And afterwards I could never forget it. It was the most ravishing moment of my whole life. When I was at hard labor, remembering it strengthened me spiritually. Even now I am ecstatic each time I remember it.

 

Belinsky had urged him to “remain faithful” to his gift. Another writer might have heeded that advice and continued on the successful path of portraying ordinary people in a sentimental manner and, as Konstantin Mochulsky put it, with “a humanistic-philanthropic tendency (‘the humblest person is also a man’).” Instead, Dostoevsky wrote The Double.

Poor Folk was published on January 15, 1846, in the Petersburg Almanac, edited by the poet Nikolai Nekrasov, who had originally brought the manuscript to Belinsky. The Double, which Dostoevsky had begun during the summer of 1845, was published two weeks later, on January 30, 1846, in the journal Notes of the Fatherland. The closeness in time belies the great difference between them. Belinsky was reserved when Dostoevsky read several chapters from The Double at a soirée in his apartment, to which a number of well-known critics and writers, among them Ivan Turgenev, were invited. In the February 1846 issue of Notes of the Fatherland, along with praise, he allowed himself some criticism of the novel’s prolixity. Other critics were harsher, accusing Dostoevsky of paraphrasing or even plagiarizing Nikolai Gogol’s “Diary of a Madman” or of making a hodgepodge of Gogol, E. T. A. Hoffmann, and other lesser-known writers. Above all, The Double seemed a betrayal of the “realism” to which Belinsky and his followers were devoted, and which they found so satisfyingly embodied in Poor Folk. “We certainly were hoodwinked, my friend, with Dostoevsky the genius,” Belinsky wrote later to the eminent critic Pavel Annenkov. The striking originality of The Double passed them by. But its publication was enough to marginalize Dostoevsky in Russian literature for many years to come, an exacerbation that may have driven him towards radical politics, ending in his arrest in April 1849 and his mock execution eight months later, followed by ten years of hard labor and Siberian exile. This first gamble was an artistic one, and it cost him dearly.

In the evening of the day he handed the manuscript of Poor Folk to Nekrasov, Dostoevsky went to visit a former friend. As he recalled in the same January 1877 issue of Diary of a Writer: “We spent the whole night talking about Dead Souls and reading from it, as we had done I don’t remember how many times. That happened then among young people; two or three would get together: ‘Well, gentlemen, let’s read Gogol!’—and they might sit and read all night.” We tend to forget that Gogol’s greatest works, “The Overcoat” and the first part of Dead Souls, were published only three years before the moment Dostoevsky describes here and still dominated the literary scene. Gogol’s fantastic Petersburg, his world of government clerks, offices, and the table of ranks, of nonentities and impostors, is everywhere present in Dostoevsky’s early work. In fact, Dostoevsky’s dialogue/struggle with Gogol went on throughout his life. But The Double is specifically and quite obviously an expansion on “The Diary of a Madman” and “The Nose.” It represents not a plagiarism or imitation, but a “rethinking of Gogol,” as Mochulsky observed. What did this “rethinking” involve?

In the autumn of 1845, Dostoevsky wrote to his brother Mikhail about The Double, not quoting from the novel but describing his work on it in the voice of its hero, the titular councillor Yakov Petrovich Goliadkin:

 

Yakov Petrovich Goliadkin upholds his character fully. A terrible scoundrel, you can’t get at him. He simply doesn’t want to go ahead, claiming that he’s just not ready yet, and that meanwhile he’s his own man now, that he’s never mind, maybe also, and why not, how come not; why, he’s just like everybody else, only he’s like himself, but then just like everybody else! What is it to him! A scoundrel, a terrible scoundrel! Before the middle of November, there’s no way he can agree to end his career.

 

Goliadkin, as Mochulsky noted, “emerges and grows out of the verbal element. The writer had first to assimilate his character’s intonations, to speak him through himself, to penetrate the rhythm of his sentences and the peculiarities of his vocabulary, and only then could he see his face. Dostoevsky’s characters are born of speech—such is the general law of his creative work.” In Gogol, with the one exception of “The Diary of a Madman,” the verbal element is the narrator’s voice, not the character’s. Gogol’s characters are entirely objectified, like parts of nature, pure products of the narrator’s words about them; they have no consciousness, and that, in fact, is what makes them so remarkable. For Dostoevsky, on the other hand, consciousness is the central issue: the narrator’s speech in The Double is a projection of and dialogue with Goliadkin’s consciousness; we are given no outside position from which to view him. “Even in the earliest ‘Gogolian period’ of his literary career,” Mikhail Bakhtin observed,

 

Dostoevsky is already depicting not the “poor government clerk” but the self-consciousness of the poor clerk…That which was presented in Gogol’s field of vision as an aggregate of objective features, coalescing in a firm socio-characterological profile of the hero, is introduced by Dostoevsky into the field of vision of the hero himself and there becomes the object of his agonizing self-awareness.

 

This was the “small-scale Copernican revolution,” in Bakhtin’s phrase, that Dostoevsky carried out “when he took what had been a firm and finalizing authorial definition and turned it into an aspect of the hero’s self-definition.” The failure to grasp the major implications of this shift in artistic visualization probably accounts for the critical incomprehension that greeted The Double.

The disintegration, the inner plurality, of isolated consciousness that Dostoevsky first explored through Mr. Goliadkin remained a constant theme of his work. Many years later, he wrote that he had “never given anything more serious to literature” than the idea of The Double.