Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
‘My pre-eminent underground type:’ on disputes around The Double [Dvoynik]
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2025-4-39-58
Abstract
Published in 1846, and as such the writer’s second independent work, Dostoevsky’s novella The Double [Dvoynik] is among his oeuvre whose profound ideological (and often artistic) value has been downplayed or denied completely. The article sets out to address the persistent problem of The Double in contemporary studies of literature and propose a possible solution. Ryabchinsky argues that Dostoevsky explores the topic of a doppelgänger with deliberate reference to Gogol and Hofmann as an established and recognizable cultural code. However, instead of merely reproducing the code, the writer enriches it with new meanings essential for Dostoevsky’s intention, which is to follow the progress and to clear up the personality of an ‘underground man,’ whom he views as an embodiment of depravity. Ryabchinsky suggests that Mr Golyadkin’s character foreshadows the later Dostoevsky’s ‘underground’ types like Svidrigaylov, Ivan Karamazov, and others.
Supporting agencies: The study was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Programme.
About the Author
N. V. Ryabchinsky
Higher School of Economics International Laboratory for the Study of Russian and European Intellectual Dialogue
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay V. Ryabchinsky, literary critic
21/4 Staraya Basmannaya St., Moscow, 105066, Russian Federation
References
1. Aksakov, K. (1847). Three critical articles by Mr So-And-So. In: Moscow literary and academic collection, 1847. Moscow: pp. 1-44. (In Russ.)
2. Avanesov, R. (1927). Dostoevsky working on ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’]. In: R. Avanesov, Creative history: Research on Russian literature. Moscow: Nikitinskie subbotniki, pp. 124-191. (In Russ.)
3. Bakhtin, M. (2000). Problems of Dostoevsky’s creative art. In: M. Bakhtin, Collected works (7 vols). Vol. 2. Moscow: Russkie slovari: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury, pp. 7-175. (In Russ.)
4. Barsht, K. (2014). Double narrator and double character in the ‘unfinished’ dialogue of F. Dostoevsky (from ‘Poor Folk’ [‘Bednie lyudi’] to ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’]). Voprosy Filosofii, 3, pp. 107-118. (In Russ.)
5. Bem, A. (2007). Foreword. In: М. Magidova, ed., Around Dostoevsky (2 vols). Vol. 1: On Dostoevsky: A collection of papers ed. by A. L. Bem. Moscow: Russkiy put, pp. 51-53. (In Russ.)
6. Berdyaev, N. (2004). Revelation about man in the works of Dostoevsky. In: N. Berdyaev, Cloudy holy faces (Types of religious thought in Russia). Moscow: Kanon+, pp. 294-323. (In Russ.)
7. Chizh, V. (1885). Dostoevsky as a psychopathologist. Moscow: Universitetskaya tip. (M. Katkov). (In Russ.)
8. Chizhevsky, D. (2007). On the problem of the double (From a book on formalism in ethics). In: М. Magidova, ed., Around Dostoevsky (2 vols). Vol. 1: On Dostoevsky: A collection of papers ed. by A. L. Bem. Moscow: Russkiy put, pp. 54-73. (In Russ.)
9. Dilaktorskaya, O. (1999). Dostoevsky’s Petersburg tale. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin. (In Russ.)
10. Dobrolyubov, N. (1963). Downtrodden people. In: N. Dobrolyubov, Collected works (9 vols). Vol. 7. Ed. by B. Bursov. Moscow; Leningrad: Goslitizdat, pp. 225-275. (In Russ.)
11. Dohnal, J. (2010).Doubles in N. V. Gogol’s cycle ‘Petersburg Tales’ [‘Peterburgskie povesti’]. In: J. Dohnal and I. Pospíšil, eds., N. V. Gogol: Bytí díla v prostoru a čase: (studie o živém dědictví). Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Ústav slavistiky Filozofické fakulty, pp. 111-117. (In Russ.)
12. Dostoevsky, F. (1972-1990). Complete works (30 vols). Ed. by V. Bazanov, G. Fridlender, V. Vinogradov et al. Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)
13. Evlampiev, I. (2010). ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’] and the metaphysics of ‘duplicity’ in F. Dostoevsky’s works. Solovyovskie Issledovaniya, 2, pp. 4-17. (In Russ.)
14. Evnin, F. (1965). On one historical and literary legend (Dostoevsky’s novella ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’]). Russkaya Literatura, 3, pp. 3-26. (In Russ.)
15. Freidenberg, О. (1997). Poetics of plot and genre. Moscow: Labirint. (In Russ.)
16. Grigoriev, A. (1846). Petersburg collection. Finskiy Vestnik, 9, section V, pp. 21-30. (In Russ.)
17. Jones, Malcolm V. (1998). Dostoevsky after Bakhtin. Readings in Dostoevsky’s fantastic realism. Translated by A. Skidan. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskiy proekt. (In Russ.)
18. Kantor, V. (2013). Love for the double. Myth and reality of Russian culture. Essays. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)
19. Khapaeva, D. (2010). Nightmare: life and literature. Мoscow: Tekst. (In Russ.)
20. Krista, B. (2002). Semiotic description of disintegrating self in Dostoevsky’s ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’]. In: The 21st century through Dostoevsky’s eyes: prospects of mankind: Proceedings of the International conference held at Chiba University (Japan), 22-25 Aug. 2000. Moscow: Graal, pp. 235-250. (In Russ.)
21. Magidova, M. (2007). Prague collections ‘On Dostoevsky.’ In: М. Magidova, ed., Around Dostoevsky (2 vols). Vol. 1: On Dostoevsky: A collection of papers ed. by A. L. Bem. Moscow: Russkiy put, pp. 9-47. (In Russ.)
22. Miller, K. (1985). Doubles: Studies in literary history. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Mochulsky, K. (1947). Dostoevsky. Life and works. Paris: YMCA-PRESS. (In Russ.)
23. Osipov, N. (2007). ‘The Double. A Petersburg Poem’ [‘Dvoynik. Peterburgskaya poema’] by F. Dostoevsky (Notes of a psychiatrist). In: М. Magidova, ed., Around Dostoevsky (2 vols). Vol. 1: On Dostoevsky: A collection of papers ed. by A. L. Bem. Moscow: Russkiy put, pp. 74-90. (In Russ.)
24. Podoroga, V. (2006). Mimesis. Materials on the analytic anthropology of literature (2 vols). Vol. 1. Moscow: Kulturnaya revolyutsiya, Logos, Logos altera. (In Russ.)
25. Rosenblum, L. (1981). Dostoevsky’s literary diaries. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
26. Shchennikov, G. (2008). Dostoevsky’s ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’] as a creative dialogue with E. T. A. Hoffman. In: K. Stepanyan, ed., Dostoevsky and world culture. Issue 24. St. Petersburg: Serebryaniy vek, pp. 58-65. (In Russ.)
27. Shestov, L. (1996). Dostoevsky and Nietzsche (the philosophy of tragedy). In: L. Shestov, Works (2 vols). Vol. 1. Tomsk: ‘Vodoley,’ pp. 317-464. (In Russ.)
28. Shevyryov, S. (1846). ‘Petersburg Collection’ [‘Peterburgskiy sbornik’] published by N. Nekrasov. Moskvityanin, 2, pp. 163-191. (In Russ.)
29. Vasilieva, M. (2010). The problem of the double in the works of the Prague Seminary for the Study of Dostoevsky: Open space. In: N. Gritsenko, ed., Yearbook of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad, 2010. Moscow: DRZ, pp. 95-106. (In Russ.)
30. Viktorovich, V. (2019). Dostoevsky. The writer who looked into the abyss: 15 lectures for the Magisterium project. Moscow: Rosebud Publishing. (In Russ.)
31. Zakharov, V. (1985). Dostoevsky’s system of genres: typology and poetics. Leningrad: LGU. (In Russ.)
32. Zakharov, V. (2020). The brilliance of ‘The Double’ [‘Dvoynik’]: Why don’t critics understand Dostoevsky? Neizvestniy Dostoevsky, 3, pp. 31-53. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Ryabchinsky N.V. ‘My pre-eminent underground type:’ on disputes around The Double [Dvoynik]. Voprosy literatury. 2025;(4):39-58. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2025-4-39-58
Views:
8
Email this article 
