This extract from «Пиковая дама», which comes at the very start of the work, right after Tomsky’s anecdote, embodies many of the main ideas and interpretations that this work has accumulated over the years. Not only this, but the whole story hinges on Tomsky’s anecodote: his anecdote is what fuels Hermann’s desire to obtain the secret of the three cards. This extract is accordingly very significant, and the fact that the narrator includes three interpretations of Tomsky’s story is noteworthy too. There are three suggestions: the story is founded on chance or coincidence (“случай”); it is a fairy tale (“сказка”); or it is a hoax perpetrated by cheating players who mark their cards with powder (“порошковые карты”). Moreover, the fact that there are three, no more and no less, interpretations given to us is not by chance. Numbers, especially one, three and seven, which embody the three winning cards, permeate this work and are another important feature of this extract. The narrator has presented the reader with these three possible readings, all of which have huge implications for the story. Critics are often preoccupied with how to view this story and the three suggestions given by this extract offer us an insight into various ways that this work may be considered, and how to explain two crucial events in this story: how Hermann sees (or at least seems to see) the Countess after her death, and how the three cards referred to him are exactly the ones that he needs, though he somehow manages to pull out the wrong one.
The first possible explanation for the events that occur in Tomsky’s anecdote is that it is mere chance (“случай”). Although Russian has this one word that covers a wide variety of meanings, English uses several words which can convey the sense of “случай”. Chance, fortune, event, incident and coincidence can all be used to translate “случай”, which demonstrates its breadth in meaning. Accordingly, the “случай” explanation of «Пиковая дама» can be delineated by two versions: one is pure chance, the other is fortune as controlled by a higher power, fate. Pure chance is not very convincing to the reader as an explanation of the story. There would to be far too many coincidences in the plot which would construct a sense that things are too good to be true. It is highly improbable that Hermann somehow manages to win three times in a row in a card game, Faro, entirely founded on luck. Faro takes no skill to play and also defies the first of Hermann’s “три верные карты”, which is calculation (“расчет”). Therefore, pure chance does not stand up to the reader’s scrutiny of the events of this work.
Nevertheless, chance as governed by fate can go further to offer the reader a plausible explanation for seemingly improbable events. Fate is an irrational force, so can be deemed supernatural. Since fate and the supernatural are inexplicable entities, they can make their mark on the story in any way they wish, proposing explanations for why anything in the work happens. Any unexplained event can be attributed to fate. In fact, the narrator presents Hermann as superstitious, which further supports the presence of supernatural forces in the story. The narrator explains that Hermann, “Имея мало истинной веры, он имел множество предрассудков”. “предрассудков” are superstitious beliefs, and are the sole reason why Hermann attends the Countess’s funeral. Hermann has a strong belief in superstition which may lead the reader to believe in the same. Pushkin himself was a superstitious man, and through an “all writing is autobiography” idea, we may attribute Hermann’s character and the nature of the story to Pushkin’s own beliefs, though relying on this would be to stand on tentative ground at best. Although the workings of fate can demonstrate the fact that certain things happen, such as Hermann’s correct three cards, they cannot explain why certain things happen. The reader can only guess at why fate causes Hermann to ultimately lose. If, however, Tomsky’s anecdote, and by extension, the work, is a fairy tale (“сказка”), then some intentions and motivations can be pasted onto the characters.
Fairy tales tend to be untrue, which would preclude the possibility of any realistic interpretations of the text. Fairy tales are also characterised by the magical, which is, again, a supernatural force. Significantly, Russian fairy tales had certain tropes which we can fasten onto «Пиковая дама» in order to see how they fit. Ann Shukman (1977: 76-7) described the archetypal fairy tale thus:
“The classic Russian fairy tale had at its core the story of the hero who is despatched, journeys to another kingdom, acquires a magic object, overcomes the antagonist, wins the princess… A standard theme of the fairy tales… is that the hero, to achieve his aim, must receive from the donor the magic object. The donor… is an ambivalent figure who may assist or not, who imposes certain conditions, or tests, on the hero”.
From this, we can say that Hermann is the hero, the magic object is the three cards, the princess is Lizaveta Ivanovna, and the donor is the Countess. Less certain, however, is what “another kingdom” or “the antagonist” might entail. The “other kingdom” could perhaps be the social class of Tomsky and his friends. Hermann, despite spending time with them, is clearly not one of them. He sits at the cards table, but never plays, asserting that he is not in the position of sacrificing the necessary in the hopes of obtaining the excess (“но я не в состоянии жертвовать необходимым в надежде приобрести излишнее”), though the rest are wealthy enough to be in this position. The venture into another kingdom could therefore refer to Hermann’s dipping into the social stratum of Tomsky and his friends, which turns out unsuccessful as Hermann is unable to ultimately assimilate himself into their company. “The antagonist” could either be Chekalinsky or Tomsky. Chekalinsky can be considered the obvious antagonist, as he is the banker foiling Hermann’s last card game. More interestingly, Tomsky can be considered the true antagonist if we suppose that he fools Hermann into taking up this “quest”, which Tomsky may know is destined to failure. The donor, the Countess, in the case of this “fairy tale”, imposes a key condition which Hermann does not meet. The first mistake that Hermann makes is that he heckles the Countess for the secret, which indirectly causes her to die from shock. The Countess, in giving Hermann the secret of the cards, says that Hermann can be forgiven as long as he marries Lizaveta Ivanovna (“Прощаю тебе мою смерть, с тем, чтоб ты женился на моей воспитаннице Лизавете Ивановне”). It can be implied from this that Hermann forgets about Liza which causes the Countess to exact retribution. For the most part, we can see how «Пиковая дама» may follow a fairy tale structure. One of its main differences is that fairy tales tend to have happy endings, but «Пиковая дама» concludes with our main character, Hermann, ending up in a mental hospital. Despite this, the main issue with this reading is that in order for it to be valid, the Countess must unequivocally be involved in the story as the donor, before and after her death. This presents the supernatural interpretation at face-value which we simply cannot do without making some assumptions.
The last suggestion made of Tomsky’s anecdote is that it can be accounted for through marked cards (“порошковые карты”). This views the anecdote as a hoax, though this alone cannot account for the key events in the work. Furthermore, this suggestion is inadvertently given less weight in the text by the fact that it is formed as a question rather than an exclamation like the previous two (“Случай!” and “Сказка!”). Accordingly, the fact that the story is simply a hoax holds less weight than the first two explanations. The fact that some people cheated with their cards cannot explain why, for example, Hermann sees the supposed Countess come to his house, or why Hermann identifies the Countess winking at him, both at the funeral and at the end of Hermann’s short-lived card-playing career. At the same time, if there is a hoax, Tomsky, as purveyor of the story and grandson of the Countess, is likely to be involved.
Significantly, Tomsky does reply to these comments by his acquaintances, rebutting only the last one claiming that marked cards were involved. If we imagine Tomsky as complicit in the hoax, he would naturally say no to this question anyways in order to conceal his guilt. Tomsky responds importantly (“отвечал важно”), which suggests an air of superiority on his part, almost as if he has something to hide. In addition, Narumov remains completely baffled that Tomsky has not extracted the secret from the Countess, his own grandmother, (“а ты до сих пор не перенял у ней ее кабалистики?”), to which Tomsky replies quite defensively and swears, “Да, черта с два!”. Tomsky’s circle of friends seem to be quite polite and never swear, so this reaction seems out of character and jarring. Furthermore, in the last chapter, the deference of those present is emphasised. The word “учтивый” is used to describe the officers (“учтивыми официантами”) and to describe Chekalinsky’s mannerisms (“Чекалинский… учтиво вслушивался в их требования, еще учтивее отгибал лишний угол”), which strengthens this response as an overreaction. This scene is at the polar opposite side of the story, but when the manner of Tomsky and his social circle is considered, Tomsky sounds overly defensive.
Assuming that the hoax is real, we can also explain another peculiarity of the text. When Hermann approaches the Countess at her house during the night, he asserts that he is certain that she knows the secret of the three cards (“я знаю, что вы можете угадать три карты сряду…”). This is a vague statement, but the Countess seems to know exactly what he is talking about (“Графиня, казалось, поняла, чего от нее требовали”). The word “казалось” (it seemed), adds doubt, but if the reader takes this at face-value then the hoax, with Tomsky and his grandmother as the key conspirators, has at least some substance. Nevertheless, this seems to be cancelled out just a few lines below at the mention of Chaplitsky. The narrator relates, “Графиня видимо смутилась” (the Countess was visibly embarrassed), which suggests that the name does indeed surprise her and that she is not part of an elaborate hoax.
This extract also stands out with its use of numerology. There is an uncanny number of threes in the text: for instance, the work is written in 1833, there are three cards, three maids around the Countess at the beginning, three life morals, three crimes on Hermann’s conscience, not three weeks has passed since Liza first sees Hermann, the funeral takes place three days after the Countess has died and there are three card games. Granted, there are other numbers in the text as well, but they do not occur in the same frequency as one, three and seven. Some critics have made extracted a lot of meaning from the numerology of the text, mainly though connections with Freemasonry. On a more simplistic level, the number three is important religiously as it represents the Holy Trinity. However, even Lauren Leighton, one of the driving forces between a numerological reading, says that ‘gematria was one more practice-together with numerology, cartomancy, covert allusions… by which to make The Queen of Spades one of the most intriguing works in all world literature’. The magic of numbers forms only a limited view by itself, but in conjunction with other devices, serves to further set up this fantastic and supernatural setting of St. Petersburg.
Although this extract is very short, it serves as a very effective microcosm of «Пиковая дама». At the very outset, it presents the reader with three possible ways to view Tomsky’s anecdote and therefore the text. The extract, however, is by no means exhaustive in presenting the reader with ways to view the work. A major omission is that it does not really touch on the psychological-realistic interpretation, where Hermann’s mental health is in question, which would explain why he sees certain things. This short extract nevertheless covers a lot of ground, and is made all the more significant because these are the explanations that the narrator has proposed to us, not the ones we as readers have formulated ourselves. The narration creates such a multiplicity of interpretations, which means that new and original critical opinions are still being put forward on «Пиковая дама» today. The Russian literary historian D.S. Mirsky once noted that «Пиковая дама» ‘is as tense as a compressed spring’. It would be difficult to disagree with him; this work is multi-faceted to the extreme, and it is only 34 pages long.