MARTIN P.

RICE

Dostoevskii's Notes from Underground

and Hegel's "Master and Slave"

: In any case, one c a n n o t find in

Dostoevskii any appreciable traces
1 o f an a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h Hegel.
D. Chizhevskiil1

l It is in Hegel . . . t h a t we
discover a direct and obvious
source o f Raskolnikov's n o t i o n
o f inferior and superior m e n . . . .
P. Rahv2

The quest t o identify the sources o f Dostoevskii's ideas is reflected in the great
health o f secondary literature w r i t t e n since the l a t t e r p a r t o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y .
In these discussions critics f r e q u e n t l y raise t h e q u e s t i o n o f a possible Hegelian influ-
ence u p o n Dostoevskii; a n d one can easily find a d h e r e n t s b o t h for and against such
influence. Most recently this q u e s t i o n has b e e n t r e a t e d in w o r k s b y M. V. J o n e s a n d
a r d Engelberg.3 Professor J o n e s ' article is a sober, well-balanced, critical w o r k
:--hlch, in a d d i t i o n t o surveying t h o r o u g h l y previous considerations o f the p r o b l e m o f
influenced, a t t e m p t s to e x a m i n e " t h e m a t i c echoes o f Hegelian ideas in D o s t o y e v s k y ' s
writing," and t o d r a w s o m e " t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s " concerning Hegel's influence o n
Dostoevskii (p. 505). In discussing the " e c h o e s " o f Hegel in Dostoevskii, Professor
n e s makes the p o i n t t h a t he is using t h e t e r m " e c h o " w i t h " t h e implication o n l y
that there is a coincidence o f ideas the source o f which is o p e n to investigation: i.e.,
that the echo is n o t a historical one so m u c h as an echo in the m i n d o f the c u l t u r e d
reader" (p. 511). It appears t h a t this is a s o u n d a p p r o a c h , for, the q u e s t i o n o f influ-
ence aside, thinking o f Dostoevskii in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Hegel reveals n e w possibilities
u n d e r s t a n d i n g the c o m p l e x ideas c o n t a i n e d in the Russian a u t h o r ' s novels. N o n e

1. G e g e l ' v Rossii (Paris, 1939), p. 321.

196 2� "Dostoevsky in Crime a n d P u n i s h m e n t , " in The M y t h a n d the P o w e r h o u s e (New Y o r k ,
refl 6 ". P' 137. A l t h o u g h Rahv makes a convincing case for his assertion t h a t R a s k o l ' n i k o v is a
tef]ection o f the Hegelian c o n c e p t o f the historic hero, t h a t is, t h e "world-historical individual,"
the b a s i s for his a r g u m e n t rests on a misreading o f Dostoevskii's f a m o u s letter to his b r o t h e r Mik-
tor ■ w r i t e s t h a t Dostoevskii r e q u e s t e d t h a t his b r o t h e r send him Hegel's P h i l o s o p h y of His-
j and it is in the Philosophy of History t h a t Hegel develops his idea o f "welt-historische" indivi-
duals and his t h e o r y o f two types o f men, the c o n c e p t s so clearly echoed by Raskol'nikov. T h e
t o 0 e m , however, is t h a t Dostoevskii did n o t ask for The P h i l o s o p h y of History b u t for The His-
tory of Philosophy.
£ e • 3 . M . V . J o n e s , " S o m e echoes o f Hegel in D o s t o y e v s k y , " T h e S l a v o n i c a n d E a s t E u r o p e a n
Review XIX (1971), 5 0 0 - 5 2 0 ; E d w a r d Engleberg, " S o m e Versions o f Consciousness and Ego-
f a Hegel, D o s t o e v s k y ' s U n d e r g r o u n d Man, a n d Peer G y n t , " in Engleberg, The U n k n o w n Dis-
tance: F r o m Consciousness to Conscience, G o e t h e to Camus (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 8 7 - 1 1 6 .
the less, after remarking o n certain indisputable parallels b e t w e e n m a n y o f Dosto
evskii's major characters and the ideas elaborated b y Hegel, J o n e s states that:

In the final analysis, it is n o t very profitable to pursue such parallels fur-

ther, for t h e differences which suggest themselves are m o r e obvious t h a n
the similarities. N o n e o f D o s t o y e v s k y ' s characters c o n f o r m exactly t o any
o f Hegel's Gestalten. A n d unless D o s t o y e v s k y did actually copy Hegel,
there is no reason t o suppose t h a t t h e y should. In fact, D o s t o y e v s k y m a y
be said to have i n t r o d u c e d new " t y p e s " i n t o world literature, which may 4
indeed share some o f the general psychological p r o b l e m s o f Hegel's types, /i,
b u t are in the event quite distinct manifestations o f h u m a n consciousness.
(pp. 513-514.)

The present article, however, will a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t the quest for such p�'
allels is, to the contrary, quite profitable. Such parallels are extensive e n o u g h for one
to conclude t h a t t h e " m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f h u m a n consciousness" in Dostoevskii's charac-
ters are so similar t o the d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n consciousness as e l a b o r a t e d by Hegel
t h a t - b y considering various aspects o f Dostoevskii's w o r k in the light o f certain
Hegelian p r o p o s i t i o n s - o n e m a y posit a consistent t h e o r y a b o u t one o f Dostoevskii'ss
m o s t abiding p r e o c c u p a t i o n s : the role o f consciousness in spiritual development.
S u p p o r t for this position can be f o u n d in Professor Engleberg's a p p r o a c h to the
problem o f Hegel and Dostoevskii. Engleberg believes t h a t " t h e U n d e r g r o u n d Man
seems to be almost an u n c a n n y personification o f some o f the harshest critiques in The
P h e n o m e n o l o g y " (p. 88). Whereas Engleberg, however, pursues the parallels betweeo
the U n d e r g r o u n d Man and Hegel's " u n h a p p y consciousness" and his critique o f "the
b e a u t i f u l soul," the present article is c o n c e r n e d with Hegel's elaboration o f the
"master-slave" relationship and its reflection in the U n d e r g r o u n d Man's mentality.4

II

Hegel's P h e n o m e n o l o g y o f the M i n d may, in its entirety, be u n d e r s t o o d as des-

cribing the dialectical evolution o f consciousness to absolute Spirit, t h a t is, to absolute
freedom. Because the relationship b e t w e e n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f consciousness and free-
d o m is central t o Dostoevskii as well, it can serve as a c o m m o n g r o u n d u p o n which he
may be a p p r o a c h e d f r o m a Hegelian p o i n t o f view. It is n o t only the fact t h a t the
f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m in the works o f Dostoevskii and in The P h e n o m e n o l o g y is the
same which would seem t o indicate the fruitfulness o f such an. approach; there is a
further essential link c o n t a i n e d in the t h o u g h t processes o f b o t h m e n - t h e dialectic. In
spite o f the fact t h a t we are so aware o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f dialectical t h o u g h t for
Dostoevskii, few serious a t t e m p t s have been made to relate it to Hegel's dialectic. It

4. What seemed to be the final version o f this article was c o m p l e t e d before I discovered
Professor Engleberg's work. I was b o t h pleased at the s u p p o r t his w o r k afforded mine and dip
m a y e d at the fact that he seemed to d r a w a different conclusion from his parallel reading t h e n 1
did. Upon relection, however, it became obvious t h a t o u r interpretations did n o t conflict, rather
they c o m p l e m e n t e d one a n o t h e r and make the case for parallel readings o f the Notes and sections
o f The P h e n o m e n o l o g y even stronger. This is explained in f o o t n o t e 13, below.