Demons Read online

  Demons

  Fyodor Dostoevsky

  Richard Pevear

  Larissa Volokhonsky

  Joseph Frank

  Table of Contents

  Introduction

  Select Bibliography

  Chronology

  Translators' Note

  Part One

  1: Instead of an Introduction

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  VIII

  IX

  2: Prince Harry - Matchmaking

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  VIII

  3: Someone Else's Sins

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  VIII

  IX

  X

  4: The Lame Girl

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  5: The Wise Serpent

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  VIII

  Part Two

  1: Night

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  2: Night (Continued)

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  3: The Duel

  1

  II

  III

  IV

  4: All in Expectation

  1

  II

  III

  5: Before the Fête

  I

  II

  III

  6: Pyotr Stepanovich Bustles About

  I

  II

  III

  IV: Shatov

  IV

  V

  VI

  VII

  7: With Our People

  I

  II

  8: Ivan the Tsarevich

  9: Stepan Trofimovich Perquisitioned

  10: Filibusters. A Fatal Morning

  I

  II

  III

  Part Three

  1: The Fête. First Part

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  2 : The End of the Fête

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  3: A Finished Romance

  I

  II

  III

  4: The Last Decision

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  5: A Traveler

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  VI

  6: A Toilsome Night

  I

  II

  III

  7: The Last Peregrination of Stepan Trofimovich

  I

  II

  III

  8: Conclusion

  Appendix

  At Tikhon's

  I

  II

  Notes

  Demons

  FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY

  Translated from the Russian by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, with an Introduction by Joseph Frank.

  This translation first included in Everyman's Library, 2000

  © Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, 1994

  Introduction © Joseph Frank, 2000

  ISBN: 0375411224

  Introduction

  Dostoevsky's Demons, probably the greatest novel ever inspired by a revolutionary conspiracy, was not the book that its author had intended to write. The story of how it came into being in its present form is rather a complicated one, involving Dostoevsky's own literary ambitions, the fact that he was living abroad, and the appearance in the Russian and German newspapers, which he read assiduously every day, of stories about an atrocious crime committed in his homeland by a small cell of revolutionaries.

  At the time this news appeared, Dostoevsky had been dreaming of writing another type of novel entirely, one that would center on the loss of religious faith and its recovery; but he felt that he could not create such a work before returning to Russia from his European exile. The cause of his prolonged, four-year sojourn in Europe was not, as in the case of Turgenev, a preference for the amenities of European culture, but simply a need to escape from creditors who, on his return, might have thrown him into debtors' prison. The debts involved, incidentally, had not accumulated because of his own imprudence, as is too often assumed, but were those of a failed commercial venture of his deceased older brother, whose obligations he had voluntarily assumed. Dostoevsky's first idea for what became Demons was thus to knock off rapidly what he called a political 'pamphlet', in which he could express all his by now bitter hatred of the radicals and their ideology. It might also, at the same time, bring in sufficient income to enable him to return to Russia, where he would settle down to write the great work that he regarded as the culmination of his literary career. But things did not work out that way.

  Dostoevsky was living in Dresden, plagued by financial worries and undecided about what to undertake next. He had recently finished The Idiot, in which he had tried to depict 'an absolutely beautiful man' (Prince Myshkin), who wished to live in the real world and, at the same time, to incorporate the highest Christian virtue of totally selfless love; but this novel had not met with the same success as Crime and Punishment, nor was he by any means satisfied with it himself. In a letter to the critic N. N. Strakhov, defending what he called his 'fantastic realism' ('what the majority calls almost fantastic and exceptional for me sometimes constitutes the very essence of the real'), he nevertheless admitted that 'much in the novel [The Idiot] was written hastily, much is dragged out and does not come off, but something still does come off. I do not stand by my novel but by my idea.’

  This 'idea', in its broadest sense, was to create a positive artistic image to counter the influence of the ideology of Russian radicalism in the 1860s. The intellectual leaders of this movement - N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. Dobrolyubov, D. Pisarev - are little known except to students of Russian culture, but they exercised an enormous influence and determined the literary-cultural ambiance in which Dostoevsky was writing. These critics and publicists (though Chernyshevsky also wrote a famous and influential novel, What Is To Be Done?) were not only atheists who rejected God and the divinity of Christ, but they also attempted to substitute for the Christian morality of love and self-sacrifice one based on a purely homebrewed Russian amalgam of Benthamite Utilitarianism and Utopian Socialist idealism (labelled 'rational egoism'). Dostoevsky's great aim was not only to reveal the disastrous human consequences to which such an ideology might lead (as he had done with both the underground man and, more explicitly, Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment), but also to rehabilitate the Christian ideal against all its gainsayers. It is thus not surprising that, even before completing the fourth and last part of The Idiot, he should have thought of another embodiment of the same thematic ambition.

  In December 1868, writing to his oldest friend, the poet Apollon Maikov, Dostoevsky confides his plan for 'a huge novel whose title would be Atheism', asking his friend to keep the idea secret ('for God's sake, let this remain between us'). The passage is too lengthy to quote entire, but it involves a main character who loses his religious faith, and then
embarks on a quest to find a substitute ideal. He goes off in search of this alternate faith among a large variety of competing groups: 'the atheists, the Slavs and Europeans [i.e., the Slavophils and Westernizers], the Russian fanatics, anchorites, the priests'; he even flirts with Polish Jesuits, but 'slips away from them to the depths of the flagellants [Russian sectarians] - and in the end finds Christ and the Russian God'. The importance of this project for Dostoevsky could not be more forcefully expressed: 'Let me write this final novel,' he declares, 'and even if I die - I will have spoken out about everything.'

  It was to take another year, however, before Dostoevsky could get around even to making notes for this project. Instead, to obtain some much needed funds (his wife had just given birth to a daughter), he wrote The Eternal Husband with great reluctance, although his expressed aversion to doing so did not prevent him from turning out a small masterpiece, the most classically perfect of all his shorter works. But it was only in December 1869 that he could think of his Atheism novel again, which by this time had turned into a much larger idea for a work in several volumes to be called The Life of a Great Sinner. Never written as such, this projected series furnished material for Demons, as well as for Dostoevsky's two last novels, A Raw Youth and The Brothers Karamazov.

  His ideas for The Life of a Great Sinner were sketched in his notebooks between December 1869 and January 1870, and Dostoevsky told Apollon Maikov in the first week of December that he would be sitting down to begin writing 'in three days'. But just a month later, he excitedly reported to Maikov that he had been inspired by a new theme. 'I have tackled a rich idea,' he tells him enthusiastically. 'I am not speaking of the execution but of the idea. One of the ideas that has an undoubted resonance among the public. Like Crime and Punishment but even closer to reality, more vital, and having direct relevance for the most important contemporary issue.' Dostoevsky was certain that he would be able to finish this novel by the fall of 1870, and that, since its topicality might have the same financial success as Crime and Punishment, 'there is hope of putting all my affairs in order and of returning to Russia ... Never have I worked with such enjoyment and such ease.'

  This is the first reference to Demons in Dostoevsky's correspondence, and we can see the novel beginning to take shape in his notebooks while, at the same time, he continued to add material to his 'great sinner' corpus (some notes are dated from as late as March 1870). But what was the idea that had so gripped Dostoevsky, and which had 'direct relevance to the most important contemporary issue'? It was the murder, committed during November 1869, of a young student at the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy in Moscow by a revolutionary group headed by Sergei Nechaev; and one can see why Dostoevsky thought that his proposed idea was 'even closer to reality' than Crime and Punishment. In that novel, he had invented a crime inspired by the supposedly humanitarian aims of radical ideology, but now 'reality' had finally caught up with what he had foreseen would be the results of 'rational egoism' in practice.

  News about the crime began to appear in the Russian and foreign press about a month after it was committed, and while it certainly would have attracted Dostoevsky's notice in any case, the name and activities of Nechaev had come to his attention even earlier. It so happened that Dostoevsky's young brother-in-law, Ivan Snitkin, was a student in this very Academy and had been visiting with the Dostoevskys in the fall of 1869. Dostoevsky's wife, Anna Grigoryevna, thus attributed the origin of the novel to Dostoevsky's conversations with her young brother; but this exhibition of pardonable family pride is highly exaggerated. At most, Ivan Snitkin may have spoken to Dostoevsky about Nechaev's organizing activites at his school before the murder actually took place, but he could have known nothing else; nor is there any evidence in Dostoevsky's notes that he thought of a novel involving a political murder before the story broke in the newspapers. Indeed, Dostoevsky himself affirmed, in a letter to his editor Mikhail Katkov a year later, that 'I know nothing at all about Nechaev, nor Ivanov [the victim], nor the circumstances of the murder, except from the newspapers.'

  What Dostoevsky learned from these newspapers confirmed some of his worst fears, which had become particularly exacerbated during his self-imposed European exile, about the disintegrating effect that the Western-imported ideas of the Russian Nihilism of the 1860s was exercising on the moral fibre of Russian society. Sergei Nechaev, whose extraordinary force of personality seemed to exercise a hypnotic effect on all those who knew him, had carried the Utilitarian component of 'rational egoism' to its farthest extreme by advocating a total Machiavellianism — one which included, not only deception and falsity against one's enemies, but also against friends and allies if this became necessary for the cause. In his own case, Nechaev created a completely false myth about himself as having been arrested, and then accomplishing the unprecedented feat of escaping from the Peter-and-Paul fortress (where Dostoevsky himself had once been imprisoned). When Nechaev contacted the veteran revolutionaries Mikhail Bakunin and Nikolai Ogarev in Geneva, enveloped in the aureole of his supposed exploits, he represented himself as the delegate of a powerful and perfectly fictitious underground organization; and Pyotr Verkhovensky presents himself in the same fashion to the awed members of his revolutionary cell, as well as to all those assembled in the superb scene in which 'the progressives' of the town gather for a meeting. Dostoevsky read Nechaev's blood-curdling Catechism of a Revolutionary (probably written in collaboration with Bakunin), only after the first part of Demons had already appeared. But he was convinced that he had nonetheless created a character, Pyotr Verkhovensky, who embodied all the unscrupulousness and ruthlessness of its precepts, and the Catechism itself, though perhaps adding a few extra details, only helped to confirm his creation. Pyotr Verkhovensky, he told Katkov, does not resemble the real-life Nechaev in any way, but 'my aroused mind has created by imagination the person, the type, that really corresponds to the crime'. The image of this type, however, did not emerge all at once, but underwent a crucial metamorphosis as the writing of the book proceeded.

  Pyotr Verkhovensky is a product of the ideology of the 1860s, and the members of this generation, almost from the very start, had defined themselves in opposition to the generation of the 1840s (to which Dostoevsky himself belonged). This conflict of generations had been brilliantly depicted in Turgenev's Fathers and Children, a novel that Dostoevsky greatly admired, and in which the main younger character, a medical student named Bazarov, treated members of the older generation with a pitying and condescending contempt. He had no tolerance at all for their high-minded Romantic and idealistic velleities, even though these had played a part in helping to abolish serfdom and had led to a more humanitarian attitude toward the peasantry. But Bazarov had no patience with exalted sentiment of any kind, including that expressed in art, and proclaimed himself a Nihilist who believed nothing except what could be established through science and materialism (he spends a good part of his time dissecting frogs).

  This opposition between the generations, so indelibly portrayed by Turgenev, also gave rise to a whole series of polemical exchanges throughout the mid-1860s to which Dostoevsky paid the closest attention, and on which he drew for his own novel. In 1867, he quarrelled personally with Turgenev, at least in part because of an anti-Russian tirade in Turgenev's novel, Smoke; and in the course of their heated exchange of unpleasantries, he advised his fellow novelist to acquire a telescope so that he could see Russia more clearly from the latter's European residence. In reporting on this incident to Maikov, Dostoevsky already anticipates the clash of generations as he would later present it. 'The difference [between the generations]' he wrote, 'is that Chernyshevsky's followers simply criticize Russia openly and wish for its collapse,' while the older radicals of the 1840s like Turgenev, who are 'Belinsky's offspring, [Belinsky was the greatest literary critic of the 1840s, a political radical and Westernizer] add that they love Russia.' (italics in text) The tragi-comic quarrel between Pyotr and his father, the marvellously delineated Stepan Trofimovich, whom
Dostoevsky both pillories and glorifies at the same time, is already implicit in these words.

  Once having decided to write a topical novel, Dostoevsky started by reworking some of his old notes in which embryonic images of his later characters already appear. There is a Romantic poet who calls himself 'a pagan' and 'deifies nature' (Stepan Trofimovich); there is a lame girl, whose father is a drunken lieutenant, and 'who goes begging in a noble fashion' (Captain Lebyadkin and his lame sister Marya); there is also the beginning of a political plot. 'Nechaev, Kulishov had denounced Nechaev ... The police enter and capture [presumably Nechaev].' Dostoevsky also sketches a romantic rivalry between a Prince, 'a pathetic figure', and a Schoolteacher, obviously a moral exemplar; both are competing for the affections of a young girl called the Ward (Darya Shatov), who has been raised by the Prince's mother (Mme Stavrogin).When the Prince seduces the Ward, the mother wants to marry her off to the Schoolteacher with a dowry; but he refuses the dowry and becomes her friend instead. This plot intrigue, provisonally entitled Envy, ends with the Prince marrying the Ward because he wishes to emulate the superior moral qualities of the Teacher.

  There are also some other features of these early notes that foreshadow the final text. The locale of the action is set in a populous provincial society ('a large group gathered in the rural countryside'), and this somnolent and lethargic world has become infiltrated and undermined by Nihilist ideas. Nihilist ideas are being spread by 'a neighbor ... very wealthy, and with students'; even the morally positive Teacher is 'a Nihilist up to a point, does not believe'. One may see him as a protoype of the later Shatov, also a figure of sterling moral purity and wrestling with the problem of religious faith. Just how these two themes - the romantic and the political - will be interwoven is by no means clear; but the way forward is indicated by another note: 'Proclamations. Fugitive appearance of Nechaev, to kill the Teacher(?).' Dostoevsky's question mark indicates his uncertainty as yet, but he has introduced a political murder that intersects with the sentimental intrigue of Envy, and this is the path that he will continue to follow, interweaving the private and the political ever more closely as he goes along. His next task is to integrate this plot structure with the ideological conflict-of-generations theme that will provide his novel with so much of its satirical bite.