Self-Deception in Dostoevskij's Notes from the Underground ...

Self-Deception in Dostoevskij's Notes from the Underground
James Lethcoe
The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1966), pp. 9-21.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6752%28196621%291%3A10%3A1%3C9%3ASIDNFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
The Slavic and East European Journal is currently published by American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East
European Languages.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/aatseel.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
Mon Jan 7 20:04:39 2008

Self-Deception in Dostoevskij's Notes f r o m the Underground

--

James Lethcoe, University of Wisconsin, Madison

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether one can trust the
narrator of Dostoevskij's Notes frovz the Underground. Albert Guerard, in
his study of Gide, suggests that Dostoevskij consciously constructed Notes
from the Unde~g~ounwdith the end of allowing the reader a glimpse into a
reality beyond that of his first-person 11arrator.l Seven years later, Ralph
RIatlaw takes up the same idea?

At their deepest level the narrator's analyses are honestly meant. That they appear
not t o be so, or to be incorrect, must be attributed to the fact t h a t these analyses and
judgments are distorted by the narrator's personality. The reader must constantly
discount the distorting prism, and assess the narrator's incorrect judgments about
others and himself in terms of what they tell about the narrator. To put it more
clearly, the narrator is portrayed twice. His own statements account for his actions
a t one level, yet his statements are not trustworthy. Dostoevsky indicates the pro-
founder psychological level, which is manifest in the contradiction between the
narrator's analyses and his behavior.

Sacvan Bercovitch, in a recent study, reaffirms and further .develops
Illlatlaw's position, arguing that the major error of past critics has been
"taking the underground man a t his word."3 In the contending camp, how-
ever, is heard the voice of the formidable Soviet critic Mixail Baxti11 who
argues that nothing can be asserted of the underground man that he himself
has not already observed i11 his co~lfession.C~ritics who assume the essen-
tial reliability of the undergrou~ldma11's testiinorly urlforturlately tend to
base their assumption on the underground man's own testimony5-i.e.,
that he is an acutely corlscious being.6 If the underground marl is indeed
as morbidly aware as he asserts, his awareness is of a strange variety, for
it is constantly being undercut by his self-deception. I n this article, I would
like to establish (1) that the reason the underground man's testimony
cannot be taken a t face value is that he is composirlg his menloirs in a state
of self-deceptio11, and (2) that an understa~ldir~ogf this theme is vital to
an understanding of the work as a whole.7

Dostoevskij in a footrlote to the first page of the work is careful to
dissociate himself froin his narrator:

SEE'J, Vol. X, No. 1 (1966) 9

10 The Slavic and East European Journal

H . . . BZLBTOP 3aIIHCOK H CZLMbIe " ~ ~ I I H c K H , " p a 3 y M e e T C I i , BbIMbIIIIJIeHbI. 3TOhI

OTpbIBICe, 03a17JIaBJIeHHOM " ~ o A I I o J I ~ ~ , 3" T 0 JIHUO P e K O M e H A y e T CahIOPO ce61i, C B O ~ ~

B 3 P J I R n H K a K 6b1 XOYeT BbIIiCHHTb T e IIPHYHHbI, IIO KOTOpbIM OH0 IiBHJIOCb H AOJIXCHO

G ~ I J I O I ~ B H T ~ C RB ~ a m e i icpene. B c n e n y w q e M oTpbIBIce n p u n y T y x e H a c T o I i I q H e
" o ~ I I H c K H " 3 T O P 0 J I H V a 0 HeKOTOPbIX C O ~ M T H R Xe F 0 x H 3 H H . (CTP. 133.)

The reader, then, is asked to accept these notes not as the objective testi-
mony of an omniscient author, but as the subjective account of a first-
person narrator. Hence, not only the views and opinions expressed, but the
very account of reality itself must bear the imprint of the narrator's psyche.
If the narrator is in a state of self-deception, then his consciousrless becomes
a distorting consciousness and his account a distorted account.

The very form of the work lends itself to the exploitation of the theme
of self-deception; for it is not only a memoir, but also a confession. The
memoir form, which confines itself to the subjectivity of a single point of
view, is perfectly adapted for exploring the problem of self-honesty. Near
the end of the first part, the underground inan comments on the use of the
memoir form in literature:

r e f i n e y T B e p X C n a e r r , YTO B e p H b I e ~ B T O ~ H O P ~ ~ I $IIOHYHTM H e B 0 3 h I O Z H b 1 , M YeJIOBeK CaM

06 ce6e H a B e p H O HaJIXCeT. no e P 0 MHBHHK), PYCCHOa,I I p H M e p , HeIIpeMeHHO H a J I P a J I H a

,ce61i B C B O H~CI~IOBeAH, H A a x e YhIbIIUJIeHHO H a J I T a J I H 3 T q e C J I a B H R . 8 Y B e P e H , YTO

r e i i ~ eI I p a l 3 ; R O Y e H b XOPOIIIO IIOHHMaIO, K a K HHOPAa MOXHO eAHHCTBeHH0 113 OAHOPO

T q e C J I a B H R H a K J I e I I a T b ~ n c e 6 a q e n b 1 eI I p e C T y I I V ,

K a I c o r o pona MoxceT G ~ I T T~O T q e c n a B n e . HO r e f i ~ Ce ~ A H J Io Y e x o B e K e , a c n o s e A o -
BaBLIIeMCR I I e p e A n y 6 ~ 1 u ~ o f i(. c T ~ .166.)

This passage irnnlediately arouses the reader's suspicions as to the veracity
of the account he is reading. I n the last line of the above, however, the
underground man cleverly attempts to defend hiinself froin such a suspiciori
by asserting that, unlike Rousseau, he is not writing his inemoirs for the
public, but for himself. Far frorn proving that the present account is not a
lie, the underground man has merely raised the question that is the subject
of this paper-can a man be honest with himself? I n a previous passage,
the underground marl has already described his endeavour thus: "Teper' 3e
kogda ja ne tol'ko priporninaju, no daie regilsja zapisyvat', teper' ja
imenno xoEu ispytat': inoino li xot' s samim soboj sovergenno byt'
otkrovennym i ne pobojat'sja vsej pravdy?" (p. 165.)

As l\loFul'skij has pointed out, there is a curious contrast between the
exterior and interior form of these memoirs. The entire inonologue seems
to be composed of a d i a l ~ g u eE. ~very line of the work seems to be addressed
to some mysterious and silent gospoda who constantly seein to be interrupt-
ing, questioning, commenting on, and even criticizing the underground
man's views. Although these "gentlemen" are allowed no direct discourse
in the work, their reactions may be inferred through the overly defensive

Dostoevskij's Notes froln the Underground 11

attitude of the narrator before them-his ostensible interlocutors. The
situation is analogous to the overhearing of a telephone conversation in
which one nus st reconstruct the dialogue on hearing only one of the par-
ticipants.

These gospoda, however, within the context of the work, do not neces-
sarily provide an autonomous point of view distinct from that of the under-
ground marl h i m ~ e l fN. ~ear the end of Part I, the underground man explai~is
that his addressing himself to the reader is only a matter of form :"Ja Be piiu
dlja sebja i raz riavsegda obl'javljaju, Eto esli ja i pigu kak by obra6Eajas' k
Eitateljam, to edinstvenno tol'ko dlja pokaeu, potomu Eto tak mne legEe
pisat'. T u t forma, odna pustaja forma, Eitatelej Be u merlja rlikogda ne
budet. J a uie ob1'javil&to." (p. 166.) I t would seem that in directing his
remarks to these gospoda, the urlderground man is really only addressing
himself. He makes this quite clear in an earlier passage: "Razumeetsja, vse
&tivaii slova ja sam teper' sodinil. fito toie iz podpol'ja. J a tam sorok let
srjadu k &timvaiim slovam v iEeloFku prisluiivalsja. J a ix sam vydumal,
ved' tol'ko &toi vydumivalos'. Ne mudreno, Eto naizust' zauEilos' i litera-

turrluju forinu prinjalo. . . ." (p. 165.) The underground man's interlocu-

tors seem, then, to be only another aspect of himself. The source of their
remarks is the same as that of those he voices in his own person. In order
to urlderstand the importance of this observation with respect to the theme
of self-deception, let us study a passage iri which the underground man
addresses himself in the character of his imaginary reader:

B ~ M ,J I H T e p a T y p H b I M AOCTOHHCTBOM.
M O X e T 6 b 1 ~ b A, ~ I ? C T B H T ~ J I ~CHJIOYYaJIOCb C T P a A -

Ba T b , HO BM HHCICOJIbICO H e Y B a K a e T e C B O e r O C T p a A a H H R . B a C e C T b H I I p a B A a , HO B B a C

H e T u e n o M y n p x R ; B ~ ~I 3 C a M o r o M e j I x o r o T w e c n a B H t I H e c e T e B a m y n p a B A y H a n o ~ a s ,
. . .H a I I O s O p , H a PbIHOIC.
B ~ IA ~ I ? c T B H T ~ J I ~ HXOo THTe 9 T O - T O C I C a 3 a T b , HO 113 6 0 ~ 3 ~ ~

I I p R 9 e T e B a m e IIOCJIeAHee CJIOBO, IIOTOMy 9 T O Y BaC H e T PeIIIHMOCTH eTO BbICICa3&Tb,

a TOJIbICO TPYCJIHBOe H a X a J I b C T B O . B ~ XIB a J I H T e C b COSHaHHeM, HO BbI TOJIbICO 1 ~ 0 n e 6 -

,n e T e c b , n o T o i v y YTO X O T Y~ M y B a c H p a G o ~ a eH~O,c e p A q e same p a 3 ~ p a n~oo~ p~ a s e a o

a 6e3 Y H c T o r o cep~qa-IIOJIHO~nOp ,a s u n b H o r o C O ~ H ~ H H~Re ~ Y A ~ kTi .CICOJI~ICOB B a c

H ~ ~ O B ~ H B O CIcTaIHc ,B ~ HI a n p a m m a e T e c b , H a I c B ~ I C ~ L I B J I S ~ T! ~JCI o~ x b , n o x b H

J I O ~ ~ C(1~8!4-165.)

This paragraph is, in effect, an accurate suillillary of the underground man's
personality as presented in Part I. The final "Loi', loi' i loi"' seems to be
a self-accusation not only that the views presented in the first part are lies,

12 The Slavic and East European Journal

but that the very portrait of hinzself is a lie. The gospoda pole of the under-
ground man's consciousness is affirnling what the other half has already
admitted :

flame BOT 9 T O T Y T 6 b 1 ~ 06 b 1 n y s m e : 3TO-eCnH 6 FI B e p a n C a h l X O T b 9 e ~ l y - H H 6 ~ ~ b
a3 B c e r o T o r o , TO T e n e p b H a m c a n : K J I R H Y Cm~e B a M , rocnojla, TO cr HH OAHOMY, HLI
O A H O M Y - T ~ K H C n o B e s x y H e B e p m ~3 T o r o , TO ~ e n e p ~b a c ~ p o w iTno! e c T b R a B e p I o ,
noxcanyit, HO B TO xce c a M o e sperm, H e a a s e c T H o n o s e M y , ~ ~ B C T B ~a InOon03pe~a10,
YTO R s p y IcaK cxno;mm. ( c ~ p1.64.)

He is caught in a hopeless state of self-deception.
The form of the notes is not only that of a memoir, but also that of a

confession. This confession, however, is of a peculiar kind-it is a confession
to oneself. And under the conditions of such a confession the utmost effort
is to be made to preserve self-honesty:

Tamx npL%3HaHHfi, KaKlle RHaMepeH H a s B T b Il3JIaPaTb, H e nerlaTaIOT H ApyPHM s H T a T b

noH e n a m T , ~ c p a i i ~ e Mt ie p e R H e c T o n m o TBepnOCTH B ce6e H e a M e m , na a H Y X C H ~ I M
.. .H e C 9 H T a K t H M e T b .

E C T ~B BOCHOMHHBHHRX BCRKOPO s e J I O B e K a T a K H e B e q H , K O T O p b I e OH O T K p b I B B e T

E C T ~H e BCeAX, a p a 3 B e T O J I b K O A P Y S b F I M .
H T a K H e , KOTOPbIe OH H A P Y 3 b R M H e O T K P O e T ,

HOa p a 3 B e TOJIbICO ce6e C a M O M y , I(,a H T O IIOA C e K p e T O M . eCTb, HaKOHeLl, H TaKHe,

K O T O P b I e AaXCe H cede Y e n O B e K O T K P b I B a T b GOHTCFI, 1%TBKLlX B e q e 2 y BCRKOPO IIOpFI-
. . . n0AOgHOPO 9 e J I O B e I C a AOBOJIbHO-TaICH HaICOIIHTCR.
ICpafiHefi M e p e R C a M TOJIbICO

a e A a B H o p e n r x n c R n p c i n o M a H T b H H b I e A ~ O Hnpewaxe npamnoseaucr, a no CHX nop B c e r A a

0 6 x 0 ~ ~H X~, 1name c K ~ K H M - T O 6 e c n o ~ o f i c ~ ~T eo n~e .p b w e , I c o r g a R H e T O J I ~ I C O

n p a n o M a H a m , HO name peluunccr s a n ~ c b ~ ~ Ta e~r r be p,b R IzMeHHo x o s y H C ~ ~ I T ~ T ~ :

M O K H O J I H X O T b C CRMHM ~ 0 6 0 1C%OBePILIeHHO 6 b 1 ~ bO T K P O B e H H b I M II H e I I O ~ O R T ~ CBRC C ? ~ ~

I I p a B ~ b l ?(CTP. 165.)

In this passage the underground man announces the second part of the
work, which is to be a confession of certairi incidents takeri from his youth.
He further acknowledges here that the writing of such a confession will be
an experiment in self-honesty. The failure of such an experiment, then,
would be self-deception.

There is certainly throughout the work an attempt, a t least, to mairi-
tairi self-honesty. For example, early in the first part, after a rather cluinsy
sally of wit, the underground mari writes: "(Ploxaja ostrota; no ja ee ne
vycerknu. J a ee napisal, dumaja, Eto vyjdet oEen' ostro; a teper' kak uvidel
Sam, Eto xotel tol'ko gnusno poforsitr,-naroEno ne vyEerknu!)" (p. 134.)
Often, he will catch himself in a lie, as when he writes: "Ja ved' lie dlja

opravdariija moego sejEas stol'ko nagovoril. . . . A vproEem, net! sovral!

J a imenno sebja opravdat' xotel. Gto ja dlja sebja, gospoda, zametoEku
delaju. Ne xoEu lgat'. Slovo dal." (p. 172.) Certainly, if there is one trait of
the underground man that pervades the entire work, it is his constant need
to justify himself. This single ackriowledgment leads us not to the conclu-
sion that he is attainingself-honesty, but to inquire if in other statements he

Dostoevskij's Notes fro71z the Unde7.ground 13

is not also indulging in the same kind of self-justification without acknowl-
edging it, i.e., deceiving himself and the reader. For example, near the end
of the work he insists: "Pozvol'te, gospoda, ved' neopravdyvajus' Be ja
&timvsenzstvonz" (p. 244). I n that he has already lied to himself about his
need for self-justificatiorl, we have good reason to suspect the honesty of the
above. The many passages in which the undergrourld man catches himself
in a lie and acknowledges it, instead of convirlcing us of his self-honesty,
arouse our suspiciorls that perhaps there are other lies of which he is either
unaware or that he fails to ack~lowledge.The question riow arises: how are
we to discover such lies, since we are limited to his testimony and must
therefore hypothetically accept his account as true urlless we have valid
reason for doubting it. We have already indicated how the underground
man himself, through the invented persona of the gospoda, has accused him-
self of lying. There are two other general ways in which an author may
alert the reader that his narrator is lying: first by creating a self-contra-
dictory narrator, secorldly by investing the narrator with certain psycho-
logical traits that render his testimony suspicious. Dostoevskij employs
both of these methods.

The very first paragraph of the work serves to establish these devices.
The underground man introduces himself thus :

8 s e n o s e f i ~ O J I ~ H O. .~ .. $3nIofi ~ e n o ~ e fHi e. n p ~ ~ s a e I c a ~ e n Rb s~ebn o~ sge f i .
8g y ~ a m ,

TO y M e H R ~ O J I H Tn e s e H b . B n p o s e ~ R, HH luxma H e C W ~ I C J I B~ ~ o e g~ O J I ~ ~ PHI HHe

Y8 H a I o H a B e p H O , 9 T O M e H R 6 0 J I P I T . H e JIesJ'Cb H H P I I c O r A a H e J I e s P I J I C R , X O T R MeAHqPIHJ'

ICH g o f i ~ o p o ys s a 3 f i a m . TOMY > f i e II e q e PI c y e B e p e H go I C ~ ~ ~ ~ H O ~C TyHX ;,O T H~ ~ C T O J I ~ I C O ,
9 ~ 0 6Y B a 3 f i a T b ILleJ(HqHHY. (8A O C T a T O s H O 0 6 p a 3 0 s a ~s, ~ o H6 e 6 b 1 T b C Y e B e P H b I M , H O
R C y e B e p e H . ) H ~ T - CR ,H e X O s y J I e s P I T b C R CO 3 J I O C T H . ( c T ~ .133.)

The juxtaposition of J a telovelc bol'noj and J a zloj Zelovelc immediately
arouses our suspiciorl that the undergrourld man's illrless is mental rather
than physical.'o This suggestion is augmented by ne xnaju, naverno, 20 u
vzenja bolit. His paradoxical and contradictory character is immediately
brought before the reader's attention. He is ill, but will not consult a doctor
(although he respects doctors). He is educated, but nonetheless supersti-
tious. Instead of accourlting for this rather peculiar state of affairs in a
rationally satisfying manner, he arouses our suspicions further by offering
the unsatisfactory explarlatiorl: "Ja ne xoEu leeit'sja so zlosti."

That he is mentally ill, the undergrourld marl himself later suggests
through the voice of his projected persona: "Vy, moiet byt', dumaete,
gospoda, Eto ja sumasged6ij?" And indeed, one cannot read the Notes with-
out suspecting that the urldergrourld man is a t least suffering from a para-
noid persecutiorl complex. He imagirles that everyone hates him and looks
on him with disgust. At the begirlrling of the second part he writes of his
fellow civil servants: "I ja oEen' xorogo zameEal, Eto sosluiivcy moi ne

14 The Slavic and East E u ~ o p e a nJ o u ~ n a l

tol'ko sEitali menja Eudakom, no-vse kazalos' rnne i &to-budto by
smotreli na rnerlja s kakim-to omerzeniem. Mne prixodilo v golovu: otEego
&torlikomu, kronle menja, rle katetsja, Eto srnotrjat na nego s omerzeniem?"
(p. 168.) He has a similar reaction to his former classmates: "OEevidno,
menja sEitali Eem-to vrode samoj obyknoverlrloj muxi" (p. 183), and even
to his own servant: " S o neizvestno, poEenlu on preziral menja, date sverx
vsjakoj mery, i smotrel na nlerlja nesterpimo svysoka" (p. 228). I t is quite
likely that others do not really look on him with loathing and that he is
merely projecting his own feelings of inferiority into others. This is es-
pecially probable if, in conjunction with the above, we consider the follow-
ing confession: "Teper' mne sovergenno jnsno, Eto ja sam vsledstvie neo-
graniEennogo moego tsEeslavija, a stalo byt', i trebovatel'nosti k sanlomu
sebe, gljadel na sebja ves'ma Easto s begerlym nedovol'stvom, doxodiv6im
do omerzenija, a ottogo, myslenno, i pripisyval moj vzgljad kaidomu"
(p. 168). I t would seem, then, that the underground inan is distorting and
possibly deceiving himself about the attitude of others toward him. The
reality that he presents becomes psychologically tinted in passing through
his conscious~less.

Not only does Dostoevskij alert the reader to self-deception in the
underground man through investing his character with psychological traits
that render his testimony suspect, but also by ensnaring him in frequent
contradictions. Early in the first part, we find the underground man de-
ceiving himself about old age and death.

M H ~T e P I e p b COpOIc J I e T , a B e A b C o p O K JIeT- 3 T 0 B C R 3fCH3Hh; B e A b TO C&M&R r n y 6 o ~ a ~

KTOC T a P O C T b . A a J I b I I I e C O p O I C a JIeT iICHTb H e P I P I I J I H 9 H 0 , IIOIIIJIO, ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ B C T! B ~ H H O

XCHBeT A O J I b L U e C O p O K a J I e T - o ~ ~ e 9 a f i ~ IeI C K p e H H O , ~ ~ C T H Of l? B a M CICaiICJT, K T 0 XCIIBeT:

jrvpaxx H H e r o z n x ~ICHBYTS. I B c e M c T a p q a M TO B rnasa cxamy, B c e M OTHM cpe6po-

B . - I ~ C ~ I MPI 6 n a r o y ~ a r n n p~%~~a p q a Bi c~ e! ~ yc s e T y B rnasa c I c a x c y !SI P I M ~ K I n p a B o T a x

8 0r O B O P H T b , PIOTOMY 9 T O C a M A 0 I I I e C T P I n e C R T H J I e T PI~oXCHB)'! BOCbiLlH~eCRTHJIeT

npomiay! . . . I I o c ~ o f i ~gea! f i ~ ~e y nxepeaecw. . . . ( c ~ p1.35.)

Kot only in this passage does he move from his first assertion to its an-
tithesis, but this final conclusion itself is iroriically undercut by his shortness
of breath. On one page the underground man asserts: "Ja, naprimer,
uiasno samoljubiv" (p. 138). But several pages later he states: "(Ja saln
sebja ne uvaiaju)" (p. 144). In describing his affair with the officer early
in Part 11, he writes: "Ne dumajte, vproEein, Eto ja strusil oficera ot
trusosti: ja nikogda ne by1 trusom v duBe, xotja bespreryvrio trusil na dele"
(13. 173). On the next page we read: "Strusil ja t u t ne iz trusosti, a iz
bezgraniErlejBego tgEeslavija. J a ispugalsja ne desjati vergkov rostu i ne
togo, Eto meilja bol'no prib'jut i v okrlo spustjat; fiziEeskoj xrabrosti,
pravo, xvatilo by; no nravstvennoj xrabrosti nedostalo."

Dostoevskij's Notes from the Underground 15

Often the corltradictory elements fuse themselves into paradox, to
underscore the undergrourld man's state of self-deception. For example,
just as he asserts that his long tirade to Liza was "merely for the sport of
it," yet somehow sincere, so he a t a later point writes of his feigned fit of
nerves: "No ja, Eto nazyvaetsja, p~edstavljalsja,irtob spasti priliirija, xotja
pripadok by1 i dejstvitel'nyj" (p. 235). The contradictory nature of the
notes is not surprising when one corlsiders the divided nature of the under-
ground man's consciousness. He is both masochistic and sadistic, realist and
dreamer, sincere yet spiteful, vain but cringing. Coritrary aspects of his
personality simultaneously affirm opposites. The undergrourld man is
eternally condemned to oscillate between the antithetical poles of his
divided soul. He is caught in a hopeless state of self-deception.

I t seems clear, then, that the urldergrourld man a t the time of the
writing of his Notes is completely incapable of attaining his goal of self-
honesty. The work concerns, however, not only the present moment, but
also other scenes from various periods of his past. The second part treats
the affair with the officer, certain scenes from his school days, the awkward
dinner, and the affair with Liza. As the affair with the officer, the awkward
dinner, and the affair with Liza all take place a t approximately the same
time (i.e., when he was twenty-four, sixteen years before the composition
of the Notes), we see the underground man a t three different stages in his
life-in his early youth, as a yourlg marl of twenty-four, and as a marl of
forty writing his memoirs. A comparison of these three accounts reveals
striking similarities. As a child (188-199) he is introverted, sullen, and
spiteful. He imagines that his schoolmates look on him with loathing and
despise him. He simultaneously feels superior and inferior to them. He con-
siders himself more intelligent than those around him. He observes that he
was dreamy and bookish. Arid his treatment of his one friend is a direct
parallel to his treatment of Liza. He is strikingly similar in all three stages.
The schoolboy, the young man, and the middle-aged narrator all exhibit the
same qualities, indeed a strange state of affairs, until we consider that we
are reading an account written from a single point in time-the under-
ground man at age forty. This unexpected uniformity may be accourlted
for by assuming that the undergrourld man is shaping his past to conform
to his present image of himself. Like most of us, he is continually rewriting
his past in order to make it form a single unbroken causal chain with the
present. He is imposing his present self-image on his past.

That the u~ldergroundman is distorting his past from his present
perspective, he admits himself through the thinly disguised symbolism of
the insulted mouse in Part I. This mouse is, of course, the urldergrourld
marl himself. If one considers the insulting affair with the officer and the
embarrassing dinner of Part I1 in light of the following description of the

16 The Xlavic and East European Journal

mouse, he will perceive immediately that the underground man's account
of these incidents is not only exaggerated and distorted but has had details
added.

T a M , B CBOeM M e p S K O M , B O H I O s e M I I O A I I O J I b e , H a I l I a O ~ H ~ K ~ H Hn~pF nI ,6 ~ ~ na OnC M e R H H a R
M ~ I I I I H~ e M e g n e H H o n o r p y x c a e T c R B xononayro, ~ A O B H T Y I On , r n a B H o e , B e x o B e m J T m
3 2 0 C T b . COPOICJ I e T CPFIAY 6 y ~ nep H~I I O M H H a T b A 0 I I O C J I e A H x X , C a M b I X IIOCTbIAHbIX
n o ~ ( p o 6 ~ o c ~CeBOi IiO o 6 n ~ Hy npx TOM xa3f~~b1i-ipa3 n p ~ 6 a ~ n s OrT~cbe 6 ~~ O ~ ~ O ~ H O C T I I
ewe I I o c T ~ I ~ H ~ ~ U I3E~I 1~ 0, 6 I~I O0A J J p a S H H B a F I ~ p a s J J p a j f C a F I c e 6 R C O ~ C T B ~ H HQ aOH~T~a 3 E I e f i .
C a ~ 6a y ~ CeT ~~I J ( H T ~ CCRBO& I $ a ~ T a 3 n H , HO B C e - T a K M BCe IIpHnOMHEIT, BCe n e p e 6 e p e ~ ,
H a B b I A y M a e T H a c e 6 ~~ e 6 b l ~ a J I b ~ P i ~nObJl1 , n p e A J I o r o M , Y T O O H a T 0 W e MOPJIB CJIY-
s H T b C R , H H H W r O H e IIPOCTHT. (140-141 .)

If there can be little doubt that the underground man is deceiving
himself in the present about the past, there can be even less that he was
self-deceived in the past. He acknowledges his former self-deception when
he writes of his earlier spasms of compulsory confession and repentance:

n p H 3 T O M FI O I I R T b - T a K Z AYIUOIO Y h l H J I R J I C R , P a C K a H B a J I C H , C J I e 3 b I IIPOJIEIBaJI EI,

K O H e s H O , CaMOFO c e 6 ~H a A y B a J I , X O T b H BOBCe H e I I p H T B O p R J I C F I . c e p ~ W . 2 y 3 x T Y T

. .K ~ R - T Oranxno. . B e ~ sbepes MHHYTY F C ~ I C Y I O - H E I ~ YRAy~a e c ~ J I O ~ O I cO006paxcam,

6 b 1 s a n 0 , YTO BCe 3 T 0 J I O a b , J I O a b , OTBpaTHTeJIbHaR HanyCICHaR J I O X b , TO e C T b BCe

3 T H P a C I C a R H H R , BCe 3 T H YMEIJIeHHR, BCe 3 T H 0 6 e T b 1 B03pOjfCAeHHR. (CTP. 145.)

He continues to explain how he deliberately would deceive himself in order
to comperisate for the dullness of his existence. Self-deception was for him
a way of life.

C ~ cMe6e n p E I F C n m s e H H R B b I A y h l b I B a J I EI XCH3Hb COYHHRJI, 9 ~ 0 6X O T b K B K - H H ~ Y AA~&

I I O x H T b . C K O J I ~ KpaO3 MHe CJIY9aJIOCb-HY, X O T b , H a I I P E I M e P , o ~ E I X C ~ T ~ C TRB, K , H e

HE-sas e r o , H a p o s H o ; H B e n b c a h l s ~ a e u r b ,6b1sa.110, s ~ Hoe as-sa s e r o O ~ E I A ~ J I C R ,

H ~ I I ~ c T H J~Ia c e 6 ~ 1H,O A 0 T O ~ Oc e 6 ~ A1OBeJJeIIIb, 9 T O n O A I c O H e q , I I p a B O , H B CaMOM A e J I e

O ~ E I A H U I ~ C F MI . ~ H FRCaK-TO BCIO 3 X H 3 H b TFIHYJIO T a K H e IUTYFCH BbIFCEIAbIBaTb, T a K 9 T O

Y3X FI CTBJI IIOJJ K O H e q EI B ce6e H e B J I a C T e H . Apyrogpas B J I I O ~ E I T ~ C F I H & C H J I ~SHLLOXOTeJI,

A a w e A s a pasa. C ~ p a ~ Baenf i b , rocnona, ysepm s a c . B r n y 6 ~ ~ e J-J~~IIIoEIH
e B e p n T c x ,

TO c T p a n a e l u b , H a c M e l u K a m e s e n n T c s , a ~ c e - ~ ac mT p a n a m , A a
ewe H a c T o s t r l n M ,
. .a a n p a ~ c ox 6~p~a s o ~ p; e B a y m , ~ 1 3c e 6 ~B ~ I X O X C Y ..
(CTP. 145.)

Let us now turn to the various devices by which the underground nian

deceives himself. Probably the most pervasive means is rationalization."
His cowardice he rationalizes thus: "Vsjakij porjadoEnyj Eelovek nagego
vremeni est' i dolBen byt' trus i rab" (p. 169). His guilt feelings over his
treatment of Liza lead him to the following feeble rationalization: "Dlja

Eego beseestnuju? Icakuju besEestnuju? J a govoril vEera iskrenno. J a
pomnju, vo mne toSe bylo riastojahEee Euvstvo. J a imenno xotel vyzvat' v

nej blagorodnye Euvstva . . . esli ona poplakala, to &toxoro80, Bto blago-
tvorno podejstvuet. . . ." (p. 225.)

Dostoevskij's Notes .from the Underground 17

A realization that this defense mechanism is contirlually being used by
the underground man will perhaps shed some light on one of the important
problen~sof interpretation of the novel-the relationship between the psy-
chological and philosophical levels. The problem might be formulated thus:
I s the paradoxical character of the underground man to be evaluated in
light of his philosophical theories about the nature of man, i.e., that man
is free, arbitrary, many-sided, and irrational; or are we to see such theories
as the kind of theories such a character as the urldergrourld man would
naturally hold in order to rationalize his existence?

The narrator ratioilalizes his inability to act, his inability to be any-
thing, in the following manner:

Tenepb me AO3fiEIBaH) B C B O e M yrJIy, A p a 8 H J i c e 6 ~~ J I o ~ H E~I HI EMI K 9 e M y H e CJIYECaIIXEIM
y T e I U e H H e M , 9 T O Y M H ~ IY~e J I O B e I C EI H e MOXCeT C e p b e 3 H O ~ I ~ M - H H ~ CYAJe J~I a~T b C R , a

A e n a e T c R Y ~ M - H H ~TO~JIAbIC~O AJ'paIC. A & - C , Y M H ~ I9 e~J I O B e K A e B R T H a A q a T O r O C T O -

J I e T E I R AOJI3ICeH P i H p a B C T B e H H O 0 6 ~ 8 a6 b~1 ~ b C Y I q e C T B O M I I O I I p e H M Y I I & e C T B J ' 6ec-

XapaICTepHbIM; YeJIOBeK W e C X a p a K T e p O M , AeRTeJIb--CyweCTBOM IIO I I p e H B y w e C T B y

O r p a H H Y e H H b I i \ l . TO C O P O K a J I e T H e e h l O e y 6 e m ~ e ~ ~(CeT.P. 135.)

That the above is to be taken as a rationalization, rather than as an objec-
tively forn~ulatedtheory, becomes clear later, when he states: "0 gospoda,
ved' ja, n ~ o i e pt otomu tol'ko i sEitaju sebja za umnogo Eeloveka, Eto vsju
iizn' riiEego ne mog ni naEatt ni okonEitt" (p. 147).

I t would seem, then, that a shift in critical emphasis is in order. Notes
f~onzthe Undel-ground,which is usually approached as a philosophical work,
is perhaps best approached as a psychological study. Instead of emphasizing
the underground man's personality as exemplifying his theories, we should
perhaps see his views as the expression of his personality.

Rationalization in the underground marl often takes the form of the
substitution of language for action-the n~anipulationof words rather than
reality. He muses over his final treatment of Liza thus: "Pribavlju toie,
Eto ja nadolgo ostalsja dovolerl frazoj o pol'ze ot oskorblenija i rlenavisti,
riesn~otrjana to, Eto sanl Eutt ne zabolel togda ot toski" (p. 243). Fre-
quently, rationalizatiorl takes the form of compensation. He compensates
for his feelings of inferiority by asserting that he corlsiders hiirlself more
intelligent than those around him: "(Ja postojanno sEital sebja umrlee
vsex, kotorye menja okruiajut, i inogda, poverite li, daie Atogo sovestilsja.
Po krajnej mere ja vsju iizn' smotrel kak-to v stororlu i nikogda ne inog
smotret' ljudjam prjamo v glaza.)" (138-139.) One notes that the evidence
he offers to prove he considers himself superior to others really establishes
the contrary.

One of Dostoevskij's most perceptive insights into the modes of self-
deception might be termed "the lie to others that convinces oneself." I n his
apologetic letter to Simo~lovthe underground man attributes his behavior

18 The Slavic and East European Journal

to the wine he had drunk before the dinner (which he parenthetically
admits is a lie). On the next page he catches himself deceiving himself thus:

"Ua, i vprjam', poialuj, &tovse ot vina vEera proizoglo. Gm . . . nu net, ne

ot vina. Vodki-to ja vovse ne pil, ot pjati-to do gesti Easov, kogda ix podii-

dal. Solgal Simonovu; solgal bessovestno; da i teper' ne sovestno. . . ."

(p. 224.) This device is more subtly developed earlier in the novel. After
the underground man invites himself to the dinner, Simonov asks him to
pay him seven roubles (p. 187). He awkwardly excuses hin~selffor not
having brought any money-to which Sin~onovreplies that he can pay the
next evening at the dinner. On leaving, the underground man muses that
he has only nine roubles and that he owes seven to his servant, whom it
would be impossible not to pay (p. 188). (He adds, however, that he knew
he would not pay him.) At the dinner, he makes no attempt to pay Simonov
and, in fact, borrows six roubles from him to finance his debauchery (p.
201). I t is evident from the fact that the next day he gives his servant the
seven roubles (p. 231) and that he sends six roubles to Simonov (p. 224),
that he has indeed failed to pay for the dinner. However, at the dirlner he
lies to FerfiEkin: "Zdes' 'v kafe-restorane,' ja obedaju na svoi, a ne na
Euiie, zamet'te &tomonsieur FerfiFkin" (p. 195). Later in the evening the
lie to FerfiEkin transforms itself into a lie to himself. He justifies his staying
at the embarrassing party: "Budu sidet' i pit', potomu Eto zdes' kabak, a
ja den'gi za vxod zaplatil" (p. 198).

Exaggeration is another means by which the underground man dupes
himself. He, however, is well aware of this. After surveying the state of his
clothes for the dinner party, he exclaims: "Znal ja toBe otliEno, togda ie,
Eto vse &tifakty Eudovi6Erlo preuveliEivaju; no Eto i e bylo delat': sovladat'
ja s soboj uB ne mog, i menja trjasla lixoradka" (p. 191). That he uses
exaggeration to deceive himself, he recognizes in saying:

Again, we have a statement that casts a shadow of suspicion over the
entire account.

Perhaps the mechanism of self-deception of which the underground
marl is most aware is that of daydreaming. Before the fatal dirlner he
deceives himself in the following manner:

. . . M H e M e Y T a J I O C b O n e p X C a T b B e p X , n o 6 e ~ ~ y~Bbn e, Y b , 3 a C T a B H T b HX n O J I I O 6 H T b

c e 6 ~ - ~ yX O T ~"3a B O ~ B ~ I I I I ~ H H OMCbTl ~ J I e f iA HeCOMHeHHOe O C T P O ~ M M ~ . "O H A ~ P O C R T

,S B e p K O B a , O H ~ Y A C~ HTA e T b B C T O p O H e M O J I Y a T b H CTbIAMTbCFi, a F i P a 3 A a B J I I O ~ B ~ P I C O B ~ .
- . ..HOTOMII,O?XaJlyfi, IIOMHpIOCb C HHM J3 BbIIIbH) H a T b I . ( c T ~1.91.)

Dostoevskij's Notes frollz the Underground 19

Often this kind of deception will take on a Quixotic twist, and he will find
himself dreaming scenes from books he has read. After an imaginary insult
to Zverkov, he dreams about the consequences of his action-he will be
expelled from the civil service and sent to Siberia.

Y e p e S I I S T H a A y a T b J E T R I I O T a I I T y C b sa HHM B p y 6 ~ 1 q e ,HHWHM, I c O F A a M e H R B b I I I Y C T R T

H E O C T p O F a . 8 O T b I W Y e F 0 F A ~ - H H ~ Y BA ~F Y ~ ~ ~ H C K FOoMp o n e . OH 6 y n e ~XCeHaT H
. x. .CrI&CTJIAB. H e r 0 6 y n e ~B S p O C J I a R A O Y b .
C K a X y : "CMOTPAH ,s B e p F , CMOTpH H a

MOA B B a n x B m H e c r i Iqem H ~a M o e p y 6 ~ 1 q e !ST n o T e p r i n ~ c e - ~ a p b e p y , c s a c ~ b e ,

BOTEICICYCCTBO, H a Y K Y , -JIIO~E-IMYIO-FxCeHIVHHY, H B C e A a - 3 a T e 6 ~ .I I H C T O J I e T b I . ST I I P A U l e J I

. .P L t 3 p J i A A T b C B O ~I I~I I C T O J I e T A . EI IIpOluaEO ~ e 6 R . " T ~ RTB b I C T p e J I I O H a BOsAJ'X, H
. . .060 M H e H H CJIYXY H I I A Y X Y

51 6 b 1 n o nawe s a n n a ~ c a n X, OTR C O B e p L u e H H o TOYHO 3 ~ a Bn TO we c a M o e M r H o -

B e H H e , Y T O B C e 3 T O H S C H J I ~ B H OH H 3 " h f a c K a p a n a " ~ ~ ~ M O H T O (Bc~T.~ 2. 04.)

Self-deception, then, is an important theme throughout the novel and
perhaps offers some important clues for interpretation. If the narrator is
lying to himself, then in a confession of this kind he is necessarily lying also
to the reader. His remarks, therefore, cannot be taken a t face value. For
example, in the opening section of the novel he describes how he lorded it
over the timid petitioners who came to him as a civil servant. He then
refers to an incident with a certain officer: "No iz fertov ja osobenno terpet'
ne mog odnogo oficera. On nikak ne xotel pokorit'sja i omerzitel'no gremel
sablej. U menja s nim poltora goda za 8tu sablju vojna byla. Ja, nakonec,
odolel. On perestal gremet'. VproEem, &tosluEilost e5Ee v moej molodosti."
(p. 134.)

Aware of the role of self-deception in the work we are tempted to com-
pare this account with that concerning the officer in Part 11. The similari-
ties are striking. Kot only do both incidents concern an officer, an insult
(or at least an agitation), a contest of wills (at least from the underground
man's point of view), and a final victory (real or imagined) for the under-
ground man, but they both take place in his youth as a civil servant. The
periods of time in which the underground man wages his vojna are also
approxin~atelythe same-a year and a half in the first case and two years
(p. 175) in the latter. I t is possible that we have here the same event de-
scribed from two different perspectives. However, it is more likely that
these are two similar but distinct events which the underground man de-
scribes in contrasting terms. In the first he pictures himself as a hero,
getting the upper hand over the officer in a battle of wills and finally at-
taining a victory. In the latter, it is quite clear that the officer is not even
aware of his existence or that an insult has been avenged-although the
underground man, by means of projection, attempts to deceive himself into
believing that the officer really was aware. After describing his almost
accidental jostling of the officer, he attempts to project his own awareness

20 T h e Slavic and East Eui-opean Jaw-nal

of the vengeance into the officer: "On daie i ne ogljanulsja i sdelal vid, Eto
ne zametil; no on tol'ko vid sdelal, ja uveren v Btom. J a do six por v ktonl
uveren!" (p. 179.) If we can accept this latter account as the truer (if only
because it is more detailed and consistent with the underground man's
character throughout), we can hypothetically reconstruct the former inci-
dent with the sword-rattling officer. First, it is likely that his attitude was
not arrogant and commanding as seems to be implied in the above descrip-
tion, but cowardly and cringing, as in the second incident. Secondly, it is
likely that the sword-clanking officer mas not even aware that a battle of
wills was being fought between hiinself and the underground man; and,
lastly, the final victory of which the underground man speaks was as
pathetic and imaginary as in the second incident.

Father Zosima in the first part of T h e Brothers Karanzazov offers an
interesting perspective on self-deception that seems relevant to a study of
Notes frotn the Underground. Father Zosima lectures Fedor PavloviE:'"

I ' n a ~ ~ o ec ,a M o M y ce6e H e n r u T e . J I r y q u f t c a M o M y ce6e m C O ~ C T B ~ H H ~nHo)x b CBOH)

c n y ~ n a r o q u t,qo T o r o AOXOAMT, YTO y x ~ u ~ a ~ n op af Btn w HM B ce6e, H M K p y r o M H e

p a s m m a e T , a c T a n o B ~ I T B~x,o n r n T B H e y s a x e H u e M K ce6e M K n p y r m M . He y e a x c a R we

HLIKOI'O, n e p e c T a e T J I X O ~ M T ~a, 4~06b1,H e MMeR n m 6 ~ 1 1 ,8 a H H T b c e 6 ~M p a s B n e Y b ,

I I p e A a e T C R C T P a C T R M M r p y 6 b 1 ~C J I a n O C T R M M AOXOAMT COBCeM A 0 C K O T C T B a B I I O P O K a X

CBOMX, a B c e OT 6 e C I I p e p b 1 B H O f t nxcu M J I ~ A H MM ce6e c a M o M y . J I r y q ~ cte6e c a * I o M y

npeXne B C e X M O ~ I I A ~ T ~MCOE3fCeT. B e ~ Ob ~ H A ~ T ~M HC ORr n a O Y e H b I I P M R T H O , H e T a K JIM?

f!r B e A b 3 H a e T Y e n o ~ e K Y, T O HMKTO H e 0611neJI e r o , a Y T O OH C a M ce6e 0 6 u ~ Hy a B b I A y M a J I

M H a J I P a J I A J I R K p a C b I , C a M I I p e y B e n M Y M J I , 9 ~ 0 6 b 1K a p T M H Y C O 3 A a T b , K CJIOBY n p M -

B H 3 a J I C R M M 3 rOpOIIIMHKM C A e J I a J I ropy, - 8 H a e T C a M 3 T O , a B C e - T a K M C a ~ b I f It I e p B b I f t

0 6 x x a e ~ c x0, 6 m x a e ~ c f f no HpMRTHOCTM, no O q y q e H M R 60~1bmor0YAOBOJIbCTBMR, a
. . .T e M C a M b I M AOXOAMT M A 0 B P ~ W A M~ CI TMHHO&.
, . . .O Y e H b B e n b B C e 3 T 0 T O X e J I O X H b I e X e C T b I . fla B C T ~ H X~CTe, ~C R A b T e , n p O U I Y B a C

In lying to himself and in listening to his own lies, the underground
man embroils himself in endless contradictions, becomes quite unable to
distinguish truth from falsity, and finally lies to the reader. He no longer
respects hiinself (p. 134) or others and is completely incapable of love (cf.
the Liza episode). He has indeed become preoccupied with coarse pleasures
and vice (p. 137). He is easily offended (p. 138), and once offended, he will
compound the offense in his imagination to gigantic proportions (140-141)
-all because of his self-deception. If we take the perspective offered by
Father Zosiina, the theme of self-deception becomes central to an under-
standing of the work as a whole. The underground man is the miserable,
self-contradictory,wretched, and spiteful being that he is because he exists
in a state of self-deception.

In conclusion, it would seem that self-deception cannot be ignored as
a major unifying thenie in Notes from the Underground and that a recogni-

Dostoevskij's Notes fi-onz the Unde~gi-ound 21

tion of this theme provides a satisfactory explanation for the claims of
previously cited critics that the underground man's testimony is unreliable.
Furthermore, an awareness of the underground man's self-deception
emphasizes the significance of the work as a masterful psychological por-
trait rather than a mere philosophical manifesto. Finally, the recognition
that Dostoevskij has created a self-deceived and dishonest narrator reveals
successive layers of meaning to an already fascinating and complex
structure.

1 Albert Guerard, AndrS Gzde (Cambridge,Mass., 1951), 111-112. Guerard suggests
that the underground man's obtuseness and neurotic sensibility limit his under-
standing of the reality he reports.

2 Ralph E.Matlaw, "Structure and Integration in 'Notes f rom the Underground,' "
PA4L.4, L X X I I I (1958), 102.

3 Sacvan Bercovitch, "Dramatic Irony in 'Notes from the Underground,' " SEE.T,
VIII (1964), 284.

.,4 M. ~ X T E I H (,(IIp06~1e~bIIO1BTEIIlEZ ~ ~ O C T O ~ B C K O F(O2-U13msn. ; M 1963), 69. The

first edition of this work appeared in 1929.

5 bee, for example, IC.R l o ~ y n b c ~ l (~(~Aiol c, T o ~ B c K E(I~Ia~p~x)x)c, 1947), 203-211, and

Temira Pachmuss, F. 111.Dostoevsky: Dualism and Synthesis of the Human Soul
(Carbondale, Ill., 1963), 69-71.

a.6 M . AOCTO~BCKE"I~I%~ I ,I M c K E Z EZ8 ~ o ~ I I o J I ~ H( (, C" 0 6 p a ~C~OeY I I H ~ H M ~(~1)0) TT. ;

M . , 1956-1958), IV, 136, 140-141. All page references in the text refer t o this
volume of this edition.
7 For a contrasting view see: J . RI. Murry, Fyodor Dostoevsky (London, 1916), 97,
and Pachmuss, 69. Both explicitly deny self-deception in the underground man.
8 ~ o ~ u l ' s k 3i 0j 3, . ~ o ~ u l ' s k i jd'isscu
ssion in mainly based on Baxtin, 305-318.
9 ~ o ~ u l ' s kainjd
Baxtin, loc. cit. While recognizing the imaginary character of
these interlocutors, both critics insist on speaking of them as personalities
distinct from t h a t of the underground man. S2me critics have suggested t h a t t h e
interlocutors are to be seen as followers of Cernygevskij. See, for example, B.

E ~ M ~ [email protected] BM, . A O C T O ~ B C K (IRI ~I.~, -1Y9U56), 137, 140, and Joseph Frank,

"Nihilism and Notes from the Underground," Setoanee Review, LXIX (1961), 10.
10 One should note that the underground man thinks i t is his liver that is ailing him.

The liver is, of course, the source of bile (ielt'). The derived adjectiveieltnyj is a

synonym for zloj .

11 This tendency of the underground man t o rationalize has also been noted by R. L.
Jackson, Dostoevsky's Undergrot~ndMan i n Russian Literature (TheHague, 1958),
38, 39, 44, and Matlaw, 104, 106.

12 Dostoevskij, Sobr. so:., I X , 58. It. L. Jackson, 54-55, has also noted the relevance
of this passage to Xotes from the Underg7ound.

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS

- Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article:
Self-Deception in Dostoevskij's Notes from the Underground
James Lethcoe
The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1966), pp. 9-21.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6752%28196621%291%3A10%3A1%3C9%3ASIDNFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

Notes

2 Structure and Integration in Notes from the Underground
Ralph E. Matlaw
PMLA, Vol. 73, No. 1. (Mar., 1958), pp. 101-109.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8129%28195803%2973%3A1%3C101%3ASAIINF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

3 Dramatic Irony in Notes from the Underground
Sacvan Bercovitch
The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Autumn, 1964), pp. 284-291.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6752%28196423%291%3A8%3A3%3C284%3ADIINFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

11 Structure and Integration in Notes from the Underground
Ralph E. Matlaw
PMLA, Vol. 73, No. 1. (Mar., 1958), pp. 101-109.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8129%28195803%2973%3A1%3C101%3ASAIINF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.