1. After encountering Pushkin at the publisher Pletnev's, Nikitenko wrote in his diary on 21 January 1837: “He's become quite the aristocrat. What a pity that he values himself so little as a man and as a poet and keeps on trying to get into one small closed social circle when he could reign absolute over all society.” Nikitenko, A. V., Dnevnik, ed. Aizenshtov, I. la. (Leningrad, 1955), 1: 193 Google Scholar. All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are my own.

2. A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 17 vols. (Moscow, 1937–1959), 12: 159 (hereafter PSS, 17 vols.). For a sensitive analysis of Pushkin's comments on Nadezhdin, see Todd, William Mills III, Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin: Ideology, Institutions, and Narrative (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 22–23.Google Scholar

3. Several books and many articles have examined Pushkin's dueling history and its reverberations. For a classic study that has recently been republished, see Shchegolev's, P. E. Duel’ i smert’ Pushkina: Issledovanie i materialy (Moscow, 1987)Google Scholar, which gathers a comprehensive array of documents and materials on Pushkin's fatal duel. Semen Laskin's Vokrug dueli: Dokumental'naia povest’ (St. Petersburg, 1993) tells the story of the duel for a general audience, drawing in particular upon the d'Anthés family archives. For a recent overview of Russian dueling practices, see Gordin, la. A., Dueli i duelianty (St. Petersburg, 1996)Google Scholar. Semiotic perspectives on dueling in Russia, which inevitably discuss Pushkin's dueling behaviors, include Reyfman's, Irina “The Emergence of the Duel in Russia: Corporal Punishment and the Honor Code,” Russian Review 54, no. 1 (January 1995): 26–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Lotman's, Iu. M. chapter entitled “Duel',” in his Besedy o russkoi kul'ture: Byt i traditsii russkogo dvorianstva (St. Petersburg, 1994), 164–79.Google Scholar

4. See Lotman, Iu. M., “Tenia kart i kartochnoi igry v russkoi literature nachala XIX veka,” Trudy po znakovym systemam 7, no. 365 (1975): 120–44Google Scholar, for a discussion of gambling's significance as a social practice and literary theme in Pushkin's day that has informed my own approach. Lotman later revised the article and included it as a chapter entitled “Kartochnaia igra” in his Besedy o russkoi kul'ture, 136–63. For other general treatments of gambling in early nineteenth–century Russia, see Pyliaev, M. I., “Azartnye igry v starinu,” in his Staroezhit'e: Ocherki i rasskazy, 2d ed. (St. Petersburg, 1897), 20–57 Google Scholar, and N. S. Ashukin, “Istoriko–bytovoi kommentarii k drame Lermontova Maskarad,” in P. I. Novitskogo, ed., Maskarad Lermontova: Sbornik statei (Moscow–Leningrad, 1941), 211–48Google Scholar. A recent book by Parchevskii, G. F. entitled Nalevo liazhet li valet'? Pushkin i karty (St. Petersburg, 1994)Google Scholar—to which I shall return—is die first attempt to provide a detailed overview of Pushkin's gambling but is aimed at a popular, rather than a scholarly, audience. Many of the dozens of articles on “The Queen of Spades” refer to Pushkin's gambling in passing. For a summary of this scholarship, see Cornwell, Neil, Pushkin's “The Queen of Spades” (London, 1993).Google Scholar

5. The role of gambling in juggling these more or less discordant personae and in confronting the risks of writing in Pushkin's day has to my knowledge received only passing mention. Todd in his Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin, for example, refers to the “gambling instincts of [the publisher Smirdin's] writers” (94) and remarks that publishing was “like such other aristocratic pursuits as gambling and duelling—a matter of high risk and frequent failure” (82). Although Todd chooses not to pursue this insight in greater depth, his analysis of Pushkin's social and literary context has greatly facilitated my own exploration.

6. See Greenleaf, Monika, Pushkin and Romantic Fashion: Fragment, Elegy, Orient, Irony (Stanford, 1994), 41–47 Google Scholar, for a discussion of Pushkin's ironic voice in relation to Gary Handwerk's categorization of irony as “normative,” “aesthetic,” and “ethical. “

7. In addition to the letters cited below, see Gessen, Sergei, Knigoizdatel’ Aleksandr Pushkin: Literaturnye dokhody Pushkina (Leningrad, 1930), 30–31 Google Scholar, and Podol'skaia, I.I. et al., Knigoizdatel’ Aleksandr Pushkin: Prilozhenie k faksimil'nomu izdaniiu (Moscow, 1987), 34.Google Scholar

8. PSS, 17vols., 13: 46.

9. Ibid., 13: 115.

10. Ibid., 13: 124–25.

11. In this encapsulation I am drawing upon the second chapter of Todd's Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin, 45–105. For an exhaustive study of Pushkin's role in the professionalization of writing in Russia, see André Meynieux, Pouchkine: Homme de lettres et la littérature professionelle en Russie (Paris, 1966).

12. See Lotman, “Tema kart i kartochnoi igry.” Lotman devotes the first half of his article to exploring this theme, then turns in the second half to an extended discussion of Pushkin's “The Queen of Spades.” See also his “Kartochnaia igra. “

13. Viazemskii, P. A., Staraia zapisnaia knizhka, ed. Ginzburg, L. (Leningrad, 1929), 86.Google Scholar

14. For other overviews of the game, see Debreczeny, Paul, The Other Pushkin: A Study of Alexander Pushkin's Prose Fiction (Stanford, 1983), 196–97Google Scholar, and Lotman, “Kartochnaia igra,” 142–43.

15. For a sensitive analysis of the dynamics of characterological transformation in such situations, see GofFman, E, “Where the Action Is,” in his Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face–to–Face Behavior (New York, 1967), 237.Google Scholar

16. For a pertinent discussion of gambling practices, including the debt of honor, among aristocratic gamblers of the ancien régime, see Kavanagh, Thomas, Enlightenment and the Shadows of Chance: The Novel and the Culture of Gambling in Eighteenth–Century France (Baltimore, 1993)Google Scholar. For evidence of the esteem in which the debt of honor was held by future Guard officers in Pushkin's day, see Annenkov, I. V., “Neskol'ko slov o staroi shkole gvardeiskikh podpraporshchikov i iunkerov,” in Gillel'son, M. I. and Manuilov, V. A., eds., M. Iu. Lermontov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov (Moscow, 1964), 120–24.Google Scholar

17. For an autobiography allegedly written by a reformed cardsharp that describes such manipulations, see Zhizn’ igroka, opisannaia im samim, ili Otkrytye khitrosti kartochnoi igry, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1826–7). A contemporary journalistic discussion of card play can be found in Saburov, la, “Igra,” Moskovskii nabliudatel’ 5 (1835): 157–71Google Scholar

18. Grech, N. I., Zapiski, ed. Kapustina, E. G. (1886; reprint, Moscow, 1990), 161.Google Scholar

19. Quoted in Gillel'son, M. I., P A Viazemskii: Zhizn' i tuorchestvo (Leningrad, 1969), 8.Google Scholar

20. Bulgarin, Faddei, Vospominaniia Faddeia Bulgarina: Otryvki iz vidennago, slyshannago i ispytannago v zhizni (St. Petersburg, 1849), 6: 308–9.Google Scholar

21. Like dueling, gambling came under increasing fire in moralistic tracts and didactic literature during the course of the nineteenth century. Life of a Gambler was representative of a whole slew of similar works with titles like The Fatal Consequences of the Game of Bank and On The Tricks of the Game, which were intended to expose the evils inflicted by cards and cardsharps upon young men. These were aimed in part at the same provincial and often female readership courted by Bulgarin. An excellent example is a six–volume didactic novel published in 1832 by a retired Hussar officer and provincial governor entitled The Kholmskii Family, which depicts the downfall of a provincial gentleman through his addiction to cards. See Begichev, D. M., Semeistvo Kholmskikh: Nekotorye cherty nravov i obraza zhizni semeinoi i odinokoi russkikh dvorian, 3d ed. (Moscow, 1841).Google Scholar

22. Parchevskii offers a useful appendix that lists Pushkin's known encounters at cards (Nalevo liazhet li valet? 84–89). Here, as elsewhere, Parchevskii presents useful documentation, including archival sources, on Pushkin's gambling but offers little evaluation or analysis. Much of his book simply strings together quotations gleaned from Pushkin's correspondence and other sources with scant commentary. He also makes little attempt to situate Pushkin's gambling within the context of contemporary gambling practices.

23. Given the difficulty of differentiating between silver and the less valuable paper rubles, as well as the complications involved in setding many of the debts, these figures should be taken as rough indicators, rather than exact figures.

24. This was an enormous sum. For comparison, Pushkin paid 2, 500 rubles for his Petersburg apartment in 1831. See Gessen, Knigoizdatel' Aleksandr Pushkin, 20.

25. See Pushkin's and Nashchokin's letters concerning the matter in PSS, 17 vols., 14: 181, 191–92, 196–97, 200–204, 210, 218–20, 229–31, 236–37, and 250–51. For a narrative of the episode, see Parchevskii, Nalevo liazhet li valet? 53–64.

26. M. I. Vatsuro et al., eds., A. S. Pushkin v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1985), 1: 455.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., 1: 144.

28. PSS, 17vols., 12: 167–68.

29. Ibid., 12: 168.

30. Vatsuro et al., eds., A. S. Pushkin v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, 2: 108–9.

31. A good example of such accounts occurs in “Tales about Pushkin, Jotted down by P. I. Bartenev.” The tales are based upon the recollections of P. V. Nashchokin, which Bartenev, the future publisher of “Russian Archive,” recorded between 1851 and 1853. This anecdote relates that Pushkin had come to borrow money from N. N. Obolenskii, who suggested that Pushkin instead play halves with him. It continues: “After the game was over Obolenskii came out far ahead. When the loser had left and he was giving Pushkin his share, he said: ‘Guess what! You didn't even notice that I was cheating!’ No matter how much Pushkin needed the money he was so disturbed after hearing this, as he put it himself, that he could barely make it out the door and hurried home.” Vatsuro et al., eds., A. S. Pushkin v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, 2: 233–34. Bartenev's account is far enough removed from direct observation to be considered a mythical representation of Pushkin, complete with its recreation of dialogue and character. It reveals the significance that Pushkin's integrity as a gambler has assumed in the writer's legendary biography.

32. The Russian legal code from the reign of Catherine onward forbade games of chance and denied the legal status of gambling debts. For an excellent history of Russian gambling legislation, see E. P. Karnovich, “Presledovanie zapreshchennykh igr po nashim zakonam,” in his Ocherki nashikh poriadkov administralivnykh, sudebnykh i obshchestvennykh (St. Petersburg, 1873), 405–29.

33. PSS, 17 vols., 13: 205–6. The original play on words is: “boius’ chtob eto ne peretolkovali moi priiateli, kotorykh u menia mnogo, i vse okhotniki do tolkov. “

34. Pushkin expressed his opinion of Savelov more forcefully in two other letters concerning the incident. On 28 January 1825, he declared to Viazemskii: “Savelov is an utter scoundrel” (Savelov bol'shoipodlets). Ibid., 13: 137. In another letter to Viazemskii from November of the same year, he referred to the money as “stolen” (ukradennyi) by Savelov. Ibid., 13: 243.

35. V. Modzalevskii's study “I. E. Velikopol'skii,” in Pamiati Leonida Nikolaevicha Maikova (St. Petersburg, 1902), 335–445, provides a detailed biography and quotes extensively from Velikopol'skii's literary works. While this is the most exhaustive scholarly source on Velikopol'skii, Modzalevskii idealizes his character as one of energy, liveliness, and persistence in the face of the obstacles posed by a stultifying regime. Zisserman's, P. “Pushkin i Velikopol'skii,” in Pushkin i ego sovremenniki, 38–39 (1930): 257–80Google Scholar, draws upon many of the same sources as Modzalevskii but attempts to correct some of the biases of his treatment and to clarify the contours of Velikopol'skii's relationship with Pushkin, pinpointing the circumstances of their various meetings and textual exchanges. Parchevskii also devotes a chapter to Pushkin's relationship with Velikopol'skii, drawing freely upon the two earlier works. Parchevskii, Nalevo liazhet li valet? 19–42.

36. Modzalevskii, “I. E. Velikopol'skii,” 341.

37. Ibid., 343, 386..

38. PSS, 17 vols., 13: 281–82.

39. William Mills Todd III details the sophisticated playfulness of the druzheskoe pis'mo in his The Familiar Letter as a Literary Genre in the Age of Pushkin (Princeton, 1976

40. Quoted in Modzalevskii, “I. E. Velikopol'skii,” 362–63.

41. Ironically, Velikopol'skii is one of the few opponents against whom Pushkin consistently won at cards. Pushkin won all three of their known encounters. See his letters alluding to this in PSS, 17 vols., 13: 281–82, 313, and 14: 8–9.

42. Ibid., 16: 73–74.

43. Pavlov, N. F., “Chervonets,” Moskovskii telegraf 25, no. 3 (1829): 339–41Google Scholar. Pavlov, a minor writer, gambled away much of the fortune of his now better–known wife, Karolina Pavlova.

44. Catherine, Alexander I, and Nicholas I all promulgated edicts that reflected the seriousness of the problem. See Karnovich, “Presledovanie zapreshchennykh igr po nashim zakonam,” 413–20.

45. The epigram, likely motivated by another loss in late August, expresses Velikopol'skii's aristocratic condescension toward Pushkin but makes no mention of gambling. Zisserman details the circumstances that resulted in the epigram, relating it in part to Pushkin's troubled relationship with the regime. Zisserman, “Pushkin i Velikopol'skii, “ 259–61.

46. PSS, 17 vols., 13: 313.

47. Velikopol'skii, I. E., K Erastu: Satira na igrokov (Moscow, 1828).Google Scholar

48. Many readers of the Satire would remember that Erast's namesake, the indolent and self–indulgent young nobleman of Karamzin's 1792 story “Bednaia Liza” (Poor Liza)— the centerpiece of Russian sentimentalism—had also lost his fortune at cards. The sentimentalist appropriation of the theme of gambling, while outdated, continued to exert an influence at this time. See Vinogradov, V. V, “Stil’ ‘Pikovoi damy, '” Pushkin: Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii 2 (1936): 74–147.Google Scholar

49. Zisserman, “Pushkin i Velikopol'skii,” 265.

50. PSS, 17 vols., 3.1: 91–92.

51. Ibid.

52. Pushkin was only the most prominent reader to express derision for Velikopol'skii's Satire. Reviews appeared in 1828 in Moskovskii telegraf, no. 4; Severnaia pchela, 1 March; Moskovskii vestnik, nos. 3 and 4; and Atenei, no. 4. All, while praising the author's intentions, agreed that the Satire lacked literary merit.

53. Quoted in Modzalevskii, “I. E. Velikopol'skii,” 368–69.

54. PSS, 17 vols., 14: 8–9.

55. The Russian title is “Otvet na otzyvy zhurnalov o Satire na igrokov.” See Zisserman, “Pushkin i Velikopol'skii,” 271–72; Modzalevskii, “I. E. Velikopol'skii,” 366.

56. PSS, 17 vols., 3.1: 155.

57. See Todd, Fiction and Society in the Age of Pushkin, 10–44; Greenleaf, Pushkin and RomanticFashion, 22–24; and Lotman, Iu. M., “The Poetics of Everyday Behavior in Eighteenth–Century Russian Culture,” in Nakhimovsky, A. D. and Nakhimovsky, A. S., eds., The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History (Ithaca, 1985), 67–94 Google Scholar, for this view of Russia. See Stanton, Domna, The Aristocrat as Art (New York, 1980)Google Scholar for a study of the aristocrat as text in western Europe.

58. For a description of the “author function,” see Foucault, Michel, “What Is an Author?” in Harari, J., ed., Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post–Structuralist Criticism (Ithaca, 1979), 141–60.Google Scholar

59. For an excellent exploration of discursive competition in the portrayal of suicide, see Paperno, Irina, Suicide as a Cultural Institution in Dostoevsky's Russia (Ithaca, 1997).Google Scholar

60. Here I am drawing upon Butler, Judith, The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection (Stanford, 1997)Google Scholar.

61. I of course recognize that the relationship between the regime, its bureaucracy, and the gentry was not simply one of opposition but rather of intersection, cooperation and co–optation, infiltration, and so on. See Nicholas V. Riasanovsky's overview of this situation in his A Parting of Ways: Government and the Educated Public in Russia, 1801–1855 (Oxford, 1976).

62. Vul'f, A. N., Dnevniki (Liubovnyi byt Pushkinskoi epokhi) so stat'ei M. I. Semevskogo, “Progulka v Trigorskoe,” ed. Shchegolev, P. E. (Moscow, 1929), 41 Google Scholar. In fact, the quarrel between Pushkin and Tolstoi appears to have resulted from a much more drawn out exchange of epigrams rather than a direct confrontation over cards.

63. See Stanton, The Aristocrat as Art, 107–19.

64. I am borrowing Monika Greenleaf 's translation of the term used by Soviet scholars, which is kruzhkovaia semantika. See her Pushkin and Romantic Fashion, 41.

65. PSS, 17 vols., 13: 310.

66. Ibid., 13: 332.