The Concept of Hidden Polemic in Two Editions of Bakhtin’s Work on Dostoevsky

ABSTRACT

This article is the result of a comparative analysis of two editions of Bakhtin’s work: Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation, first published in 1929, and Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, revised and published in 1963. The objective is to compare how the two editions present the concept of hidden polemic focusing on the forms in which the other’s discourse is present. The methodology relies on a Bakhtinian analysis of the novella Notes from Underground (1864) by Fyodor Dostoevsky, in particular, the linguistic-discursive formation of the hidden polemic. In what ways do the alterations in the second edition contribute to new insights regarding the polemic? Results point to the existence of preservations and changes that clarify the importance of the concept of polemic for the analysis of the other’s discourse in literary discourses, and also discourses in social circulation.

KEYWORDS:
Hidden polemic; Other’s discourse; Alterity; Dostoevsky; Underground Man

RESUMO

Este artigo é o resultado de uma análise comparativa entre as duas edições da obra de Mikhail Bakhtin: Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski, primeira edição, em 1929, e Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski, revista e publicada em 1963. O objetivo é estabelecer uma comparação do conceito de polêmica velada presente nesses livros, com foco nas formas de presença do discurso do outro. A metodologia é partir da análise bakhtiniana da novela Memórias do subsolo (1864), de Fiódor Dostoiévski, em especial quanto à formulação linguístico-discursiva de polêmica velada. Em que medida as alterações presentes na segunda edição contribuem para novos esclarecimentos da polêmica? Os resultados apontam a existência de mudanças e de permanências, o que permite esclarecer a importância central do conceito de polêmica para a análise do discurso alheio nos discursos literários e também nos discursos de circulação social.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Polêmica velada; Discurso alheio; Alteridade; Dostoiévski; O homem do subsolo

His various redactions of the Dostoevsky books, covering a period of over forty tumultuous years, make clear that Bakhtin learned well the polyphonic lessons of the figure he chose as his authority […] Bakhtin pleads for the superiority of a dialogic approach to literature and life over a monologic approach, but he does so in different voices and by different arguments.

Katherine Clark and Michael Holquist ¹

Notes from the Underground, more than all of Dostoevsky’s other works – except for perhaps The Grand Inquisitor –, is responsible for this situation. It gives one the impression the text presents direct testimony of Dostoevsky-the-ideologue. This is where we must begin if we want to read Dostoevsky today.

Tzvetan Todorov ²

Initial Remarks

Mikhail Bakhtin’s important study about Dostoevsky occupies a special place in literary, linguistic, cultural and epistemological studies as it allows us to think about culture as a response to social questions and knowledge development issues.³ Since the release of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation (1929),⁴ at the beginning of Bakhtin’s career, 34 years had passed before the language philosopher, at the height of his career, presented his revised and expanded edition, entitled, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (1963).⁵ In 1981, Brazilian readers gained access to this latter edition through Paulo Bezerra’s translation directly from the Russian original. Revisions to the translation of the first 1963 edition were published by the same translator in 2008 and in 2010. The translation from Russian of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation (1929) is underway by professors Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Américo.

The objective of this article is to compare the concept of hidden polemic present in the 1929 and 1963 editions.⁶ To this end, we take up the analysis developed by Bakhtin regarding the various discursive procedures of this concept and, particularly, the monologue of Notes from Underground ([1864] 2004),⁷ following the Bakhtinian study on overt and hidden polemic among the Underground Man and the writers as well as the opinions and the philosophy of his time. The narrator-hero, without a name, performs a type of confession from the underground of human pain and adds to his narrative the voice of I-other. The story takes place in the city of St. Petersburg in the Czarist Russian of the 19^th century. According to the critic Schnaiderman, “the underground of the hero, that ‘paradoxicalist’ and ‘anti-hero’, as the writer himself described him, constitutes the peak of ‘groundlessness’ on which a good part of Russian society was living” (1983, p.31).⁸ The character is constructed in the clash with the other’s discourse, with his interlocutors, at times intimate, at others despised.

To understand what in the two editions was added and what was preserved regarding the concept of polemic, the article is organized in three sections: the first recovers the sequence of chapters in both the 1929 and the 1963 editions, focusing on issues related to the other’s reflected discourse, in particular the concept of hidden polemic; the second looks at the Bakhtinian analysis of the literary and the human discourse in Notes from Underground to understand hidden polemic, not as a category set a priori, but as a discourse reflected from the other, preserving the comparative study of the editions; and finally, the third examines alterations and preservations in both editions without aiming at a stylistic analysis of the texts by Dostoevsky, since this would hinder the comparison between translations in two different languages, Italian and Portuguese, not the original works in Russian.

1 Comparing the Editions

Reading Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation (1929/1997) enables the identification of differences in the revised edition, as various studies have indicated. The American researchers, Morson and Emerson, point out that: “Compared with the later redaction, then, the 1929 volume is a learner study, more oriented toward the prosaic word” (1990, p.85).⁹ The first edition presents a sociological angle, and the second a dialogical one, as well as some suppressions and substantial additions. Bubnova also highlights some of the differences between the two editions:

The 1963 book has a structure distinct from its 1929 prototype; the ‘sociological’ phraseology, very ad hoc to the ideological demands of the time in which the book was written, was considerably cut out; a new, extensive chapter was added (IV), which describes the origins of the dialogical novella (2012, p.39).¹⁰

Remembering the context in which this book was produced, Brait explains:

The epoch of development, publication, and reception of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation must be thought of as a long and complex period, involving intellectual, and artistic effervescence, simultaneously, political, intellectual and religious stances that were subject to harsh punishment: Bakhtin was imprisoned in 1928 (2009, p.50).¹¹

From this brief contextualization, provided by some Bakhtinian scholars, we move on to present the arrival of both editions to the West, specifically, the translations, the structure of the works to underscore what was preserved and what was changed in the focus of the work. So far, the first edition (1929) has only one Italian translation by the researcher Margherita De Michiel, published in 1997,¹² whereas the second edition (1963) has been translated to many languages: Italian, by Giuseppe Garritano (Einaudi, Torino), in 1968/(2002); two French translations appeared in the 1970s, one by Isabelle Kolitcheff (Seuil, Paris) and another by Guy Verret (L’âge d’Homme, Lausanne, Switzerland); two English translations, one by R. William Rotsel in 197, and another by Caryl Emerson in 1984 (2006) (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis); Spanish, translated by Tatiana Bubnova, in 1986, in Mexico (Cultural, Economic Fund of Mexico).

Then, we start comparing the structure of these works by the prefaces. In the 1929 edition, Bakhtin explains the focus on Dostoevsky’s prose and on the methodology: “At the basis of our analysis lies the conviction that every literary work is internally and immanently sociological. Within it living social forces intersect; each element of its form is permeated with living social evaluations” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.276 [1929]).¹³

Next, the table of contents of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation is divided into two parts: “Dostoevsky’s Polyphonic Novel” (Outline of the Problem), and “The Word in Dostoevsky” (Essay on Stylistics); each part is subdivided into four chapters. In Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, the table of contents was reorganized in five chapters, with modifications and additions to the text.

As for the chapters, the first chapter of the 1929 edition is called “The Fundamental Peculiarity of Dostoevsky’s Work and its Focus on Literary Criticism” (32p.),¹⁴ which conveys Bakhtin’s theoretical proposal without mentioning the narrative of Notes from Underground. In the first chapter of the 1963 translation, entitled “Dostoevsky’s Polyphonic Novel and its Treatment in Critical Literature” (48p.) (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.5 [1963]),¹⁵ the discussion revolves around the polyphonic novel. According to the notes of the Italian translator, De Michiel (1997, p.124, note 52), Bakhtin resumes the proposition of the literary critic Boris Engelhardt about Dostoevsky’s ideological novel and discusses it with a mention to Notes from Underground:

Every thought of Dostoevsky’s heroes (the Underground Man, Raskolnikov, Ivan, and others) senses itself to be from the very beginning a rejoinder in an unfinalized dialogue. Such thought is not impelled toward a well-rounded, finalized, systemically monologic whole. It lives a tense life on the borders of someone else's thought, someone else's consciousness. It is oriented toward an event in its own special way and is inseparable from a person” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.32 [1963]).¹⁶

In the end of the chapter, fourteen pages were added to update the critique of Dostoevsky’s work from the 30s to the 40s. Bakhtin gives voice to various critics to defend that “Dostoevsky had the capacity to auscultate dialogical relationships everywhere, in all manifestations of conscious and rational human life; for him, the dialogue begins where the conscience begins” (BAKHTIN, 2015a, p.47).¹⁷ Next, he revisits critics from the 1950s through works that favor predominantly historical-literary and historical-sociological analyses. He pays special attention to the two texts in which dialogical relations are present: Pro and Contra. Remarks on Dostoevsky (1957), by Victor Shklovsky, and The Artist Dostoevsky (1959), by Leonid Grossman.¹⁸

Shklovsky explains the dialogic nature of Dostoevsky’s novelistic structure and the concept of polemic: “It is not only the heroes who quarrel in Dostoevsky, but separate elements in the development of the plot seem to contradict one another: facts are decoded in different ways, the psychology of the characters is self-contradictory; the form is a result of the essence.” (BAKHTIN, 1984 [1963], p.40).¹⁹ The Russian writer, Grossman explains the musical principle of polyphony drawn from music and cites Notes from underground:

This makes it possible to decode the brief but highly significant reference Dostoevsky made in a letter to his brother on the subject of the forthcoming publication of "Notes from Underground" in the Journal Time-. "The tale is divided into three chapters . . .The first chapter is perhaps one-and-a-half printer's sheets in length […] You know what a modulation is in music. […] The tale is built on the principle of artistic counterpoint. The psychological torment of the fallen girl in the second chapter corresponds to the insult received by her tormentor in the first, but at the same time, because of its meekness, its refusal to answer back in kind, her torment contradicts his feeling of wounded and embittered self-love. This is indeed point versus point (punctum contra punctum). These are different voices singing variously on a single theme (BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.41-42 [1963]).²⁰

Given Grossman’s observations, the language philosopher adds: “for Dostoevsky everything in life was dialogue, that is, dialogic opposition.” (BAKHTIN, 1984 [1963], p.42).²¹

In the second chapter of both editions, Bakhtin refers to the consciousness of the self, of the world of the Underground Man, and to what others think of the world; preserving the text from the earlier version in the later edition.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition 22 Chapter 2 The Hero in Dostoevsky (14p.) Chapter 2 The Hero, and the Position of the Author with Regard to the Hero, in Dostoevsky’s Art23 (34p.) The hero from the underground listens to every word others say about him, almost as if he were looking in all the mirrors of the consciousness of others, knowing all the possible refractions of his own image in them; he also knows his own objective definition, neutral, both with respect to the consciousness of the other and with respect to his self-consciousness, taking into account the point of view of a “third” party (BACHTIN, 1997, p.138).24 The hero from the underground eavesdrops on every word someone else says about him, he looks at himself, as it were, in all the mirrors of other people's consciousnesses, he knows all the possible refractions of his image in those mirrors. And he also knows his own objective definition, neutral both to the other's consciousness and to his own self-consciousness, and he takes into account the point of view of a “third person.” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.53 [1963]).25

1929 Edition	1963 Edition 22
Chapter 2 The Hero in Dostoevsky (14p.)	Chapter 2 The Hero, and the Position of the Author with Regard to the Hero, in Dostoevsky’s Art23 (34p.)
The hero from the underground listens to every word others say about him, almost as if he were looking in all the mirrors of the consciousness of others, knowing all the possible refractions of his own image in them; he also knows his own objective definition, neutral, both with respect to the consciousness of the other and with respect to his self-consciousness, taking into account the point of view of a “third” party (BACHTIN, 1997, p.138).24	The hero from the underground eavesdrops on every word someone else says about him, he looks at himself, as it were, in all the mirrors of other people's consciousnesses, he knows all the possible refractions of his image in those mirrors. And he also knows his own objective definition, neutral both to the other's consciousness and to his own self-consciousness, and he takes into account the point of view of a “third person.” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.53 [1963]).25

In this second chapter of the 1963 edition, there are seven additional pages that deal with the internal incompleteness of the man, with the non-coincidence with himself. Bakhtin reiterates how the hero in Dostoevsky tends always to split the frame of the other’s words, which define and complete him. He considers the Underground Man “the first hero-ideologist in Dostoevsky's work.” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.59 [1963]),²⁶ thus creating controversy among the socialists, since he defended the freedom of men and the possibility of breaking with imposed laws.

The title of the third chapter and the text are the same in the two editions with a focus on the hero in Dostoevsky and on the relationship of the fundamental open-endedness of many narratives. It exemplifies the way in which the Underground Man engages with the world, because he is deeply self-conscious and because of the rigid relationships that dominated the social system of the 19^th century Russia, turning him into an ideologue.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition 27 Chapter 3 The idea in Dostoevsky (15p.) Chapter 3 The idea in Dostoevsky 28 (26p.) Dostoevsky’s hero is not only a word about himself and his intimate circle, it is also a word about the world: he is not only a conscious being, he is an ideologue. The “underground man,” is already an ideologue, but the ideological creation of the characters reaches full meaning in the novels [...] This is why the word about the world fuses with the confessional word about oneself. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.149).29 Dostoevsky's hero is not only a discourse about himself and his immediate environment, but also a discourse about the world; he is not only cognizant, but an ideologist as well. The “Underground Man” is already an ideologist. But the ideological creativity of Dostoevsky's characters reaches full significance only in the novels […] Thus, discourse about the world merges with confessional discourse about oneself. (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.78 [1963])30

1929 Edition	1963 Edition 27
Chapter 3 The idea in Dostoevsky (15p.)	Chapter 3 The idea in Dostoevsky 28 (26p.)
Dostoevsky’s hero is not only a word about himself and his intimate circle, it is also a word about the world: he is not only a conscious being, he is an ideologue. The “underground man,” is already an ideologue, but the ideological creation of the characters reaches full meaning in the novels [...] This is why the word about the world fuses with the confessional word about oneself. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.149).29	Dostoevsky's hero is not only a discourse about himself and his immediate environment, but also a discourse about the world; he is not only cognizant, but an ideologist as well. The “Underground Man” is already an ideologist. But the ideological creativity of Dostoevsky's characters reaches full significance only in the novels […] Thus, discourse about the world merges with confessional discourse about oneself. (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.78 [1963])30

As the analysis progresses, Bakhtin explains the articulation of the polemic to the Dostoevskian narrative and claims that syntactic constructions are a manifestation of language with strong polemical coloration. In Notes from Underground, in Chapter 3 of the first part, for example, the narrator uses quotation marks and repeats the expression “two and two are four” to stand against the scientific discourse, establishing polemic with the positivism of the time. The idea is to produce another meaning, to attack rationalism.

“For pity’s sake,” they’ll shout at you, “you can’t rebel: it’s two times two is four! Nature doesn’t ask your permission; it doesn’t care about your wishes, or whether you like its laws or not. You’re obliged to accept it as it is, and consequently all its results as well. And so a wall is indeed a wall … etc., etc.” My God, but what do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic if for some reason these laws and two times two is four are not to my liking? (DOSTOEVSKY, 2004, p.13).³¹

Moving forward in the 1929 edition, the reader finds about 11 pages, in Chapter 4, entitled “Function of the adventure plot in Dostoevsky’s works.” Here, the focus is on the functions of the plot and, in the first paragraph, Bakhtin explains that the principles of the connection between the consciousnesses and the voices of the heroes do not fit within the limits of the plot, so they are approached in the second part of the book.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition 32 Chapter 4 Function of the adventure plot in Dostoevsky’s works33 (11p.) Chapter 4 Characteristics of Genre and Plot Composition in Dostoevsky’s Works34 (91p.)

1929 Edition	1963 Edition 32
Chapter 4 Function of the adventure plot in Dostoevsky’s works33 (11p.)	Chapter 4 Characteristics of Genre and Plot Composition in Dostoevsky’s Works34 (91p.)

In the 1963 edition, Chapter 4 was substantially rewritten with the addition of 90 pages and an extensive analysis of the traditions of genre in the development of the European artistic prose to which Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novel is connected. Bakhtin adds some of Dostoevsky’s works and resumes Notes from Underground as a narrative that is “constructed as a diatribe (a conversation with an absent interlocutor)” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.154 [1963]).³⁵ He also observes that this novella is filled with overt polemic, that is, directed to the refutable discourse of the other, as well as with hidden polemic, directed to a common object but attacking, indirectly, the other’s discourse, therefore coming into conflict with it through the object itself. They present essential traces of confession.

2 Notes from Underground and the Hidden Polemic

The concept of hidden polemic is present in both editions, which we compare to identify the preservations and additions to the text. In the 1929 edition, the second part is entitled “The word in Dostoevsky (Essay on Stylistic)”³⁶ and subdivided into four section, whereas, in the 1963, edition this part is found in Chapter 5 under the title, “Discourse in Dostoevsky.”³⁷ Morson and Emerson state about the original 1929 edition: “First and most important, we note that the book in its original form gives proportionately a much larger emphasis to prose discourse typology than does the 1963 edition. Not only is the word poetics absent from the title and table of contents, but the word prosaic is present” (1990, p.85).³⁸

In the 1929 edition, Chapter 1 of the second part “Types of prosaic word. The word in Dostoevsky” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.185)³⁹ analyzes the stylistic importance of the twofold direction of the other’s discourse. In the 1963 edition, there were some changes, still much was preserved. The chapter “Discourse in Dostoevsky” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.181 [1963])⁴⁰ is organized in four sections, encompassing the four chapters of the second part in the 1929 edition. At the beginning of this chapter, Bakhtin adds an important introduction, subtitled “A few preliminary remarks on methodology” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.181 [1963]),⁴¹ establishing his position in relation to the dialogical discourse.

In the two editions, Bakhtin presents the typology of the discourse in prose and identifies the double-voiced discourse of a singular direction that expresses the intentions of the author without refracting upon the other’s discourse (monological discourses), the double-voiced discourse of twofold direction and the active type or the reflected discourse of the other, in which the word of the other influences the author’s discourse from outside to within. The internal hidden polemic is among the forms of the active type as an active form of dialogism. The polemic is constructed in the confrontation with the words of others that are imposed upon the author, demanding modifications in the structure and in the trajectory of the text.⁴² In any case, the author’s discourse is tense, ambivalent and brings two accents, as it maintains both its own presence and that of the other. The other’s discourse directs the narrator’s discourse not only in regard to the content, but to the syntactic forms and to expressions such as repetition or constant reformulation of the same expression.

According to Bakhtin, the polemic discourse is extremely widespread in everyday life, in the moments when the aim is to be hostile toward the other’s discourse and the “jabs” and the “stabs” are incorporated into the discourse. Also, the notion of the overt discourse is expanded when another's discourse is faced as if at its own referential object and which is refuted, therefore not penetrating one’s discourse. It is a discourse about another’s discourse. Undoubtedly, the more detailed analysis concerns the concept of the hidden polemic in Dostoevsky’s literary discourse, in which narrators of autobiographies and confessions structure their discourses in polemic ways.

The scheme that summarizes the notion of the double-voiced discourse is present in both editions (BACHTIN, 1997, pp.205-206/BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.195-196 [1963]).⁴³ In reference to the active type, the most complex discourse, the language philosopher grants the other’s discourse a direction, such as the internal hidden discourse as well as the polemically reflected double dialogue, hidden dialogue, autobiography and confession. Bakhtin explains his understanding of the hidden polemic:

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 1 of the second part Types of Prosaic Words. The Word in Dostoevsky (29p.) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section i. Types of Prose Discourse. Discourse in Dostoevsky44 (27p.) In the hidden polemic, the authorial discourse is directed, as all other discourses, to the object itself, but in this each affirmation about the object is constructed from the way that, besides its object meaning, the others’ discourse on the same theme is attacked polemically, the other’s statement about the same object. A word directed at its object confronts, in the object itself, the other’s discourse. The other’s discourse in itself is not reproduced, it is only implied: but the internal structure of the discourse would be absolutely another, if it did not have this reaction to the other’s word that is implied [...] The polemical hue of the discourse appears in other solely language features as well: intonation and syntactic construction. (BACHTIN, 1997, pp.200-201).45 In a hidden polemic the author's discourse is directed toward its own referential object, as is any other discourse, but at the same time every statement about the object is constructed in such a way that, apart from its referential meaning, a polemical blow is struck at the other's discourse on the same theme, at the other's statement about the same object. A word, directed toward its referential object, clashes with another’s word within the very object itself. The other’s discourse is not itself reproduced, it is merely implied [...] The polemical coloration of the discourse appears in other purely language features as well: in intonation and syntactic construction (BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.195-196 [1963]).46

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 1 of the second part Types of Prosaic Words. The Word in Dostoevsky (29p.)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section i. Types of Prose Discourse. Discourse in Dostoevsky44 (27p.)
In the hidden polemic, the authorial discourse is directed, as all other discourses, to the object itself, but in this each affirmation about the object is constructed from the way that, besides its object meaning, the others’ discourse on the same theme is attacked polemically, the other’s statement about the same object. A word directed at its object confronts, in the object itself, the other’s discourse. The other’s discourse in itself is not reproduced, it is only implied: but the internal structure of the discourse would be absolutely another, if it did not have this reaction to the other’s word that is implied [...] The polemical hue of the discourse appears in other solely language features as well: intonation and syntactic construction. (BACHTIN, 1997, pp.200-201).45	In a hidden polemic the author's discourse is directed toward its own referential object, as is any other discourse, but at the same time every statement about the object is constructed in such a way that, apart from its referential meaning, a polemical blow is struck at the other's discourse on the same theme, at the other's statement about the same object. A word, directed toward its referential object, clashes with another’s word within the very object itself. The other’s discourse is not itself reproduced, it is merely implied [...] The polemical coloration of the discourse appears in other purely language features as well: in intonation and syntactic construction (BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.195-196 [1963]).46

As Tezza (2003, p.239) argues, the framework of types of discourse proposed by Bakhtin is not an abstraction, but open to a detailed stylistic analysis of Dostoevsky’s texts, in which the concepts of internal hidden polemic and polemically reflected double dialogue, hidden dialogue, autobiography confession are elaborated in the following chapter.

Let us consider two aspects: the extensive Bakhtinian analysis of the other’s discourse in Notes from Underground and the concept of hidden polemic in both editions of Bakhtin’s work. Among many examples highlighted by Bakhtin, we begin with the different polemics of the Underground Man present in chapter one of the second part of the novella, entitled, “Apropos of the Wet Snow” (DOSTOEVSKY, 2004, p.37).⁴⁷ On the one hand, the narrator knows he is a ridiculous subject, and, on the other hand, he desires the admiration of others. Feeling anguished, he seeks to isolate himself in his underworld, and refuses to identify as part of the “flock” in which he lives. In the streets and at work, he polemicizes with the other’s discourse, that is with his work colleagues, his superiors, ultimately, with the ideology of his time.

I was also afraid to the point of illness of being ridiculous, and therefore slavishly worshiped routine in everything to do with externals; I loved falling into the common rut

and feared any eccentricity in myself with all my soul. But how could I hold out? I was morbidly developed, as a man of our time ought to be developed. And they were all dull-witted and as like one another as a flock of sheep. Perhaps to me alone in the whole office did it constantly seem that I was a coward and a slave; it seemed so to me precisely because I was developed (DOSTOEVSKY, 2004, pp.40-41).⁴⁸

Following the exposition of Chapter 2 in the 1929 edition and of section 2 of the 1963 edition, Bakhtin recovers yet another discourse of the Underground Man, directed to the imbeciles, scoundrels, respectable and perfumed grey-haired elders. His suffering relates to his awareness of his unhappiness and to the awareness that there is something better in life, but that it is unreachable. There is a cynical polemic with the notes on human nature, which is frightening, and which he sees out of the corner of his eye through a crack of the underground.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41p.) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section 2: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels49 (40p.) “To live more than forty years is inconvenient, vulgar, immoral! Who lives more than 40 years? Answer me that, sincerely, honestly. I’ll tell you who: imbeciles and rapscallions, none other. And I will say this to their faces, those respectable elderly gents, with their silver crowns, and all perfumed! I’ll say all of it, to the whole world’s face. I have the right to say these things, because, for my part, I shall live to be sixty. To sixty, I shall live! ... Wait! Let me catch my breath for a moment [...]’’ (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245).50 To live longer than forty years is bad manners; it is vulgar, immoral. Who does live beyond forty? Answer that, sincerely and honestly. I will tell you who: fools and worthless people do. I tell all old men that to their face, all those re- spectacle old men, all those silver-haired and reverend old men! I tell the whole world that to its face. I have a right to say so, for I'll go on living to sixty myself. I'll live till seventy! Till eighty! Wait, let me catch my breath. [SS IV, 135; “Notes,” Part One, 1] (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.228 [1963]).51

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41p.)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section 2: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels49 (40p.)
“To live more than forty years is inconvenient, vulgar, immoral! Who lives more than 40 years? Answer me that, sincerely, honestly. I’ll tell you who: imbeciles and rapscallions, none other. And I will say this to their faces, those respectable elderly gents, with their silver crowns, and all perfumed! I’ll say all of it, to the whole world’s face. I have the right to say these things, because, for my part, I shall live to be sixty. To sixty, I shall live! ... Wait! Let me catch my breath for a moment [...]’’ (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245).50	To live longer than forty years is bad manners; it is vulgar, immoral. Who does live beyond forty? Answer that, sincerely and honestly. I will tell you who: fools and worthless people do. I tell all old men that to their face, all those re- spectacle old men, all those silver-haired and reverend old men! I tell the whole world that to its face. I have a right to say so, for I'll go on living to sixty myself. I'll live till seventy! Till eighty! Wait, let me catch my breath. [SS IV, 135; “Notes,” Part One, 1] (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.228 [1963]).51

In this section, Bakhtin analyzes the protagonist’s discourse in this first chapter of Notes from Underground, presenting intonations as markers of hidden polemic. He highlights, however, that the interlocutor is invisibly present. The gradient of the negative tone in the excerpt conveys the polemical discourses in the lexical repetition (forty, sixty, seventy, eighty) whereas the use of exclamation point, question mark, and ellipses expose the other’s discourse. This characterization presents the marks of anticipation of the other’s reaction, of the polemical attack against the respectable elders. It emphasizes the narrator’s conclusion through the anticipation of the other’s response, the gentlemen who despise him, nonetheless, he sustains himself on his intellectual superiority:

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (p.41) Chapter 5 Discourse in DostoevskY Section 2: “The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels” (p.204)52 ‘Certainly, you gentlemen, are thinking that I wanted to make you laugh, am I right? Well, even in that you are wrong. I really am not that fun type that you think me, or perhaps believe I am; and, on the other hand, if you all, annoyed as you are by all of my chattering (precisely, because, I sense you are annoyed), you had an idea to ask me who I am exactly, I then would respond that I am a college counselor. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245).53 No doubt you think, gentlemen, that I want to amuse you. You are mistaken in that, too. I am not at all such a merry person as you imagine, or as you may imagine; however, if irritated by all this babble (and I can feel that you are irritated) you decide to ask me just who I am—then my answer is, I am a certain low-ranked civil servant. (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.229).54

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2	The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (p.41) Chapter 5 Discourse in DostoevskY Section 2: “The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels” (p.204)52
‘Certainly, you gentlemen, are thinking that I wanted to make you laugh, am I right? Well, even in that you are wrong. I really am not that fun type that you think me, or perhaps believe I am; and, on the other hand, if you all, annoyed as you are by all of my chattering (precisely, because, I sense you are annoyed), you had an idea to ask me who I am exactly, I then would respond that I am a college counselor. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245).53	No doubt you think, gentlemen, that I want to amuse you. You are mistaken in that, too. I am not at all such a merry person as you imagine, or as you may imagine; however, if irritated by all this babble (and I can feel that you are irritated) you decide to ask me just who I am—then my answer is, I am a certain low-ranked civil servant. (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.229).54

From this perspective, the word of the narrator is related to the other’s discourse. At the beginning of the second chapter of the novella, another discursive procedure is employed by the author: the anticipated response, similar to the hidden polemic, as highlighted by Bakhtin.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (p.41) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section 2: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (p.204)55 I bet you are thinking I write all this out of flamboyance, or to be upbeat at the expense of men of actions, and that always, for love of flamboyance of bad taste, I also am clinking my sword, like that of my officer. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.246).56 I’ll bet you think I’m writing all this out of swagger, to be witty at the expense of active figures, and swagger of a bad tone besides, rattling my sabre like my officer (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.229 [1963]).57

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (p.41)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section 2: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (p.204)55
I bet you are thinking I write all this out of flamboyance, or to be upbeat at the expense of men of actions, and that always, for love of flamboyance of bad taste, I also am clinking my sword, like that of my officer. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.246).56	I’ll bet you think I’m writing all this out of swagger, to be witty at the expense of active figures, and swagger of a bad tone besides, rattling my sabre like my officer (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.229 [1963]).57

In both editions, Bakhtin maintains the same analysis, showing that the narrator provokes contradictory reactions in the reader and anticipates the other’s reaction to make him laugh and, at the same time, to establish irony. In this trajectory, the analysis focuses on the discursive-stylistic phenomenon of anticipating the other’s responses as a “sui generis” structural peculiarity. The aim is that the hero sustains the final word, since he fears they will come to think that in facing the other he either regrets or asks for forgiveness, however this fear shows his own dependence.

According to Bakhtin, the Underground Man’s suffering originates from his total awareness and from his walking in circles: to humiliate or to destroy the other as a way to recover his self-love, albeit unsuccessfully. Thus, “thanks to this relation with the consciousness of the other an original perpetuum mobile of the internal polemic of the hero is obtained with the other and himself, an endless dialogue in which a double generates another, the other generates a third in perpetual motion” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.247; BAKHTIN, 2015, p.266; BAKHTIN, 1984, p.230[1963]).⁵⁸ The example from Notes from Underground, selected especially for the analysis, was taken from Chapter 2 of part 2, and materializes the dialogical oppositions with no way out, opening to no door.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41p.) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (40p.) You will say that it is vulgar and low to put all of this on display [the hero’s dream, M.B.] as if I were at the open market, after all the states of drunkenness and tears to which I confessed just now. But why low, gentlemen? [...] (BACHTIN, 1997, p.247).59 You will say that it is vulgar and base to drag all this [the hero's dreaming — M. B.] into public after all the tears and raptures I have myself admitted. But why is it base? Can you imagine that I am ashamed of it all, and that it was stupider than anything in your life, gentlemen? (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.228 [1963])60

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41p.)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (40p.)
You will say that it is vulgar and low to put all of this on display [the hero’s dream, M.B.] as if I were at the open market, after all the states of drunkenness and tears to which I confessed just now. But why low, gentlemen? [...] (BACHTIN, 1997, p.247).59	You will say that it is vulgar and base to drag all this [the hero's dreaming — M. B.] into public after all the tears and raptures I have myself admitted. But why is it base? Can you imagine that I am ashamed of it all, and that it was stupider than anything in your life, gentlemen? (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.228 [1963])60

The way in which the protagonist situates himself in the delicate situation of one who is dialoguing/polemicizing with the other, the way he defends himself, proves, in fact, that he depends on the other. However, it is an accounting of affections and hate in which the hidden polemic is the example of how the protagonist becomes at times impious, and cruel to his readers, even to himself (dialogized self-consciousness).

The protagonist’s consciousness shows this “perpetuum mobile,” a resource that generates an interminable dialogue, in which a response always begets another. In the 1963, North American version, Emerson recovers a footnote from the Russian original, in which Bakhtin refers to this circle of dialogue: “This can be explained by the generic similarities between Notes from Underground and Menippean satire” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.268 [1963]).⁶¹

Bakhtin also cites some examples that convey human suffering. Among them, the narrator’s toothache over the span of an entire month, and, simultaneously, the pleasure he felt in feeling the pain. Here, attention is necessary to understand how much this comment reflects the extremely polemical internal discourse.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41 p.) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels” (40p.) Yes, exactly thus, I steal your tranquility, I torment your soul, I don’t let anyone in the house sleep. And this precisely because you shouldn’t sleep, but only feel also, at every moment, that I have a toothache. Now, for you all, I am no longer that hero that I tried to seem to be before, but simply a little coward, a chenapan. So be it! I am really happy you finally understand. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.249)62 [...] It seems I am troubling you, I am lacerating your hearts, I am keeping everyone in the house awake. Well, stay awake then, you, too, feel every minute that I have a toothache. I am no longer the hero to you now that I tried to appear before, but simply a nasty person, a scoundrel. Well, let it be that way, then! I am very glad that you see through me. [...] (BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.231- 232 [1963]).63

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41 p.)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels” (40p.)
Yes, exactly thus, I steal your tranquility, I torment your soul, I don’t let anyone in the house sleep. And this precisely because you shouldn’t sleep, but only feel also, at every moment, that I have a toothache. Now, for you all, I am no longer that hero that I tried to seem to be before, but simply a little coward, a chenapan. So be it! I am really happy you finally understand. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.249)62	[...] It seems I am troubling you, I am lacerating your hearts, I am keeping everyone in the house awake. Well, stay awake then, you, too, feel every minute that I have a toothache. I am no longer the hero to you now that I tried to appear before, but simply a nasty person, a scoundrel. Well, let it be that way, then! I am very glad that you see through me. [...] (BAKHTIN, 1984, pp.231- 232 [1963]).63

Dostoevsky adds to the process of the Underground Man’s consciousness and discourse another linguistic-discursive resource, the evasive, reserved to change the final and definite meaning of his discourse. According to Bakhtin, if the discourse displays this evasion, this must be reflected fatally in its structure:

This potential other meaning, that is, the loophole left open, accompanies the word like a shadow [...] For example, the confessional self-definition with a loophole (the most widespread form in Dostoevsky) is, judging by its meaning, an ultimate word about oneself, a final definition of oneself, but in fact it is forever taking into account internally the responsive, contrary evaluation of oneself made by another (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.233 [1963]).⁶⁴

The analysis observes a cyclical process, which unfolds and deepens in the confession with examples of dialogue with various interlocutors, treated with great respect in the use of the formal “you” – “vós” in Portuguese –, at the same time that the readers and he himself are mocked, all confronted relentlessly until the end. In the following excerpt, the mark of the interlocutor as a shadow, absent presence, is indicated by Bakhtin with the use of italics.

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41 p.) Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (40p.) [...] I triumphed over everything and everyone, obviously, they were reduced to ashes [...] Everyone cried and kissed me (or they would have been true fools), and I walked, barefoot and starving, preaching new ideas and tore down the retrograde in Austerlitz (BACHTIN, 1997, p.251).65 I, for instance, was triumphant over everyone; everyone, of course, lay in the dust and was forced to recognize my superiority [...] Everyone would weep and kiss me (what idiots they would be if they did not), while I would go barefoot and hungry preaching new ideas and fighting a victorious Austerlitz against the reactionaries. [SS IV, 181; “Notes” Part Two, ch. II] (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.233 [1963]).66

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Chapter 2 The Monologic Discourse of the Hero and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Shorter Fiction (41 p.)	Chapter 5 Discourse in Dostoevsky Section ii: The Hero’s Monologic Discourse and Narrational Discourse in Dostoevsky’s Short Novels (40p.)
[...] I triumphed over everything and everyone, obviously, they were reduced to ashes [...] Everyone cried and kissed me (or they would have been true fools), and I walked, barefoot and starving, preaching new ideas and tore down the retrograde in Austerlitz (BACHTIN, 1997, p.251).65	I, for instance, was triumphant over everyone; everyone, of course, lay in the dust and was forced to recognize my superiority [...] Everyone would weep and kiss me (what idiots they would be if they did not), while I would go barefoot and hungry preaching new ideas and fighting a victorious Austerlitz against the reactionaries. [SS IV, 181; “Notes” Part Two, ch. II] (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.233 [1963]).66

Bakhtin argues that the materiality of the polemic is indicated at the end of the narrative, in which the narrator refuses to continue writing his memoirs. The protagonist returns to face himself with an accountability of hate, before himself and the other, polemicizing not only the people, but other’s ideologies, and his own thought. Bakhtin states that “This polemic with the other on the subject of himself is complicated in “Notes from Underground” by his polemic with the other on the subject of the world and society. The underground hero […] is an ideologist” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.236 [1963]).⁶⁷

The characterization of the other’s discourse and the concept of hidden polemic appear in Chapter 4, “Dialogue in Dostoevsky” (23p.), of the 1929 edition, and is preserved in the 1963 edition under the same name in Chapter 5 “Discourse in Dostoevsky.” Bakhtin dedicates a chapter/section to analyze the types for the other’s discourse in Notes from Underground, particularly, the other’s anticipatable response, internal dialogue and internal polemic.

To understand these discourses, the language philosopher examines an example of the cruelty and perhaps of the greatest pain in the relationship between the Underground Man and Liza, a prostitute, who had fallen in love with him and who goes after him in his apartment. In light of the man’s pain, she feels compassion for him and understands him. But, in his fear of loving her, he humiliates and abuses her, since he is not capable of accepting the compassion of that young woman. The polemic thus instated concerns the human nature: “The Underground Man remains in his inescapable opposition to the ‘other person’” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.254 [1963]).⁶⁸

1929 Edition 1963 Edition Part II- Chapter 4 Dialogue in Dostoevsky (2p.) Chapter 5 Section 4: Dialogue in Dostoevsky (18p.) Also, the tears now are scarce, those tears of the poor bashful woman who, before you, could not contain herself: even for her, I would never forgive you! And for what I confess to you now, I shall never forgive you!” This was how he yelled during his confession to the girl who loved him. “But do you understand or not, that now that I said these things I will hate you because you were here listening to me?” [...] (BACHTIN, 1997, p.283. Trad. SANTORO, E., 2019).69 And I will never forgive you for the tears I could not help shedding before you just now, like some silly old woman put to shame. And for what I am confessing to you now I shall never forgive you either!" he shouts, during his confession to the girl who has fallen in love with him. Do you understand how I will hate you now after saying this, for having been here and listening? [...]” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.253 [1963]).70

1929 Edition	1963 Edition
Part II- Chapter 4 Dialogue in Dostoevsky (2p.)	Chapter 5 Section 4: Dialogue in Dostoevsky (18p.)
Also, the tears now are scarce, those tears of the poor bashful woman who, before you, could not contain herself: even for her, I would never forgive you! And for what I confess to you now, I shall never forgive you!” This was how he yelled during his confession to the girl who loved him. “But do you understand or not, that now that I said these things I will hate you because you were here listening to me?” [...] (BACHTIN, 1997, p.283. Trad. SANTORO, E., 2019).69	And I will never forgive you for the tears I could not help shedding before you just now, like some silly old woman put to shame. And for what I am confessing to you now I shall never forgive you either!" he shouts, during his confession to the girl who has fallen in love with him. Do you understand how I will hate you now after saying this, for having been here and listening? [...]” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.253 [1963]).70

Final Remarks

The importance of reading and rereading the 1929 edition Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation, focusing on the concept of hidden polemic and comparing it to the 1963 edition to indicate preservations, suppressions and additions, casts light on the concept of hidden polemic, not only as a discursive modality that unfolds in the internal discourse, originated in the outside and present in the hero’s consciousness, but as an approach that is expanded by the additions to the text, and makes it possible to understand the presence of the polemical discourse in the different spheres of social life in which it circulates.

Concerning the additions to Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 1963, mostly in Discourse in Dostoevsky (Chapter 5), there is a change in conception: Bakhtin focuses on Dostoevsky’s poetics. When Bakhtin analyses Dostoevsky’s narratives, he focuses on the other’s discourse, including hidden polemic, evasive, forewarnings, which are marks of a privileged space of evaluative procedures.

Reading Notes from the Underground through Bakhtinian lenses challenges the views of the traditional world and manifests in the confrontation of ideas, discussing the concept of hidden internal polemic not as a linguistic device but discursive-linguistic. Also, the notes to the Italian translation allow us to understand the re-elaboration of the double-voiced discourse in Problems of Dostoevsky’s Art and the essential additions to the notion of ideological nature. The notion of Metalinguistic appears only in 1963:

Stylistics must be based not only, and even not as much, on linguistics as on metalinguistics, which studies the word not in a system of language and not in a "text" excised from dialogic interaction, but precisely within the sphere of dialogic interaction itself, that is, in that sphere where discourse lives an authentic life (BAKHTIN, 1984[1963], p.202).⁷¹

This formulation replaces the sociological reasoning of the 1929 edition which was suppressed in the revised edition, hence we recover the 1929 excerpt: “The problem of discourse orientation to the other’s word is of the greatest sociological importance. Discourse is by nature social” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.210).⁷² There is the systematic effacement of sociological traces in the 1963 edition which can be seen in the replacements made in that same passage: from “basic problems of discourse sociology” (1997, p.211 [1929])⁷³ to “metalinguistics study” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.181 [1963]);⁷⁴ “a certain social group” (1997, p.211)⁷⁵ is reformulated to “a given epoch” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.202 [1963]);⁷⁶ “social situation” becomes “historical situations”; the expression “paramount importance for the sociology of the artistic discourse” (1997, p.212)⁷⁷ is turned into “paramount importance for the study of artistic discourse” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.203 [1963]).⁷⁸ De Michiel writes on a footnote that the Bakhtinian equivalence between the two editions is clear from a distance: the “social” becomes “dialogical” so that the linguistic, which splits the surrounding reality also chances (1997, p.210).

Finally, the Bakhtinian vision of the polemic, based on the concept of the other’s discourse, is radically related to the literary discourse and to human social life. So much so, that the change in the 1963 edition is related to the perspective of a science of language, in other words, Metalinguistics. Grillo (2013) and Souza (2002) outline an important trajectory for the construction of Metalinguistics as a science of language, and comment on the privilege of the double-voiced discourse. On this issue, I conclude with Souza’s remarks on the confrontation of the two editions:

The coexistence of this sociological angle with the dialogical angle and the inversion of the category of the dialogue from the second linguistic plane to the first led Bakhtin to his own creation of a new science of language whose objects are precisely the dialogical relations in dialogical communication of “man with man,” of the “utterance in the utterance” (SOUZA, 2002, p.7)⁷⁹

Notes

• 1
  CLARK, K.; HOLQUIST, M. Bakhtin. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990.
• 2
  In French: “Les Notes d’un souterrain sont, plus que tout autre écrit de Dostoïevski — sauf peut-être la Légende du Grand Inquisiteur —, responsables de cette situation. On a eu l’impression, en lisant ce texte, de disposer d’un témoignage direct de Dostoïevski-l’idéologue. C’est donc par lui aussi que nous devons commencer si nous voulons lire Dostoïevski aujourd’hui. ” TODOROV, T. Les Genres du discours. Paris: Seuil, 1978, p.237.
• 3
  This article is aligned with the thematic axis proposed by the organization of the International Colloquium 90 years of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creation (1929-2019), held between November 26th to the 28th at Universidade de São Paulo.
• 4
  While there is no English translation of this 1929 edition, all translations of the 1929 version in this article are either from the Portuguese, which is provided in footnotes, or, when possible, from the 1963 version translated by Emerson in 1984, which includes fragments of the 1929 version in the Appendix. For references see footnote 5.
• 5
  BAKHTIN, M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Translated by Caryl Emerson. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1984.
• 6
  Regarding this issue, various articles by Brait are revealing: Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski e estudos da linguagem – Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics and language studies (2009, pp.45-72); Quem disse o quê? Polifonia e heterogeneidade em coro dialógico”- Who said what? Polyphony and heterogeneity in dialogic chorus (2010, pp.37-55); Alteridade, dialogismo, heterogeneidade: nem sempre o outro é o mesmo – Alterity, dialogism, heterogeneity: the other is not always the one (2001, pp.7-25); and an article co-authored with Machado, O encontro privilegiado entre Bakhtin e Dostoiévski num subsolo – The privileged encounter between Bakhtin and Dostoevsky underground (2011, pp.24-43).
• 7
  Translator’s Note: There are various translations of this work from the Russian into English. Although the translation by Constance Garnett (1918) is the second oldest and, until recently the most widely read for its excellence, the version we will be citing from is the more current one, which is considered to be improved: DOSTOEVSKY, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Everyman’s Library: UK, 2004. Emerson, however, uses the Constant Garnett’s translation for direct quotes from Notes from the Underground, but since the author references these excerpts from the source of Bakhtin, the reference for page numbers will be to Emerson’s translation of Bakhtin.
• 8
  In Portuguese: “o subsolo do personagem, aquele ‘paradoxalista’ e ‘anti-herói’, conforme o próprio escritor o definiu, constitui o clímax do ‘desligamento do solo’, em que vivia boa parte da sociedade russa” (1983, p.31).
• 9
  MORSON, Gary Saul; EMERSON, Caryl. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1990, p.85.
• 10
  In Portuguese: “o livro de 1963 tem uma estrutura distinta de seu protótipo de 1929; a fraseologia ‘sociológica’ muito ad hoc às exigências ideológicas do momento em que foi escrito o livro, se recortou consideravelmente; agregou-se um novo capítulo, extenso (o IV), que descreve as origens da novela dialógica (2012, p.39).”
• 11
  In Portuguese: “A época de elaboração, publicação e recepção de Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski deve ser pensada como um longo e complexo período que envolve efervescência intelectual, artística e, ao mesmo tempo, posicionamentos políticos, intelectuais e religiosos sujeitos a duras penas: Bakhtin foi preso em 1928 (2009, p.50).”
• 12
  The Brazilian translation presented in this article relied on the Italian version: BACHTIN, M. M. Problemi dell’opera di Dostoevskij. Trad. M. de Michiel e A. Ponzio. Bari: Edizioni dal Sud, 1997. The PhD Professor Elisabetta Santoro from the Departamento de Letras Modernas da Universidade de São Paulo [Department of Modern Languages at Universidade de São Paulo], translated it especially for the development of this research.
• 13
  For references, see footnotes 4 and 5.
• 14
  In Portuguese: “The Fundamental peculiarity of Dostoevsky’s work and its focus on literary criticism”
• 15
  For references, see footnote 5.
• 16
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.32.
• 17
  For reference, see footnote 6, p.47.
• 18
  Leonid Grossman, “Dostoiévski – khudójni,” in Tvórtchestvo F. M. Dostoiévskovo (Works of F. M. Dostoevsky, Moscow, 1959). In Portuguese: CHKLOVSKI, Victor. “Prós e contras: Notas sobre Dostoiévski” (1957); GROSSMAN, Leonid. Dostoiévski Artista (1959).
• 19
  In Portuguese: “Não só as personagens polemizam em Dostoiévski, os elementos isolados do desenvolvimento do enredo estão de certa maneira, em recíproca contradição: os fatos são diversamente interpretados” (BAKHTIN, 2015a, pp.46-47)
• 20
  For reference, see footnote 5, pp.41-42.
• 21
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.42.
• 22
  For reference, see footnote 5.
• 23
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.47.
• 24
  In Italian: “L'eroe del sottosuolo tende l'orecchio a ogni parola altrui su se stesso, quasi si guardasse in tutti gli specchi delle coscienze altrui, conosce tutte le possibili rifrazioni in essi della propria immagine; egli conosce anche la propria definizione oggettiva, neutrale tanto rispetto a una coscienza altrui che alia propria autocoscienza, tiene conto del punto di vista di un ‘terzo’” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.138). In Portuguese: “O herói do subsolo estende o ouvido para cada palavra alheia sobre ele mesmo, quase como se se olhasse em todos os espelhos das consciências alheias, conhece todas as possíveis refrações de sua própria imagem neles; ele conhece também sua própria definição objetiva, neutra, tanto a respeito da consciência do outro quanto a respeito da sua autoconsciência, leva em conta o ponto de vista de um ‘terceiro’” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.138. Trad. SANTORO, E., 2019).
• 25
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.53.
• 26
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.59.
• 27
  For reference, see footnote 5.
• 28
  For reference, see footnote 6, p.78.
• 29
  In Italian: “L'eroe di Dostoevskij non è solo parola su se stesso e sulla sua cerchia più intima, è anche parola sul mondo: egli non è solo cosciente, egli è un ideologo. Ideologo è già l'“uomo dal sottosuolo”, ma la creazione ideologica dei personaggi raggiunge pienezza di significato nei romanzi; l'idea qui, davvero, diviene quasi eroina dell'opera. [...] Per questo la parola sul mondo si fonde con la parola confessoria su se stessi” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.149). In Portuguese: “O herói de Dostoiévski não é apenas uma palavra sobre si mesmo e seu círculo íntimo, ele também é uma palavra sobre o mundo: ele não é apenas um ser consciente, é um ideólogo. O "homem do subsolo" já é um ideólogo, mas a criação ideológica dos personagens atinge plenitude de significado nos romances [...] É por isso que a palavra sobre o mundo se funde com a palavra confissão sobre si mesmo” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.149. Trad. SANTORO, E., 2019).
• 30
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.78
• 31
  For reference, see footnote 8, p.13
• 32
  For reference, see footnote 5.
• 33
  Title in Italian: Le funzioni dell’intreccio d’avventure nelle opere di Dostoevskij; Title in Portuguese: Função do enredo de aventura nas obras de Dostoiévski.
• 34
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.101.
• 35
  For reference, see footnote 34, p.154.
• 36
  In Portuguese: A palavra em Dostoiévski (Ensaio em Estilística).
• 37
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.181.
• 38
  MORSON, Gary Saul; EMERSON, Carly. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford Universtiy Press, Stanford, 1990, p.85.
• 39
  In Portuguese: Tipos de palavra prosaica. A palavra em Dostoiévski (BACHTIN, 1997, p.185).
• 40
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.181.
• 41
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.181.
• 42
  For reference, see footnote 39.
• 43
  For reference, see footnote 6, pp.195-196.
• 44
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.181.
• 45
  In Italian: “Nella polemica nascosta la parola autoriale è diretta, come ogni altra parola, verso il proprio oggetto, ma in ciò ogni affermazione sull'oggetto si costruisce in modo tale che oltre al suo significato oggettuale si attacchi polemicamente la parola altrui su quello stesso tema, l'affermazione altrui su quello stesso oggetto. La parola diretta sul suo oggetto si scontra nell'oggetto stesso con la parola altrui. La parola altrui in se stessa non viene riprodotta, essa è solo sottintesa [...] La tinta polemica della parola si manifesta anche in altri segni puramente linguistici: nell'intonazione e nella costruzione sintattica”. (BACHTIN, 1997, pp.200-201). In Portuguese: “Na polêmica velada, a palavra autoral é dirigida, como todas as outras palavras, ao próprio objeto, mas nisso cada afirmação sobre o objeto constrói-se de modo que, além de seu sentido objetal, se ataque polemicamente a palavra alheia sobre o mesmo tema, a afirmação alheia sobre o mesmo objeto. A palavra dirigida ao seu objeto enfrenta-se, no próprio objeto, com a palavra alheia. A palavra alheia em si mesma não é reproduzida, ela é somente subentendida: mas a estrutura inteira do discurso seria absolutamente outra, se não houvesse essa reação à palavra alheia que é subentendida. [...] A matiz polêmica da palavra manifesta-se também em outros signos puramente linguísticos: na entonação e na construção sintática” (BACHTIN, 1997, pp.200-201).
• 46
  For reference, see footnote 5, pp.195-196.
• 47
  For reference, see footnote 6, p.37.
• 48
  For reference, see footnote 6, pp.40-41.
• 49
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.204.
• 50
  In Italian: “Vivere piú di quarant'anni è una cosa sconveniente, è volgare, itnmdrale! Chi vive piú di quarant'anni? Rispondetemi sinceramente, onestarnente. Velo dirò io chi: gli itnbecilli e i mascalzoni, nessun altro. E questa cosa io la dirò alla faccia di tutti i vecchi, alla faccia di tutti codesti rispettabili vecchi, di tutti questi vegliardi dalle chiome d'argento e profumati! Alla faccia del mondo intero la dico, questa cosa. Io ho il diritto di parlare così, perché dal canto mio camperò fino ai sessant'anni. Aspettate! Lasciatemi riprender fiato un momento [...]” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245). In Portuguese: “Viver mais de quarenta anos é uma coisa inconveniente, é vulgar, imoral! Quem vive mais de quarenta anos? Respondam-me sinceramente, honestamente. Eu vos direi quem: os imbecis e os patifes, ninguém mais. E isso eu direi na cara de todos os velhos, na cara de todos esses velhos respeitáveis, de todos esses velhos das coroas de prata e perfumados! Eu digo tudo isso na cara do mundo inteiro. Eu tenho o direito de falar assim, porque, de minha parte, viverei até os sessenta anos. Até os sessenta anos viverei!... Esperem! Deixem-me retomar o folego um momento [...]” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245).
• 51
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.228.
• 52
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.204.
• 53
  In Italian: “Sicuramente voialtri starete pensando, signori, che io vi voglia far ridere, sì? Be' anche in questo vi siete sbagliati. Io non sono affatto quel tipo di buontempone che credete, o che forse credete che io sia; e d'altronde se a voi, irritati come siete da tutte queste mie chiacchiere (sì perché già lo sento, che siete irritati), dovesse venir in mente di domandarmi chi io sia precisamente, io allora vi risponderei che sono un assessore di collegio” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245). In Portuguese: “Com certeza, vocês estarão pensando, senhores, que eu queira fazê-los rir, não? Bom, até nisso vocês erraram. Eu realmente não sou aquele tipo divertido que acreditam, ou que talvez acreditem que eu seja; e, por outro lado, se vocês, irritados como estão por todas essas minhas conversas (sim porque eu já sinto que estão irritados), tivessem a ideia de me perguntar quem eu exatamente sou, eu então responderia que sou um conselheiro de colégio.” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.245. Trad. SANTORO, E. 2019).
• 54
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.229.
• 55
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.204.
• 56
  In Italian: “Scommetto che. voialtri state pensando che io scriva tutto ció per spacconaggine, tanto per fare lo spiritoso a spese degli uomini d'azione, e che sempre per amor di una spacconaggine di pessimo gusto, anch'io stia facendo tintinnare la mia sciabola, come quel mio ufficiale” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.246). In Portuguese: ‘‘Aposto que vocês estão pensando que eu escrevo tudo isso por fanfarronice, ou para fazer o espirituoso às custas dos homens de ação, e que sempre, por amor de uma fanfarronice de péssimo gosto, eu também esteja fazendo tinir minha espada, como aquele meu oficial.’’ (BACHTIN, 1997, p.246).
• 57
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.229.
• 58
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.230.
• 59
  In Italian: “Voi direte che è volgare e abietto mettere in mostra tutto ció [i sogni dell'eroe, M. B.] come se fossi al mercato, dopo tutte le ebbrezze e lelacrime che ho confessato poc'anzi. Ma perché sarebbe abietto, signori miei? [...]” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.247). In Portuguese: “Vocês dirão que é vulgar e desprezível colocar à mostra tudo isso [os sonhos do herói, M.B.] como se eu estivesse na feira, depois de todos os estados de embriaguez e as lágrimas que confessei agora há pouco. Mas por que seria desprezível, meus senhores? [...]” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.247).
• 60
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.228.
• 61
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.268.
• 62
  In Italian: “Sì, proprio, io vi rubo la quiete, io vi strazio l’anima, non lascio dormir nessuno in tutta la casa. E ciò appunto perché voi non dovete dormire, ma sentire invece voi pure, in ogni momento, che a me fanno male i denti. Adesso per voi non sono piú quell'eroe che volevo sembrarvi prima, ma semplicemente un vigliaccuzzo, uno chenapan. E sia! Sono proprio contento che abbiate mangiato la foglia”. (BACHTIN, 1997, p.249). In Portuguese - “Sim, exatamente assim, eu roubo vossa tranquilidade, eu atormento vossa alma, não deixo ninguém dormir em toda a casa. E isso exatamente porque vocês não devem dormir, mas sim sentir vocês também, em cada momento, que eu estou com dor de dentes. Agora para vocês eu não sou mais aquele herói que queria parecer antes, mas simplesmente um pequeno covarde, um chenapan. Que seja! Estou realmente contente que vocês finalmente entenderam” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.249).
• 63
  For reference, see footnote 5, pp.231-232.
• 64
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.233.
• 65
  In Italian: “[...] io trionfavo su ogni cosa; e tutti, ovviamente, erano ridotti nella polvere [...]. Tutti piangevano e mi baciavano (altrimenti sarebbero stati dei veri babbei), e io andavo, scalzo e affamato, a predicare le nuove idee e sbaragliavo i retrogradi ad Austerlitz” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.251). In Portuguese: “[...] eu triunfava sobre qualquer coisa, e todos, obviamente, eram reduzidos a poeira [...] Todos choravam e me beijavam (ou teriam sido uns verdadeiros otários), e eu andava, descalço e faminto, pregando as novas ideias e derrotava os retrógrados em Austerlitz” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.251).
• 66
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.233.
• 67
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.236.
• 68
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.254.
• 69
  In the Italian version: “Anche le lacrime di poco fa, quelle lacrime da donnetta vergognosa, che non sono riuscito a trattenere davanti a te: anche quelle non te le perdonerà mai! E quello che ora ti confesso, lo stesso a te non te lo perdoneró mai!”: cosi egli grida durante la sua confessione alia ragazza che lo ama. “Ma lo capisci o no che adesso che t'ho detto queste cose ti odierà perché tu stavi qua ad ascoltarmi? (BACHTIN, 1997, p.283). In the Portuguese version: Também, as lágrimas de agora há pouco, aquelas lágrimas de mulherzinha envergonhada, que, diante de você, não consegui conter: até por elas, jamais te perdoarei! E o que eu agora te confesso, o mesmo a você nunca perdoarei! assim ele grita durante sua confissão para a moça que o ama. ‘‘Mas o compreende ou não, que agora que eu te disse essas coisas te odiarei porque você estava aqui me escutando? [...]” (BACHTIN, 1997, p.283).
• 70
  For reference, see footnote 5, p.295.
• 71
  For references, see footnote 5.
• 72
  In Portuguese: “O problema da orientação do discurso para a palavra de outro é da maior importância sociológica. O discurso, por sua natureza, é social.”
• 73
  In Portuguese: “problemas essenciais da sociologia do discurso.”
• 74
  For references, see footnote 5.
• 75
  In Portuguese: “um certo grupo social.”
• 76
  For references, see footnote 5.
• 77
  In Portuguese: “importância primordial para a sociologia do discurso artístico.”
• 78
  For references, see footnote 5.
• 79
  In Portuguese: A coexistência desse ângulo sociológico com um ângulo dialógico e a inversão da categoria do diálogo de segundo para primeiro plano levaram Bakhtin à própria criação de uma nova ciência da linguagem cujo objeto, são exatamente, as relações dialógicas na comunicação dialógica do “homem com o homem”, do “enunciado no enunciado” (2002, p.107).
• Translated by Jennifer Sarah Cooper - [e-mail] ; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7799-6633

REFERÊNCIAS

• BACHTIN, M. M. Problemi dell’opera di Dostoevskij. Introduzione, Traduzione e comento di Margherita De Michiel. Prezentazione di Augusto Ponzio. Bari: Edizioni dal Sud, 1997.
• BACHTIN, M. M. Dostoievskij: poetica e stilistica. Traduzione Giuseppe Garritano. Torino: Einaudi, 2002. [1968]
• BAJTÍN, M. Problemas de la poética de Dostoievski 3. ed. Traducción direta del ruso e índices Tatiana Bubnova. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2012.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics Edition and Translation Caryl Emerson. Introduction by Wayne C. Booth. 10 ed. Minneapolis/London: Universtiy of Minnesota Press, 2006.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski Tradução Paulo Bezerra. Rio de Janeiro, Forense Universitária, 1981.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski 2. ed. revista Tradução Paulo Bezerra. Rio de Janeiro, Forense Universitária, 1997.
• BAKHTIN, M. Problemas da poética de Dostoievski Tradução direta do russo, notas e prefácio Paulo Bezerra. 4. ed. revista e ampliada. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2008.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski. 5. ed. revista. Tradução direta do russo Paulo Bezerra. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2015a.
• BAKHTINE, M. La poétique de Dostoïevski Traduction Isabelle Kolitcheff. Paris: Éditions de Seuil, 1970.
• BAKHTINE, M. La poétique de Dostoïevski Traduction Guy Verret. Lausanne, Editions l’Age d’Homme, 1970.
• BAKHTIN, M. M. Teoria do romance I: a estilística. Tradução Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2015b.
• BRAIT, B. Quem disse o quê? Polifonia e heterogeneidade em coro dialógico. Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras da Universidade de Passo Fundo V. 6, n. 1, p.37-55, jan/jun. 2010. Disponível em http://seer.upf.br/index.php/rd/article/view/1383 Acesso em 04-04-2020.
  » http://seer.upf.br/index.php/rd/article/view/1383
• BRAIT, B. Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski e estudos da linguagem. In: BRAIT, B. Bakhtin, dialogismo e polifonia São Paulo: Contexto, 2009. p.45-72.
• BRAIT, B. Alteridade, dialogismo, heterogeneidade: nem sempre o outro é o mesmo. In: BRAIT, B. Estudos enunciativos no Brasil: histórias e perspectivas. Campinas, São Paulo: Pontes, Fapesp, 2001. p.7-26.
• BRAIT, B.; MACHADO, I. O encontro privilegiado entre Bakhtin e Dostoiévski num subsolo. Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 6 (1): 24-43, ago./dez. 2011. Disponível em https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/6999/5527 Acesso em 04-04-2020.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/6999/5527
• BUBNOVA, T. “Problemas de la poética de Dostoievski”: ¿Una filosofía de la novela, o la novela de una filosofía? In: BAJTÍN, MIJAÍL M. Problemas de la poética de Dostoievski Nueva edición. Traducción y índices Tatiana Bubnova. Introducción, Bibliografía, Cronolología y Revisión Tatiana Bubnova, Jorge Alcázar. 3. ed. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2012.
• CLARK, K.; HOLQUIST, M. Mikhail Bakhtin. Tradução J. Guinsburg. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1998.
• DOSTOIÉVSKI, F. M. Obras completas e ilustradas (ficção). O eterno marido e várias novelas. Vol. X. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967.
• DOSTOIÉVSKI, F. M. Memórias do subsolo Tradução e apresentação Boris Schnaiderman. Coord. Editorial Renato Janine Ribeiro. São Paulo, 1992.
• DOSTOIÉVSKI, F. M. Memórias do subsolo Tradução Boris Schnaiderman. 4. ed. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2003.
• DOSTOIÉVSKI, F. M. Notas do subsolo Tradução do russo Maria Aparecida Botelho Pereira Soares. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2018.
• GRILLO, S. V. C. Divulgação científica: linguagens, esferas e gêneros. Tese de livre-docência. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
• GROSSMAN, L. Dostoiévski artista Tradução Boris Schnaiderman. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1967.
• MORSON, G. S. & EMERSON, C. Mikhail Bakhtin: criação de uma prosaística. Tradução Antonio de Pádua Danesi. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2008.
• SCHNAIDERMAN, B. Dostoiévski: a ficção como pensamento. In: NOVAES, A. (Org.). Artepensamento São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1994.
• SCHNAIDERMAN, B. Prefácio. In: DOSTOIÉVSKI, F. Memórias do subsolo Tradução Boris Schnaiderman. 3. ed. São Paulo: Ed. 34, 2000.
• SCHNAIDERMAN, B. Dostoiévski através do tempo: o “romancista-filósofo”, o público, a crítica. In: SCHNAIDERMAN, B. Turbilhão e semente: ensaios sobre Dostoiévski e Bakhtin. São Paulo: Duas Cidades, 1983.
• SOUZA, G. T. A construção da metalinguística (fragmentos de uma ciência da linguagem na obra de Bakhtin e seu círculo). 2002. 175 p. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Faculdade de Filosofia Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
• TEZZA, C. Entre a prosa e a poesia: Bakhtin e o formalismo russo. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 2003.
• TODOROV, T. Memórias do subsolo. In: TODOROV, T. Os gêneros do discurso Tradução Nícia Adan Bonatti. São Paulo: Unesp, 2018. p.189-226.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 June 2021
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2021

History

• Received
  20 May 2020
• Accepted
  26 Mar 2021