杜斯妥也夫斯基短篇小說中的象徵主義

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 杜斯妥也夫斯基短篇小說中的象徵主義. Symbolism in Dostoevsky’s Short Fiction. 指導教授：葉卓爾、狄亞倫 Advisor: Joel Janicki; Aaron Deveson 研究生：李思辰 Sz-Cheng Li. 中華民國一百零六年二月 February 2017.

(2) 摘要本文旨在探討符號如何在杜斯妥也夫斯基的短篇小說中扮演重要的角色，以及符號如何在各作品中建構主題。在杜斯妥也夫斯基的多數作品中，他先知卓見的提出對於社會的批判以及人性的關懷，而這些主題可以從文中充滿豐富象徵意涵的符號(symbol)闡釋而知。本文由符號的角度切入杜式獨特晦澀的各種主題，更以哲學家尼爾遜•古德曼(Nelson Goodman)提出的符號「例示」(exemplification) 特性去討論符號在杜式作品中所象徵的意涵。本文所探討的作品皆為杜斯妥也夫斯基的短篇小說，有《死屋手記》(The House of the Dead)、《地下室手記》(Notes from Underground)、《溫順者》(The Meek One) 關鍵詞：符號、象徵主義、例示. 1.

(3) Abstract This research discusses how symbols function in short fictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) with a focus on three works written in his post-Siberian years: The House of the Dead (1862), Notes from Underground (1864), and The Meek One (1876). Symbols provide unlimited opportunities to examine and re-examine the Russian author’s works with varied dimensions to explore his themes. To understand how the symbol is orchestrated in Dostoevsky’s writing system, Nelson Goodman’s concept of exemplification serves as a cognitive and accessible approach to navigate in the Russian writer’s symbolic world. Keywords: symbol, symbolism, exemplification. 2.

(4) Acknowledgement I would like to thank my two advisors who provided me with great support and insightful guidance during the course of this research. I would also like to show my gratitude to all the reviewers, professors, and classmates who have inspired me with their wisdom.. 3.

(5) Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5-29 Chapter One: Symbolism in The House of the Dead ................................................... 30-44 Chapter Two: Symbolism in Notes from Underground ................................................. 45-61 Chapter Three: Symbolism in The Meek One ................................................................ 62-76 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 77-78 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 79-82. 4.

(6) Introduction Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) exists as one of the most famous names in world literature. As a member of the most masterful and influential writers from Russia’s Golden Age of literature, Dostoevsky transfers his life into works that transcend time and culture profoundly, weaving his psychological, political, social, and religious views into his works. His literary offerings are masterful, profound, and eternal; words composed by the Russian writer are the sum of his extraordinary experiences, leaving a monumental impact not only on Russian literature but world literature as well. Bearing a utopian socialist belief in heart, the young Dostoevsky was connected to a group of radical liberal utopians called the “Petrashevsky Circle”, which was dedicated to social reform in Russia. However, on April 23, 1849, he and other group members were arrested and sentenced to death for attempting to overthrow the state. Fortunately for the twenty-seven-year-old Russian writer, his death sentence was commuted to hard labor in Siberia. Throughout difficult times spent in Siberia, Dostoevsky endured tormenting experiences from which he acquired a critical perspective which drastically transformed his view on life and art. It is an enlightening period of time that helps him develop his technique to probe into the human soul. Works developed in his post-Siberian years are suffused with insightful penetration into the human mind and behavior. Dostoevsky’s attention is essentially anthropocentric. As a realist, he presents man’s unsettled relation with self, society, world, and even the Supreme Being. All of his works reveal an extraordinary caring for people by discussing man’s living, freedom, and suffering in the world. As a prophet for his generation, Dostoevsky constantly 5.

(7) questioned current philosophical movements by demonstrating consequent cases. The young Dostoevsky harbored a socialist utopian belief, envisioning social change that exemplified his ideology. Most examined by critics are the psychological and philosophical themes in his works; however, with his Orthodox Christian faith, Dostoevsky featured numerous religious elements in his works as well. Just like other themes in his work, the problem of faith is consistently tackled and refocused in most of his writings as a cardinal issue for man in his lifelong struggle in the direction of the ideal. Dostoevsky as a Writer of Short Fiction What will be examined in the following chapters are three short fictions written in his post-Siberian years: The House of the Dead (1862), Notes from Underground (1864), and The Meek One (1876). The narrative form of Dostoevsky’s short fiction is highly suggestive due to the economy of such works. The significance of his short fiction lies in the fact that these stories encapsulate great psychological, philosophical, and theological dimensions that account for the idiosyncrasies of this Russian master. The main characters in Dostoevsky’s short stories are mostly prototypical narrator-heroes; they are story-tellers who play relatively dominant roles in revealing the frame of the story. One of the features of the short story in general is that there exists no consensus to define this literary genre. Short fiction resists a fixed genre categorization since its classification is without a set length or a prescribed number of words. According to Handbook of Russian Literature (1985), the Russian term varies in characterizing the idea of “short form” as “povest’”, “rasskaz”, or “novella” (Terras 410). This flexible literary form precisely resonates with Dostoevsky’s standpoint in writing. His 6.

(8) philosophy embraces diversity, multitude and proposes against certainty and absoluteness in language, termed by Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) to be Dostoevsky’s dialogic quality in his famous work Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (1963). Bakhtin argues a key characteristic of Dostoevsky’s works is that nothing is “stabilized” but forever exists in an “unfinalized transition” (Bakhtin 167). This trait of being “unfinalized” corresponds to the definition of short fiction characterized by the lack of agreement among critics.. Dostoevsky as a Proto-Modernist Writer As one of the important literary precursors of modernism, Dostoevsky questions the certainty of thinking based upon logic, reason, and rationalism. As a Russian mastermind and one of the greatest artists of all ages, Dostoevsky not only influences his contemporaries but also numerous writers, thinkers, and critics all over the world. In his writing, he propels a distinctive break from traditional values and proposes a more mystic, irrational, and intangible way to elaborate his ideas. In his writings, Dostoevsky repeatedly calls for re-examination and re-evaluation not merely of the dominant ideology but of aspects of freedom in human existence. His relentless discussion about freedom on physical, mental, social, and spiritual levels with insights makes him a critical figure for Existentialism1. Existentialists chiefly subscribe to Dostoevsky’s discussion on man’s limitation of achieving absolute freedom without responsibility; however, what they shy away from is his belief in the spiritual. 1. For example, Dostoevsky’s works are often quoted by Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) as examples to illustrate his topics like freedom and existential crisis among other issues. Also, Dostoevsky’s uncanny way to shape his outcast anti-hero is influential to Camus (1913-1960), widely known for his recognition of man’s absolute solitude in the world and the absurdity in human experiences. 7.

(9) openness achieved through faith and love as one of the fundamental themes in his fictional works. Dostoevsky is also regarded as a forerunner of Russian Symbolism 2 who heavily features symbols with varied aspects in his fictional narratives, highlighting the connotative, relational, and referential elements in the complex symbolic network. What attracted Russian Symbolists to Dostoevsky are the sensual, mystic, and irrational qualities profuse in all of his fictional works exemplified by the frenzied anti-heroes, illogical accounts, and paradoxical descriptions full of meaning. The symbolic mode in Dostoevsky’s fictions, as in other symbolist poets’ works, is focused on the belief of correspondence between the human mind and the outer world. Nevertheless, the Russian writer’s idea of communication is substantially characterized not only by his philosophical and religious viewpoint but by the historical and socio-political atmosphere of 19th century Russia. Also, Dostoevsky is considered as a precursor of the Russian Formalist movement3 which values the dialogical framework of an artwork. The beliefs of this movement are both diverging and converging without a unified dogma; this “diverging and converging” characteristic is reflected in the inconsistent and contrasting tone of Dostoevsky’s writings. By disrupting the reader’s perception with paradox, he renews. 2. Russian Symbolism is an intellectual and artistic movement as the Russian branch of the literary movement which originated in France. Its florescence in Russia is between 1900 and 1910; it is “a resurgence of idealism and aestheticism” (Terras 460) as a reaction to the long-period dominance of realism and positivism. Besides the French poets in the early 1890s as its predecessors, Dostoevsky stands as an influential literary figure important to this movement due to the irrational and mystic characteristics of his works. 3. Russian Formalism is an influential literary movement from the 1910s to 1930s, which is of great influence not only nationwide but worldwide. The diverging and converging trait results in the rise of modern literary criticism such as structuralism. It stands a crucial presence in modern critical discourse in which “the dialectical thrust of many structuralist studies seems to be directly derived from formalist theorizing” (Terras 154). 8.

(10) the understanding of the mind, the world, and reality itself. Seen in this light, Dostoevsky helps in building the concept held by early Russian Formalists of defining the purpose of art as to make one “see the world anew” by “deepening and refreshing one’s perception of reality” (Terras 152). As a predecessor of the movement, Dostoevsky’s structural technique can be manifested in his use of symbols which build up his fictional microcosm with perplexing but innovative perspectives.. Literary Review－Mikhail Bakhtin Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian literary critic, stands as one of the monumental and influential scholars decoding the methodology used in various literary works. One of the ideas frequently discussed by Bakhtin is “dialogism”, which recognizes the multiplicity of voices and perspectives and discourses interacting in accordance with this dialogical principle. In Bakhtin’s analysis of types of discourse functioning in works, he underlies the dialogicality of words and the diversity of voices. What is also highlighted in novelistic discourse is the rejection of monotone—the unified voice; moreover, unrestricted connections and uninterrupted interrelationships are centralized in the process of discourse. Bakhtin argues that all words form interrelationships with other rejoinders in fictional discourse, bringing the relative attributes within a language into light. Furthermore, Bakhtin extends his analysis of dialogism by bringing up the concept of “heteroglossia”. The term denotes the co-existence of varieties of styles, voices, and perspectives. Simply put, “heteroglossia” stands for “a dialogue of languages” (Bakhtin 294) that governs the functioning of meanings. Bakhtin proposes that heteroglossia defies the dominant interpretation of a text or even the supremacy of the author’s role in a work since it resists the centralization of any form of authority. 9.

(11) Emphasis should not be put upon the author but on the dialogical process and the coexistence of diverse elements. Bakhtin calls attention to “novelistic discourse” (260) as an artistic medium, shedding light on diversity, nuances, and the communicative quality embraced by a novelistic work contesting the traditional narrative form as single discourse mainly controlled by the author. According to Bakhtin, in a novelistic work, the text appears to be a site for distinct perspectives and voices to communicate and interact. The novel therefore becomes a site of heteroglossia. In discourse, ideology and content are unified with a theme in the process. What’s more, discourse interacts and such dialogic interaction of aspects endows the work with style (276). What can be extracted from Bakhtin’s theory is the idea of dialogism. If a novelistic work is a site of discourses, symbols functions by helping elements infer a further range of reference, a broad area of significance. Discourses shared by varied aspects, meanings, perspectives, ideologies, interpretations, and many more elements are profuse in reference. Yet the symbol in a literary work also plays a role as the basis of capture in reference for it is placed “at the service of the idea” (105), not merely helping to clarify the subject but propelling communications by signifying the inexpressible truth. Viewed from this perspective, symbol is used with an aim to point at a meaning beyond all ramifications, nuances, and the multitude. Different from the language regarded by Bakhtin as a social field that cannot relate to the outside world directly, with symbols serving as a portal, symbolic discourse is able to connect and communicate with the external world beyond itself. Correspondence is profuse both inside and outside a symbolic world. For example, a symbol connects the reader’s world with its own. It evokes the reader’s senses by 10.

(12) transforming a wide range of reference into an emblem; it arouses the reader’s sensation by presenting the confluence and divergence of myriad elements. Most importantly, a symbol invites the reader to engage in the dialogue and to contribute to dialogism in a given work. The connection between the two, a symbolic world of the work and an external world of the reader, is bilateral and reciprocal. The interacting process is unceasing, unlimited, and confluent.. How a Symbol Works in Different Layers Psychological Aspect As a great psychologist-philosopher, C. G. Jung (1875-1961) is well-known for his analytical writings on varied interpretations of psychology. He argues that a sign suggests something known yet a symbol stands for things that cease to be precise. According to him, symbols are concretized forms of “archetypes”, the elementary structure shared by the collective unconscious unable to be comprehended. In Symbols of Transformation (1956), he suggests that a symbol is “an indefinite expression with many meanings” (Jung 124) that indicates something not easily defined. However, he values the potential of symbols in pointing to hidden realities, unveiling and interpreting the intrinsic and intricate part of the human mind. Jung’s methodology centers on the human as his focal point of exploration. The same ambition to explore the complex human psyche distinguishes Dostoevsky’s fictional works. By largely featuring symbols in the depiction of his characters, the Russian writer’s keen aspiration of decoding the troubled human psyche earns him acclaim as an influential psychologist. In his literary world, a symbol in essence shares all possible representational elements evoking the truth of human psychology. 11.

(13) Through representation, a symbol indicates an inner microcosm in man that is, in Dostoevsky’s eyes, always restless, perplexing, conflicting, and paradoxical.. Sociological Aspect On the sociological level, a symbol is characterized by its relation with other figurative elements. According to Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist, the understanding of symbol is crucial for understanding society since the symbolic system helps in developing and conveying a culture manifested by society beyond literal language. In other words, culture is symbolically coded so that it can be taught and acquired. Thus, in sociology, the significance of the symbol resides in its role of defining and shaping a culture as a key element that frames a social being. A symbol, through sociological interpretation, is fundamental in distinguishing the character of a group based on its relation to other collectives. Dostoevsky’s fictional works are profuse in relationships. The connotations and ramifications denoted by various symbolic representations not only convey the culture of a group targeted but essentially characterize the style of each work. With the symbol as a connotative emblem reflecting the relation of all elements in Dostoevsky’s bewildering oeuvre, the obscure, complicated, and ambiguous whole of the narrative is relatively easy to access with a focus. The symbolic representations in his writings are highly relational, not only defining the tone of his thematic discussion but working as conditions of all the relations in his work.. Theological Aspect In the theological aspect, each being is in itself or for itself symbolic and in relation to the ultimate symbol of the Holy Spirit. According to Karl Rahner (1904-1984), a 12.

(14) German theologian, in “The Theology of Symbol” in Theological Investigations (1966), all beings are by their nature symbolic since they are symbolically expressive “in order to attain their nature” (Rahner 224). Rahner suggests, as a unity, each being corresponds to his origin that makes him symbolic, in reflection of the totality of the Holy Spirit. Theological interpretation of an artwork centers on the divinity of each component reflecting the ideal being. In Dostoevsky’s fictional works, a symbol exemplifies the confluence or junction connecting with the divine, highlighting the relation of the material world and the spiritual realm, and revealing the sacred nature of every existence and element. The symbol in Dostoevsky’s works is spiritually suggestive, denoting the holy quality in each being as a reflection of the Holy Spirit; his religious work of art stands as an articulation of the unseen sanctity in the present world, disclosing the Russian writer’s religious faith in the ideal as intangible, spiritual, and devotional.. How Symbol Differs from Metaphor and Metonymy Metaphor, metonymy, and symbol are all figures of speech but of dissimilar attributes characterizing the way they depart from literal language. Metaphor, according to A Glossary of Literary Terms (2005), is “a word or expression that in literal usage denotes one kind of thing…applied to a distinctly different kind of thing” (130) without literally addressing the comparison. A metaphor substitutes a concept with another on account of analogous similarity. Metaphor creates the relation by not only marking but expressing the similarity between two things on some elements or aspects by figuratively comparing and equating the two domains. 13.

(15) Different from metaphor which is for substitution, metonymy functions by association. By definition, metonymy is a term “applied to another with which it has become closely associated because of a recurrent relation in common experience” (132). Accordingly, metonymy extends the meaning by contiguity and assumes the relation by reference. The use of metonymy is advantageous in extending the meaning by combining related ideas in the process of association while providing the understanding of its reference. In metonymy, meaning is of the absolute importance to unravel the reference which extends horizontally. However, in case of metonymy and symbol, difference lies in the direction of extension. By definition, symbol suggests “a range of reference” unspecific but beyond itself (394). To analyze further, symbol infers a further range of the symbolized object by pointing to “a direction or a broad area of significance” (395) that is intangible, indefinite, and inexpressible. To put it in another way, the area pointed by the symbol is beyond language and thus is inexpressible by words. What symbolic language does is to point to the meaning beyond all meanings; thus, symbol possesses a visionary and mystified aspect different from metaphor and metonymy for the relation is upwards, indicating the truth in a suggestive and indeterminate manner. Rich in suggestiveness, symbol boundlessly includes all elements making it a symbol; it embraces the implicit, ambiguous, or even opposite rather than rationalizing them. Due to its inclusiveness, symbol embodies assorted dimensions functioning as a focal lens to look into things. In a symbolic world, nothing is in common and what each element shares is togetherness and freedom in interaction; various critics propose alternative interpretations on different levels and in individual realms. The liberty revealed by symbol gives presentation space not only for authors 14.

(16) but for readers to embrace the diversity that contributes to a symbol.. What Symbol Can Do Symbol encompasses varieties and embraces dissimilitude due to its openness in expressing the inexpressible. It suggests the fellowship shared by all elements, including those that are alien, abstract, or adversarial. How a symbol functions in work is by embracing all possible dimensions even if they are non-related or oppositional; the use of symbols is not to fully represent an object but to express what is beyond words, to highlight the concordance of unmerged multiples, and to produce the effects by inferring a further range of suggested but unspecified reference. Each perspective is equally constructive; each element is inseparably fundamental in contributing to the richness of the symbol since the individual, the particular, shapes the integrity of the expression. Symbol therefore gives rise to thoughts and demands response from the reader by transforming variation into an emblem subject to interpretations on different levels. The symbol in an artwork exists as a site welcoming the confluence of multiple perceptions, viewpoints, and renderings; the correspondence of the multitude of elements brings awareness of the interacting process shaping the style of a work. Rich in reference and active in correspondence, symbols thus give latitude in perceiving, understanding, and interpreting which contributes to copious dynamics of a work. Thus, symbols not only constructively encourage examination of every aspect of a work but shed light on the creative essence of the dialoging process that sets the tone of an artwork. Symbol points beyond itself to something higher that gathers the various and 15.

(17) exceeds the communal. By pointing upward, it reveals the creative tension toward this upper realm that serves as not as an end but an inspiration. What the symbol points to is the eternal, an ideal that is beyond all languages, ideologies, and meanings. This spiritual ideal, referred to by the symbol in a suggestive and indirect manner, surpasses opposition, contradiction, and ambiguities. Accordingly, symbol does not intend to represent but to inform the existence of an upper realm, to distinguish an ideal accommodating all, and to guide in the direction of this ideal.. What Symbol Cannot Do First of all, symbols are not able to fully represent reality but only express, exemplify, and epitomize it in an indirect manner. Fundamentally speaking, in terms of conveying meanings, a symbol connotes rather than denotes; it implies rather than indicates. By connoting, the symbol yields opportunities to view things from myriad aspects; however, what the symbol refers to is only parts of the whole. Meaning is circuitously designated according to its relation to the symbol which refers to a general source. Symbols in a literary work thus suggest a direction in a mythical world, evoking definition, image, or any property external to the literary context by association. Symbolization is characterized by its subtlety which fails in achieving the goal of a clear, natural, and original depiction of things. Furthermore, symbols cannot function as keys comprehending the internal elements of a property for they do not intend to address any intrinsic elements and they rely on external properties to connote. In regard to literature, the symbol does not help in enhancing the knowledge of the exclusive context of a work by restricting it to certain criteria; instead, it largely depends upon external elements to connote and the 16.

(18) symbolic converse lies outside of the story. The inherent, conditioned, and exclusive aspect of a literary work cannot be identified by the symbol; nor can it examine the internal workings of a text. Symbols also cannot address the inward direction of meaning for they always point to something else in a figurative way. The character and distinctiveness of a language cannot be defined in process of symbolization owing to the symbol’s outward property. The usage of a literal phrase cannot be registered by the symbol and the literal significance of a term is disregarded in the process of symbolization for the symbol communicates not only beyond language but outside its own exterior. It is hard to appreciate the nature of language with the help of symbols that fail in manifesting the intrinsic value of meanings, always signifying more resting outside the frame of reference.. How Do I Approach Symbol To begin with, the symbolic interpretation of a text presupposes everything is referential. The scope of a symbolic world is indefinite and infinite. In a work, a symbol exists as the confluence of assorted ideas; it functions as a key connecting elements; it plays as a condition of all possible meanings. The relationship of units is correlative; correspondence between concepts is profuse. The significance of this referential world lies in the connectedness and interrelationship of elements. The expressiveness of a symbol resides in the correspondence of all associated elements and this communicating process is of the highest significance for it is of dynamics in variation and interaction. Accordingly, a symbol is essentially incorporated with the intention that helps in unraveling layers of meanings of a work, illuminating a mystified literary microcosm, and prompting the communication of varied 17.

(19) perspectives. A study of symbols thus ranges across broad categories including psychology, religion, society, and other related fields. How symbols bring dynamics to a literary work is by laying out possibilities to view the work from multiple aspects contributing to correspondence of elements. Symbols also embody their purpose by actively participating in the process of communication; consequently, symbols are fulfilled by action rather than by ideas. Symbol involves itself in the communicating process and is subject to changes and flexible interpretations even irrational or oppositional since it transcends logical equations and ideologies by pointing to the meaning beyond. This research targets symbol’s referential and evocative attribute that elicits the response from the reader in topical discussion with the works. The discussion in the following chapters is categorized according to the theme focused in each work and stratified into layers to analyze in support of the main idea. In each chapter, the discussion of each main symbol is bolstered up by the analysis of other contributory symbols enhancing the scope of the discussion and highlighting the communicative characteristics of the symbol. All symbols examined are marked by their constituent feature as well as fluidity in meanings, contributing to the dynamics in communication and richness in discussion.. Exemplification: Goodman’s Theory in Languages of Art Nelson Goodman (1906-1998) is an influential figure in contemporary aesthetics and philosophy. His classic, Languages of Art (1976), details his approach to the theory of symbols on the semantic and cognitive levels, for his approach affirms the referential value of an artwork which contributes to the understanding of reality. What 18.

(20) Goodman provides in this book is a general understanding of symbols and how they function in particular systems. His focus is placed on the types of reference in symbol systems and one of the known types is exemplification, by definition, “possession plus reference” (Goodman 53). In this form of reference, an exemplified object is both possessed and referred to by a symbol. The example given by Goodman is tailor’s swatches as “symbols exemplifying certain properties” that both possess and refer to the cloth. A swatch is doing the work of referring to its property; however, it does not exemplify all its properties but merely some. By Goodman’s analogy with the swatch, a symbol can thus be associated with a sample exemplifying certain properties that it both possesses and refers to. Goodman’s theory highlights the upward relation from “a thing back to a term” (Gaut 676), concluded by Mark Debellis (2005) in his essay in The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. This upward relation underlines the richness of a symbol. Goodman’s concept of exemplification turns an abstract process of symbolization into an applicable one helpful for understanding and description. His theory accentuates the referential and indicative feature of a symbol; yet as an approach “illuminating in all sorts of ways” (Gaut 195), it suffers from a few defects at the same time. As Jenefer Robinson (2005) points out in her analysis, Goodman’s theory has been criticized as being overly schematic, neglecting both the historical context and psychological dimension of an artwork (Gaut 189). His approach denies both historical context and psychological aspect not only of the artwork and the audience but of the creator whose intention is of great importance as well. Also, what has been precluded by his method is the assumption of the universal existing above the particulars. However, Goodman’s method is still advantageous not only in 19.

(21) understanding how a symbol functions in an artwork but also in recognizing an artwork’s distinctiveness by the relations in a symbolic system other than the historical or psychological dimension.. Exemplifying Dostoevsky Dostoevsky is universally known as a master of exploring human psychology. An analysis of his artwork is inseparable from looking into the historical backdrop of the story and the personal background of the author. Numerous studies pay much attention to his achievement as a psychologist whose work is highly reflective of his time. Yet symbolism in his writings is comparatively less targeted as a focal point which holds monumental significance as well.4 Generally speaking, the symbol in Dostoevsky’s works comprises numerous indications sufficient and distinctive in meaning. To understand how the symbol is orchestrated in Dostoevsky’s writing system, Goodman’s concept of exemplification serves as an accessible approach to navigate in the Russian writer’s symbolic world. As Goodman suggests, the property exemplified “depends upon what particular system of symbolization is in effect” (Goodman 53). In regard to Dostoevsky’s scheme, the symbolic system is suggestive and full of tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes, shedding light on the intensity of an artwork; by showcasing his frenzied characters, extreme settings, and drastic happenings on those pages with symbolic portrayal, the author, in each work, tests an idea against reality as the theme of. 4. Many of Dostoevsky’s writings are featured with symbols. Through the use of symbols, his religious and philosophic belief is conveyed and exemplified. For example, the cross connotes redemptive meaning in Crime and Punishment (1866); also, issues such as religious faith and doubt are symbolized in The Idiot (1869) by the painting The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb, a painting created by the German artist Hans Holbein between 1520–22. 20.

(22) discussion. Dostoevsky is a visionary; most contexts in his works that prescribe the symbolized properties are ideal, superior, and paramount. The distance between the real and the ideal is the distance for exemplification, characterized by the relation not only between symbol and reference but between theme and content. The following chapters will explore Dostoevsky’s three post-Siberian short fictions with a focus on symbol, exemplifying certain properties that it both possesses and refers to as the possible answer to the ideological questions raised by the author. Symbols provide unlimited opportunities to examine and re-examine Dostoevsky’s works with varied dimensions to explore his theme and to deduce varied answers to the question asked by pointing to a higher realm. Symbols in his works function as a focal lens, centering on a certain property optically possessed by the lens with all reference running counter to it; every detail captured by the lens is a part to understand the exemplified reality. Every unit exemplified by the symbol is not only a clue to comprehend Dostoevsky’s fictional reality but also a brick to construct a literary universe.. Background and Plot Summary of Three Short Fictions The House of the Dead The House of the Dead (1862) first appeared in Dostoevsky’s journal Time from 1861 to 1862 (Frank 2010: 196). It inherited the literary form of early Russian literature that Gogol and Turgenev used in their works5 as “notes” to represent time,. 5. Both Gogol and Turgenev’s prose frequently conveys a sense of fleeting and the quality of anecdote. This writing technique is also exemplified by Dostoevsky in his choosing to detail the happening in form of notes which reveals a greater sense of immediacy unveiled by a minor narrative. Gogol’s work “The Diary of a Madman” (1835) and Turgenev’s “The Diary of a Superfluous Man” (1850), “A Sportsman’s Sketches” (1852) all adopt “notes” (“zapiski” in Russian) as their narrative form. 21.

(23) duration and process, according to D.S. Likhachev (2014) in The Poetics of Early Russian Literature (Likhachev 294). It incorporates most happenings Dostoevsky witnessed in the Siberian prison camp, in which he spent four years after being convicted for belonging to a circle of conspirators aiming at undermining the state6. In the prison camp, the writer endured foul and harsh conditions of freezing cold weather, food deprivation, and hard labor. What was unveiled by Dostoevsky was the torture undergone not merely by inmates but by himself that transforms him both spiritually and philosophically. Spiritually speaking, Dostoevsky became increasingly devoted to Russian Orthodox belief during and after the years he spent in prison. His spiritual transformation can be observed in his portrayal of suffering as a primary theme in his post-Siberian works. In The House of the Dead, for instance, the convicts suffer in this house of the living dead in order to redeem their guilt and receive revelation about life. On the other hand, it is evident that, after his prison years, Dostoevsky consolidated his belief in the united community led by Russian peasants as the utopia that fulfills the ideal of brotherly love. The need of social transformation stands as the fundamental idea formed in Dostoevsky’s years spent in the Siberian prison camp. Exposed to a wide range of personalities in prison, Dostoevsky observed a variety of dissimilar souls around him. Owing to the growing understanding of different specimens of humanity among his fellow convicts, he is able to recount numerous incidents, experiences, and acute observations of individuals with deep insight. What is expressed in The House of the 6. In 1847, Dostoevsky started participating in the Petrashevsky Circle, a group of intellectuals who shared a utopian socialist belief. However, on April 23, 1849, he and other group members were arrested and sentenced to death later commuted to hard labor in Siberia. 22.

(24) Dead is his “pitying sentimentalism” (Frank 214) towards the lower class; in addition, the Russian writer put forward an urgent need of social transformation in Russia that could only be achieved by the glory of the peasant commune. In The House of the Dead, Dostoevsky provided objective narratives as well as genuine portrayals of several convicts with various backgrounds, most from the lower classes of the Russian population. By portraying these characters essentially, Dostoevsky presented the benign qualities of his fellow inmates7. The work is descriptive as in the suffering of the prisoners, in the savage torture the prison overseers imposed upon them, and in the establishment in which all the deeds, suffering or confrontation took place. The House of the Dead serves as a document recording the convergence of “physical, mental and emotive pressure” he experienced in prison (Frank 197). The pressure, however, helps build up Dostoevsky’s belief as redemption through suffering, a notion frequently addressed in his later works that responds to the question of crime, evil, and affirmation. His new-found belief formed in prison targets the spiritual faith of the common Russian people. For those criminals portrayed, it is the crime they once committed that leads to their suffering. At the same time, their suffering profoundly affirms the process of their transformation for individual betterment. His insight gained during his prison years emphasizes that redemption is possible only through suffering.. 7. Different from the concentrated depiction of the dark side of such characters as Svidrigailov from Crime and Punishment (1866), Nikolai Stavrogin and Peter Verkhovensky, from The Possessed (1871-2), and Smerdyakov from The Brothers Karamazov (1880), his focus on characters in The House of the Dead is more affirmative. 23.

(25) Notes from Underground Four years spent in a Siberian prison drastically transformed Dostoevsky in numerous aspects. While struggling in a remote, harsh, and isolated labor camp in Siberia, Dostoevsky formed ideas later noted in Notes from Underground (1864), demonstrating this great master’s literary, ideological, and spiritual transformation. In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky showcased his keen penetration into man’s existence, morality, and psychology comprised of layers ingeniously reflecting the social-ideological ambivalence of his time. Serving as a watershed in his writing career, Notes from Underground paved the way for Dostoevsky to develop works of deep socio-ideological topics with complex philosophical and psychological dimensions in his later novels, such as Crime and Punishment (1866) and The Possessed (1871-2). Compared to his early work like Poor Folk (1846), his humanistic viewpoint in Notes from Underground is less naïve and sentimental but filled with acrid, satirical, and paradoxical elements. The penetration into the anti-heroic protagonist’s hyperconscious mind is more acute; the sketches of human psyche are illustrated in numerous layers with immense dimension. On the other hand, Dostoevsky had always devoted himself to not only locating but preserving genuine Russian identity. His ideological transformation was aroused by a changing social attitude embracing Western influences among Russian intellectuals. What is clearly displayed in Notes from Underground is the Russian author’s drastic negation of European idealism ridiculed by his solitary, restless, and pathological spokesperson, the underground man. The historical background of Notes from Underground is a Russia that had been 24.

(26) washed over by European influences since the time of Peter the Great’s reign from 1696 to 1725. The narrator’s struggle reflects national ambivalence toward two aspects of Russian culture, a nativist Slavophil culture and a Westernized one, involving a confrontation between philanthropic socialism and rational egoism, pointed out by Joseph Frank (2010) in Dostoevsky: A Writer of His Time. As a satirical persona, the underground man serves as a type whose inert life exemplifies the “impasses resulting from the effects of such influences on the Russian national psyche” (Frank 416). This Western idea of progress, since the 1840s, was taking off in the Russian intellectual community although it was assimilated with a strong sense of skepticism. As a national writer, Dostoevsky’s intent of composing this work generated from his doubt toward the Western European enlightened ideology based upon logic, reason, and rationality. Historically speaking, Russia had been holding an uncertain relation with Europe in terms of politics, culture, and identity for a long time. Exposed to a fair amount of “cultivated” ideas, the Russians generated both adoration for Western values and a strong urge to claim its philosophical independence, like Dostoevsky himself. Notes from Underground does not just aim to expose a general anxiety or to trumpet his personal defiance directly. Rather, Dostoevsky used inverted irony internalized in his anti-hero, the underground man, who serves as his philosophical and psychological mouthpiece. Overcome with his suffering in the Siberian prison camp, Dostoevsky was converted into a refined writer whose style is skillfully enriched and whose perspective is always full of the reminiscence of his past. This work showcases his resolution to locate Russia’s identity separate from Europe while always having regard for the Russian people with his philanthropic mindset.. 25.

(27) The Meek One The Meek One (1876) is a short story subtitled “A Fantastic Story”, capturing an individual with a frenzied, guilt-ridden, and self-justifying frame of mind telling his story in the immediate aftermath of his wife’s suicide. It is a more modulated portrayal of the underground man type of character who also indulges himself in the egoism of suffering by avenging himself on society. The ending to Notes from Underground reveals a strong desire of domination and the stress of leading a life full of sinfulness. What was left in the ending of Notes from Underground has been developed in this short story (Frank 756). What drew Dostoevsky’s interest is the idea of “the humble suicide” (752) he read in a newspaper account. The Meek One originated from the idea of “the girl with the icon” (753) and the main tone is spoken by the husband, a character that strikes a very “Dostoevskian note” (753) in his profession as a pawnbroker who seeks to empower himself through the accumulation of wealth. Dostoevsky deftly created the figure of a usurer to epitomize materialism and egoism resulting from wounded self-esteem. By featuring this self-exiled hero’s material pursuit and lust for power, the author hinted at the devastating consequences of immorality. Obsessed with power and money, this former officer and later a solitary money-lender, by way of running a pawnshop, avenged himself on society and fled from its domain. However, although governing his own shop, he still suffered from pride and negation disclosed in the rest of the story. Told from the husband’s perspective, the confessional narrative reveals a sense of expiation. The pawnbroker revisited recollections of his relationship with a 16-year-old girl who later became his wife out of financial necessity. In the process of confessing, the pawnbroker revealed 26.

(28) his troubled psyche and dishonest characteristics; by means of confession, Dostoevsky, as an author, once again vividly presented the complexity of a human mind. What is also carefully handled by Dostoevsky is the portrayal of the wife through the husband’s eyes. The anti-social narrator is ostensibly scornful yet emotionally attached to a slender, mild, and desperately poor girl who frequented his shop to pledge her belongings. Regarding himself as a savior, the pawnbroker soon proposed to the heroine. In their dysfunctional marriage, he sought to break her will by asserting his full dominance as a way to manifest his bruised ego. Although suffering from the husband’s hegemony, the wife’s true merits still light up the dismal narrative. The combination of the meek wife’s dignity, wisdom and moral excellence disclosed in the self-regarding husband’s telling serves as a threatening force unraveling his revengeful plan and intimidating his amoral being. Committing suicide at the end of the story, the meek wife succumbed to her fate to liberate herself from a dysfunctional marriage and a desperate existence. Her suicidal intent contains the essence of the most sympathetic vision cast by Dostoevsky, endowing this Russian writer with the inspiration to penetrate a meek Russian soul with symbolic significance.. 27.

(29) Outline In the introduction to this thesis, what is presented is an overview of Dostoevsky as a short fiction writer whose proto-modernist view is reflected in his symbolic writings. First brought up is the influence he casted upon numerous philosophers, authors, and critics as an important literary precursors of modernism. Symbolism in Dostoevsky’s works comprises numerous indications sufficient and distinctive in meaning. Different aspects of the way symbol functions are first demonstrated in general and later supported by the numerous symbolic representations in Dostoevsky’s fictional works. Nelson Goodman’s concept “exemplification” serves as a cognitive and accessible approach to navigate in the Russian writer’s intricately symbolic world. In Chapter One, symbolism in Dostoevsky’s very first post-Siberian work, The House of the Dead, is exemplified by the prison as the chapter’s focus. Dostoevsky’s years spent in a Siberian prison camp serve as a focal point of his philosophical and spiritual transformation; thus, the analysis in all chapter centers on his post-Siberian short fictions suffused with insightful penetration through varied symbols. The symbolic nature of the Siberian prison is first characterized by its historical, geological, and cultural significance. In the following paragraphs, the symbolic meanings of this house of the dead are classified by its physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects in analysis. In Chapter Two, what is examined is the symbolism in Notes from Underground, another Dostoevsky’s post-Siberian short fiction serving as the watershed in his writing career. Through his symbolic use of the underground, Dostoevsky keenly penetrates into man’s existence, morality, and psychology comprised of layers ingeniously reflecting the social-ideological ambivalence of his time. Expressed by 28.

(30) the confessional notes from the underground are physical confinement, mental disorder, social estrangement, and spiritual disintegration. A wide range of references unified by the underground are divided into parts to expound on physical, psychological, social, and spiritual levels. In Chapter Three, The Meek One is targeted to be scrutinized with a focus on the predominant symbol in this short story, the icon of the Virgin Mary. By featuring the icon in the narrative, the author manifests his belief in the spectrum of possibilities gathered to be an interpretation of the spiritual truth symbolized by the icon. In The Meek One, Dostoevsky illustrates a higher reality unveiled by the icon with symbolic amplification that sustains the integrity of the work. Viewed from a religious perspective, the Russian writer, as a prophet not only for his contemporaries but for later generations, embeds his religious focus in the icon as a symbol pointing to a higher reality. Last, symbol, the basis of capture and communication of meanings, is concluded as the signifier that transcends logical ideologies in Dostoevsky’s three short fictions. The symbols in three short fictions are fulfilled by actions; and the idea of togetherness shared by all elements corresponds to the communication of all the symbolic representations pointing to a higher reality.. 29.

(31) Chapter One Symbolism in The House of the Dead By featuring a narrator, Aleksandr Petrovitch Gorianchikov to tell the story in The House of the Dead (1862), Dostoevsky created a distance to present a picture of the Siberian dead house subjectively and objectively from various angles reflecting what he had seen in the Siberian prison camp. Aleksandr Petrovitch’s notes are the evidence of his moral restoration and spiritual transformation granting him freedom at the end of the journey. Yet the narrative of The House of the Dead serves as not merely an opportunity to peep inside the Siberian dead house but as a lens to peer into the “kernel” of the Russian peasant class. The work is a spiritual journey for Aleksandr Petrovitch and a psychological, philosophical, and ideological foundation for Dostoevsky in development of complex themes in later works.. The Symbolic Nature of Prison in The House of the Dead In The House of the Dead, prison is an institution depriving a man of his freedom as a form of punishment; it is distinguished by the exercise of power controlled through regulations and laws legitimating the detention of individuals as culturally rightful, state authorized, and socially canonical. In this work, a symbolic interpretation of prison as a space not only of physical torture but of mental suffering should first address the distinctive features of Siberia, a wild land generally seen as a region suggesting desolation due to its vastness and harsh climate. Siberia is geographically estranged from populous cities and possesses a strong feeling opposed to the idea of home; yet owing to its severity and isolation in terms of living conditions and geographical features, on the symbolic plane, prison possesses a 30.

(32) cleansing, renewing, and purifying quality that allows the interpretation of a prisoner’s suffering as a redemptive process. In the narrative, prison stands as a symbolic space in which plentiful ideas, experiences, and perspectives converge. By symbolically characterizing the Siberian prison as a site of confluence, Dostoevsky seemed to suggest his belief that prison, the symbol, transcends equations and oppositions by including all. Moreover, with the depiction of various encounters and incidents which happened in prison, Dostoevsky presented a process not only of a convict’s moral restoration but of an individual’s spiritual transformation that exceeds prison experience but is inseparably connected with the community. By employing an upper-class narrator, Aleksandr Petrovitch, the Russian writer skillfully unveiled the process of the convict’s individual transformation of spirit inseparably connected with the community, mainly his personal evolvement, disclosed by his depiction of individual convicts, various encounters, and monumental incidents taking place in the prison. Siberia, a region of wilderness, is historically associated with nomads and exiles owing to its remoteness. The Siberian prison portrayed in The House of the Dead gives a sense of isolation, abandonment, and deportation as a foreground in view of its historical and geographical location in Russia. However, in “Prison Treatment in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s NOTES FROM THE HOUSE OF THE DEAD and CRIME AND PUNISHMENT”, Antony Johae (2012) argues that the “topographical characteristic” of Siberia exactly mirrors the “hope-for freedom of the convict” (Johae 269). As a Russian writer once in prison and exile for ten years away from home, Dostoevsky “effected an inversion of the literal experience of imprisonment” (269) by transforming the torturing experiences, a purgatory process of four years in a Siberian 31.

(33) labor camp, into a fundamental keynote running through his post-Siberian works－ man must suffer to gain redemption. As a symbol, prison in The House of the Dead exemplifies by giving form to an undefined assortment in this writing that fits forms of novel, novella, and autobiography among others. Seen in this light, prison fulfills its quality as an indicative center, termed by Joseph Frank (2010) as “symbolic accentuation” (369) in his renowned biography. On a national scale, this attention serves a “destined foundation” of Dostoevsky’s developing outlook of a Russian Utopia (383) exemplified by a Siberian prison in which inmates endured physical torture, mental hardship and emotive pressure that transformed the suffering souls by eliciting their moral essence to devote selflessly and thus to form a united community that facilitates the realization of their spiritual revival. It is evident that, after his prison years, Dostoevsky developed and secured his belief in the unity of mankind governed by Christian moral ideals and demonstrated by the Russian commune from which “a new and glorious phase of world history” (383) would begin. Through symbolic penetration, the redemptive quality of prison clarifies the significance of the convict’s daily suffering through which one gains redemption by execution of moral ideals. As John D. Simons (1967) suggested in his essay, “The Nature of Suffering in Schiller and Dostoevsky”, Dostoevsky believed in a “universal guilt” and only “by recognizing the unity of all men” and by becoming aware of universal guilt can the individual comprehend the fundamental value and “supreme importance of suffering” (170) through a selfless, sacrificial, and altruistic love for mankind which enables man to obtain true freedom and spiritual redemption. In this unifying domain of the prison, the suffering of the individual is also the suffering of 32.

(34) the community for he is an inseparable part of the whole. With layers of meaning, four subordinate symbols stand out in a huge quantity supporting prison as the main symbol in The House of the Dead. Fetters, money, the theatricals, and eagle, with Dostoevsky’s excellent technique, play symbolic roles assisting prison as the main symbol on physical, psychological, social, and spiritual levels separately. By using the narrator, Aleksandr Petrovitch, to be his spokesperson recounting days spent in prison from the perspective of a “gentleman”, Dostoevsky skillfully created a critical distance not merely to report assorted happenings in prison but to value individual souls with artistic appreciation. This particular prospect enables the narrative to be profuse, revealing, and introspective with a spectrum of messages encoded in different symbols pointing to prison. The beauty Dostoevsky personally perceived in the prison community is transmitted through a range of reference exemplified by symbols rich in meanings divided into parts by categories in the following.. The Physical Aspect of Prison: Fetters Fetters symbolize the enforced confinement as an apparent and inalterable fact faced by convicts in prison, a space depriving the convict of physical freedom as a form of punishment. Inmates were brought in prison by forces structured higher above themselves like the law or administrative power; they were forced to perform in compliance with rules, discipline, and customs. Fetters serve as a symbol disclosing a strong sense of confinement as one of the tortures among other hardships undergone in prison. As the narrator states on page 146, it is an “established fact” for convicts to wear fetters at all times in prison even when he is severely ill or dying. Convicts were 33.

(35) fully aware of and accustomed to being bound by the chains disfiguring them throughout their prison lives; the physical weight carried by the convicts denotes the psychological burden heavily shouldered by the captive souls as an unaltered fact. Another scene manifests confinement imposed by the fetters was taken place in the bathhouse by which the narrator further reveals this brutal fact of confinement as a form of impediment. The scene discloses, the narrator, Aleksandr Petrovitch, was experiencing a hard time to move in a small, steamy, chaotic, and hellish bathhouse with fetters worn. The weight on his ankles did not make him fall but entirely interfered with his flexibility of movement in the bathhouse. Symbolized by the fetters, confinement did not demolish the convicts but wasted individual’s condition and consumed his soul progressively in the process of suffering in this dead house. The chains yielded the restricted souls not only physical burden but mental torment. Moreover, fetters worn by convicts also serve as a symbol indicating the compelling uniformity of their lives in prison, a “compulsory life in common” (Dostoevsky 1862: 18) unbearable for the souls craving for freedom in expressing individuality. The prison mass was composed of convicts from diverse regions, backgrounds, and upbringings of assorted characteristics, habits, and inclinations. In this hellish space of suffering, however, all prisoners were forced to undergo a detaining, monotonous, and smothering daily life of torment alike. The chains on an inmate’s ankles could not be removed in any case as a physical form of identical confinement regardless of the individual’s condition even if he was seriously ill or dying. Aleksandr Petrovitch, from a moral perspective, questioned the validity of such a system devoid of human sympathy. As he observed, “the retention of fetters” (146) 34.

(36) was merely for the sake of punishment as “a form of degradation, a disgrace, and a physical and moral burden” just like a rigid prison custom without any tolerance for exception. Yet hidden in this humanistic criticism of an “established fact” agreed by all inmates in the dead house is a revelation of a unity in multiplicity bound by incarceration. Lives in the Siberian dead house might be identical in terms of punishment and restraint without exception; however, through his individualizing portraits, the souls the narrator encountered trapped by fetters restrained in prison exemplify their very own distinct characters, particular temperament and various human qualities with moral potentials that unify them as a community in hope of pure freedom, a redemptive life, and “resurrection from the dead” (247) resulting from the process of suffering. With symbolic rendering, prison in The House of the Dead is inevitably perceived as an “otherworld”, a microcosm which holds its own values, manners, and beliefs that transcend social distinction and class stratification. Despite a convict’s high or low social status, everyone was chained by the fetters and underwent the same reality of deprivation of freedom as punishment. Instead of being categorized in accordance with their class, rank, or other distinction ruling the world outside the fence, all convicts were divided “according to the degree of their criminality” (6). In this otherworld, only man’s morality serves as a factor in classification. Enduring the extremely confining experience as “an established fact that could not be altered” (146), everyone distinctive in race, culture, and class was granted an identical chance to liberate himself from moral degradation and to strive for ethical ideals. At the outset, viewed by Aleksandr Petrovitch, the Siberian prison is a gloomy and somber space causing misery and pain; however, suffering in this domain bears a 35.

(37) renewing quality as a purifying process followed by redemption. The fetters bind all prisoners without any lenience regarding to their physical, mental, social, cultural, or religious disparity, suggesting the equality for all to resume, to revive, and to regenerate in the same domain. In this Siberian jailhouse, they all are the dead chained by fetters with their “grim, branded faces” (6) waiting to be set free. The weight of “eight to twelve pounds” (146) on the convict’s ankles is pressure on the mind but also a reminder of the forthcoming resurrection.. The Psychological Aspect of Prison: Money Money serves as a critically symbolic item helping convicts gain a sense of detachment from the current misery undergone in prison. Possession of money was prohibited in prison; nevertheless, convicts risked the chance to be searched or punished to get hold of it. For convicts, money acquired was not just of material value but of mental comfort. As Aleksandr Petrovitch, the narrator, points out on page 14, money “jingling in his pocket” brought a great sense of comfort to the convict. Here, money serves as a tool helping the convict obtain the intangible sense of freedom even if its function as a medium for the exchange of goods is yet to be achieved. The importance of money, symbolically, does not lie in the amount; instead, possession of even the most insignificant amount is viewed by the inmates as a psychological necessity to retain the consciousness of freedom. By identifying freedom with money, the narrator seems to be hinting, the money as money is not of much importance; rather, it is the fulfillment of the inmate’s need to feel free as human instinct. Such a sense of freedom achieved by the possession of money symbolically reflects the sensation of dreaming an infinite, unbridled, and 36.

(38) fathomless freedom on the other side of the fence with “everything sweet and precious” when a prisoner “looks out…from his window” (188). In this dead house, what the inmate craves is not the reasoning of freedom but a strongly perceptual sense of detachment from daily torment. As a symbol, money reflects the convict’s yearning for freedom; however, this item of value incorporates another deeper, psychological dimension considering the explanation of the inmate’s desire to dream about such freedom in varied forms. In the very beginning of the story, money is referred to as “coined liberty” (14) by the narrator, Aleksndr Petrovitch, who highlighted money by its symbolic role played in the dead house; in the narrative, as a symbol of layers, money is diverted from its merely material value and performs as a means penetrating the convict’s subconscious mind. The presumed potentials lie in the convicts’ dissimilar ways to value this “coined liberty” whether as property, power, security, or leverage to gain a distinctive sense of freedom. This individuality rings diversity according to the convict’s myriad ways coping with the convulsion of emotive pressure, physical torture, and prolonged frustration faced in prison. The definition of money thus expands widely based on an individual interpretation to fulfill their psychological need; yet the freedom imagined by convicts is the only factor unifying all variations, reflecting the dynamics of possession. One example disclosing such dynamics is that a particular convict tended to spend “all his fortune carousing with noise and music” in order “to forget his depression” (32). Another executed his “coined liberty” (14) by buying foods and drinks on his nameday and ate “like an ox” (32) but alone. Others attained their sensation of feeling free by getting new clothes which they “paraded through all the 37.

(39) prison wards” as if exhibiting their liberty. All the sensations in spending in assorted ways all stemmed from a pure craving for freedom symbolized by money. Moreover, money symbolizes the convict’s fervent wish not only for freedom but for self-preservation, self-affirmation and self-expression. Seen from a symbolical perspective in psychology, the possession of money could be identified with the convict’s protection of ego. Life in prison easily fell into “the common tone” (9) under law and order; even the ones who used to be “the terror of whole villages” bowed to the custom and “fell in with the general tone” sacrificing their individuality. Prison is ruled as a space in which nothing is, and should not be, unexpected; not a single soul in this domain is allowed to be exceptional. In response to this, according to Aleksandr Petrovitch, a desire to “assert his crushed personality” (66) was frequently on the convict’s mind and by possessing money could the person demonstrate his essential quality and temperament different from others. Money as a symbol suggests a variation of cravings, possibilities, or choices which could be made with it. As the narrator indicated, one could choose to purchase alcohol, prohibited items, or even a woman with money (65) as long as it would fulfill one’s wish to mark his distinctive feature in choosing. If they could not have obtained money of their own, convicts would have gone “out of the minds” or even “resorted to incredible violence” (65) for there was no way to assert their distinctiveness as beings and satisfy their need to feel free.. The Social Aspect of Prison: The Theatricals The theatricals symbolize the exemplification of an ideal society united by selfless love as a threshold of transcendence. In the scene of the theatricals, the 38.

(40) narrator truly understands and identifies with the peasant convicts who possess moral instincts and the ability to form a harmonious community by love and communion. Fundamentally, the theatricals signify a process of acting, creating, and imagining, thereby inviting interpretation from different perspectives. In its essence, theater defies reason as the primary method to perceive, decipher, and interpret; thus the comprehension should not be restrained by social order, rule, or class distinction. Demonstrated in the narration is a change in the convict’s attitude from hostility to amiability in making way for Aleksandr Petrovitch, a gentleman who used to “belong to the same class as their former masters” (125) at the theatricals, not out of scornfulness but “a sense of their own dignity” (126). In such an atmosphere brought about by the theatricals, these “sullen, envious, dreadfully vain, boastful people” (9) were able to assimilate others by spirit instead of rank or other outer values. The respect was mutual. According to Aleksandr Petrovitch’s observation, those of higher rank like the sergeants did not oppose the convicts and did not allow any disturbance of the convicts during the holidays owing to their own gratitude for the theatricals (120). Everyone treated each other with understanding and with dignity. Under the convict’s “superimposed husk” (126) was the “kernel” manifesting their moral potential. The theatricals denote a revelatory moment in which Aleksandr Petrovitch, Dostoevsky’s spokesman, was struck not only by their inner value but by the great potential to be the ideal community exemplified Christian moral ideals of brotherhood and loving others like oneself. The sense of communion fully reveals itself in the convict’s collaboration in the arrangement of the theatricals in which they attain mutual understanding and respect. First of all, the settings were comprised of items provided by different ranks; the 39.

(41) ten-foot curtain was made not merely by pieces of linen collected from the convicts but by pieces of paper from the offices. The texture of the curtain was a combination of lower and higher class beautifully painted and decorated by convicts who used to be painters (124). In the narrative, Aleksandr Petrovitch also indicated a strong sense of togetherness by his phrasing. For example, the word “everyone” frequently used by him gives out the “oneness” of this community especially in the course of performance. “Everyone was rocking with laughter” (128) when they watched funny scenes; while the curtain dropped, “everyone laugh[ed]” and was “delighted” (132) with the orchestration of the melodious interlude played before the next scene. The term “everyone” strikes a note of intimacy through feelings shared and experiences partaken by individuals; the closeness was both physically and spiritually felt in a packed room where all were united with the sensations from the theatricals (127). This unique form of communion was sensed by Aleksandr Petrovitch in his observation of Aley, a close associate in prison. Upon watching Aley’s expression of enjoying the performance, the narrator felt delight in relishing the amusement not only from the stage but from his comrade’s joy. This blissful moment was shared by another convict “who was always scowling, discontent, and grumbling” (128), yet now responds to his comrade’s happiness with a half-smile. The joy of love, respect, and harmony were all materialized in the communion experience symbolized by the theatricals. Most importantly, in the theatricals, the kernel of a true Russian spirit was unfolded and characterized by its underlying harmony figuratively revealed by the Russian dance songs a band played before the scenes. Through the peasant’s simple but “individual, original and typical” (127) rendering, the narrator realized the 40.

(42) cheerfulness and exuberance of the Russian soul disclosed by a band comprised of convicts and musicians outside. Even though the instruments were “scraped,” “wretched,” and of poor quality, the skills and liveliness demonstrated by the players outshone the shoddy instruments and brought out the soul of the Russian traditional dance songs. As the narrator depicted, the “sounds of bustle and hurrying” and the “innumerable jangling and whispering notes” (127) were blended together as a harmony of sounds. To interpret symbolically, the blending of tunes denotes a sense of togetherness shared by the prison community and exemplifies an achievable integration of all Russians outside this dead house. In the Siberian prison, the Russian writer seemed to suggest, although belonging to different classes, positions, or backgrounds with various characteristics, qualities, or beliefs, the assorted Russian souls are of great potential to form an ideal community in harmony with individual voices heard, once the outer husk of individuals was removed and their essence was shown. With the local players’ rendering could he appreciate the liveliness and happiness of the Russian songs composed of “the blending and harmony of sounds” (127) as its core value. On the same plane, for Dostoevsky, the peasant convicts’ demonstration of their true spirit enabled him to restore his confidence in Russia and the world with a national outlook.. The Spiritual Aspect of Prison: The Eagle According to Aleksandr Petrovitch’s observation, the eagle was a wounded, mistrustful, and solitary being recuperating in prison and waiting for resurgence. Symbolically, the eagle serves as an embodiment of all convicts who would be 41.

(43) revived by their prison experience through moral restoration. In fact, the convicts and the eagle share similar features from which they noted a kindred resemblance. First, the eagle was brought into the prison injured without any details of its past or the reason caused its injury revealed. Likewise, the “bygone days” (8) and nature of the crimes bringing them into this Siberian dead house was rarely disclosed by the convicts directly; only gradually could the narrator learn the convict’s stories. Besides, based on first impressions, most convicts were described as “genuinely strong characters” who obtained an “aggressive conceit” (9) in reflection of their traits. Correspondingly, the eagle’s pride and ferocious instinct registers aspects possessed by the same wounded souls. When the eagle faced an attack from a pet dog, it reacted with vigorous defense with its beak, retreating to its place (205) just like the inmates protecting themselves with fierceness when threatened. Even when it received attention from the crowd, the bird acted aggressively not only by looking fiercely but with its beak open (205) to protest its ego and protect its wounded being. They were all disfigured being deprived of freedom to soar high; thus, both convict and eagle tended to carry themselves with a sense of spitefulness driven by hatred, always being “prepared for battle” (206) as a way to survive in this dead house. Confronting the curious crowd of convicts, however, the eagle displayed its majesty by retaining its self-possession and natural integrity. Its vigorous air and keen persistence denote a resilient demeanor upheld by perseverance in the three months spent in prison that gains the bird defenseless authority “like a wounded king at the inquisitive crowd who came to stare” (205) at it. Although being unfriendly and even sometimes antagonistic, the eagle was well recognized by the convicts subconsciously as a moral model. Despite the fact that the convicts were growing tired of the bird, 42.

(44) their fondness revealed in the attendance on this “wounded king” who received “pieces of fresh meat” and had “a pot of water near” (205). Compared to other prison pets cooked or skinned in the end, the eagle was well taken care of and treated with respect by the inmates. Its first and last appearance in prison attracted “prisoners [who] crowded round,” causing a sensation in the dead house in which all witnessed the bird’s recovery. With respect and affection earned, the eagle was remembered fondly by the convicts and further inspired moral qualities in them who felt sympathetic and agreed to set it free (206). “Let him die if he must, but not in prison,” the convicts said. Hidden in this meaningful sentence was not only a wish to release their “dead” souls from the Siberian prison but a pure faith in a life beyond prison. Expressed by the convicts was a genuine goodwill developed in the process of suffering. Revived from suffering, the eagle attained freedom by “fluttering [its] injured wing” (206) without even casting a last glance at the prison or the people. What struck them with admiration was not only “the head flitting through the grass” but the liberation suggested by the eagle now revived and able to fly away from the dead house. However, on a national scale, the revival of the eagle also symbolizes the resurgence of Russia after hundred years of struggle in terms of class. Recognized by its fierce, forceful, and resilient traits, the country survived numerous foreign invasions, civil wars, national crises, and revolutions. Prison, on a national level, thus could be viewed as an emblem denoting the country’s calamitous history in which the lower class suffered from oppression imposed by the ruling upper class. The crippled eagle symbolizes Russia’s disfigured state due to class distinction and hierarchical structures restricting social mobility and thus subjecting the peasants and working 43.