik, appreciate the fact that his bride brought him a dowry of "fifty souls." Although a modest capital (like the one Germann inherited from his father), it served, - together with the aristocratic name of his wife, as the foundation for his subsequent fortune (fortuna,p. 36).  Whereas Germann at one time planned to force "a treasure out of charmed fortune" ("u ocharovannoy fortuny, " VI:234; italics by us) in the gambling houses of Paris (where the Countess, then still a Muscovite Venus, once had played her magic cards), the general

175

forces no issues but accepts the crumbs which fate throws him. As "crumbs" accumulate, they eventually yield a considerable "cake".

Germann's courtship of Lizaveta relies on passionate letters (some taken from novels), passionate glances and ruthless demands on the well-guarded young woman. As a result, Germann has access to the Countess's house within three weeks, in spite of some qualms on Lizaveta Ivanovna's part. Lizaveta, suffering from the whims of her "protectress" seeks escape from her degrading position at any cost and stakes her fate on the young officer's apparent infatuation for her. Epanchin's courtship of Elizaveta Myshkina dispensed with romance (even fake romance), relying instead on the intervention of a benefactor who opened up the "gate" (kalitka) and "pushed him into the passage" (khod,p. 36) to the bride's home. Epanchin took the benefactor's help as a godsend. He would have taken even "a single glance" (p. 36) as an invitation.(10) No "crumb" is ever wasted in Epanchin's orderly "economy."

Thus the "courting" episodes differ significantly in some respects, but also demonstrate some essential similarities. One of these is the parallel between the two "Elizavetas." Although Elizaveta Myshkina had a benevolent (male) protector, whereas Lizaveta Ivanovna was maltreated by the tyrannical old Countess, neither had much of a choice in life, except to hope for a suitor and marriage and make the best of what was offered. Of course, Pushkin's Lizaveta tries to take her fate in her own hands, whereas Myshkina did not have to ponder elopements and secret trysts (perhaps being the worse off for it, in spite of the fact that Lizaveta Ivanovna found little joy in her meeting with Germann, in pursuit of fickle Fate rather than the fresh bloom of youth). (11) The difference in the outer circumstances of the courtship of the two young women, the pretty Lizaveta Ivanovna and the non-descript Elizaveta Myshkina, does not affect the essential similarity, however, which is that both are but "goods" on the marriage market. Furthermore, both are "goods", neither of which is coveted for its own sake, but for the "goods" to which they give access (khod) : in Germann's case, access to the old Countess and the secret of the cards, in Epanchin's case, the enhancement of his social value through his bride's aristocratic name and modest but useful dowry. Both Germann and Epanchin seek "access" to a closed realm and "entry" into a guarded sphere to which they do not, but wish to belong. To them courtship is not the path to love but to a "fortune."

Turning to the goals the two men pursue, it is clear both see the meaning of life in the acquisition of money, or, more precisely, capital, which is money with which to make more money. In both cases, "money" means "recognition" and "power" to the two men rather than "opulence." This is why only that money which brings more money ("capital") can satisfy them, the thirst for recognition and power being unquenchable, whereas the desire to satisfy sensual needs and to "enjoy" life is limited and certainly secondary to the desire to "be someone". True, Germann admires the "shapely legs" of younq women stepping out of carriages and entering to the Countess's house, and "the sight of those elegant ladies seems to be an added stimulus for him to pursue the secret of the cards" Debreczeny 1983:225). True, Epanchin purchases the pearl necklace with which to buy the favors of Nastasya Filippovna.

176

Nevertheless, neither covets money in order to purchase the pleasures of sex. Rather, both regard sex (and other pleasures) as the "prize wealth can bestow" (Debreczeny 1983:225), i.e. as the tangible proof that they have "made it." The purchase of a woman is the ultimate proof of personal worth, as, according to Gogol's Madman, it is "always noblemen or generals" (italics by us) to whom "all the good things in this world go" ("Diary of a Madman"), particularly the pretty women.(12) Like the Madman, schizophrenic Germann would like to be a rich general, not just to snatch "the good things" of life, but above all to see the gentlemen "crawling" before him. The very same holds true for the normal but ambitious general Epanchin, who covets Nastasya Filippovna "almost passionately" (cf. ref. 9), as possessing her, he would acquire what "gentlemen" have owned and still desire. However, pursuing this common goal of acquiring "capital," endowing it with similar symbolism, Germann and Epanchin again follow divergent routes. Germann gambles and loses, the general patiently and industriously collects "crumbs." Once the latter has collected a reasonable amount of those, he cautiously starts investing in the stock market (p. 35), taking calculated risks, and not scorning gambling at the green table. There he is invariably "lucky" (p. 35), because, unlike Germann, he is not desperately staking everything on one card, playing several "games" simultaneously as he does. The end result of these different approaches is financial and psychological ruin in Germann's case, and two large profit earning houses, one estate which is also "very profitable" (p. 36) and a factory, presumably yielding profit, in Epanchin's case. If one adds that the General is influential in "some very reputable stock and share companies" (p. 35), it is not surprising to learn that he is considered" a man of large means" (p. 35). There can be no doubt that the general acquires for what Germann strove, by opting for the cards Germann spurned: calculation, moderation and application. Calculation, as just shown, includes an advantageous marriage; moderation marks the general's very passions, as gambling remains a ruse serving enrichment and no erotic affair is allowed to ruin this "experienced" and "skillful" family man's harmonious private life (p. 58). As far as the third card of "application is concerned, the general is a business man with a tight time schedule, which emerges during Prince Myshkin's first visit to the Epanchin house.

Did the general, opting for these three cards, not make the "right" choice then? After all the accumulation of a fortune is, presumably, not in itself immoral, nor is ambition. Can one really speak of a "Napoleonic morality," even on the level of travesty, in the general's pursuit of capital which after all conformed to the rules of "fair play?" Even the "psychological cheating" at the green table may be seen as permissible in view of the fact that the other gamblers very likely had some tricks of their own up their sleeve. Naturally, moral evaluations of an ambitious man devoted to enriching himself, may vary. Therefore, the question of Epanchin's morality is best answered by the general himself. He does this in his petit jeu confession given at Nastasya Filippovna1s birthday party.

It has been agreed that all those who wish to do so, tell the most "disgraceful action" (durnoy postupok) of their life. Ferdyshchenko has just told his story of how he stole three rubles for no good

177

reason whatsoever and how he subsequently watched the maid being accused of the theft. His story is met with strong disapproval, presumably because it has the ring of truth (indebted to literature as it is, see Feuer Miller, 1981:178). Now it is Epanchin's turn, and Ferdyshchenko, "stung" by the negative reception of his dirty anecdote, venomously remarks that the general no doubt prepared his "little anecdote with particular literary gusto" (p. 174). Ferdyshchenko's suspicion that Epanchin's confession is going to have a "literary quality" (however ironically meant) proves right. Not only does it, like the Ferdyshchenko story, allude to rousseauistic themes, but it also offers a miniature travesty of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades."

The incident to which Epanchin confesses, happened around thirty years ago when the general was still an ensign who had to count every penny. He and his devoted servant Nikifor who "stole anything lying loose" to help out with the economy (p. 175) , lived in the house of a widow, a pitiful old woman (starushonka, p. 175), well over eighty. Once she had had a numerous family but when Epanchin took up quarters with her, she lived alone and forgotten by her few surviving family members. To add to her misfortunes, she lived in abject poverty. As might be expected, she was not very amusing, company. The general calls her "empty" (pustaya) , because "nothing could be extracted from her" ("nichego izvlech' nevozmozhno," p. 175). Instead of "yielding" something, this "empty" woman, according to the general, in fact tried to aquire something, i.e. she stole Epanchin's rooster.(13) The general concedes that the theft was never proven, but "there was no one else who could have done it." The obvious thought that his thieving servant whom he treated "severely but justly" (i.e. stingily) could have been the guilty party does not enter Epanchin's mind when telling this story from the past. Nor did it occur to him at the time of the incident, probably because such lèse majesté was and is inconceivable to the rank-conscious social climber. Of course, it is also noteworthy that the young ensign Epanchin did not mind his servant's thieving, as this was done for his benefit, wheras he strongly objected to a destitute old woman's (assumed) theft, as this was to his disadvantage. The egotism of the thrifty and ambitious young man is obvious.

A quarrel between the landlady and her tenants ensued and the two men moved to another flat. Three days later, the servant Nikifor asked Epanchin why he left their only soup bowl with the widow. Epanchin answered that he did no such thing, but Nikifor explained that the widow herself had told him that she had been promised the bowl by young Epanchin as a recompensation for a pot of hers which was broken by her tenants (Nikifor seems to be resorting to his usual tricks again). Epanchin, in a raqe, flew to the old woman's house and poured his indignation upon her. Again she proved to be "empty," as she did not utter a single word in response. Eventually Epanchin just left, without having clarified the mystery of the lost bowl and broken pot.

Soon afterwards he found out that his former landlady had died. Then he realized that she was dying while he was abusing her. The unpleasant memory of his intemperate behavior pursued him in dreams that night. Three days later he even went to her funeral, although he was "free from all prejudice" (p. 176), i.e. deprived of religious sentiment.(14) Nothing extraordinary happened during

178

the funeral, though it did in Germann's case, when he saw the old woman wink at him in her open coffin. Nevertheless, the future general remained disturbed about this incident, so much so, that when he did become a general and means allowed it, he established a fund for the care of old women, sacrificing some of his large capital (a pittance) for it. The general now sees himself as essentially absolved from guilt.(15)

Epanchin's confessional anecdote does not meet with enthusiasm either. There is general consensus that the point of the story is to show the culprit in a good light, as a man capable of redeeming his mistakes. Epanchin's self-satisfaction does not go unnoticed, and Ferdyshchenko remarks that instead of telling the most disgraceful incident in his life, the general told one of the best. As Feuer Miller points out, however, Epanchin, perhaps inadvertently, "narrated his worst deed after all - a personal evil deed which he sought to erase by an act of impersonal good in the form of a 'permanent endowment by providing a capital fund'" (1981:179). In Epanchin's world all problems are solved by money, even ethical ones.

The critic's point gains additional dimensions by the subtextual Germann story. This subtext makes clear that the old woman in the Epanchin story not only died to the accompaniment of his crude abuse, but also in a sense, was "killed" by his "thrift philosophy." It seems very likely that the old woman's death was caused, or at least precipitated, by the constant quarrel with her thrifty tenants. This "empty" old woman was "killed" by Epanchin, not for the sake of three magic cards, but for the sake of three trivial objects: a rooster, a soup bowl and a pot. The assumption that a "killing" was involved in the apparently innocuous incident is confirmed by the fact that the dying old woman seemed to be "swaying" ("kak by kachaetsya," p. 176) during their last encounter, when Epanchin demonstrated no less passion than Germann, although in less exalted language. This "swaying" evokes the image of the murderer: old pawn-broker haunting Raskolnikov's dreams in Crime and Punishment. The assumption that she was "killed," as opposed to "died when nature decreed" is, furthermore, confirmed by the fact that "flies were humming" in the evening stillness, as this image links the dying old woman to the murdered Nastasya Filippovna, another woman "abused" by the general, who wanted to "purchase" her. (His price, the necklace is, characteristically, cheap, compared to the offers Nastasya Filippovna receives from the other "bidders" at the "auction" for her favors.) In the deathly silence of the room in the Rogozhin house where the dead Nastasya Filippovna lies, a fly suddenly begins to hum (p. 652) and then falls silent settling on the murdered woman's body. The humming flies in the Epanchin story will also soon fall silent settling on the body of an old woman (whom the general calls a "fly;" cf. ref. 17), - an old woman who was "killed," not by passion but by thrift. Thrift too can become a passion, however. When it does, it is called "miserliness." The general is not only a Germann but also a "miserly knight." (16)

In spite of his apparent self-satisfaction, deep down in his heart, the general knows that his sentimental (and involuntarily highly comical) confession of guilt, is false. He knows that he did not just commit an act of impropriety. It is not the fact that he bid his former landlady at last farewell in abusive language, instead

179

of shedding "tears" (p. 177) over a "woman, who was, so to speak, a creature of the human species" (p. 176), which marks him as a culprit.(17) His guilt lies in valuing a pot, a bowl and a rooster more than a "useless" (or, in his own terms, "empty") woman who yielded no "profit." He was guilty of "killing" a "creature of the human species" for the sake of a few trivial objects. Like Germann, he went to the burial service to redeem the fact that he had "killed" a woman, out of whom "nothing could be extracted," who had "thwarted" his ambitions and presented an obstacle to the progress of his "fortune." For the same reason he instituted an endowment for old women. This however is a redeeming gesture, it may be argued. Perhaps Epanchin is entitled to forgive himself now? Is the general perchance judged too severely by Nastasya Filippovna's dinner guests and by Dostoevsky critics? Can moral transgressions really never be redeemed by money? Should the general spend the rest of his life bemoaning a sin of his youth?

The question of whether the general may be "forgiven" or not depends on the current "state of his morality." Is he still capable of sacrificing a human being for a "pot" or has he undergone a change of heart? Unfortunately, the former alternative still holds largely true. When the action of the novel begins, the arrivé general still adheres to a false hierarchy of values where pots are deemed more important than "empty" old women. This can be deduced from the fact that "empty" people such as petitioners and beggars are turned away from Epanchin's splendid house. Prince Myshkin must repeatedly state that he has not come to beg, in order to be admitted to the general's home and what the general eventually does offer him in terms of help is a "little drop" (kapel'ku, p. 54). In other words, keeping in mind Myshkin's Christological function in the novel, "Christ" is not gladly admitted to the general's home, nor is Christ's message to "feed the hungry and clothe the naked."

What is the point of the travesty? The moral indicated above could, after all, also have been stated in "serious" terms. The point is not to polemicize with the "authoritative word" of Pushkin, but rather to confirm his reduction of the ruthless Germann by de-romanticizing him.(18) Reducing the tale of Germann's romantic pursuit of power and his attempt to "charm Fortune" to a trivial anecdote about a broken pot, contrasting tragic failure with banal success, "Mephistophelian" individualism with petty-bourgeois egotism, daredevil "staking it all" with cautious "penny-pinching," the author of The Idiot ridicules those aspirations which German and Epanchin after all ultimately share. These aspirations are, in nursery rhyme terms, "to walk about clad in gold and have a general's rank" (italics by us; Dostoevsky 1955:361). This formulation is borrowed from the narrator of The Idiot, philosophizing on the prevalent "Russian" notion of true happiness in the opening statements to Part Three. Germann and Epanchin want but "golden clothes and a general's rank," regardless of whether they demand magic cards or prosaic pots from uncooperative Fate. Neither seeks "originality," for example, i.e. to make a unique spiritual contribution to life, or strives for values beyond the "railroad tracks" followed by all (cf. Dostoevsky, 361) . Both merely seek the "apogee of Russian happiness," i.e. the mediocre satisfaction of being a rich "general," an ideal, which according to the narrator, all doting Russian mothers and nyanyas (p. 361) singing their nursery rhymes,

180

wish upon the infants they cradle. This infantile notion of happiness acquired in the nursery, guides Germann's and Epanchin's live. Both pseudo-heroes want to make their lives into a new kind of "fairy tale a modern "Capitalist" fairy tale about upstart Ivanushki durachki becoming rich "generals." The trouble about both Germann and Ivan Epanchin is that neither has a pure heart as Ivanushka does, whereas they both, unlike Ivanushka, are quite "clever," - too clever for their own good.

It has been shown that "The Queen of Spades" can be read as a fairy tale about a pseudo-hero who is repeatedly tested, receiving rewards when he passes the test, punishment when he does not. Germann is tested in his relations to Liza and the old Countess and in both cases his conduct does not measure up to the standards of moral validity. By listening to his conscience and going to the funeral, he redresses his negative actions, to some extent, and is given one more chance to redeem himself (by marrying Lizaveta), as well as the old Countess whose sins he had promised to take upon his own conscience. Given the benefit of the doubt, he receives "magic objects" from the spirit of the deceased woman, which lead to further testing situations. Ultimately Germann fails to prove himself, however, as the pursuit of "Capital" is more important to him than moral obligations and love, and "Fate" punishes him by withdrawing the magical gifts of the lucky cards during the third testing.(19)

The general's life story may also be regarded as an adulterated "fairy tale." Young Epanchin too is being tested by the old Woman Fate, and these tests, as in Germann's case, involve three "magic" objects: the rooster, the bowl and the pot. It may incidentally be noted that the number three is important in the general's "disgraceful" anecdote, as events there move forward in time sequences of three and the number of objects involved is three. The general's "magic objects" are not gambling cards, but trivial household items. Their function is to reveal the true value of all materialistic-egotistic aspirations. They demonstrate without any element of deceitful "magic" exactly what it is that money can buy. It can, naturally, not buy happiness, nor talent. It does not even buy peer recognition, as the Epanchin family learns. It merely buys "pots," be these as exalted as those Chinese vases which the Epanchin household ultimately acquires.

Not only is the "magic" of money far less potent than both the obsessed dreamer Germann and the sober business man Epanchin imagine - it also trivializes man's spiritual aspect, depleting his soul (rather than "corrupting" it, as is commonly assumed). Money transforms "living people" into "dead souls" who live in world peopled by "objects," as opposed to human beings. Both fake fairy tale heroes, Germann and the general, regard men and women as some kind of "honey pots," which, if they do not contain any "honey," are discarded as "empty vessels." The only kind of "empty pots" which are valued in the Epanchin household are those where the shell is expensive enough to give them "content" (i.e. status or money value). Chinese vases, for example, are put on pedestals, whereas "empty" human beings are at best reduced to "charity objects," like the old women who were granted an endowment.

Sharing basic ethical (or non-ethical) assumptions, Germann and the general seem to meet with very different fates, however. The former is ruined by the Queen of Spades, the latter escapes

181

ostensible punishment. The general, apparently, both "has his cake and eats it too." Yet, perhaps it only seems that way. Also, the general ultimately pays the price for guilt, not escaping his encounter with Fate. His life of a "fairy tale come true" is not over with the "pot-incident" but awaits its unhappy ending. Prosaic caution proves to be as brittle a shield against Retribution as romantic challenge, but the general's encounter with the "old hag" Fate is, befittingly, less spectacular than Germann's. Epanchin does not land in an asylum, nor is he ruined financially. But he does have to pay the price for the broken pot, which is exacted by his Queen of Spades, the deceased old land-lady.

Vengeance is wrought at a social gathering when Prince Myshkin breaks the most valued Chinese vase of the Epanchin household, three decades after the breaking of the pot, which belonged to the general's old landlady. Aglaya Epanchina, the Prince's undecided would-be bride, torn between unconventional love and social propriety, predicted this would happen. When it does happen, the Prince is struck by the fulfillment of her "prophecy" and experiences a "kind of almost mystical terror" (p. 590). The full force of these pathetic-comic expressions is brought out by the Germann subtext. The sensitive Myshkin seems to perceive that not only his personal fate is decided by the incident, but also that of the entire Epanchin family. He apparently senses that the general is about to lose on the "trump card" on which he has staked his whole family's fortune, - the "Aglaya card." Of course, the Prince is most concerned about the personal implications of the incident (the unfavorable impression he has made in high society and the embarrassment he has caused his hosts, as well as the consequences for his eligibility in Aglaya's eyes), but the key-words "prophecy" and "mystical terror" apply to the hidden Germann motif in the novel as well. The breaking of the vase ushers in a long postponed but inevitable denouement to a "tale," begun by Epanchin, long ago. To be precise, it began at a time when the young ensign started to practise his "honey pot philosophy" on the landlady, who was the first fellow being he decided had nothing to "offer," wherefore she was labelled "empty" and useless.(20)

Superficially, the broken vase incident has no consequences, as the Epanchin family proves capable of rising above the situation and gracefully accepts the loss of its prized family possession. But they are devastated by the breaking of that "beautiful vase," that "treasure" (sokrovishche , p. 623) which is Aglaya. This "breaking" takes place shortly thereafter and again the Prince is the culprit. His breaking of the Chinese vase proves a prelude to his "breaking" of Aglaya, whose pride he irreparably crushes during the confrontation between her and Nastasya Filippovna, when he appears to prefer the latter to the former. This "breaking," as the Prince's sophisticated rival for Aglaya's affections, Prince Radomsky, calls it, (Dostoevsky 623) is indeed Myshkin1s doing, but clearly the deeper guilt lies with her father, the general. It was Epanchin, following his "pot-philosophy," who made Aglaya into a "precious vase," a family "idol" (p. 557) and the "trump card" which would crown the Epanchin gamble for success, i.e. into a precious "object." It would have been wiser on his part to foster qualities in his daughter which would have made her less "brittle" and "fragile" than she shows us. Epanchin's youngest and prettiest daughter Aglaya is marked by a "psychological fragility" (Turner 1985:174) which becomes her undoing. Innate as her

182

"fragility" may be, it is also furthered by per parents' educational philosophy to make their pretty girl into a "Chinese vase," i.e., into an outwardly beautiful but inwardly hollow creature, in order to fetch a high prize for her on the marriage market. Having made his idolized daughter into an adornment, a beautiful "treasure" for some eligible high society man, such as Radomsky, (who is the one who calls her a "treasure")(21), the general once again proves unable to make the proper value distinctions between a human being and a "pot" (or vase). Nemesis strikes when Aglaya is as easily "broken" as a vase. (The fact that the vase is a gift from an unknown donor emphasizes the parallels, as Aglaya naturally is a "gift from heaven.")

It may well be argued that Aglaya is more than a "pretty shell." Still, she proves, if not "empty," then at least "warped." Although Aglaya rejects her family's false values, notably her father's "pot-philosophy," preferring the "poor knight" Myshkin to the brilliant Radomsky and other men of the world, her scale of values has irreversibly been tipped in favor of "worldly vanity." Thus the true reason for her "broken pride" is wounded vanity, rather than erotic jealousy. Aglaya feels that she lost a "beauty contest" when the Prince opts for Nastasya Filippovna rather than her. In fact, the meeting between the two women is a beauty contest of sorts. It is a contest which Aglaya easily could have won, had she displayed greater magnanimity than her rival. Beautiful qualities such as generosity and humility give lustre to that "clay vessel" which is man, illuminating him/her from inside, creating genuine, i.e. spiritual beauty, as opposed to mere prettiness, however "lacquered." The physically robust Aglaya proves spiritually too "frail" for such an insight, however. She does not rise to the occasion and remains the childishly rebellious, vain and perverse "little demon," she has always been (besenok, Dostoevsky 395). Worldly pride "breaks" Aglaya, rather than the Prince's presumed lack of tact and knowledge of women and the world.(22)

Aglaya's "breaking" destroys the precarious harmony of the Epanchin family, ruining an already threatened family happiness. The dead old landlady's broken pot is eventually amply avenged. Certainly it is fully avenged when Aglaya, as incapable of genuine insight as ever, marries her pseudo "poor knight," the Polish fortune hunter in Parisian exile. She breaks off all ties with her family and country, perchance to become another Queen of Spades, when her time as a "Muscovite Venus" in Paris will come to an end. Like Germann's Countess, Epanchin's old landlady did not accept her death meekly, but avenges herself even from beyond the grave. True, she did not appear to Epanchin in his dreams, nor haunt him as a ghost. In Dostoevsky1s realistic novel she "transmitted" the task of avenging her to another old woman, to the "all-powerful" starukha Belokonskaya (p. 550), an influential aristocrat and high society tyrant. Like Germann's Countess, Belokonskaya is not entirely devoid of benevolence, but marred by haughty capriciousness (as any incarnation of Fate must necessarily be). Belokonskaya is an old family friend and Elizaveta Epanchina's severe mentor and social guide, thus functioning as her "destructive protectress." It is because the Epanchin family needs Belokonskaya's approval of the Prince that they arrange the fateful party where he breaks the vase. This incident, as has just been demonstrated, initiates the fateful denouement of the love story between him and Aglaya. On that occasion the general loses, if not his entire "fortune,"

183

then at least his "highest goods," the youngest and most beautiful daughter, Aglaya.(23) This happens at a time when he already sees himself as a victor.

Naturally the moral of the Epanchin-Germann motif is not to be defined as "vengeance for a pot," or even as "vengeance for the mortal fright of an old woman." Rather, it implies that false moral premises lead to unfortunate consequences. Epanchin's family drama is the result of a false materialistic scale of values where a daughter's happiness is equated with her marrying a millionaire prince, where the beauty of a living human being is transformed into a "pretty vase," where conjugal love is reduced to "proper family relations," where a wife is "used" and subsequently "put on the shelf," whereupon she is exchanged for another "vase" (bought for the money she brought into the family). The general is not punished for the sins of his youth but for not decisively changing his "important personage" ideal (Cf.ref.12.)

Does this mean that the "Raskolnikov variation" of the Germann motif should be viewed as the "better" solution to the problem of social and moral justice? if both the gambling Germann and the thrifty Epanchin are motivated and marred by irredeemable egotism in their pursuit of a fortune, does Raskol'nikov act out of genuine altruism, misguided as his murderous act is? Or, putting it in more general terms, is the "Socialist" alternative morally superior to the "Capitalist" one, at least in regard to its ultimate aims? Is stingy Capitalist charity meaningfully substituted by Socialist justice?

The answer to these questions is not difficult to find: the Socialissolution to economic justice and other moral questions in The Idiot (as well as in Crime and Punishment) is ridiculed and rejected (even if Socialists as individuals are not). Lebedev defines the new Socialist variant of "Napoleon morality" as follows: "now it's considered to be your right not to stop before any obstacles if you suddenly take a fancy to something, - none whatsoever, even if this should mean knocking off eight people or so" (p. 286). Although a "clown," or because of that, Lebedev captures the very essence of the "new" Socialist morality. It is but a cruder variant of the "romantic" Germann attitude, i.e. unmitigated ruthlessness and obsessive self-assertion. Although parading as "love for mankind," it is only hyperbolized self-love, as Nastasya Filippovna perceives in another context, stating that "abstract love for mankind almost invariably implies love for the self" (p. 495). Thus the petty Epanchin who throws the occasional "crumb" to the needy, in a way, comes out "better" than the rebellious Raskol'nikov. The latter does not kill inadvertently but rather intentionally and, as it proves, by no means succeeds in remedying "the blind mistakes of fortune" (p. 294), or for that matter, even attempts to do so. The quoted phrase is borrowed from Keller's article on the "idiotic" Prince Myshkin whose duty it is, according to the new morality, to correct "the blind mistake of fortune" (p. 294) which gave him, the Prince, undeserved economic privileges, while forgetting the "worthy" Burdovsky. In short, the novel The Idiot does indeed deal with the "disintegrating effects of Capital on large sectors of society" (Wegner 1986:190), but it does also contain an "anti-Nihilistic' theme" which grows stronger in the last parts of the novel.

184

This fact may induce the conclusion that "the same unscrupulous and mercantile society so thoroughly unmasked in the epic events around Nastasya Filippovna, is, in fact, suddenly justified" (Wegner 190) . Furthermore, this "justification" also seems to include the stingy old general. Thus it may be noted that Epanchin distinctly "improves" morally after the events at Nastasya Filippovna's birthday party, and his moral amelioration progresses in proportion to his growing acquaintance with the Prince (i.e. "Christ"). He becomes supportive of his wife and shows himself as a genuinely doting father even though he is still unable to see his daughters as individuals, entitled to their own vision of life. Yet even this is changing, as the "idolized" (p. 557) Aglaya is given the freedom to choose the eccentric Prince. In other words, "Christ" is eventually welcomed to the Epanchin mansion in the form of Myshkin. The general's petrified soul still proves alive and the successful "Capitalist" may well have been close to a spiritual resurrection, when Nemesis struck. Myshkin was right when he stated that he and the general might yet find more common ground than was immediately apparent (cf. ref. 16). The general was learning to disregard "fortune" and beginning to perceive the spiritual treasures, hidden in Myshkin's frail physical frame, at the time right before catastrophe struck. His attitude towards the Prince making an "idiot" of himself during the party, for example, is one of solicitude above all. After the catastrophe, the general appears to revert to his old ways and attitudes. Certainly the remainder of his family travels alone in Europe in the epilogue, as the general is too "busy" to accompany them.

There is, however, hardly any "justification" of, or "apologia" for, Capitalist morality in The Idiot, as Wegner claims (cf. above). What the "Germann subtext" demonstrates is that both Capitalist and Socialist obsession with money is futile and disintegrative. Neither stingy charity, nor the "rectifying" of Fortune's "mistakes" can scatter the Apocalyptic shadows which are thickening over an increasingly materialistic world. Neither the adventurer Germann, the businessman Epanchin, nor the nihilist rebel Raskol'nikov offer genuine salvation, as their shared "Napoleonic" morality constitutes the very danger threatening the world to a varying degree. There is only one alternative - the one represented by the Prince, that "poor" knight to whom having a fortune or not is a matter of indifference, as he does not identify human value with money ("honey"). At one stage Aglaya mockingly suggests that Myshkin, in his dreams casts himself in the role of Napoleon's conqueror (p. 466). Naturally, she is wrong, as the Prince's conquests never take place on the battle fields of war or competition, but only in "the hearts of men." Yet she is right, insofar as the Prince and his values are the only possible alternative to the "Napoleonic" morality, regardless of whether it manifests itself in "Capitalist" or "Socialist" garb. It is not the "superman" but the "positively beautiful man" who shall "save the world," bringing to it the spiritual beauty of Christianity. At a time when the world no longer is ruled by "Napoleon," the "beautiful man" will no longer be regarded as an "idiot." When this happens, beauty shall no longer be bought, sold, idolized, exploited, placed on a pedestal, or in any other way misused. It will then be recognized as the indestructible and immortal spiritual value it is, as the only force which endows even "earthen vessels" with value, as the only power which ameliorates men and women - even

185

in a physical sense, incarnating itself in these. When this happens the old woman Fate will be laid to her final rest and the laws of ugly Nemesis will yield to those of beautifying and salvatory love.

Works Cited:

1. Bayley, John, Pushkin. A Comparative Commentary, At the University Press, Cambridge 1971.
    
2. Beer, Hans-Peter, "Die Gestalt des Evgenij Pavlovič Radomskij in Dostoevskijs Roman 'Der Idiot'," Skripten des Slavisahen Seminars der Universität Tübingen, Nr. 15, Tübingen 1978.
    
3. Blagoy, D. D., "Dostoevsky i Pushkin," in Dusha v zavetnoy lire, Sov. pis., M. 1979.
    
4. Debreczeny, Paul, The Other Pushkin. A Study of Alexander Pushkin's Prose Fiction, Stanford University Press, Stanford 1983.
    
5. Dostoevsky, F.M., Idiot, Cos. izdat. khud. lit., M. 1955.
    
6. Dostoevsky, Fyodor, The Idiot, Revised translation by Constance Garnett, The Heritage Press, Norwalk, Conn. 1956.
    
7. Fiene, Donald M., "Pushkin's 'Poor Knight': The Key to Perceiving Dostoevsky's Idiot as Allegory," IDS Bulletin, no. 8, 1978.
    
8. Feuer Miller, Robin, Dostoevsky and The Idiot, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, and London, England, 1981.
    
9. Grossman, Joan, "Dostoevsky and Stendhal's Theory of Happiness," American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, vol. 2, ed. by Victor Terras, Slavica Publishers, Columbus, Ohio 1978.
    
10. Hingley, Ronald, Dostoevsky, His Life and Work, Charles Scribeners' Sons, New York 1978.
     
11. Holquist, "The Gaps in Christology: The Idiot," in Dostoevsky. New Perspectives, ed. by R L Jackson, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1984.
     
12. Jackson, Robert Louis, Dostoevski's Quest for Form. A Study of His Philosophy of Art, Yale University Press, New Haven and London 1966.
     
13. Leatherbarrow, W.J., "Pushkin: The Queen of Spades," in The Voice of a Giant, Essays on Seven Russian Prose Classics, ed. by Roger Cockrell and David Richards, University of Exeter 1985.
     
14. Masing-Delic, I., "Peredonov's 'Little Tear' - Why Is It Shed? The Sufferings of a Tormentor," Scando-Slavica , tomus XXIV, Copenhagen 1978.
     
15. Mochul'sky, K., Dostoevsky. Zhizn' i tvorchestvo, YMCA-Press, Paris 1980.
     
16. Natov, Nadine, "Pushkinskie temy u Dostoevskogo," Novy zhurnal, no. 120, New York 1975.

186


 
17. Peace, Richard, Dostoevsky. An Examination of the Major Novels, At the University Press, Cambridge 1971.
     
18. Perlina, Nina, Varieties of Poetic Utterance, Quotation in The Brothers Karamazov , Lanham, New York, London 1985.
     
19. Petrunina, N.N., "Pushkin i traditsiya volshebnoskazochnogo povestvovaniya" (K poetike 'Pikovoy damy'), in Russkaya Literatura, no. 3, Nauka, Leningrad 1980.
     
20. Pushkin, A.S., Polnoe sobranie sochineniy, tom shestoy, Nauka, Leningrad 1978.
     
21. Terras, Victor, "Kritische Bemerkungen zu Dostoevskijs Puškin-bild," in Dostoevskij und die Literatur, herausgegeben von Hans Rothe, Böhlau Verlag, Köln - Wien 1983.
     
22. Turner, C.J.G., "Dostoevsky's Idiot: Treasure in Earthen Vessels,' in Dostoevsky Studies, vol. 6, 1985.
     
23. Wegner, Michael, "Fjodor Dostojewski," in Geschichte der russischen Literatur von den Anfängen bis 1917, Band 2, Red. Wolf Düwel, Aufbau-Verlag, Leipzig 1986.

NOTES

1. Dostoevsky "venerated Pushkin all his life and considered him to be the greatest Russian genius and his own spiritual mentor" (Mochul'sky 1980:524). His famous "Pushkin speech" of 1880 "summarizes twenty years of ... thought on the great Russian poet. ... Pushkin always formed the core of his historiosophic speculations where the poet's image was to provide the key to the riddle of Russia's destiny and mission" (Mochul'sky:526): to lead the way to "a new epoch of human brotherhood" (Hingley (98) by making all nations share in the spirit of "omnihumanity," incarnated in the simultaneously Russian and universal personality of Pushkin.
    
2. In connection with this poem D. Fiene makes the interesting points that, on the allegorical level of the novel, the Prince represents "all aspects of Christianity" as well as all that which "is compatible with Christianity in other religions and cultures," whereas Nastasya Filippovna represents "the Russian Orthodox faith" and Aglaya Epanchina the "Catholic portion" of Christianity (1978:15). It is Aglaya, who draws the parallel Myshkin-Poor Knight, casting him in the role of "noble paladine" and "serious Don Quixote" (p. 10), as well as a "comic" one (p. 15), thus linking him with Western archetypes of spiritual nobility. Fiene's interpretative suggestions for the allegorical level of the novel make clear why "the Prince cannot choose" (p. 16) between the two women, as Christ clearly cannot reject either the Catholic or Orthodox church, even in Dostoevsky's pro-Orthodox world. A decade later, Dostoevsky's young philosopher friend Vladimir Solov'ev would devote much thought to the "task" of reuniting the two sister churches, of reconciling "Aglaya" and "Nastasya."



187

 

3. The "first major bearer of the Napoleon complex" in European literature is Stendhal's Julien Sorel (Grossman:211). For a discussion of the links between Le Rouge et le Noir and The Idiot, see Grossman (1978).



4. Debreczeny points out that "some critics ... mistakenly assumed that the Countess' ghost named two cards correctly but cheated Germann on the third one" (1983:200). Debreczeny himself sees Germann as bringing on "his own defeat," as he is "driven to self-punishment" because of guilt feelings "toward his father" (1983:235-6). Leatherbarrow offers an unusual (and implausible) view of Germann's downfall. He sees Pushkin as an arrogant writer who "allows the full weight of retribution to fall upon Germann, not because he has killed, but because he has done so without style and panache" (1985:13).
    
5. Holquist is incorrect when he claims that "money, which plays so enormous a role in the novel, always comes from the wills of a dead generation" (1984:142). Money comes, above all, in novel "Capitalist ways."
    
6. Paradoxically, the fact that Epanchin is so thoroughly Russian, constitutes another parallel between him and the (half-)foreign Germann. Opting for a "German" vision of life the general betrays his Russian parental heritage, just as Germann betrays his German parental heritage by opting for a "Russian" vision of life.
    
7. And yet, Epanchin too is never fully accepted by high society, particularly its "German" sector, ironically enough. His immediate superior, the general with a German name, belongs to those who never would acknowledge the Epanchins as "equals" (Dostoevsky 576). The German-Russian poet with a handsome but "somewhat repulsive" face (p. 578, another Germann travesty?), attending the evening gathering where Prince Myshkin is introduced (and behaves inappropriately) clearly feels superior to both his hosts and their guests. Epanchin himself feels awe toward his superiors even though he may cheat them, retaining a keen awareness of being a social climber. The entire Epanchin family knows that they are "not like everyone else" and, in particular, Elizaveta Prokofevna Epanchina constantly worries that her "eccentricity" may damage the precarious social status of the family.
    
8. The general's name being Ivan, makes his wife a kind of Elizaveta Ivanovna , reinforcing the subtext of the "Queen of Spades" and, for that matter, that of Crime and Punishment, where the old usurer's exploited half-sister is called Lizaveta Ivanovna. In regard to the general, the name Ivan presumably emphasizes his Russianness and his "ordinariness" (cf. ref. 23).
    
9. General Epanchin has taken a "fancy" to Nastasya Filippovna, a fancy which "almost resembles passion" (Dostoevsky 72). This means that he "would like to seduce the former mistress of his daughter's proposed fiancé" (Feuer Miller 101), because once there were plans for the eldest Epanchin daughter to marry Totsky, Nastasya Filippovna's seducer. The "piquanteness" of the situation is further intensified by the fact that the enamoured general, while wooing Nastasya Filippovna, is at the same time trying to marry her off to his secretary Ganya Ivolgin. The latter, in his turn, is trying to v/in the affection (and
   
   

   188

   
   
   fortune) of the general's youngest daughter Aglaya.
    
10. The detail of the "single glance," which, had it been cast, would have encouraged Epanchin to act, seems to contain a travestying allusion to Gerraann's persuasive glances, fixed on Lizaveta Ivanovna for hours on end and finally elucidating responding glances from her (Germann acts as a veritable "hypnotizer," Debreczeny 1983:116). However, in Epanchin's case there are no "glances" at all, either one way or the other. Instead everything is properly "arranged." It is not impossible that the story of Epanchin's "courtship" travesties not only Germann's, but also Lavretsky's wooing of Lisa in Turgenev's A Nest of Gentlefolk. There a locked gate (kalitka) , pushed open by Lavretsky, magnetically drawn to Liza Kalitina's house (by genuine love), has a significant function. Epanchin's courtship is neither an "enchanted meeting," nor a "passionate pursuit" then, but a thoroughly "bourgeois" affair. There are possibly several Turgenev travesties in The Idiot, as Aglaya can be seen as a (would-be) Elena-figure (from On the Eve). Both girls, in their desire to do "active good," marry a foreign patriot of Slavic origins, - Elena a positive one and Aglaya a negative one.
     
11. Had Elizaveta Epanchina experienced a "romantic" love in youth, even a disillusioning one, she may have been better prepared for her daughters' demands to choose their husbands. Instead, she and her husband are constantly foisting marriages of convenience on them, continuing the traditions of their own generation. In a wider context, they participate in the general reduction of the sacrament of marriage to a business deal. This attitude invites its corollary, prostitution, particularly that type of upper class prostitution to which Nastasya Filippovna is subjected and which is glorified in the Dumas fils story about the "lady with the camelias." At Nastasya Filippovna's birthday party, her seducer Totsky, tells an anecdote which evokes associations to La dame aux camelias.
     
12. Debreczeny establishes a link between Germann and Akakiy Akakievich, the Pushkinian upstart and the Gogolian official transgressing the borderlines of his rank, stating that "Hermann connects sexual fulfillment with riches, anticipating Gogol's Akakiy Akakievich, who will feel so exhilarated in an expensive new coat that he will giggle at a risqué picture in a shop window (1983:225) . In the context of money and sex the "important personage" should be remembered also, as his mistress clearly is a status symbol to him rather than a "source of pleasure."
     
13. In view of the fact that Germann planned to become the old Countess' lover if need be, the rooster here may carry some sexual symbolism, on the level of travesty. Was the cock-sure young praporshchik "showing off" to the old woman, trying to "charm" her for some concrete gain, such as, access to her kitchen and its goods? Was he disappointed by her lack of response to his "overtures"?
     
14. Epanchin and Germann are both men "sans religion" (Pushkin VI:227) The latter has "very little genuine faith," but a great many "prejudices" (VI.231). He goes to the Countess' funeral because he is superstitious and fears her revenge. At the same time it
     
    

    189

    
    
    is also "the voice of conscience," which tells him to do so, because he "killed" the old woman. The General claims to be "free of prejudice" (including the "prejudice" of religion), but, like Germann, is superstitious and, therefore, goes to his landlady's funeral. The "voice of conscience," this "witch" (Skupoy rytsar', scene II), also speaks, however, telling the young ensign Epanchin that he "killed" an old woman.
     
15. Feuer Miller sees both Ferdyshchenko's and Epanchin's anecdotes as polemics with Rousseau. The former's anecdote reflects "the content of Rousseau's tale about the stolen ribbon while detaching itself from Rousseau's emotional stance," whereas the latter's "mimics Rousseau's attitude toward the deed, that is, his stance of guilty but lofty sincerity" (1981:180). The critic notes that the General's "easy 'after-dinner' attitude toward his crime does not have the ring of sincerity that Rousseau's lament does," a factor which helps ridicule Rousseau as the gist of the matter is that both the "confessing Rousseau" and Epanchin "bestow forgiveness upon themselves" (1981:180).
     
16. In Dostoevsky's Pushkin interpretation the "miserly knight" (Skupoy rytsar') is closely related to Germann (cf. Blagoy 1979:546) and the general displays several "miser knight aspects." One of these is his "collecting crumbs" approach to acquisition, discussed above. Pushkin's miser likewise collects "small handfuls" of riches until they form a "hill" in his cellar (Cf. Skupoy rytsar', scene II) . As a "miserly knight," Epanchin is the "poor knight's" antithesis, the Prince being as generous and indifferent to money as the general is stingy and concerned about money. At their first meeting the Prince states that he thinks they have little in common (p. 45-7) and it seems likely that it is the attitude to "earthly riches," which he sees as the dividing factor. As a Christ-figure, the Prince is receptive to all human beings however, and he adds that they may have more in common than meets the eye (p. 47). Throughout the novel, the Prince demonstrates his readiness to accept everyone and his refusal to reject anyone. It is this quality which some see as the Prince's strength and others as his weakness (novel characters and critics).
     
17. The comical effect of the general's anecdote is partly achieved by the mixture of a Pushkinian and Gogolian narrative style. At first the general tells his story in a sober and factual ("Pushkinian") manner: "Ya, razumeetsya, byl strog, no spravedliv. Nekotoroe vremya sluchilos' nam stoyat' v gorodke. Mne otveli v forshtadte kvartiru u odnoy otstavnoy podporuchitsy i k tomu zhe vdovy." As the anecdote progresses, the general becomes increasingly "Gogolian" however and this trend climaxes in the "philosophical" passages where Epanchin attempts to arrive at some sort of evaluation of events: "Odnim slovom, chem dal'she vremya idet, tem bol'she dumaetsya. Ne to chtob, a tak inogda voobrazish', i stanet nekhorosho. Glavnoe, chto tut, kak ? a, nakonets rassudil? Vo-pervykh, zhenshchina, tak skazat', sushchestvo chelovecheskoe, chto nazyvayut v nashe vremya, gumannoe, zhila, dolgo zhila, nakonets zazhilas'. Kogda-to imela detey, muzha, semeystvo,
    
    

    190

    
    
    rodnykh, vsyo eto krugom nee, tak skazat' kipelo, vse eti, tak skazat', ulybki, i vdrug - polny pas, vsyo v trubu vyletelo, ostalas' odna, kak ... mukha kakaya-nibud', nosyashchaya na sebe ot veka proklyatie..." etc.
     
18. At least one more writer in Russian literature has used the Germann motif in a similar manner. In Sologub's Petty Demon, Peredonov is a travestied Germann figure, staking all on becoming an "ace" and ending in an insane asylum when he loses. See I. Masing-Delic (1978).
     
19. N.N. Petrunina has shown that Pushkin's tale "in spite of its distinct story character" ("novellisticheskii kharakter," 1980:42) endows its personages with fairytale functions. The old Countess, for example, is the "bestower" of magical gifts (daritel'), Germann the (pseudo-)hero of the magic fairy tale, Chekalinsky his antagonist, Lizaveta Ivanovna both his "helper" and the "princess" of the tale, etc. It is not by chance that Germann, listening to Tomsky's anecdote, exclaims," this is a fairy tale" whereupon he sets out to transform his life into a skazka (p. 43). But he fails to do so because of his moral deficiencies.
     
20. The usual translation of pustaya seems to be "empty-headed" (revised Garnett, 1956:136). It fails to render the contextual overtones of the word.
     
21. For an interesting study of the seemingly peripheral but actually complex and far from unimportant figure of Prince Radomsky, see H.P. Beer (1978).
     
22. In a brief but stimulating paper, C. Turner suggests that II Corinthians, iv:7 functions as a matrix of symbolic meanings for The Idiot. St. Paul's "but we have this treasure in earthen vessels" which contrasts "the fragility or worthlessness of the container (man...) and the eternal value of what it contains... (the Christian Gospel)... (1985:173), illuminates the entire saga of the Epanchin family. The latter have consistently over-valued their own "fragile containers" while paying insufficient attention to those of others. They have equally consistently neglected the contents of "earthen and frail vessels," the human soul (saved for immortality by the Gospel) which alone gives value to "vessels." Instead they looked for the wrong contents in others (the "honey" these could give in the form of ranks, salaries and social lustre) and forgot about enhancing the "value" of their own souls. This contamination of values even led young Epanchin to "break an earthen vessel," the old landlady of his story. He (almost) forgot that even old hags have an immortal soul. This does not mean that outer beauty lacks value. Ideally beauty is both immaterial and material, although spiritual beauty remains the primary facet, the source from which physical beauty is born. Christ-like Myshkin understands that the mission of the "great and priceless being," who was so "' fearfully smashed'" (cf. Turner 175), was to remind men that spiritual beauty survives "smashing." Christ's function was also to point out that "the craving for beauty is a longing; for a condition in which the formal aesthetic values of ideal
    
    

    191

    
    
    form (obraz) - harmony, proportion, and repose - are realized on a spiritual plane," that it is "a craving for transfiguration" (Jackson 1966:50).
     
23. The fairy tale element in the Epanchin story, where the general has realized the dream of Russian nursery rhymes and become a general "clad in gold" (proving not to be an Ivanushka-durachok at all) is enhanced by the fact that he has three daughters, of whom the youngest is the prettiest. In the Epanchin story the prettiest daughter does not prove to be the kindest however. But then the Epanchin tale is a modern and capitalist version of the "real" old fairy tales.