Five discoveries and some further discussion

Five Discoveries:
1. The commentator Charles Kinbote is the same person as the Zemblan King Charles the Beloved. This discovery becomes apparent to readers fairly early in the commentary, as it is no coincidence that the king and the commentator are both named Charles, that Kinbote knows all of the finest details of the king’s escape, and that Kinbote has a distinct love for Zembla, his “dear country” (page 74). Though this is not a particularly difficult discovery to make, it is important to the reader’s understanding of the commentator’s unique situation and potential biases.
2. Zembla is an imaginary location. This observation should also arise fairly early in the commentary, as Kinbote portrays Zembla as a fantastical land where all bearded Zemblans closely resemble each other, where citizens have taken up the hobby of parachuting, and where a king was able to escape a revolution by crawling through a secret underground passage. Though maybe initially only a conjecture, Zembla’s status as imaginary is solidified if the reader examines the index, which refers to Zembla as “a distant northern land.” This broad and murky definition seems to indicate that Zembla is not a tangible place, as if it was there would probably be a more specific geographical reference. This discovery that Zembla is not a real country encourages readers to further question the legitimacy of Kinbote’s statements, as it appears that Kinbote has an affinity for inventing his own story.
3. John Shade does not necessarily view Kinbote as a friend, but does at least pity Kinbote. Kinbote believes that he and Shade are the best of friends, but Shade seems to have sympathy for Kinbote more than enjoy Kinbote’s company. This is illustrated when Shade is overheard stating in a conversation “That is the wrong word [readers do not know the exact word]. One should not apply it to a person who deliberately peels off a drab and unhappy past and replaces it with a brilliant invention. That’s merely turning a new leaf with the left hand,” (page 238). Kinbote believes that Shade is referring to someone else in town who is crazy, but it’s fairly obvious to readers that he is talking about Kinbote. This would lead to the conclusion that Shade is aware of Kinbote’s unstable mental state, but that he understands Kinbote’s need to create his own fantasyland of Zembla. It is thus that John Shade has sympathy for Kinbote, even though he may not view Kinbote as his best friend.
4. Jakob Gradus is imaginary. For one, Gradus’s many aliases (page 77, see page 77 at once) suggest that he lacks a concrete identity, and hence that he is fictional. Additionally, when describing Gradus’s character Kinbote adds the parenthetical anecdote to one of his statements of “this argument necessitates, I know, a temporary granting to Gradus of the status of man,” (page 279). At first, this little aside appears to be yet another of Kinbote’s insults toward Gradus, but if the reader considers the deeper implications of the statement, Kinbote may be implying that Gradus is not human and thus not real. Kinbote discusses the “human incompleteness” of Gradus later in this same passage, which again suggests that Gradus is not real, but imaginary. This discovery necessarily changes the reader’s interpretation of Shade’s murder, as if Gradus is not real, John Shade’s killer must have been someone else (see discussion below).
* 5. Kinbote fabricated some of the “variants” to Shade’s poem. In the index under the variants entry, some of the citations are parenthetically followed by “K’s contribution, x lines.” This seems to suggest that Kinbote himself added these variations and unpublished lines to Shade’s poem, not Shade himself as readers are initially led to believe. One of the variations that was Kinbote’s “contribution” is the eight-line section that’s discussed on page 99. This variant mentions the Zemblan king’s escape story by referencing a “northern king” who was able to successfully flee the country only because “some forty of his followers that night impersonated him.” It makes sense that this variant is entirely Kinbote’s fabrication, as Shade rarely referenced anything to do with Zembla in the actual poem. Thus, such inventions compromise Kinbote’s credibility as a commentator, and all of the elements of his commentary must now be considered with careful skepticism.


As to the matter of Charles the Beloved’s “crown jewels,” there are several hints in the commentary and index. The crown jewels are comprised of a gemmed scepter, a ruby necklace, and a diamond-studded crown (page 276). We first learn that two Russians, later given the names Niagarin and Andronnikov, are systematically digging through the king’s castle looking for the buried treasure. Knowledge of these actions by the Russians does not worry the king, which indicates that the crown jewels are not hidden in the castle. On page 212, Kinbote divulges to his ex-queen Disa that the jewels are in “their usual hiding place.” The jewels therefore must be located at a secure site, as the king is confident enough to keep the treasure in the same location for a long period of time. Furthermore, Kinbote affirms that the Russians are not looking in the correct place for the jewels when he remarks on pages 243-244 that a helper named Bland assisted the king in hiding the treasure in a “quite unexpected corner of Zembla.” Thus, we now know that the crown jewels are not hidden in the palace but are concealed in a remote location in Zembla. Finally, in the index Kinbote brings readers on a journey from Crown Jewels to Hiding Place to potaynik to taynik all with the use of “see…” or the cross referencing symbol of (q.v.). As occurs frequently in the index, Kinbote sends readers back to the beginning of the cycle by including “see Crown Jewels” in the entry for Taynik. From this referencing, the reader can conclude that the crown jewels are hidden in a place with the name of Taynik, which is attached to the abbreviated “Russ.” and is defined as a “secret place” in its entry in the index. Presumably, Russ. stands for Russia, which seems to contradict Kinbote’s earlier statement that the treasure was located somewhere in Zembla. This apparent inconsistency naturally leaves the reader questioning the geographical relationship between Zembla and Russia, and whether there is any relation between the two terms.

Throughout the commentary, the reader is led to believe that Jakob Gradus, the assassin belonging to the Anti-Karlist Shadow group, killed John Shade. But the more Kinbote refers to him, the less realistic Gradus appears. For example, the fact that Gradus goes by multiple aliases (Jack Degree, Jacques de Grey, Jack d’Argus, etc) gives his character a fictional quality, as if his lack of a consistent name equates to a lack of a concrete identity. Consequently, if Gradus is interpreted to be fictional or imaginary, there would be only one other logical suspect (besides Shade himself) for the murder mystery (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that we believe Kinbote’s version of the murder story). This one suspect is Kinbote, who would have the logical motive of wanting to acquire the poem. The interpretation that Kinbote murdered Shade is supported at the end of the commentary (page 300), where Kinbote admits that “My work is finished. My poet is dead.” In these consecutive sentences of parallel structure, Kinbote seems to be connecting his work with the death of Shade, which would suggest that Kinbote, not the invented Gradus, murdered John Shade.