Social Reality and the Hero in Dostoevskij's Early Works: Dostoevskij and Fourier's Psychological System

SOCIAL REALITY AND THE HERO IN DOSTOEVSKIJ’S EARLY WORKS : DOSTOEVSKIJ AND FOURIER’S PSYCHOLOGICAL

RUDOLF

SYSTEM

NEUH&JSER

“II faut done que la structure mteme du roman soit en communication avec celle de la realite ou il apparait, spore de ce thalle. Le romancier alors est celui qui apercoit qu’une structure est en train de s’esquisser dans ce qui l’entoure, et qui va poursuivre cette structure, la faire croitre, la perfectiomrer, l’etudier, jusqu’au moment oti elle sera lisible pour tous.” Michel Butor, @ert&e II (Paris, 1964), p. 25.

Michel Butor, one of the authors of the nouveau romun in France, has formulated his views of the novel in two essays which seem .of particular interest with regard to Dostoevskij’s early w0rk.l Butor defines the novel as a specific form of narrative in the sense of an informative account of aspects of social reality. He draws a line between wholly imaginative forms of literature, such as myths, fairy-tales and legends, - and the novel which in contrast to the latter presents reality, though in an indirect manner. The novel is therefore, “le domaine phenomenologique par excellence, le lieu par excellence ou etudier de quelle facon la realit nous apparait ou peut nous apparaitre; c’est pourquoi le roman est le laboratoire du recit”.z Butor points out that the human intellect has a need for the fictive reality of the novel. Reality as presented in the concentrated form of the novel is often of greater interest than factual reality itself. “Les personnages imaginaires comblent des vides de la realite et nous eclairent sur celle-ci.” 3 The relationship between fiction and reality is dialectical. “Le reman comme recherche” and “Le roman et la poesie”. a Michel Butor, Ripertoire I (Paris, 1960), p. 8. 8 Butor, 196O:lO. I

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOURIER’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

19

We are faced with two kinds of realities where one represents the other. In this connection Butor speaks of the symbolism of the novel and defines it as “l’ensemble des relations de ce qu’il nous d&it avec la rt5alit6 oti nous vivons”. And he adds with regard to the task of the literary critic, “ces relations ne sont pas les msmes selon le reman, et il me semble que la &he essentielle du critique est de les d6brouiller, de les 6claircir afin que l’on puisse extraire de chaque oeuvre particuliere tout son enseignement”.4 The relationship of the fictive reality of the novel to factual reality determines the nature of the novel. Butor defines it fundamentally as the writer’s “rkponse & une certaine situation de la conscience”.5 The writer’s response to a given situation of social consciousness determines the structure of the fictional reality of his novel. Consequently, the main task of the novelist lies in the area of form and structure, rather than that of theme and subject-matter. The young Dostoevskij laid down his general views of literature in the “Statements” which he wrote for the Investigating Commission in 1849. There he says that his own views were radically opposed to the opinions of Belinskij whom he accused of trying to “dat’ literature Zastnoe, nedostojnoe ej naznacenie, nizvodja ee edinstvenno do opisanija, esli mogno tak vyrazit’sja, odnich gazetnych faktov ili skandaleznech proizEestvij. . . . nacinaja nasil’no propovedyvat’ . . . uEit’ . . . po umu razumu”.e According to Dostoevskij, Belinskij saw in Iiterature a means of propogandizing political and social theories illustrating them with purposely selected and faithfully reproduced scenes from social life. Literature received an ideological slant, a “napravlenie”, in the words of Dostoevskij. His own concepts were more idealistic and reflect the influence of German aesthetic thought from Kant and Schiller to Hegel, approximating Belinskij’s views of the early 1840’s, before the critic’s conversion to a materialistic and positivistic outlook. Dostoevskij defined his own understanding of literature as follows, iskusstvo ne nuzdaetsja v napravlenii, . . . iskusstvo samo sebe cel’ju, . . . avtor dol2en tol’ko chlopotaV o chudo?estvennos& a ideja pridet sama soboju; ibo ona neobchodimoe uslovie chudo&&ennosti. . . . literatura esV odno iz vyraZenij Zzni naroda, esf zerkalo ob%esha. S obrazovaniem, s civilizaciej 4 Butor, 1960: 10. .S Butor, 1960: 10-11. cs N. F. Bel’Cikov, Dostoevskrj p. s5.

v processe

Petraievcev

(Moscow-Leningrad,

1936),

20

RUDOLF

NEUtiUSER

javljajutsja novye ponjatija, kotorye trebujut opredelenija, nazvanija russkogo, Ctob byt’ peredannymi narodu; ibo ne narod mo?et nazvat’ ich v nastojaicem chrcae, zatem Eta civilizacija ne ot nego idet, a svyEe;- nazvat’ ich mo&t tol’ko to ob%estvo, kotoroe pregde naroda prinjalo civilizaciju, t.e. vysgij sloj obXestva, klass L&Z obrazovannyj dlja prinjatija etich idej. Kto ge formuliruet novye idei v takuju formu, ctob narod ich ponjal - kto Ze, kak ne literatura!7 Two axiomatic assumptions underlie Dostoevskij’s views: (1) the writer’s role in society is that of an interpreter of new cultural, philosophical and social phenomena which arise in a given society as a result of its evolution to higher forms of consciousness. The writer provides names (“nazvanija”), images and types, i.e. the concrete embodiments of the reality as he conceives of it. (2) The writer’s main task is not to find new themes and subject-matter (this would reflect Belinskij’s views), but to work out the appropriate stylistic and formal means rchudoZestvennost”‘) that will adequately reflect new patterns of social relationships. Returning to Michel Butor’s interpretation of the novel and its relationship to reality, we cannot but notice the striking similarity between Dostoevskij’s views and those of the representative of the nouveuu reman. Both see in prose literature a concrete embodiment of emerging patterns of social consciousness. Since it is the writer’s task to express patterns of relationship which he finds in social reality in the structural patterns of his fictional reality, he has to concentrate on formal aspects of the literary work. In all probability, Dostoevskij would have agreed to Butor’s statement that “la poesie romanesque est done ce par l’intermediaire de quoi la realite dans son ensemble peut prendre conscience d’elle-mZme pour se critiquer et se transformer”.* In the light of Michel Butor’s essays, Dostoevskij’s brief pronouncements on literary theory. gain a new perspective of depth and provide a basis for significant conclusions. Dostoevskij indicated in his “Statements” that he had held such views as he described since his acquaintance with Belinskij and Petragevskij (i.e. since 1845 and 1846 respectively). We can conclude that possibly all of his early works, but certainly his tales and novellas from 1846 to his arrest were written against the background of the literary views outlined above. Dostoevskij’s understanding of literature necessitates the 7 Bel’Cikov, 1936: 83 and p. 86. * Michel Butor, R&ertoire II (Paris, 1964), p. 26.

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOURIER’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

21

SYSTEM

assumption of a definite and meaningful relationship between social reality as it presented itself to the writer and the fictional reality created in the structure and the character types of his tales. His early work ought to be studied accordingly, not as a miscellany of stories and novellas, more or less unrelated to each other, but as an organic structural whole that corresponds to, or symbolizes (in M. Butor’s words), another structural whole, - social reality, i.e. patterns of relationship in Russian society of the late 1840’s. Michel Butor caRed the “symbolism” of the novel “the sum of relationships of what it describes to the reality we experience”. Applying this to the study of Dostoevskij’s early work, we will make an attempt to unravel these relationships, “to illuminate them so that we can extract from each particular work its entire lesson”.g

No

Gogol’

-

poet po preimuEestvu social’nyj, A G. DOSTOEVSKIJ -

PREIMU%ESTVU

stativel’

PSICHOLOGI~~ESKIJ.

izvestnogo

OB%ESTVO

ob.%estva

INTERESNO

Majkov, “Necto [ 18471; emphasis

PO

o russkoj added).

Dlja odnogo individuum ih izvesmogo kruga; DLJA

VLIJANIJU

literature

EGO

NA

LICNOST'

v 1846 godu”,

PO va%en kak pred-

DRUGOGO INDIV~D~~~IA

O&&SWWZ~~

SAMOE (v. N.

zupi.rki

1

&o % kasaetsja do social’nogo napravlenija, to ja nikogda i ne by1 sociahstom, chotja i ljubil &tat’ i izucat’ social’nye voprosy (N. F. Bel’cikov, “Pokazanija F. M. Dostoevskogo”, Dostoevskij v processe Petraievcev [Moscow-Leningrad, 19361, p. 141).

V. Majkov was an outstanding young critic, he became a friend and protector of Dostoevskij. Majkov was the first to define two essential features of Dostoevskij’s works: (I) the central role of psychological analysis, and (2) the relationship of Dostoevskij’s works to social reality. The literature of the ‘physiological sketch’, the ‘natural school’, and ‘romantic realism’ had forged the link in literature between concrete social reality and the literary hero .l” The utopian socialists had provided a theoretical basis for a new, revolutionized understanding of the relationship between the individual and society. The Dostoevskij of the early 1840’s had absorbed the literary elements just mentioned. The Dostoevs

R. Howard

(ed.),

Znventory:

I0 Cf. Preface to Donald versity Press, 1965).

Essays

by MicheZ

Fanger, Dostoevsky

Butor (New and Romantic

York, 1968), p. 29. Realism (Harvard Uni-

22

RUDOLF NEUHKUSER

skij of 1846 to 1849 became more and more interested in socialist theories. The plot, theme, and structure of Dostoevskij’s works grew out of his heroes. As we know from letters and notebooks, he first had to create his heroes. Everything else followed logically from the analysis of the heroes’ characters in juxtaposition to social reality.ll Dostoevskij became acquainted with social criticism in literature already through his readings of French authors, especially Balzac and George Sand. In his “Statement” to the Investigating Commission in 1849 he admitted that he had studied socialism in all its systems. In a letter to Dobroljubov he added, “sistemoj Fur’e [Fourier] ja kogda-to v osobennosti zanimalsja”.lz In 1846-47 he went so far as to try out Fourier’s suggestion and lived in an association together with likeminded friends. At about the same time the type of the dreamer began to appear in his works and stayed there until 1849. V. L. Komarovic has defined the dreamer as the utopian socialist youth who dreamed of the renovation and rebirth of society as predicted by Fourier, Saint Simon and others.13 The novella The Landlady can be interpreted in this light as a most revealing statement of Dostoevskij’s views of that time.14 It is obvious that Fourier’s theories influenced Dostoevskij. It is far less clear what aspect was of particular interest to the young writer. Fourier’s influence could be concentrated in one or more of the following three areas : (1) his theories concerning the structure of the society of the future (associations and phalansteries); (2) his political tactics, i.e. the plan to introduce socialism peacefully by persuasion and example; and (3) Fourier’s complex psychoIogica1 system. In one of Dostoevskij’s letters there appears an enthusiastic reaction to an attempt by the brothers Beketov, Dostoevskij himself and others to live in an ASSOCIATION. Yet the experiment did not last and there is no further reference to associations and phalansteries in his letters, or his writings. We may assume that his enthusiasm was short-lived. It is known that Dostoevskij rejected Fourier’s tactics. This is proved indirectly by his criticism of the dreamer type in The Landlady and the feuilletons, where he denounced the dreamer as incapable of decisive action. It is proved more directly by Dostoevskij’s admission of his guilt I1 For the purposes of this study reference will be made to the heroes of Dostoevskij’s tales and novellas written during the last three and a half years preceding his exile to Siberia, i.e. the time when he was actively interested in utopian socialist theories. I* Russkuja W& (January 1913), p. 145. I3 V. L. Komarovic, “Junost’ Dostoevskogo”, Byloe XXVIII (1924), 3-43. I* Cf. R. Neuhauser, “The Landlady: A New Interpretation”, Canadian Slavonic Papers X: 1 (1968), 41-67.

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOURIER’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

23

in a letter to General Totleben of March 24, 1856 where the writer said, “I was convicted of AN INTENTION (but not more) TO ACT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. I was found guilty legally and JUSTLY" (emphasis added). Being dissatisfied with Petragevskij’s unwillingness to take concrete steps towards the implementation of socialist theories, Dostoevskij had joined a more radical group, the so-called Durov circle. Majkov related that Dostoevskij approached him in 1849, invited him to join this circle, and explained the aim as “proizvesti perevorot v Rossii. My uZe imeem tipografskij stanok . . . vse gotovo.“15 This ready acceptance of revolutionary action was something that Fourier had denounced vehemently. His aim had been to establish the new social order peacefully. However, this did not seem feasible to the young Dostoevskij of 1848-49. There remains only one area which could have been of greater influence on Dostoevskij explaining his statement in the letter to Dobroljubov, Fourier’s psychology. After all, this was also the area that was most widely discussed in Russia at that time. If we look through the statements of the members of the Petragevskij group which they prepared for the Investigation Commission in 1849, then we see that those who mentioned Fourier wrote mostly about his psychological insights as applied to an understanding of social reality. A. P. Beklemigev and N. Ja. Danilevskij wrote extensive summaries of Fourier’s psychological system.16 Dostoevskij’s own interest in psychology is shown by the fact that he gave a speech at Petragevskij’s “0 licnosti i celoveceskom egoizme”.17 This topic I5 ZstoriEeskg urchiv III (1956), 224-25. In a letter to Professor P. A. Viskovatov, A. Majkov supplies further details about the same incident, “i pomnju ja, Dostoevskij, sidja, kak umiraju%ij Sokrat pered druz’jami, v nocnoj rubaske s nezastegnutym vorotom, naprjagal vse svoe krasnorecie o svjatosti etogo dela, o naiem dolge spasti ot&stva.” Quoted in L. Grossman, DostoevskQ (Moscow, 1962), p. 119. I6 Delo Petrafevcev II (Moscow-Leningrad, 1941), pp. 339-400 and 285-338. Dostoevskij himself outlined the attractions of Fourier’s system in his own statement as follows. “Fur’erizm - sistema mirnaja, ona ocarovyvaet du& svoeju izja%nost’ju, obol’%aet serdce toju ljubov’ju k celovecestvu, kotoraja voodugevljala Fur’e, kogda on sostavljal svoju sistemu, i udivljaet urn svoeju strojnost’ju. Privlekaet k sebe ona ne gelcnymi napadkami, a voodugevljaja ljubov’ju k ?elove&xtvu. V sisteme etoj net nenavistej” @I. F. Bel’cikov, Dostoevsku vprocesse Petr&evcev [Moscow-Leningrad, 19361, p. 91). I7 Bel’cikov, 1936: 86. Dostoevskij was attracted to questions of psychology from the very begiting of his career. In a letter of August 16,1839 he wrote to his brother, “Celovek est’ tajna. Ee nado razgadat’, i ezeli bude? ee razgadyvat’ vsju Zizn’, to ne govori cto poterjal vremja; ja zanimajus’ etoj tajnoj, ibo chocu byt’ celovekom” (A. S. Dohnin, F. M. Dostoevskij: Pis’ma [Moscow-Leningrad, 19301, p. 550). In studies of the young Dostoevskij there is usually no mention made of Fourier’s psychological theories. The influence of Fourier is either entirely disregarded as in D. Fanger’s book Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism (Cambridge, 1965), or is linked to Dostoevskij’s interests in revolutionary activities as in L. Grossman’s biography

24

RUDOLF

NEUHAUSER

-

selfishness - was the main theme of Fourier’s teachings concerning the effects of misdirected passions, it was also a most important motif in Dostoevskij’s early works.

II Fourier’s psychological system rested on a specific understanding of human emotions which he called passions. Fourier considered them God-given means which were intended to ensure individual and social happiness and the establishment of a golden age on earth. If in actual life passions often appeared as negative features, then this was entirely due to the wrong organization of society and social institutions. He, therefore, demanded a thorough reorganization of society based on a proper understanding of the nature of human passions. In the course of his vehement criticism of the social institutions of his day he made remarkably sharp-sighted observations with regard to the effects of increasing commercialization and industrialization. Judging by his writing of 1846 to 1849 Dostoevskij was affected particularly by two aspects of Fourier’s psychology: (1) the role and function of passions in the individual and society, and (2) the abuse of passions caused by the adverse structure of society. As a rule, Dostoevskij’s characters are motivated by powerful passions that lead them into a series of conflicts. Emotional and intellectual elements are fused in his concept of passion as they are in Fourier’s. Such passions determined the fate of the individual. In the words of a Russian Fourierist, they were, “dejatel’nye sposobnosti Eeloveka, t.e. korennye stremlenija ego ducha i tela, privodja%ie v dviZenie vse su@estvo ego”.lE It was an axiomatic assumption of Fourier that these passions were unDostoevskij (Moscow, 1962). M. Gus (Zdei i obrazy F. A4. Dostoevskogo [MOSCOW, 19621) recognizes the possibility of an influence of Fourier’s psychology on the young Dostoevskij (1962: 87ff.). N. F. Bel’Cikov, the editor of Dostoevsku v processe PetraJevcev, has been the only scholar to claim that such an influence was a powerful reality which is reflected in Dostoevskij’s early works, “Dostoevskij javno zaimstvoval u Fur’e teoriju WoveEeskogo charaktera, kotoroj i pol’zovalsja v svoem chudo%estvennom metode” (1936: 44). Unfortunately he does not present much proof for his statement. Apart from a brief reference to NetoCka Nezvanova there is no further attempt made to substantiate his claim. It was not difficult, therefore, to refute Bel’cikov, as did V. Terras in his recent study, The Young Dostoevsky ([The Hague: Mouton, 19691, pp. 279-80). Fourier’s psychological theories are not known widely, which may account for the superficial treatment of this subject in Dostoevskij studies. I* “Pokazanija N. Ja. Danilevskogo”, DeZo Petrafevcev II (1941), 294.

DOSTOEVSKIJ AND FOURIER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

25

changeable and permanent. All human beings at all times were subject to them. In this sense they ranged above all national differences-l9 The task of the socialist was to determine the exact nature of passions so as to arrive at a proper understanding of the ideal nature of social life. “Nauka dolZna otkryt’ zakony garmoni&skogo ustrojstva meZduCeloveceskich otnogenij.“20 A correct understanding of the passions and their functions in the formation of societies and social institutions would lead to a restructuring of society in a manner that would permit the fulfilment of all human passions. “Daby opredelit’ zakony garmoniCeskogo ustrojstva me~duceloveceskich otnosenij, dol%to analizirovat’ prirodu celoveka i po trebovanijam ee ustroit’ tu sredinu, v kotoroj ona dolZna projavljat’sja.“21 The proper organisation of society meant that the passions of one individual would no longer clash with those of others, - that the satisfaction of the desires of one man would not lead to the suppression or limitation of the interests of another. Fourier differentiated between twelve main passions : (A) Five MATERIAL PASSIONS corresponding to the five senses sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. These passions demanded a degree of material well-being and luxury, as well as intellectual and aesthetic fulhlment for their proper satisfaction. (B) Four SOCIAL PASSIONS serving as links between people, organizing them in groups: (1) friendship, or comradeship; (2) ambition; (3) love; (4) family-feeling (“familisme” in Fourier’s terminology). Fourier believed that grou,ps formed through friendship dominated in childhood, those based on ambition at a more mature age, groups united by love in youth and maturity, family-feeling in old age. Men were more subject to ambition and friendship, women to love and family-feeling. The main passion among the social passions and, indeed, the central passion in Fourier’s system was love. This was meant to include sexual love which played a considerable role in Fourier’s concept of the phalanstery, especially in the form of liaisons between the very old and the very young, - a subject that interested Dostoevskij from the time of Is This view found expression in V. Majkov’s critical articles, especially Kol’cov in Ote5esfyemye zupiski II (1846). It was shared by Dostoevsky. p&tefiu ZQ 1873 (Paris, n.d.), p. 359. 20 “Pokazanija N. Ja. Danilevskogo”, DeZo Petraievcev II (1941), 291. 21 “Pokazanija N. Ja. Danilevskogo” (1941), 293.

his essay on Cf. Dnevnik

26

RUDOLF NEUtiUSER

his feuilleton of April 27, 1847 to the Brothers Karamazov in the 1870’s. (C) Three DISTRIBUTIVEPASSIONS : (1) the COMPOSITE which demanded simultaneous satisfaction of several desires through complex experiences; (2) the CABALISTICwhich urged man to find satisfaction in contrasts, intrigues, competition, rivalry, and games; (3) the ALTERNATE(“papillone” or “butterfly” in Fourier’s terminology); which demanded frequent changes of occupation and was the cause of changing tastes. It demanded the satisfaction of varied desires. The distributive passions determined the behaviour of groups of people, while the four social passions regulated the relationship within each group. Without the satisfaction of these passions there could be no harmony or happiness in society. All twelve passions taken together were supposed to produce a new and superior passion, - UNITYSM, i.e. the striving towards unity in large groups dominated by such all-pervading emotions as patriotism, love of humanity in philanthropy, or religious feelings. Fourier’s concept of unityism may have had an influence on V. Majkov, PleZeev9 Dostoevskij and other young men of the 1840’s who had a Schillerian enthusiasm for the ideal of humanity, and thought in terms of a supranational unity of all mankind, condemned by Belinskij as “fantasticeskij kosmopolitizm vo imja celovecestva”. In V. Majkov’s and Dostoevskij’s views “velikie ljudi . . . stojat vne svoej nacional’nosti, i vsja zasluga, vse veliCie ich v tom i ZakljuCaetsja, &o oni idut prjamo protiv svoej nacional’nosti, borjutsja s neju i pobezdajut ee”.% Fourier’s main argument against contemporary society was that it did not permit the natural development of passions. Individual passions were not adapted to each other, they clashed violently and led to a continuous deterioration of civilization. “The civilized state has as its essence a universal clash of passions.” Instead of a world of harmony, as intended by God, there had arisen “a world in reverse” based on “a superlative degree of real degradation”. The interests of the individual clashed with 2z These are Belinskij’s words. The critic interprets V. Majkov’s views. M. G. Zel’doviE et al., Russkaja literatura 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1964), p. 414.

XZX

v. Chrestonzatua

kriticeskich

materialov,

In Drzevnik &a$eGa ZQ 1873 g. Dostoevskij himself admitted that he had heId such views, “... vse eti idei ob unieto?enii nacional’nostej vo imja vseob%ego bratstva ljudej, o prezrenii k oteEestvu, kak tormozu v vseob%em razvitii i proc. i proC. vse eto byh takie vhjanija, kotorych my preodolet’ ne mogli i kotorye zachvatyvali, naprotiv, naXi serdca i umy vo imja kakogo-to vehkodu5ja”. Op. cit. (Paris: YMCA Press,n.d.), p. 359.

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOURIER’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

27

the interests of those who ruled society. “ObZestvo prevratilos’ v chaos.“z3 Wholesale repression, isolation, and hostility were its dominant characteristics. “The mighty by means of policemen and gallows repress the passions of the people; the stronger sex opposes the two weaker sexes, the women and the children.“z4 The rich oppressed the poor, the old the young, the husbands their wives . . . The present state of civilization was characterized by endless conhicts. This picture of society drawn by Fourier and his disciples resembles that of Dostoevskij’s tales. We know that Dostoevskij was much concerned with the two weaker sexes. Katerina in The LandMy, Julian MastakoviE’s bride, Aleksandra Michajlovna in Netocku Nezvarzovu, and Mme M. - in A LittZe Hero are all examples of suppressed women. Dostoevskij’s concern for children was almost equally strong. Apart from NetoEka Nezvanova and her little friends, there is the ‘little hero’ and the children of the tale of A Christmas Tree and a Wedding. They are all in one way or another oppressed by their environment, often their own family. In NetoEku Nezvunovu Dostoevskij showed that neither the impoverished family into which Netocka was born, nor the well-to-do family that accepted her later, were capable of providing an adequate setting for the proper development of the child’s passions. Beklemigev said of contemporary “grupy semejstvennosti” that “v etich poslednich deti obyknovenno prinuZdeny skryvat’ gospodstvujuEie strasti pod maskoju strastej predpisyvaemych im roditeljami”.z5 The children in A Christmas Tree and a Wedding are victims of the clashing interests of their parents. Civilization bred parasites, or even ‘hordes of parasites’, as Fourier called them. These were people who either took advantage of the system, living off society without themselves contributing anything, or who were maintained by those in power for their own protection.26 Fourier’s view of civilization was one of pervading gloom, misery and suffering. Dostoevskij had an analogical understanding of Russia’s situation. We need only refer to the highly symbolic description of urban and *3 A. P. Beklemiiev, “0 strastjach . ..“, De/o Petrufevcev II (1941), 352. Sa Fourier’s words as quoted in N. V. Riasanovsky, The Teachings of Charles Fourier (University of California Press, 1969), p. 150. z6 Beklemisev, 1941 : 355. Cf. this to Dostoevskij’s admission, “vse eti ubegdenija o bemravstvennosti samych osnovanij (christianskich) sovremennogo ob%estva, o beznravstvennosti rehgii, semejstva; o beznravstvenuosti prava sobstvennosti; . . vse eto byh takie vlijanija, kotorych my preodolet’ ne mogli . ..” (&zevn& @safe&x zu 1873 g. [Paris: YMCA, n.d.1, p. 359). !x Fourier listed three groups of parasites: (1) domestic parasites (unproductive housewives, children, and servants); (2) social parasites (soldiers in peacetime, mem-

28

RUDOLF

NEUHAUSER

rural Russia on the first pages of The Luz&z&.~~ The justly famous vision of St. Petersburg at the end of A Weuk Htwt again emphasizes the absurdity of the civilized world. Many of Dostoevskij’s characters have parasitical features. They enrich themselves by fraudulent means, or do work which is prescribed, yet rather meaningless as in the case of Vasja Sumkov (A Weak Heart) and Mr. Prochar& The central or pivotal vice in society according to Fourier was universal selfishness which was also a leading motif in Dostoevskij’s tales. Poverty, fraud, and oppression - three of the permanent scourges of civilization in Fourier’s view - were characteristic companions of the life of most of Dostoevskij’s heroes. Those who refused to be integrated completely in society faced a life of poverty and oppression. Those who adapted followed the path of unlimited selfishness.2s

III At this point there is a need for a digression on the types of heroes that appear in the works of the young Dostoevskij.2s If we consider Dostoevskij’s characters as representative of certain aspects of Russian reality of the 1840’s and examine their social position with this in mind, then we can draw the following general conclusions: (1) Despite the great variety of psychological types presented by Dostoevskij, there are common features which permit us to place them into two, more or less hostile, camps. On the one side there are Dostoevskij’s young heroes who still have to find their way in life. They are opposed by elderly, mature members of the social establishment. The young heroes usually clash with the established order. Either they adapt as do Ordynov and Polzunkov, or they end tragically as does Vasja bers of the administrative and bureaucratic apparatus, manufacturers of unnecessary or inferior goods, merchants and commercial agents, especially middlemen such as transportation firms); (3) accessory parasites (the memployed, intriguers, lawyers, economists, idlers, beggars, criminals, gamblers, and prostitutes). See N. V. Riasanovskij, 1969: 157ff. w See Neuhauser, 1968: 50-52 (note 14 above). zs Dostoevskij’s views may also reflect the influence of Max Stirner’s book Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1845) which was known to Belinskij and Petrasevskij. It was available in Petrasevskij’s library. m This has been the subject of an essay by G. M. Fridlender, which will appear in print in the course of 1973. I am here summarizing the conclusions from this essay which is devoted to a study of the types of heroes that populate Dostoevskij’s early tales.

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOuRIER’Si

PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

29

&mkov. The established heroes range from Murin who personifies Russian social backwardness and ritualistic religiosity to ProcharEin, a member of the establishment at the very lowest level, and Julian Mastakovie, the well-to-do boss of a government office. In addition to the above two types, Dostoevskij introduces GROUPS in some of his tales. At times they act in unity as one person motivated by a common desire as in Polzunkov and Mr. Prochar&. In other tales they function as a literary device to provide a convenient setting for various intrigues.3o (2) A characteristic feature of Dostoevskij’s young heroes is their lack of roots in the past, the absence of family ties. They are exposed to a hostile world without a firm support. (3) The concept of “semejnoe Gastie”, to which there is an ironic reference in the original version of The Jealous Husband, plays a central role in many of Dostoevskij’s early tales. Dostoevskij illustrates that happiness does not exist in contemporary marriage. The ‘successful marriage’, e.g. Fedosej NikolaiC and Mar’ja FominGna in PoZzunkov, is based on greed and enrichment by fraudulent means. Love as a genuine and altruistic emotion has no place in Dostoevskij’s families. Where love appears as a pure and powerful passion as in The Landlady and A Weak Heart it is doomed to failure. The forces of evil - personified by the characters of the second type - interfere and destroy the incipient happiness. (4) Dostoevskij’s early tales have a tragic background. This is evident even in the humoristic stories Another Man’s W@ and The Jealous Husband. Ivan sabrin’s adventures in connection with his wife’s unfaithfulness may seem funny, yet they hide only the irreparable failure of his marriage. Dostoevskij’s young heroes are unable to achieve happiness. They are forced to adapt to a depraved society, or they end in frustration. (5) Interpersonal relationships in Dostoevskij’s early tales are characterized by powerful passions. LOVE is the foremost passion in The Landlady, A Weak Hear& Polzunkov, White Nights, and A Little Hero. It appears in a degenerated form as sensual passion in Another Man’s Wife and The Jealous Husband, Polzunkov (in Mar’ja Fedoseevna’s passion to the young cavalry officer who jilts her so rudely), and The Landlady (Murin’s sensual passion for Katerina). There are also sensual overtones in Ordynov’s love to Kate3a Cf. A Littie Hero and A Christmas Tree and a Wedding. This device became of major importance in Dostoevskij’s great novels.

30

RUDOLF

NEUHAUSER

rina. On the other hand, Vasja %.tmkov’s love for Lizan’ka is exuberant, idealistic, and pure. So are Polzunkov’s feelings for Mar’ja Fedoseevna and the ‘little hero’s’ attachment to Mme M.-. In none of the stories is there a happy ending. Love remains unrequited. This is not a consequence of Dostoevskij’s metaphysical understanding of love - he was no longer the romantic youth of the 1830’s -, but is due to his view of the social realities of his age.31 Another prominent passion in Dostoevskij’s early tales is FRIENDSHIP. An example of a pure, selfless friendship is provided in the relationship between Vasja &tmkov and his friend Arkadij Nefedev. Vasja’s mental breakdown leads to Arkadij’s own unhappiness, as he suddenly becomes z This is indicated in 2%~ Lundkzdy. Ordynov has separated himself consciously from social reality for the sake of “nauka” (i.e. presumably freethinking in the manner of the Russian utopian socialists). Ordynov’s immersion in theory had the implication that his emotional life became disturbed, unsuited for a natural and normal relationship. Added to this are the influences of Murin’s powerful personality and the subtle interference of Jaroslav Il’ic, both embodying powerful features of Russian reality. Weakened by his exaggerated emotionality, his headstrong passion which only frightens the weak and enslaved heart of Katerina, he is defeated by Murin who is assisted by Jaroslav Il’ic. Polzunkov and Vasja %.tmkov are more firmly rooted in reality. Polzunkov’s love is ridiculed and shamelessly exploited by the family of Fedosej Nikolai& The contrast between Polzunkov’s naive, idealistic and exuberant love and the family’s joint plotting to cheat him of the 1,500 silver rubles is striking. Dostoevskij opposes the kind, and therefore, weak heart to the depravity of a careerist and his scheeming family. Vasja %unkov’s love to Lizan’ka has hardly a chance to develop. Dostoevskij takes the basic plot a step further. In contrast to PoZmnkov there is full harmony between the hero and his love. Yet happiness is impossible at the social level on which Vasja moves, - that of a very low-ranking civil servant. The inability to resolve the conflict between his dignity as a human being (expressed in his love to Lizan’ka) and his ambition to show his gratitude to his boss leads him to madness. Service under Julian Mastakovic had instilled a servility in him which forced him to sacrifice his life on the altar of a misunderstood feeling of duty. Again the good and kind heart had been unable to adjust to an inhuman hierarchy of ranks, privileges, and values that did not admit of his dignity as an individual. The words spoken by Ordynov at the end of his ordeal sound as if they were intended for Vasja. “. emu bespreryvno snilas’ glubokaja, bezvychodnaja tiranija nad bednym, bezzascitnym sozdaniem; . . Kovarno mutili bednoe, skzboe serdce, tolkovali pered nej vkriv’ i vkos’ pravdu, a umyslom podderZivali slepotu, gde bylo rnGno, chitro l’stili neopytnym naklonnostjam poryvistogo, smjatennogo serdca ee i malo-pomalu rezali kryl’ja u vol’noj, svobodnoj dusi, nesposobnoj, nakonec, ni k vosstaniju, ni k svobodnomu poryvu v nastojascuju Zizn’ . ..” (F. M. Dostoevskij, Sobranie so&zenij v 10-i tomoc~ I [Moscow, 1956-5S1, p. 499). There is a definite parallelism in the psychological situation of Katerina opposite Murin, Vasja opposite Julian Mastakovic, and Polzunkov opposite Fedosej Nikolai& The kind and weak heart of the young hero is abused by a strong-willed, immoral master who represents an aspect of established reality. Mastakovie protected Vasja only because he had the best handwriting in town. IIis lack of interest in this human typewriter is expressed at the end of the tale when Vasja’s mind has already become disturbed and Mastakovic, for a moment, pretends

DOSTOEVSKIJ

AND

FOURIER’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

31

aware of the social reality that caused his friend’s tragic fate. This kind of friendship based on disinterested sharing is rare in Dostoevskij’s tales. Katerina demands it from Ordynov who is unable to achieve it. Nasten’ka in the White Nights requests it from her dreamer friend. More often the desire for friendship is misdirected, thwarted and turns into a one-sided effort to gain another person’s confidence by self-humiliation. This is illustrated by sabrin’s servile attempt to ingratiate himself with old Aleksandr Dem’janovZ from under whose bed he had just emerged. Polzunkov’s humiliation in front of the company to whom he tells his story, and Vasja &mkov’s extreme devotion to Mastakovic are further cases in point. Dostoevskij’s tales show that individual dignity was not valued highly by contemporary society. A third important passion is AMBITION. It characterizes Mr. Procharcin. He represents the establishment at the very lowest level. His whole existence hinges on the “kanceljarija”. He has adapted well to the conditions to show compassion, “tak-taki, ne iz-za Cego, pogib celovek. &o ~7, otvesti ego! . ..” (1956-58: 558). The last four words reveal his true face. Murin’s interest in Katerina began on a sensual basis. Kate&a was an object of lust for him. ‘%zn’-to moja ne moja, a ctiaja i voljuSka svjazana!” said Katerina (1956-58: 466). Fedosej NikolaiC exploited Polzunkov’s emotions until the young man returned the money. “Uslastili menja soversenno”, said Polzunkov (1956-58: 511). This is the tragic aspect of the abuse of the kind and weak heart that the enslavement of the individual, the downgrading of his dignity, is so subtle and yet pervading that the victim is led to act of his own will in the sole interest of his manipulator. In Murin’s words, “daj emu voljusku, slabomu celoveku, - sam ee svjaZet, nazad prineset,” (1956-58: 496). This statement applies equally well to Katerina, Ordynov, Vasja and Polzunkov. Just as Murin suggested to Katerina that she was free to leave him adding only that this would kill him, Mastakovic gave Vasja every freedom and did not exert any pressure on him to complete the copying job giving him only some money in advance, and Fedosej Nikolaic did not demand of Polzunkov that he return the money, but only heaped favors on him. In either case the desired result - complete subjection to the wishes of the “blagodetel”’ - was achieved. Katerina refused to elope with Ordynov, Vasja suppressed his love to Lizan’ka in order to cope with his assignment (“de10-to, . nevatiroe i vovse ne spesnoe”, as Mastakovic explained AFTER the events, - 1956-58: 558). Polzunkov blinded by Fedosej’s hypocritical friendship returned the money out of his own free will. The individual is manipulated by society. Those representing the establishment abuse him who does not want to or is unable to adapt to their ways. The ‘little hero’ does not quite fit the above pattern. He is at the threshold of adolescence, stil1 moves exclusively in the private sphere. We can only surmise his future evolution through the example of Netocka Nezvanova whose story also describes the transition from childhood to adolescence and the growing and painful awareness of the nature of the adult world. The ‘little hero’ passes through several painful experiences, he is scoffed at by Mme M.‘s cousin, he witnesses her suffering at the hands of her husband, observes her secret love to young N., and he is aware of his own unrequited love to her.

32

RmOLF

NEUHKUSER

of life. His ambition expresses itself in two forms only: avarice and service in the office. In this sense he is as loyal a representative of the establishment as is MastakoviE. His egotism and greed correspond to similar features in other representatives of the established order. When his fellow-tenants start an intrigue against him and suggest that the “kanceljarija” may be abolished, he sees his very existence threatened. And then only does he give up “prih~ie”, a behaviour suited to his humble station in the hierarchy, associates with doubtful characters, and even hints at the possibility of an existence without “kanceljarij”. The new ProcharEin is rebellious cbujnyj”), he is ready to live outside the hierarchy, “. . . a ja, brat, i s sumoEoj, sly8’ ty?“32 Ambition as a powerful passion occurs also in other tales. Polzunkov is led by it to extort money from Fedosej Nikolai6 Vasja’s ambition to prove himself worthy of MastakoviC’s confidence Ieads him to madness. MastakoviC’s own ambition to acquire a fortune ruins the life of two young people. Ordynov’s passion for study (“nauka”) makes him blind for reality. Wherever a strong passion appears in Dostoevskij’s heroes, there are also fateful circumstances that prevent the proper development of that passion. Why? Fourier’s psychology may give us an answer.

IV KoneCno, stragen dissonans, kotoryj predstavljaet nam ob%estvo. Vne doltio byt’ uravnoveieno s vnutrennim. A. S. Dolinin (ed.), F. M. Dostoevskij: Pis’ma I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), p. 106.

“Any passion which is suddenly arrested, threatened or disappointed in its course, takes a subversive development or false direction, and turns to enmity, jealousy, revenge, antipathy, regret, and sometimes to despair and insanity.” 33 Misdirected passions appeared as vices. BeklemiSev said that “Cestoljubie [ambition] proizvodit gnev, zavist’, skupost’, mest’, vorovsto, pritesnenija i East0 ubijstvo; ljubov’ porogdaet razvrat, obmany, ubijstvo i samoubijstvo . . .“34 Fourier himself had pointed out that thwarted love could lead to despair and insanity; family-feeling led to unlimited selfishness; ambition resulted in active strife and fighting. The ie 1956-58: 413. aa A. Brisbane, Social Destiny of Man: Or, Association and Reorganization of Zndustry (Philadelphia, 1840), p. 248. w Beklemigev, 1941: 382.

DOSTOEVSKLJ AND FOURIER’S PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

33

three directional passions (cabalistic, composite, and alternate), if misdirected, led to intrigues, inconstancy, and a blind and headstrong infatuation.s5 Dostoevskij’s tales illustrate misdirected passions. Mr. ProcharZin illustrates ambition appearing as avarice, envy, and revenge as Fourier taught. The machinations of his fellow-tenants are the result of a group dominated by cabalistic passion. Vasja’s perverted ambition and his love to Lizan’ka conflict and lead to his insanity. Polzunkov seeks love and friendship, but finds neither. His despair makes him assume the part of a clown in society. The role of misdirected passions becomes particularly significant in the two stories Polzunkov and Mr. ProcharEn. If we apply the Fourierian understanding of passions to them, then certain otherwise inexplicable and enigmatic statements of Dostoevskij become quite plausible. Every reader of the two stories notices that both ProcharCin and Polzunkov have character features which make them unsympathetic in our eyes. Procharcin is called a “Celovek sovsem drjan”‘.36 Polzunkov is always ready “sdelat’ podlost”’ in order to please somebody.37 ProcharCin’s extreme avarice, his rudeness, and suspicion make him a rather repulsive figure. Polzunkov’s proclivity to “podlost”’ makes him equally despicable. Yet Dostoevskij points out in a very insistent mamer that both are basically good characters. Procharcin is called “blagomyslja%ij, nep’ju%ij”, a “Eelovek po2iloj i solidnyj”.3* Polzunkov has a “dobroe serdce” (repeated three times on two pages!), he acts “dobrodu&o i beskorystno”, he is even described as “cestnejgij i blagorodnejgij Celovek v svete”.3g These are remarkable statements which seem to contradict our understanding of the characters of the two heroes and Dostoevskij’s own evaluation cited above. The apparent contradiction disappears as soon as we apply Fourier’s axiom that passions as such are always good. Their perversion as in the case of Procharcin and Polzunkov was caused by the adverse structure of society. That was the real culprit. Both men were good and kind persons; however, their essentially positive passions - ambition, friendship, and love - could not develop properly in the environment in which they moved. Dostoevskij’s negative description of them represents the conventional view that interprets misdirected pas35 3G 3’ w *$

Brisbane, 1840: 164 and 177-7S. F. M. Dostoevskij, Sobrunie so&e@ v 10-i 1956-58: 503. In the same place Dostoevskij 1956-58: 396. 1956-58 : 503.

I (Moscow, 1956-58), p. 414. calls him “eelovek-trjapka vpolne”.

tomach

34

RUDQLF

NEUHKUSER

sions as vices. Dostoevskij’s positive evaluation refers to Fourier’s axiom concerning the positive nature of passions. The group of young men on whom Polzunkov sponges is also united against him in a cabal as in the case of ProcharCin. They urge him on to entertain them with his humiliating stories.

V “ReSitel’no

ne ponimaju,

ot-&go ja tak ljublju govorit’ i pisat’ 0 semejnom sCast’e.“40

European society is based on the family unit in as far as this institution represents the smallest self-sufficient unit in society. According to the Fourier&s this division into families assured the utmost fragmentation of society. Would it be possible to push unsociability farther, and could one invent a domestic system reduced to less than a couple? . . . the life of married households, or couples, is unsociability reduced to its simplest form. It could not but lead to extreme forms of selfishness, Every father has forgotten all sentiments of charity and philanthropy to be preoccupied only with the interests of his wife and his children, a mania which makes of each father an egoist and an illiterate person who believes himself authorized to perform every deceit and rapine under the pretext of working for his wife and his children whose names he pronounces as one possessed.41 The family of Fedosej NikolaiZ in PoZmnkov is just such a family cooperating in cheating and extorting money for selfish purposes. Julian Mastakovi??s understanding of marriage is similar. Fourier described the contemporary family as a dismal and repressive institution. It has no gaiety, no happy moments, except as it succeeds aided by its means, to escape from itself by receiving different friends and transforming, now at the table, now in a circle, now in the countryside, the family group into the group of illicit

loves, in accordance

with morality.4z

Examples for this latter kind of development can be seen in AnoGzer Man’s Wife, The Jealous Husband, and A Little Hero. Fourier taught that the status of women in society was an important indicator of the stage of development of a society. The chaotic nature of 4o F. M. Dostoevskij, “Revnivyj muY, Ote&stvennye zupiski VIII (December 1848), 158. 4X Fourier’s words as quoted by N. V- Riasanovsky, 149-50. &2

1969:

149-50,

DOSTOEVSKIJ AND FOURIER’S PSYCHOLOGICAL

SYSTEM

35

society, and the subjection of women under the rule of men and the chores of housework necessarily corresponded. Fourier’s concept of the negative role of marriage and the family in civilization may well have been on Dostoevskij’s mind when he wrote his own devastating criticism of this social institution.43 VI Every man, so said Fourier, was dominated by one or more passions. Monogynes were the most frequent social type, digynes, trigynes, and tetragynes were rather rare, while omnigynes dominated by all seven social and distributive passions were almost unique (Fourier defined himself as such an omnigyne!). In addition to dominant passions, Fourier also spoke of ‘subdominant’ passions, and ‘tonics’ which were understood to be different accents or variations of emotions within a passion. An interesting example for a monogyne, mentioned by Fourier, is the type of Harpagon, a monogyne “dominated by ambition, tonic of avarice”.44 Mr. Procharein seems to be modelled after this pattern! Fourier listed still another category of people, “very dangerous in civilization”, because they consisted of “protean individuals and chameleons; in the inferior genre, inconsequential people, contradictory spirits, scribblers or people without character, always in docile agreement with whomever spoke to them last”. These were the so-called polymixtes, or ambiguous characters who possessed no dominant passion, but only ‘WZ@zg passions, that is passions which dominate merely accidentally and not in a fixed manner”.,45 The polymixtes let us think of several characters in Dostoevskij’s tales, as well as his novels of the 1860’s, who behave irrationally and with a strange desire to please others wherever possible. In the early tales, Polzunkov and gabrin may be the nearest approximation to such a mixed character in Fourier’s understanding. Polzunkov changed from love and respect to revenge, from there to servility. sabrin displayed similar characteristics. Fourier pointed out that civilization was particularly unkind to the polymixtes, usually sup4s Dostoevskij gave a portrait of a father in NetuEka Nezvanova (excluded from the collected editions of his works) which has strong autobiographical features and also coincides with the type of father that was the object of Fourier’s criticism, - a selfcentered, autocratic, emotionally thwarted individual. See Ote&stvennye zapiski 62 (1849), 319; the passage is quoted in translation by D. Magarshak in his study of Dostoevskij (Dmtoevsky [London, 19621, p. 8). aa Riasanovsky, 1969: 236. a 1969: 237.

36

RUDOLF

NEUHkJSER

pressing one of their lines of character development. This led supposedly to violent turnabouts and explosions in their lives. Fourier even maintained that ‘tthe greater part of vicious people are the ambiguous ones of the fifth degree [Cfth degree - the stage of civilization, R.N.] ...“46 The parallels between. Fourier’s psychology and Dostoevskij’s tales are extensive. Dostoevskij’s view of society as it appears in his writings coincides in many ways with that of Fourier. The heroes of his tales, their passions, sufferings, conflicts, virtues and vices seem to be patterned after Fourier’s system. All this indicates that the influence of Fourier’s psychology was more considerable than has been assumed. It may well have extended into his post-Siberian life where it may have served as the foundation for some of his own psychological insights. It is possible to assume that Fourier’s psychological system fulfilled another function. Dostoevskij began his literary career in the manner of Gogol’. Gogol’ ‘s concern with human passions and vices had left a deep and permanent impression on the young writer. It is worthy of note that his passionate acceptance of Gogolian motifs and characters was followed by an equally passionate rejection of Gogol”s religious and metaphysical views. Reading Belinskij’s famous letter to Gogol’ at Petragevskij’s he identified himself wholeheartedly with Belinskij. While Dostoevskij accepted Gogol”s types and many of his literary devices, he did not approve of Gogol’s moralistic and religious interpretation. Fourier’s psychological system with its intense element of social criticism provided him with an acceptable alternative. Dostoevskij’s creative use of Fourier’s psychological interpretation of social relationships in the modern world lends his early works a quality which we are used to observe and discuss only in his great novels of two decades later: the structural coherence of themes, plots, and characters which rests on a comprehensive understanding of society. This has led critics to interpret his novels as works of philosophy. While such a claim cannot be made for the work of the writer before his Siberian exile, there is every reason to interpret it as expressing a fairly complex and comprehensive understanding of social relationships and structures. Applying Michel Butor’s words, we can say that Dostoevsky’s early work “est le domaine phenomenologique par excellence, le lieu par excellence ou etudier de quelle facon la r&alit& nous apparait ou peut nous apparaitre”.47 University of Western Ontario a m

1969: Michel

238. Butor,

R&ertoire

I (Paris,

1960),

p. 8.